To think the mandatory logo school items need to stop?

[BagelwithPhiladelphiaz]

Exactly this.

I have just paid £76 for the mandatory PE kit for my DD’s senior school. Including items such as striped rugby socks, which are mandatory for some reason for all PE lessons, rugby or not.

This is before I spend £44 on a blazer, plus the uniform items that she actually needs as well as shoes, bag etc

Next I will order the mandatory items for my primary school children. Cheaper at £14 for a jumper (need a few though to wash, and they also tend to disappear in school despite being named) and £5 for PE t-shirt. This school isn’t so strict about it being mandatory but nearly all the DC have logo ones, so ones who don’t stand out, and they are needed for sports day/school photo day anyway.

None of these items are especially good quality. With secondary, we are restricted to one local supplier and the man who owns the shop is bloody rude, which adds insult to injury.

The blazer, perhaps fair enough I think as they look quite smart, but is £44 really the best price school could find? The other items.. especially the PE kits where we could easily buy very similar items without the logo, are they necessary? Especially as we have a winter coming where some people won’t be able to pay bills.

(The secondary did have a “free second hand clothes rail” for all, at some point, but when I phoned to ask they were very vague about when it would be. I have a friend whose children are on pupil premium- no subsided option for them -
and she managed to find out what day this was but went to find the second hand uniform she found some shabby items that weren’t in her DC’s size, and no PE items.)

I honestly doubt that. More likely it is just because the poorer DC and those with SEND are excluded.

Whilst all the logod stuff annoys me the PE kit is the real annoyance - I seriously think that PE teachers like the power trip and kit is a way to get it over not just the kids but also the parents. They really have such inflated ideas about the importance of kit. DDs last kit list was -
stripey socks in an odd combination of colours for hockey
white socks with a multi couloured stripe around the top for tennis
Plain purple knee socks for netball (why couldn't they use the hockey ones.....)
black tracksuit bottoms with a green stripe
school logo'd track suit top
tracksuit only used to travel to sports ground on the mini bus and then removed to reveal
school logod polo shirt
school logod skort
above only used for net ball as for hockey they wore
school logod leggings
school logod midlayer and over that
school logoed football shorts
white school logo'd polo top for tennis
white school logod skirt for tennis
black leotard with purple trim for gym/dance
plain black shorts to wear over leotard for dance (why weren't the football shorts acceptable)
black swim suit with purple stripe
school logo swimming cap
school logod swimming bag
school logod sports bag
black trainers for hockey
white trainers for netball and tennis
a second pair of black trainers to be worn only to walk from the changing rooms to the hall for gym/dance

best part of £500.

I wrote a letter of complaint to the chair of governors who replied it was important for DDs representing the school to look smart but didn't bother to reply to my follow up to ask why this was necessary for all DC including mine who didn't play against other schools.....

That is completely ridiculous! I went to a Grammar for secondary which was in to looking smart etc. We still managed to wear the same kit for hockey, netball and tennis - polo, netball skirt and sweatshirt and gym knickers and polo for dance/gymnastics. Those who competed also had a tracksuit, but not needed for those who didn't.

This! Also contact each and every governor and ask about it.

I would be asking why having a logo makes them look any smarter. As well as referring the governor to the government guidance on uniform linked upthread.

The only conceivably justification for school uniform is keeping costs down. As soon as expensive uniform with blazers and logos becomes compulsory, it totally negates that. The Department for Education really needs to toughen up on its guidance and make it clear that insisting on expensive uniform will lead to a crashing Ofsted fail.

Nonsense. Plenty of schools simply prescribe something like grey skirts and trousers, white shirts and a plain dark coloured pullover, and make it clear the clothes are to be bought from any chain store's uniform range. It works fine. No-one gets worked up because some other child has a slightly hipster style of grey trousers, after all that is still hardly the height of fashion.

I can't see if it really matters if someone turns up in joggers - plenty of children with sensory difficulties cannot cope with rough material or something that is tight around their waste, so why make them wear it? It's not as if wearing joggers will affect their ability to learn, if anything the fact that they are comfortable is likely to enhance it.

Forcing children to wear uncomfortable blazers and ties doesn't make them smart and tidy, rather the reverse. They will always find a way to make the blazer look scruffy and tie the tie massively unevenly, and they will chuck the logoed stuff off as soon as they get home. For sure they will never wear blazers and logos again as adults unless they have to for employment purposes.

I totally agree. There is no need for any of this and it takes away teacher and staff resources policing it.

You can look smart without having silly rules and expensive uniform. It is an abomination that parents have to invest in expensive and unnecessary uniform items for state schools (but it was ever thus, I remember my state school introducing a school skirt in the late 80s which cost £25 even then! Fortunately I was going into the sixth form which was more flexible).

Teaching isn't a really highly paid profession except for some "super-heads" so why do they think parents are so well off and can afford all of this?

For sure they will never wear blazers and logos again as adults unless they have to for employment purposes

I would hazard a guess that very very few current schoolkids will ever have to wear uniforms in the workplace unless they are in a public facing role eg in a shop or a guard on a train. And even then it will be provided for them, they won't have to buy it!

Primary schools are doing this as well. In my friend’s child’s school, they wear branded tartan pinafore and branded cardigan in the early years and from y4, the girls wear branded tartan skirts, branded blazers and school tie. This makes things difficult for parents because it’s like an overall change from Y4 so one can’t even wear the same thing they had before. They only have one supplier as well. They’ve changed the branded and very expensive PE kit twice, it’s so ridiculous and they only have one supplier for all.
After covid, she said some parents complained about the cost of the uniform for girls especially and they held a poll for those that want the branded skirt and pinafore to be changed to just the normal grey supermarket trouser but still 85% of parents still said they prefer the expensive ones ( it always look good and smart when worn to be fair). The school then gave parents the option to wear grey trousers for their girls if they want and my friend bought her child one but almost everyone still wear the branded ones so she has decided to buy the branded one this year again. It’s as if even parents of children in state school like this one like the whole uniform look because it makes them look like private schools. I don’t even know where the balance is

My DDs primary school is a shirt and tie uniform.

