Many of them do - but IME, the rules on dress are rarely enforced. You only
have to look at the 'hitched up' skirts (when the rules say they should be
knee length), this silly habit of wearing ties loosely hanging below an open
necked shirt and with the front wide part of the tie only showing about two
inches below the knot, to see how the kids try their hardest not to conform!
Yes, all three local schools (2 x Primary, 1 x Secondary) have
uniforms. Other larger secondary schools near by also have uniforms.
Personally we support uniforms, it gives an identity to the school, a
sense of belonging to the pupils (though they won't admit it...),
avoids peer pressure to have the latest fashion. Which can put
extreme stress on both parents and pupils who can't afford =A350 for a
T shirt every other week, or even =A350 for a T shirt full stop.
Both of ours do (primary and secondary state) and it is well adhered to. The
primary uniform is "optional but strongly encouraged" and in practise 100%
wear it - because we have a school that is small but everyone is proud of
it. It's not expensive - all bar the PE top and jumper are bog standard
M&S/BHS wear anyway and the jumpers last more or less, until the kid grows
out of them and aren't expensive either. Even for "poor" parents, it is
probably a cheaper option than letting the kids buy less robust designer
gear and knackering it climbing trees! And it does have the advantage that
there is no constant fashion show going on everyday with a "keep up with the
Jones" whining at me to get every more fancy clothes for my kids.
The secondary school lot do too, which is more surprising - not sure if it
is "optional" or not there.
If I get the later train to work, it's full of extremely well turned out
kids going to the various grammars around Tonbridge/T Wells.
I have a friend who, as a marketing manager (with a major multinational),
used to go to work like that.
As someone who discarded wearing a tie to work 20 years ago, I asked him if
he thought that this presented a better impression for someone in his
position, than no tie at all.
He said "yes".
When I was at school in the '80s the council abolished school
uniform against the wishes of parents and senior teachers.
The council argued that it was socially divisive and oppressive
and forced children into boxes and supressed their personality.
When I was a governor at my old school in 2000-08 they
had a "uniform", which was a standard coloured jumper
with the MGS logo emboidered on it. Pah. Nothing like
the proper badge and latin motto from my day.
The school is being demolished and rebuilt and part of the
newbuild is "a full school uniform comprising shirt, tie
Although my ex-employer never did have a dress code, a few years
ago a new relaxed one was formalised. There was no mention of
gender, though it was clearly written with men in mind:
Shirts must have a collar.
No predominant logos or slogans.
No blue denim. (other colours presumably OK)
Shorts permissible, but must be tailored.
This was for a trial period. Exactly what they would have done
if they had eventually decide to discontinue it was unclear.
Perhaps they would have had to define what we previously wore
As it happened there was no reversion. However, the company
had several reorganisations of departments, and some parts of it
were still firmly in the lounge suit era.
Interestingly, when we occasionally had corporate video
presentations, practically all the global chiefs were tie-less.
Indeed, when I used to visit company sites in Sweden or Germany,
I generally dressed down (to UK standards) so as not to appear
overdressed by theirs.
After too many years, I was happy to ditch the ties. Last time
the subject came up I simple commented that I had signed off many
official Design Certificates, for assorted rolling stock worth
about GBP 700 million, without my tie, and none of them had been
rejected because of this.
I'm quite OK with not wearing ties, but really don't like to see
the top button of the shirt still done up.
Not round here. In fact, the two schools that recently federated, of
which I am a governor, recently defined a new common uniform. Ther4e are
government rules about costs, and sole suppliers, so that it doesn't
disadvantage less well-off parents.
In article , email@example.com
Our local split infants/junior school is going through the motions of
jointing up to become a primary school - though it's not yet decided it
We've decided that we'll almost certainly provide the children with a
jumper to suit the new uniform (they're currently different) 'cos being
a very poor area many of the parents can't easily afford a replacement,
particularly for four kids at once.
Four jumpers? That's ridiculous. Surely in these days of deficits,
cutbacks and the Big Society, poor families only need to send one of
their children to school: the others can do something more useful -
like scrubbing floors or cleaning chimneys.
As long as the jumper doesn't have some stupid school logo on it they cost
peanuts in Asda/tesco.
Its schools that insist on logos that force parents to go to specialist
suppliers and pay through the nose for uniforms.
Its the same with blazers, you can buy one for less than the badge that some
schools want pupils to have.
I don't really understand why schools want this gang culture anyway as long
as they outlaw stupid fashions that only the better off can afford dress
isn't a problem. Its when they allow expensive fashions that some can't
afford that bullies get something to do.
In article , firstname.lastname@example.org
We have a logo on the "official" jumpers, but children are allowed to
wear a chain-store equivalent without logo. And many do.
The real bone of contention is shoes. Girls in flat court shoes - can't
run in the playground, aren't allowed on the climbing frame but complain
when they're told they have to wear suitable shoes to be allowed on the
adventure play area that they're the shoes mum buys.
And black? Well, it'd be nice, but unlikely.