Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
School Uniforms / Formal Wear
Comments
-
I knew then, it would bend my head how these sex cases were having 15 year old girlfriends and picking them up in their shitmobiles. Its one of the reasons Martin the nonce who is a regular in my local is called Martin the nonce still now. And I left school in 1997! Clocked him the minute he began using the pub years ago and when he introduced himself to me as "Martin" I added, "the famous noncing highwayman" his face fell and he is still Martin the nonce maybe 15 years onNorth Lower Neil said:
Always think that, looking back - how was 17 years old girls having 25 year old boyfriends etc not considered more weird a few decades ago?!Carter said:Our school uniform was black trousers, shoes, and black blazer. The badge which my mum would gave to sew onto the blazer cost peanuts and the rank tie the same, they were the only things that were bespoke. And yes it did stop a lot of bullying before it started but even then I realised very early on a pair of kickers or Chelsea boots were essential additions and amazingly a Ben sherman white shirt, which I found out later my dad got a load of from someone down the pub. I had no idea Ben Sherman was a thing when I was 11 but it was alarming in hindsight how many 11 year olds did.
The less window you give the arsehole kids of arsehole parents to be pricks to other kids the better, a big part of that is a uniform. I don’t believe they should be weird or bespoke to the point it would be cheaper buying your child a new 3 piece tailored suit every term but a badge and tie, yeah by all means.
As I got older the girls modifying their uniform was an ongoing battle between them, teachers and probably parents given how little some of the scummier girls would wear. Me and the boys appreciated the efforts they were making though and so did the local nonces who would pick them up after school as the years progressed in a vauxhall nova with a bass bin.
Almost seemed like it was an unwritten rule that the really fit girls in your year would have older boyfriends and the rest would be left to slum it with kids their own age.
Now I'm old, I'd think any earth 20s chav picking up his girlfriend from school (unless she works there) is a massive wrong un.
7 -
I think you are right.North Lower Neil said:
The sixth choice school or nowhere/online/home schooling.seth plum said:
Then the issue is where the child goes to school,North Lower Neil said:
You can just deregister?seth plum said:It is ironic that the law requires (for the most part) people to send their children to school.
So in year six parents are required to list six preferences of secondary school, hoping for the first choice, dreading having to accept the sixth choice.
So if you have a scenario where the rules oblige you to ‘send’ your children to a school you and your child don’t want to go to, simply refuse to follow the school uniform, hair, make up and other rules and see what the local authority does then.
Not ideal, but I'm saying you don't have to send them if you're not happy with the choice. You're not obliged to as you said.
The sixth choice or nothing.
Online or home schooling being the only other options, which would come with other issues undoubtedly.0 -
0
-
Thats exactly what our was for ! Red or red n white.SuedeAdidas said:
I remember that poxy shirt.paulbaconsarnie said:Was also at Eltham green from ‘81 and the reversible PE tops they made us get were horrendous. Basically reversible as there was a white band on the inside so you could get put on a green team or white banded team.
When it rained it was like wearing a lead weighted rucksack on your shoulders.
They must’ve relaxed the rules while I was there as remember any white or green top was allowed when I outgrew mine.Like a really thick reversible rugby shirt.0 -
No not common I suggest and therefore ‘strange’ to use your term.seth plum said:
Is it that strange for parents to not be slung into their sixth choice?valleynick66 said:
So you advocate rebellion because you don’t get your first choice ?seth plum said:It is ironic that the law requires (for the most part) people to send their children to school.
So in year six parents are required to list six preferences of secondary school, hoping for the first choice, dreading having to accept the sixth choice.
So if you have a scenario where the rules oblige you to ‘send’ your children to a school you and your child don’t want to go to, simply refuse to follow the school uniform, hair, make up and other rules and see what the local authority does then.
Strange line of logic linking these separate aspects.
