Do you agree with school or the parents?

[Watermelon44]

Our high school has made the news because of a uniform dispute between (some) parents and the head who is recently in post.

The gist of it is that the school brought in a new rule in April that they were no longer allowing black leather trainers (eg superstars or nike air force) and instead the kids should be in smart plain black leather office shoes.

This appears to have caused ww3 with some parents, who despite having many months notice, still sent their kids in the banned trainers (100+ children apparently). The school has stuck to its guns and has isolated and then suspended those in the wrong shoes if they refused to comply.

The school has also banned girls from wearing socks, and have enforced a thick tights ruling, although socks are allowed in the summer term and if allowed by the head in any warm spells (eg the past 3 days).

Personally I think the tights ruling is worse and I have mixed views on the trainers rule.

I am interested in the real reasons behind these strict uniform rules as I feel if the real reasons were shared with parents they may be more on board with them, rather than the usual rubbish about dressing professionally eg like in an office, when my dp works in a head office in London and goes in jeans and trainers!

As this seems to have whipped up a storm locally, I am interested in other people’s views on this topic as some of the parents round here seem to have gone totally bats*it over it!!

This is what I wonder too! And am watching it play out on social media locally… 🍿

Many of the children are not attending the detentions.

A friend’s DD has missed 3 detentions already… all for uniform infringements ( make up and nail varnish, as well as wearing a bracelet.)

According to the published new policy, the teachers have all been provided with make up remover. (They haven’t gone as far as actually tackling girls to scrub it off against their will, but you never know what might happen next 😂)

The school have also cut lunchtime to 30 minutes, so if you throw a detention in then there is barely time to eat lunch (and some non-detention DC are missing lunch already because the queues are long)

Parents (and teachers, from the ones I know locally) have lost respect for the leadership team, and I have no idea how school are going to tackle the issue of so many children not going to detentions now. What happens next?

Is mumsnet full of judgey dinosaurs tonight?

you do know that many girls who wear their skirts short wear shorts underneath. So no different to the skorts that the girls have to wear for games lessons. And that’s not obscene then.

I don't like either personally, though I would comply with the shoes begrudgingly.

I don't see how the shoes you wear makes a difference, we were allowed black trainers at high school (01-05) and one year I wore a pair 3 sizes too big because that was the only skate style ones I could find in tk maxx, they looked like canoes, but I don't remember anyone taking the piss.

My eldest is dyspraxic and can't tie laces at 10, so he wears a pair of completely black slazenger trainers I got off vinted (either nwot or excellent condition, can't remember but they looked basically new) and he looks perfectly smart. But I've had a look at the uniform policy for the high schools and they demand proper shoes, the only approved ones with velcro being the single wide strap ones, which we've had before and they were both uncomfortable, and didn't last term before the little velcro square stopped sticking and they were useless. It's going to be a bloody expensive shopping trip finding something he can do on his own, that doesn't rub his feet to pieces, that the school won't put him in isolation for and that I can afford on top of the already ridiculously priced uniform (why the fuck do they need logo'd pe shorts, joggers, and a separate shirt for rugby? What's wrong with the standard pe shirt?)

It's just not necessary. They are children, they're going to be running around playing football or something at break/lunch, let them wear footwear that's appropriate for both sitting at a desk, running around, PE (because they still need trainers for PE, and those don't seem to be policed, so the 'no bullying poor kids' arguement means absolutely nothing anyway) and walking to/from school.

Fair enough no open toes, platforms or heels, maybe extend it to no ballet pumps for certain classes (DT and chemistry maybe?), but why does it need to be a thing? Every September at least the first week at these strict high schools seems to be spent wasting time and energy on policing shoes instead of creating a welcoming environment for kids to learn in

Yep. My teen wears her skirt short and Nike pros underneath. Definitely no tights in this heat. I don't see the issue. She's young and wants to look pretty and not wear some frumpy knee-length grandma skirts (that I have to wear now that I'm old and fat).

It always amazes me that schools use this excuse rather than "because no one wants to see your underwear". It makes female teachers pretty uncomfortable too.

