School has banned Kickers shoes! I have bought them for DS. AIBU to to let him wear them and start a fight with them if they try to sanction him?

[CarefulDriver]

DS is starting secondary school next week. The school uniform regulations on the school website dictate that they wear black shoes (no trainer like shoes). Fine.

I bought him a pair of Kickers as I wanted comfy shoes which will last him most of the year. I know from previous experience with DS1 and 2 that the ‘businessman’ style shoes don’t last if they’re playing footie at break! Most of the DCs at their school wore Kickers and so did they once I caught on.

Chatting to friend who’s DC is also going to the same school yesterday and apparently the school has banned shoes with visible branding on which Kickers have. This is not on the main school uniform webpage which is what I checked to get his uniform but on a sub page for new Yr7s which I had read but only skimmed over the uniform bit as assumed it was the same as the main page.

I spent £68 on shoes, which IMO are common school shoes, he may not now be able to wear. He won’t be wearing out of school either obviously! I got them online direct from Kickers with a 14 day return policy which has runout now.

WIBU to just send him in on his first day in them?

c) Following the school rules is part of “basic manners ,kindness tolerance”. You don’t just do what you want in life because you feel entitled to.

You've banded all rules together which has completely missed the point of what the PP was making. enforcing uniform rules is relatively easy. Enforcing things like basic, manners and tolerance, not so much.

@CarefulDriver

They have the name on the heel as well in big letters in bright green and red as well as the tag on the front though.

Why should I have to deface a brand new pair shoes just because of a stupid rule they’ve just brought in .

Kids have been wearing Kickers to school for years!

Why do we have to put up with this crap?

Probably best he doesn't wear them anyway- they don't sound like secondary shoes to me.

Fwiw my DD's school is super strict about shoes- she would be put in isolation until she had the correct uniform. Probably a weeks' exception for Y7s but not the best start...

[quote CarefulDriver]Just looked at Treads, these are the only ones available in DS’s size but will they be classed as trainers do we think, despite clearly not being 🤔?

www.treads-shoes.com/boys/school-shoes/brooklyn[/quote]
Given that they are described as trainer style I would imagine so... are you determined to undermine every school policy or just the shoe/uniform one?

I am sure the school would be happy to discuss and / or clarify their rules with you OP. However just sending your DS in wearing something that may not be acceptable when you have actually read the rules and know about this potential problem is disrespectful to the school and unfair to your DS.

I do sometimes wonder if schools have ridiculously tight rules in some areas just to identify the families who think rules don't apply to them.

Why on earth do kickers brand their shoes so prominently? I hate this in general anyway. They must know loads of schools won't allow it.

Of course they do it because it signals the cost. Surely they try and make at least one or two styles more school friendly? I would expect they'd still exchange them if asked.

But as others have said, some permanent marker / black tape would solve the problem.

Just looked at Treads, these are the only ones available in DS’s size but will they be classed as trainers do we think, despite clearly not being 🤔?

Given that they are described as trainer style I would imagine so... are you determined to undermine every school policy or just the shoe/uniform one?

Looking at a shoe on a website, as suggested by another poster (then thinking that they possibly won't be acceptable) is in no way showing any determination to undermine school policy. What made you think it was?

@CecilyP Spot on! Enforcing uniform rules is an easy win. You can get compliance relatively easily if you are happy to spend the first couple of weeks of term calling parents and putting kids into isolation. Once that settles down you’ll end up with very high levels of compliance.

The question is, what purpose does it all serve in the end? What educational advantage is the school buying for their students with that investment of staff time? Staff time is a precious resource. We wouldn’t to want to waste a whole load of it in September, when staff and students are fresh and some of the best learning takes place, on dealing with students who are wearing the “wrong” kind of black leather school shoes.

Why on earth do kickers brand their shoes so prominently? I hate this in general anyway. They must know loads of schools won't allow it.

They've branded their shoes in this way for over 40 years, why should they stop now.

Of course they do it because it signals the cost. Surely they try and make at least one or two styles more school friendly? I would expect they'd still exchange them if asked.

Why would you expect them to do that? Why are Kickers rules less important than school rules?

[quote MadameMinimes]@CecilyP Spot on! Enforcing uniform rules is an easy win. You can get compliance relatively easily if you are happy to spend the first couple of weeks of term calling parents and putting kids into isolation. Once that settles down you’ll end up with very high levels of compliance.

