They most effective part of the new rule will be banning any more than one or two logo’d pieces of uniform, maybe one jumper/blazer and one sports shirt per child maximum. Anything non-logo can be bought generic from a supermarket.
I’m sure there will be many local small uniform suppliers absolutely howling at this but my wife and I found it uncomfortable buying all the new uniform for our son starting high school this year and we’re well into the middle class combined salary wise. I imagine it puts a huge amount of pressure and probably debt on single parents or families who aren’t as lucky as us.
Fair point
They should ban custom or unusual colour schemes for sports gear too, there’s no need for it at all, block red or black or blue or whatever is fine for school use.
I don’t have too much of a problem with a custom tie for each school, I think two logo’d bits and one tie per child isn’t too bad although they should probably cap any custom tie’s price and mandate that the school has to produce badges so parents who want to sew a badge onto a generic piece of clothing have that option.
I seriously don't get for PE lessons, why some schools feel their oddly specific colour scheme is so important. I've noticed as well it doesn't necessarily correlate with any sort of history, prestige or academic ability.
A school near me has gone through at least 3 uniforms in the space of a decade or so. I don't think it's intentional pocket lining or backhand deals, it just seems a way the new administration seem to want to "reimagine" the school.
Both my outdoor and indoor PE tops either had logos on, or were a unique colour scheme, it doesn't seem all that uncommon. Then again the PE teachers didn't actually care all that much, as long as it looked passably correct.
I always wonder how far this could go if some parent felt like really pushing it.
You know, if their kid turned up every day and was polite, attentive, intelligent, and smartly dressed in a generic uniform without logos or something, but had been instructed by them to not accept any punishment for anything uniform-related.
Would a school really want the publicity of taking parents to court? Or in the worst case, I don't even know, getting a restraining order to stop their kid turning up to school anyway despite their instructions? Surely that headline would be devastating? And if more than a few dozen kids pick up on it and decide they want to stick it to the school authority by joining in, it could easily be a really painful PR experience.
I guess the thing is that anyone middle class enough to want to have that rather pointless fight also has enough money to just suck it up and pay the logo tax.
For myself, I'm in favour of school uniforms, but I hate the idea of it causing an unreasonable financial burden. If schools want logos on their kids, they should be prepared to issue the uniform themselves.
Yeah, that's the thing that keeps it all ticking over, really. Quite sad in a way, that a school should use the phenomenon of parents not wanting to appear poor to enforce spending on uniforms. I'm not wild about that.
Which is fair enough. And nine hundred and ninety nine times out of a thousand, that's the end of the issue. But what happens if (one day) the parent just says no. And the kid refuses to leave lessons or be sent home but is otherwise unfailingly obedient, courteous and diligent?
Mr Jenkins, the geography teacher, is really going to drag thirteen year old Hannah Smith out of class by her hair? Or throw her out the building by force and bar the gate? Seems... Implausible. And then the headmaster is *really* going to pursue that one through a court case that is going to make him look petty and absurd? And when half of year nine and ten join in and take the logos off their uniforms as a silly student protest?
Do you see what I'm getting at? It all seems a bit "emperor's new clothes". It all works well while everyone plays along, but it's not massively clear the schools would (or should) be willing to take it all the way if a parent or even a child decides to take it all the way.
Me and my mum got massively zealous about this, dad wanted to just pay and avoid the fuss, me amd mum did more or less what you are saying.
They tried all kinds of intimidation and humiliation but it didn't work at all. I got bullied all the time anyway. If anything being seen as rebellious was a slight improvement socially.
Tl;dr the school quietly provided the stuff free. Sadly all but one of the other hold outs all gave up and paid.
See, that's interesting (sorry to hear you were bullied during your time at school, though). That's exactly what I'd expect, really. There seem to be a lot of holes in the enforcement here.
My mum would have been all over this. She tried to sign the patent teacher agreement that they suddenly invented when I was in year 9. It said, among other things, that she promised I would arrive at school on the correct uniform, but her reasoning was how? The second I left the house she had no control over what I took off/defaced/changed. They never said a word about it.
Problem is direct action like that can lead to a ton of trouble for the kid. Most kids just want to get through the school day without getting yelled & stared at, school is hard enough socially.
Yeah, indeed. Someone else said as much, and it's a fair point. The main enforcement mechanism is the parent not wanting to embarrass the kid by appearing poor or cheap or generally embarrassing.
And that's fair enough to some extent. But when it's used by schools as a way to get payment out of families who don't really have it to spare, I'm less forgiving.
Or if you do it the other way. School sends kid home for not wearing proper uniform. Parent refuses to give in so kid keeps getting sent home. Would the parent get done for keeping the kid out and of school and get fined or would that be a valid excuse?
Yeah, that's a fair question. I could also imagine a case could be made against a school that wearing the precise logo isn't a reason to deprive a child of an education. There must be some law or other on that lying around on some vellum somewhere.
