School uniform policy changes

[NorthLondonNora]

Old headteacher retired in July and new head sent home a letter in the last week of term, banning certain kinds of school shoes from September onwards.
My 15yo DS's feet seem to have stopped growing and so when his most recent pair wore out in June, I happily bought him a new pair. Unfortunately, the style he chose, though acceptable at the time of purchase, no longer meet the requirements for the new academic year.
AIBU to send him back in them anyway (he's not bothered by doing this) - because I can't afford to throw away £50+ on nearly-new school shoes when he only has one year left in uniform anyway? Or is 6 weeks is enough notice of a change of policy?

No one should be sending children home because of what they're wearing. The whole thing is fucking ridiculous rules for the sake of rules bullshit. What the fuck does it matter if the black shoes are slightly the wrong black shoes? What the fuck does it matter if they're (oh no - the horror!) trainers? Anyone who devotes their time and energy to either dreaming up or enforcing uniform - when there is not one shred of evidence that it has any benefit whatsoever whether academic or social - is a twat.

What the fuck does it matter if they're (oh no - the horror!) trainers? Anyone who devotes their time and energy to either dreaming up or enforcing uniform - when there is not one shred of evidence that it has any benefit whatsoever whether academic or social - is a twat.
Sigh. I'll bite.
And this is exactly why some schools have gone down the route of very picky, prescriptive uniforms - because they have repeated issues with parents arguing thr toss, buying trainers and then whining to the school that trainers din't make a difference to learning. (In those schools you also tend to find a reasonable group of parents calling up saying their child can't be put in detention, don't back the school because 'my child was just...'They don't bother to see that every time a parent undermines school it makes running a school difficult. It creates a wider culture where parents and students pick and choose when they'll bother to follow basic expectations. And then, hillariously, start going on about how all these areas of a the school are 'shit/ insert other insult here").

Following a basic uniform doesn't magically do something to the brain to make learning better, but a simple uniform, followed properly is good for looking smart and takes away the 'who wears what' part of the day.

My school doesn't have people calling those who promote uniform twats, our parents send their children in looking smart and unsurprisingly we don't have to be very nit picky because parents support us.

I've worked in schools with and without uniform. I don't mine either way (the school that didn't have a uniform had a dress code that students had to follow).

But I guess I'm a twat because I expect the students to follow the rules of the place they attend.

Dd's school has everything regulation except bag, shoes and PE trainers. It's not overpriced and i prefer it because it requires zero thought/effort unlike the bag/shoes/trainers.
They have to wear blazer in summer and jumper/blazer the other two terms, but they are sensible about it. If it's too hot i just tell dd to carry the blazer or put the jumper in her bag and to put it on if told to. She has never been told to put them on in a heat wave as far as i know.

I don't follow the logic, I'm afraid - btw I have worked in naice schools but am not a teacher.

It would seem more logical to me that if you have rebellious students and unsupportive parents you would reduce the possibilities for conflict, not increase them. Give them less to push against IYSWIM: this is the area where your compliance is flexible.

Thinking back, at my school we wore some very inappropriate knicker-skimming skin tight skirts, but exactly zero staff time was spent policing it. Isn't it sort of the precise mission of a teenager to wear clothes/shoes/makeup that make their adults wince?

I'm not arguing for its own sake: this is so far outside my experience that I am missing a logical step! Please fill me in!

If he's only just had them use go into the school explain that you can't afford any more atm and these are his school shoes.
Our school gives kids pumps to wear if their shoes aren't correct (When I went to look round with ds1 one girl was in isolation for wearing white socks!!) That i thought was pathetic what if washing machine is broke??
Primary school are a bit more lax but we still get letters home about proper shoes.
The problem we have there is the teachers don't tell the kids to change their shoes to trainers before going out to play. Both my boys can get through a pair of Clark's shoes in under a month. I asked the school if they could ask them to change their shoes before lunch but they never told them too so I though sod it and brought them black trainers so at least they would last the school year.

I actually like seeing the kids in uniform it makes them look smart but at the same time I think a little bit of help from the school would make everyone's lives easier.
Another bug bear is logos on pe kit. Why can't they just have black shorts/white top etc and only need the school ones if the kids play sport for the school

Maisy the problem emerges when the uniform is no longer simple. Logos on everything, tightly circumscribed rules on shoes - how is that simple? Our school specifies that shoes must be black, have a heel of no more than an inch and must have no coloured logos - black on black is allowed. Beyond that, no rules. It's simple, it works.

Simple uniform is fine, though I would prefer no uniform at all. Endless obsessive nitpickery and heads feeling they need to 'make their mark' when they come into post is not fine.

Has OP emailed the Head? Did I miss that bit?

I'd just say they were old shoes bought last term, pre the decision and he'll wear them till he needs a new pair. And then your'll adhere to her new policy.

How is Head going to argue against that?

pointythings
Our school specifies that shoes must be black, have a heel of no more than an inch and must have no coloured logos - black on black is allowed. Beyond that, no rules. It's simple, it works.

It works for your school we (as pp) specify footwear to allow trainers, the other section of your rule is the same yet we still get bright yellow trainers in school.

Some kids and parents just seem to want to argue.

Maisythe problem emerges when the uniform is no longer simple.Logos on everything, tightly circumscribed rules on shoes - how is that simple?
I don't think those are simple. I've said it multiple times on this thread.

