Arsehole-led academy posts 'shoe shaming' thread on FB saying the best-dressed students are the highest achieving

[pisacake]

Wankers

www.facebook.com/CrispinSchool/posts/980776275393951

Well they have not explained themselves very well but I see some parents are supporting the notion of following the uniform rules regarding shoes and they have not posted unacceptsble shoes have they?

I was once told by a Police Officer involved in recruitment that they look at your shoes. Never too early to be well turned out I think. I think every child wears shoes, do they not, so they could be clean and tidy?

That’s a lovely example of a spurious correlation.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-42151806

His post is depressing. I despise this notion that smart uniform equals success, because in history smart uniforms have always been associated with the good guys right????

Unfortunately, quite often with success though!

Well, my DD is in a non-uniform 6th form. She doesn't wear the 'business dress' that the school suggests - hardly anyone does. She alternates between a jeans/band T-shirt/flannel shirt combo and a dress/tights combo - both worn with DMs.

She's one of the top students in her year and was top 5 in her GCSE year cohort. So I'm calling bollocks on this head.

those achieving in areas such as sport, music and the arts

So that's why dd ended up doing science; I never polished her shoes.

Just these last few weeks on MN I've seen prude shaming, shit shaming and now shoe shaming

It’s funny how schools are so weird and anal about uniform, which takes up a huge amount of teacher’ (usually form tutors’) time, on the grounds that it prepares you for life, and helps you achieve, and yet, once I moved to teaching in a sixth form college with no uniform, the achievement doesn’t seem to be any different and the behaviour is much better (compared to School sixth form). Also, when people from “the world of work” come to talk to our students, none of them are wearing business dress. Nor do any of the teaching staff. Yet it’s not anarchy! It’s amazing.

(From bebumbas link) The school has apologised saying it had "nothing to do with disadvantage".
It has everything to do with disadvantage.

This is another confusion of cause and correlation.

I don't see any confusion in the post from the school. That mentions correlation, not causation.

So the correlation they have noticed is that that children in the smartest clothes/shoes have done better academically.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that these are not the disadvantaged (pp) pupils.

Some of those shoes (girls slip ons) would be banned at my daughter's school because they are bad for your feet!

This is genuinely funny. Unintentionally so - but very funny.

Suspect the writer of the thread may not be writing at post-doc level.

Nope, they definitely confuse correlation and causation. Good students have good shoes, ergo if we make all students have shiny shoes they will do better in school. Bollocks whichever way you spin it.

So maybe there is a correlation suggesting that students and parents who follow the rules are also probably the ones who get involved in extra curricular activities such as music and sport and probably are the types of students/parents who support the school.
It's not rocket science. The most successful and lovely students in my school are the ones who follow the rules, get involved in extra curriculars and have parents who support the school.

The students who tend to be on everyone's radars are the ones who don't follow basic rules, have home call up about why we are mean for not allowing them to wear trainers, don't meet basic expectations, home are unsupportive and they 'wouldn't dare' do any sports or clubs etc.
Again hardly rocket science.

It's a bit like the link suggesting that 90% of the time ^child with bad attitude and thinks rules don't apply tends to have parent who excuses their child's actions and says 'but they were just...'

Maisy I agree that the real causative factor is supportive parents. But the school's post misses that point completely and just witters on about shoes. It achieves nothing.

The schools post was leapt on by parents who were not happy about it in a few instances. Others were ok with it. I would say they were trying to get parents to be supportive in footwear!

I guess if 6th formers can wear what they want and just please themselves they will want a job without uniform rules too. Lots of jobs may be closed off if that idea is pursued. Being clever doesn’t translate to a top grad job if you don’t fit in with dress policy.

Bubbles what do you think young people wear at university? Suits? Think again. And yet they seem to manage to get jobs. Because they are, you know, clever, so they know how to dress appropriately for a given situation. This is what gets me every time - this belief that British kids are so thick that they need 12 years in school just to learn to wear appropriate clothes. Do we really think so little of our young people?

And amazingly enough there are young people in Germany, France, the Netherlands who grow up without uniform and yet manage to get these top grad jobs. Wonder how they manage it?

Yes, one wonders how they manage to get through 3 years at university (or more, if doing postgrad) and still cope with the dress rules of the business world, while 2 years in Sixth Form would, apparently, unsettle them for life and make them totally incapable of ever adapting to a new environment again.