I think some of the rules are just over the top and it's someone going on a power trip. It's right that they should be challenged about absurd decisions.
I left school decades ago but the school uniform rules still haunt me to this day. I had sensory issues (which were not considered a real thing back then) and even with a doctor's report saying I couldn't wear part of the uniform, the teachers used it against me on a daily basis I was a good student, always on time, always willing to learn but you'd have thought I was the biggest troublemaker ever.
School uniform really shouldn't be that difficult or contentious. And it shouldn't involve parents having to fork out for new items every few months except to replace outgrown clothes, not the whim of someone on a power trip.

People love to say that schools or teachers are on a power trip, and it's not remotely true imo. The decisions about shoes etc don't increase their power in any way. Their power to impose rules and dress codes remains the same, regardless of what uniform they decide on.

I think it comes down to two things. Sheer marketing (prospective parents getting a positive image of the school) and a dogged (and very misguided, imo) belief that a smart uniform and strictness over uniform somehow make students behave better and buy into the school ethos, have pride in their school etc. This is very obviously not the case.

It's often under-subscribed schools with poor behaviour who go crazy over uniform rules, often when they get a new Head, because they are desperate to look like an aspirational school, and a uniform change is easier than changing behaviour. The new Head at my (really good, oversubscribed) school just introduced blazers. I overheard a couple of kids saying 'It makes us look like a shit, chav school' .

Ultra strict uniform is used as an easy way of weeding out the less than perfectly compliant students and parents.

It came back into fashion some years ago when a Head hit the news for turning around an inner city school which had become gang ridden. This Head made many changes in the school but the one which was visible and the press latched onto was she introduced a strict blazer and tie uniform.

The strict uniform has now become item#1 for new heads wanting to stamp authority. They get to enjoy their money shot with the properly uniformed head girl and boy. But they don't make all the other subtle changes that first Head made. So the school doesn't fundamentally improve.

If anything the school can get worse. Saw that with my DCs' school. The school was already in the doldrums (lower than average results) then new Head came in. Introduced a blazer and tie uniform and over a small number of years led the school right to the very bottom of the school league tables.

@Watermelon44 As my DC attended private schools, you just bought what was expected. As girls they rolled their skirts up but not much else. State schools have long had issues because they didn’t expect uniform standards 40 years ago. So it’s uphill from there. Parents haven’t been to a school expecting standards either, so do not see the need for them. Plus DC rule the roost don't they? DC want to wear at school the same as they wear at home. So short skirts, trackies, hoodies, trainers etc. However a reasonable uniform policy does pull a school together. I’d like to know if grammar schools have these issues in the same numbers.

My usual advice re uniform is to gradually change. One system that I’ve seen work is uniform requirements from 7-11 then much freer in 6th form. Also start with y7 then keep going With y7 every year . That way parents choose the school knowing what the deal is.

Also make it easy. Socks or tights. No polyester yuk blazers. Sweat tops are easier if parents won’t pay for pullovers. No trainers but give examples of suitable shoes. Shoes and girls are always a big deal! I had huge arguments with my own parents and at secondary, DDs did with me. We comprised on loafers.

Lastly, schools should have meetings with parents. They cannot exclude on the basis of uniform so it’s best to move gradually and certainly they should meet with the dissenters. Then get the majority on board starting with y7. I don’t really understand why parents think school should be identical to home. However saying it’s like work is obviously silly too. So they need a middle way where everyone gives a bit.

DS attended a comp that had a terrible results history. A new headteacher started a little while before DS went and was hugely strict on uniform, manners and everything. It then became when DS was there the most improved school in the county. DS left 4 years ago, the old head retired 2 years ago, no idea who the new head is but seeing the kids it’s obvious the very strict uniform policy has gone. So opposite for DS school @GnomeDePlume

I'm a secondary teacher, but I do have some issues with uniforms. It's such a British obsession - schools in other European countries don't have, and their kids achieve well.
I can see the benefits in terms of it being an equaliser, having a sense of school identity, etc. I can also see how being strict about it sets a certain tone that filters through to other things, but I also think that some rules go too far. Where I work (and this isn't uncommon) kids are expected to wear blazers on the corridor until they're told they're allowed to remove them - like someone else decides if they're allowed to be hot or not. Girls tend to wear trousers (since they got stricter on skirt length), but no ankles are allowed on show! Kids go from primary schools, which tend to have a much more comfortable uniform and good options for summer (dresses, shorts, etc) to blazers in 30°c. Places like Australia probably have air-conditioned schools, but kids aren't expected to dress that way in that climate. Schools here get so hot. I just think that the constant nagging grinds down good kids.
As for the OP - the parents had plenty of warning and should really have got the correct shoes. Tights are ridiculous in this weather. Ties are a pretty silly item anyway - I know hardly any adult who wears one for work. Except teachers!