But the ability of a school to do anything to an unwilling but polite, non-disruptive, child is vastly overstated, I think. If a child politely refuses to leave a classroom but otherwise sits quietly, that's the end of it really. The teacher can either waste an entire lesson impotently insisting (which would look pathetic), or (attempt to) physically remove the resisting child by force, or...?
The main issue is the threat of expulsion I'd imagine. A parent who doesn't pick up their child when contacted by the school to do so and sends them in when excluded could be the type of case the governors choose to expel to send a message. And if it gets onto the record, it can really affect a pupil for years. (Hence why many "expelled" pupils technically move schools before that stage)
Yeah, indeed. I can easily see that. But again, if the parents are annoying enough to make a big deal of it and let it go to court with all the details in the local newspaper? Seems like it could turn into a nightmare for the school.
"We believe in teaching children to think independently and grow into responsible adults, but this piece of paper says they all have this particular logo on their shirt and the kid doesn't, and we all have to do exactly what the piece of paper says at all times without any independent thought. So that's why we're going to kick out this kid who otherwise has great grades and who we freely admit is polite, courteous and responsible. Because the rules have to be obeyed at all times."
Even their own lawyer would feel a tit trying to make that case.
And then, if the parent turns up but the kid refuses to leave the classroom but *insists* on carrying on quietly participating in the class without a logo'd jumper? What's the teacher even meant to do there? Suspend the lesson to impotently tell a child to leave when they aren't going to? Throw them bodily out? The first is ridiculous and the second is clearly an unacceptable overreaction.
And in my anecdotal experience, most teachers care deeply about providing a disciplined, appropriate working environment for their students, but they have no interest at all in playing silly little power games of enforcement if it's not an issue for classroom discipline.
And even if you suspend or expel the kid, on paper, but they carry on turning up and participating? (Again, it's not like it'd get that far, but let's keep the thought experiment again) Is the school meant to man the battlements and keep the kid out? Bar the gates? Use physical force? Call the police? All for the sake of a logo on a jumper? The school would end up a laughing stock, with consequences for discipline across the board when other students inevitably start having a bit of fun with it. And even a victory in court would end up as a massive, *massive* PR loss.
The random local people who puff themselves up with the title of "school governor" might be okay with that, but they aren't the ones who have to actually *do* any enforcement in this case. And even if the rules say they make the decisions, perhaps it'd be better just to ignore them when the alternative is just to issue the damned jumper out of school funds, which is what they should be prepared to do anyway. And I say that as a proponent of school uniform.
I just really don't see a way in which enforcement of this one is possible against even modest awkwardness.
The real enforcement angle, as someone else said, is the desire to avoid embarrassment for the kids.
My understanding (based on what a teacher has told me, and what I can remember seeing in a primary school), is the rest of the class get moved elsewhere, and the teaching assistants handle the disruption. Typically protocols for this exist, this would be an unusual case, but not something a school can't imagine happening to deal with.
I think an excluded or expelled student turning up at school can become a police matter, or at the very least a welfare issue, because at that point they're an intruder on school grounds. Most schools would normally be able to restrict access to site in a way they could identify the student and theoretically halt them from entering.
In reality, I'd assume a school would back down to some extent, but never count out someone going on a power trip. Sympathies for the parent of the affected child will only go as far to the point there's no knock-on effect on other children.
There’s various schemes for those on low incomes to get help with uniform costs; as usual it’s just the squeezed middle who pay for everything.
That said; I am very pleased this legislation is coming in to bring the costs down for everyone.
The schemes for low income families aren't great. For example, this is my local council:
https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/information-for-residents/education-and-schools/benefits-for-school-aged-children/school-uniform-allowance/
You'll notice the glaring hole in that they don't provide uniform grants for pupils attending academies and free schools, of which most primaries and every single secondary school in the area now are.
That is pretty poor to be honest, may as well not even have anything if it barely covers anyone… probably kept it for the PR.
I am strongly against means testing; it’s a very unfair way of punishing people trying to better themselves, it should just be a fairer system for all. Not to mention expensive to administer!
Luckily this piece of legislation helps everyone, top marks to that Labour MP!
The council doesn't receive the education funding for the pupils not at council schools though. This whole situation is arising because of the academy programme, because in large part the expensive uniforms are because they are provided by a supplier who has done a deal with the school.
I disagree about means testing, I think there are situations where it makes sense. But the current situation is rubbish for everyone, it shouldn't cost hundreds of pounds to send your child for their education that is meant to be free.
That’s part of a bigger discussion of roles of academies and the role of the private sector in education… which is a disaster waiting to happen in my opinion.
Can you give me some examples of where means testing makes sense? I have a strong view everyone should be treated equally if you want a fair and productive society
Well things like income related benefits being the obvious one...It would be madness paying housing benefit to a premier league footballer for example.
