@thepixelfox@Zagorath@pineapplelover@dgriffith Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, the flipside to all this is that high school kids can be incredibly judgemental when it comes to fashion. Teenaged girls especially, but boys too.
Especially in mixed-income or aspirational middle class areas, you will have parents who will pay up to buy designer labels and Nike/Adidas footwear for their little precious.
Then you have the kids whose parents have more limited means, and who wear hand-me-downs or stuff they get from Kmart or Target.
Immediately, that brings class into the classroom. It says to the working class kids that you are less than.
Having a uniform — ideally one that can be purchased from a discount department store — levels that playing field.
And yes, uniforms are authoritarian. Had you asked me 20 years ago, I’d have wholeheartedly agreed they need to be banished.
What changed my mind was talking to a former neighbour, around 10 years ago, who had been a working class kid raised by a single mum.
She’d originally went to high school at a selective entry school that didn’t have a uniform. And she constantly felt left out, and the better off kids whose parents could afford to buy them nicer clothes regularly picked on her.
She eventually changed schools to one that had a set uniform.
So school uniforms can be egalitarian — as long as they’re affordable.
Totally agree. In Australia and NZ most school uniforms are simpler, and therefore more affordable than the UK, typically just a polo style shirt and trousers, rather than blazers and ties. Also more practical.
@ajsadauskas@thepixelfox@Zagorath@pineapplelover@dgriffith TBH I think the culture and economic situation of the families plays a bigger role than whether or not uniforms are present. I also went to a school with uniforms, and the wealthier kids found plenty of other ways to mark their class status and segregate themselves from the poors.
If all the kids’ families have access to the same wealth there’s less opportunity for wealth segregation to occur IMO.
…Which I know sounds a bit obvious but I guess my point is leaning more towards the necessity of wealth redistribution 😅
I wouldn’t mind uniforms, if they weren’t like 3 times the price of regular clothes.
My school sweater was a blue v-neck. But it had to have the school name and logo on it. So it was £50.
If they’d just said, v-neck royal blue sweater and let people buy their own from whatever store, that’s fine. We had specific ties too, so if they just said we had to buy the ties from the school but the PE shorts/ netball skirts, football socks, polos and the school sweater should have been able to be purchased from any old store.
I agree, non-uniform days were hell for me. I was the kid of the working class parent, and the emo/ goth kid. I didn’t own anything that wasn’t fitting of my aesthetic. So I got bullied badly. So I appreciated the uniform. But the prices are the issue. And school that demand girls wear skirts and not trousers, I have a huge issue with that. If girls want to wear trousers, it shouldn’t be an issue. It makes me question whether the people implementing the rules are just sexist, or sexist and pervvy.
@thepixelfox@Zagorath@pineapplelover@dgriffith@ajsadauskas As I understand it, the theory is that you have to buy the uniform from Official Supplier so that the richer kids won’t get a better-quality blue V-neck sweater or whatever. But yeah, the instant something becomes a uniform item, triple or more the price, because what you gonna do?
When you’re paying £50 for a sweater, that’s basically rich kid sweater anyway. £50 for me is basically 2 weeks of groceries if I shop wisely.
It’s just insane they think that cost is acceptable just because it has a school logo on it.
And honestly, where I’m from. There wasn’t really rich kids. There was 1 kid in a school of 750 who came from a family with money. So it makes even less sense.
a few years back I started a discussion about which countries had uniforms (its not universial, and tends to be the UK and Commonwealth mostly); and a parent from USA said their school has an approved dress/colour code but not full branded uniform which is a lot better as it doesn’t tie parents to getting their clothes from a handful of places
Having a uniform — ideally one that can be purchased from a discount department store — levels that playing field.
Except it doesn’t. The rich kids just buy expensive undershirts, socks, necklaces, wallets, glasses, etc. even if they don’t they will judge each other based on their parents cars. I have been here and experienced it. All uniforms do is make a store working with the school some money.
@thepixelfox @Zagorath @pineapplelover @dgriffith Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, the flipside to all this is that high school kids can be incredibly judgemental when it comes to fashion. Teenaged girls especially, but boys too.
Especially in mixed-income or aspirational middle class areas, you will have parents who will pay up to buy designer labels and Nike/Adidas footwear for their little precious.
