…just mayyyyyybe it’s beecause they sell the uniform supply contract and make a lot of money for their budget from it? Dunno.
That’s often the case in the UK. The government here issued some flimsy guidelines about uniform policy but many schools are still gouging parents on restrictive and expensive uniforms.
Do all schools in Australia require uniforms or is it just some?
I’ve never seen a school that didn’t require uniforms.
School systems are state controlled, so it may vary across the country but all schools I know require a purchases uniform. This is additional to any school fees or other material costs, and must be bought at the school’s uniform shop.
If I remember correctly, my high school let Year 12 students sometimes wear casual clothes, but everyone else had to wear uniform. This was at a public school, not a fancy private school.
I’m in my 30s so that was a while ago. I’m not sure if it’s still the same these days.
@dan @thehatfox I moved schools during high school.
At the first, they had a special senior student uniform for year 11 and 12.
The second allowed casual clothes for year 11 and 12, but it had restrictions on what you couldn’t wear (so no spaghetti straps — shoulders had to be covered, no bare midriffs, no jewellery aside from earring studs, etc.).
I would say most do but some don’t, and with those that do the level of uniform required varies.
My primary school didn’t require uniforms for regular days, though they did have what was called the sports uniform shirt which they preferred kids to wear if away from the school (generally used for sports carnivals with other local schools).
My high school did require uniforms but only really cared about enforcing the uniform shirt and some variety of closed shoe.
The school my youngest sister did years 11-12 at didn’t require uniforms at all, though they probably did care about closed shoes due to safety in science classes etc.
Definitely not all. I know I had some schools (mainly private) that required uniforms,byut all the public ones didn’t.
Really? Which part of Australia?
ACT. Maybe I’m a bit hyperbolic saying all of them. But all the ones I can think of.
During the '80s private schools (expensive schools) had uniforms and public schools (free schools) had none
Now private schools have their same uniforms with blazers and ties and public schools have colour codes
The flip side of the coin is, if parents buy cheaper uniforms they don’t have to buy more expensive, name brand clothes for their children. The school also avoids situations where kids with wealthy parents bully kids from poorer families.
There is probably also an argument for it helping to build school or team spirit, unity etc etc
Except the wealthy kids can always afford to accesorise or otherwise adjust their uniform to look more fashionable while still technically remaining within dress code.
Happened to me!
That’s always the case, so it cancels out
I went to public school. I never noticed anyone being bullied for wearing cheap clothes.
Kids were more likely to be bullied for how they acted, and it was normally stuff which kinda made sense (not justifying bullying).
I also went to a public school. Kids were definitely singled out for the brands and perceived value of the clothes they wore. There was definitely a pressure to keep up with the latest trends and styles, including those at other schools around the city.
I went to a school with a school uniform, so the kids Hyper fixate on your brand of backpack, plain black shoe, and socks.
In my day, Kappa and Addidas were the only acceptable brands of backpack. My friend got spat on for wearing an Umbro bag.
Nothing is as draconian as school uniforms. School uniforms don’t solve the inequality problem at all as there are always other personal belongings where it can be demonstrated. That being said, any institution that decides what clothes someone else should or should not wear is deeply authoritarian. Of course, there may be certain scenarios where such authoritarianism is necessary. Schools however do not fit such scenarios.
deleted by creator
Have you considered that your kids might protect stuff that they like (in this case, their clothes?). I never gave two shits about my school uniform because I hated it. However, my favourite clothes were always in the best possible condition… cuz uk… I actually liked them?
Fine, your kids might be young/uncaring when it comes to their belongings. Even in that case, you would still need to replace the cheap school polos after they’ve been soiled, right? Who says that non school uniforms have to be expensive? Can your kids not pick clothes when they’re made aware of a budget? You could still have expensive weekend clothes while having cheap weekday clothes that your kids have picked for themselves.
This reads like someone who has never spoken to a kid, much less had one.