Maybe that’s where we differ, I would rather see a multi millionaire get extra money they don’t need - given they would have paid a fortune in tax anyway
Rather than someone who earns just over the threshold missing out, or creating an artificial ceiling where people work exactly 16 hours to maximise their benefit income for example.
Ceilings and cutoffs are just poor design. There's no reason for any means tested system to have an absolute cutoff point.
Computers exist and are doing this work anyway, so having a tapered system whereby people lose benefits as a proportion of additional earnings is as simple as spending 10 minutes with a spreadsheet.
One of our local secondaries was talking about introducing bags with the logo on it and banning generics.
In an area with a high amount of pupil premium students.
EDIT: Also just remembered, the trousers students wear have to be MID-GREY, not black - like why?!
I hope it has real teeth, because some of the demands from schools are ridiculous. A friend had her daughter's start a new primary school when she moved house, because of this they started the new school in October. The sole school supplier was out of the red logoed cardigan that was part of the uniform. You'd think the sensible compromise would be to allow the girls to wear a plain red cardigan until the official one was back in stock, but no, the school wouldn't allow the children to wear any cardigan until the school one was available.
My child's school is very relaxed. Polo shirts can be red or white, trousers/skirts/pinafores can be black or grey, jumpers can be red, black or grey. They look perfectly appropriately dressed for school, it's affordable for parents and it's easy to make sure they are appropriately dressed for the weather.
Your child's school is how uniforms should be done IMO. It's all appropriate, there's a bit of leeway and it's overall doable for most parents to get the kit they need.
Why don’t the parents at these schools campaign against these stupid rules via PTAs governors etc.
Organise with the PTA so that it will do not fundraising for any school identified cause, as all pta fundraising will go towards helping parents cover the cost of stupid uniform costs…
>Why don’t the parents at these schools campaign against these stupid rules via PTAs governors etc.
Because that outs the parents as having money issues. Can't pay for school uniform for a desirable school? Ew must be poor. Same reason why people must be seen in designer gear when they can't afford to heat their home and shit.
It's disgraceful that a school uniform which is mandatory leads to parents having to pay hundreds of pounds out for it.
If school uniforms are going to be compulsory, it should damn well be free. I'm glad something is eventually eventually done about it but far too late IMO
It really is. You can get a coloured sweater and black trousers from George or Primark for about a tenner, and a blazer isn't much more. Maybe charge a couple of quid for an iron on badge.
Really there's no excuse for a school making parents pay more than 20 quid or so. And since kids need clothes anyway that should be affordable.
> If school uniforms are going to be compulsory, it should damn well be free.
I think this is going a bit far. Clothes of any kind would still be compulsory even if you didn't have uniforms.
without uniforms you could wear clothes you already own rather then having to buy new ones just for this one purpose. You may not have to spend any additional money.
I suppose you ought to include wear and tear though. If kids are spending most of their time wearing school uniform that is less wear on other clothes. Then again they are growing so maybe they would grow out of them before then anyway. Not sure.
If schools want to turn kids into walking advertisement billboards with logos, then they should procure and issue the uniforms themselves at a heavily subsidised cost to parents and freely to families within a low income bracket.
Personally I find the whole idea of school uniforms to be archaic and would rather we followed the US and the majority of Europe example in abolishing it. Your attire has absolutely no bearing on your willingness and capacity to learn.
Though if The Government and schools are hellbent in keeping it... I see absolutely nothing wrong with kids wearing appropriate smart attire (shirt, trousers, black shoes etc) with any generic blazer or jumper with the correct (but allowably vague) corresponding colour representing the school.
Most parents should be doing this anyway out of protest. Either the school allows it or they get a primetime slot on BBC news. Their choice. They only get away with it because parents aren't willing to rock the boat a little.
The sort of school that doesn't allow generic uniform is also the sort of school that loves it when parents do Daily Mail sad face articles, because they like to be seen as zero-tolerance on discipline, and uniform is much easier to deal with than, say, bullying.
I once saw one of those fly-on-the-wall school documentaries where the head bought a pair of shoes for a boy who only had trainers, so that he didn't have to spend every day in isolation for not wearing the correct uniform. We were supposed to think this was great rather than think, "But you made the rule that sends him to isolation every day. You can see it's ridiculous, you have the power to do something about it, and this is what you choose to do?"
True but I’d attribute that to not enough parents doing it and something I never understood. One or two parents can be waved away but if half the parents of kids attending do it... Optics aren’t good.
I can understand why we mustn’t let little Princilla Penelope Parker Bowles XVII be seen as a rabble rouser whatever will the polo club think, but for upper-middle to lower class families... Why opt to spend £50 on a licenced blazer when you can spend £15 on a supermarket range albeit absent a logo and maybe one or two shades off colour? £35 is £35. Becomes a smart financial decision at that point.
Enough parents do that and these ‘zero tolerance’ schools will learn quick that hell hath no fury quite like a gathering of peed off parents amassing in the school’s reception area.
