Does private education lead the way in school uniforms?

[Vorpal]

And what about parents whose partners abandon them and don't pay support? Or those who leave abusive relationships?

The folks I've know who struggled the most were single mums. One worked two jobs; one as a child minder on weekdays. Her first kids arrived at 7 am and the last ones left at 5 pm. And she had to keep the house in a decent state, and do shopping to feed her kids lunch, plus snacks for the extra ones that she walked to & from school. Her second job was working for a caterer at weekends, serving at banquets and weddings and things. She left her kids with a grandparent who lived near to the catering company.

Another had a low paying retail job, and supplemented her income by selling stuff on eBay. She'd get stuff from various places, including car boot sales and freecycle, make it look nice & take photos of it, then post it for sale on eBay.

Neither of them had any clue where their ex-partners were and both struggled to make ends meet. The first did a little better than the second. Both of her jobs made more money, and I think her grandparents were able to help a little sometimes, too. She has bought a two bedroom terraced house & manages a holiday every 3 years or so, as long as it's modest. The second mum, as far as I know has never taken any holiday. In theory, she gets paid holiday on her job, but she always needs the money, so she works through all but the public holidays (which are, of course included in her total hooliday time) and takes pay in lieu of holiday time. She is in council housing, which helps. But she also has had to pay for child care. Affording school uniforms is very difficult for her, and having something go missing (as they sometimes do) can put a significant dent in the household budget.

p.s. she doesn't, as far as I know have a car or an iPad. She does have a laptop that she uses for her supplementatl income.

[old_windbag]

And what about parents whose partners abandon them and don't pay support?

Thats not anyones issue but those individuals in the relationship. But thats the misguided fantasy land people like to live in of a cosy cottage with roses around the door. Marriages break up and people living together part company. If they've had children it's up to them to pursue eiher party to claim support, that you chose to be partnered and have children was your own freedom of choice. That between the two of you, could not sustain a relationship is your own personal problem. It's not a health issue or a situation of misfortune such as lost employment or a workplace accident.

You talk of extremes Vorpal, the sort of scenario " I came home to find he packed his clothes and disappeared", most circumstances aren't like that, it can be seen months or years in advance that the skids are under the relationship. Not sure how we coped with my mother earning a secretaries wage with a widows pension thrown in. There was no internet, no ebay, no necessity to run umpteen jobs and that was without any state benefits added beyond the WP. Were we well off, err no, were we happy err yes( well given the unexpected event that caused it ), did we walk to school err yes, did we have free school meals err no.

It seems that as a state we have to pick up the bill for things which are life choices as opposed to life changing events. Some would say thats harsh but it's an acceptance that getting involved as a couple and bringing new mouths into the world is a serious responsibility not a spur of the moment decision in the heat of love. Though nature does play its chemical tricks to make us feel the euphoria initially, that fades and reality isn't always as good, some like it, others don't. When I see the number of un-coupled mothers with offspring to several fathers I really have to question whether we need to pass a test before proceeding to that stage. It's a cost to us as a country that would be better invested in healthcare and pursuing cures for heart disease, cancer, dementia etc. People complain of the nanny state, no mobile use in cars, seatbelts on, no speeding....... but it seems so many want a "nanny" state to pay to bring their progeny up.

The sad thing is that kids may be pushed from pillar to post causing more costly issues later, all because two individuals didn't consider can I afford this if we split up. Perhaps all the allowances etc currently given when in the stable situation should be removed and invested back into the coffers to be paid out in those situations you describe Vorpal. Therefore you lose in one hand but in the knowledge if you screw up( no pun intended ) you have the fallback of some handouts to cover you. We are lucky to have state benefits/assurances lets not abuse it, the base reality of being human is that we'd all be having to source food, feed young, find heat and shelter with nature dealing the winning hand. So we've gone from that extreme to the one we have whereby people think they should be paid by the state for every action they take.

It sounds more right wing than left but having responsibility and thinking of your actions on others and in the longer term is surely common sense when choosing to have a family.

[Vorpal]

It sounds more right wing than left but having responsibility and thinking of your actions on others and in the longer term is surely common sense when choosing to have a family.

People don't start families expecting their partners to abandon them. Or die. Or become abusive or alcoholic or any of the many other things that can end relationships. I split from my first husband because he became addicted to drugs. He took out credit cards in my name and ran up thousands of pounds of debt to buy cocaine. We didn't have any children, but I would still have left him. You make it sound like it's black and white, but it seldom is. I also know people who have stayed in abusive relationships because they didn't feel they could afford to get out of them. They couldn't support their kids on their own, so they stayed and took abuse.