Except on PE days. Then its black leggings/shorts/joggers, white tshirt, black jumper. PE days include forest school, and after school sports club days. My DD wore pe kit three days a week. Every class ended up with a mix of pe kit and uniform sone days.

Why they don't change the uniform to black joggers/leggings, white tshirt/polo, then the school colour jumper is a mystery to me... it would actually be smarter than the random mix

our school has done deals with all uniforms suppliers to 75.00 for blazer, skirt, pet kit.

I seriously have no issue with uniform but I think some rules around branded stuff would be good.

1. anything branded must be unisex (exception for single sex schools)

2. the school has to provide a second hand market place which must include a free swap shop

3. quality has to match price. I have no issue paying £30 for a jumper IF that jumper lasts more than 1 year or can be donated / passed on in almost perfect condition

@InChocolateWeTrust we had fewer problems with school shoes when DS was smaller (aside from the fact we have never managed to get a pair of Clark's to fit his feet - his instep is freakishly high and the Velcro would never do up). Start Rite were always fine.

Unfortunately secondary school is another kettle of fish altogether. Plenty of Clark's and Start Rite styles which would have been acceptable at primary are deemed "too much like trainers". Different schools have different rules, and DS's secondary insists on the sort of stiff shoes a banker would wear with his suits. The only pair we could do up was 2 full sizes bigger than the size he measures at.

I don't complain about uniform for the sake of complaining. In general I'm happy that we don't have to think about what to put on when we get up in the morning. I do find it frustrating when the rules (and shoes) are so rigid a child is in pain.

This is much more ridiculous than my DD's first round of uniform. For swimming stuff etc, I bet they only do it for a term. Same with tennis & football and all the other sports kit. My DD is not sporty at all and so from my POV this is a poor investment. At my DD's school there's a tracksuit, a t-shirt, a pair of shorts and leggings and we buy white trainers from Spirts Direct.

Ironically i think a shoe dress code would probably be the easiest one to police. No knee highs. No spike heels. Full foot coverage. No ballet flats. Then let everyone just wear trainers/walking boots/dms or other ankle boots. Footwear should be comfortable and functional and weather appropriate to encourage walking/cycling to school.

We need to get kids moving more . It's OK on primary because many are basically trainers. But high schools are more fussy. To the detriment of the kids tbh. It's ridiculous a flimsy flat slip on shoe would be allowed but a sturdy pair of kickers wouldn't be.

Its nonsense

Our local high school have allowed girls to wear non logoed trousers this year due to the cost of uniform..... interestingly the boys have never had to wear logoed trousers! Consequently neither of my dds have ever worn the trousers with logos (they've always been tailored trousers, not leggings or jeans), I've been DYING to be called into school over them.... I would have loved that fight! The trousers with logos approx £24 per pair, tailored black trousers £8 from asda. I'm all for uniform, but the only branded item should be the ties and badges (sew or iron on - this could apply to pe kit as well)

YANBU.
I think schools should say school colours. I.e. a blue blouse/shirt (or polo!), and a navy jumper and black trousers/skirts/pinifores. Yes to the smart ones, i.e. not joggers, leggings or jeans but they shouldn't be able to dictate they are logod or specific brands.

YANBU @BagelwithPhiladelphiaz ! £44 for a blazer seems a lot. I bought my DS one yesterday & it was £28. He'll be going into yr 10 so I'm hoping that'll last 2 more years. Apart from new shirts & one new tie I'm not buying him anything else atm (I bought new trousers last term). His school isn't fancy though - just a regular, non-selective secondary).
I'm also buying stuff for my DD to take to Uni in a month & the amount I'm spending on that is shocking tbh!

I 100% agree as well. It is a huge con. Poor kids will always be identified because their shoes wear out and don't get replaced. They grow out of their uniforms and keep having to wear them, they become thread bare.

The costs of uniforms are exorbitant and completely unnecessary as it just gives teachers more ways to tell kids off and give out detentions.

Don't get me started on girls being excluded for skirts being too short!

Just let kids wear the clothes they want, bought from wherever they choose.

What happens if you literally can't afford uniform (which is likely to happen over the next year) and just buy not branded items? Will they exclude your child? Our primary just has specific colours to wear and even that is not mandatory - it is an excellent school with great results.

Our shite local secondary is the local state school that has the fanciest uniform. I think they think it instills discipline and makes the school look better. It’s like slapping a plaster on a shotgun wound.

Contact the School, PTA or local FB groups, they are usually donated away for free or around £1 per item. I have collated all uniform for free or £1 per item. So much cheaper!

I don’t see why more schools/parents don’t organise swap shops for uniform. Especially when younger often it is outgrown before the condition goes in it.

thankfully Ds secondary school is very realistic in the costings for the few logod bits of uniform - blazer, shorts and t shirt cost less than £50 for all three if needed new at the same time.

I absolutely agree with this, and I started out being a big supporter of school uniform.

The ridiculous expense of logoed items, massive long lists of "essential" stuff which then hardly ever gets used and silly rules enforced to silly levels have combined to turn me against it. Long before my daughters left school I had begun to feel that school uniform should be abolish and the daft British fetish with it brought to an end.

It isn't a leveller. It is a needless set of extra rules and expense. School uniform should be consigned to the bin of history.