|
Until after World War II, it was mostly Britain's private schools that had uniforms. An exception here was the grammar schools (state secondary schools), but the ethos and uniforms of the grammar schools was based on the public (private secondary) schools. The uniforms at private schools were both elaborate and expensive. As a result, the school uniform has a class image in Britain. And because the issue of education in Britain has been polarized along class and political lines, school uniforms were caught up in this debate. Headmasters often viewed the boys as walking advertisements for the school and insisted that the boys wear the uniform correctly. Different headmasters had different ideas on this. Several garments were often of particular concern. One contastant refrain at many schools was "Pull your socks up, boy". One of the reasons often given for school uniforms was that it helped to eliminate class differences. When children were all dressed alike, no one could come to school in better or more fashionable clothes than other students. Another advantage made for school uniform is that it is an inexpensive way of outfitting children for school. Again the issue is complicated by the fact that British private schools were elaborate and in reality required a substantial outlay. Another argument made for school uniforms is that it helps to establish and maintain discipline. Of course discipline is not an end in itself. But it is a simple fact that wothout discipline, effective teaching is impossible. And one of the reason for the excellent results achieved at prep schools is the disdcipline standards at the school. The question here is to what degree a school uniform contributes to discipline.
Until after World War II, it was mostly Britain's private schools that had uniforms. An exception here was the grammar schools (state secondary schools), but the ethos and uniforms of the grammar schools was based on the public (private secondary) schools. The uniforms at private schools were both elaborate and expensive. As a result, the school uniform has a class image in Britain. And because the issue of education in Britain has been polarized along class and political lines, school uniforms were caught up in this debate. One see this in British media. A good example here is "Monty Pyhon's Flying Circus"--a useful example as is one of the few British TV programs that is familar to many Americans. Some skits are costumed with school uniforms. While lost on Americans, part of the humor is making fun of upper-class twits. To mny British people with leff-wing attitudes, the school uniform serves no useful purpose other than the affectation of the upper class. Now there may be an element of truth in this. There is no doubt that parents liked to show off that their children went to good schools, both private schools and grammar schools. But there are other purposes for a uniform than just class consciouness and uniform.
Headmasters often viewed the boys as walking advertisements for the school and insisted that the boys wear the uniform correctly. Different headmasters had different ideas on this. Several garments were often of particular concern. One contastant refrain at many schools was "Pull your socks up, boy". The kneesocks the boys wore had the constant tendency to fall down to their ankles. The ties were something that boys liked to loosen or take off. Generally this was the older boys. The younger boys seemed to take them more in their stride. Caps seemed to be an item that were unpopular, but many schools discontinued caps. Boys often arrived at school in good order having been sorted out by mum at home. After a day at school, they were often not so neat kitted out in the afteroon when it was time to go home. Here untucked in shirts were often a problem. Headmasters varied as to how important they considered getting the day boys properly sorted out and how strenuously they addressed these and other problems. The boarders were a different matter as they did not leave school and were thus not really a reflection on the school for the public. Schools varied as to how stringently they enforced the uniform regulations in the afternoon with the boarders.
One of the reasons often given for school uniforms was that it helped to eliminate class differences. When children were all dressed alike, no one could come to school in better or more fashionable clothes than other students. There are two issues here. One, children from poor family can feel embarassed when their clothes are inferior to those of more affluent children. Two, some children mostly teenagers can give inordinate attention to trendy or fashionable clothes. As an old teacher, there is no doubt that some of my students spent more time on planning their wrdrobe and what they were going to wear to school than on their home work. Of course all of this is somewhat complicated when discussing Britain, because it was only the private schools which at first has uniforms. This did not change until after World War II. And it was not until the 1960s that uniforms became common in state primary schools. This was a local decession, taken school by school. Some schools did not adopt them, others did. The uniforms adopted were smplier versions of prep school uniforms. I am not entirely sure why uniforms were adopted by British schools at this time. Notably in occurred after World War II when Labour was a major political force. This suggests to us that it was not (as was the case at Grammar schools) an attempt to follow the example of the private schools. Rather it seems more of an attempt to reduce social inequities.
Another advantage made for school uniform is that it is an inexpensive way of outfitting children for school. Again the issue is complicated by the fact that British private schools were elaborate and in reality required a substantial outlay. Of course the uniforms at state schools were less elaborate and thus less inexpensive. But this varies from school to school. Some state schools such as Anglican primary schools and grammar scools has caps and blazers and other items bought at a school outfitter. Other schools had more basic uniforms. In addition, some items were basically standard (grey shirts, grey jumpers, grey shorts, and grey kneesocks) and could be bought less expensively at chain stores rather than oufitters. Reams could be spent discussing this issue. Simply put, however, school uniforms are probably less expensive than what many parents would spend buying trendy designer clothes. On the other hand they are probably a little more expensive than what a thrifty mother would spend on her own. Here a great advantage to many parents is that school uniforms avoid major face offs with teen agers about what they are going to wear to school.
Another argument made for school uniforms is that it helps to establish and maintain discipline. Of course discipline is not an end in itself. But it is a simple fact that wothout discipline, effective teaching is impossible. And one of the reason for the excellent results achieved at prep schools is the disdcipline standards at the school. The question here is to what degree a school uniform contributes to discipline. One prep school headmaster told us that a boy who dresses up in a blazer and tie know that he is going to school for serious work and not the play ground. We think that there is probably something to be said for tis. There is no doubt that discipline standards at private schools like prep schools are higher than at state schools. There are, however, many different reasons for this. The uniform may well be one reason for this, but it is difficult to sort it out from the other reasons. British readers tend to have very strong opinions on this topic, often reflecting philosophical and or age differences.