Seems to me in those circumstances rebellion is a kind of logic.Very unfortunate and frustrating and unjust if it happens yes.And no the rebellion will not logically change the allocation.0 -
Sadly I think a huge proportion of that is going to be kids with additional needs that the Local Authority haven't supported the child.seth plum said:
https://www.probonoeconomics.com/news/councils-wasted-60mn-on-court-disputes-over-children-with-special-educational-needs-report-finds#:~:text=PBE's research found that local,60mn to the public purse.
We're very very close to deregistering our youngest for that very reason.2 -
Dad worked in head office from early 70's to early 90's, hence was not a 'customer facing' manager. He was required to wear a suit and tie right through hot summers, whereas the female staff were allowed dresses.MrOneLung said:and as for the workplace, I have been working in banking/financial services since 1988 and ties were phased out from around late 90's and not worn a suit for a good 20 years0 -
Having a school uniform is fine.
The correct colour shirt/jumper should be sufficient and 'school badge' uniforms should be banned. Creates a monopoly of the market unless you sell the uniform at cost.3 -
This and religious reasons are the two reasons I've most seen for children being 'home-schooled'.North Lower Neil said:
Sadly I think a huge proportion of that is going to be kids with additional needs that the Local Authority haven't supported the child.seth plum said:
https://www.probonoeconomics.com/news/councils-wasted-60mn-on-court-disputes-over-children-with-special-educational-needs-report-finds#:~:text=PBE's research found that local,60mn to the public purse.
We're very very close to deregistering our youngest for that very reason.
Also parents that had a poor journey through education and therefore have a low opinion of schools and teachers themselves.1 -
Exactly. The 'couldn't tell the rich kids from the poor ones' is a failed reason for uniforms.Algarveaddick said:
You could always tell though...northstandsteve said:lot's of jobs will be lost from the school uniform shops and embroiders if this get's pushed through, in the past it was so everyone looked the same and you couldn't tell the wealth side of families apart. Times have changed I suppose but this will have a wider impact.0 - Sponsored links:
-
indeed…..the poor kid was the one wearing a grey Pringle jumper over a lemon Lacoste roll-neck 😄Algarveaddick said:
You could always tell though...northstandsteve said:lot's of jobs will be lost from the school uniform shops and embroiders if this get's pushed through, in the past it was so everyone looked the same and you couldn't tell the wealth side of families apart. Times have changed I suppose but this will have a wider impact.5 -
Excuse my French but it's all a fucking scam, fucks sake, back in the 70s if we didn't have PE kit then we done PE in our underpants. School tie, coat, blazers were optional, trousers, shirt, jumper, that was it, no poxy logos, just had to be in the realm of the right colour. My biggest embarrassment was having to rock up to school with a Mansfield Town bag, because that's what my foster mother bought me (the witch). Still look out for their results though, have done ever since.6
-
What convinced me that it was a scam was when my son's school changed the uniform rules with things like pupils needed trousers with the school logo on them etc... There were a number of changes that were all about limiting who could supply them and were clearly there to raise money. I appreciate the idea that having a school uniform can be a good thing where school isn't a fashion parade and poorer kids are not shamed but surely this has to be around generic uniforms, obtainable cheaply from any shop.2
-
My boy went to Darrick Wood. Terrible uniform, something of a seventies throw back. Brown trousers, brown blazer and an awful yellow shirt that looked washed out with brown tie to match. When he went into sixth form it was business suits, (as the school described it), for both boys and girls. There were things I didn't like about that school but the uniform at least made them all equally fashion disasters.blackpool72 said:
At the school 2 of my grandchildren attend.seth plum said:valleynick66 said:
Quite. But not wearing the required uniform is untelated. You won’t get your preference because you make your child stand out as a rebel. Available spaces is horribly complex and a lottery but a place won’t appear through non adherence to uniform elsewhere.Rizzo said:
I can kind of see where he's coming from. We were fortunate that our son got his first choice secondary school. If he'd got his sixth choice, I am genuinely not sure what we would have done as there is no way in hell I was sending him to that dumpster fire of a 'school'.valleynick66 said:
So you advocate rebellion because you don’t get your first choice ?seth plum said:It is ironic that the law requires (for the most part) people to send their children to school.
