Is my child’s school allowed to still have multiple branded uniform items

[Anothernamechange3]

Hi,

my child’s secondary school (part of a multi academy trust) is still insisting on branded trousers and skirts from a single supplier in addition to the branded blazer. As far as I am aware this is against statutory guidance. Apparently their take is that they are allowed to do this because they offer a scheme where you can buy second hand from the school items that have been donated.

Everything I have read seems to say they should be removing unnecessary branded items AND giving second hand options: it’s not either/or. Am I right? Are they still legally allowed to do this? The gov.uk site I have looked at recommends going through the school’s official complaints procedure. Before I do this, I’m asking advice here as to whether they’ve got round it with some convenient loophole, or if they do indeed need to allow non branded skirts/trousers from other shops.

Thank you.

Does it matter if it's allowed or not? I think you can write your complaint and express your disappointment.

I definitely will express my disappointment. I’d just like to know if what they are doing is breaking the law or just not recommended as that will determine how far I push it.

I don't think guidance is law, no. But you can certainly quote it. The guidance isn't particularly detailed though so it's probably best you don't frame your argument around solely the guidance.

That makes sense, thank you

Guidance isn’t law, but it is recommended that more than one supplier is available for parents to buy from. The trouble is, that academies are such a law unto themselves.

Are there options for non branded clothes? Would you be prepared to buy second hand if necessary?

schoolsweek.co.uk/school-uniforms-no-outright-ban-on-sole-supplier-deals-says-gibb/

Oh I’m definitely prepared to but second hand, and do so frequently. I don’t think that should be some people’s only option though. I’m disappointed that the academy is ignoring the recommendations but not surprised if I’m honest.

I think multiple suppliers is also impractical for a lot of schools, not just academies. It ends up costing the same with each supplier if the item is logo'd..

I think the idea is that you reduce the logo stuff to ie one blazer (from a single supplier) but make the trousers and skirts a colour/style rule but no logo so they can be bought from high street shops/supermarkets

This is called ‘statutory guidance’ and I don’t really understand if it means schools have to do it or not

Statutory guidance is just that, guidance. It’s recommended but not legally binding and the school must have regard to it when considering their policies.

I think they should make it so it's just one logo item and then the rest bought from high street.

My daughter's primary school has royal blue skirts and they are only available at one uniform shop. No high street options. Could get a different style from random places online. But still, grey like the boys trousers would be better!

That should be challenged really. My niece's school the girls have worn green shirts for pretty much forever (probably when it went from a grammar to comprehensive). It is only recently it has been changed to white as it put the girls at a distinct disadvantage to the boys. (Or the parents at least)

One of our local secondaries is persisting with their logged skirts nonsense (not logged trousers though - basically using the logged skirts to morality police the girls' dress)... they're usually in the papers first week of September for having changed uniform rules on the very last week of term and not publicised it and parents falling foul of wherever the goalposts have now landed.

It's one reason we've avoided that school - the secondary we're going to insist on a tie and blazer (have two suppliers they work with for this) and tell us to get our arses to the supermarkets for the rest of the stuff as cheaply as we possibly can. The common sense approach is definitely appreciated.

I'd suggest you write to the school governors and the academy trust board- they oversee all the schools in the trust- and really schools should be following the guidance. It's highly likely that this uniform supply contract is benefitting the school as an additional revenue stream.
I'd be prepared to do the 'research'- cost of your schools complete uniform vs high street options vs the cost of complete uniform at the next closest comparable secondary- ie: similar progress/attainment isn't a result of so many items of branded uniform- as this is the line so many schools pull out- the uniform aids in the actual learning so you need to prove them wrong. Also make your argument as personal as possible- is having to purchase more expensive branded uniform putting your child at a disadvantage as your unable to spend on school supplies/activities etc. Is your child and unusual size so there's not many second hand options? Maybe the uniform supplier they've chosen isn't the best value/quality and another supplier could be supplying the same items cheaper/better quality etc.

