This is dumb af. She's wearing the school colours, she's got the logo on her blazer, you -know- what school she's from. This stinks of her being singled out.
Here in Australia, all the schools I went to growing up we had uniforms, which they said the benefits were twofold. One was the conformity, everyone was on an even playing ground in terms of clothes so there wouldn't be bullying on what you were wearing (Common on casual clothes days.), and the second was the easy identification of your students when out in public, both for teachers and the town in general. Each school had its different colour conbinations and pretty much everyone knew which colour combination belonged to which school, so kids that got lost on field trips and that could be easily returned to the appropriate school and teachers could easily make sure they had all their kiddos.
But like...our rules were pretty much as simple as "Are you wearing the appropriate colours? Then you can acquire them from any source.", not the branded stuff like the article. We had branded clothes of course but they weren't mandatory, but we also had like little iron on patches if you -really- wanted the school logo on your shirt, and low income families could get subsidies or donations (there were regular drives from the school to collect the stuff kids had grown out of but were still in good nick to give to other families). And if you were having to go out to represent the school at a super fancy event, all of them would lend blazers to the students. Which, in my biased eyes, seems the right way to do things.
The private schools I've run into though, have rules more like this UK school, which, ugh, just feels like money grubbing on top of moneygrubbing
Here in Australia, all the schools I went to growing up we had uniforms, which they said the benefits were twofold. One was the conformity, everyone was on an even playing ground in terms of clothes so there wouldn't be bullying on what you were wearing (Common on casual clothes days.), and the second was the easy identification of your students when out in public, both for teachers and the town in general. Each school had its different colour conbinations and pretty much everyone knew which colour combination belonged to which school, so kids that got lost on field trips and that could be easily returned to the appropriate school and teachers could easily make sure they had all their kiddos.
But like...our rules were pretty much as simple as "Are you wearing the appropriate colours? Then you can acquire them from any source.", not the branded stuff like the article. We had branded clothes of course but they weren't mandatory, but we also had like little iron on patches if you -really- wanted the school logo on your shirt, and low income families could get subsidies or donations (there were regular drives from the school to collect the stuff kids had grown out of but were still in good nick to give to other families). And if you were having to go out to represent the school at a super fancy event, all of them would lend blazers to the students. Which, in my biased eyes, seems the right way to do things.
The private schools I've run into though, have rules more like this UK school, which, ugh, just feels like money grubbing on top of moneygrubbing