Two minds school shoes. Vivienne's

[Eddyraisins]

metro.co.uk/2023/09/06/girl-sent-home-from-school-for-wearing-vivienne-westwood-shoes-19456363/amp/

I am in two minds about this. Speaking from the experience of a teacher with a y11 in my school. My school would not care. All they care about is pupils actually wear shoes. We have a fair few pupils in Viviennes. I would not have known what they are if I didn't have a child in y11.

However I do see the argument that a lot of parents cannot afford £100 on shoes. I guess it's like the kickers of the 90s.

For PE lessons we can't discriminate and dictate labels for trainers.

I am not sure what to think. My dd would like some Viviennes. She is Asd and Adhd and has missed a lot of y10. My school allows them.

Should they? Is the school in the linked article too far or is it fair? I could be persuaded either way.

This again?

If you’re going to spend that much on school shoes they check they are a) suitable for the school dress code and b) suitable for wearing through winter!

I feel for parents who can’t afford to get shoes and anything else in line with dress codes but if you can afford to spend £100 on a pair of flimsy ballet pumps then you can get shoes which fit the policy.

Most of them are fakes from Temu or Wish.

Its the latest craze I wouod let them get on with it in a few months they will be bored.

Why would having missed a lot of school mean that she should wear impractical, absurdly expensive shoes to school? Kickers may have been expensive, but they were practical shoes for school.

I wouldn't wear those to work. Too flimsy for the commute and to be wearing all day. Also £100 for a such flimsy shoes. Not suitable for a school day.

Not sending her back to school: well if it's a hill they want to die on for such ugly shoes so be it.

You say this but they really aren't flimsy. My youngest daughter had a pair two years ago that I was dead against getting but she found them as cheap as possible on line and then had a discount voucher so they cost me £68. She wore them to school every single day for a full year and that included walking there and back ( 20 minutes each way). As soon as a school finished in the July I sorted through her uniform and put a free post up in our local group. The shoes were in such good condition with enough tread on them that then went to another girl whose mum was delighted with them. They are not leather, they are a very weird plastic rubber that kind of smell like the old school my little ponies. I was honestly shocked at how durable they were and she could have EASILY got another year out of them had her feet not grown. This year the same school has banned westwoods but totally out of the blue decided that after years of fighting, black leather converse shoes are ALLOWED. The last 8 years students and their parents have fought bitterly to get them approved. And now randomly they are but Westwoods are now banned 🤷🏼‍♀️. Crazy!

I'm 33 and we were wearing similar pumps without issue. £100 is relatively cheap for a pair of shoes that last ages, similar approved shoes that kids like will be £100+.

If the vivs are banned they will just find another shoe to all wear like the black and white Nikes. Something like

www.flannels.com/hugo-kris-moccasins-240818#colcode=24081803

There is already a very long thread on this.

My opinion is, if a school has a policy they should enforce it. Parents should accept the policy as part of the act of selecting schools. Don't like it? Don't put that school on your form. Get allocated that school? Follow the policy.

I'm not against campaigning for change, but actively defying policy then running to the press, stressing your 11/12yo during an already stressful process is not the solution.

£100 is cheap for shoes for an 11 yo starting school?

Times have changed

Was the problem that massive metal charm?

If so... why don't they just remove the charm if its the quality of the shoe that's important?

£100 is relatively cheap for a pair of shoes that last ages

Most 11yos are far from done growing. So that 100quid is likely to just about make it to July max.

No they haven’t. This is just bollocks.

Oddly Flannels isn’t a key school shoe shop and Hugo Boss shoes for an 11 year old are fairly odd too

Parents should accept the policy as part of the act of selecting schools. Don't like it? Don't put that school on your form.

This ignores the fact that there is often little choice and very little difference between the school uniform policies of local schools. Meanwhile, the child must get an education and is entitled to education provided by the state.

Schools are public institutions. Their policies should be the matter of a public debate and arranged with the parents of the school, not a 'take it or leave it'.

I agree though with your general comment about agitating for change vs. just ignoring the policy.

No parent needs to debate policies on shoes.

Schools are public institutions. Their policies should be the matter of a public debate and arranged with the parents of the school, not a 'take it or leave it

I agree. But using your child as a puppet to contest them is cruel imo.

I bet not a single one of these parents have done any separate campaigning to their MPs about uniform policies.

There is also a non-uniform school just up the hill from this particular secondary - I'd bet a hundred quid not a single parent put that non uniform school down in their options.

@LittleBearPad flannels is quite good for shoes, it has better sales than DS favourite JD.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz how long do you expect shoes to last? DS has just gone up a size so picked Nike Huarches (£120), air force ones (£80), Nike all blacks for school (£70), his crocs still fit. School shoes were footasylum and around £70 so not much cheaper than the Vivs.

I am shocked that anyone thinks £100 is “relatively cheap”. £100 is crazily expensive for a pair of school shoes. Some people must be made of money.

Regardless as to whether they are viviennes or ben and Jerry's. They just aren't suitable for school and will get ruined and will be awful when it rains.

It's massively wanky, what sort of adult is that kid going to grow up to be

Once they've stopped growing, I'd expect them to last til they fell apart. Year seven I don't anticipate them lasting longer than the school year. £100 for a pair of shoes is only palatable when you know they won't ever be outgrown. It's unaffordable for most.

I booked at the £60 Geox shoes my Y7 chose. But at least they look supportive and robust and cover most of her foot so good in all weather's. But it's painful to know that she will outgrow them before they ever wear out.

Why does he need two pairs of trainers though? Why can't the ones for school also be the ones he wears at weekends? 120quid on a pair of weekend trainers is obscene.

Sorry just saw - three pairs of trainers!

I know it isn’t the point of this thread but I don’t like them . I just don’t think they look nice at all .

https://www.gracecollege.org.uk/student-and-parent-hub/academy-uniform/year-7-11-day-wear-uniform/

Here is the uniform policy. In addition to the branding, the school requires the top of the foot to be fully covered by the shoe. I think a lot of people have missed this in the pile on..

OMG, just leave them too it. They have shoes on their feet, who cares. If it's not shoes they will find ways to show their individuality (or not) - coats, hair, piercings, tattoos.....