School uniforms: love them or loathe them, we all remember how we used to dress to school. Whether it was a branded blazer, a simple shirt and trousers, or maybe not a uniform at all, the way a school’s students dress says much about the school’s culture and identity.
However, with the current cost of living crisis, there is a growing debate over the role that school uniforms should play in a child’s wardrobe. Branded school uniforms, such as having a school’s crest on a blazer, are typically more costly than unbranded equivalents, which can be purchased from high street retailers.
Supporters of school uniforms argue that they create a sense of common identity for students, promote discipline and good behaviour, and reduce barriers to learning by levelling the playing field for all students. No matter their home wardrobe, proponents argue that school uniforms allow children to come into school and enter a learning environment without judgement from their peers about the clothes that they are wearing.
Critics argue that school uniforms, particularly branded ones, can be too costly for parents, and may prevent children from being able to attend a particular school. Similarly, while school uniforms are often touted for their ability to prevent bullying from peers, for children who cannot afford uniform, this may still happen to them. Others argue that not having school uniforms allows children to express their individual identities and be more comfortable, potentially improving their ability to learn.
In the United Kingdom, matters regarding school uniforms are a devolved issue, meaning that each nation of the UK has their own policy. The most significant debate is in England, where the Labour Government has introduced the “Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill” into parliament, which if successful, will legally limit a school from requiring more than three pieces of branded uniform per child, with the government claiming that this will save up to £50 per year per student. Currently, English statutory guidance issued in 2021 legally guides schools to principles regarding their uniform, with the key principle being that no child should have to leave a particular school due to the cost of their uniform. For example, schools must “limit” the number of branded items, clearly display their uniform policy on their website, and make second-hand uniforms readily available for purchase. Schools have the right to discipline students for failing to adhere to their uniform policies. Schools are not required to have uniforms in England, although it is “strongly encouraged” by the Department for Education.
In Scotland, similar guidance was issued in 2024, but notably bans schools from making branded uniforms compulsory. Additionally, annual grants are payable to parents who may struggle to afford the cost of uniforms, with up to £120 and £150 available per child for primary and secondary school students respectively. The guidance states that no annual uniform costs should exceed these amounts.
The Labour Government’s proposal for England appears to strike a balance between the benefits of school uniform – namely the community, identity, and equality that they foster, whilst also trying to limit costs for parents. However, Katharine Birbalsingh, the often outspoken headteacher of Michaela Community School in Wembley, North West London, has argued that these proposals may pose a risk to children, as they reduce the benefits discussed above, as well as potentially leaving children open to sexual exploitation. She argues that without strict rules on trousers and skirts, teenage students may play with the boundaries of their uniform, heightening their risk of sexual exploitation. However, The Guardian pointed out that a pair of branded trousers at Michaela costs £19.50, compared to £14 for two pairs at ASDA, showing the cost disparity between branded and non-branded school uniforms.
When asked for their views, students at the University of Edinburgh offered a range of opinions. Arabella, a third-year Performance Costume student, agreed with having uniforms because “it means that no one feels embarrassed if they are not able to afford designer or the current ‘cool clothing’ trends,” with second-year Veterinary Medicine student Amber similarly stating that uniforms should be in place “because otherwise there could be judgement and picking on people based on their outfits,” but that “the government should help pay for those who can’t afford it.” A third-year French and History student cautioned against assistance, believing that it may “threaten funding for more important academic spending in schools such as music equipment.” Yael, a second-year History and Politics student, sees the benefits of uniforms, but ultimately is against them, as she argues that they suppress individual expression and identity.
Whatever policy is adopted, a fine balance must be struck. As children grow, school uniforms play a central role in creating identity and community, but also may inhibit their expression and individuality. With the added complexity of cost, it is clear that there is no simple answer to the question of a school uniform’s existence.
Illustration by Chang Vetayasuporn