The government’s new limit on branded school uniform is a small retreat from an unfair system, but it won’t make uniforms affordable for many working-class families.
From September, schools will be allowed to require a maximum of three items carrying a school logo, such as a blazer, jumper or sportswear. Secondary schools can also require a branded tie. Government data suggests around 23 percent of secondary schools will have to change their uniform lists.
Ministers claim the change could save some families “up to £50 per child”. That’s little comfort to parents already paying hundreds of pounds to send their children to school in the approved clothing.
Zia Lee, from Clothing Coventry, told the BBC: “To have three compulsory logo items I mean you’re still looking at a lot of money, you know, one to two hundred pounds for one child.”
The charity has opened a three-week school uniform pop-up to help families meet these costs. The need for such projects shows the real state of education under capitalism. Children supposedly have a right to attend school, but exercising that right comes with a bill for blazers, sportswear, shoes, transport, meals and other necessities.
A school logo doesn’t keep a child warm or help them learn. Its main economic function is to restrict where parents can shop. Instead of buying an affordable generic jumper, families can be tied to particular suppliers and charged extra for a badge stitched onto the front.
This is one small example of how capitalism pushes the cost of reproducing the workforce onto working-class households. Capital needs workers who are educated, clothed and healthy enough to sell their labour. But as much of that cost as possible is dumped onto parents, while wages are held down and prices rise.
Meme Horner, a 21-year-old volunteer with Clothing Coventry, knows what that pressure means. “As a child I got hand-me-downs, my mum got quite a lot of help, so it’s kind of like just giving back to the community in a way, I feel good doing it,” she said.
Her work represents working-class solidarity at its best. People who’ve received help are now helping others. But the existence of uniform banks also exposes the failure of a wealthy capitalist society that leaves families dependent on charity for clothing required by the school system.
Horner believes three branded items are still too many. “The crisis of money nowadays, the inflation has gone up so dramatically, and parents are struggling to do the basic necessities, let alone get children three pairs of logoed clothing for school,” she explained.
Inflation is often presented as if it were bad weather, something that simply arrives and affects everyone equally. It doesn’t. Rising prices hit workers hardest because food, rent, energy and children’s clothing consume a much greater share of their income. Meanwhile, businesses protect their margins and the wealthy have property and financial assets to shelter them.
Seyedeh Naseriniaki, another volunteer at the uniform bank, said her own family had been forced to change uniforms twice. “And going for a specific uniform cost a lot for us.
“With the help of charities we had a better chance, but we could choose the newer uniform if it was not logoed.”
That’s the class issue in plain terms. Parents can find usable clothing, but branding rules prevent them from choosing it. The practical needs of children are subordinated to a market organised around exclusive suppliers and compulsory purchases.
The education secretary has legal powers to order schools to follow the new rules. Yet enforcing a limit of three branded items only controls the worst excesses. It accepts that schools can continue imposing unnecessary costs on families and that access to education can remain another opportunity for private profit.
The Association of School and College Leaders claims the difference in cost will probably be marginal for most families. Marginal to whom? Fifty pounds may look insignificant from a comfortable office, but it matters to a household already choosing between food, heating and rent.
The Schoolwear Association argues that parents might spend more replacing lower-quality generic garments that don’t last as long as branded products. There’s a grain of truth buried in this defence of the existing market: cheap clothing produced for profit is often poor quality. But capitalism offers working-class families a false choice between overpriced branded uniforms and cheaper garments designed to wear out. Durability doesn’t require a school logo or an exclusive retail arrangement.
The meanness of the policy reflects the priorities of an imperialist state. Vast resources are available when the ruling class wants to protect profits, support big business or project military power abroad. When working-class children need clothes for school, responsibility is pushed back onto individual families and local charities.
Three logos instead of four won’t end this burden. It merely sets an official limit on how much unnecessary expense schools can impose. The uniform banks will remain, the private market will remain, and the class expected to carry the cost will remain the same.
