AIBU to think that parents should buy the correct uniform and stop moaning

[Loveluck7]

I am getting increasingly irritated by people on FB moaning that their child's human rights have been violated because they were put into isolation for having the wrong uniform.

I understand that some rules can seem ridiculous but unfortunately some bad parents who have let their child wear spray on trousers and tiny skirts, have necessitated schools stipulating the exact items they need to wear.

Isolation does seem a harsh punishment when it is the parent's fault but how else can schools enforce the rules when some parent's think rules do not apply to them? The child cannot attend class without trousers and parent's would be angry if the child was sent home.

You also often find that it is these parent's who also complain when a school is no good at discipline, yet will not follow the rules themselves.

£2 A week.

Yeah that will.keep up with growth spurts, theft, items falling apart etc

And what about the rest of the clothes now she's saved 2 quid a week for a blazer in a yrs time

You have known for an entire year your child would need uniform..... £2 a week put aside? It's not my fault you only have £20. Some people don't even have £20.

I saved up all year. It cost just over £400 to kit them out. DS needed a new blazer as the old one was already 2 years old.
The last thing I could not get were the shoes and because the ones he wore last term are still in good condition I thought they would do for a few weeks.

But your right I am just moaning and it is my fault my son will be removed from lessons because of my inability to buy him new shoes.

But those same shoes were acceptable 8 weeks ago. It isn't on to just change the terms and assume everyone has enough money set aside to indulge the latest whim of the school.
Sometimes schools are way too free with parent's money and seem to live in a dream world where all families have cash just lying around.

And as I said up thread, comfortable shoes are important and don't come in a one size fits all. Primark trainers may not be suitable for a child's feet (I doubt they are leather anyway) and lots of schools wouldn't allow.

It would be utter stupidity for a school to ban a pair of leather, comfy shoes in favour of cheap ones on account of a 2mm label and we really shouldn't be blindly doing as we are told without fighting this madness.

This is entirely different from the parents who bought coloured trainers etc and totally ignored the black school shoe rule.

The problem with the shoes is that is says 'vans' and is a label.

They are the same shoes he wore last term. I have removed the label now so hopefully they will be ok.

wannabe, do you really manage to teach the full curriculum to children from all year groups in isolation? Your school must be exceptionally well staffed. But do you really think that is an effective use of school funds? Does it seriously matter if children have tags on their shoes?

It really is time the government did something effective to enforce their own uniform guidance. It needs to be made illegal for schools to insist on one supplier, or to demand that everything has expensive logos on, or to require wholly unnecessary bits of uniform; it also needs to be made illegal to punish children for uniform problems that are out of their control. If MN will do a campaign on that, I would support it 100%.

Why would they not be allowed? They are plain black shoes with no marks/ labels.

Whether I agree or not is academic they are the rules. No labels. If your child has specific medical problems with their feet we ask for a note.

Ofsted ask that isolation/ units are well staffed and that the needs of the children are met. Was one of the first things checked and we are always pretty much full either for behavioural, social or another reason.

The 'primark' solution is a solution until new shoes are affordable.

Says who? You have no idea where people live what hours they work and whether they even have a car or decent public travel.

Uniform should be simple, readily available from any of the high street shops (including supermarkets), and fit for purpose. There should be no obligatory purchases from approved suppliers and there should be no more than one item of logo'd uniform (e.g., a sweatshirt), any other logo'd clothing such as PE shirts or school bags should be entirely optional with parents able to substitute the logo items with generic ones instead. There should be no obligation to have logo items personalised - at the local middle school, the child's name has to be embroidered on the front of it all - so that they can be passed down where needed.

Schools should not be allowed to go to the extreme of dictating which shoes must be bought. The school near us has an approved shoe provider and the shoes must be bought from there off an approved list. I looked at that list and there is not a single shoe on it suitable for my DS, for a combination of reasons he destroys shoes. The only ones he doesn't are a specific style made by StartRite. They're plain, black leather and smart yet he'd be put in isolation for wearing them if he went to that school so the options for us would be let him be punished every day for wearing the wrong shoes or buy shoes off the approved list that will last him roughly a week before they need to be replaced.

Schools need to meet parents in the middle and they need to realise uniform poverty is a real problem.

And as an FYI, schools are not obligated to help out with uniform. Our L.A. offer no uniform assistance as its down to the individual school to decide whether to offer it. Many of them don't, citing funding restrictions as the reason.

