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 and also the parents are telling porkies - kid was year 11 and knew the rules and the parent ranting about the cost - £35 m and a or Charles - done

Agreed. Shoes seem to be more important to this family than education. Says a lot.

the uniform said brogues, as did my kids school. My kids both got start rite brogues for £50 each. They may not be to the child’s fashion tastes, but they fit the bill, are designed for kids feet, and are adequate for jogging around the playground in.

Dd is in year 8 and her school has a very strict uniform policy to the point they have weekly inspections including their pencil cases/equipment and are only allowed a school backpack.

Dd chose Doc Marten patent Mary Jane’s for year 7 which cost £89 and were pretty immaculate when she broke up for the summer but her feet grew from a 5 to a 6. This was the first time she’s got through a school year in one pair of shoes.

For year 8 we left it quite late to get shoes and the Doc’s she wanted had sold out everywhere and were £124. School shoes are not cheap!
she picked a lovely pair of Kickers instead which cost £85 and with her Air Force one’s for PE we spent £155 on footwear.

Vivi’s are lovely but not at all practical for school and are banned in dd’s school but her best friend turned up on Tuesday with them on ( genuine ones ) and isn’t the only one apparently. The issue is with the orb, not with the shoes so much.

The same school then asks for donations for second hand uniform for families that are struggling but is so precise and insistent on what the kids can have and wear. They can’t wear earrings and have to have a certain colour hair bobble/ribbon. Is this really that important?

sorry for essay, am confused now on what I think is right and wrong!

You can have the Viviennes for own wear and a cheap pair of shoes for school - if you have £100 to fling around on ballet pumps then you can have both.

£100 on shoes that will get fucked by everyday wear seems daft.

My sons school was also in the news for similar arguments around shoes and uniform - all the parents arguing about it are stressed out that tarquin can't wear £115 airforce ones - fuck all do with being able to afford shoes (and the school have made it clear they will help students who cannot afford uniform and shoes). It is cheaper to just buy plain black shoes ffs - all the parents are doing is undermining the school, giving a.shit lesson to their kids and what a hill to die on - just wear the uniform -sometimes in life you can't tantrum like a fucking toddler over clothes.

The school also made it clear that parents of dc that require reasonable adjustments should get in touch and in the hot weather allow the dc to wear pe kit
The parents here are acting like brats!

"They can’t wear earrings and have to have a certain colour hair bobble/ribbon. Is this really that important "

In that case if it is so unimportant take off the jewellery and get a black bobble.

There are plenty of stupid and unreasonable rules for uniform, this is not one of them.

I just don't understand how parents can't follow the rules! The uniform policy seems to be very clearly laid out and I'm sure it wasn't changed the day before they went back!
I understand 'shoes don't affect your education' blah blah, but surely it is about following a rule and encouraging your child to respect that.
If you work in asda and your uniform is a green polo shirt you can't turn up in something else you prefer, it just wouldn't happen. Why should school be any different?!

There is zero reason for them except to stand out. It’s not like they are the only shoes in the shop. Even my fairly lax school uniform of the 80e wouldnt have allowed them.
ive worked in schools where the staff have a dress code too. The HT would tell you the point is to prepare the students for work life, which is kinda true. DH had a professional job and has a dress code, some for safety reasons.
Although I still think polyester blazers in summer are ridiculous.

This sort of shit drives me doollally.

The parents have presumably selected the school and one of the very, very easy to understand is the uniform code.

Wilfully deciding to not follow a very simple requirement, and in a world where there are hundreds of black shoe options, is just asking for a shit load of completely avoidable aggro.

Those particular shoes are a completely unnecessary purchase. The only people at fault are the parents that bought them, and having Insta'd their child's first day sent them in for an inevitable and totally avoidable consequence.

Discussions about these horrible shoes just cheapens the very valid and important concerns raised by the standards of uniform demanded in general.

I fully support schools having a uniform. But it needs to be practical, comfortable, replaceable and affordable.

Too many schools impose ludicrous regulations where they measure the length of a child's hair (either too short or too long), put kids in isolation because they wear navy socks instead of black, or charcoal trousers instead of dark grey.

