How on earth do other countries cope without uniforms.
By having dress codes that staff also have to enforce. Even in schools with the most relaxed dress codes, particularly with secondary age kids, there will be those that push the limits to ridiculousness. I had a US school in the late '90s having to add not having one's middrift showing and not wearing hats in the classroom without religious or medical reasons to the dress code policy because some students were taking the piss (I was sad at losing my hats, though - even though I did it once - I can agree tube tops are probably not schoolwear). Not having uniforms doesn't change there being issues over student's clothes, just some of the issues.
The link says "For clarity we do not object to removal or separation of children from their classes. The focus of the campaign is on confinement booths (often called 'Isolation' or "Consequence' booths) not desk dividers."
So it isn't about isolation being used as a punishment - which can also be said about detention or sending kids home - it's about this one specific type which I have to admit from the link I'm not entirely getting. Is it a specific type of room kids who are taken out of are put in, and if this is banned, where are those kids to be humanely and intelligently put?
I can see the benefits of tracking isolation and for better funding for helping staff have more options for disruption and help kids get reengaged because those are difficult problems, but I'm not getting what else is meant to be done if a teacher needs a child removed or a punishment is needed between sending a letter home or detention and exclusion/being sent home.
I had isolation/in-school suspension as a kid a few times, each time I had gone well beyond acceptable school behaviour, first time I was 8 and had a meltdown where I went viciously violent, spent the rest of that day talking with a lot of adults, and then spent the next day in a school meeting office by myself, there was no specific room for this at any of the schools I attended. I really can't think what would have been the better option (especially the first one as the next day was a class trip, and can't really take a kid who had been biting and smashing someone's head off the concrete to the zoo and no, having me stay home would not have been better to anyone). It wasn't meant to reengage me or be positive, it was a pausing point where I and everyone else was safe and free of disruptions, and then I could move forward with more put in place. The latter I think needs a lot more funding and help for kids and schools, it was years before I was really back into education fully partially due to lack of resources, and sometimes that pause, that 'you've gone too far and we can't put others at risk for you', is the first step to getting back into things and if not, the other kids and the staff have to be thought of as well.
I'm saying, as a disabled formerly really messed up kid who has had my own work cut out when helping my own kids' needs -- while it would have been better if the schools had better support for kids like me, especially when it came to reengagement as that took years from that meltdown when I was on honor roll to struggling in almost everything to get back into it, I really cannot think what beter options they could have had that didn't involve isolation. I appreciate the research on the issues of social isolation, but it's really easy for the disabled kid to be very socially isolated in the classroom being the one who keeps putting their issues on everyone, and just removing isolation as an option isn't going to change that.
I think this campaign is done with compassion, but not entirely thought through the limited options for students affected and the staff & that the issues of social isolation and reengagement go far beyond this.