I suspect because the attainment measured in primary schools is irrelevant to the skills required for students facing GCSE standards, Mrz. Decoding, arithmetic, etc., are all very well and mighty fine. However, they ignore the components of resilience, the quality that makes all the difference -- relationships and ability to reach out in full expectation of support; emotional skills that prevent children from being overwhelmed by emotions (disappointment, embarrassment, frustration, etc), sense of humour and perspective, ability and willingness to talk about feelings; competence in self care, feeling of mastery over the environment, practical skills, independence, sense of responsibility, problem solving ability, assertiveness, understanding the relationship between effort and results, perseverance, a sense of control over one's life; optimism and seeing oneself in a positive light, ability to judge risks, confidence in self and family and community, generous supportiveness towards others, feeling that personal effort can make a difference. None of those qualities can be encouraged by exposure to synthetic phonics at age four. By contrast, the Swedish system as described in my earlier link provides an ideal environment in which to encourage what actually matters.
Uniform in a great many cases does not function as a social leveller. Differences in quality of uniform, age of uniform and condition of uniform, or having just one uniform to wear day in and day out are duly noted by students within individual schools. PE kits and summer uniforms provide even more means of evaluating socio economic status. Students from state schools look around at the fancy attire of the private school students, and they understand where they all stand relative to each other. In response, many state schools (29,500 by 2012) have resorted to insisting on official suppliers for their uniforms, making both the requirements and the expense ridiculous and putting pressure on family budgets. So they are not so much a leveller really. There is also chopping and changing of uniforms as schools turn into academies, and consistency isn't helped by that. Uniforms are much more important as a marker of whatever image the school wishes to project, and too often this means a place where no-nonsense learning takes place. League tables help establish the school's image too.
At least one head teacher thinks uniforms make students focus on their studies:
'A Bradford headmaster, Ian Richardson, caused controversy last month after sending home 100 pupils who were not in the correct uniform.
He defended the decision, saying: ‘I think it’s really important that the students look smart because partly it gives them a sense of pride in themselves and the school and it focuses them on what they have come to school for today, which is to achieve their personal best in their studies.’
I doubt he is the only one.
'Shazza' from Croydon writes in the comments, 'You can spot the cheap stuff a mile off,' and she is right.
Yeah, it's the DM
And what is the point of alleged 'levelling' if results for students in GCSEs correspond exactly to socio-economic status? See figure 4 page 20.
From the Guardian:
'The education secretary, Michael Gove, is a firm believer in the power of clothes that match. The recently published white paper urged all schools to introduce not just uniform, but blazers and ties.
'The Conservatives have been linking high standards, strict discipline and what children wear for years now. "The best-performing schools tend to have similar, if not the same, best practices," said a 2007 policy paper. "Strict school uniform policies, with blazer, shirt and tie, and with a zero-tolerance of incorrect or untidy dress..."
'...And what of the alleged connection between results and uniform? Back in 2007, the Conservatives pointed out that only one of the top-performing 100 state schools was non-uniform. Yet such statistics work the other way round, too. Despite dressing their pupils in blazers and ties, more than 40 academies last year failed to reach the government's "floor target" of 30% of pupils with five A*-C GCSEs including maths and English.'
'When did you see an illustration of 'The Famous Five' wearing tracksuits?'
That is quite funny. A work of fantasy fiction is used as a means of arguing that children in pinafores and black leather shoes could reasonably spend half their days outdoors poking in mud, climbing trees, romping along the shore of a lake, on their hands and knees looking at worms or slugs, sitting on fallen logs, messing about in the rain. Again, please note the Swedish children with their waterproof gear and wellies.
Back in the days of bombsites, there was no such thing as trainers; many children wore clothes made from adult castoffs, little versions of men's and women's clothing except shorts for the boys until they were teenagers, and their footwear was leather, or plimsolls and sandals. There is no excuse now for insisting that children wear clothing to school that bears so little resemblance to normal modern clothing and footwear. The reason for schools to insist on formal uniform is to facilitate effective crowd control and to make sure school is understood by children to be a place for activity that is not frivolous or linked in any way to what children can do while on holiday, but formal and focused on formal work, even at age four and five.
Mrz, it has been my experience that parents of children in schools that have no uniforms generally have a sensible approach to dressing their children, as do the children themselves. People tend not to go nuts over fashion when clothing worn to school is not a means of making a statement on the few occasions when that opportunity presents itself.
The parents you are dealing with seem to have associated school and school-related experiences with formal clothing, and must have anticipated an experience of rock pooling that was not going to be very hands-on. I assume they are not dim, and have some prior experience of learning through 'play' on which to base their choice of attire for the outing.
I think people here are mistaking the sort of activity that takes place in school playgrounds at lunchtime for the half day spent outdoors that forms such an important element of the Swedish preschool experience. There is a world of difference between what is meant by 'play' in preschool and learning through 'play' in UK schools, and uniforms reflect very well that huge difference.