I don’t have kids, but I usually am always in close contact with them (babysitting, soooo many younger cousins and so on). But whatever… kids are dumb and cannot possibly have complex thoughts and emotions, eh?
deleted by creator
Okay, so sorry for being extremely rude below. This topic (about the oh so poor parents raising kids) hits home hard, and is a trigger.
dealing with a mortgage and trying to juggle both parents work schedules, drop offs and after school sports
Clothing is one of the most important factors that make up the identity of someone. Humans aren’t supposed to be stormtroopers, you know. Our clothing choices make us unique individuals with differing and interesting personalities. Therefore, if you cannot tend to these extremely basic needs because of your “mortgage and blah blah blah”, maybe you shouldn’t have had kids in the first place. They’re not puppies, you know. Kids may be dumb, inexperienced, etc., but they still share all feelings and desires like us all. And you know… why not extend the logic of “I don’t want my kids to be less cool than the pop kids” to everyone then? Let’s just have a living uniform for all citizens of the country. Poor, rich, whatever… everyone would wear the same clothes. No pop people anymore, huh. Why don’t we do that? It’s because it encroaches upon our freedom to be ourselves, which we hold very dear to us. KIDS DO THAT TOO.
Stifling your kids’ identity “because it’s convenient” is absolutely horrific. I’m not asking for you to buy expensive shit. I’m just asking you to allow your kids to have some basic human decency. And fine… You don’t wanna do that? Why force your draconian bs on other kids? Just send your kids to school wearing the same clothes. Noone would mind. Why then force other kids with parents that are willing to spend time on them to also live a life like your kid? Why should my kid dress in that ugly ass school uniform every day because you were lazy?
I absolutely don’t buy the “poor parents struggling to raise kids” bs as an excuse for shit like this. Me and some of my friends come from lower middle class families. I have seen tremendous differences in our lives as kids despite coming from similar economic backgrounds. The difference was because some parents respected their kids and treated them as independent human beings instead of cattle.
Yeah you’re right I don’t know shit about my own kids. Sure I’ll try that thanks love.
Yeah, all knowing parents like you definitely don’t know shit about your kids. Such people are too egoistic too even question their behavior with their kids. They’re too egoistic to even consider that they can ever wrong them. The kids of course, find the easiest way to combat this: dishonesty. I’ve seen so so many of my friends be a part of this phenomenon. But whatever, from your statement, you have implicitly made it very clear that you don’t want anyone else talking to you about your relationship with your kids. So whatever…
Listen… I’m not saying you are a bad parent because of the school uniform thing. It is relatively very inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I know I’ve been very hateful and inappropriate above. I’m sorry for that. You might be much better than the turds that I’ve seen as parents. What however absolutely maddens me is the approach that parents take with their kids (that you demonstrated as well). This very approach has caused a tremendous amount of pain to myself and people that I love. KIDS ARE NOT CATTLE. THEY ARE HUMANS. This approach of treating them like cattle has led to a sexual abuser working in my former school for over 20 years (he’s still working there till date, and would be retiring next year from what I’ve heard). Why did nothing happen to him? Well, because parents liked the guy cuz he would “discipline” the kids. Of course, any teacher who would discipline the kids would be hated by them, no? Hence, all allegations of sexual abuse against this guy are obviously fake, right? This approach has led to one of my friends attempting suicide (but surviving thankfully). He skipped a grade, so we lost contact. However, from the time that we have interacted after that, he is a completely different person. I think it is because he is heavily medicated or whatever… Again, why did that happen? Cuz his dumass parents thought he was being lazy wherein he had actually burnt out from the studying (he was very smart, which made them push him a lot in academics).
So to recap, the school uniform thing was left behind in the discussion. I was very mad at you for being willing to cut off an entire branch of your kids’ identity simply because it was more convenient to do that for you. This is degrading the humanity of kids and making their rights akin to that of cattle. Also, I was pissed at the snarky “Yeah you’re right I don’t know shit about my kids”, as that demonstrated your tremendous ego, something that I’ve seen to be extremely destructive for kids (which have been me for some time and my friends).
deleted by creator
Are you reading over what you’re writing?!
Yes I am very aware of what I’m writing.
You’ve come very close to telling a complete stranger on the internet that they’re acting as a sexual abuser does towards their kids.
You are creating a straw man of what I said. I never accused you of anything remotely close to that. Don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t have to be a sexual abuser to hurt kids. There are many seemingly minuscule and silly ways that one can do that. I have already clarified this above.
They’re happy
This is what matters after all. I’m very happy for them, for you and your family.
It calls to mind Elon Musk calling that cave diver a paedophile when he couldn’t get his way.
