Do you agree with school or the parents?

[Watermelon44]

Our high school has made the news because of a uniform dispute between (some) parents and the head who is recently in post.

The gist of it is that the school brought in a new rule in April that they were no longer allowing black leather trainers (eg superstars or nike air force) and instead the kids should be in smart plain black leather office shoes.

This appears to have caused ww3 with some parents, who despite having many months notice, still sent their kids in the banned trainers (100+ children apparently). The school has stuck to its guns and has isolated and then suspended those in the wrong shoes if they refused to comply.

The school has also banned girls from wearing socks, and have enforced a thick tights ruling, although socks are allowed in the summer term and if allowed by the head in any warm spells (eg the past 3 days).

Personally I think the tights ruling is worse and I have mixed views on the trainers rule.

I am interested in the real reasons behind these strict uniform rules as I feel if the real reasons were shared with parents they may be more on board with them, rather than the usual rubbish about dressing professionally eg like in an office, when my dp works in a head office in London and goes in jeans and trainers!

As this seems to have whipped up a storm locally, I am interested in other people’s views on this topic as some of the parents round here seem to have gone totally bats*it over it!!

Ah come on! They can't be all that sporty then 😂

They've played five sports at county level between the two of them but that's irrelevant. They play football and basketball happily in their school shoes in the playground, as do the other pupils at their secondary school. Serious sport during games lessons, obviously not.

I just don't understand why parents make such a big deal of buying compliant shoes. They'd seemingly rather take up teachers' time by pushing the boundaries.

@grass321

I didn't mean it that way. I meant they couldn't properly even casually (as I said) kick a ball around or whatever relevant sport. Mine would find that really frustrating.

I don't agree with you about parents not buying shoes just to be oppositional. I'm a big supporter of my DC's schools & do what's asked, within reason.

That's the point: neither of these rules are within reason & are instead just designed to assert authority.

Earringsandlipstick fair enough, we'll agree to disagree respectfully.

Perhaps it's because my parental peer group is mega competitive and hyper critical of school that I'm determined not to create unnecessary fuss. After all you don't have to buy Oxford brogues, there's lots of sporty and flexible school shoes that aren't trainers.

I also want my kids to follow rules unless there's a good reason not to. I think having respect translates into better behaviour in lessons; others may disagree. There's ample free time after the school day in which you can wander around in your 1980s massive 1980s jeans and limited colour edition Air Jordan's if you wish.

All these stories are a load of rubbish. I have seen facebook posts from parents which are blatantly untrue. The parents are all told very clearly what is acceptable. They choose to ignore the rules and then kick off when they are called out on it. The schools buy shoes, socks, ties and god knows what else to help out kids whose families can't or in some cases won't buy what is required. Some parents buy expensive black shoes or trainers that they know do not meet the school rules. They then spend their days doing sad faced pictures or posting ridiculous stuff on facebook. Ridiculous.

Shoes/ trainers - absolutely fine and the parents are ridiculously unread

The tights rule for girls is appalling, and I’d have thought possibly unlawful. Schools can have different uniform policies for girls and boys, but one can’t be more onerous than the other, ie having to boil in thick tights, possibly get thrush if they’re prone to it etc, when trousers are a perfectly sensible option. This is assuming girls can’t wear trousers instead.

I think school uniforms should move to be simpler and more casual (I.e. polo shirts and sensible practical trousers like many workplaces). They could then have more reasonable grounds to enforce them strictly. I work in education and agree with the general principle behind uniforms but some have become excessive!

I agree with this too though - just keep it really simple!

I agree with everything you've written here 💯

I'm a very strong suppprter of my DC's schools. Sometimes I've had to accept some consequences that they decide on which I might feel are a bit tough, but like you, I recognise their authority & their point of view.

Where it differs is that, so far, even if I've possibly disagreed with something, the approach and rationale has been sound. They explain it, they're courteous & engaged, and the process is respectful.

Where some of the rules set by English schools seem to fall down is in this regard.

In much of the world, students are allowed to wear comfortable clothing or their own choice. Somehow they manage to come to school in appropriate attire. There seems to be less drama about inappropriate girls clothing too. Perhaps because girls can do things like where skirts with built in shorts or comfortable, baggy pants which make the modesty police happy but really are just worn for comfort.

I wish the UK would have some sense and just ban school uniforms altogether. There is no logical justification for it.

Before anyone comes out with the standard excuses, they don't work: they don't help to level up who has money and who doesn't, because schoolchildren work that out perfectly easily irrespective of uniform, and they don't cause problems with people competing because experience has demonstrated time and again that what happens without uniform is that children chuck on the nearest pair of jeans and hoodie or T shirt in the mornings. It doesn't improve discipline, and it certainly doesn't improve results; nor does anyone need practice in wearing uniform just in case they go into a uniformed occupation as an adult. All over the world schools manage fine without, goodness knows why the UK is so obsessed with it.

