Uniform enforcement - please help!

[HorryIsUpduffed]

I get confused by comments about the extent to which a standard English state primary school (ie not academy, but direct LA) can enforce a uniform policy.

DS's school has a few items available with logo (sweatshirt/cardigan, fleece, pinafore) and has previously operated on a fairly generous policy on logo items, in that they have been completely optional and worn by maybe half the school.

The uniform is* black/charcoal bottoms; white, light green or dark green polo shirt, dark green sweatshirt/cardigan. In summer girls often wear standard from-anywhere gingham dresses in light or dark green. The fleece is also dark green.

• not precisely these colours, changing one or two to be less identifiable, since the details don't matter, just the gist.

More recently some children have been wearing grey or white cardigans/jumpers, or wearing their fleeces as jumpers but not bringing a coat.

So the head and governors have decreed that from now on only green school sweatshirts/cardigans will be permitted as the warm layer inside. Children can still wear the fleece as a coat, but not as a jumper IYSWIM, and they should no longer wear un-logoed jumpers/cardigans. Non-logo polo shirts are still allowed. School declares it does not make a profit on uniform sold through the office.

I'm annoyed because I had an exchange with the head maybe six months ago explaining that DS doesn't wear the logo jumper because I prefer him to wear 100% cotton wherever possible and the logo jumper is only 40% cotton. At that point I was assured that although school liked the children to wear logos they were by no means compulsory. On that basis I stocked up on 100% cotton sweatshirts when I saw them in the sales, supermarkets, etc.

So my questions are these:

Are they actually allowed to require logo items rather than just specifying a colour? This is the point where looking back on old threads confuses me because some people say yes and some say no.

If they are allowed to specify (grumble grumble) then how long a lead time is reasonable for making this change - and they are acknowledging that it is a change - a term? six months? a year? Wear the existing ones until they need replacing, or replace them ASAP?

Again, for clarity, this is a non-denominational county primary school in England, under normal LA control with no church or other independent input.

Thanks in advance. I don't know whether to be cross or just annoyed.

You prob need to look at uniform policy, raise a grievance, exhaust that avenue, before taking formally to LA.

I would expect a year until new uniform enforced

It used to be non enforceable if standard primary ie not private sch, hopefully someone with more idea will be along pronto

Yes, uniform can be enforced in state primaries (expert posters like prh47bridge have linked the exact regulations which permit this on threads asking similar questions).

Whether an individual,uniform is reasonable depends on its cost and availability. Yes, logo items can be specified. Unfortunately, there seem to be no teeth enforcing the requirements on affordability and availability.

Thanks both.

I'll do an advanced search for prh47bridge and see what I can find.

And save up for substandard school jumpers that look tatty after two wears

Hardly dare tell our tales of secondary uniform woes, £200 to kit out OurKid, pe kit lost, the musthave bag, on and on it goes. Booo.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420800/Schools-banned-insisting-parents-buy-expensive-school-uniform-ease-burden-family-finances.html

I saw this recently in the news and thought it might be of interest to the OP.

That article is based on the Government's recent restating of the existing policy on affordability and multiple suppliers.

Nothing new, more's the pity.

I don't follow DM links but I can guess the content from the URL.

The required item isn't expensive, just crap, so I don't think we can go that route.

Anyone any thoughts about what a reasonable timescale would be?

I would argue that it's not reasonable to make the change at the beginning of an academic year, when many parents will just have shelled out on new uniform. I'd have thought a lot of parents would be annoyed by that. Maybe you could get it pushed back a bit?

Every time I have known schools change they have done it from a September, and normally given notice by Easter. But I don't think September-Christmas woudl be fair because of seasonal purchasing differences.

Just tell them your dc has sensitive skin, and can only wear 100% cotton. I can't wear acrylic or polyester, which is what your school tops will be made from, albeit with a bit of cotton blended in

I've read it so you don't have to, Horry.

These parts are important:

Headteachers will no longer be allowed to force parents to buy jumpers, ties and blazers from single suppliers to end the monopolies which have driven up prices.

Schools will also have to select items that can be bought cheaply from supermarkets and budget stores, with compulsory branded items kept to a minimum.

Practically this means they will have to allow a plain cardi or sweatshirt as IME all logoed items come from a single supplier. Either that or they will have to supply a logo badge which can be attached to a plain supermarket item, which would presumably be OK for you? In any case, you could take the relevant bits about single suppliers etc to school and ask them how they're going to comply with this and if they would think about introducing a cheap iron-on badge. Maybe try to work with them to come up with a compromise.

