Schools insistence on uniform rules are behind the times

[spanieleyes22]

I know I will be slated for saying this but just reading a thread from a poster who is disappointed that there is not a more formal dress code at work and so many people saying everyone is more casual in offices all over the place and suits are more worn by older people in the city. Yet schools seem to put so much faith in whether a boy keeps his shirt tucked in or how short a girls skirt is. God forbid they dye their hair or have more than 1 stud earring. Isn't it time for schools to loosen up wrt dress code? In the Scandinavian countries there is no uniform. Does this mean their teenagers are wild and don't learn anything. Why are we so hung up on not allowing teenagers to express themselves.

I'd rather no uniform at all than a joggers and hoody uniform.

Our school has relaxed the uniform policy, taken the blazer away for s1 to 3 letting them wear plain jumpers instead of logo and they were never super strict re shoes etc they can wear black trainers etc it’s school they are there to learn so this sending home and detention for the wrong shoes is ridiculous.

they wear white shirt, school tie, black or royal blue jumper black trousers/skirt and black shoes/trainers. S4/6 wear blazer I think it’s for prefects really in s5/6. It’s good, cheap and no stressing about logo gear being ££ they also do a free old uniform shop twice a year

Me too! Was just saying if we had to have a uniform I'd prefer the joggers to scratchy pinafore/shirt/cardigan of my youth! They were really impractical and eye eyewateringly expensive. I really don't know how my mother managed to get us through school.

I've never found them scratchy, nor have DC. The options in order of preference for primary would be:

1. Full uniform including tie and blazer throughout
2. The polo shirt and jumper with logo with proper school trousers/skirt/pinnafore/shorts
3. No uniform
4. Prison style joggers and hoody.

We have 2. It's a compromise.

Why would you prefer ties and blazers out of curiosity? I really can't see the attraction/benefit to them?

I think they look nice. Nothing more to it. And having never found them uncomfortable or irritating I see no downsides.

But that's just you tbf. Lots of people find them uncomfortable. Not to mention losing them. I have to disagree with dressing kids to look pretty over comfort/practicality. I don't think that makes a huge amount of sense tbh.

Fair enough. It's only my opinion, not claiming it's objective fact. Doesn't change it being my opinion!

I agree. A basic, comfy, practical uniform is great. The problems come when it's either stupidly expensive (and available from only one supplier), impractical (blazers in the summer, for instance, or stupidly long wool skirts as a school near me has), or too rigidly enforced (child gets holes in shoe, so wears trainers for a couple of days until parents have the chance to replace them; child gets detention for having the wrong shoes).

I dressed my children outside school to be both comfortable and smart with a choice of clothing. My dd were never in joggers, unless doing sport, and rarely wore leggings until secondary age. They wore dresses, skirts, trousers, cardigans, etc. They were perfectly able to play, learn and run around in their clothes. They were happy to tell me if they didn’t like something or if it was uncomfortable.

I'd prefer a uniform.

But none of this stupid shirt tie and blazer stuff.

Trousers, skirt in set colour, polo in set colour and logo sweatshirt are fine.

Blazers for 4yos is ridiculous. They aren't doors, they need to be able to run, climb and play.

Neither is 'behind the times' or progressive. It's really six and two threes with both having pros and cons. Some schools handle it badly, both schools with uniforms and those without and different parents and children have different preferences.

The school will have to enforce some kind of dress code either way, and even with the most relaxed rules, you'll get those pushing the rule whether it's the parents or older child. Some schools are too strict on their dress codes and cause unneeded disruption to learning that they claim to be trying to avoid with their uniform and some are too lax causing confusion and conflict between those who follow the rules and those who blatantly don't and nothing is done. Schools have to find that balance and that can be difficult, but I think consistency is far more important than whether or not they have a uniform.

I went to non-uniform schools and so did my oldest child. My younger three all attended a secondary with a uniform. Two of them found not having to think about their clothes relaxing, and for my oldest, not having a uniform wasn't part of his decision making.