There’s a huge difference. As you said, he did it because “he couldn’t get his way”. He did it because of his ego and because he wanted to “get back” at the diver by insulting him. My harsh comment above was because your views are dangerously authoritarian in my opinion. I and the people that I love have had to go through a lot of pain because of individuals who share similar views. I absolutely cannot stand anyone promoting such views, which is why I have been extremely offensive.
Thank you for doing good things like risking your life to provide disaster relief and whatnot. Thank you for volunteering at the community groups and stuff. Remember, I am not calling you a bad person. However, just because you are a “good person”, it doesn’t make you immune from doing bad things, knowingly or unknowingly. If you talk to Republicans, many of them are not as villainous as one would imagine. Many of them volunteer for church and are overall very sweet people to be around. However, either because of their prejudices or sheer stupidity, such people knowingly or unknowingly promote genocide, don’t they? They make the lives of millions of people a lot more miserable, don’t they? So my point is, sweet and nice people can do quite fucked up things. Which includes you and me.
As for my argument above, I am very confident that I am not just barking at you blindly. I have made my position very clear in my previous comment and I stand by it. The pain that the policies you promote has brought on people around me and myself, is far far far greater than the pain that my comment might have brought on you. Hence, I won’t delete anything. I’m sorry.
Agreed. At the my kids’ school (this was years ago), shirts and pants were part of the uniform, but socks weren’t regulated. Saw so many kids wearing goofy socks and carrying other things to just to differentiate.
The parents that had pushed for uniforms to be adopted (the principal relented to their demands while my kids were attending) admitted they mainly wanted uniforms so they wouldn’t have to deal with their children’s clothing choices/wishes. Reaction among parents was split, largely on gender lines (not the parents’, but their kids’ gender).
I had uniform shirt, tie, slacks, socks, jumpers, blazer, bag
The shoes weren’t uniform but were of very limited style.
You could pick something about wealth by how neatly kids were dressed (and the state of their clothes; the cheapest were nearly worn out), and the toys they brought to school
Hats weren’t regulated because it was the '80s and '90s and we didn’t wear hats. We had a uniform hat in our sports uniform but it wasn’t popular
Like… How is it more difficult to say “no” to your kids than changing public policy regarding what clothes individuals wear? How are these kids supposed to be responsible individuals of the future who protect freedom for all, when they are taught to obey orders about their clothing choices from a bureaucracy of old people? How is this not indoctrination in obeying authority without question?
Oh my… you might be getting just slightly carried away there
Am I though? What are the Hijab bans, drag queen bans, etc. then? Are they simply not extensions of these policies? Making it acceptable to regulate clothing (when there is no need to do so) in schools will ultimately lead to it applying for adults as well. Which uhh is actively happening?
Tell me you’re not a parent without telling me you’re not a parent.
Draconian? My kids wear a school polo over regular blue shorts and sneakers, public school isn’t like Hogwarts.
I’d much rather get them to wear that than fuck around making sure their favourite shirt is washed or having to buy some name brand shirt because the cool kids all have one.
I’m not a parent, but I graduated from highschool a few years back. Our school had compulsory uniforms. Clothes and general appearance are integral to one’s personality. After I got out of high school, I had absolutely no dressing sense. I had no idea what clothes I liked, what styles I liked, what colors I liked n so on. School was my life. Outside school, I didn’t hang out with my buddies outside of sports related activities. Hence, casual wear was an afterthought.
After I got out of school though, I began to explore and unlocked a part of my identity that had been forcefully locked away by school. Today, I don’t buy any expensive or branded clothes at all. I choose my clothes based on their color and style. I’m not the show off type in any sphere of my life, because I wasn’t raised that way. I was told “no” whenever it was necessary. You know… Parenting?
Don’t your kids do their own laundry? Also, can’t you say “no” to kids for that hypothetical expensive branded shirt?
Is it really worth stifling your kids’ identity for convenience?
Did you wear no clothes in the evening or on the weekend? I have a lot of residual shame from dressing “poor” in comparison to peers at school. Also, there’s going to be dress codes regardless, which is also stifling individuality. That is usually packaged in sexism as well.
Did you wear no clothes in the evening or on the weekend?