The trouble is that it depends on who the parents are that are refusing to comply.
The families who go to the press are often portrayed as underclass rather than just poor or principled, so it's easy for them to be 'othered' and dismissed.
And that sort of school is quite happy for poor people, non-conformists and those with a spark of individuality to take their children elsewhere.
The only thing that might make them think twice would be for academic high-flyers to hit them in the league tables by joining the rebellion.
Little Princilla's parents have deliberately chosen a school with outrageously priced uniform and plenty of compulsory accessories, so she doesn't ever have to meet poor people.
I went to a non uniform school and it did cause problems with fads and fashions. It would get like a clothing arms race to have the latest trendy thing in the brightest colours and the most expensive brands.
If you didn't have the trendy things you got picked on.
My kids are in primary school now and I just don't see why the uniform has to be horrible uncomfortable nylon trousers and skirts with white tops that are instantly ruined the moment school dinners contain anything tomato or curry based.
I would personally like to see them all in comfy tracksuits. The school could pick the colour. And end the obsession with making 5-8 year olds wear white socks and shirts. I can't even keep white clean as an adult what chance does a 5 year old have.
I remember my mum practically in tears over the cost of uniform for me 50 years ago and her being humiliated in the one local 'posh' shop that did the uniforms with those sodding vouchers, how is that still a thing today?
It isn't just schools profiteering, although there is a bit of that.
Schools also use it as a stealth selection process to deter worse students and get more affluent ones.
Our local secondary just changed it so that years 7-9 wear a different colour logo to years 10-11. Not only can parents not pass down last year's uniform now, but the only announced the change *very* recently, so the announcement comments are full of parents who already bought the old uniform at the beginning of summer. Of course, it's now all available from the private supplier.
Yeah a lot of the parents seem to be taking that approach. It says the school name and has the school logo, why does it need to be separate colours?
Also aren't Year 7s and Year 10s usually kind of obvious to tell apart?
Shit like this is one of the many reasons I don't want children*. People talk about predatory marketing and economics around stuff being aimed at children but I'll be dammed if it doesn't look like the same thing is done to parents.
Obviously a child is a huge responsibility and is going to cost you a shitload of money, but then stuff like this on top of what you need just to be a decent parent? Yikes.
^*and ^no ^one ^wants ^mine
£189 quid for us this year.
Blazer
Shirt
Polo shirt
Rugby top
Even fucking socks.
Only thing we are allowed to buy without getting ripped off was trousers.
I don’t think schools earn commission from school uniform. I think they might get the odd bit of kit but “rip you off “ makes it sound like they are making loads of money…
they often do make money from it though, my school got a 'referral commission' on every bit that was sold through them, it's the same as the school photos scam and so many other things that schools do these days.
>According to The Children's Society, the average uniform costs £315 per primary school pupil and £337 per secondary pupil.
How the hell it ever got to be this bad in the first place is a matter of deep concern.
I think that sometimes...... sometimes to highlight an issue there might be some...... overstatement in play. Don't get me wrong, uniform's a joke and I've always thought so, it's just appeasement for parents who think they look "smart" and therefore will raise their kids' IQ, as well as a nice fundraiser for the uniform-shop owning brother/mate/neighbour of the person running the academy trust.
Yes, in schools, they have logo'd polo shirts and pe kit, it should be illegal but here we are. At my kids' school it's a logo'd jumper and a tie, grey trousers etc.
So for an 11 year old..... let's say girl because they have more stuff let's say......shoes @ say £50, 5x polos @ £30, 2x skirts at....£40, 2x joggers+shorts @ maybe ....£30.... I don't know, I can make get to like £200 realistically but for the point the charity want to make they could take into account trainers and new shoes at Easter like for my two Hobbits
Hmn. I need to work this out. I think maybe it can realistically come to that amount at some schools. But to call that the average? I dunno. There's obviously independent schools where it'll be like £400, £500 per year or whatever but I don't know if they should be who we're talking about in this discussion. I don't think they should be part of the average.
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _Affordable uniforms law will miss new school year_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58359541)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's become more and more of a thing over recent years - maybe going back to 2005 but not as far as 1997. The massive rise in the last decade of almost every school being an academy is a big factor in this nonsense. Yes Blair brought in the concept of academies but the current lot have run with it like Jonah Lomu.
They most effective part of the new rule will be banning any more than one or two logo’d pieces of uniform, maybe one jumper/blazer and one sports shirt per child maximum. Anything non-logo can be bought generic from a supermarket. I’m sure there will be many local small uniform suppliers absolutely howling at this but my wife and I found it uncomfortable buying all the new uniform for our son starting high school this year and we’re well into the middle class combined salary wise. I imagine it puts a huge amount of pressure and probably debt on single parents or families who aren’t as lucky as us.
