Question for teachers - why do schools enforce uniform policies so strictly?

[justanotherdaduser]

Partly inspired by the thread below, but partly also triggered by y7 DD's experience in senior school, I was wondering why senior schools go to such lengths to stamp out minor uniform transgressions?

I don't think for a second that schools are stupid or are just tyrannical for the sake of it, so there must be some thinking behind this? Maybe slovenly uniform affects outcomes? Does it? Schools like Michaela talk a lot about smart appearance. Is that an end in itself or is there an impact on learning too?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/4751506-school-skirts-why-is-it-such-an-issue

I went to a school with no uniform, it became very competitive about clothes, cost etc.

I now work in a school (with uniform). Every non school uniform day there are some students I can safely predict will be 'ill' - they don't want to come in as they are embarrassed about their clothes. So although my instinct is against uniforms, ultimately I do think they are better in terms of equality. Most (state) school uniforms are reasonably priced and we have ways of sorting out uniform for any families that are really struggling. Yes some students' uniform looks a bit older than others, but it isn't particularly noticeable and far less than if they wore non school uniform.

The whole skirt length/policing of girls bodies I think is ridiculous - my children's school decided on trousers for everyone which seems to have worked well.

@AliceMcK

Utter rubbish, my DCs went to a school with no uniform for a couple of years, there was no competition whats so ever, I would have had no idea who had money and who didn’t as opposed to their current school were you can tell which kids can’t afford to replace uniforms.*
*
Sorry, but I really doubt that.

👏💯

Bullying, under-age vaping in toilets, skipping classes - all rampant in a secondary I know. Nothing much happens as a consequence. But ohhhhhh wear the wrong coloured PE socks and all hell breaks loose. Good they they’re focussing on what matters in life.

All the strict uniform policy did for my DD was show her up for being from a family that couldn't keep up financially for a time. She wasn't the only one.
She was put in isolation for the wrong shoes, for a week, there was a very good reason for me not being able to meet the replacement requirements of 24 hours to get the 'right' shoes.

But well rules are rules and so they put her in isolation and then failed to intervene when she was bullied on the bus there and back and after the shoes being replaced - for being put in isolation for not having the right shoes.
She had two choices, tell the truth when asked by the other kids or pretend to be rebelling. She chose to tell the truth and was then a target.

So great job there by the school of levelling the field hey and not making kids from a poorer background stand out? Like we're told uniform is supposed to do.
It was the only time there was a uniform 'violation' from her, I made sure she had the uniform clean and in good condition and she had all the equipment needed. And only happened through circumstances beyond our control.

I lost faith in the school and so did she. Took the work of a couple of good teachers as well as me to get her to re-engage again because in her own words, she'd been punished for being poor, and then left to deal with the bullying because of that, as well as not allowed to be involved in lessons for a week so her education affected too. It wasn't like she turned up wearing 6 inch stilettos, open toes sandals or clown shoes, they were normal (not branded) trainers that were suitable for PE. So no safety issues there.

So no, I don't believe that it levels everyone, it would only do that if uniform were provided to everyone regardless of their financial status*. It's no different to kids wearing normal clothes in that regard because people get what they can afford and if things can't be replaced from being stolen/lost/broken or outgrown and then punishment is issued on the basis of that you're just actually drawing attention to it. And the fact that you can blatantly tell the difference between a £20 pair of 'plain black shoes' or a £200 pair, and both meet the criteria, make a mockery out of the idea really.

I can see it with things like skirts rolled up, shirts not tucked in, buttons undone, heavy make up, jewellery etc, that's something the child themselves has control over and they can choose to try and rebel and then face the concequences. I can also see it on the grounds of safety where shoes etc are concerned.

*I'm not suggesting that schools provide uniforms before someone starts demanding where the money would come from, just that unless you provide the actual garments it's unfair to punish people who can't afford to buy them initially or replace them within prescribed timetables that aren't realistic.

Never heard anything so snobby!

Not secondary but my kids go to a no uniform primary. There are zero issues. Kids all wear leggings & jumpers/hoodies. That’s literally it. A huge variety in colours & obvs that changes to more like T-shirts & leggings and a few summery dresses in the summer term. I think because it’s the norm, there is no pressure to dress up or look your best as there is on non uniform day.