Also what are the consequences of not wearing trousers and skirts with logos on them? Are logos even visible on trousers and skirts?

Fad around here is the logos toward the hems on the skirt. They claim it's to stop the kids rolling them up... but if you roll/hitch them up - that's the waistband you're messing with and not the hem at all so it's a bit of a naff argument really (or one that's being made by someone who has never been a teenage girl!) And yes, I have a skirt hitcher upper in training - so I know what it's like and she's been knocked on the head to stop it by the threat that she'll have to wear trousers which are like deeply uncool apparently!

Actually based on the kids I drive past - it's the logo-mad school who have the girls with the "worst" crimes in terms of skirt length versus our "oh sod it - buy the minimal logged stuff and go to the supermarkets" approach - whether that's parents trying to wring every last possible bit of wear out of a £30 logged skirt versus just buying the right length supermarket one post-growth spurt or what I do not know.

This can be challenged on sex discrimination. Cost out how much more it costs to dress a girl than a boy across all seven years and submit that to the head/ governors.

This is wrong.

Statutory guidance is far from being "just guidance". Its status was decided by the courts in R v Islington LBC ex p Rixon some 25 years ago and that judgement has withstood the test of time. Statutory guidance is as close to law as it is possible to get without actually being law. In essence, where statutory guidance exists, those at whom it is aimed must follow it unless they judge that there is good reason to depart from it on permissible grounds. Even then, they must stick as close to the statutory guidance as possible. They cannot choose to ignore it and do something completely different.

In this case, the statutory guidance says that "schools should keep branded items to a minimum and limit their use to low cost or long-lasting items". I agree that, looking at the guidance, having a second-hand uniform scheme does not give them a get out of jail free card on this.

I suspect that, as with the poster I have quoted, the school does not understand the importance of following statutory guidance. I'm not surprised. Most people don't. Indeed, I've come across local authorities that don't seem to understand. But, based on the information posted, I think any parent who wants to take the academy to judicial review would have a good case.

@Anothernamechange3 I'm a school governor and a parent so see this from both sides. As others have said, there is new guidance in place, not a law change. Schools do need to consider guidance but are not mandated to change them.

I'd suggest you keep your tone polite, friendly and reasonable but ask your school's chair of governors whether the guidance has been discussed by the governing body and, if so, could you please see the minutes of the meeting as you are interested. If they haven't discussed it, you could suggest that they do.

Our school has some branded items, but not all are compulsory. When our governing body considered it we discussed the benefits of the branded items, and compared the cost of the compulsory branded items with other local schools (which showed we compared favourably). We committed to repeat the same exercise annually. This is all minuted and shows we have considered the guidance.

I don't know schools don't just sell logo badges that can be sewn onto blazers... that's what we had in the 70s!

@critikal as prh has said, that is incorrect about statutory guidance, which this is. It is not ‘just’ vague guidance and if you are a governor you should really know what the school has to do and what is optional. It’s all in the governance handbook.

I didn't say it is "vague" guidance at all. It is statutory guidance. It says schools should not have unecessary branded items. Our governing body considered all our compulsory branded items to be necessary, and the reasons are minuted.

Weve got a child going into y7 in September compulsory branded sweatshirt, polo's, pe shorts and pe top so basically trousers are non branded though there are optional pe trousers and other items available. Single supplier.
That's put us back £175 we found it many cant and there is a hardship fund with the LA of up to £50 for those on lowest income to help.
DS needs a new bike so he can get to school but that's going to have to wait now.
But then again my school had no uniform and it was a hot bed of bullying and competition so I don't even disagree with them but when a pe shirt costs £25 each its more than I'd pay.

Ours was 70 quid for branded pe kit alone (top/sweat top/skort/socks)

The school unfirom is branded skirt,blazer, jumper, Then they have allowed you to buy shirts and labcoat elsewhere...

I will definitely be making it last its tons!