I agree it wont place a top cap on wealth displays, but it will raise the bottom cap
Being judged for my mum “shopping at Netto” is still better than being judged for my mum not affording groceries at all. (Netto being the school’s theoretical free distribution network, and groceries being the uniforms in this regretful metaphor)
If the school are providing it then that sets a lower floor for how bad it can be. Currently poor kids will just keep wearing it until there are too many holes for it to work as clothing or they run out of siblings to pass it down to.
Everyone will get equally shit clothing, at least everyone will be equal. I mean that is the entire point we keep getting told we need uniforms in the first place…
That assumes those with money. Will not go separately to buy clothing. While those without telly on the school.
Sorry but that is not the way it will work. Just because schools are required to provide the uniforms. Dose not mean their will not be a market for uniforms outside the schools supply.
Because school head teachers think it makes the students look well managed.
Think for a moment about UK history. Very little to non of it was implemented to ensure poor people were treated equally. And the introduction of uniforms was no more so.
Back in the day it was about wealthy schools looking like they were preparing students for work life. iE uniforms tried to match the idea that successful students would have to wear suits.
And as such uniforms were mainly used in city schools as more rural schools tought for farming or mining communities. Not office jobs,
In the 70s as less farming or mining jobs were expected.more schools tried to introduce dress codes to force dress standards for children expected to have to do so once working.
Will not stop wealthy parents buying new.
Will just take burden of poor while continuing to hilight the difference in quality.
I agree it wont place a top cap on wealth displays, but it will raise the bottom cap
Being judged for my mum “shopping at Netto” is still better than being judged for my mum not affording groceries at all. (Netto being the school’s theoretical free distribution network, and groceries being the uniforms in this regretful metaphor)
If the school are providing it then that sets a lower floor for how bad it can be. Currently poor kids will just keep wearing it until there are too many holes for it to work as clothing or they run out of siblings to pass it down to.
You may want to look at school funding and the attitude of the last 1t years of government to such.
Before considering that the future of school provided uniforms will be any newer or in any better condition.
Everyone will get equally shit clothing, at least everyone will be equal. I mean that is the entire point we keep getting told we need uniforms in the first place…
That assumes those with money. Will not go separately to buy clothing. While those without telly on the school.
Sorry but that is not the way it will work. Just because schools are required to provide the uniforms. Dose not mean their will not be a market for uniforms outside the schools supply.
So then why do we even have uniforms in the first place?
Because school head teachers think it makes the students look well managed.
Think for a moment about UK history. Very little to non of it was implemented to ensure poor people were treated equally. And the introduction of uniforms was no more so.
Back in the day it was about wealthy schools looking like they were preparing students for work life. iE uniforms tried to match the idea that successful students would have to wear suits.
And as such uniforms were mainly used in city schools as more rural schools tought for farming or mining communities. Not office jobs,
In the 70s as less farming or mining jobs were expected.more schools tried to introduce dress codes to force dress standards for children expected to have to do so once working.