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?!

No, there is no contract between parents and state schools, @Solonge.

As has been pointed out numerous times on this thread, uniform doesn't prevent anyone from being picked on. With or without it, children can work out extremely easily who is well off and who isn't.

You also cannot know anything about the English school system if you really believe people can easily choose to move their child to a non-uniform school.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the law changed so that at least 50% of the school places in any given area had to be in schools without uniforms. Then the mythical choice that people on this thread keep referring to might actually become fact, and when parents can vote with their feet the results could be very telling. We could also watch teachers vote with their feet and aim at the schools where they can spend their time teaching instead of enforcing pointless uniform rules.

Parents aren't entering into a contract with the school. They often don't even have a choice about which school the DC can go to, much less a non uniform one. And lastly, uniforms do not in practice function as protection for many poor DC because for some reason we allow schools to specify badged uniform from a particular stockist.

A secondary teacher who says girls dress like hookers? Your post is so disgusting.

Also what do you think happens in countries like France/Spain/Italy/Netherlands... As someone who has been a pupil and a teacher in non uniform schools (in Spain and then Colombia) - I can't say I was blown away by the sudden change of academic standards brought about by uniform when I moved to the UK 🤣

I've also never worked with a teacher who accused their pupils of dressing like hookers though!

This is so not true.

What i think is ridiculous is parents that can't read a policy and adhere to it at a school they have chosen for their kids.

My kids school is incredibly strict on everything, including uniform, no one fights it because we all picked the school on the basis of these high standards.

I cannot understands why parents are so bloody stupid and then moan to the media like a pair of shoes is more important than their kids education.

(PS - those shoes were so shit, both the NIKE and VW - money doesn't buy taste at all.)

It also provides a wonderful label for stalkers and pedophiles to help track their targets.

Oulu
I'd happily teach somewhere with or without a uniform.

I'd take either a uniform or non-uniform school with dress code.

What would be the deal-breaker for me is whether the school had consistent policies and standards so I could teach.

I suspect that you'd get a lot of parents who don't like uniform, would prefer non-uniform but are sensible, reasonable types to send their children to the non-uniform school. I would too for my DC.

I also suspect you'd get a lot of silly/weak/permissive parents opting for the non-uniform school who would be as ridiculous and childish as they are when their children are in a uniform school. The sorts of parents who are apparently incapable of following simple uniform expectations are also the parents who'll be the first to moan that their child's being picked on because they can't wear (insert item of clothing here that is outside the dress code). They'll be the ones sad facing it that their kid has been told that they need to wear closed toe and covered shoes, not sandals because it's against their human rights not to wear flip flops/ it's body shaming and sexualising their daughter by expecting her to follow the reasonable expectations that ALL students that their stomachs covered .

Unfortunately there's a large minority of parents who either lack the maturity to function in adult life and are stuck in petulant teenager mode, or they're weak parents who will give in to whatever their child pesters over.

They prevent poorer kids being picked on for not wearing the designer shoes, skirts etc. its an excellent way to anonomise wealth and poverty.

Only really possible if you don't know where your classmates live or you don't see them out of school.

Using cost of living crisis as an excuse when they’re referring to extremely expensive designer shoes is ludicrous. The VW shoes are £100, if you have £100 to spend on one child’s school shoes you are NOT struggling financially.

I agree re uniform policy as well, so many parents flout the rules then whinge when their precious child is told off.

I don’t see that in the policy. I do see (in the context of jewellery) that clear piercing retainers cannot be worn. But nothing to do with dental retainers.

It's right there in the article under other:

• No dental retainers, even clear ones

Why on earth would someone waste £100 on WV shoes for school? Ballet shoe style is totally impractical for school and imo why would you spend £100 on a pair of shoes for a child when their feet are still growing.
No sympathy for punishments by a school in these circumstances.

😂😂😂😂😂😂. Get a grip love.

It's right there in the article under other:

No dental retainers, even clear ones

I suspect they'd struggle to enforce that one of a child has an orthodontist stipulating they need to wear a retainer. This policy would also forbid a child from having aligner treatment such as Invisalign, but would allow train track braces. I'm not sure any school can prevent a child having dental treatment or have a veto over their treatment plan.

They'll be the ones sad facing it that their kid has been told that they need to wear closed toe and covered shoes, not sandals because it's against their human rights not to wear flip flops/ it's body shaming and sexualising their daughter by expecting her to follow the reasonable expectations that ALL students that their stomachs covered.