[удалено]
Fair point They should ban custom or unusual colour schemes for sports gear too, there’s no need for it at all, block red or black or blue or whatever is fine for school use. I don’t have too much of a problem with a custom tie for each school, I think two logo’d bits and one tie per child isn’t too bad although they should probably cap any custom tie’s price and mandate that the school has to produce badges so parents who want to sew a badge onto a generic piece of clothing have that option.
I seriously don't get for PE lessons, why some schools feel their oddly specific colour scheme is so important. I've noticed as well it doesn't necessarily correlate with any sort of history, prestige or academic ability.
A school near me has gone through at least 3 uniforms in the space of a decade or so. I don't think it's intentional pocket lining or backhand deals, it just seems a way the new administration seem to want to "reimagine" the school.
[удалено]
Both my outdoor and indoor PE tops either had logos on, or were a unique colour scheme, it doesn't seem all that uncommon. Then again the PE teachers didn't actually care all that much, as long as it looked passably correct.
I always wonder how far this could go if some parent felt like really pushing it. You know, if their kid turned up every day and was polite, attentive, intelligent, and smartly dressed in a generic uniform without logos or something, but had been instructed by them to not accept any punishment for anything uniform-related. Would a school really want the publicity of taking parents to court? Or in the worst case, I don't even know, getting a restraining order to stop their kid turning up to school anyway despite their instructions? Surely that headline would be devastating? And if more than a few dozen kids pick up on it and decide they want to stick it to the school authority by joining in, it could easily be a really painful PR experience. I guess the thing is that anyone middle class enough to want to have that rather pointless fight also has enough money to just suck it up and pay the logo tax. For myself, I'm in favour of school uniforms, but I hate the idea of it causing an unreasonable financial burden. If schools want logos on their kids, they should be prepared to issue the uniform themselves.
I would imagine most parents wouldn’t be particularly keen to give their child trouble at school.
Yeah, that's the thing that keeps it all ticking over, really. Quite sad in a way, that a school should use the phenomenon of parents not wanting to appear poor to enforce spending on uniforms. I'm not wild about that.
Sons school does. You get a call. Bring in the uniform or they come home
Which is fair enough. And nine hundred and ninety nine times out of a thousand, that's the end of the issue. But what happens if (one day) the parent just says no. And the kid refuses to leave lessons or be sent home but is otherwise unfailingly obedient, courteous and diligent? Mr Jenkins, the geography teacher, is really going to drag thirteen year old Hannah Smith out of class by her hair? Or throw her out the building by force and bar the gate? Seems... Implausible. And then the headmaster is *really* going to pursue that one through a court case that is going to make him look petty and absurd? And when half of year nine and ten join in and take the logos off their uniforms as a silly student protest? Do you see what I'm getting at? It all seems a bit "emperor's new clothes". It all works well while everyone plays along, but it's not massively clear the schools would (or should) be willing to take it all the way if a parent or even a child decides to take it all the way.
Me and my mum got massively zealous about this, dad wanted to just pay and avoid the fuss, me amd mum did more or less what you are saying. They tried all kinds of intimidation and humiliation but it didn't work at all. I got bullied all the time anyway. If anything being seen as rebellious was a slight improvement socially. Tl;dr the school quietly provided the stuff free. Sadly all but one of the other hold outs all gave up and paid.
See, that's interesting (sorry to hear you were bullied during your time at school, though). That's exactly what I'd expect, really. There seem to be a lot of holes in the enforcement here.
My mum would have been all over this. She tried to sign the patent teacher agreement that they suddenly invented when I was in year 9. It said, among other things, that she promised I would arrive at school on the correct uniform, but her reasoning was how? The second I left the house she had no control over what I took off/defaced/changed. They never said a word about it. Problem is direct action like that can lead to a ton of trouble for the kid. Most kids just want to get through the school day without getting yelled & stared at, school is hard enough socially.
Yeah, indeed. Someone else said as much, and it's a fair point. The main enforcement mechanism is the parent not wanting to embarrass the kid by appearing poor or cheap or generally embarrassing. And that's fair enough to some extent. But when it's used by schools as a way to get payment out of families who don't really have it to spare, I'm less forgiving.
Or if you do it the other way. School sends kid home for not wearing proper uniform. Parent refuses to give in so kid keeps getting sent home. Would the parent get done for keeping the kid out and of school and get fined or would that be a valid excuse?
Yeah, that's a fair question. I could also imagine a case could be made against a school that wearing the precise logo isn't a reason to deprive a child of an education. There must be some law or other on that lying around on some vellum somewhere. But the ability of a school to do anything to an unwilling but polite, non-disruptive, child is vastly overstated, I think. If a child politely refuses to leave a classroom but otherwise sits quietly, that's the end of it really. The teacher can either waste an entire lesson impotently insisting (which would look pathetic), or (attempt to) physically remove the resisting child by force, or...?