So in year six parents are required to list six preferences of secondary school, hoping for the first choice, dreading having to accept the sixth choice.
So if you have a scenario where the rules oblige you to ‘send’ your children to a school you and your child don’t want to go to, simply refuse to follow the school uniform, hair, make up and other rules and see what the local authority does then.
Strange line of logic linking these separate aspects.
I agree about the complexity. I am however interested in what schools do if an allocated child never wears the school uniform.valleynick66 said:
Quite. But not wearing the required uniform is untelated. You won’t get your preference because you make your child stand out as a rebel. Available spaces is horribly complex and a lottery but a place won’t appear through non adherence to uniform elsewhere.Rizzo said:
I can kind of see where he's coming from. We were fortunate that our son got his first choice secondary school. If he'd got his sixth choice, I am genuinely not sure what we would have done as there is no way in hell I was sending him to that dumpster fire of a 'school'.valleynick66 said:
So you advocate rebellion because you don’t get your first choice ?seth plum said:It is ironic that the law requires (for the most part) people to send their children to school.
So in year six parents are required to list six preferences of secondary school, hoping for the first choice, dreading having to accept the sixth choice.
So if you have a scenario where the rules oblige you to ‘send’ your children to a school you and your child don’t want to go to, simply refuse to follow the school uniform, hair, make up and other rules and see what the local authority does then.
Strange line of logic linking these separate aspects.
Should the school expel the child?
Darrick Wood secondary.
If they turn up without the proper uniform they will get a detention.
If this continues I would ( as their primary carer) ,be told to attend the school for a meeting.
There's not a chance the school would change its stance as its very strict when it comes to uniforms being worn.
So I would imagine that if I refused the kids would probably be excluded and possibly expelled.
As it's a very good school it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on.
It is a good school if your child leans toward being academic or at least it was when my son went there. I do remember a few of my sons friends being boffed off to Bromley college age 14 to do "more vocational subjects." which thankfully didn't happen to my son. NIce school though, the kids tend to be good mannered and well behaved. I live about 100 yards from it and have never even heard any of them swear let alone some of the horrible stuff elsewhere.0 -
In darkest Bedfordshire in the late 70s/early 80s we had to have a blazer with the school badge sewn on. Any blazer would do, as long as the badge was on it. White or pastel coloured shirt, grey or black strides and jumper, black shoes or boots - DMs were fine - and a school tie. Games kit was also one of those heavy reversible rugby jerseys - blue one side, blue with a yellow hoop the other. So the only things you were obliged to buy from the monopoly retailer were the games shirt, a tie and a badge. Not so bad really.1
-
It's not a scam. It's about pride, identity, discipline.
Head teachers in state schools are perhaps the least likely cohort to be part of a scam that punishes working class parents for the benefit of manufacturers and retailers.
The cost of schoolwear, when amortised over its lifespan, is likely to be the best value item of clothing a parent can buy their child, and it comes with the added benefit of ensuring that there is a degree of equality between pupils, irrespective of their background.
Every school has a fund in place to support parents that may be in financial hardship, and most schools have a PTA/ equivalent that will organise sales of second hand (good condition) uniform.
Most schools have a decent balance between generic wear that can be bought in the high street, and school specific items that are part of their identity.
Many other countries operate equivalent principles around uniform, and other countries don't have them at all - there are historic and cultural reasons behind that, but in the UK they are part of our culture that brings a real benefit to kids of school age.
5 -
Algarveaddick said:In darkest Bedfordshire in the late 70s/early 80s we had to have a blazer with the school badge sewn on. Any blazer would do, as long as the badge was on it. White or pastel coloured shirt, grey or black strides and jumper, black shoes or boots - DMs were fine - and a school tie. Games kit was also one of those heavy reversible rugby jerseys - blue one side, blue with a yellow hoop the other. So the only things you were obliged to buy from the monopoly retailer were the games shirt, a tie and a badge. Not so bad really.