The question is, what purpose does it all serve in the end? What educational advantage is the school buying for their students with that investment of staff time? Staff time is a precious resource. We wouldn’t to want to waste a whole load of it in September, when staff and students are fresh and some of the best learning takes place, on dealing with students who are wearing the “wrong” kind of black leather school shoes.[/quote]
I'm guessing that enforcing an easily enforceable rule early on and sending the message that the rules are there for a reason and will be enforced results in better adherence to all the rules and is perhaps why it's done. Freeing up staff time to teach later on.

Would be interested in a teacher's view on this.

Remember your taxes pay their wages - they work for you.

Stupid has entered the building.

Mine are older now but DS's London day school had an expensive blazer and trimmed Jersey. Trousers and shirts could come from anywhere. I don't recall shoes being a problem, everyone just bought plain black lace ups - is that a problem nowadays?

DD's cofe state in Yrs 7/8 was similar to her independent thereafter. Except for the kilt. Both were about £500. My only beef was why it was necessary to have blouses with a coloured stripe which were £37.50 for two. They did however last for years and I know are still being worn by a little sister.

It's an age old issue. When I was at school it was all about dark green socks in the rain so the splashes didn't show; now it's logis on shoes. Surely the key issue should be the protection of and development of healthy feet regardless of shoe colour/writing on them. I recall at the cofe dd having a very modest pair of stud earrings confiscated due to rules. The rules were small stud earrings. A tiny knot not exceeding 2.5mm fell into that imo therefore I think it's largely a power issue and one that is not always dealt with fairly across the board with lary dc or favourites often escaping the rules.

Whilst never having an issue with uniform, some of the pettiness was unacceptable and imo French children in their jeans, jersey/hoody and trainers look far better than the average English schoolchild in a rolled up skirt, ankle socks and polyester blazer. There is no way that cheap wannabee tailored clothes ever look anything but cheap. One would really expect those who run schools to know that.

theemperorhasnoclothes

Would be interested in a teacher's view on this.

Its not so much that its an easy win for the school, but an easy rule to break with no real consequences for anyone.

I always thought that if pupils were busy breaking these rules they generally don't try and break other rules as its an easy win for them.

I just showed them to my 14 yo.

His take:

No way would I get away with them, I'm not getting them am I?
The colours are helpful for people who can't tell their lefts and rights
All my friends have Clark's

@theemperorhasnoclothes I am a teacher and senior leader in a school. I know that is the theory, but I really think it’s nonsense. Our students have no problem sticking to bigger rules. If anything, I think they behave much better when they get the sense that we don’t have rules for the sake of having rules. They understand that we’re a lot more worried about them being polite and working hard than what they wear.

I’ve had three HTs in my time at the school. Under the first, uniform was much stricter and academic performance nowhere near as good. Our school improved academic standards massively by choosing non-negotiables carefully. Whether kids have little green tags on their shoes doesn’t make that list. Working hard in class, being respectful of staff and your peers, treating others with kindness, wearing the uniform, not doing anything dangerous or disruptive are all non-negotiable. Having exactly the right shade of navy tights or having a small logo on your black school shoes, not worth worrying about.

They look like nice shoes OP.
I'd get a black sharpie and colour over the red and green bits and use them anyway.

@HavelockVetinari

The reason schools ban these shoes is that many families can't afford almost £70 for school shoes - secondary schools are the worst for brand snobbery, and I remember kids without the "right" shoes/coat/bag being teased constantly.

You can obviously afford them, but there'll be lots of families who can't. And a family who can afford £70 shoes that likely won't last a year due to puberty growth can afford to replace them with Clarks etc.

I had to replace my son's shoes this summer as I bought online and they didnt fit. The 1st pair £70. Replaced them with Clarks (as we managed to get a proper fitting session) - £55. So not a huge difference in price.

It always seems to be this particular brand at the centre of the 'back to school' rows. For this reason alone when my child goes to secondary they are one I'll be avoiding.

FWIW, I'm vehemently anti-uniform. It has zero to do with educational standards, and it sticks completely in the craw when serious misbehaviour like bullying is routinely ignored and the victims end up suffering twice. America, Scandinavia, the European continent and pretty much everywhere else seems to function amply well without it, and many of these countries have a higher level of RRR achievement than we do here in the UK.

But them's the rules, innit?