That said, I can see that it’d become much more of a fashion show at high school. I don’t think I’d be super keen. But I don’t understand why it can’t be comfier. Who wears ties anymore?! Particularly girls. Most workplaces are smart casual. I’ve not worn a tie since I finished school in 2004! Get rid of ties, blazers & scratchy trousers.

I’m a child from the 70s, educated in a liberal grammar school with no uniform. Funny thing is, we all adopted a uniform of desert boots, stripey socks, dungarees etc. Maybe it was of its time, but there was never any judgment in what people wore.
My kids went to a massive comprehensive with no uniform. I refused to buy expensive trainers etc as saw no point in that they grew larger so often. Have had conversations with them now they’re adults. They didn’t get bullied for wearing average shoes or having average gear. One has said he will do the same for his children when he has them.

Why snobby?

I’ve been reading about child poverty this week (the Child Poverty Action Report) and one of the biggest areas where poorer children feel disadvantaged is when their peer group wear expensive and trendy labels and they can’t afford to have the same. School uniforms should eliminate or reduce this (in theory).

That is such ignorant nonsense.

OP the truth is, uniform is about two things: social class, and power. The first school uniform was at Christ’s Hospital (charity) school and was “designed to emphasise the low status of the children”. Nowadays schools like Eton wear the usual attire of a Victorian aristocratic boy to remind us of how terribly posh their ancestors were, and other schools rush to copy cheaper versions.

It would have been scrapped as an idea ages ago BUT British teachers adore uniform because it makes them feel powerful and gives them an excuse to be petty about punishments while feeling virtuous.

If designer clothes were a problem the solution is simple, just say, as my non-uniform school did: “No designer clothing, no slogans.”

America and most of Europe don’t do uniform and it isn’t a problem. Let’s stop pretending this has anything to do with equality. For example why are the uniforms so old fashioned? Why are five year olds wearing ties and skirts when they should be in tracksuits? Why are plain tahirts so unthinkable? Why are teachers forcing overheated students to wear hot blazers and ties in heatwaves?

Uniform is about class and power, nothing else - except perhaps sadism.

The whole skirt length/policing of girls bodies I think is ridiculous - my children's school decided on trousers for everyone which seems to have worked well.

I used to invigilate in a high school. The male invigilators were so lucky because they got to stand at the back of the exams hall. The women had to stand at the front because, honestly, looking down the desks at how much some of the girls exposed from wearing skirts too short wasn't nice. I know people always say, just don't look, but that's much easier said than done.
The sooner they're all in trousers the better.

I could have afforded to spend more on regular clothes (and food, sometimes uniform needed to be replaced from the food budget) if I hadn't had the additional burden of school uniform on top.

Can you explain what you mean about most non-uniform schools are not representative of the issues faced by most other schools.

one of the biggest areas where poorer children feel disadvantaged is when their peer group wear expensive and trendy labels and they can’t afford to have the same. School uniforms should eliminate or reduce this (in theory).

They don't though. It's perfectly obvious from phones, trainers, bags, stationery, clothes on non-uniform day etc who are the wealthier kids and who are the poorer kids.

That's interesting. When I was at school in the UK in the 80s the social markers were the kids from the local estate who wore fashionable clothes, new shoes, trendy haircuts etc and the middle class kids looked square as hell in hand-me-down uniforms, sensible shoes and cheap haircuts.

We live in Europe now, no uniform but the majority of kids have self-imposed a very drab uniform of jeans or joggers and trainers. Only a few wear visible brands. I think I prefer this way.

Yep, that’s how it worked out at my non-uniform school too 30 yrs ago, left to themselves (and in an atmosphere where own clothing isn’t a forbidden treat reserved for weekends), children gravitate to jeans and a tshirt.

Exactly, and the threat of punishment that actually points out the fact that your family is not as well off as others instead of the supposed opposite intention, pushes the kids and parents to pay for it and cut back in other areas.
Because they don't want the punishment and they certainly don't want the bullying that can come after the school policy has highlighted the fact you're on a limited income.

But if they are wearing school uniform everyday you need less other clothes?!?

The vast majority of (state) school uniforms are very reasonable and if there is a genuine issue with the cost the school helps.

I went to a very good school. Uniform policy was pretty lax. (We are going back some years mind!) But I wore doc marten boots instead of shoes. I wore navy jeans instead of regulation polyester trousers. I had blue hair and multiple piercings No one said a word. The teachers taught instead.

