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?

@BuggerOffAndGoodDayToYou

Kickers were specifically banned in my DCs secondary schools. One a state grammar, one a state comprehensive. Both DCs now adults….

…and DD did have to wear custom orthotics in primary and the first few years of secondary. She always wore Clarks shoes…..

This is batshit.

There is nothing wrong with those shoes. They look durable and exactly like a pair of school footwear (what else would they be used for?)

Whilst they have red and green on, those parts are minimal and not distracting.

I'm with the OP - the idea of using a pen to colour bits in is ridiculous.

@Merryoldgoat

But do you realise that there will always be a dress code for pupils to follow?

That’s fine.

When I was at school it was:

Black jumper or cardigan
Black skirt or trousers
White shirt or polo shirt
Black shoes

Zero issues.

If kids are bullied for not having the latest stuff THAT’S what needs dealing with - not isolation or detention for fucking labels on shoes.

Interestingly its the black shoes rule that the OP is complaining about.

I vote for snip off the little tabs (no function) and as pp said a bit of black tape on the back, or you could get a cobbler to glue on a small leather patch. It's not defacing, it's worth it to alter them because the alternative is having to buy totally new shoes.

The crux of this is the fact that the shoes seem to comply with one uniform list on the school website but aren't acceptable on another version. It will come down to the timing and communication of the change as to whether the OP is being unreasonable or not.

At one school i worked at we did indeed lend out permanent markers for kids to scribble out white Rockport logos on otherwise spot on shoes. This was during a period of uniform change too so we'd gone from plain black anything to plain black shoes- scribbling out the white was a compromise many parents who'd bought shoes with white bits on were prepared to make. It died down after the first couple of weeks.

I dunno, if I'd paid £68 for a pair of shoes, I wouldn't want to deface them either, regardless of the brand. I had a look at the shoes, and I think it would be quite fiddly to cut out the small tags without accidentally then slicing through the leather where the stitching is. I wouldn't recommend it.

I don't like the logo at the back, but there's no way to cover it without visibly ruining the shoe - I mean, it's a black nail polish job.

If it was as simple as cutting off one little tag, I'd recommend it, but here you'd need a bit of skill, and you'd need to permanently deface the shoes. Which are new. It just feels wrong spending that amount of money on something to then deliberately ruin it!

They did this AFTER we'd had the conversation with the parents of course, we didn't just vandalise the shoes!

The crux of this is the fact that the shoes seem to comply with one uniform list on the school website but aren't acceptable on another version. It will come down to the timing and communication of the change as to whether the OP is being unreasonable or not.

@heyha the OP has said that the part of the website she followed said “black suitable shoes”. She has bought black, green and red shoes. And now she thinks that it would be child abuse if a teacher pointed this out.

I would send him in them. By brand I assume they don't mean Adidas, Nike etc? Not kickers? It is a brand of course but I would say very suitable for school shoes. Bleddy ridiculous rules.

Agreed, but they can at least reduce the pressure on poor families by banning ludicrously expensive brands. When I was at school, the poorest kids often had all the name brands, their parents would get it through catalogues and be skint all year paying it back. The poorest families are the ones who feel the most pressure not to show how poor they are.

I agree with you in the main and wouldn’t want to see kids competing over Air Pods and the latest phone, though it’s sadly inevitable and will happen outside of school even if reduced inside it (it’ll never be stamped out entirely even with the strictest of policies). But Kickers are practical.

At my DD’s state primary, the uniform can only be bought from John Lewis, so no getting cheap generic items from Sainsburys or Asda and the logo-ed items are v expensive - £26 for an acrylic cardigan for a six year old! Now THAT makes me cross, as it stops poorer families buying cheaper versions. And I resent paying it myself as I feel ripped off. The one saving grace is that there are frequent second hand sales at school.

Blackmail! Seriously gave a word. You are free to hone Ed or send your child to a non school uniform school - list here
non school uniform thread

And it’s not ruining a shoe to black out its branding. What happens to its amazing abilities as a shoe. Nothing. It’s just not worth £68 ( sort of the point).

@FrippEnos

No, it’s the ridiculous no branding rule that OP is rightly pissed off with.

Kickers are durable and fit well. Those little tabs would’ve been fine at my school.

They also weren’t so ridiculous to think that expressing some individuality would somehow affect learning.

I work at a private school. The head of English has a pierced nose and was wearing green sparkly DMs before end of term.

The boy pupils have utterly insane hair from long as a rockstar to Mohawks.

The RS teacher wears DMs and studded jackets.

The bursar wears leopard print a lot.

The Assistant Head wears skinny trousers a lot.

The pupils are among the best performing in the Borough and go to the top schools when leaving.

