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?

It seems that the main criterion for schools when deciding what they will deign to allow pupils to wear is whatever they really don’t want to wear - I.e. let’s see what pupils want to wear and make sure we say they can’t wear that.

Kickers seem like eminently sensible school shoes to me - robust, weather-proof and good for feet. Far better, more practical and hard-wearing than flat, thin business-man shoes that are uncomfortable and bad for feet. Why would you want to force growing feet into shoes that are worse for them?

When flares were in fashion, schools complained about them and banned them - too wide - then when skinnies were in they didn’t like those either - no longer too wide but too skinny. No mini skirts, but no long skirts either. Basically, they seem to want all the girls dressed like Margaret Rutherford playing Miss Marple and all the boys looking like a bank manger from the 1950s. Why????

All the stuff about level playing fields sounds plausible but just doesn’t work in real life. Kids can tell when somebody has less money regardless of uniform and bullies always find something to bully about.

Similarly, the tripe about going to another school if you don’t like the uniform policy is further bilge that sounds plausible but is completely impractical. Try finding a school with a sensible dress policy and see how far you get, they’ve all fallen hook, line and sinker for the uniform ideology.

It all just seems like a massive ego trip on the part of HTs, rather than anything that might actually benefit pupils. Or perhaps some way of forcing pupils to conform, so they grow up to be good little worker bees, rather than anybody who might think for themselves or question the status quo.

I just wish we could grow up in the country, take this silly focus off appearance and focus on what should be the real business of school life - learning.

[quote Caramellatteplease]@HavelockVetinari

I'm a single parent carer income support to one with diagnosed profound special needs and one with medical needs. I dont have a huge income. Our school had higher than average FSM and SN.

Whatever the kids may think, Kickers and Dr Martens aren't about the brand. They are proper decent shoes generally recommended by physios and OT. They are about the only shoes that can take orthotics and frankly a hell of a lot cheaper than piedro boots. Kickers in some way are better, at a third of the price they are cheap.

Families pass the shoe down and and some people are able to make them work better financially than a cheap shoe because of the resale market.

I'm all for brand snobbery if it helps inclusion and is good for the physical well being of the child.[/quote]
Marvellous! So poor kids should put up with a miserable time at school to help your DC feel included? No. If these branded shoes are genuinely the only shoes that will fit orthotics (which frankly I doubt) then an exception should be made for that child and that child alone, as long as the branding/labels are blacked out.

It's NEVER OK to make children from poorer families feel shit.

Even my 5 year old would describe those shoes as “black and green and red”.

But stopping kids from wearing branded shoes isn’t going to stop poorer kids from being poorer! They will still be the ones without AirPods, iPhones, expensive pencil cases/specific water bottles etc etc.

I’m not saying that to be mean, but it’s naive to think that if all kids stick to the uniform policy it won’t be clear who is poor and who isn’t. It will still be very clear.

Our school decided to have an issue with doc martens when was there (90’s) because of the obvious yellow stitching. We coloured over the stitches! As we all had to do it to continue to wear them unchallenged, nobody got teased about it.

Just marker pen the tag and the back ( might need black nail polish on back)
I have also marker penned nike white ticks on shoes. Problem solved.

With regards to non branded items what do schools do with regards to backpacks, trainers for PE and coats?

@CarefulDriver

The reason schools ban these shoes is that many families can't afford almost £70 for school shoes

Well how do schools reconcile that with putting on school trips costing close to £1k (example from older DCs school) which only the richer kids can go on * *@HavelockVetinari** How does that make sense? A level playing field.

Considering the PE top alone at this state academy school is £25, I don’t really think they give much of a shit about the poorer families.

I don’t mind being that parent at all. I have lots of experience at it with an older SEN child who was totally failed by his secondary school and left with absolutely no qualifications or skills and can’t access education or employment now as he’s so disengaged. as they seem to put more effort into making up stupid rules than actually helping vulnerable kids who are bullied and who need extra support to get an education.

Obviously I will not let DS get in trouble so I’ll have to call them on Tuesday and ask them to explain this new rule with what I said above.

Oh aye, so because there are expensive optional school trips the school should just abandon any effort to make things marginally less awful for poor kids? Or expensive uniforms (where schools have funds to subsidise low income families)?

Give your head a wobble and try to think about others outside your narrow sphere of reference for a change.

If you’re not willing to spoil them permanently with pen, they look like a good candidate for a bit of black electrical tape :)

Also @CarefulDriver why haven’t you answered the many posters who suggested blacking out the branding?

@NursieBernard

With regards to non branded items what do schools do with regards to backpacks, trainers for PE and coats?

They try to reduce the number of peer-pressured items parents feel obliged to pay for (as otherwise their DC will get picked on).

