Talk:School uniforms in England

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on School uniforms in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080723160409/http://www.archivist.f2s.com/bsu/Blcoat.htm to http://www.archivist.f2s.com/bsu/Blcoat.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060427090834/http://www.objectlessons.org:80/ol/index.php?mod=PageMod.showComponent&component_id=137 to http://www.objectlessons.org/ol/index.php?mod=PageMod.showComponent&component_id=137

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Out of Date

This article still refers to the Department for Children, Schools and Families in the present tense, yet that organisation dissolved six years ago.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate

Most of this is fantasy. It relies on a un-reliable dated source, I propose to do a massive delete. I even dispute the title- it should be in the singular. When that is done it can be rebuilt, and the lead school uniform article can be tackled.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've commented here, rather than below. I've been away a couple of days stuff happens, and see that others have joined in. I wouldn't like to wade in guns blazing until I've had chance to catch up. But one thing (and I realise we're quibbling over semantics - again) but I presume by "delete" you mean clear out? I also would support the change to singular. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Camden no school uniform claim.

The Camden school specifically states "We do not have a school uniform" that's about as categorical as you can get with regard to the difference "between not having a uniform and allowing students free choice as the the uniform"

I accept that we're on the same side - improving the encyclopedia, but references are not forbidden in the lede, and in this case to remove and ignore their contribution leads to an inaccuracy in the article. It would state that all schools have a uniform where that is obviously not the case. Additionally - BRD is in effect - if you disagree once reverted you discuss not revert again.

And finally, I curse the foundation for allowing such massive edit summaries. Not your fault there, obviously, but it's a right pain. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Though we tend to use them a lot the schools website is not independent, so not a WP:RS. It is advertising material (not independent)- and if they want to market themselves by claiming- 'they do not have a school uniform', Ofsted will not stop them it is outside their brief. If you read the 2013 judgement carefully, you will see that some of the terms used do not mean the same as they did five years previously. You will see that a uniform policy is necessary to pass Ofsted, and they strongly advise a formal school uniform, though errors in drafting the law does not give them the power to insist. (This is getting very close to Conservative v Conservative politics) (A precedent is how Kent used a drafting error in Circular 10/68 to maintain its secondary modern schools.) At WP we report it -neutrally!--ClemRutter (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about the lead- which is the summary of the rest of the article, it has different referencing rules. At the moment it is very thin and needs expanding. When it is expanded it will reflect every referenced fact in the total article, so will not need references. If we wish to reference a welcome exception- we need to reference the norm. The lead also says all schools in England, whereas it should say all state schools in England ClemRutter (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If we don't want to rewrite the lead- then just shift the reference to support a fact in a lower paragraph ClemRutter (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"A uniform policy is necessary" is not the same thing as "a uniform is necessary". If the uniform policy is that students are not required to wear a uniform (but must wear clothes that are safe and appropriate and not offensive etc. as is the requirement at the school referenced) then the school does not require a uniform. So the 2013 judgement is irrelevant to this.

I agree that a good solution would be to move the reference or references to the article body, thereby making sure the lede does not need to contain inaccuracies. "School uniform is worn in all schools in England" is an inaccuracy. It is blatantly incorrect. MPS1992 (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to @MaxBrowne: for providing the alternative reference, if anyone has a more recent one I suggest they discuss it here first! We are not here to discuss the quality of Guardian journalism- I often feel like doing some copyediting-there too. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

BBC News now has far more problems in that regard than it used to. As does the London Times, even in its print edition. MPS1992 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Cost of uniform

I've removed this section. It's pointless. Firstly, it's three years out of date, and secondly there is such a difference between the cost of uniform that a single survey such as this is useless. Example: A pair of trousers for an 8 year old from John Lewis costs £15[1] whereas a pair from George currently costs £4.50.[2] With such a variance you cannot get a meaningful result. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree- it was relevant enough for the survey to have been done, and its value (use) is for comparison. Data that is three years old is up to date in the reseach community. You open a whole new debate when you mention two suppliers. Schools all over the country use named suppliers, governors all over the country have argued about the right a child has to deviate from the named list (I have destroyed the governing minutes from 1987 where I was involved at my daughters C of E infant school- the school falsely believed it had the right to set a uniform for a child under 11). Some of the current issues, involve schools that keep changing their legal status- and thus their uniform code viz Kidbrook/Corelli/Halley. I welcome your interest in the topic but I see the way forward will be add statistics not remove them. Variance is an issue, but the problem lies with the survey technique of the source and we merely accurately report it.ClemRutter (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was probably relevant at the time, but not any more. I agree about about statistics, but thikn the better term is to replace not necessarily add. For example, this link from the Daily Mirror (Yes, tabloid, I know) is from 2017 and offers a better overview of the cost involved. OR this from the soaraway Sun, which tested a full uniform from Aldi, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Tesco - helpfully including the cost of each:

• Aldi - £3.75
• Tesco - £9.50
• Asda - £8.50
• Sainsbury’s - £14.50

All of these costs for a full uniform are less than a sweatshirt in the survey.

This] lists avaliable uniform - again all well below everything in the survey.

Additionally, reading - or more like "wading" through all the facts and figures shows some poor writing and tone in the section as well:

It is displayed to show the effect on the childs age, and whether their school was a maintained school or a self governing academy (English school).

What effect does uniform have on the age of a child?

A single average figure has little statistical meaning, but taken as a whole this is a large sum of money for a many families, and of course is cummulative. Several government departments are monitoring the situation, Social Services from the point of view of large families poverty and the Office for Fair Trading who sees the uniform suppliers and schools operating an unfair monopoly.

Paragraph admits that the single figure means little, has poor spelling, fails to adhere to NPOV, unencyclopedic tone etc. Attribution fails as well as we don't acknowledge the license terms of the data used.

I'm not sure what your point about two suppliers is, schools all over the country may insist upon named suppliers, but all that has meant is an increase in the embroidery business as entrepreneurs stitch school logos onto Asda & Tesco jumpers Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Out of Date 2

The claim by Trutex that unifrom reduces bullying is no longer supported as the link in footnote 12 no longer directs to the article it claims to direct to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.185.8 (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:School uniforms by country § Substitution of certain images used on this page

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:School uniforms by country § Substitution of certain images used on this page. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dorking Schoolgirls Patiently Waiting For Mum (6258299657) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Schoolgirls in Dorking, London (6258299657) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)