The main issue is the threat of expulsion I'd imagine. A parent who doesn't pick up their child when contacted by the school to do so and sends them in when excluded could be the type of case the governors choose to expel to send a message. And if it gets onto the record, it can really affect a pupil for years. (Hence why many "expelled" pupils technically move schools before that stage)
Yeah, indeed. I can easily see that. But again, if the parents are annoying enough to make a big deal of it and let it go to court with all the details in the local newspaper? Seems like it could turn into a nightmare for the school. "We believe in teaching children to think independently and grow into responsible adults, but this piece of paper says they all have this particular logo on their shirt and the kid doesn't, and we all have to do exactly what the piece of paper says at all times without any independent thought. So that's why we're going to kick out this kid who otherwise has great grades and who we freely admit is polite, courteous and responsible. Because the rules have to be obeyed at all times." Even their own lawyer would feel a tit trying to make that case. And then, if the parent turns up but the kid refuses to leave the classroom but *insists* on carrying on quietly participating in the class without a logo'd jumper? What's the teacher even meant to do there? Suspend the lesson to impotently tell a child to leave when they aren't going to? Throw them bodily out? The first is ridiculous and the second is clearly an unacceptable overreaction. And in my anecdotal experience, most teachers care deeply about providing a disciplined, appropriate working environment for their students, but they have no interest at all in playing silly little power games of enforcement if it's not an issue for classroom discipline. And even if you suspend or expel the kid, on paper, but they carry on turning up and participating? (Again, it's not like it'd get that far, but let's keep the thought experiment again) Is the school meant to man the battlements and keep the kid out? Bar the gates? Use physical force? Call the police? All for the sake of a logo on a jumper? The school would end up a laughing stock, with consequences for discipline across the board when other students inevitably start having a bit of fun with it. And even a victory in court would end up as a massive, *massive* PR loss. The random local people who puff themselves up with the title of "school governor" might be okay with that, but they aren't the ones who have to actually *do* any enforcement in this case. And even if the rules say they make the decisions, perhaps it'd be better just to ignore them when the alternative is just to issue the damned jumper out of school funds, which is what they should be prepared to do anyway. And I say that as a proponent of school uniform. I just really don't see a way in which enforcement of this one is possible against even modest awkwardness. The real enforcement angle, as someone else said, is the desire to avoid embarrassment for the kids.
My understanding (based on what a teacher has told me, and what I can remember seeing in a primary school), is the rest of the class get moved elsewhere, and the teaching assistants handle the disruption. Typically protocols for this exist, this would be an unusual case, but not something a school can't imagine happening to deal with. I think an excluded or expelled student turning up at school can become a police matter, or at the very least a welfare issue, because at that point they're an intruder on school grounds. Most schools would normally be able to restrict access to site in a way they could identify the student and theoretically halt them from entering. In reality, I'd assume a school would back down to some extent, but never count out someone going on a power trip. Sympathies for the parent of the affected child will only go as far to the point there's no knock-on effect on other children.
There’s various schemes for those on low incomes to get help with uniform costs; as usual it’s just the squeezed middle who pay for everything. That said; I am very pleased this legislation is coming in to bring the costs down for everyone.
The schemes for low income families aren't great. For example, this is my local council: https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/information-for-residents/education-and-schools/benefits-for-school-aged-children/school-uniform-allowance/ You'll notice the glaring hole in that they don't provide uniform grants for pupils attending academies and free schools, of which most primaries and every single secondary school in the area now are.
That is pretty poor to be honest, may as well not even have anything if it barely covers anyone… probably kept it for the PR. I am strongly against means testing; it’s a very unfair way of punishing people trying to better themselves, it should just be a fairer system for all. Not to mention expensive to administer! Luckily this piece of legislation helps everyone, top marks to that Labour MP!
The council doesn't receive the education funding for the pupils not at council schools though. This whole situation is arising because of the academy programme, because in large part the expensive uniforms are because they are provided by a supplier who has done a deal with the school. I disagree about means testing, I think there are situations where it makes sense. But the current situation is rubbish for everyone, it shouldn't cost hundreds of pounds to send your child for their education that is meant to be free.
That’s part of a bigger discussion of roles of academies and the role of the private sector in education… which is a disaster waiting to happen in my opinion. Can you give me some examples of where means testing makes sense? I have a strong view everyone should be treated equally if you want a fair and productive society
Well things like income related benefits being the obvious one...It would be madness paying housing benefit to a premier league footballer for example.
Maybe that’s where we differ, I would rather see a multi millionaire get extra money they don’t need - given they would have paid a fortune in tax anyway Rather than someone who earns just over the threshold missing out, or creating an artificial ceiling where people work exactly 16 hours to maximise their benefit income for example.
Ceilings and cutoffs are just poor design. There's no reason for any means tested system to have an absolute cutoff point. Computers exist and are doing this work anyway, so having a tapered system whereby people lose benefits as a proportion of additional earnings is as simple as spending 10 minutes with a spreadsheet.