I did, but I wasn’t with my peers then. So I kinda didn’t have a point of reference for this. When I was with my peers, I was in athletic wear which again, the school picked out for us.
I have a lot of residual shame from dressing “poor” in comparison to peers at school.
I’m sorry for that… I’m sure there are many who feel the same as you. But is it worth enforcing school uniforms to protect these kids while stifling the identity of others? Is it worth normalising steep authoritarianism for this?
Also, there’s going to be dress codes regardless, which is also stifling individuality. That is usually packaged in sexism as well.
Exactly. All of which is wrong. School uniforms normalise bs like this, which is why they shouldn’t exist.
I’m sorry for that… I’m sure there are many who feel the same as you. But is it worth enforcing school uniforms to protect these kids while stifling the identity of others? Is it worth normalising steep authoritarianism for this?
Society already imposes a dress code. Even without laws, a person that goes against the grain will be ostracized to varying degrees. People will refuse to interact with you or refuse to provide services or prohibit you from working for them. Even the amount of clothes is enforced as you can’t even just walk around naked without consequences in most locations.
Exactly. All of which is wrong. School uniforms normalise bs like this, which is why they shouldn’t exist.
I don’t think what you’re saying is necessarily incorrect as it can be very easily used to reinforce authoritarian ideals. But most US schools don’t have uniforms but they have you say the pledge of allegiance which is way weirder in my opinion. Now, most kids mumble through and legally they can’t make you say it. But like I was saying above, if you outright refuse then you could be ostracized by your peers or leadership which is traumatizing too.
Society already imposes a dress code. Even without laws, a person that goes against the grain will be ostracized to varying degrees. People will refuse to interact with you or refuse to provide services or prohibit you from working for them.
Which is absolutely wrong. If we want to protect the liberty of all, then we must move away from such an archaic culture.
Even the amount of clothes is enforced as you can’t even just walk around naked without consequences in most locations.
This most likely will pin me as a radical, but I would argue that the right to nudity is extremely important and must be protected. Mark my words- you will see a social movement for this too once the other pro-liberty movements become successful-ish (like the LGBTQ movement).
But most US schools don’t have uniforms but they have you say the pledge of allegiance which is way weirder in my opinion.
Absolutely! Indoctrination at its finest!
Conformity, the theory is that kids will behave better when they all look like each other and can’t single each other out. Which is completely wrong, as we’ll always find ways to separate ourselves from each other.
Schools are full of bad administrators who are poor at managing those they’re responsible for, and a hallmark of bad management is blanket policies, dress codes are an example of this, and dress codes begin a slippery slope of what a student can or can’t do, including hairstyles, extracurricular activities, what they read, and more.
School uniform for me back in the day was a white shirt, grey pants, and leather shoes. The only “school” part of the uniform was a tie and blazer with the school crest on it. And I even went through all of high school never purchasing said blazer.
This was in NZ nearly 15 years ago.
My point being, uniforms shouldn’t be breaking the bank. If schools would simplify the uniform as to not be that unique to the school, they might be able to drive down cost as more readily available clothing could be used to make up the uniform.
Mine was grey shorts and a blue polo shirt with a school logo that cost $90. If you wanted to be warm in winter it was like $70 for a jumper. There was only one shop that sold it in the whole town.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Meredith Hagger, principal solicitor with Youth Law Australia, says in Queensland the education department’s policy dictates that schools must have strategies in place to help families afford uniforms.
“That can include cost reduction, financial support, payment plans, or more time to buy school uniforms,” she says.
"If you’ve got a uniform that restricts your movement and you’re a primary schooler, then you can’t turn cartwheels and do all those normal things that kids do to let off steam at break [time].
Private schools can be about as strict as they like when it comes to uniforms and dress codes, provided they don’t breach laws that prohibit discrimination against people because of their gender, race, culture, or sexuality.
Ms Hagger says such policies and dress codes must meet strict guidelines set by the state’s education department and there are limits to how they are enforced.
“And as a student, you can’t be given a consequence that damages your academic or career prospects for breaching the dress code.”
The original article contains 821 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I always thought it was funny that bringing in blazers was the sign of a failing state school, in the UK at least.
Ofsted good/excellent? Polos and fleeces are fine, it’s all good.