Thoes stipulations aren't new, herrison; that has been the policy for at least a decade. There are no new measures to enforce it.

Oh, really? That article reads very differently. Sorry. I am not an expert! But since the guidelines have been in place for a while, my point still stands - take the relevant legislation in and get them to look at it properly, if you can bear the aggro.

What are the potential sanctions, should a child not be wearing the correct uniform, but still something reasonably close like a plain jersey instead of one with a logo?

Is this really issue. The school has a uniform; it isn't that big a deal so comply with it. Don't you think it's nice of the children look smart?

Only time I every made a complaint about uniform was when the HT decided to totally enforce the supplier, logoed business, and that was to point out that if every child in the school was expect to wear a collar and tie, including the four year olds, I did not expect male teacher to turn up in TShirts and female teachers to turn up in cargo pants, spaghetti strap tops and flip flops.

Sauce for the Goose and all that. Strict uniform for the children = strict professional dress code for the staff.

And as a percentage of the overall cost of having children, school uniform is miniscule and not worth making a disproportionate fuss about. That in my opinion should be reserved for poor teaching, bullying, lack of achievement, lack of poor role models.

As you were.

Also, if those regulations have been in force for some time, how is it that some schools get away with all this logo shite and are not challenged? There are tons of schools round here where even the primary stuff would cost an arm and a leg to buy.

What actual sanctions could they reasonably apply in this case, though? I mean if the desired uniform is dark green logo sweatshirt but the child is wearing a plain dark green supermarket cardigan? What would they actually do?

They get away with it because the policy wasn't and still isn't backed by any enforcement. It's all talk and no trousers! CAB has been campaigning about such 'hidden barriers' for some time (not just uniform, but anything that makes it harder for children from poorer families to feel they fit in.

CAB Adding Up campaign

Thanks for that. I like the campaign. TBH, I'd love to see logos banned entirely. They seem entirely useless to me.

Logo quite handy when taking 100 children to a vast public event in which about 50% of the schools present had exactly the same colours as their school uniform!

In practical terms, there are very few colours available for uniform jumpers - royal blue, navy, bottle green, emerald green, red, maroon, purple, brown, yellow or light grey at a push. In any gathering involving 10+ schools, there will always be several schools with the same colours ... logos definitely do have their uses in identifying a stray child following the wrong herd of navy jumper wearing 6 year olds!

Well it isn't an issue precisely, except that under normal circumstances I wouldn't need to buy any more sweaters until the summer. And that's probably true for the majority of other parents too. So it's the rule change that's annoying rather than the rule itself.

I don't agree though that "no logos" means scruffy, nor that logos make the children look smarter.

In the case of my OP, the head could first have said "look here, they should be wearing dark green jumpers so lose the grey and white and navy by half term please" and then if things didn't improve consider a move to logo-only.

Honestly the majority of the children look perfectly smart already, and you can't tell the difference between logo and non-logo from more than ten yards away. The official jumpers fade and go out of shape quickly so the colour variation between logo jumpers is at least as great as the variation between different brands of plain jumpers. Until they wear white, frinstance.

I think I wouldn't be so annoyed if the change were coming at a sensible time - announcement in May for September, say.

I also wouldn't mind as much if the permitted items were of sufficiently good quality to justify their price. They aren't expensive but they aren't worth what they cost (£10 ish for arguably worse than supermarket quality). But DS currently has five jumpers, having had three last year which was a real stretch laundrywise, so I'm looking at buying three or four jumpers very soon, when I don't think he needs them and don't think they're very good.

At one of the schools that DS went to I bought cotton polos and jumpers and sent them off to be embroidered by the uniform supplier. Including postage and embroidery charges the clothing was still cheaper than the official poly-cotton version.

It's worth asking the school for the contact details of the uniform supplier and seeing if you can get that done.

I think the issue you have is some parents have disregarded the uniform policy so they have decided to cut back on the options to make it easier to follow.

Like at my db's school where the skirt length was decreasing rapidly despite warnings, and so the head brought in a minimum length of 32"!!! I assume he'd no idea of the size of a year 7 girl-that length is down to the ankle on me!

Yes, it's imposing a rule narrower than they need, to make sure they can enforce what they actually want

DH is crosser about this than I am. I think we are going to compromise by buying one school jumper so that on trips or other occasions where he is representing the school he can comply, but otherwise replace as natural wastage iyswim.