Uniform in primary schools - good or bad?

[Cudzoziemiec]

Because they have to be bought from specified suppliers, who charge a premium for crap clothes.

Might be true of secondary unifs with blazers and special ties. Not true for primary though - at my son's school there is an official supplier, which I think works with all schools in Bristol City Council area, but also a child's mother has set up her own business supplying it - it's just a matter of ordering dark blue shirts and printing a badge on them. Hers are the same price but better quality. Then there's the school selling off all the lost and abandoned stuff cheaply at the end of term to raise money for school funds (they do announce this and give you a lot of chances to sort through the lost-property bin to find your own stuff first).

[L CC]

FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR.
Clarion, you can tell you don't have daughters.
It doesn't matter that they're 'crap clothes'. They're the same 'crap clothes' that they all have to wear. They're less 'overpriced' than (eg) Hollister sweatshirts, Pauls Boutique jackets and Ugg boots.
Children are individuals, but they often choose to dress like sheep.

If the arguments we have about clothes were escalated beyond the current uniform boundaries there would be bloodshed.

And we're the poor families. If No2Daughter had to go to school every day in non-uniform, I'd have to home school her. Or she'd have murdered me in my bed.
She once got detention for wearing non-black socks.

The school has a 50:50 sale at the end of every term (half to parents, half to PTA) for buying & selling uniform.

[mcshroom]

My secondary school uniform was black blazer, white shirt and black trousers. The only bits you had to buy specifically for the uniform were a school tie and a badge to sew on the blazer pocket.

My mother was teaching in Sheffield at the time that uniforms were abolished in the early 90s. Most of the uniforms were reintroduced within 10 years due to parent demands as the non-uniform replacements tended to consist of Sheffield Utd/Wed shirts and high price trainers, which were costing far more than the uniform.

[Julian]

As it was when I was at school. I'm not sure Julian was even born then! She's young enough to get away with indulging in deliberate old-fashioned-isms! 

Yep, late 60s/70s for me.

I was at the same school from 1988 - 1999, and they were always known as mufti days!  It wasn't a particularly socially progressive place though. "Regimented" just about describes it, but that suited me quite well. 

I still prefer to wear a uniform to work (dark suit, plain shirt, black shoes) and some days I get to supplement it with a uniform fancy dress.  This saves me from having to work out WTF "smart casual" might be, what is an appropriate brand name to wear for a woman of my age, whether a scoop neck is okay for work or not... it's a minefield, and not even one I'm remotely interested in, so I don't get any fun out of it!

[clarion]

Just because you don't have uniform doesn't mean you abandon dress rules entirely.

One of the most lovely things I saw was a school where there was no uniform, but the kids had to wear an item green in colour.  At playtime, there was this range of different shades and styles, so they were all identifiable as belonging to the school, but were allowed to be themselves.

It's not hard to set rules against clothes with big logos, posh trainers and the like.  But I would encourage schools to go for something practical and comfortable, like sweatshirts, and allow jeans and trainers, which stand up to football etc much better than flannel trousers, which rip as soon as you look at them, or shoes, which scuff.

We were forced into uniform, and penalised for mild infringements (as well as getting into bother with parents), and, recognising how pointless the rules around it were, developed a contempt for many of the other 'pointless' rules of the school.

I cannot stand to wear a shirt and tie.

[Pickled Onion]

In general (ignoring public schools), the schools with strict/old fashioned uniforms tend to be the ones with discipline problems and vice versa. There are more important things to spend your time doing than telling kids to do up their top button or measuring the length of hair/tie/skirt.

Anyway, the OP is about primary so blazers, ties and all that stuff is irrelevant.

A simple uniform is brilliant - say polo shirt, jumper or sweatshirt, grey trousers or skirt. Cheap as chips, easy to wash & iron, not uncomfortable to wear. A standard colour jumper can be chosen from Asda/Tesco/etc or the school can get a batch of sweats printed, even the school suppliers like Trutex are cheaper than your regular weekend clothes. Putting on the same stuff every school morning and knowing you're not going to look out of place is so much easier, all round.

[Cudzoziemiec]

One of the most lovely things I saw was a school where there was no uniform, but the kids had to wear an item green in colour.  At playtime, there was this range of different shades and styles, so they were all identifiable as belonging to the school, but were allowed to be themselves.

That's almost what primary school uniforms are.