Requires Improvement/Inadequate? Shit, better get all the scrotes in cheap blazers that cost £50 so we can ape the private school down the road.Because public schools have to compete with private schools, the uniforms make them look comparable and has more of an effect on the parents perception of value of the school.
Each public school gets funding dependant on enrolment, the end result is absurd pricing for single income parents. When I was in High School we could get a $7 shirt from Big W and look identical to other students minus the logo.
There are exactly two reasons why schools mandate uniforms: greed and/or authoritarian leanings.
I can think of three advantages of uniforms:-
-
They reduce competition for expensive clothes and build solidarity.
-
They are usually cheap and durable, suited for children who will get their clothes dirty (and occassionally fight).
-
It is.easier for people to identify if a students gets lost (particularly when outside school).
Of course, for this to work the uniforms should be simple, affordable and comfortable. And they should be uniform - no gendered outfits or special clothes for some students.
-
There are many reasons to have school uniforms. Growing up in a school system that does this for elementary and middle school:
-
it allows the wardrobe to be much more simplified so students don’t have to figure out what to wear that day.
-
Kids don’t have to get jealous of others for wearing fancy brand names or maybe in some bad areas they’ll do gang colors or something.
-
The prices are generally ok, I was never complaining at the prices.
-
It might reinforce dressing up professionally even if the clothes aren’t the most comfortable.
The way my school district worked it never looked for the brand names or anything, just so long as it fit the guidelines.
All those are perfectly good reasons for school uniforms in general.
And then your school implements a uniform policy that requires you to buy a blazer for $225 that your child will wear three times a year, and monogrammed socks that are 3 pairs for $45.
That’s some serious graft. But nothing to do with uniforms as a policy. My daughter’s public school has a uniform of sorts but it I just color and style based, not specific required brands
Uniforms as a policy enables the graft. It has everything to do with the policies.
Try and have a logical discussion. Graft is the problem and a system that allows it will produce it however it is easiest to express.
A uniform is just an idea. It can be an excuse for graft, or it can just be a simple dress code with multiple competing vendors. I’m sorry your system is corrupt but many aren’t.
That feels like an extreme case. I feel like this would only happen in an upper class private school.
Public schools here are insane. It’s like £50 for one sweater. And it’s got to have the school name/ logo on it. So you can’t just go and buy a generic sweater the same colour.
And you’ve got to have at least 2, so when one is getting washed, you’d have one good to go.
There’s black shoes, not trainers, but smart shoes.
White shirts. Black pants/ skirts. Specific socks. £15 a tie, which is specifically in school colours so no going out to buy a cheap generic tie.
Then there’s the PE kit that has to be bought from the school. £20 for shorts. £20 for the polo. £10 for football socks.Altogether when you’re done it’s around £300. Which, if you’re generally working class/ out of work, you’re fucked.
My sweaters faded after half a year, so mum had to buy more. They’d of fit me the entire time, but she had to buy new ones pretty much every 6 months because they just faded in the wash. And that was in the 00s. My mum hates buying uniform for my younger sisters, apparently it’s crazy priced.
Now schools here are doing blazers too, god knows how much they are.@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 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
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
@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?
deleted by creator
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.
@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 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?
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.
There are also a lot of good reasons uniforms are unnecessary or even detrimental to students and families.
- Creates additional stress in having to have a narrow range of clothing always clean and wearable each day
- Uniforms do little to nothing to mitigate inequality, as children will always have other items to compare each other with - pencil cases, sports trainers/boots, lunchboxes, mobile phones etc.
- Prices of uniforms will likely always be higher than regular clothing due to limited choice and supply, and limited utility outside of school
- Workplace dress codes have become increasingly casual in recent decades, and continue to do so, making reinforcing the use of a highly restrictive uniform seem anachronistic
School uniforms create more problems than they solve.
On the other hand, an argument for uniforms would be that they remove a whole raft of problems with grey areas.
Without a uniform, you’d need to have a policy about ‘acceptable’ clothing - profanity, slogans, sun safety, workplace safety etc which would all be up to interpretation by students and an administration.
And you know that students would push the boundaries, and the ‘line’ would be constantly redrawn every week.
How short is too short on sleeves? What words are inappropriate on shirts?Uniforms remove this - you’re either in the approved uniform, or you aren’t.
-