Most Australian schools have uniform.

https://www.k12academics.com/School%20Uniforms/school-uniforms-australia

Going back 12 years... I taught in a secondary school with a sweatshirt and poloshirt uniform.

The feedback from the kids was that uniform made them feel like children, as that what primary schools wore... and they would like shirts (not necessarily ties) and a cardigan/pullover option, as that was more grown up.

The school were considering it when I left.

I think I haven't got an issue with strict uniform

So strictly no branded clothing or shoes

Strictly no clothing that wouldn't be acceptable in most offices or shops - which to me includes not showing midriff and upper thighs or off shoulder or deep cleavage ( yes I know that affects some more than others , that's life )

Strictly nothing that is harmful or risky - sensible shoes not ballet flats or heels , long hair tied back , no jewellery ( the old single set of studs in ears is a compromise there )

But I disagree with overly restrictive policies.

I think not branded should extend to no school logo
I think acceptable in most offices and shops does include trainers but doesn't need ties or blazers
No showing upper thighs means easier a skirt that approaches the knees or trousers or opaque tights , not an insistence on tights

I am not sure if there should be a colour scheme
I know "upper thigh" sounds a bit tricky to define precisely for rule pushing teens and may lead to "knee length" being proscribed

Where I work (and this isn't uncommon) kids are expected to wear blazers on the corridor until they're told they're allowed to remove them - like someone else decides if they're allowed to be hot or not.

That is some that I do think is stupid. I get schools trying to push blazers but not at the expense of kids comfort. Some people feel the heat / cold more than others.

I’m really uncomfortable about telling young girls that their bodies have some power over the thoughts of older men.

I didn't say they didn't have uniforms. I know they do. Just meant that they have good uniform options for hot weather despite likely being in buildings better equipped for the heat.

I think that schools can't take the moral high ground when it comes to no brands because some people can't afford it then charge £30 for a school jumper that Asda/Tesco etc are selling for under a tenner.

If they really wanted to level the playing field they wouldn't sell branded uniforms and make parents buy blazers as well as jumpers. I know if you are on benefits you get help but parents who are working and on low income don't and they are the ones that struggle.

Cant comment on the trainer rule.
But I drive past a large high school on my way to work (school) in the morning and was shocked on just how many girls had rolled their skirts up at the waist, so short, barely covering their bum, leaving nothing to the imagination.
Now as a school, they will know they can't enforce a tights rule in this weather, and some will argue that if socks can be worn at some times, why not all?
But honestly what are school meant to do? In this day and age of mobile phones & 'upskirting' to name just two, the reasoning behind this will absolutely be safeguarding.
Girls just keep your skirt length modest and there would be no need to implement this rule.

Yes. At my DC’s school, the basic mandatory PE kit comes to around £90, all with the school logo on. What is that if not branded ?

@SpanieAttack I forgot about the PE kit. It's basically daylight robbery and they are allowed to get away with it but god forbid if any child should turn up wearing something not on the list.

I’m not sure why we are trying to insist that children dress like professional office workers. They’re kids, they run around, they should be comfortable in school clothes. If I had a daughter there I’d be challenging the insistence on tights for sure.

I completely agree. They absolutely not talk about uniform levelling the playing field & then do this. It’s not just about families who can’t afford it - who I know there are often provisions for - but families who can only afford it but who it will mean struggling & other sacrifices for.

At secondary the girls know the power of their bodies instinctively, subconscious

what they need to do is understand their instincts and how that is driving their behaviour

But saying limits on how much flesh is exposed is less about pervy men and more about the social norms that we have

In this country Pretty much every adult knows what is acceptable clothing for work and how that differs from a night out. School is work not play time so they should be learning and applying the social expectations for work not play

Yes we should always be challenging those expectations- checking they are not overly limiting or harming specific groups of people. But social norms also help us all live together and work together more amicably

Yes but don’t forget they are mini adults in training! We must at all costs get children ready for the ‘real world’ 😜

Totally agree.