When are school uniforms real uniforms and not just quasi uniform, color codes?

Gleaned from this question phrases and thought like: I got so much shit for wearing clothes that were POOR. First impressions and all, Uniforms have been chosen as one of many ways to protect the students. How much skin should be allowed to show? How tight should the clothes be? Where do you stop making a rule for every specific case and simply require uniforms? They had a dress code that required that the boys wear a shirt and tie, I couldn’t believe it! I’m all for uniforms, because I think it helps eliminate fights about clothing for the parents, makes it easy on the child to decide what to wear, helps level the playing field between poor children and those who can afford more etc that uniforms make it better overall than not to have them. How effective are uniforms really when they are not really uniforms? If the school say their uniform is khaki pants or skirt with a maroon top but don’t issue them but let the parents chose whatever style, or brand in those colors, how effective can that really be? If someone can afford to wear a Sean John, or some other designer label maroon shirt and someone else can only afford a knock off or no-name maroon shirt from a bargain clothier isn’t that kid still at a disadvantage? Those kids not wearing name brand will still be targets even if they are wearing a maroon top, they are not wearing the right maroon top. If the school doesn’t issue the uniforms where each one is the same as the next, like the G.I. uniform in the military; where each are the same style and cut, just different sizes, isn’t it more of a quasi uniform ad hoc by color code?

That is not even breaking into the how some will be able to accessorize with more expensive stuff that is allowable to further distance themselves from those who have not.