Does private education lead the way in school uniforms?

[Bmblbzzz]

Have only read first page but... this was in the news last year as well. Anyway, I guess the point in the thread title is that private (or independent as they like to be called now) schools are the leading the way in gender-flexibility for pupils. Quite likely they are. Whereas I thought it was going to be about state schools taking their lead in uniforms from the traditional private school model, ie blazer and tie; quite trendy now, I suppose, a la Hogwarts.

[pwa]

When I was at my state comprehensive (a good one) in the 1970s we all wore formal uniforms. Gender specific at that time, of course, but for the boys it was the blazer and tie stuff. I like the idea of school uniforms, but blazers were expensive for poorer families and I think that should be taken into account when deciding what uniform a school should have. Affordability matters. But these days I would like to see genderless uniforms, and I don't mean skirts for all. I mean trousers, with optional shorts for warmer days.

[661-Pete]

I've just been thinking about the ancient Romans. Their standard unisex garment (except for high-ranking toga'd officials) was the tunic; men would wear just a loincloth underneath, whilst women could have a skirt under the tunic. So this style of clothing was certainly not regarded as effeminate, not back then. Fairly recently we had the famous discovery of letters sent back home, by soldiers serving at Vindolandia on Hadrian's wall, complaining about the cold and requesting that their families send fresh underpants or loincloths (subligaria). Evidently the Romans had no stomach to 'go commando', unlike their Pict and Scots adversaries!

[mercalia]

and I wonder who thought up the idea of skirts for women anyway? now thats pandoras box if any?

[old_windbag]

but for the boys it was the blazer and tie stuff. I like the idea of school uniforms, but blazers were expensive for poorer families and I think that should be taken into account when deciding what uniform a school should have

I went to a common or garden comprehensive too. No bad thing actually, good teachers, happy environment. I was under the impression that the purpose of school uniform was partly that it is "uniform", so everyone is seen as equals and also that it isn't expensive to buy. Many shops specialised at the time as being uniform sellers for all schools( different colours, school badges, ties etc ) and this bulk selling kept prices low. I thought it was meant to help the poorer kids avoid being stigmatised for not wearing the latest fashion that the better off kids may be wearing. This existed in the 70's but over time may be worse, I remember the time that adidas, nike etc became fashion statements, or levi 501's in early 80's. The pressure was on for parents to let their kids be in with the trend.

Ou school decided in the 3rd year upward( 13-14yrs ) to allow everyone to come to school casual, non uniform, but only if wearing jeans and a school red sweatshirt with a small school logo on it. This idea was very favourably taken up by many in place of blazer, tie, trousers. It looked quite good, I preferred snorkel parka as jacket of choice.

[meic]

I was under the impression that the purpose of school uniform was partly that it is "uniform", so everyone is seen as equals and also that it isn't expensive to buy.

That is certainly one of the main stated reasons. There is another reason which is widely recognised informally but seldom recognised formally. School children, especially the adolescents need to rebel a little and a school uniform provides a good "battleground" for that rebellion. Remove the uniform and the battle will be fought somewhere more damaging to both parties.

[Vorpal]

But the egalitarian aspect doesn't really work that way. All the kids know whose uniforms came from an older sibling or a charity shop, or Tesco's and whose uniforms came form the expensive independent shop in the next town. They can see which ones have been taken in and let out, and which ones are tailored. And snobs will still be snobs, and poor kids will still be made fun of.

Also, the posh schools all have posh uniforms, don't they?

Uniforms are like many other things in the education system. They look like they should level the playing field, but it ends up being classist with a veneer of egalitarianism.

If they really meant it, they would provide uniforms free to every child, modify them when needed, such as for a disability, missing limb, etc., and then require them all to wear the issued uniforms, with exceptions only for medical necessity and religious hair coverings.

[old_windbag]

Also, the posh schools all have posh uniforms, don't they?

We couldn't spot the quality of the tweed , but often private schools would have a colour totally different to our comprehensives( i.e black/dark blue for comps and maroon/burgundy for private ). Amongst our comprehensives our shool badge was the id used at long range to either scarper or face up and have a stand off. A bit like a roundel on a fighter plane .

At infant/junior we had no uniform, rightly so, and we could see clearly who were the poorer kids( not that any of us were well off just better off than the poorest ). The poorer kids had tatty clothes with holes in and often covered in stains as well as being able to be smelt from yards away. Some very rough and also good fighters, many were my best friends smelly or not, just good down to earth kids. Not sure if poverty shows itself to those extremes in schools today.