What I have said is that in my experience the only reason schools go down that picky route is when there's been endless battles getting parents and students to follow simple rules and uniform.
(Or, due to years and years of having parents battle against school the school nose dives and ends up being taken over by an academy chain with their own blanket approach. I've worked in those schools and fought those battles e.g. no a short fitted shirt and leggings is not uniform / no a hoody isn't the school blazer / no they can't wear trainers / no long false nails aren't appropriate for school... i don't care that her aunty did them as a present etc. That kind of silly kicking back on reasonable rules meant every day was a battle because students knew their parents would back them over us. School got taken over by a chain in the end. I'd left by then).

"Out in the post-school real world it is very simply, there is a uniform, or a dress code (not a uniform requirement) or there is none, or there is a strictly adhered to requirement like scrubs."

As an adult you are responsible for choosing where you work and complying with its dress code and you get penalised if it's considered wrong. As a schoolchild someone else (parent) is responsible for choosing where you go to school and complying with its uniform and you get penalised if it's considered wrong. As a parent of a schoolchild someone else (the council allocating school places) is responsible for choosing where your child goes to school.

At secondary school i would bet most uniform transgressions are nothing to do with the parents refusing to provide the correct uniform

Boney I think there will always be a small hard core of parents who don't give a shit don't engage with their kids' education. Just as there will always be a small hard core of kids who will not behave or do the work. You can't make the rules just for that group though.

It's perfectly possible to give a shit about your kids' education while being of the opinion that uniform is a complete waste of time, money and energy spent enforcing/complying with. There is no basis for any of the arguments trotted out in its favour. None whatsoever. Given that, it seems more than slightly mad a) to have one; and especially b) to go through all the complex ruminations on this thread over a pair of shoes that presumably fit and do not pose a danger or cause offence.

I buy my kids their uniforms although believe me I have things I would much rather spend my limited income on than impractical expensive clothes that I am only buying in order that they are able to access the supposedly free education that is technically their birthright. But I wholeheartedly resent doing so and I wish that it were scrapped altogether.

Of course I know it won't be due to the unthinking repetition of craven bollocks about levelling and ethos and all the rest of the myriad issues in education and indeed society at large for which putting on a £45 blazer is purported to be a magical panacea is trotted out.

It's perfectly possible to give a shit about your kids' education while being of the opinion that uniform is a complete waste of time, money and energy spent enforcing/complying with
Absolutely. The question is what you do with that view.
Someone can hold a view that uniform is a giant waste of time without actively seeking to cause issues by kitting their child out in fashion clothes and then telling the child that if school have an issue then tell them I say it's fine etc.

E.g. I have taught in schools with uniform, uniform + parents who insist on undermining us and a school with no uniform. I don't have strong feelings either way. I'm not a fan of very picky uniforms but understand how some schools end up there. I'm generally in favour of simple uniforms that can be easily and affordably sourced. But even though I'm not a fan of blazers I'd not stand in front of my class and say 'i think you lot wearing blazerd is a ridiculous waste of time' because it undermines the achool

MaisyPops, for me the blazer was the only good bit of school uniform. All of those pockets are so useful for keeping pens, etc handy rather than having to rummage through a pencil case in your bag. Blazers were actually optional in fourth and fifth form at our comp, if I remember rightly, but I think most of the kids still chose to wear them. :)

Depends on the style for me. Oddly enough I choose to wear one most days to work.

My current school's one now is alright as blazers go Not too heavy, not offensive to look at (shouldn't say that as a teacher but hey). I don't like the fact they can't choose swap between a blazer or a jumper. I know quite a few of the girls would prefer just to wear the jumper.

Some local schools (one especially) it looks awful and I feel for the kids.

I used to hate the idea of blazers, but have been converted - for girls it's a really easy way to carry what they need discreetly at that time of the month, for starters.

FWIW although I am opposed to uniform and would send my DDs to a non-uniform school for preference (if there were any around - there are not) I have never argued with the rules and my DDs have received commendations for always being in correct uniform. I just wish that the government would crack down hard on the kind of single supplier deals that lead to parents having to pay stupid money for a pair of trousers with a logo on them. My DDs' school keeps prices low and is sensible, but not all schools are like that.

Don't even get me started on blazers. The only purpose they serve is to allow a child to access school. They are not weatherproof or durable in the slightest.

Buying them plus frigging games kits with school logo means that I won't be able to buy winter coats or indeed have any family days out until November's paycheck so excuse me while I take a moment to ponder the doublethink involved in being told that I am buying them in order for my kids to be socially levelled.

Imagine if you'd just bought a blazer in June, worn it for a couple of weeks, only to be told you'd have to buy a different one for September. No refunds on the old, already worn blazer. Parents, I'm sure, would be angry about this (understandably IMO). Why is it any different for shoes?

This pretty well happened at a school near me. Head with leg cocking tendencies came in and insisted on a blazer (hadn't had one before). A year later he decided to change the entire uniform - so it could be provided by the same firm that supplies Eton and Harrow - complete with new blazer and a skirt made from a tartan that was designed specifically for that school and "patent protected" to stop any other school wanting to use it - it was really vile so I can't imagine anyone wanting to. Although the school allowed a brief transition all the girls in year 6 at the junior school had to replace their blazers with the new ones when their daughters went into year 7 a year later. My friend was absolutely fuming....