Uniform approach ties up school time

I wonder whether growing up on a 1970s estate, which Lynsey Hanley described so brilliantly in her book, makes one feel comfortable with uniformity. She certainly doesn't consider the feelings and attitudes of early adolescence in her piece on school dress (Bring back the blazers, 21 August). There are four aspects she doesn't mention. First, how repressive it is, just when young people are becoming individuated and aware of self-image, that we make them all look the same. We deny them the creativity expressed through how we each want to appear to the world. Second is the amount of teacher-time involved in uniform checking and policing: letters home, kit inspections and so on. Schools have more important things to cram into their short enough days. Third, consider the real behaviour of actual pupils: what about piercings, jewellery, tattoos, the idiosyncratic tyings of ties; the shortness of girls' skirts and the length of boys' hair. All these are the effects of imposing uniform. The equality that Lynsey Hanley idealises is not true. You can still tell how prosperous a uniform-wearer is.

And finally, we are increasingly looking at other countries for educational examples, and I wonder why it is that the US, Germany, France and Sweden have such good ideas about Sats, technical education, language learning and free schools, and still manage to educate their children without imposing uniforms. Let's move on from the 19th century, when girls were allowed into secondary education only if they were made to look like boys – wearing the ridiculous item that even men are nowadays giving up. How demeaning I always find it to see girls in ties.

David Seddon

High Peak, Derbyshire