Give this head Teacher a 'medal'.

[essbee]

My wife does, but not during school hours.

That made me laugh El P. Quality mate.

 

[BigGully]

I think this is all well and good ,but the teachers hardly set a good example with their dress code ... do as I say not do as I do, seems to be their moto ,if you want respect you have to give it.My wife is a teacher at a secondary school and does dress smartly and this subject has been a topic of conversation at the school with her and like minded teachers for a while now.If I have to pick her up sometimes I have a job deciding which are the teachers and which are the pupils in the way they dress .

Oh come on, do you think it is likely that a school head with such an arbitrary dress code for the pupils doesnt also have strict codes for her staff.

For me parents should just trust the teachers, do as requested and let the children learn a life lesson, when in middle age come on a forum and discuss its merits but sometimes you need to learn to bite the bullet and do what your senior feels might improve your life-chances.

Its no more than a reflection on that schools priorities, some order and discipline, you can rip it apart as much as you want but it seems a reasonable aspiration to me.

By the way all BHA players from under 9's upwards have a uniform that must be adhered to just as all professional clubs.

 

[Postman Pat]

My son's school - BACA (used to be Falmer), took a similar approach when they introduced the new uniform, parents were told before the summer holidays what the uniform was, down to what colour socks were acceptable, and any child that breached the rules was sent home.

This isn't anything new.

Difference here seems to be that parents supported the school rather than fighting it.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I work for a software company that has no dress rules in the office. In general when advertising for / interviewing new developers we see two 'types'. There are now many Indians who worked there for offshoring companies who have now taken those skills and used them to get a visa to work here. They tend to always wear very smart clothes and be slightly surprised by the ripped jeans and tats sported by a few of my colleagues. Then there are the Brits, almost always nerds with either piercings, dreads or terrible dress sense. Both are interviewed and treated purely on their skills alone because that's the law. Anything else would be discrimination.

However if the role is at all client facing then we would expect the candidate to go to that site looking smart and presentable and if we feel they would be unable to do so that would count against them. However, one of my team has managed to be on client site for 5 years despite the fact he's a goth!

 

[happypig]

The difference between school and work is that you have to go to school; in the world of work you can choose whether you want to work in an organisation with a very strict dress or uniform code (such as the armed forces or legal profession) or somewhere relaxed.
I got involved in a dispute with my son's school over their changed uniform policy when they stated they were going to make them all wear blazers instead of sweatshirts; my view was/is that blazers aren't a practical item of clothing. I (and a couple of others) was such a pain in the arse to the head that in the end they delayed making it compulsory for year 11.
I attended a review at the school where another parent said "Oh I do like children to look smart" to which I replied "I'd rather have a bright kid, with his own sense of self expression than a thick lummox in a shirt and tie". Didn't make a lot of friends that night.

 

[Justice]

The school had apparently already told the parents, in writing, that this would be the consequence of failure to adhere to their uniform policy. On that basis, you wouldn't be able to claim that you were at work and "knew nothing of the situation" as you had been given prior warning of the consequences. If you really believe something as petty as this amounts to "child abuse" then it is the parents who should be reported for failing to ensure that their children complied with the schools regulations.

There are some stupid, stupid parents full of their own importance out there.

Let me put this another way, if your 13 year old daughter had been abducted on her way back home to change a jumper when you thought she was in school, would your view still stand? I doubt it.

 

[drew]

That depends on what sort of job you have I guess. I would be slightly taken aback if my doctor had multiple facial peircings and a swastika tattooed on his neck. It wouldn't be so much of a problem if it was a bin man or a stockbroker though.

Are you saying you wouldn't trust a doctor with 'any' tatoo or piercings? Why ever not? I don't have any myself but wouldn't judge their capability on the fact they do!

People from my workplace have been sent home for inappropriate work attire. We will also cancel temp's contracts if they can't turn up with a decent level of dress and hygiene (office setting).

Perhaps you should define 'inappropriate'. As for introducing hygiene, not sure that has anything to do with this debate.


Going back to the OP, I actually agree that schools should have a uniform policy but that there should be some flexibility as the point of education, especially at key stage 3, should not just be to churn out homogenised young adults.

 

[The Large One]

I attended a review at the school where another parent said "Oh I do like children to look smart" to which I replied "I'd rather have a bright kid, with his own sense of self expression than a thick lummox in a shirt and tie". Didn't make a lot of friends that night.