Pretty much the same here in the late 60s/early 70s - black blazer with badge sewn on, black or grey trousers, white or grey shirt, black or grey jumper,black shoes and a school tie (which could be dispensed with if it was hot). Sixth form was a lounge suit, collar and different school tie. Badges and ties from Freebody's in Thomas Street, the rest from anywhere. Sixth form prefects policed it but to be honest there was pretty much 100% adherence.
1 -
sorry, but the bit in bold is a load of bollox.SporadicAddick said:It's not a scam. It's about pride, identity, discipline.
Head teachers in state schools are perhaps the least likely cohort to be part of a scam that punishes working class parents at the expense of manufacturers and retailers.
The cost of schoolwear, when amortised over its lifespan, is likely to be the best value item of clothing a parent can buy their child, and it comes with the added benefit of ensuring that there is a degree of equality between pupils, irrespective of their background.
In many cases, parents moaning about the cost are the ones that actually dislike authority (just see the angry faces in the papers at the start of every schoolyear because their precious daughter got sent home for having pink hair and wearing black trainers in defiance of the school rules that every other parent and pupil abides by), and don't blink an eye when putting the latest North Face puffa jacket on Klarna.
Every school has a fund in place to support parents that may be in financial hardship, and most schools have a PTA/ equivalent that will organise sales of second hand (good condition) uniform.
Most schools have a decent balance between generic wear that can be bought in the high street, and school specific items that are part of their identity.
Many other countries operate equivalent principles around uniform, and other countries don't have them at all - there are historic and cultural reasons behind that, but in the UK they are part of our culture that brings a real benefit to kids of school age.
my kids shirts last about 6 months before they grow out of them, and blazers need replacing each year as kids grow
I would say these badged/logoed items amortized over their lifespan are the worst value3 -
Kenny Cunningham used to live next door to Darrick Wood.0
-
School uniforms are about control and supplication.
Some people think they are a good thing to have.
I have yet to see anything that explains how a uniform can help the teaching and learning dynamic.
Does wearing a purple blazer mean you would be better able to understand and solve quadratic equations, or be able to play the piano, or know how oxbow lakes are formed, or how to construct a reasoned argument, or problem solve?
It seems to me the fuss over uniforms actually gets in the way of teaching and learning if only because of the resources used in enforcing uniform regulations.
Mind you, there may be an argument out there that explains how wearing a uniform helps an individual student to learn. I am open to hearing it.1 - Sponsored links:
-
You'll notice the use of "likely"...so if its not true for you, then I accept that.MrOneLung said:
sorry, but the bit in bold is a load of bollox.SporadicAddick said:It's not a scam. It's about pride, identity, discipline.
Head teachers in state schools are perhaps the least likely cohort to be part of a scam that punishes working class parents at the expense of manufacturers and retailers.
The cost of schoolwear, when amortised over its lifespan, is likely to be the best value item of clothing a parent can buy their child, and it comes with the added benefit of ensuring that there is a degree of equality between pupils, irrespective of their background.
In many cases, parents moaning about the cost are the ones that actually dislike authority (just see the angry faces in the papers at the start of every schoolyear because their precious daughter got sent home for having pink hair and wearing black trainers in defiance of the school rules that every other parent and pupil abides by), and don't blink an eye when putting the latest North Face puffa jacket on Klarna.
Every school has a fund in place to support parents that may be in financial hardship, and most schools have a PTA/ equivalent that will organise sales of second hand (good condition) uniform.
Most schools have a decent balance between generic wear that can be bought in the high street, and school specific items that are part of their identity.
