To think that switching to polo shirts makes the school uniform look low-rent?

[Byetoshirts]

My kids' primary has announced a change from shirts to polo shirts (previously just KS1) for all years except year 6.

I just think it looks a bit rubbish - all the other (in the main more affluent) local primaries have kids that look smart, and ours now get to look like they've just rolled out of bed. My DC are annoyed as they enjoy looking smart at school.

I associate polos in school uniform with young children and others who struggle with buttons and spilling stuff on themselves.

They also wash and wear badly (as stains kind embed themselves in polos) and the collar doesn't sit properly when open so a lot of (KS1) kids wear them tightly buttoned up to the neck, which doesn't exactly seem comfortable.

Surely your classy kids who love wearing a shirt and tie to school wouldn't be so awful as to get stains on their clothes and would expect the collar buttoned up so as to feel properly attired for their day of learning?

I'd see if there's any vacancies in the nicer schools, one doesn't want oens children dressed comfortably for school.

Much cheaper and easier to buy polo shirts. Children are more comfortable. Stiff horrible school uniform is becoming a thing of the past. I remember feeling the cold sweat under my arm pits when wearing those disgusting thick school shirts. Makes me shudder to still think about it.

I hope this is more than one child. Also why would you bin clothes? Put them in the local charity shop.

The kids at my son’s primary wear polos and I always think they look so cute and so comfortable.

Yes! The thing that haunts me is the smell (from about 10/11 onwards) - ours were this awful synthetic fabric that really trapped the sweaty smell, even after being washed.

Well, you could always buy them a quarter zip jumper or a gilet to recover the Finance Bro look.

Yes, ‘low rent’ was an interesting expression to use. OP could have said ‘untidy’, ‘scruffy’, ‘less smart’ or a whole host of other adjectives without the same connotations, but went with ‘low rent’.

But that would have denied people the opportunity to get their knickers in a knot about my phraseology for a week and 400 (increasingly repetitive) posts

Your kid is going to school, not a board meeting.

My DCs went to a big suburban high school in the Midwest. There was no pressure at all to have X or Y brand or any sort of 'look'.

They went to a RC elementary school.(K-8) and there definitely was pressure there to have cool brands for dress down days. There was also continuous pressure on the girls to conform to the nth degree to the uninform requirements and especially to the 'suggested' dress code for school trips to formal events like an opera, a ballet, an orchestral.performance, and a visit to a certain historical landmark. Parents were called to bring alternative clothing if a girl's clothing fell foul of what the organizing teacher considered appropriate. Actually, it was always mothers who got called. One mother responded "I am at work" and put the phone down.

The pressure on girls to conform in a uniform environment is ime far more relentless than any peer pressure some students may feel in a non uniform school environment. It also comes in an environment where there is a power imbalance - it's the teacher's and admin who are policing the length of skirts, the buttoning of blouses, etc. The constant knowledge that your clothing is subject to this kind of prurient scrutiny is very unhealthy for both girls and boys in the school environment. It conditions both boys and girls to accept that women and girls are responsible for the response of men and boys to their clothing.

Give me a school where everyone turns up in jeans or sweatpants or leggings any day.

Means the same . We all know that

Agree.

I find it more expensive and more work having uniform and non-uniform clothes vs having just regular clothes. I have to order uniform items online vs just heading to my local shop because they rarely have DC’s size. Also don’t have long-sleeve polos so have to order those as well.

Worse with DS1 because he is autistic and comes home covered in mud, paint, marker, some food stains or all the above and if the stains are on the white polos, they are practically set in by time he gets home and no amount of stain remover, bleaching, or sun has gotten the stains out, jumpers are not particularly cheap and washing them well and following the care label they have all faded for the most part and I can’t bring myself to replace them especially since he is going to a different school in September.

I don’t have these issues with his regular clothes and regular clothes are way easier and cheaper for me to replace since I can easily go to the local shops and get them. He’s happy in a t-shirt and shorts.

Its called snobbery

Does it tho?

There's often comments about how the truly rich aren't image focused so will often have scruffy children / outfits. A tux at 2 am when you're relaxed and untucked might be untidy.

Low rent more specifically suggests poor, cheap. trashy, common.

Our primary school went the other way round- they changed from polo shirts to shirt and tie from year 1 upwards. They absolutely look so much better- much smarter!

Ties are the worst idea ever . Like a noose around their necks.

Why would you want a 5 year old to wear a tie? Barely any adults wear ties these days. What utter nonsense.

Why do primary age children need to look smart at school - they should look and feel comfortable. A shirt and tie is ridiculous.

When I read these threads I say thank goodness that DT’s school was non uniform.

Is that what matters tho when we're talking about 6-11 year olds learning and playing? How smart they look? Or is it about whether the parents think their kids look like they go to a fancier school than other people's kids?