There's a happy halfway to be met.

I totally get your point about a bright kid able to express themselves, and I feel in many cases it's an under-valued aspect of character, but by the same token there's nothing wrong with wanting to present yourself smartly. I might even try it myself one day.

The phrase '... it prepares them for adult life...' is an oft-trotted out statement which, if you peel away at it, doesn't really hold water. (Actually, that's a bad Moulinexing of metaphors there - apologies.) A uniform can prepare them for certain aspects of adult life, but - and I acknowledge we're only getting a snapshot of the school in question here - to chastise people on the back of not looking exactly how she feel all adults will ultimately turn out gives out the signal of her and her school having the wrong set of priorities. This isn't all about smartness - it's more about dictatorial control.

"We're not going to educate you today because your shoes aren't smart enough..." etc.

Additionally, while the parents may have received a warning that she was going to send them home, the fact that it wasn't communicated to the parents that she did send them home, again sends out a wrong signal. That lack of communication is awful. Parents are expecting their children to be in school. To found out later via a source other than the school that they haven't been is pretty bad - as was mentioned earlier - if nothing else, on safety grounds. The prior warnings aren't the point; what does she expect - for the parents to be at home ready for the children to be sent home just in case?

 

[jimbob5]

Its or It's?

Its windows need replacing. It's turned out nice again.

 

[Mr Putdown]

Let me put this another way, if your 13 year old daughter had been abducted on her way back home to change a jumper when you thought she was in school would you still have your view still stand? I doubt it.

Let me put this the same way as before, my 13 year old daughter wouldn't have had to go back home to change her jumper in the first place. We would have made sure she adhered to the uniform rules that the school had sent us.

My view hasn't altered at all simply because you have changed your scenario from a child getting run over to a child getting abducted.

 

[Simster]

Let me put this another way, if your 13 year old daughter had been abducted on her way back home to change a jumper when you thought she was in school, would your view still stand? I doubt it.

But if he had read a letter giving a clear warning that the consequence of not adhering to school uniform would be to send the child home, and then allowed his child to leave whilst flouting these rules, that would be his own fault. You may not agree with the school uniform policy, but the adult responsible for the child is at fault for this happening, not the head master.

Personally I think there is a lot to be said for upholding a school uniform policy.

 

[BigGully]

The difference between school and work is that you have to go to school; in the world of work you can choose whether you want to work in an organisation with a very strict dress or uniform code (such as the armed forces or legal profession) or somewhere relaxed.
I got involved in a dispute with my son's school over their changed uniform policy when they stated they were going to make them all wear blazers instead of sweatshirts; my view was/is that blazers aren't a practical item of clothing. I (and a couple of others) was such a pain in the arse to the head that in the end they delayed making it compulsory for year 11.
I attended a review at the school where another parent said "Oh I do like children to look smart" to which I replied "I'd rather have a bright kid, with his own sense of self expression than a thick lummox in a shirt and tie". Didn't make a lot of friends that night.

I bet this isnt your only foray into school over something you might have been better served to support.

I am all for having a sense of self expression, but if you think it is wearing a sweatshirt rather than a blazer, its hardly rock 'n' roll my friend.

To qualify your position why would you wish to insult a pupil that might choose to wear a shirt and tie, by calling him a thick lummox ??

It is likely your didnt make a lot of friends that night, not because of your view on blazers, more like you're just tiresome.

 

[Hastings gull]

I understand the reasoning & importance of the School uniform policy , to a certain extent at least.
What I fail to understand is the impact the colour or style of your hair or how many piercings you have has on your ability to learn?

The principal said rules were an important part of growing up to get students ready for "adult life".


Pretty sure that in "adult life" you are free to express yourself with your personal appearance however you see fit. You can have brightly, unnatural coloured hair & as many piercings as you please. Most workplaces do not discriminate against multicoloured, pierced people & they certainly don't send you home to make yourself ready to work.

