Just read the bloody uniform policy!!!

[flingoringo]

I've just read an article about a school in Gateshead where lots of kids were sent home or out in isolation on day one of term because they were wearing the wrong shoes. The offending shoes seem to be mainly a Vivienne Westwood ballet flat (with a big silver VW emblem on the front) and a Nike walking boots. Lots of kids wearing the same, from yr7 to yr11.
Parents are up in arms, obviously. One mentions the CoL crisis so the need to scrimp and save to spend A HUNDRED QUID on the Nike shoes. One mum said her yr7 daughter won't be going back she's finding her a new school.

The school (taken over by an academy in 2019) says the policy is clear, plain black shoes with no logos. That they have done their best to help yr6 parents understand what was to be expected once on yr7.

Now I don't necessarily agree with schools being overly strict with uniform policy. But I do accept that I have to agree to follow the rules at the schools that I chose to send my kids to and if we chose not to then of course they'll be consequences.

AIBU to think it's it's completely ridiculous that this happens every bloody year?!

As if children in non-uniform countries didnt learn all that anyway...

I'm on the fence. I hate scruffy looking uniform, however, I understand it difficult to buy the right shoes etc. That being said I can understand why schools are strict. When I was in school my trainers and shoes were stolen
So I can understand up to a point.

It's dumb. My sons just moved up to college. No uniform policy. If he wants to dye his hair green and wear a pink sparkly dress he can. He called the teacher 'Sir' and got told not to say it, call teachers by their first names. Schools go over the top and it's not necessary causing drama. Get the kids sat down and learning. You're not seeing anyone's shoes under a desk.

@ZadocPDederick - I’m not necessarily a fan of uniform policies, but I do think that life is full of foolish policies, and the sooner we learn to challenge appropriately and courteously, the sooner we are able to be a part of effective change.

I am extremely pro-uniform but I am pro-sensible uniform.

The best uniform I saw was where the students got a choice of blue or yellow polo shirts with school name embroidered on (£7.99 from uniform shop), a navy fleece for warmth, and a choice of black or navy trousers, with black shoes.

That was it.

Everyone was the same enough. No one was turning up in Adidas, ganging together and ripping the shit out of kids that didn't have it. But at the same time no one was getting sent home for preposterous reasons that do not impact on learning or social development in any way, shape or form.

I don't actually agree with these "no logos" policies for shoes (or bags). In the nicest possible way, it's open to interpretation by those who think a "logo" and "a couple of letters" or "a word" (e.g. "kickers" on a label) are different things, and I don't think sending children home for the shoe choices their parents made is the right way of dealing with it. The kids might say what shoes they want, but ultimately it's the parent who pays therefore they're the one who has made the final decision by handing over their debit card at Sports Direct or wherever, so blaming the child for their parents' shit boundaries is unfair IMO.

Absolutely love this!!

Are supermarket workers vulnerable children who are shamed, deprived of their education and treated with a complete lack of dignity for any minor infringement of idiot policies? No. Although i’m pretty sure that the world wouldn’t end if supermarket workers didn’t have a uniform either.

I find the whole school uniform business is just unnecessary power play. THeres now actual need to force anyone to wear something they dont want to wear. Its absolutely ridiculous, especially at public schools where they are told when to wear tights and when to wear socks. And have like three particular shoes to choose from, whether it fits you or not.

@CecilyP

Yep. My DS grew out of his clarks near the end of last school year and i replaced them with black trainers (adidas i think) because he could get more wear out of them outside school. luckily his school aren't bothered.

yes, I agree with this about parents interpreting differently. I believe these are the Nike shoes that have been complained about, but I would have classed these are being plain black and without logos.

Sorry, that was in response to @SisterMichaelsHabit but the quote disappeared

All those who say "but in the world of work etc..."

• Even most work with uniforms aren't picky with exact shoes and hairstyles. (apart from military i guess - but we shouldn't have schools like the army).

• Thankfully work has never been so flexible in regard to working from home, flexitime, accommodation for disabilities etc. Its not the end of the world if you forget a pen or diary to work - in reality most of us use phones and laptops now for everything anyway. And if managers routinely treated employees in the belittling way I've seen some schools treat parents and pupils, they could get in trouble for bullying.....The way these schools act have nothing to do with work.

Problem is that the kids that can’t afford Nike trainers and Vivienne Westwood flats are then bullied for the unbranded shoes.

So school enforce a non branded ethic which parents ignore… because the school does put this info out there as they give into kids demands. then parents complain they’ve spent £100 on shoes and can’t afford more. Tough shit imo. read the requirements because it’s not hard and means less well off children don’t get ostracised by peers

No one is forced to send their kids anywhere, if you don't agree with the policy, choose another school or home school. Write to your mp or campaign for legislation to stop schools imposing these rules.

But if you accept a school place you should abide by the rules.

But the logo is a sign of quality as well it’s like saying parents can’t buy their kids high quality winter boots (see pic above). It would be hard to find similar in all black for the same price, or higher in price for non- branded

Kids will always find ways to bully and ostracise if they want to. If you are only allowed to get clarks shoes for example, there will be some styles that kids hate and will tease other kids for wearing - if thats how they are inclined. It will be about coats, and lunch boxes, and whats in lunch boxes etc etc etc.

They have a huge Nike swoosh on the side! 😂😂

I have 3 DDs all in the same secondary (years 11 and 8). I went to the local schoolwear shop to pick up trousers I’d ordered for dd (she slim and super tall so had to order). As dd tried them on there was a mum with her dd who was about to go into year 7 and one day before starting school the mum was getting uniform and reading the rules for the first time. She was horrified when she learned they’re not allowed boots (she’d already bought leather ankle boots) and not allowed nail varnish. I was fascinated where her dd went to primary as these are standard rules surely? She said to me “this school’s rules are ridiculous aren’t they?!” And I replied “oh, my girls are in year 11 and 8 and we’ve never had an issue and are really happy with the school.”… she didn’t speak to me after that.

@Lollypop701 Nike black shoes are really cheap in sports direct so I don’t think it’s a sign of wealth.

Hate the thick as mince posters/parents who simply cannot understand what a uniform is and why it's necessary not to try and get round it to be cool or show off wealth.

Of course it doesn't impact learning, but it creates a hierarchy and encourages bullying and social exclusion.

So, when you're chucking £150 at branded trainers for little Toby, just think on there's kids with George at ASDA or Wynsors specials, just as the policy intends, because that's what the family can afford.

But the logo is a sign of quality as well

No it isn't. It's a sign of marketing.

The 'preparing them for the workplace' thing is bollocks anyway if they go off to college and university and get to wear whatever the hell they like!

Yes, I feel the same.

Literally what is the problem with wearing plain black ankle boots though?

I don't think those Nike boots can be interpretated as appropriate within most uniform policies as they are not shoes! And those VW shoes are absolutely ridiculous for school, they aren't plain black for a start and ballet pumps aren't really shoes. The parents are being dicks in these instances.

My DSs are at a private school who are relatively strict on uniform but they have said plain black shoes are fine, including AF1 type trainers. I think this is really sensible as the they are comfy and last the full year for the boys. My DS got away with wearing normal black trainers for 2.5 terms the other year, when they noticed they said to sort new shoes (his had fallen apart and the trainers were a temporary measure but they didn't notice for so long). The fact that so many schools are being ridiculous about it is infuriating though, they do keep changing the policies each year which doesn't help either.