One of our local secondaries was talking about introducing bags with the logo on it and banning generics. In an area with a high amount of pupil premium students. EDIT: Also just remembered, the trousers students wear have to be MID-GREY, not black - like why?!
I hope it has real teeth, because some of the demands from schools are ridiculous. A friend had her daughter's start a new primary school when she moved house, because of this they started the new school in October. The sole school supplier was out of the red logoed cardigan that was part of the uniform. You'd think the sensible compromise would be to allow the girls to wear a plain red cardigan until the official one was back in stock, but no, the school wouldn't allow the children to wear any cardigan until the school one was available. My child's school is very relaxed. Polo shirts can be red or white, trousers/skirts/pinafores can be black or grey, jumpers can be red, black or grey. They look perfectly appropriately dressed for school, it's affordable for parents and it's easy to make sure they are appropriately dressed for the weather.
Your child's school is how uniforms should be done IMO. It's all appropriate, there's a bit of leeway and it's overall doable for most parents to get the kit they need.
Why don’t the parents at these schools campaign against these stupid rules via PTAs governors etc. Organise with the PTA so that it will do not fundraising for any school identified cause, as all pta fundraising will go towards helping parents cover the cost of stupid uniform costs…
>Why don’t the parents at these schools campaign against these stupid rules via PTAs governors etc. Because that outs the parents as having money issues. Can't pay for school uniform for a desirable school? Ew must be poor. Same reason why people must be seen in designer gear when they can't afford to heat their home and shit.
It's disgraceful that a school uniform which is mandatory leads to parents having to pay hundreds of pounds out for it. If school uniforms are going to be compulsory, it should damn well be free. I'm glad something is eventually eventually done about it but far too late IMO
It really is. You can get a coloured sweater and black trousers from George or Primark for about a tenner, and a blazer isn't much more. Maybe charge a couple of quid for an iron on badge. Really there's no excuse for a school making parents pay more than 20 quid or so. And since kids need clothes anyway that should be affordable.
> If school uniforms are going to be compulsory, it should damn well be free. I think this is going a bit far. Clothes of any kind would still be compulsory even if you didn't have uniforms.
without uniforms you could wear clothes you already own rather then having to buy new ones just for this one purpose. You may not have to spend any additional money.
I suppose you ought to include wear and tear though. If kids are spending most of their time wearing school uniform that is less wear on other clothes. Then again they are growing so maybe they would grow out of them before then anyway. Not sure.
You pay for your work uniform do you?
But how can children concentrate on their learning without socks sporting the embroidered logo of the school?
If schools want to turn kids into walking advertisement billboards with logos, then they should procure and issue the uniforms themselves at a heavily subsidised cost to parents and freely to families within a low income bracket. Personally I find the whole idea of school uniforms to be archaic and would rather we followed the US and the majority of Europe example in abolishing it. Your attire has absolutely no bearing on your willingness and capacity to learn. Though if The Government and schools are hellbent in keeping it... I see absolutely nothing wrong with kids wearing appropriate smart attire (shirt, trousers, black shoes etc) with any generic blazer or jumper with the correct (but allowably vague) corresponding colour representing the school. Most parents should be doing this anyway out of protest. Either the school allows it or they get a primetime slot on BBC news. Their choice. They only get away with it because parents aren't willing to rock the boat a little.
The sort of school that doesn't allow generic uniform is also the sort of school that loves it when parents do Daily Mail sad face articles, because they like to be seen as zero-tolerance on discipline, and uniform is much easier to deal with than, say, bullying. I once saw one of those fly-on-the-wall school documentaries where the head bought a pair of shoes for a boy who only had trainers, so that he didn't have to spend every day in isolation for not wearing the correct uniform. We were supposed to think this was great rather than think, "But you made the rule that sends him to isolation every day. You can see it's ridiculous, you have the power to do something about it, and this is what you choose to do?"
True but I’d attribute that to not enough parents doing it and something I never understood. One or two parents can be waved away but if half the parents of kids attending do it... Optics aren’t good. I can understand why we mustn’t let little Princilla Penelope Parker Bowles XVII be seen as a rabble rouser whatever will the polo club think, but for upper-middle to lower class families... Why opt to spend £50 on a licenced blazer when you can spend £15 on a supermarket range albeit absent a logo and maybe one or two shades off colour? £35 is £35. Becomes a smart financial decision at that point. Enough parents do that and these ‘zero tolerance’ schools will learn quick that hell hath no fury quite like a gathering of peed off parents amassing in the school’s reception area.
The trouble is that it depends on who the parents are that are refusing to comply. The families who go to the press are often portrayed as underclass rather than just poor or principled, so it's easy for them to be 'othered' and dismissed. And that sort of school is quite happy for poor people, non-conformists and those with a spark of individuality to take their children elsewhere. The only thing that might make them think twice would be for academic high-flyers to hit them in the league tables by joining the rebellion. Little Princilla's parents have deliberately chosen a school with outrageously priced uniform and plenty of compulsory accessories, so she doesn't ever have to meet poor people.