When schools ban labels and logos they are trying to put a stop to this designer clothing nonsense, and kids using it for status and bullying, and poorer families not being able to pay.

Parents are not helping themselves by buying expensive designer brands.

My DD was threatened with isolation for having a skirt too short.

You have to buy the skirt from the school. I bought the correct uniform.

She is 15 and 5'11" with a 22" waist. School skirts that fit come up short.

If i wanted to go to Primark would cost me a 5-6 pound in train and take a massive chunk of the day.

I couldn't pop out in my lunch break

I live in ac country with no uniform, as said before, the appropriateness is still stipulated. the kids battle to be the best dressed, the richest come in all the labels, its misery, not to mention the whole hair/make up palaver. You don't know how lucky you are.
They should be told to dress correctly or they will be sent home next time.

It really is time the government did something effective to enforce their own uniform guidance. It needs to be made illegal for schools to insist on one supplier, or to demand that everything has expensive logos on, or to require wholly unnecessary bits of uniform

Couldn't agree more but we have a tory govt whose interest is in businesses making money not in what uniform costs the rest of us. That'll be why it's guidance and not legislation

Popping to Primark for shoes wouldn't work anyway if your school is one of the ones with a list of preapproved shoes and Primark isn't on the list.

I find it disgusting that children are placed in isolation for uniform infractions. What does it achieve? The kids in uniform poverty are punished for being poor, the kids whose parents don't give a shit and send them in with whatever they bought are punished for circumstances beyond their control, the children deliberately wearing the wrong uniform to make a point or be cool are instantly given rebel status and their parents are given an axe to grind. This nitpicking over uniform makes schools look pathetic in their pedantry.

I meant for our school it is.

We definitely need an MN campaign on uniform poverty.

I think it should go beyond uniform poverty. Most of these things aren't ok even if you can afford it.

Isolation units are usually staffed on the basis that children are normally in there for a day or two at most. I'd seriously question whether they are able to teach children from all year groups in all subjects for a month or more.

Cosmic

Was my reply to you? No

It was in response of someone moaning that they can't not have their eyebrows waxed and save the £2 a week to buy the £110 blazer they can't afford. It they get pupil premium so they are clearly on means benefits so are eligible to get money off their uniform. Also clearly have internet a roof over their head a car and a job so I pretty much can categorically say they are not destitute.

I agree your shoe thing is pathetic but let's face it you didn't buy vans for practicality you bought them because they are in fashion and your child wanted to fit in.

Oh great. First day back and the brand new clip on tie. Only available at one stockist, (they don't carry spare in school) has disintegrated in front of my eyes. It's radically different to the old one, so even though they've gone in with the old one on, it will still result in a punishment.

She has explained the situation and she is not entitled to the help.

Uniform rule changes should come with a 'run in'period.

My school Introduced a school skirt with coloured top band to stop the rolling over efforts.

Current yr 8-10 have a year to buy (so need it for 2018). Current year 11 don't need to wear or bother. New Year 7 are all in the new skirt, if they want to wear a skirt.

That makes more sense and gives parents adequate warning about changes.

As for shoes, sorry but most schools have simple plain black leather shoes, no logo rule. Shoes, not trainers. Trainer type ones are rarely acceptable in schools. Play safe if not sure.

But I agree most uniform needs to be generic e.g. We specify the skirt but everything else is readily supermarket available e.g. White shirts, jumpers and cardis are plain ones, and supermarket blazers can have school patch sewn on etc.

If schools are sensible and do this then one 'uniform' item eg skirt or trousers is not unreasonable to maintain some sort of 'standard dress'. I mean standard as in everyone the same, as opposed to 'standards' which is a subjective judgement

I agree your shoe thing is pathetic but let's face it you didn't buy vans for practicality you bought them because they are in fashion and your child wanted to fit in.

Actually choc during his first 2 years he had a range of black dress shoes costing £16 from Asda they lasted 1 term. So I bought £46 ones frim M & S they lasted 2 terms.
I bought Vans because they are soft leather black lace ups that met the rules in April 2017. They have lasted the longest. No scuffs, polish well and sole is still attached.

My son does not care about fashion which is good because I could not afford it. He owns 1 pair of nike trainers bought by my mum fir easter. He has 2 tracksuites I got in the sale at JD. All his other clothes come from Asda or Matalan.
But thank you for the judgements you have nade about my child.