[old_windbag]

People don't start families expecting their partners to abandon them. Or die.

But they must have some realism that either may happen( part of what I alluded to that people get involved with a rosy outlook ). Most people in a couple especially when kids arrive will take out some form of life assurance. For younger people that is low cost as you're not expected to die young, some may even have critical illness etc. Where mortgages are concerned life insurance is often taken to cover, a benefit in my case was that my dad had an endowment mortgage so that was a plus. Outside of death/ill health, all the other problems we have with personalities and behaviour is our problem to sort. Hopefully you had enough evidence for the credit card debt to be refunded and your husband, as was, convicted of theft/fraud. I'm saying we shouldn't be paying out for broken relationships, not for other situations as in getting moter neurone disease, breaking back in cycle accident, so on. They are unexpected events out of our control, relationships are different, as you did you walked. I have known several women who'd get a thump now and again..... but they stayed with the person because they loved them and the plus times outweighed the minuses, the kids were never part of any violence, they weren't abusive in that respect. I think in past generations that may have come under the expression "you have to work at a marriage", I think that was said to cover the fact that it isn't all great and you have to work through it.

The relationship issues people have may not be black and white but the paying out of subsidies is. Are we really meant to be "couples" or should we allow males to roam and females to team up to bring up the kids. We seem to have adopted the former but it clearly isn't working that well in our 21st century lives, too many distractions, too many things to own. To myself there are far too many negatives than positives in being a "couple" but I'm in a minority on that one.

[Vorpal]

It benefits children and parents to have more than one person looking after them. It doesn't matter if it is a couple, or two or three parents who join together to share resources. I know a couple women (I used to play football with them) who have done that. They share a house because they can get more space with what they can afford together than either could individually. They can also buy more stuff in bulk or economy sizes, when they split the bill.

Not everyone has life insurance. Some people can't realisitically afford it. Others just don't plan that well. I've mostly had it through my work, but not all jobs do that.

As regards making an effort to get support, one of my friends doesn't know where her ex is. He just seems to have vanished. She assumes he is living somewhere with a different name, maybe with a new family, but she doesn't know where, and the government has been no help.

The other got a court order for her ex to pay support, but he doesn't, and so far, she hasn't been able to get it taken out of his pay. She's been struggling with this issue for years. She's not the only one. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/si ... nt-7346014

[Tangled Metal]

I went to an independent grammar school. Uniforms came from our local school outfitters. The blazer came in two forms, single split at the back or double split at the back (so called f@rt flap). Needless to say the stumble l double split cost more and was of a noticeably better quality which marked you out as superior.

Then there was the trousers. My mum saved there and got me M&S school trousers not the outfitters ones. They were a more baggy fit so inferior.

My point is whatever kids wear other kids will judge them. There is no way round that. Simple fact is kids divide themselves up and will always find a way to self identify as part of their group.

BTW don't get me started on school ties. Ours were basically the same but with different coloured stripes (thin and two colours per stripe / band signifying your school house = division identifier). It had little Elizabethan, white men running in the gap between coloured stripes. Background was blue up to sixth form then black in sixth form. It was the trend to tie it with the thin end out front and fat end tucked into your shirt. An additional trend in sixth form was n to pull out the white thread from the inside to turn the white Elizabethan figures black. It put you into a certain group and usually got detention and parents forced to replace the tie.

All this reminiscence is a digression. My main point is uniforms are incapable of stopping division and judgement of your peers. The simple reason is that's what kids do and are quite good at doing it. The wit of adults is inferior in that respect. So go with the flow I say.

[661-Pete]

Needless to say the stumble l double split cost more and was of a noticeably better quality which marked you out as superior.

Sets me thinking. I've dug up an old school photo:

I'm seated in the front row, the only one in that row wearing a blazer without the yellow piping. Did that mark me out as inferior, I wonder? Possibly it was cheaper than the more ornate version? I don't recall being teased or bullied about my clothes, but this was a long long time ago...

[old_windbag]

As regards making an effort to get support, one of my friends doesn't know where her ex is. He just seems to have vanished. She assumes he is living somewhere with a different name, maybe with a new family, but she doesn't know where, and the government has been no help.

Another good reason why we should all be microchipped I feel. I think with todays systems, even without microchipping, it should be relatively easy to trace a living individual but the cost of doing so may outweigh the benefit from the governments stance. The government isn't good at much when it comes to real help..... that can be in the form of mentors, courses, seminars etc rather than paying out money. Actually Vorpal, when it comes to payments that are for the benefit of children would it not be better to have it in the form of an electronic card with credit on that is only redeemable against specific items. That again would help money go where its intended.

