No polishable school shoes = no school

At our school we have a pupil who recently had surgery on his foot so supported by his medical note he is allowed to wear trainer style shoes with no logo. However 12 year olds are not as rational as rootypig seems to think and did cause some awkwardness for the pupil concerned. I would speak to your GP to see if he/she can help.

But if he does become a solicitor or accountant he would be able to afford custom made shoes.

I don't have any useful advice other than to suggest contacting the school to say that there are literally no formal shoes that fit his feet and perhaps he should go in bare feet instead

DD's school has strict rules about footwear as well, but if DD had feet that couldn't be shod I would try very hard to present my case, even getting a letter from a podiatrist or other medical professional if necessary.

You need to go back to the school and explain that he will be attending until you are able to find a pair of shoes which will fit. If the place has been offered then he needs to start, and a refusal on the part of the school to let him constitutes an illegal exclusion.

waffle children get free glasses

www.widerfitshoes.co.uk/S-Hailsham/style947/0/0/80004B_l.jpg/Brown/80004B_l.jpg

The 6e seems to be for v wide feet

child 1: why can you wear trainers?
OP's DS: I've got strangely shaped feet
child 1: oh right

I'm sure if the trainers are sufficiently naff they won't give a bollocks.

If the school require this you would need to get a medical note to justify an exemption from a clear uniform policy. Also with your DS joining so late in the academic year do you really want him to stand out and create resentment amongst the other pupils who cannot wear trainers?

It's not the shoes which concern me, it's the possible interview for a place and the subsequent exclusion (assuming a place has been offered and accepted) which is illegal unless a letter has been sent home stating the length and reasons for exclusion, and a date for a return from exclusion meeting.

Sending children home for uniform violations is no longer legal.

I understand and support all of the points raised here, but where I work, if it's not polishable shoes that are enforced, then children come in in scruffy black Nike Air Maxs which cost upwards of £120 and it becomes a competition.

I'd try these - I buy shoes for my dad from the same manufacturer, and his feet are massively swollen and they fit beautifully.

Wider Fit website start from a size 6 in mens shoes, that might be an option? They also have a fitting guide so that you have a reasonable chance of getting the right size without having to try them on. And they'll swap if they're not right.

www.widerfitshoes.co.uk/mens///6.0/*/Blacks/0000

They're all HH+ and there are loads of other styles but those looked the least grandaddy!

Would something like this work? They're for people with swollen or bandaged feet, but they look pretty adjustable and she should be able to get his toes to the end.

Sorry, that is the law insists you have corrected vision to drive

Is this a state school?

Has a place been offered and accepted?

If so, this is an illegal exclusion and should be challenged.

Was the interview before or after the place was offered? Interviewing candidates before offering a place contravenes the admissions code.

Why should I have to pay 400 for a pair of glasses that are not the right prescription in a years time?

Those are some damn expensive glasses, mine cost 60. But anyway, your glasses mean you are able to see, able to do your job properly, able to drive safely etc. Wearing 'polishable' shoes wont make a blind bit of difference to OPs sons ability to be at school, to learn, to do exams, to graduate. In fact, from what the OP says, he would be in pain if he was forced to wear badly fitting shoes, so actually it would make things worse.

As long as they are plain black, I cannot see that it matters what material they are made of.

Waffle your argument from individual variation or characteristic is fallacious because there is an acceptable, workable alternative for the OP. The polishability of shoes is not inherent to the function that they perform. All of the other examples you give make the difference between a dichotomy that does not exist here (see/not see, suffer hayfever/not suffer, bleed all over the carpet/not). In short, they are essential in some way.

Though for each example you give, there are more and less expensive alternatives to choose between, and people expect to be able to do that. So , the law insists that you have corrected vision, but does not prescribe the type of glasses that you wear (I would suggest that there are cheaper pairs available than you are choosing to buy....). So the analogy is actually with a school insisting that a child wear shoes (because the reason is functional, eg for the protection of their feet, rather than aesthetic).

Of course you are entitled to argue that uniform rules should apply to everyone regardless. But the arguments you give from individual variation do not support this iteration as you think that they do.

My son has always been off the scale widthways. Neither clarks nor startrites make shoes wide enough. The shoe shops advise going up a size to accommodate the additional width but that just means that the shoes don't fit properly.
I have ordered Piedro shoes in the past. Approx £130 for boots or trainers and a bit less for shoes. They are designed for the NHS to take orthotics so are extra wide. They are the only ones that I could get to fit properly for the first 6 years of my son being at school.
My son is now in adult sized shoes and it is much easier to get something wide enough (although still very difficult in comparison to my other standard sized foot child).
Tk maxx are also worth a look as they often have in all kinds of random extra wide shoes.

If a school has a uniform then everyone is expected to adhere to it. End of story. If one person is allowed trainers, then a precedent is set.

Re: "why should the OP have to pay £175 or so for a pair of school shoes that might not fit in 5-6 months"

Why should I have to pay £400 for a pair of glasses that are not the right prescription in a years time? Those with 20/20 vision don't have to.

Why do women have to pay for the cost of menstruation protection when men don't?

Why must my husband spend a fortune on hayfever products at the chemists when I don't need to?

There are lots of similar and utterly meaningless arguments.

Christ this stuff makes me so cross, the child has to have shoes that fit! I hope the HT sees sense OP. I mean, for the love of god!

When I hear stories like this, I often wonder what would happen if the OP asked the person who makes the school rules (HT/Governor) to go shopping with them and see how easy it was to find the shoes within the budget that the OP can afford.

Maybe a 6 hour shopping marathon with a stroppy Pre-Teen may make them rethink their strategy. Does it really matter what shoes a child is wearing? Does it make them a harder worker? Better at maths? Less likely to bunk off?