My son's school does insist on "full uniform" when they're going on trips. I think this is mostly for recognition purposes and for that it beats putting the kids into hi-viz, which some places do (at his they do it the other way round - when eg they go to the library, which is a short walk away, it's the adults shepherding them across the road that are in hi-viz!)

[andyoxon]

In general (ignoring public schools), the schools with strict/old fashioned uniforms tend to be the ones with discipline problems and vice versa. There are more important things to spend your time doing than telling kids to do up their top button or measuring the length of hair/tie/skirt.

Anyway, the OP is about primary so blazers, ties and all that stuff is irrelevant.

A simple uniform is brilliant - say polo shirt, jumper or sweatshirt, grey trousers or skirt. Cheap as chips, easy to wash & iron, not uncomfortable to wear. A standard colour jumper can be chosen from Asda/Tesco/etc or the school can get a batch of sweats printed, even the school suppliers like Trutex are cheaper than your regular weekend clothes. Putting on the same stuff every school morning and knowing you're not going to look out of place is so much easier, all round.

Our daughters actually have/had to wear ties at primary school - but only in winter.  In Summer there is a polo shirt with emblem-on option.  But plain white shirt/collar and tie could in theory also we worn in Summer.

[Pickled Onion]

[Cudzoziemiec]

What's with the chevrons at the front, third from left with the blue fixie?^

A good example of uniformity within diversity (as opposed to the other way round - I've thought about it!)

[Cudzoziemiec]

In general (ignoring public schools), the schools with strict/old fashioned uniforms tend to be the ones with discipline problems and vice versa. There are more important things to spend your time doing than telling kids to do up their top button or measuring the length of hair/tie/skirt.

Anyway, the OP is about primary so blazers, ties and all that stuff is irrelevant.

A simple uniform is brilliant - say polo shirt, jumper or sweatshirt, grey trousers or skirt. Cheap as chips, easy to wash & iron, not uncomfortable to wear. A standard colour jumper can be chosen from Asda/Tesco/etc or the school can get a batch of sweats printed, even the school suppliers like Trutex are cheaper than your regular weekend clothes. Putting on the same stuff every school morning and knowing you're not going to look out of place is so much easier, all round.

Our daughters actually have/had to wear ties at primary school - but only in winter.  In Summer there is a polo shirt with emblem-on option.  But plain white shirt/collar and tie could in theory also we worn in Summer.

I remember wearing a tie at primary school, but only in the last year or two there. I'm not sure if it was newly introduced or if it didn't apply to lower years. But that was back in the days of shoelaces...

[Woofage]

I hope the two rogues got detention!

[L CC]

I find it interesting that the parents who hate uniforms for themselves hate it for their children.
How much of that is projection?

When you have 4 under 10s to get ready for school in the morning, you LOVE uniform. Both my children who've done 6th form had to save and spend a bloody fortune to develop a wardrobe fit for school. It was MUCH cheaper when they just had school trousers, school polo shirt, school shoes, school sweatshirts to worry about. I didn't care if they put holes in their school trousers. They only cost £10. And you only get new school trousers at the start of the year, everyone knows that!

[Woofage]

I find it interesting that the parents who hate uniforms for themselves hate it for their children.

I was thinking along similar lines...

[Kim]

Strongly against.  As an adult, for political reasons.  As a child, because they were itchy, uncomfortable and made me feel even more out of place than I did already.  It was a big part of the screaming tantrums and upset stomachs I used to have to try to avoid going to school.

The level playing field argument is a red herring.  You can tell who the rich kids and the poor kids are by the state of their school uniform, without a PhD in brands and fashion.  You can tell who the cool rebellious kids are by their tie knot, skirt length or whether their shirt's tucked in.  Even if they aren't pushing the boundaries of hairstyles, footwear (see rants passim about the banning of Doc Martens), coats or bags.

I don't buy the convenience argument, either.  Shopping for clothes is a nightmare.  School uniform doubly so.

So what's left?  So that random adults know who to moan at when someone was committing petty acts of violence/vandalism on the tube?  God forbid that 20% of the wrong school get told to see the head in their office at break time for a logistically implausible nonspecific telling-off!

[Kim]

I find it interesting that the parents who hate uniforms for themselves hate it for their children.

Just common sense surely?  If you were subjected to something unpleasant as a child, you wouldn't inflict it on yours without good reason.  It's not like school uniform does much to benefit the children.

[Panoramix]

For for for for for for.

