Ridiculous uniform policy for secondary

[freakinthespreadsheets]

I live in a fairly poor working class area, former mining village. I don't even have secondary age kids but this has got me riled up.
The local secondary has been taken over by a MAT and introduced a new uniform. They say that the blazer, PE kit and jumper must be logo'd from the supplier (which i think is pretty standard everywhere) but also that every item MUST be Trutex branded. Shirts, trousers and the skirt (which you can't even find a dupe for if you wanted to as it's a silly tartan design). No supermarket brands allowed. The boys trousers must be sturdy or slim fit, girls can be slim fit only (so "fuck you" to girls with thick thighs then??)
They also insist the trousers must not be skin tight fitting and the skirt must be knee length, or detentions will be issued (but they're only allowing one design/fit, from one supplier, so if it doesn't fit a taller/chunkier teen then what are parents to do?).
Not to mention the fabrics are scratchy and kids with sensitive skin (I was one, and Mum had to order my uniforms online from a place that did skinkind fabrics) who might not get on with the plasticy Teflon fabrics.
I find myself fuming on behalf of these parents and teens - as a curvy, tall female with sensitive skin this would NOT do for me at all! Not even sure what my question is, I guess am I being unreasonable in my thinking that this is OTT and doesn't follow the new government guidance (which I know isn't fully compulsory but still)

Edit to add : in a poor working class area, to set a kid up to attend the local high school looks to be around £350 for uniform - the prices are awful, £35 for a skirt etc

It's more an inch below the crease at the top of the thigh these days, not an inch above or below the knee.

The tartan skirts tend to be picked because the girls can't chop the bottom seven inches off and claim that it's just because they're tall/the skirt can't be made longer again. And some parents take the concept of wearing trousers at all as an assault upon their daughters' femininity.

I doubt that having one skirt to last five years was the motivation for many. Few girls keep the same waist size between the ages of 11 and 16, and many grow several inches.

@Smoothie23 FSM isn’t just for the unemployed. It’s benefits driven. The school gets huge PP funding too as a result of this. A uniform policy should always reflect community.

I don’t think girls are rolling the skirts over at the waist. They are shortening them. Having lived through the original mini skirt era, the skirts now are literally pelmets. Mine was never that short! However I’m assuming non uniform schools see these tiny skirts too or bum showing shorts? What about bra tops? Are they allowed at non uniform schools? I suspect they do have rules too!

How would you and your girls have felt if their uniform policy was that no skirts were allowed, only joggers? Wouldn't have liked that, I'm sure. Well that's how many children and parents feel about uniform policies in general.

Most children get grubby in primary school, and the more active ones still do in secondary school. I wouldn't like a school where there's no mud available, that means a school without any green spaces and that's not good. My DD's school is next to a forest, they go there often, they have PE orienteering through the forest and naturally get dirty. They are sent outside at every break no matter the weather because fresh air and exercise are vitally important for children, so they will get wet and dirty, as children should, which means they need clean clothes every day.

They swap and exchange. Parents pass them on, they get offered on the FB page. My DD had some passed on from a friend with a daughter 3 years older and I’ve now passed them on to another friend with a daughter 3 years younger. No doubt they’ll go to someone else after. So 2 skirts at £70 will have down at least 3 girls over nearly 10 years. Not bad

Don't see skirts at all at the schools in my town, only on special occasions like the last day before independence day when they have dances at school, then the girls might wear skirts or dresses but they aren't mini skirts, more like formal dresses and the boys wear suits, but the rest of the time I only ever see children in trousers or shorts. The shorts can be short though, for a few years it was hard to buy any girls shorts that weren't ridiculously short, but there's no rule against it in the school rules.

A colour scheme would be the best solution.
So those that want formal trousers can wear them
Those that want skirts can wear them.
Those that want trackies can wear them.
Shirt, blouse, t-shirt, polo....which ever they prefer.
Hoodie, jumper, cardigan.... whatever !
Getting an education is the important bit. Not what they are wearing.

We had play areas that were grass but not muddy. My DDs didn’t want mud. Most boys we knew didn’t either. If they did they can find it in the various play areas with mud! Schools don’t want mud in buildings.

I would not have sent them to a school with joggers. Wouldn’t be the ethos I was looking for. However to be truthful, we are in a well off area and most parents just want a sensible uniform. Never heard any grumbles at schools. Mine went to infant and junior with modest uniform requirements. So no one argued!

@TizerorFizz good for you that your child didn't have any sensory issues or in a wheelchair and trackies is the only trousers they can wear.