Many other countries operate equivalent principles around uniform, and other countries don't have them at all - there are historic and cultural reasons behind that, but in the UK they are part of our culture that brings a real benefit to kids of school age.
my kids shirts last about 6 months before they grow out of them, and blazers need replacing each year as kids grow
I would say these badged/logoed items amortized over their lifespan are the worst value
Shirts - I'd guess 90% of schools have plain white / blue (no logo's). A pack of 3 boys shirts from M&S is priced between £10 and £19. So worst-case, assuming you can wear the same shirt twice a week for 6 months and you paid £19, is 13p per wear. I'd suggest that most shirts have a lifespan of more than 6 months, and you can get lower priced versions.
Blazer - My kids blazer, costs between £35 and £44 according to size. Its worn 5 days a week and has a lifespan of at least a year (190 days). At worst case scenario that's 23p a day.
Much cheaper and a lot less angst than my other kid who is at 6th form and spends a disproportionate amount of my money on clothes to wear relative to the cost of a uniform.0 -
Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Germany are reportedly four of the five highest achieving school systems, the United Kingdom being the other, but not in the top three. Denmark is at the top.
There is no requirement for school uniforms in Denmark, Finland, Sweden or Germany.
Would those systems in those countries be even more successful if the students had to wear uniforms?
America in general does well in terms of educational measurements yet from what I can tell they don’t have uniforms over there.
0 -
Germany couldn't find a supplier for their uniforms.
0 -
This discussion reminds me of my old PE teacher at Brockley County School. His name was Mr Jarman.
When I was in the care system he noticed the torn and raggedy white shirt I changed from and enquired whether my mother would repair it.
I explained my circumstances.
The next day he sought me out (he was a tough bastard) and gave me two white shirts his son had grown out of.He said ‘I’m not trying to be funny (Plum), but you might want to have these’.
It was both astonishing and a lovely thing for him to do.8 -
Nothing wrong with a school wanting a uniform and school identity. Where it’s a scam is when the children must wear a eg. A certain tartan skirt which can only be bought from a specific supplier. When the jumpers or sweatshirts have to have the school logo embroidered, also from a specific supplier. A school bag with logo. It’s bollocks and ridiculously expensive and unnecessary. My granddaughters schools “colour” is royal blue. No specific requirements for logos or to wear a blazer with badge. White blouse and grey or black skirt or trousers. All can be bought relatively cheaply in any high street supermarket. It fits all the requirements for a school to achieve identity, children’s dress equality and is generally affordable. Anything else over and above is completely unnecessary. In contrast, her first school uniform required a tartan skirt which was specific to that school and for the year one size was £40. Don’t tell me that’s not exploitative and ridiculous.SporadicAddick said:It's not a scam. It's about pride, identity, discipline.
Head teachers in state schools are perhaps the least likely cohort to be part of a scam that punishes working class parents for the benefit of manufacturers and retailers.
The cost of schoolwear, when amortised over its lifespan, is likely to be the best value item of clothing a parent can buy their child, and it comes with the added benefit of ensuring that there is a degree of equality between pupils, irrespective of their background.
Every school has a fund in place to support parents that may be in financial hardship, and most schools have a PTA/ equivalent that will organise sales of second hand (good condition) uniform.
Most schools have a decent balance between generic wear that can be bought in the high street, and school specific items that are part of their identity.
Many other countries operate equivalent principles around uniform, and other countries don't have them at all - there are historic and cultural reasons behind that, but in the UK they are part of our culture that brings a real benefit to kids of school age.5 -
I think the European populations, not really including us, have a different mind set on many things probably formed by recent past where wearing uniforms may be looked upon as being as a little alarming. Where as in this country its more traditional and we don't attach a uniform to belong to anything other than a particular school.seth plum said:Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Germany are reportedly four of the five highest achieving school systems, the United Kingdom being the other, but not in the top three. Denmark is at the top.
There is no requirement for school uniforms in Denmark, Finland, Sweden or Germany.
Would those systems in those countries be even more successful if the students had to wear uniforms?