I believe unquestioning, uncritical adherence to nonsensical rules, together with a dumbing down of educational standards isn't great for anyone. (The dumbing down isn't the fault of the kids, BTW; one generation isn't miraculously more stupid or intelligent than prior ones, and they can only work with the rubbish systems put in front of them). But the dumbing down is real. I'm a university lecturer and see at first-hand the damage done in the pre-16 sector. We have to undo all this once they arrive in higher education, rather than do what we are actually there to do: the point of HE is that it builds on something. Many arrive without the ability to string a cogent sentence together.

The draconian guidelines regulating today's schoolwear is beyond ridiculous, and I do feel for the teachers who have to police this utter nonsense. In the meantime, I sigh and go along with it because it's only the children who will suffer otherwise, and it's the conventional (ridiculous and unnecessary) norm in this country.

Interesting responses. I suppose as with everything different people / schools have different experiences.

My feeling on rules is that it's fine as a parent to challenge direct to the rule makers and question why the rules exist and question where exactly the line is drawn, but it's not ok to just send your child into school knowing you're breaking the rules - no matter how idiotic you may think they are.

Totally different matter if it's the child breaking the rules!

@FrippEnos

Remember your taxes pay their wages - they work for you.

Stupid has entered the building.

@FrippEnos ok then clever clogs which part isn't factual?

Is it not us, through taxation that fund schools and ultimately pay teachers wages? I dont think its a grant from Bill gates or anything?

The idea that education is “dumbing down” is patently untrue.

My GCSE and A Level students are working to a much higher academic standard than was the case when I was at school. They work harder, spending far more hours studying than we did in the early “noughties”. The curriculum in my subject (history) is absolutely packed now, with some really challenging topics. I just don’t recognise this “dumbing down” that you talk about.

@user1471447863

What is not factual is that teachers do not "work for you".

If teachers did work for you, you would be legally responsible for their terms and conditions.

You may contribute to teachers wages through taxation but you do not employ them.

The kids going to university unable to fiction must surely lie at their parents door?

Over indulged teens who’ve never held down a job and have no idea how to cook or book a doctors appointment later can’t be laid at schools door?

Unable to string a sentence together? Who teachers them the art of conversation? Home?

@MadameMinimes can you explain then why most post 92 graduates I interview cannot construct grammatically correct sentences, use I and/or me correctly, or work out 60% of salary including LW and pro-rated annual leave, when provided with the full time amounts.

Unfortunately the poor literacy and numeracy are ingrained and it doesn't matter if a student is following an intense GCSE curriculum if the basics are being so neglected and nobody cares or notices. By the time we get the graduates they would be offended if we were straight with them because they have been led to think they are such high achievers. Regrettably, they are too often very poorly educated albeit very well qualified. Secretaries in the late 70s would not have been able to hold down a job with such poor foundation skills.

It must be stated that the "Kids Today Don't Know Nuffing" narrative has been going at least since Aristotle.

Now we could get into a discussion of what constitutes 'correct' grammar and according to who, (or whom?)

In the words of Bye Bye Birdie, "Why can't they be like we were? Perfect in every way? What's da matter wid kids today?"

The fact is that the current generation of young people are more literate than mine. The number of children leaving school unable to do those things is lower now than it was when I left school. My generation is more literate than my parents’, who are more literate than their parents’.
My grandfather was functionally illiterate and my grandmother has always considered herself bookish for a working class woman of her generation but doesn’t have a good grasp of grammar (was/were, there/their/they’re, of/have etc) in her written English. My parents’ and grandparents’ generation in my family have a far worse grasp of grammar than the younger generation. I can say that fairly categorically, based on their Facebook posts alone.

This rosy idea of a bygone past where academic standards were better is a myth. More people left education in the past unable to do the things you talk about. The economy required far fewer people to have those skills back then though. Yes, secretaries needed those skills, but the number of secretaries was very small compared to the number of people who worked in manual labour jobs or factories. Many of those people were functionally illiterate a couple of generations ago. Now we are expecting pretty much everyone to have these skills and work in jobs that require them, so we notice the deficiencies, even though in mathematical terms a far smaller proportion of people are unable to do them.

I totally disagree @MadameMinimes. My grandmother was 12 when she left school in 1896. I have some of her letters - perfect spelling and grammar. My parents would have been well over 100 now and my mother left school at 14, not only was her spelling and grammar correct but she explained the use of the apostrophe to me, having pointed out I used it incorrectly!

The breadth of education was undoubtedly less in time gone by but the emphasis on the basics meant a very high standard of literacy.