No one is looking at the shoes they wear.

@Totallydefeated gosh, £26 for an acrylic cardigan for a 6 year-old is indeed shockingly expensive. My son’s private school jumper with logo is only £10 and there is only one shop it can be bought from.

@Heyha

The crux of this is the fact that the shoes seem to comply with one uniform list on the school website but aren't acceptable on another version. It will come down to the timing and communication of the change as to whether the OP is being unreasonable or not.

At one school i worked at we did indeed lend out permanent markers for kids to scribble out white Rockport logos on otherwise spot on shoes. This was during a period of uniform change too so we'd gone from plain black anything to plain black shoes- scribbling out the white was a compromise many parents who'd bought shoes with white bits on were prepared to make. It died down after the first couple of weeks.

It's hard because technically they don't comply with either. They aren't just black shoes. They are black shoes with red and green writing on and tags. But, if I searched for black school shoes online, kickers do come up. And if it wasn't for me using this site, I wouldn't necessarily know these wouldn't be acceptable as they are (to me) clearly school shoes and pretty much black. I would class these as black shoes. But I can also see why they don't comply because they aren't fully black.

Just follow the rules set by the school YOU have chosen to send your kid to.

Wow! Where in the UK do you live where you have a real choice of school, ie you get your pick of schools, all of which are equally good, so you are able to differentiate solely on uniform policy and are guaranteed to get a place at that specific school?

I’m sure we’d all love to know!! I know I would, because where I live they all have virtually identical ridiculous policies.

The trouble is that if you defy their rules, it's your DS who will suffer the consequences. I've seen a little girl in tears on her first day at Secondary because the Head told her off for something similar re footwear. Wasn't her fault, poor kid. Your best bet is to get out the black pen. Unless you can sell them on, what choice do you have?

gosh, £26 for an acrylic cardigan for a 6 year-old is indeed shockingly expensive. My son’s private school jumper with logo is only £10 and there is only one shop it can be bought from.

I know!! You can imagine how I reacted when DD lost hers halfway into September last year! I was like a dog with a bone until it got found!

Merryoldgoat

The OP posted that the school requires black shoes, and it appears that it is not the little labels but the red and black on the back, something that the OP could easily deal with but doesn't want to.

Putting what teachers wear is ridiculous, its a strawman argument.

You also work at a private school so I know suspect that the hairstyles isn't the only reason for "performing better"

Our school has never allowed them in the 5 years my kids have been going, I’ve always wondered why!

The issue I have with this is that the reason is because teachers/SLT want to support equality and poorer children. Teachers/SLTs know very well that uniform or no uniform, everyone will know which children are from struggling families.
I fear this is likely to be more about school teachers wanting to make judgements about what they think the "feckless, uneducated poor" should spend their money on rather than any true concern for less privileged children.

@FrippEnos

Merryoldgoat

The OP posted that the school requires black shoes, and it appears that it is not the little labels but the red and black on the back, something that the OP could easily deal with but doesn't want to.

Putting what teachers wear is ridiculous, its a strawman argument.

You also work at a private school so I know suspect that the hairstyles isn't the only reason for "performing better"

Of course I know that - I’m saying that clothes and uniform policy obviously aren’t what generates good results and solves discipline problems so why do they need to be so strict?

And what the teachers wear is relevant because we hear the ‘how will they learn how to dress appropriately when they’re in the real world’ argument for overly strict uniforms all the time.

A clear framework is the most reasonable thing without petty rules that don’t allow small visible labels. They probably won’t even be visible when trousers are on.

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

@RosesAndHellebores

The issue I have with this is that the reason is because teachers/SLT want to support equality and poorer children. Teachers/SLTs know very well that uniform or no uniform, everyone will know which children are from struggling families. I fear this is likely to be more about school teachers wanting to make judgements about what they think the "feckless, uneducated poor" should spend their money on rather than any true concern for less privileged children.

I agree with you completely.

At my sons school we are one of the more affluent families. He wears almost solely supermarket clothing. He’s friends with some much less affluent children who have lots of branded stuff.

It’s still obvious we’re more affluent because they know where we live and see our house.

Use a waterbased felt tip. It’ll wash out after a few wet days.

The overzealousness usually wears off after a couple of weeks!

Most staff can’t be arsed with SMT dictats. They want to get on with their main job - teaching.

Merryoldgoat

If you are going to push the teachers are wearing thing, all of the schools that I have worked in have dress codes for teachers. With the men mainly having to wear a shirt and tie, etc. The dress codes for females are less strict.

But even if we have a clear framework for schools some parents and pupils will go against it.

If as you say the logos won't be visible when he is wearing his school trousers then what is the problem?