@Needmorelego To be fair, the vast majority don’t. Uniform is never going to cover all issues these days it appears. Skirts for girls are better in many ways. It seems a lifetime ago now, but honestly I never came across so many issues with uniform when dc were at school and neither was it an issue at any time when I was a school governor. Not one complaint.. It was never discussed by parents - apart from poor quality sweatshirt! No child I ever knew had issues with the uniform. One child I knew had a very very rare skin disorder. Clearly special consideration there. I think the vast majority are ok with uniform and a noisy minority are not. Uniforms should be affordable and reasonably practical. Easy to wash and long lasting. If schools do this, most are ok with it.

@TizerorFizz lucky you that you never came across many issues. Of course it's only in more recent years that many children (especially girls) have finally got a decent diagnosis of ASD etc and are actually getting the help and support they need. Before they suffered in silence and their education suffered too.
I'm giving up with arguing with you.
You like uniform. I don't. I think it can be a barrier to many children recieving the education they are entitled to.

Skirts are not better for girls, if they're better for girls then they would be better for boys too because there would be some objective positive factor that makes them better than trousers. If anything, they are worse, because it is harder to play in skirts, they restrict movement more than trousers do and are far worse for climbing in (and primary school children in particular should be climbing a lot! Climbing trees, climbing playground equipment, climbing the walls even - climbing helps them develop their writing skills and other cognitive benefits)

I wonder if secondary schools asking children to wear smart casual office wear would be a good middle ground? Obviously with slightly more explicit/ stricter guidelines than an actual office.

It would allow freedom while still keeping kids looking smart and arguably it would prepare them better for adult life ( I know not everyone works in an office but I would say the vast majority of workplaces have either some sort of dress code, a uniform or specific ppe that has to be worn )

I understand your thinking but teachers' time would be absolutely eaten up with enforcing the dress code. There would need to be such strict definitions of the clothing that was and wasn't permitted that you would simply end up with a de facto uniform policy.

@Bearybasket most 6th forms do that.
Except they look nothing like actual office workers. On another thread I said the girls in this "office wear" dress like they are in an episode of Ally McBeal from the 90s.
Actual office workers seem to dress in long skirts and converse these days.

Why would any child want to spend their day in smart casual office wear?

My daughter would hate this. She is very fussy about trousers and only likes to wear leggings due to sensory issues. She has opted to wear the skirt at her new school (trousers are an option at her school for those who want them).

Doing the rounds of secondary school open evenings they all touched on how in 6th form there is no school uniform but ask that students dress “office ready”

It really irked me that the assumption was that all our children would end up working in an office,

Did ask one HT why office ready? As there are many other career paths that a student could choose.

He really didn’t seem to understand the question (despite in his speech about the school he talked about how times are changing and there were going to be jobs that hadn’t been thought about yet)

Smart casual office wear can mean anything
I have been to offices where smart casual means dark coloured trousers or skirts a blazer and heels and I have been to offices where smart casual means you ironed your jeans and T.shirt

I also know more people who don’t work in an office than do.

I don’t think schools have caught up with what office wear actually means. They are still basing their A level pupils “uniform” on something from the 1980s

Benefits are usually as a result of unemployment or very low income below the threshold. It is hard to assume that 50 perc of population somewhere has disability and is on benefits. Unemployment must be huge in that area.

Parents do not agree on shortening skirts as they know school uniform policy. Here in London the girls are rolling them up and it is visible as often they have that skirt uneven. A bit shorter one one side, longer the other side.

@Smoothie23 It’s the opposite! High numbers on benefits. We don’t have many areas of high unemployment. It’s very low wages and single parents. 50% is high but not wholly unusual. Job seekers allowance is given to 88,000 people, employment and income support is over 1.7 million. Housing benefit is 2.3 million people.

To get from knee length to bum length is a lot of rolling. Cannot see that much fabric at the waist! I think these skirts are starting off pretty short. Looking at girls in coffee shops they don’t have bulging fabric anywhere!

@TizerorFizz I actually see a lot of schools that say skirts should be worn "on the knee or just above the knee". I actually think "above the knee" is too short to start with and all a girl has to do is grow a couple of inches and the skirt is far to short.
Why do schools say "above the knee" to start with? They are practically encouraging skirts being too short.

I live in London with dozens of school around. Trust me, most of them have it at least here rolled up.

The thing is, schools are inevitably on a losing battle with skirt lengths. You only have to be outside a secondary school when the children are going in or out to see how many girls roll their skirts up. Realistically the only way to deal with it is to take skirts right out of the equation and insist on trousers for both boys and girls.

What I don't understand is out of school I rarely see teenage girls wearing skirts.