School mufti days were a total nightmare, because whatever my mother dressed me in (and I didn't have any idea of what was fashionable even aged eight) would be wrong: the wrong brand, the wrong colour, the wrong logo, the wrong style.  My sister (who does seem to have an innate sense of style) used to have screaming showdowns with my mum on the subject, and I think once refused to go in on a mufti day because she didn't have any clothes that would pass muster with the horrible brats she hung round with.  Doing that every school day of the year would have been horrendous.

+1

There are no uniforms in France and the pettiness of some kids is unbelievable (especially some girls). I remember some looking at tags of others just to decide if their new shirt was cool or not. Marketing people love the no uniform option as they can invent a new fashion every 6 months making kids with not so wealthy parents feel inadequate and unloved!

My girls won't have uniforms next year and I dread it. Especially for the oldest one (8yo), next september she will realise that she needs to fight her mum to be cool at school as obvioulsy mums are too sensible to be influenced by some idiot parisian designer who sees himself as the next Jean Paul Gauthier!

[Kim]

For for for for for for.

School mufti days were a total nightmare, [..] Doing that every school day of the year would have been horrendous.

Yeahbut, you wouldn't, would you?  At the very worst it would have been exactly like school uniform: you waste the last two weeks of the holidays traipsing round shops buying clothes you hate but just about meet the required criteria, then don't have to think about them for the rest of the year.  Anything more pleasant than that and you're winning.


Our school didn't do mufti days in a big way, but there were a couple of "Jeans for Genes" days, where I got laughed at by my usual tormenters and awesome respect from my chemistry teacher for not owning any jeans, but paying the relevant fee anyway.  At least *I* felt comfortable for a change.

[L CC]

As an adult, for political reasons.

What are these? I can't see one. I'm not being facetious. Children will get to express themselves through clothes when they grow up. In the meantime, I don't want to sound Victorian (though doubtless I do) but you go to school to learn, and one of the things you need to learn is how to conform. It's a very important life skill. As an adult, you can choose not to, but you need to learn what it is you're turning your back on. I'm all for informed choice.

I don't buy the convenience argument, either.  Shopping for clothes is a nightmare.  School uniform doubly so.

Are you kidding? It's a total trump card for a parent. We're spending our (hard earned, limited) money on the darn children and the ungrateful shits want ridiculously overpriced tat because that's what <insert loathsome friend of choice> has. The end of the argument is this:
It's school uniform, you have to.

I don't think uniform is particularly 'good' for children. It does little to hide social difference, but it does do something. In my ideal world the whole lot would be proscribed- knickers outwards.
It is definitely good for parents, particularly those of us with limited means and multiple offspring.

[mcshroom]

It is definitely good for parents, particularly those of us with limited means and multiple offspring.

I went to a catholic primary school* (meaning large lower income families) and when an optional uniform was brought in it took off like wild-fire for exactly this reason. The school polo's in particular seemed to be good value as they lasted about 3 kids without wearing out. In fact in my family I think one of my polos was worn by all four of us over the years.

* also my local primary school

[why1040]

To school, I wore jeans and tshirts.  If it was very warm, I wore shorts and tshirts.  Generally paired with sneakers (I grew up in the States, that's what they were called, sue me  ).  I didn't have to change when I got home to "save the uniform", so that's what I wore til I went to bed.

In the winter, I wore jeans and turtlenecks, with a sweater when the snow started.  At one stage, we went through a phase of wearing tshirts on top of the turtlenecks.

Occasionally, I wore skirts, but I wasn't much for them through school as they were impractical.

My jeans lasted through at least as long as it took for me to grow out of them, washed well and didn't generally need much ironing.  Tshirts ditto.  I wore what my mother bought me until I moved away from home to begin nursing school-and even then I wasn't one for buying clothes.  Only once did I buy what a friend suggested I get, in the way of a pair of Levis (901s as 501s won't fit me) when I was 15 and tbf, I made them into shorts some 15 years later-which I am pretty sure I still have!  I still use regularly the leather belt I bought at the same time.

I didn't get a single comment about clothes until I was 14, by which time I was being thoroughly bullied regardless, so my clothes were completely irrelevant.  Basically, I never thought about them.  Much of the time, I still don't.  Jeans and tshirts still make up a hefty proportion of my wardrobe.

I wonder whether wearing uniforms through school actually inhibits the learning of wearing other clothes, and make it MORE of a fashion/important thing?