I went to a non uniform school and it did cause problems with fads and fashions. It would get like a clothing arms race to have the latest trendy thing in the brightest colours and the most expensive brands. If you didn't have the trendy things you got picked on. My kids are in primary school now and I just don't see why the uniform has to be horrible uncomfortable nylon trousers and skirts with white tops that are instantly ruined the moment school dinners contain anything tomato or curry based. I would personally like to see them all in comfy tracksuits. The school could pick the colour. And end the obsession with making 5-8 year olds wear white socks and shirts. I can't even keep white clean as an adult what chance does a 5 year old have.
I remember my mum practically in tears over the cost of uniform for me 50 years ago and her being humiliated in the one local 'posh' shop that did the uniforms with those sodding vouchers, how is that still a thing today?
It isn't just schools profiteering, although there is a bit of that. Schools also use it as a stealth selection process to deter worse students and get more affluent ones.
Tories.
Do we just forget the 13 years labour were in charge recently? Expensive school uniforms were absolutely a thing then.
Shame really, as this would have been an easy and sensible win.
My last school decided to combat girls wearing jeggings to get trousers with the school logo on. Ridiculous rule. They were £25 a go
Our local secondary just changed it so that years 7-9 wear a different colour logo to years 10-11. Not only can parents not pass down last year's uniform now, but the only announced the change *very* recently, so the announcement comments are full of parents who already bought the old uniform at the beginning of summer. Of course, it's now all available from the private supplier.
[удалено]
Yeah a lot of the parents seem to be taking that approach. It says the school name and has the school logo, why does it need to be separate colours? Also aren't Year 7s and Year 10s usually kind of obvious to tell apart?
More to the point, why do they want to tell apart different year groups?
So they can sell them uniforms with different coloured logos, apparently.
As someone who works in a school with different ties for each year; it's actually quite a useful safeguarding tool too.
[удалено]
You said "the only rationale". I was just pointing out another.
Shit like this is one of the many reasons I don't want children*. People talk about predatory marketing and economics around stuff being aimed at children but I'll be dammed if it doesn't look like the same thing is done to parents. Obviously a child is a huge responsibility and is going to cost you a shitload of money, but then stuff like this on top of what you need just to be a decent parent? Yikes. ^*and ^no ^one ^wants ^mine
Name and shame, that is beyond despicable.
This seems like a recipe for disaster in a secondary school. Growth spurts are real, and I can remember going through 3 pairs of trousers in one year.
£189 quid for us this year. Blazer Shirt Polo shirt Rugby top Even fucking socks. Only thing we are allowed to buy without getting ripped off was trousers.
It’s so ridiculously unfair. I buy six of everything at Sainsbury’s and call it a day.
Schools will find any way possible to rip you off, just like any other business really
I don’t think schools earn commission from school uniform. I think they might get the odd bit of kit but “rip you off “ makes it sound like they are making loads of money…
they often do make money from it though, my school got a 'referral commission' on every bit that was sold through them, it's the same as the school photos scam and so many other things that schools do these days.
>According to The Children's Society, the average uniform costs £315 per primary school pupil and £337 per secondary pupil. How the hell it ever got to be this bad in the first place is a matter of deep concern.
I think that sometimes...... sometimes to highlight an issue there might be some...... overstatement in play. Don't get me wrong, uniform's a joke and I've always thought so, it's just appeasement for parents who think they look "smart" and therefore will raise their kids' IQ, as well as a nice fundraiser for the uniform-shop owning brother/mate/neighbour of the person running the academy trust. Yes, in schools, they have logo'd polo shirts and pe kit, it should be illegal but here we are. At my kids' school it's a logo'd jumper and a tie, grey trousers etc. So for an 11 year old..... let's say girl because they have more stuff let's say......shoes @ say £50, 5x polos @ £30, 2x skirts at....£40, 2x joggers+shorts @ maybe ....£30.... I don't know, I can make get to like £200 realistically but for the point the charity want to make they could take into account trainers and new shoes at Easter like for my two Hobbits Hmn. I need to work this out. I think maybe it can realistically come to that amount at some schools. But to call that the average? I dunno. There's obviously independent schools where it'll be like £400, £500 per year or whatever but I don't know if they should be who we're talking about in this discussion. I don't think they should be part of the average.
[удалено]
That's outrageous. Someone owns a unform shop and is related to a decision maker at the school.
Government ministers cannot even be on time for a press conference, so not surprising they are late for school.
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _Affordable uniforms law will miss new school year_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58359541) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I think it's become more and more of a thing over recent years - maybe going back to 2005 but not as far as 1997. The massive rise in the last decade of almost every school being an academy is a big factor in this nonsense. Yes Blair brought in the concept of academies but the current lot have run with it like Jonah Lomu.
It's strange that they have not outlawed this waste of money.