...just mayyyyyybe it's beecause they sell the uniform supply contract and make a lot of money for their budget from it? Dunno.
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
122 points (94.9% liked)
Australia
3648 readers
80 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.).
Definitely not all. I know I had some schools (mainly private) that required uniforms,byut all the public ones didn't.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
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.
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.
That's always the case, so it cancels out
Happened to me!
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.
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
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
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?
@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
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.
@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
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
view more: next ›