Just read the bloody uniform policy!!!

Wrong pic for showing the price

@Redbrickrebel So, when you're chucking £150 at branded trainers for little Toby

They are £55 for the Nike ones. George st Asda are £30. Yes there is a difference, but not to the extent of your hyperbole.

I don’t disagree that uniform issues disrupt teaching and learning. But those issues would not arise if there was either no uniform or if there was a human uniform policy.

well, I see a lot, but if they were wearing ballet flats they wouldn't be

In most circumstances no - but yet again kids will always say “my mum can’t afford to xyz” to get out of things. There are of course exceptions to any rule, for example in the case of kids who need insoles etc, but the vast majority of instances where kids are breaking these rules their parents aren’t in these circumstances, they’re simply the parents who say “oh well the Nike logo is small, your shoes don’t affect your learning, why does shoes matter etc.”

My point is, these school rules are ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why plain black ankle boots should not be allowed.

Vivienne Westwood ballet pumps are not cheap, they are £100.

@Napierbrat do you think its ok then that a child was put into isolation because his shoe broke and his mum couldnt replace it for two days

The odd thing about all this nonsense is that the parents who make the most fuss about uniform rules tend to also have kids who don't follow behaviour rules too. They tend to have kids who are rude to their teachers and who disrupt lessons. How strange!

It absolutely does affect teaching and learning. So many kids nowadays see rules in schools as something they can decide they’re not following, and oftentimes they’re backed up by the parents!

seeing a lot of replies on this thread which completely makes the kids attitude make sense - if you let your kid break uniform rules the message you’re sending to them is that they don’t have to follow school rules, which believe me makes teaching almost impossible.

You are not alone, something like that could have been done at the start of the holidays. No excuses for that one really.

I think that is why out school relented with them, as long as they are all black and can be polished then they are fine. They look smart and last well.

I don't think there is a problem with ankle boots but if the policy says shoes, it means shoes. It's not that difficult.

I find it ridiculous that school uniform is so prescriptive. Black shoes should be fine never mind the style. If the kid is comfortable that's enough.

Sending kids home or removing them from lessons over their footwear is beyond crazy.

Kids are there to learn. Unless things have changed since I was at school they don't with their feet, so let them learn.

Teachers are there to teach, I'm sure they are busy enough without monitoring the students feet.

I don't think those Nike boots can be interpretated as appropriate within most uniform policies as they are not shoes! And those VW shoes are absolutely ridiculous for school, they aren't plain black for a start and ballet pumps aren't really shoes. The parents are being dicks in these instances.

My DSs are at a private school who are relatively strict on uniform but they have said plain black shoes are fine, including AF1 type trainers. I think this is really sensible as the they are comfy and last the full year for the boys. My DS got away with wearing normal black trainers for 2.5 terms the other year, when they noticed they said to sort new shoes (his had fallen apart and the trainers were a temporary measure but they didn't notice for so long). The fact that so many schools are being ridiculous about it is infuriating though, they do keep changing the policies each year which doesn't help either.

Literally what is the problem with wearing plain black ankle boots though?

Yes, I feel the same.

The 'preparing them for the workplace' thing is bollocks anyway if they go off to college and university and get to wear whatever the hell they like!

But the logo is a sign of quality as well

No it isn't. It's a sign of marketing.

Hate the thick as mince posters/parents who simply cannot understand what a uniform is and why it's necessary not to try and get round it to be cool or show off wealth.

Of course it doesn't impact learning, but it creates a hierarchy and encourages bullying and social exclusion.

So, when you're chucking £150 at branded trainers for little Toby, just think on there's kids with George at ASDA or Wynsors specials, just as the policy intends, because that's what the family can afford.

@Lollypop701 Nike black shoes are really cheap in sports direct so I don’t think it’s a sign of wealth.

I have 3 DDs all in the same secondary (years 11 and 8). I went to the local schoolwear shop to pick up trousers I’d ordered for dd (she slim and super tall so had to order). As dd tried them on there was a mum with her dd who was about to go into year 7 and one day before starting school the mum was getting uniform and reading the rules for the first time. She was horrified when she learned they’re not allowed boots (she’d already bought leather ankle boots) and not allowed nail varnish. I was fascinated where her dd went to primary as these are standard rules surely? She said to me “this school’s rules are ridiculous aren’t they?!” And I replied “oh, my girls are in year 11 and 8 and we’ve never had an issue and are really happy with the school.”… she didn’t speak to me after that.

They have a huge Nike swoosh on the side! 😂😂

Kids will always find ways to bully and ostracise if they want to. If you are only allowed to get clarks shoes for example, there will be some styles that kids hate and will tease other kids for wearing - if thats how they are inclined. It will be about coats, and lunch boxes, and whats in lunch boxes etc etc etc.