As for living together being beneficial in the multi-buy area, that is one major annoyance I see in shops. I see good offers but can't get them as I can't carry it all or it's perishable and I'd not consume it in time. Freezers are good in that respect.

Years ago we had I think the child support agency which pursued fathers for money etc......I think it wasn't a success. Anyway at the time I thought it can be awkward for men in some situations. If two adults have a fun and frisky time and by chance an accident happens. The man has no rights to get the woman to abort the baby but would then be expected to pay towards its upkeep.... against his choice. But in reverse he may wish to keep the baby but the woman can get an abortion and he has no input to that choice. So it's a bit of a lose lose scenario.

Anyway everybody wants to show off their school uniforms, maybe still wearing them in their 60's like jimmy clitheroe or terry scott .

[bovlomov]

My main point is uniforms are incapable of stopping division and judgement of your peers. The simple reason is that's what kids do and are quite good at doing it. The wit of adults is inferior in that respect.

Not half!

But as we all know, with its uniforms the UK is a more egalitarian place than those countries where children go to school in their own clothes.

[Flinders]

Having been a teacher and a lecturer, i am of the opinion that school uniform is unnecessary and a distraction.
Too many schools are obsessed with uniform nonsense like sock colour but fail to deal with far more important issues. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that an obsession with uniform suggest a school with all the wrong priorities- uniform enforcement is a displacement activity to avoid things like mere 'teaching'.

Recently a friend's kid, who had never transgressed before, ended up in all-day detention alone because he forgot his tie. Apparently, if he had handed in an house keys or iphone as collateral, he would have been 'sold' one he could pay for later. Unfortunately he had neither phone nor keys, hence the solitary confinement. When he protested, he was told to borrow a phone off a classmate. Not surprisngly, when faced with such a foul specimen of/apology for a teacher, they didn't want to do this. He wasn't told how long he would be in detention, he was just left there all day, missing all his lessons. His parents were no informed. Had I been that kids parents, they would have had to rope me down when I heard of it.

Personally I hated wearing uniform, and have never seen any point in it. If doesn't even deal with income inequality, as those with more money can afford nicer and newer uniforms, which stands out more than just wearing different clothes would do. (I had three skirts only through my entire 7 years in secondary school, two of which I had to make myself, some classmates had hand-made skirts with silk linings - the difference was far more obvious than if I'd worn what I wanted- jeans and a t-shirt.)

[meic]

That is a very extreme reaction from a school for a pupil without a tie. Far from the normal way of dealing with dress misdemeanors.

Some of the new academies have extreme policies like that, on the first day to set their mark on a previously undisciplined school, we know this because it is rare enough to make the national newspaper headlines.

[old_windbag]

Personally I hated wearing uniform, and have never seen any point in it. If doesn't even deal with income inequality, as those with more money can afford nicer and newer uniforms, which stands out more than just wearing different clothes would do. (I had three skirts only through my entire 7 years in secondary school, two of which I had to make myself, some classmates had hand-made skirts with silk linings - the difference was far more obvious than if I'd worn what I wanted- jeans and a t-shirt.)

That was a bizarre punishment you described..... though a day of solitary to me would have been worth forgetting a tie for . Give me a pen and paper and I'd sit doodling all day.

Clothing wise I think normal clothes are still more divisive than uniforms( I don't like them but they can be beneficial ). Kids spot logo's and trademarks easily and they are visible from a distance. When I was at school it was lacoste, fred perry etc, doctor martins, chelsea boots, simon shirts. The TM's were a sign of you were with it or not. Later trainers became fashion accessories with nike, adidas, puma dominating and silly fads like not tieing laces. All markers to separate you into groups. I don't feel standard uniform was as blatant in that division.

But people carry that snobbery into adulthood and ponce around in their pringle or ralph lauren jumpers, and wear the extra large watch with mutiple dials and pointers, breitlings etc.......... whereas I'm happy with easyway from matalan and no watch( even then it'd be a straight forward £10 job ). The craftsmanship of expensive watches is not in question........ but wasted on those wearing them and pointless in value for money terms.

[Bmblbzzz]

Separated learning: only the first word is a true description.

[landsurfer]

Mixed Primary school.
Mixed Secondary school .... until 2nd year.
Single sex Secondary / High school until leaving 6th form .... bliss .....
Single sex Scout Troop. Outstanding ! (1st Bangor .... hardcore .. )

"Happy to be Hetro" male ......

I genuinely believe boys need "boy time" ..... away from the head games of same age, but much more mature girls ....

[old_windbag]

"Happy to be Hetro" male ......

And has eaten plenty of peaches to prove it