You begin by saying that you understand the reasoning of a school uniform policy, but then undermine your argument by questioning part of it. Of course in theory your hair colour should not affect learning, but that is not the issue here. From 30 years teaching experience, I know that school uniform and indeed all rules are debated at school council level, involving students, and in staff meetings. They are then circulated to all parents well in advance, precisely so that no one could reasonably claim they had just bought something the day before, and could not now afford a second pair eg at short notice. The problem is the minority of parents who take no real notice and do not read school letters because education is not a priority for them. It is a secondary school and so one can assume it is has, say, 1000 pupils, perhaps not that much. 150 would be 15% approx., and so you would have to ask yourself why the other 85% felt able to abide by the rules. There is nothing more annoying than abiding by the rule, irrespective of what it is, and how you feel about it, and then finding out that others who take no notice, simply get away with it - it is morale sapping for the majority. If you don't not like a rule, by all means question it, but if the majority appear happy with it, then it behoves you to accept that.
As for your opinion that in the work place you can have much as you please, appearance-wise - I think you would find that this is not the case in a professional environment. Rightly or wrongly, most people would be put off by a teacher and/or doctor who had an appearance such as you describe, and said individual would probably be overlooked at an interview. It may not be morally right, but I submit that this is what would happen, as an employer would have to think of the customers.

 

[soistes]

I work for a software company that has no dress rules in the office. In general when advertising for / interviewing new developers we see two 'types'. There are now many Indians who worked there for offshoring companies who have now taken those skills and used them to get a visa to work here. They tend to always wear very smart clothes and be slightly surprised by the ripped jeans and tats sported by a few of my colleagues. Then there are the Brits, almost always nerds with either piercings, dreads or terrible dress sense. Both are interviewed and treated purely on their skills alone because that's the law. Anything else would be discrimination.

You may be right, in which case (as an employer) I'd be really interested to know which law you're referring to, and how that prevents an employer taking account of dress, piercings or whatever. As I understand it, the equality legislation (rightly) protects people from being discriminated against (in recruitment and other aspects of employment) on the basis of characteristics that they can't choose or alter (sex, age, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability...). As I understand it, an employer can legally discriminate against someone who has chosen to cover their face in tattoos or metalwork, or who shows up for a job interview in "non-standard" clothing. I'm not saying they should, just that I think they can within the law. And I'm not an employment lawyer, so I'd be genuinely interested to know if this is the case

 

[BigGully]

Let me put this another way, if your 13 year old daughter had been abducted on her way back home to change a jumper when you thought she was in school, would your view still stand? I doubt it.

The old 'abduction' charge.

This kind of invalidates absolutely anything your 13 year old does, whats the point !!

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

And while Elizabeth Churton complains about breaches of school uniform rules, she is happy to send out material that is incorrectly punctuated ("BOYS SHOES", "GIRLS SHOES" with no apostrophes).

So it doesn't matter that her school has no respect for the English language as long as everyone is dressed the same ...

 

[Simster]

Going back to the OP, I actually agree that schools should have a uniform policy but that there should be some flexibility as the point of education, especially at key stage 3, should not just be to churn out homogenised young adults.

Most school uniform policies DO already have flexibility, to be fair. I'm not sure that's relevant here though, because no mention is made of it.

 

[Simster]

And while Elizabeth Churton complains about breaches of school uniform rules, she is happy to send out material that is incorrectly punctuated ("BOYS SHOES", "GIRLS SHOES" with no apostrophes).

So it doesn't matter that her school has no respect for the English language as long as everyone is dressed the same ...

Where did you read that? This is their school policy explained, and I don't see your example there:

http://www.hansonacademy.org.uk/news/uniform


I must admit I don't think it's flexible enough, but would make my kids adhere to it. Rules is rules, and it's trivial in the grand scheme of things. If I felt differently, maybe I'd try and speak to the school governors about it (the head merely enforces the rules voted on by the governors). If my issue wasn't taken seriously AND I still felt so strongly about it, maybe I'd move them elsewhere. Or maybe I'd have checked the school uniform policy before sending them there.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

My son's school - BACA (used to be Falmer), took a similar approach when they introduced the new uniform, parents were told before the summer holidays what the uniform was, down to what colour socks were acceptable, and any child that breached the rules was sent home.

A bit like the 1901 Club then.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Where did you read that? This is their school policy explained, and I don't see your example there:

http://www.hansonacademy.org.uk/news/uniform


I must admit I don't think it's flexible enough, but would make my kids adhere to it. Rules is rules, and it's trivial in the grand scheme of things. If I felt differently, maybe I'd try and speak to the school governors about it (the head merely enforces the rules voted on by the governors). If my issue wasn't taken seriously AND I still felt so strongly about it, maybe I'd move them elsewhere. Or maybe I'd have checked the school uniform policy before sending them there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-29911712

- the link on the original post. The images are on the school's official website.

http://www.hansonacademy.org.uk/news/uniform_statement