At that time girls had to wear a tunic and boys a shirt and a tie with a pair of trousers. This meant none of the mixed fiber clothes you see today that make pants hard to distinguish between formal and informal wear and there was no such thing as pastel colors for shirts. They came out in college when one was free from the bind.
I think that uniforms did serve as part of the learning scheme and that was to teach students to respect the garment they were wearing but one could have easily applied that to proper distinctive dress such as I have mentioned for boys and a proper blouse and skirt for girls. But I think too much emphasis is being placed on the external look and not enough time is spent on more important issues like reducing potential violence, providing necessary coaching for the difficult learner and how to apply effective punishment. Certain private schools will still have their specific garments that are issued as elements of distinction from other schools that are not considered as competitive.
More important issues to deal with are potential violence together with reducing threats that students throw on teachers either because the student is undisciplined at home or because the teacher has not learned how to deal with warning signs or for other reasons. Teachers should also be more dynamic and through less attention on a slight deviation away from dress code especially when issues of violence, tardiness and poor study habits are infinitely more important. In short the means of teaching and the way the student absorbs the knowledge is much more important than how the child presents himself, given that he is dressed decently. I would leave it up to the individual teacher or schoolmaster to determine what "decent" means.