It can be hot in other terms though. It was hot this week (autumn term) but socks were only allowed on day 2. On day 1 girls in socks were offered tights to put on or put in isolation allegedly, despite being over 30 degrees.

I’m with the school. I don’t necessarily agree with some of their decisions, but there’s a way and a means of raising it and it’s not secret WhatsApp groups (I mean, who actually has the time for that shit?). I’m not sure what example it sets for kids when their parents, faced with a rule they don’t like, chuck their toys out of the pram and go to the press to do a “sad face” interview.

Yes

This. And sorry @Quiverer but it does improve discipline, particularly if the parents don’t behave like fuckwits.

I fully agree! I don't know how students at college/uni manage to learn anything or behave at all without being in a uniform!

It is totally pathetic in this country and the obsession with uniforms.

How do most other countries in Europe and around the world cope with all these ill disciplined kids who obviously must run riot through their schools as shock horror they have on a hoodie and jeans?

The girls at the local secondary school all wear thick black tights too even today .. the skirts they are all in are very short I did wonder if that was the reason behind the thick tights. The trainers I’d assume is to prevent kids that can’t afford them feeling out of place .. don’t see any issue with unbranded trainers though.

What you mean apart from all these countries that do have uniform?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_uniforms_by_country

Formal shoes are dreadful for your feet. Ds used to walk 45 minutes to school with a heavy rucksack and daft office shoes. So I'm all for supportive proper trainers.

The tights/ socks thing is sexist bollocks.

Came on to say just this.

It’s a particularly British obsession to want to make tweens/teens dress like mini business people in suits and ‘sensible shoes’ for school. In most of the rest of the world children are extended the courtesy to dress how they want to like us adults do. And importantly to be comfortable!

Recently it seems some schools are becoming anally retentive about uniform. It strikes me as a way to attempt to exert some control over kids when they are losing control. WHY they are losing control is a topic for another thread!

The school hasn't said 'formal shoes' just 'plain black shoes'. Children are still wearing trainer type ones, just without logos, or obvious logos.

Bet most of the countries that do have uniform don’t try to dress the kids like mini-stock brokers/mini business people.

Those photos on your link demonstrate this.

My thoughts…..

1. We would always encourage our dc to follow the school rules even if we disagree with them. If we disagree with them we would go through the correct channels to discuss them. (Although allegedly lots of parents have tried to do this and have been met with a brick wall).
2. The tights rule is appalling, for many of the reasons mentioned. The (real) reason hasn’t been communicated. If it is because of upskirting surely they need to address this with the boys. Ditto the male teachers if the distraction reason is why it’s been brought in. Maybe girls with persistently short skirts with underwear showing should be addressed individually without penalising all of the other girls.
3. People saying parents could have picked another school are missing the fact that this is a new rule and prior to this it seemed more sensible, eg plain black leather shoes of any make and tights or socks.
4. It’s shocking how uptight some parents are about the shoes rule. I am guessing that some are cross that they have shoes that are still wearable from last year which are now not allowed, which would be frustrating, especially if you only have 8 months (year 11) left. Or that they want to walk to school or play sports at lunch which is more practical in trainers. I can understand both of these. But I’m guessing others are cross that they will have to say no to their kids and they know this will be a nightmare. It’s laughable how some parents are acting, including rushing off to get medical exemptions to keep wearing Nikes!
5. I feel sorry for the poor kids who have been forced into Clark’s who will now find that inevitability all of the suspended kids will now be allowed to wear their Nikes (and lording it over them) as parents round here are used to getting what they want and are taking it to the highest levels!
6. I disagree with punishing the kids with suspension for this issue or segregation.
7. I think boys should be allowed to wear shorts in summer or hot weather or both wear pe kits (this has been allowed this week on Thursday/Fri)
8. I don’t really get the difference between Clark’s school shoes which look a bit like trainers and Nike or Adidas which look pretty similar to me, and why the Nikes are such a big issue?
9. I still don’t really understand the “real” reasons for making these rules. No one has really answered this properly. Anyone on the SLT or governors of high schools who fancies sharing the real reasons?

Teachers who are “distracted” by anything related to how teenagers or preteens dress need to get a different job. 🤮

I was going to make the same point about this particular school’s poster of ‘unacceptable footwear’ but someone already added the poster. It’s madness, genuinely don’t know which shoes are left if all of those are banned. I generally agree with schools on this stuff if they’ve given enough warning but this approach looks ridiculous to me. I don’t know what they were thinking.

I take it the boys have to wear tights when they wear shorts then?