[Vorpal]

The poorer kids had tatty clothes with holes in and often covered in stains as well as being able to be smelt from yards away. Some very rough and also good fighters, many were my best friends smelly or not, just good down to earth kids. Not sure if poverty shows itself to those extremes in schools today.

I'd like to think that people don't associate hygiene and poverty.

As for can they tell? Of course they can. There are a few in every class whose trousers are worn or holey, too short, etc. I know the old head where Mini V went when we lived there, gave some uniforms (I think they were a couple of years old unclaimed form lost & found) to one of the kids in Mini V's school.

[meic]

I'd like to think that people don't associate hygiene and poverty.

Yes the poor love fighting over a small sink to have a cold water wash in a cold room and do it with the same relish as a rich person enjoying a hot power shower in a centrally heated bathroom suite.

[old_windbag]

I'd like to think that people don't associate hygiene and poverty.

In the 70's there was much industrial discontent, our economy not in good shape and I think in terms of poverty...... it was real and existed. I can't separate hygiene from poverty, prorities are to feed and keep warm not to avoid smelling because you only bath once a week and maybe have a quick face wash each day etc. Different times today but probably the same across most of uks major industrial cities at that time.



Not un-typical image of my environment, in fact there's a fair chance some of those faces were with me at comprehensive. Lot's of slum housing, damp, outside loo's etc...... but you know something, you were made to feel at home whatever the state of the house, those with litle or nothing often are the kindest most open people. Salt of the earth.

More here http://www.amber-online.com/collection/byker/, the 70's yet compared to our modern lives it seems a century ago.

[meic]

because you only bath once a week

Outside in a tin bath! It was still happening in the 1970s, not that common but still a fact for some of the poorest families.

[Vorpal]

I'd like to think that people don't associate hygiene and poverty.

Yes the poor love fighting over a small sink to have a cold water wash in a cold room and do it with the same relish as a rich person enjoying a hot power shower in a centrally heated bathroom suite.

I wasn't trying to suggest that hygiene wasn't a challenge. I never had it so bad that we couldn't take baths, even if sometimes when I was a kid, I had to use the same bath water as my brother, even after I had grown out of wanting to bath with him. I knew kids that didn't have hot water. I also knew kids that neglected their hygiene, but they weren't necessarily the poor ones. The only kids in my classes I would have described as smelly had work to do on their family farms before they came to school.

p.s. Most schools these days have showers, and kids shower after PE.

p.p.s. I have to admit that I resented the association of smelliness and being poor

[Bmblbzzz]

One point about introducing uniform as a social leveller is that it's an extra set of clothes – it's additional to other clothes rather than replacing them – and therefore the cost falls heaviest on the poorest families. We live in a place and time where clothes can be had pretty cheaply thanks to large chains like Primark and TK Maxx but this tends not to extend to school uniform; though some schools make it cheaper by simply specifying x colour sweatshirt with a badge printed or sewn on, making the badge available from school.

School uniform was introduced as an attempt at social levelling in Poland about 2006 and failed. Clothes there are significantly more expensive than here both in relative terms and, quality for quality, in straight cash conversion terms. And income distribution is just as unequal there as in UK (top two most unequal in Europe, AFAIR). This meant it was extremely obvious which kids were rich and poor from their clothes, so uniform was supposed to equalise the appearance at least. In practice, some families just couldn't afford it. There were no state funds to help so it ended with the ridiculous situation of richer families contributing to funds to pay for poorer kids' uniforms supposedly so that no one would know who was rich and who was poor! The whole idea was scrapped after a couple of years.

In really poor countries, of course, kids only wear school uniform; they have no other clothes. Or they simply don't go to school.

[old_windbag]

Asda sell low cost school clothes too... Well they have adverts before return to school. But in the uk people get child allowance to contribute to such costs, i'd expect thats more than eno7gh of a subsidy plus tax credits too. If parents dont missapropriate those child oriented subsidies then uniforms shouldn't impact them financially. I think thats what the thinking was behind these handouts to be used solely to feed and clothe the kids to raise them out of poverty.

Maybe the money is for cars or ipads and smartphones and i misunderstand. I think today peoples expectation of what living on the breadline is has been raised somewhat. I'm old fashioned in that. Children should be funded from your own income with state help when you fall ill or lose your job etc.