St Pauls School for Girls first round computer test results

[Sla212]

Sla212, that has not been my experience of non-uniform at all! However, there wasn't a mad list of what you could and couldn't wear. Children were always given responsibility to make their own decisions (apart from health and safety things like closed toe shoes in science labs and no dangly earrings for sport).

Interesting! I have nothing against St Paul's whatsoever & I didn't actually know that they were uniform free. I have one child in an indie who wears uniform & one in a state secondary who has never worn uniform to school ever.

I wore uniform myself from age 5-18 & am definitely a fan....it's much easier, everyone looks the same, I do feel it's cheaper in the long run & I think my non-uniform child would have had an easier time if her school had it. Deciding what to wear each day took hours in those early secondary years, for fear of what people would/might think....something I hadn't anticipated!

Everyone's experience is different of course

[Elky]

No school has a monopoly on good things going on inside people's heads. What a strange comment. However, the mere fact of having a uniform unfortunately places a significantly higher value on how you look, which is very much a bad thing, IMO, particularly in this day and age.

It is the very opposite - when there's uniform everyone looks the same so there's NO focus on what someone is wearing.

Any sports equipment should be provided by the school when you are paying fees.

I disagree. When you are not wearing uniform, you are just you. In your clothes. When you are wearing uniform, there is a clear focus on some things being acceptable and others not, and your clothes are rigidly defined by your environment. People actually don't just look the same. There will be children whose parents buy them new uniform every year and those who can't afford it, for instance. Plus, when your clothes are rigidly defined, the way in which you are able to define yourself switches to, yes, shoes, or bags, or pencil cases, or hair or any one of a number of other things.

As for sports equipment being provided when you are paying fees, I am not aware that this is the case in any school. In fact, I do not think it is the case in any school if not paying fees, is it? Surely even state schools will expect children to have eg football boots or trainers or whatever sports kits is the norm in their school?

[Guest55]

As for progress/attainment scores on the DfE website, I find that these are generally a bit weird for independent schools generally. Plus, if you get A* or A at GCSE and A or A* at A Level, that is indeed expected progress. What higher grade could a child achieve, I wonder?

They could all get A* then progress would be higher .. it's interesting that these school don't look so great when progress can be measured. If they sat KS2 tests then we could really judge how good their GCSEs are.
Raw results don't tell you how good a school is.

[Guest55]

I disagree. When you are not wearing uniform, you are just you. In your clothes. When you are wearing uniform, there is a clear focus on some things being acceptable and others not, and your clothes are rigidly defined by your environment. People actually don't just look the same. There will be children whose parents buy them new uniform every year and those who can't afford it, for instance. Plus, when your clothes are rigidly defined, the way in which you are able to define yourself switches to, yes, shoes, or bags, or pencil cases, or hair or any one of a number of other things.

As for sports equipment being provided when you are paying fees, I am not aware that this is the case in any school. In fact, I do not think it is the case in any school if not paying fees, is it? Surely even state schools will expect children to have eg football boots or trainers or whatever sports kits is the norm in their school?

Completely disagree, you've already said there are things they can't wear for H&S so someone must monitor what they are wearing. I bet if they turned up in a boob tube something would be said - clearly you've never been a teacher.

Sports equipment is not clothing but hockey sticks etc why are they not supplied? You are paying mega bucks ...

[Elky]

Sla212, that has not been my experience of non-uniform at all! However, there wasn't a mad list of what you could and couldn't wear. Children were always given responsibility to make their own decisions (apart from health and safety things like closed toe shoes in science labs and no dangly earrings for sport).

Interesting! I have nothing against St Paul's whatsoever & I didn't actually know that they were uniform free. I have one child in an indie who wears uniform & one in a state secondary who has never worn uniform to school ever.

I wore uniform myself from age 5-18 & am definitely a fan....it's much easier, everyone looks the same, I do feel it's cheaper in the long run & I think my non-uniform child would have had an easier time if her school had it. Deciding what to wear each day took hours in those early secondary years, for fear of what people would/might think....something I hadn't anticipated!

Everyone's experience is different of course

Yes indeed! Everyone has their own experience. My personal experience is that I wore uniform age 5-11 (not a particularly stringent one) and then did not at St Paul's. I did find non-uniform at St Paul's a significantly less stressful experience as it was very explicit in a number of ways that what you were wearing was completely irrelevant. One of my best friends at school wore a weird combat jacket with a self-made appliqué of a giant carrot on the back for several years running. She was just wearing what she liked. Nobody made fun of her or suggested she should be wearing designer labels. We were all 'oh, that's just X, she likes her carrot'.

I also strongly believe that not having a uniform leads to a better relationship between staff and pupils. It just seemed for me that it became more of a shared endeavour and less of a hierarchical relationship. I am really strongly in favour of this. And DD goes to a school which was non-uniform when she started and has since introduced one. I have definitely noticed that the relationship between staff and pupils has changed since the introduction of uniform, and not for the better.

[Elky]

Totally agree that raw results tell you very little about a school!

With regards to the monitoring of what people are wearing, I cannot remember it being an issue. Just don't wear flip flops to the science labs because you might spill something on your feet. Job done. Don't remember anyone ever having to be pulled up on it, even the relatively naughty kids, of whom I was one. If you only have a few rules which are explicit about the reasons and you also have a highly engaged student population then monitoring is not really an issue in this case.

[Guest55]

I also strongly believe that not having a uniform leads to a better relationship between staff and pupils. It just seemed for me that it became more of a shared endeavour and less of a hierarchical relationship. I am really strongly in favour of this. And DD goes to a school which was non-uniform when she started and has since introduced one. I have definitely noticed that the relationship between staff and pupils has changed since the introduction of uniform, and not for the better.

I don't agree - this is just down to the ethos of the school in my experience. Uniform has nothing to do with it.

[ToadMum]

So, if at the non-uniform top independent school, no-one would even notice, let alone comment, that a student never wore any new clothes, why would one automatically assume that in the average uniform-wearing state secondary, not always having a brand new blazer etc would be a cause of stress for the students concerned?

Only on two occasions in the (combined) 35 years of their school career have our DC had a whole new uniform - DS1 when he started in Reception and DD when we had less than a week between notification and start day of an in-year place at a new school. Actually, make that one occasion, since 4 year old DS1 already possessed a pair of shorts compatible with the school's PE kit .

DS2 currently wears shirts, trousers and jumpers from Primark, one of DS1's hand-me-down blazers and amongst other second-hand items of sports kit, a rugby shirt which had had at least one previous owner when I bought it for DS1. And if any other person at the school, student or staff, has ever noticed, I would be mightily surprised.

[tiffinboys]

I also strongly believe that not having a uniform leads to a better relationship between staff and pupils. It just seemed for me that it became more of a shared endeavour and less of a hierarchical relationship.

What a view!

What next?

[Amber]

Not having uniform works really well in societies where young people are not obsessed with designer clothes, getting one over on anyone who hasn't got the latest trainers or is wearing last year's brand and not the new 'must have', and caking themselves in make up to go to school when they are 12 years old. It is wonderful to watch Norwegian teenagers running about in old tracksuits or jeans and jumpers and being almost indistinguishable from their teachers who might be dressed similarly. I don't know St Paul's, but if that is the same culture, where really no one cares what you are wearing before you put your £400 lacrosse kit on, well great.
If...