I personally don't think Clarks' shoes are very good. The adult ones, certainly don't grip in the right places. I wear Kickers. They are made differently to many other shoes, as if with more leather, and coming up over the top of the foot, before the laces start, to give the instep and side of the foot plenty of support. The leather is thick and soft.

And very valid point about playing football at break in school shoes; unless kids are allowed to change into trainers then. Kickers don't scuff so much, but other brands do. It's a shame about the Kickers branding on the back of the heel, because that is rather conspicuous and showy offy - or could be felt to be, in the eyes of an impressionable child whose carer can't afford to buy shoes for £70.

I think Academies should petition good brands like Kickers to make shoes for schools, not branded, and to make cheaper styles. I know people will say: "What's the point?" , and "That's never going to work", , but I'd like to see schools doing more to give parents a decent, well-made, sturdy and healthy product to buy. Not just pretending it's 1950, when probably most shoes were crafted better and the leather used was the quality kind.

Just being dictatorial is unjust and teaches children a terrible lesson about critical thinking, having to justify your ideas, and responding to new evidence by adjusting one's misconceptions. What we seem to have is a ridiculous situation in which, as usual, society 'progresses' by means of dichotomy, taking turns to swing from one extreme to the other. We've done liberal school, and relaxed punctuation and grammar, and now we are doing what management think is a return to the 1950s, because there was discipline then, and that's why kids achieved good grades - or so the warped logic goes.. Some of these schools are beyond satire: saying kids have to smile all the time and not talk walking along the corridor - which they can only walk along in single file. It's oppressive.

I agree with you OP. It’s absolutely ridiculous - I’m bloody dreading high school.

The branded gear at primary alone is a pisstake. We can afford the uniform but the shit quality branded jumper is £12 and Sainsbury’s sells 2 for £8 without branding and much better quality.

I hate it.

@HavelockVetinari OP has answered about blanking out the logos with paint/marker in her second post

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

(Not me having a go just letting you know)

"It seems that the main criterion for schools when deciding what they will deign to allow pupils to wear is whatever they really don’t want to wear - I.e. let’s see what pupils want to wear and make sure we say they can’t wear that."

Yup. There's a book written by a teacher, "Educating Adolescent Girls," in which the auther tells of how when she was at school in the 50s all the girls wanted to wear nylon tights but were required to wear stockings.

Fast forward to the 80s and the era of Madonna and "Desperately Seeking Susan." Now the school where she teaches has banned stockings and says the girls must wear nylon tights.

If they haven't been worn and are still brand new with tags and box, can you explain to customer service what has happened and ask if they will make an exception to the returns policy and take them back? Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

CarefulDriver

This is abuse by people who are supposed to be safeguarding them and is carried out across schools over the country with barely a word spoken about it!

I can only think that you don't really understand what child abuse is.

a service they pay for through their taxes, and which in a lot of cases is very poor.

This statement says so much.

All the stuff about level playing fields sounds plausible but just doesn’t work in real life. Kids can tell when somebody has less money regardless of uniform and bullies always find something to bully about.

This^

Send him in wearing them and have a screenshot of the page handy and saved so if anything is said you can refer back to it and send it on incase they change it

Ah no, having seen the link and the back you're setting him up.

Teachers hate being uniform police, so just make your son and his teachers lives easier by just going with the flow.

@HavelockVetinari

Also *@CarefulDriver* why haven’t you answered the many posters who suggested blacking out the branding?

She has. She doesn’t see why she should deface them. 🙄

@TheRebelle

All the stuff about level playing fields sounds plausible but just doesn’t work in real life. Kids can tell when somebody has less money regardless of uniform and bullies always find something to bully about.

This^

Also, having uniform makes it much harder to get cheap clothes secondhand.

IMO the thing about 'level playing field' is a cover story.

YANBU
And I love your thread title

ANARCHY!!!!! 🤘

This is abuse by people who are supposed to be safeguarding them and is carried out across schools over the country with barely a word spoken about it!

It really, really isn't and you're seriously minimising actual child abuse and the vital importance of professionals carrying out safeguarding in saying so.

[quote ArielFelix]@HavelockVetinari OP has answered about blanking out the logos with paint/marker in her second post

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

(Not me having a go just letting you know)[/quote]
That was my point - if OP was genuinely only bothered about how durable the shoes are she should have no problem blacking out the logo. It would make the shoes comply with the policy, and it wouldn't be noticeable if done properly.

The thing is, it's clear that OP attaches a good deal of status to being able to buy these branded shoes, so rather than make them inconspicuous she'd rather show everyone that she can afford Kickers. Which is why the school made the rule in the first place.