Adam Robbins Education

School Uniform, Rules, and the Power of Social Norms

All schools have a uniform, it is just a matter of who is deciding it.

Recently I went through a rite of passage that many parents will recognise, buying the year 7 uniform. Looking at the bill of around £120 I thought to myself, uniform is too expensive. Yet when I checked through the items nothing was individually unreasonable. Even the blazer, at £30, seemed good value for something that should last a long time. Still, I am acutely aware that for some families this cost creates real challenges and I am glad that many schools look for ways to support them.

The government’s decision to reduce the number of branded items has brought uniform back into debate. Over the years I have found myself on different sides of this argument. As my bank balance was being drained I found myself reflecting on the way uniform has been used throughout my career and the role it plays in shaping culture and expectations.

Early 2000s

When I started teaching in 2003 the school uniform followed a very simple logic, if it is simple then students cannot wear it badly. Gone were the shirt and tie of my own school days, replaced with a branded polo shirt and a school jumper. It was cheap and straightforward. The assumption was that this would prevent students from bending the rules. That assumption was wrong.

In every school, students will find ways to reshape the rules. At that time it was all about rolling sleeves, choosing the right trousers or skirts, and wearing trainers that could just about pass for shoes. The school took a pragmatic view, if they were black and polishable then they counted as shoes, so students mostly wore trainers. The brand mattered. I can’t remember If Nike Air Force Ones were the dominant ‘naughty shoe’ then, if not then something similar was.

This is where social norms become powerful. Even when the official rules are clear, young people look to their peers to understand what is really expected. They interpret, test, and adapt. The uniform may set a boundary, but students redefine it within their own social groups. Classic studies show that when rules are ambiguous people look to the behaviour of others to guide them, creating powerful informal norms that can override official expectations.¹

2012

In 2012 my school rebranded as part of academisation. I remember the heated debates about adopting a blazer and tie. One history teacher dismissed it as Victorian pageantry that ignored modern business attitudes. Despite those arguments, a more formal uniform was adopted.

Did this change play a part in the school’s improvement over the next decade? Probably. Uniform standards, when combined with consistent systems to uphold them, contribute to the wider culture of high expectations. A uniform is never just clothing; it signals values, boundaries, and the collective identity of the school. Research into injunctive and descriptive norms suggests that rules only shape behaviour when they are seen to be enforced consistently and when most people actually follow them.²

Hidden Rules and Peer Pressures

It is important to recognise that the rules written on paper are not the same as the rules that matter. Some schools say they have strict expectations but in reality their students turn up wearing a version of uniform that could have come straight out of a television drama. In those cases students are forced to navigate two sets of rules, the official ones and the peer enforced ones. That pressure is often greater than anything the school itself demands. This is often more stressful and controlling than having to comply with the schools uniform requirements.

This was illustrated to me recently when I spoke to the parent of a child transferring into year 8. I explained that our school was strict and that their child needed to be organised with uniform to avoid sanctions. Their reply was striking. At least their child could wear school shoes without being called names, they said, because in their current school this had been a problem. For that parent, and for their child, consistency was a source of safety. This reflects what psychologists have long argued, that social norms are enforced not only by authority but also by the threat of social sanctions from peers.³ One of the key arguments for having a uniform in schools is the way it provides a safety net for students. By being expected to all dress the same it reduces the uncertainty of what to wear and how people will react to it.

Looking Ahead

The future of school uniform will depend on how schools respond to government reforms. Some may simplify their requirements and lower costs. Others will continue to favour more formal uniforms. My suspicion is that adult attitudes will continue to play a large role. For many parents, formality in uniform appeals to a lingering sense of tradition and status, even though modern workplaces are increasingly casual.

Whatever direction schools take, one principle stands out. It is not the students who should decide what counts as acceptable uniform, it is the school. When schools set clear and fair rules, and when they enforce them consistently, uniform can unite rather than divide.

This process has already begun with this recent LindedIn post I noticed.

Final Reflection

That shopping trip for my child reminded me that uniforms are never neutral. They always carry meaning. They reflect not only affordability but also the boundaries of culture and belonging. In the end, uniform works best when it is not just about the clothes themselves but about the norms and expectations that surround them.

---

References

1. Muzafer Sherif, The Psychology of Social Norms (New York: Harper, 1936).
2. Robert B. Cialdini, Raymond R. Reno, and Carl A. Kallgren, “A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, no. 6 (1990): 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015.
3. Cristina Bicchieri, The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616037.