I don't buy that not having a uniform means children are more free to express themselves. Aesthetics is not the same as individual expression and for much of education, parents have significant control of that. Dress codes are as much for parents as they are for the children. And really, if everyone is sitting around in hoodies, what are they expressing?

I also don't entirely buy the idea that uniforms are cheaper or do much to save kids from bullying on appearance. All my uniform kids have had issues with being targeted for their looks. I also don't think wearing a uniform is really needed to be able to dress for the workplace, plenty of kids like my son go on to work in uniform jobs just fine. It is easier for schools to get companies to donate uniform pieces in bulk and for the public in a city with many schools, it is easier to report to a school when there is an issue with students if they're in a uniform that identifies the school. Even at my non-uniform schools, there were PE uniforms in part for this purpose because some of the PE happened outside of school.

There were constant uniform issues at my DS’s state primary school, a well-known academy chain known for being inflexible and rigid on uniform and other issues. There were constant reminders about shirts needing to be tucked in, about the wrong type of shoes being worn, and about blazers not being worn, even in very hot weather. The children were initially able to take in their own backpacks; until in Year 5, the school tried to enforce use of the school backpack. Most parents refused to do so; there were lots of children still carrying in their Peppa pig and Smiggle backpacks, so they eventually gave up on this one. Constant low-level uniform drama though. In contrast, since my DS has started Y7 at secondary this school year, uniform issues have been practically non-existent; I rarely hear of them. The school has been very flexible and fair with respect to uniform. They have sent out a letter encouraging students to take off their blazers during hot weather. I have seen at least one child regularly wearing jogging bottoms into school instead of school trousers, so I’m assuming that some flexibility/leniency has been exercised by the school to perhaps accommodate the child’s sensory needs.

The cost of the uniform is not prohibitive, but then grammar schools are middle-class enclaves, with very few low income families, or families on free school meals. Parents who have been paying for private prep, or 11 plus tutoring are not going to complain about uniform cost, even if it were twice or three times the cost of what it is.

How can polyester clothing 'look nice'?

So go on - what's wrong with joggers and leggings then?

I've taken much notice of material. The style looks nice to me. It looks like school uniform should look. I missed it when I moved up to 6th form and the school had made the, as far as I and many of my friends were concerned foolish, decision to be non-uniform.

I have no idea what my blazer was made of. Might have been polyester.

This is why there is just no answer to this debate. I'm genuinely gobsmacked that anyone would choose to send their child to a school at potentially 4 years and a few days old in a blazer, pinafore and school shoes over their own leggings and t-shirt. I just cannot fathom it at all as a parent or teacher yet clearly it is some people's preference. Incidentally, no one ever seems to complain about non-uniform for private nursery so at what age does it start to be a problem? 5, 6, 7? I can quite honestly say my child has never had any comments in infants about her own clothes; they are all used to wearing their own things and it's no big deal.

Secondary schools often ban leggings as they come under the ban on trousers that are too tight. I don’t know if teens wear leggings that are see through but I used to see adults wearing leggings that show VPL.

We expect professionals to give the same answer in a suit, scrubs or in bed at 3am on call.

The younger generations are all about comfort (look at footwear - trainers, crocs etc) vs the smart look older generations want. I would say a dress code which extends to clean and down to mid thigh covered with cycling shorts worn under dresses is all that is needed to appease most people.

Banning brands doesn't help our local school banned Vivienne Westwood shoes so the girls moved on to Ralph Lauren loofers followed by a Barbour pair. It was handbags when I was in school fake LV was massive.

There’s definitely a generational divide. I think that it’s only when all the boomers and the Great-aunt Mildred types die out that we’ll probably see any type of large-scale uniform reform in this country.

They are not smart. My post was in response to the suggestion that children can be either ‘pretty’ or ‘comfortable’. There doesn’t need to be a choice, you can have pretty/smart comfortable clothes - which leggings and joggers are not.

Nothing to do with generations. IME a very hefty proportion of older people have learned through experience how utterly unimportant uniform is, and that people work much better when they are comfortable.

As a matter of interest, how often do you wear a tie and blazer?

I refuse to believe that most children in a school or in another country wished they had a uniform.