As the government progresses with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, school uniform policies are once again under the spotlight. Matthew Easter, chair of the Schoolwear Association (SA), offers his perspective on the Bill’s recommendations regarding branded or school-specific uniform items, discussing the broader effects this legislation could have, and why the conversation around uniforms is about much more than what students wear.

 

Laura Turner: To recap, what is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill proposing regarding the legal limit on branded or school-specific items?

Matthew Easter: The Bill, as proposed, will mean that primary schools must limit the number of compulsory branded or specific uniform items to a maximum of three, and secondary schools must limit to a maximum of three items plus a tie. This covers all items, including day uniform and sportswear. We understand that schools will also be able to specify optional branded or school specific items, but we don’t yet know exactly how these will need to be managed. We expect these rules to come into effect for Back to School 2026.

LT: What would you highlight as the key risks of the proposal?

ME: Whilst we don’t see too much of an issue for primary schools, we’ve repeatedly argued that the proposed limit for secondaries of three items plus a tie is too low. The current average number of school-branded or specific uniform in secondary schools is 5.2 garments, so we feel a limit of six items (or five plus a tie) would be a balanced and practical solution, all things considered. This is not to say that this will not still cause issues, but it does at least give enough scope for schools to have two or three items of both day uniform and sportswear, which we feel is just about workable.

LT: In terms of broader implications, what potential unintended consequences could arise from the proposal?

ME: We strongly believe that the proposed cap will lead to a host of unintended issues, and ultimately also achieve the opposite of what the government wants to achieve on reducing costs to parents. By removing school-specific items and allowing freedom of choice, we believe the whole ethos of school uniform as a social leveller will be compromised, and ultimately, many parents will be pushed into buying more expensive and/or less appropriate alternatives for their children.

This situation will, in turn, reduce the second-hand uniform market, as garments cannot be reused as easily, and increase the divide between pupils in school leading to the risk of bullying. Unfortunately, despite repeated efforts to represent these views in a balanced way to the senior government team, they have made it clear that they believe the policy as proposed is the right one and have not wished to consider the risks that we have highlighted.

LT: What feedback are you getting from suppliers, retailers and schools on the proposal?

ME: As an industry, we are in a unique position to understand how uniform works, not only from a school perspective but also for parents and ultimately pupils. As a result, I believe retailers and suppliers instinctively know that if this proposal becomes law as drafted, it will not only fail to deliver the savings that the government are communicating but will also have a host of other negative consequences as outlined earlier.

I would say that the school leaders who are aware of the proposed legislation are also of the same opinion, although many do not yet understand the details, as there has been no formal communication from the DfE yet. In fact, some schools have seen first-hand the pitfalls of taking out certain school-specific uniform items – despite thinking they were doing the right thing for parents – when the current statutory guidance was introduced back in 2021. Consequently, many of these have reinstated the items in question, which will now be under threat again.

LT: Has the SA conducted any recent surveys on the proposed Bill?

ME: Yes, the SA continues to canvas opinion and most recently surveyed 150 retail members on their views around the proposed Bill. As a result, we found that 61.3% think they will have to increase prices to compensate for lost revenues; 53.5% say they may have to stop offering discounts on uniform and support to struggling families should a cap be introduced; 54.2% think they will have to lay off staff; and a third think they will have to close, despite the government’s commitment to support British high streets.

LT: What are the SA’s plans for the coming year?

ME: Unfortunately, the implementation of the Bill, once it becomes law, will have to remain our key focus in the near future. However, we are continuing to work on other areas and are also currently engaged with DEFRA on how uniform might fit into its proposed circular economy framework for textiles, which is due to be first published for consultation in the autumn.

LT: Beyond membership, how else can the industry help support the SA?

ME: Right now, engaging with school leaders on the Bill once the outcome becomes clearer is probably the most important job for retailers as we go into the next product order cycle for 2026. This will mean working with each school to determine what changes will need to be made to their uniform policies for next summer, and then placing order requirements back to suppliers to allow production to take place in the usual way.

SA members can follow our work in a host of ways now – we publish a fortnightly newsletter, are much more active on social media, and have a new, more informative and useful website.

Visit the Schoolwear Association at The Schoolwear Show on 12-13 October.