No the rule was closed top shoes not closed toe. Don't think teenagers wear sandals - that's more for oldies like me! The rule for closed top shoes pretty much rules out any form of slip on. Strangely, 2 of the styles of approved Clarks shoes at my strict grammar school would have been forbidden at this school! Well they all would because they were brown.

The article said no dental retainers.

But the press, especially tabloids, are unreliable. The official source is: https://www.gracecollege.org.uk/student-and-parent-hub/academy-uniform/year-7-11-day-wear-uniform/

which states

Items of jewellery, including body piercings, are not permitted, clear retainers can also not be worn.

Arguably it's unclear. It doesn't say dental retainers but nor does it say piercing retainers - not clearly at least.

@Parker231 " No sympathy for punishments by a school in these circumstances. "

No sympathy regardless of the punishment and the proportionality (or lack thereof) between offence and punishment? Shall we whip the kids who come with the wrong shoe? Stone them? Give them a public beating?

Like I said, it was very clear from the policy that ballerinas and logos were not allowed. But, if the article is to be believed, one kid was kept in detention the whole day, while another was made to wear smaller shoes which then gave her blisters. Do you find this sensible?

I find that punishing kids in a way which is not proportionate is counter-productive: it instils fear and resentment, and a general feeling that rules and punishment are arbitrary. Do you not?

What do you do if your children don't want to eat broccoli? Lock them in a room with no food for 2 days?

@hellswelshy Exactly! Imagine this happening in the workplace.
Imagine a boss who requires that everyone come to the office with blazers and ties, and that, only when Da Boss, from his infinite wisdom, so decrees, can the minions remove the blazer. The boss would rightly be ridiculed and criticised as an out of touch, abusive authoritarian. If we don't tolerate it with adults, why do we tolerate it with kids?

ParentOfOne
That makes a bit more sense.

It's about clear piercing retainers, not dental ones.

I was thinking that it would be a brave school that tries to enforce no clear dental retainers.

CecilyP
I'm not on about the rules in a specific school.
My point is that there's two groups of parents who'd choose a non uniform school:

1. Reasonable parents who prefer a non-uniform school.

1. The same weak and permissive parents who will whine that their child has to follow a dress code and rules (eg. The non-uniform school could specify close toe or closed shoe and the sort of idiot parents who sad face about school uniform, would equally defend their child's right to wear flip flops because their child doesn't like the rules).

Group 2 parents will be a pain in the arse and encourage their children to ignore any rule they don't like because they're either immature as adults, or they're ineffective parents who'll do whatever their kid tells them. It's these sorts of parents who are in the press with their sad faces.

A non uniform school won't solve the problems of group 2 parents. They'll find another thing to moan about.

So everyone on this thread with actual experience who has said it is true is lying?

So can they ignore it if their children are allocated a school they haven't chosen?

@Lolasmiles I mostly agree with you, but we should also remember:

1. There is no clear evidence that uniforms have any impact on behaviour or performance. The Sutton trust is very clear about this (look it up)

2. Enforcing uniforms which can be bought only from one supplier is petty and unnecessary. Ordinary items of clothing which can be bought anywhere should suffice. There is no need to force parents to buy blazers only from one supplier because there must be a logo which cannot be sewn on.

3. Daily inspections and capricious rules on the exact shade of grey or the exact number of millimetres for a skirt, or insistence on clothing inadequate for the weather (like refusal to allow heavier coats in the winter or lighter clothes in the summer) are silly and counter-productive. They just instil a sense that rules and their enforcements are capricious and not logical.

4. Punishments must be proportionate.

5. Like I said, why do we tolerate stuff which we wouldn't tolerate for adults? Would you ever work for a boss who tells you that you can only wear short sleeves when HE tells you so, and that you cannot wear a heavier coat in the winter even if you feel cold???

The rule that always makes me scoff is the "boys cannot have their hair too short".

If a short back and sides is good enough for the military, it's good enough for a secondary school in Stockport.

Once over a tidy short back and sides was the standard haircut for young men - anything else would be frowned upon!

If I felt strongly I would move. I don't tbf.

I dont think you can compare suffragettes fighting for the vote to a very ‘special entitled ‘ mum thinking school rules are for others not her little fashionista daughter.