America in general does well in terms of educational measurements yet from what I can tell they don’t have uniforms over there.0 -
Something that seemed disproportionately important as a kid, I was always pleased to be one of the kids whose blazer had a fart flap, not a shit slit.2
-
I don't believe it is either. The school has the choice of uniform and expected standards, the parent has a choice of school.ShootersHillGuru said:
Nothing wrong with a school wanting a uniform and school identity. Where it’s a scam is when the children must wear a eg. A certain tartan skirt which can only be bought from a specific supplier. When the jumpers or sweatshirts have to have the school logo embroidered, also from a specific supplier. A school bag with logo. It’s bollocks and ridiculously expensive and unnecessary. My granddaughters schools “colour” is royal blue. No specific requirements for logos or to wear a blazer with badge. White blouse and grey or black skirt or trousers. All can be bought relatively cheaply in any high street supermarket. It fits all the requirements for a school to achieve identity, children’s dress equality and is generally affordable. Anything else over and above is completely unnecessary. In contrast, her first school uniform required a tartan skirt which was specific to that school and for the year one size was £40. Don’t tell me that’s not exploitative and ridiculous.SporadicAddick said:It's not a scam. It's about pride, identity, discipline.
Head teachers in state schools are perhaps the least likely cohort to be part of a scam that punishes working class parents for the benefit of manufacturers and retailers.
The cost of schoolwear, when amortised over its lifespan, is likely to be the best value item of clothing a parent can buy their child, and it comes with the added benefit of ensuring that there is a degree of equality between pupils, irrespective of their background.
Every school has a fund in place to support parents that may be in financial hardship, and most schools have a PTA/ equivalent that will organise sales of second hand (good condition) uniform.
Most schools have a decent balance between generic wear that can be bought in the high street, and school specific items that are part of their identity.
Many other countries operate equivalent principles around uniform, and other countries don't have them at all - there are historic and cultural reasons behind that, but in the UK they are part of our culture that brings a real benefit to kids of school age.1 -
Parents who are allocated the sixth ‘choice’ on a list of six do not have a choice of school.
As has been pointed out above, people either have to take what the Local Authority decides or have no school at all.0 -
What planet are you on. Parents do not in many cases have choice of school.SporadicAddick said:
I don't believe it is either. The school has the choice of uniform and expected standards, the parent has a choice of school.ShootersHillGuru said:
Nothing wrong with a school wanting a uniform and school identity. Where it’s a scam is when the children must wear a eg. A certain tartan skirt which can only be bought from a specific supplier. When the jumpers or sweatshirts have to have the school logo embroidered, also from a specific supplier. A school bag with logo. It’s bollocks and ridiculously expensive and unnecessary. My granddaughters schools “colour” is royal blue. No specific requirements for logos or to wear a blazer with badge. White blouse and grey or black skirt or trousers. All can be bought relatively cheaply in any high street supermarket. It fits all the requirements for a school to achieve identity, children’s dress equality and is generally affordable. Anything else over and above is completely unnecessary. In contrast, her first school uniform required a tartan skirt which was specific to that school and for the year one size was £40. Don’t tell me that’s not exploitative and ridiculous.SporadicAddick said:It's not a scam. It's about pride, identity, discipline.
Head teachers in state schools are perhaps the least likely cohort to be part of a scam that punishes working class parents for the benefit of manufacturers and retailers.
The cost of schoolwear, when amortised over its lifespan, is likely to be the best value item of clothing a parent can buy their child, and it comes with the added benefit of ensuring that there is a degree of equality between pupils, irrespective of their background.
Every school has a fund in place to support parents that may be in financial hardship, and most schools have a PTA/ equivalent that will organise sales of second hand (good condition) uniform.
Most schools have a decent balance between generic wear that can be bought in the high street, and school specific items that are part of their identity.
Many other countries operate equivalent principles around uniform, and other countries don't have them at all - there are historic and cultural reasons behind that, but in the UK they are part of our culture that brings a real benefit to kids of school age.2