We live in Europe now, no uniform but the majority of kids have self-imposed a very drab uniform of jeans or joggers and trainers.

Yes, this is where the argument all falls down. I'm a languages teacher and have been on many exchange trips to European schools. Plus I'm sure most people have seen groups of European school kids on visits in cities around the UK. They don't look like a fashion parade. When wearing your own clothes in school is the norm, kids mostly tend to go fairly low key and comfortable. Like kids in college do. Yes, some wear zany stuff and a few like labels, but overall it's not a haves and have-nots competition. Having uniform is exactly what makes UK kids go all-out on non-uniform days.

No, I still needed to buy a week's worth of seasonally appropriate clothing. There are three months of school holidays in a year, I couldn't have got by with a weekend's worth of clothing.
Reasonable or not, it's still an additional cost.

I’m a teacher and never heard about the theory about not breaking important rules if they have silly rules to rebel against.

As a parent I like the uniform for a few reasons. In primary it means their normal home clothes aren’t ruined with whiteboard marker, glue and paint. Kids at kS1 don’t really rebel against uniform rules - it’s their parents that choose what they wear so parents who likely rebel. Older ks2 might start to rebel themselves once they mature into choosing their own style etc.

I was the kid at school who never had ‘branded’ clothes. The only time it was obvious was when trainers were worn as I had cheap ones and some had branded. I craved branded as a child but as an adult I couldn’t care less - there are brands I like the style and fit of but not necessarily on trend!! However secondary with uniform still sees the branded labels - PE trainers, school bags, coats spring to mind. Even branded leggings/joggers. My DD hates wearing certain brands she associates with the kids always getting into trouble. She’s autistic and doesn’t want to be labelled a trouble caused so prefers non branded or if a brand it’s a tiny logo you can hardly see!! I’m happy to buy her what she likes. Her dad’s side of the family are heavily into brands so often buy her branded stuff but she also avoids wearing it!!

Secondary I think it’s walking publicity for the school. High school kids get themselves to and from school on public transport, via public places such as shopping centres. Schools have to often remind students that their behaviour outside of school when wearing uniform reflects on the school. If you’re in an area where kids go to lots of different schools you could potentially be up the shops and see the uniforms and behaviour and make a judgement about sending your child there in the future or not.

what I find really outdated is tied for girls!! I don’t know if many professions where a woman wears a tie. Some wear neck pieces so possibly an argument there. Even men don’t often wear a full on shirt, tie and blazer for work these days but you do see more men in ties than women. Blouses would be perfectly acceptable for girls. But my daughter’s school was the same one I went to in the 90s - in order for girls to be allowed to wear trousers back then they insisted girls wore ties. Before the trouser were allowed for girls, the girls didn’t wear a tie. It was all equal ops. Now y7/8 must wear a tie with v neck sweater - clip on for health and safety obviously. Y9+ the jumper becomes round neck so no tie needed unless you remove your jumper, so tie must be available. But they have to ask to remove sweater so most don’t and just overheat. Secondary classrooms must stink!! I know y5/6 classrooms start to get smelly when you get the few starting puberty who haven’t yet started using anti perspirant.

Teachers enforce the uniform because they have to. Ofsted seem to prefer it.

Intetesringly though, many kids choose to join an out of school Bobbie which had a uniform and no one seems to complain. The branded hoodie/T-shirt you’re persuaded to buy when representing the team or group. My kids were always desperate to get their uniform for their hobby, some with child’s name emblazoned on it as well (which I hate as you can’t pass on as easily when outgrown unless there’s a child with the same name).

Getting them ready for the workplace uniform. If they can’t conform to rules now how will they submit to their boss. That’s my sociological perspective..

Bullying, under-age vaping in toilets, skipping classes - all rampant in a secondary I know. Nothing much happens as a consequence. But ohhhhhh wear the wrong coloured PE socks and all hell breaks loose. Good they they’re focussing on what matters in life.

I'd be interested to hear your detailed knowledge of the behaviour and uniform policies. What do you mean by 'all hell breaks loose' exactly? Do students receive tougher sanctions for wearing the wrong P.E. sock than for bullying, skipping classes and vaping? I bet anything they don't.

The unfortunate fact is that it is extremely difficult to stop secondary school kids from misbehaving or breaking rules, whichever rules it might be. Especially when parents are not cooperative.

Same reason work places do I imagine