[Kim]

As an adult, for political reasons.

What are these? I can't see one. I'm not being facetious. Children will get to express themselves through clothes when they grow up.

That children have precious little autonomy as it is, and that dictating what clothes they wear is almost as bad as dictating what food they eat in terms of right to control over their own bodies.

It's one thing coming from a parent, but from an outside organisation that they have no choice but to comply with (we're not talking YACF or the Scouts, here), is unreasonable, and runs contrary to the supposed purpose of school in the first place.  We're not just talking logos on a polo shirt, here - were talking about a cultural acceptance that it's perfectly reasonable for, to pick a traditional Wednesday afternoon example, a teacher to insist that vulnerable children parade half-naked (or indeed, fully naked) in front of their tormentors and/or put themselves at risk physical injury, with no legitimate way out.  Break the rules, or be broken.

In the meantime, I don't want to sound Victorian (though doubtless I do) but you go to school to learn, and one of the things you need to learn is how to conform. It's a very important life skill.

Yeah, but what you learn at school and what you learn from school are two different things.  As with prisons and other artificial social environments, they put you in a space, remove much of your autonomy and allow the peer group to form its own (and I would argue harmful) social hierarchy that only exists as a product of the environment.

School certainly teaches you to conform, but I'd argue that what it teaches you to conform to isn't what's written in the school rules.  They're just part of a backdrop against which the social pressures are formed.


"It gets better" is good, but I'd rather things didn't have to get better in the first place.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I don't buy the convenience argument, either.  Shopping for clothes is a nightmare.  School uniform doubly so.

Are you kidding? It's a total trump card for a parent. We're spending our (hard earned, limited) money on the darn children and the ungrateful shits want ridiculously overpriced tat because that's what <insert loathsome friend of choice> has. The end of the argument is this:
It's school uniform, you have to.

I don't think uniform is particularly 'good' for children. It does little to hide social difference, but it does do something. In my ideal world the whole lot would be proscribed- knickers outwards.
It is definitely good for parents, particularly those of us with limited means and multiple offspring.

erm, yes. No arguments. Even the one who hated the standard white shirts was appeased by slightly different (and not much dearer) white shirts. Same two shirts have lasted two years - no complaints about durability.

And Kim, regarding autonomy; I really don't want to raise children who think that what they wear determines who they are.

[Julian]

For for for for for for.

School mufti days were a total nightmare, [..] Doing that every school day of the year would have been horrendous.

Yeahbut, you wouldn't, would you?  At the very worst it would have been exactly like school uniform: you waste the last two weeks of the holidays traipsing round shops buying clothes you hate but just about meet the required criteria, then don't have to think about them for the rest of the year.  Anything more pleasant than that and you're winning.

At the very worst it would have been like sixth form only without the budding self-confidence I had at sixteen.

Seriously, school trips, mufti days and foreign exchanges were *horrific* from the clothing perspective.  I learned aged eleven that you're not meant to shop in BHS, aged twelve that my non-uniform grey jumper I'd begged my mother for was the wrong brand and could therefore never be cool, aged thirteen that if you wear the same outfit twice that you are a TRAMP... and on, and on.

I don't think I'd have learned to reject the hive mind any earlier if there hadn't been uniform to hide behind.  I'd just have been more miserable. 

And I don't think i'd have got away with an annual shop, either - the fiendish children I was at school with had a neverending stream of fashionable attire and expected everyone else to have this season's colours / the current must-have brand / the latest style.  Their mothers took this shit seriously (my mother collected some grief from the other mothers over her own clothing choices) and wouldn't have been seen dead in last season's style, or wearing the same thing twice unless it was what I learned to call a "classic piece" which translates as "you are now permitted to wear this on more than one occasion but only teamed with different accessories", and they had the same standards for their daughters, who in turn applied said standards to their peer group i.e. me.

[Bledlow]

When I was at school, the only primary schools which I remember having uniforms were private ones - and maybe (my memory is hazy on this) the local Catholic school. I don't recall it being a problem at all. Catchments weren't so big that they'd force together children from radically different areas. I met the same children after school and at weekends. Competition based on income differences couldn't be suppressed by  enforcing school uniforms.

Have primary school catchment areas grown far more diverse? Do children no longer mix outside school?

One potential problem is that uniform marks you out on the way to & from school. I've heard of bullying of children from the 'wrong' school.