Others insist on every item being embroidered, on multiple pairs of trainers for PE and only allow black coats in the winter - a great idea when its dark at 4pm when kids are walking home.

These demands really ought to be curbed.

But complaining about a very expensive pair of designer flats with a prominent logo is just vanity.

If they were complaining about the soles of a student's shoes having a bit of colour underneath them, or a tiny Kickers tag, then yeah, I'd be pissed off. But thats not what's happening here.

My kids school actually names these shoes in their policy
Day one, their tutor did a "unform standards" talk and said "so if you insist on wearing these, please don't make your parents buy the branded ones, it's ridiculous money. Just get the knock offs instead"

So they clearly don't enforce their own policies!

As a teacher I can understand the uniform policy, I did find the punishment strange though, removal from class and isolation.......in my school, there's a warning system in place, this seemed ott.

I'm sorry, Nike Airs for PE?! You're an absolute fool.

It's not about money for me - it's reasonableness. My Dc have Nike airs at home. They do not have them at school to wear two hours a week as they know it's not reasonable. And the kids that do either have parents who can't say no or/and parents who can't really afford them but are determined to spend bizarre amounts on footwear.

Sadly, I don’t think £100 is much more than the Clarks shoes my dd wears. They Vivian Westwood shoes seem fine to me, probably not the most practical shoe to wear mid. Winter, but it’s not big deal. Some schools get so worked up about these types of rules.

What the actual chuff?! I must be living in another planet.

What's wrong with a pair of boring black leather shoes from Clarke's outlet, or even something leather but not labelled from Wyndsors?

Clarks outlet is £35 for school shoes.

We went to Deichmans - buy 1 get 1 half price - ds school shoes and school trainers together including the protective treatment cost £75.

I don’t understand your post. If you’ve already spent the money on Nike Airs for your kids to wear at home, why can they not also wear them for PE? Why are other parents who don’t provide extra trainers for PE spending bizarre amounts?

Because they pay for trainers that are used and kept at school. So they spend a fortune on something that gets little wear as they aren't brought home.

The uniform policy is on the school website and sent out to all new students / of school specifies plain black shoes of a certain style with no motifs then I just can't fathom why anyone would think the VW's are acceptable?

Just follow the guidelines and stop being a prick. All the rest of us manage it!

Too many schools impose ludicrous regulations where they measure the length of a child's hair (either too short or too long), put kids in isolation because they wear navy socks instead of black, or charcoal trousers instead of dark grey.

Others insist on every item being embroidered, on multiple pairs of trainers for PE and only allow black coats in the winter - a great idea when its dark at 4pm when kids are walking home.

Plenty of people seem to be in favour of this though. You read these stories about kids spending a day in isolation because of the wrong sock colour and all the comments say “Quite right, rules are rules”. Absolutely baffles me how few people question how strict adherence to uniform impacts anyone’s learning or behaviour.

(It also absolutely baffles me how teachers have the time or the mental energy to be arguing with pupils about their socks or their backpacks anyway - I mean, they could be using that time to, I don’t know, teach…?)

I think it's fine actually. And you can get them second hand on vinted for half the price. They are just flat ballet style shoes that hundreds of girls wear with no issues... altho when you get a bit older yoy realise it's better to have more support in a shoe! No one cares when they are young though.. I used to do ten hour shifts as a barmaid in ballet flats in my 20s and I was fine. I wear more supportive footwear now tho.
And weren't we all obsessed with some fad at school? Everyone had to have this specific warehouse messenger bag at my school lmao.. which granted, wasn't quite as expensive as those shoes but it was fairly pricey. I got one for Christmas and was over the moon!
I don't see the harm in it tbh. They aren't so expensive really. Can get them in very good condition on vinted for around 40quid. Easy enough to save up for even if you are on minimum wage etc
In fact I think some of these unbranded school shoes can be vastly more expensive.

Having looked at the school's policy one thing that springs to mind is that all the shoes have laces.

That could be a problem for some children.

So many students wear £7 Primark shoes or any cheap ballet pumps.
Wet days are a nightmare.

Is it the norm in high school/secondary to leave PE shoes at school? It definitely wasn't when I was at school.

Mine are only in primary but they go into school wearing their PE kit and trainers on PE day and they certainly come home with it all on.