Double post
That wasn’t my experience when I was buying uniforms for two kids for several years. With hundreds of kids wearing khaki chinos, shorts, skirts, or jumpers and red or white shirts, those items were readily available at the thrift stores. The PTA also organized swaps and uniform sales, and I always found chinos to be cheaper than denims at discount stores. It was also nice to be able to say “you can’t wear that because of dress code” instead of “no way in hell are you wearing that, because I said so.”
Uniforms also made it easier to herd kids on field trips, or to spot visitors on campus. Not such a big issue at my kids’ Mayberry-esque elementary school, but the high schools were much more urban, so security could be a problem.
My son has to wear a “uniform,” and I love it. There are plenty of choices: khaki, black or blue pants, shorts, skirts or dresses. Polo shirts in dark blue, light blue, red, dark green, yellow, white or pink. Target sells all of the above in a few price points. The more expensive and sturdier line (which is about $8 for a shirt, maybe?) is the official “school uniform” brand. Also, the kids get casual Fridays.
My kids wore uniforms- real uniforms bought from official suppliers, not a restricted dress code like khaki pants and a red polo. It was still less expensive than buying a larger wardrobe for school- one pair of pants or jumper/skirt or gym set would last at least one, usually two years. Sure, they needed some clothes to wear on weekends or after school - but wearing street clothes to school would have required either a larger wardrobe or more repetition than i would have liked.
Also, the reason the pants,skirts.etc only lasted a couple of years was because they were outgrown. There was plenty of wear left in them , and they were frequently passed down or swapped.
certainly. most school boards around here (Louisiana USA) require uniforms. No constitutional questions arise. The school is allowed to set policies that effect the operation of the schools. Funding questions do. Since certain things are required our district has a program where low-income families get help from the PTA. Given that regular clothes cost more than uniforms, it is rarely needed.
The educational benefits are immediate and long-lasting. At least that is what we see in our schools. I am no fan of uniforms for kids, but the difference in school is immediately apparent. Kids, especially elementary school kids but all students, behave better when in uniform. One might not think this effect is that large, but schools will occasionally have free days. By any measure behavior is worse on those days. And not all schools here adopted uniforms at the same time (it required a vote of the parents in each school). So we got to see the changes school be school over a period of a couple of years. In every case, behavior improved and stayed better. The effect surprised both sceptics such as myself and administrators.
The gang members may well find another way to ID each other, but at least this way some kid wont be beat up, knifed or shot for wearing the wrong color shirt.
American here. Over here, my experience was that public schools had dress codes but not uniforms per se. There was no specific type of pants, shirts, shoes, dresses, etc. required - the clothing that you did wear just had to be “appropriate” for school. The idea was pretty much that clothes should not be distracting, should not show inappropriate skin, should not be seriously distracting, and should not promote naughty behavior. Specifically banned were “gang” clothing that identified the wearer as a member of a gang as well as clothing advertising alcohol and tobacco products. At least in high school we did have a “no hat” policy indoors, but there were specific and explicit exemptions for religious headcoverings. This means that saying, “My religion requires that I cover my head.” was ok while, “I just don’t wanna take off this hat cuz I don’t feel like it” was punishable.
Occasionally there is an incident in the news about some teacher or administrator who decides that certain “ethnic” attire is inappropriate. This usually results in a stink and cries of intolerance for diversity (a really bad thing to be accused of nowadays) and the school eventually retracts the ruling. This sometimes happens when boys wear Scottish kilts to school - some teacher makes a fuss and calls it “crossdressing”, then backs down after the ethnic and intolerance cards are played against them.
Also, occasionally there is an incident in the news about some teacher or administrator who claims that some mundane or religious item is actually a “gang symbol” and try to restrict students from wearing it. I remember reading that there was a school that claimed that a local gang had taken to wearing rosaries and so children at the school were no longer allowed to wear rosaries, even if done for religious or fashion purposes and without intent to associate with the gang.