Then you have the kids whose parents have more limited means, and who wear hand-me-downs or stuff they get from Kmart or Target.
Immediately, that brings class into the classroom. It says to the working class kids that you are less than.
Having a uniform — ideally one that can be purchased from a discount department store — levels that playing field.
And yes, uniforms are authoritarian. Had you asked me 20 years ago, I’d have wholeheartedly agreed they need to be banished.
What changed my mind was talking to a former neighbour, around 10 years ago, who had been a working class kid raised by a single mum.
She’d originally went to high school at a selective entry school that didn’t have a uniform. And she constantly felt left out, and the better off kids whose parents could afford to buy them nicer clothes regularly picked on her.
She eventually changed schools to one that had a set uniform.
So school uniforms can be egalitarian — as long as they’re affordable.
@ajsadauskas @thepixelfox @Zagorath @pineapplelover @dgriffith
Totally agree. In Australia and NZ most school uniforms are simpler, and therefore more affordable than the UK, typically just a polo style shirt and trousers, rather than blazers and ties. Also more practical.
@ajsadauskas @thepixelfox @Zagorath @pineapplelover @dgriffith TBH I think the culture and economic situation of the families plays a bigger role than whether or not uniforms are present. I also went to a school with uniforms, and the wealthier kids found plenty of other ways to mark their class status and segregate themselves from the poors.
If all the kids’ families have access to the same wealth there’s less opportunity for wealth segregation to occur IMO.
…Which I know sounds a bit obvious but I guess my point is leaning more towards the necessity of wealth redistribution 😅
@ajsadauskas @thepixelfox @Zagorath @pineapplelover @dgriffith CROWN Act. i’ve been getting sexually harassed about my hair since i was 12 years old, regardless of the uniform. what’s the bloody cost outside of the class reduction?
I wouldn’t mind uniforms, if they weren’t like 3 times the price of regular clothes.
My school sweater was a blue v-neck. But it had to have the school name and logo on it. So it was £50.
If they’d just said, v-neck royal blue sweater and let people buy their own from whatever store, that’s fine. We had specific ties too, so if they just said we had to buy the ties from the school but the PE shorts/ netball skirts, football socks, polos and the school sweater should have been able to be purchased from any old store.
I agree, non-uniform days were hell for me. I was the kid of the working class parent, and the emo/ goth kid. I didn’t own anything that wasn’t fitting of my aesthetic. So I got bullied badly. So I appreciated the uniform. But the prices are the issue. And school that demand girls wear skirts and not trousers, I have a huge issue with that. If girls want to wear trousers, it shouldn’t be an issue. It makes me question whether the people implementing the rules are just sexist, or sexist and pervvy.
@thepixelfox @Zagorath @pineapplelover @dgriffith @ajsadauskas As I understand it, the theory is that you have to buy the uniform from Official Supplier so that the richer kids won’t get a better-quality blue V-neck sweater or whatever. But yeah, the instant something becomes a uniform item, triple or more the price, because what you gonna do?
When you’re paying £50 for a sweater, that’s basically rich kid sweater anyway. £50 for me is basically 2 weeks of groceries if I shop wisely.
It’s just insane they think that cost is acceptable just because it has a school logo on it.
And honestly, where I’m from. There wasn’t really rich kids. There was 1 kid in a school of 750 who came from a family with money. So it makes even less sense.
@RogerBW @thepixelfox @Zagorath @pineapplelover @dgriffith @ajsadauskas the school my parents sent me off to, which was not at all egalitarian, had a whole second-hand uniform resale process which seemed to work well
@thepixelfox @Zagorath @pineapplelover @dgriffith @ajsadauskas
a few years back I started a discussion about which countries had uniforms (its not universial, and tends to be the UK and Commonwealth mostly); and a parent from USA said their school has an approved dress/colour code but not full branded uniform which is a lot better as it doesn’t tie parents to getting their clothes from a handful of places
Except it doesn’t. The rich kids just buy expensive undershirts, socks, necklaces, wallets, glasses, etc. even if they don’t they will judge each other based on their parents cars. I have been here and experienced it. All uniforms do is make a store working with the school some money.