School uniform does not improve results – discuss

There's an unusual school hidden away in rural Derbyshire. It's a small comprehensive with a talent for supporting its students and involving the community. According to Ofsted, it's already good, recording its best-ever GCSE results last summer, and it's getting better.

All of which is excellent news for any prospective parent, but is not what makes Anthony Gell school in Wirksworth stand out. No, what makes it distinctive is the fact that students do not wear uniform.

The education secretary, Michael Gove, is a firm believer in the power of clothes that match. The recently published white paper urged all schools to introduce not just uniform, but blazers and ties.

The Conservatives have been linking high standards, strict discipline and what children wear for years now. "The best-performing schools tend to have similar, if not the same, best practices," said a 2007 policy paper. "Strict school uniform policies, with blazer, shirt and tie, and with a zero-tolerance of incorrect or untidy dress."

Sartorial strictness appealed to Labour as well. Charles Clarke insisted that "uniforms are good for discipline and school ethos, giving pupils a real sense of identity with their school". And Ed Balls suggested that local authorities encourage schools to adopt "smart" uniforms and strengthen ties with "uniformed" organisations such as scouts and guides.

Headteachers and governors have found it hard to resist such pressure. More than 90% of all secondary schools in England are now thought to insist on uniform, while the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust reckons all 347 academies enforce a strict dress code. Many local authorities say they have no non-uniform schools at all.

The few remaining secondary schools without uniform are elusive – and some are wary of even discussing the issue. One Oxford headteacher of a school with no uniform, despite leading an outstanding and oversubscribed school, would only say that the matter was "very complex and highly political".

David Baker, head of Anthony Gell, is more confident. When he took over five years ago, the school was already non-uniform. He surveyed parents, staff, governors and pupils on the subject, aware of how contentious it can be. "It's an issue that divides people. There are very strong views on both sides."

However, he decided Anthony Gell should remain non-uniform. "As long as students come appropriately dressed, clothing isn't a major factor in their learning. I believe in treating children as individuals with rights and responsibilities."

A similar ethos holds sway at King Edward VI community college in Totnes, Devon, where seven years ago the governors "did a brave thing", says the principal, Kate Mason, and abolished uniform.

"It was unusual even then to be a state school without a uniform, but we felt we were spending far too much time addressing issues of non-compliance," says Mason. "Too many conversations with students were about tucking shirts in. We were desperate to focus on the important issues of teaching and learning."

In an age when politicians preach diversity and choice, she finds the insistence on uniform contradictory. "We believe all students are different and we believe in celebrating that. Our school is oversubscribed, our results are better than ever, our students are confident and comfortable. Even if there was something I wanted to fix, I wouldn't do it with uniform."

Supporters of uniform insist that it improves behaviour and builds community spirit. Pupils "enjoy the sense of pride they get from wearing a smart uniform, and the smarter the better," according to research by Oxford Brookes University. The findings were well publicised; the fact that the research was sponsored by the Schoolwear Association was less so.

Yet neither Mason nor Baker appear to have problems in these areas. Ofsted commented on the Derbyshire pupils' generally good and responsible behaviour as well as their pride in and "tremendous loyalty" to their school.

Paradoxically, proof of Anthony Gell's good relations with its pupils is revealed by their willingness to buy its optional branded clothing. Baker frequently sees his pupils wearing hoodies and sweatshirts adorned with the school logo around town at the weekend.

Another claim often made for uniform is that it papers over divides between rich and poor children, making bullying less likely. But in the five years Baker has been head, he has never dealt with a bullying issue sparked by clothing. "I know children want branded trainers and so on, but that spreads across their whole lives. It isn't specific to school. Also, it's obvious even with a uniform which children come from poorer homes. It's difficult to hide the fact that you only have one shirt and have to wear it all the time."

And what of the alleged connection between results and uniform? Back in 2007, the Conservatives pointed out that only one of the top-performing 100 state schools was non-uniform. Yet such statistics work the other way round, too. Despite dressing their pupils in blazers and ties, more than 40 academies last year failed to reach the government's "floor target" of 30% of pupils with five A*-C GCSEs including maths and English.

One man who has spent years studying such statistics is American academic David Brunsma. A sociology professor at Missouri-Colombia University, he became entangled with uniform following Bill Clinton's 1996 suggestion that schools consider uniforms as a way of controlling youth gang culture. Brunsma, who says he was "utterly flabbergasted" at such "superficial glossing over of complex social, democratic, cultural, material and political issues", embarked on some serious research.

After eight years, Brunsma concluded that: "The results, although surprising to many, simply cannot be ignored. Uniforms do not make our schools better."

So why the seemingly unstoppable rise of the blazer and tie? "My conclusions over the years are that this is an issue of children's rights, of social control, and one related to increasing racial, class and gender inequalities in our schools," says Brunsma.

Such ideas are rarely debated in the UK. In the US, where uniform is spreading, its introduction is often fought on freedom of expression grounds.

In Europe, uniform is relatively rare. Yet here in the UK, it goes largely unremarked that the increasing popularity of blazer and tie uniforms over the last 30 years has coincided with increasing social inequality. The most serious recent investigation into what children wear to school was by the Office of Fair Trading – and that was into price. State-school children can now dress smartly and cheaply for learning (Tesco uniforms were £3.75 in the summer), but the divide between them and the pupils of Eton (three-piece tailsuit, £170) or Harrow (monitor's black top hat, £158) is wider than ever.

For Mason and Baker the absence of uniform brings a daily benefit, liberating them from having to nit-pick about pupils' clothing. "It's just a non-issue here," says Mason. "There are other things we want to concentrate on in our conversations with students," says Baker.

As if to prove his point, another secondary head – also called Dave Baker – has been drawn into some unfortunate conversations about uniform recently, specifically about Miss Sexy trousers. The tight-fitting trousers had become popular with girls at Bradley Stoke community school, Bristol.

Baker is reported to have spent £400 on 80 pairs of tailored trousers. Girls who turned up in the Miss Sexy brand were told to change into them, a policy which some objected to as unhygienic. He is also reported as saying that the Miss Sexy trousers revealed "too much flesh" and that it is "hideously embarrassing" to see "flesh and thong hanging out".

To spare his blushes in future, Bradley Stoke governors might consider adopting the dress code of Mason's college. It is simply "3Cs – clean, comfortable and covered up".