Would you consider these school shoes?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Of all the things I don't miss about school, sitting around having my time wasted while some power tripping bollix had a ten minute stand off with a student over a fecking tie or some other nonsense is up toward the top of the list. Quite a few teachers were far more interested in the uniform rules than doing any actual teaching, it's pathetic.

Did they actually send 40+ kids home on the first day for uniform breaches? Surely not? That's ridiculous.

waterfaerie

Corkgirl18 wrote: »

As a teacher, I have found non-uniform days to be a bit of a nightmare. Between the unsuitable outfits and tears due to a student passing comments about another students clothes it can cause a lot of stress. I've found this in multiple schools

That's because it's the one day they have to show off. It's made into a big deal because it's a rare occasion.

Have you ever taught in a school without uniforms? Nobody cares what anyone else wears because everyone's just used to it and it's not a big deal. You also get less "unsuitable outfits" because nobody feels like they need to make a point.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Gianna Sparse Bun wrote: »

Of all the things I don't miss about school, sitting around having my time wasted while some power tripping bollix had a ten minute stand off with a student over a fecking tie or some other nonsense is up toward the top of the list. Quite a few teachers were far more interested in the uniform rules than doing any actual teaching, it's pathetic.

Did they actually send 40+ kids home on the first day for uniform breaches? Surely not? That's ridiculous.

Yes, ridiculous that so many parents can't be bothered to ensure their kids wear the right uniform.
If parents have legitimate issues about the cost of certain items or somesuch, there are better ways of raising it than undermining school discipline by deliberately sending their kids in wearing the wrong items.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

Yes, ridiculous that so many parents can't be bothered to ensure their kids wear the right uniform.
If parents have legitimate issues about the cost of certain items or somesuch, there are better ways of raising it than undermining school discipline by deliberately sending their kids in wearing the wrong items.

No, it's ridiculous to have a student miss a day of school because they're not wearing the right type of shoes. Give a warning and escalate it, don't send them straight home.

That sort of shít undermines discipline in and of itself, if there's the same immediate consequences for wearing trainers and for throwing a chair. It sends the message that the school cares about petty, arbitrary, stupid rules for the sake of rules more than educating the students.

The teachers who had a hard on for uniforms in my school were the teachers who nobody listened to, because they were such petty power trippers that they were figures of derision. The best teachers I remember, the ones who could hold a classroom and who students respected were the ones who didn't bother much with that nonsense.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Gianna Sparse Bun wrote: »

No, it's ridiculous to have a student miss a day of school because they're not wearing the right type of shoes. Give a warning and escalate it, don't send them straight home.

That sort of shít undermines discipline in and of itself, if there's the same immediate consequences for wearing trainers and for throwing a chair. It sends the message that the school cares about petty, arbitrary, stupid rules for the sake of rules more than educating the students.

The teachers who had a hard on for uniforms in my school were the teachers who nobody listened to, because they were such petty power trippers that they were figures of derision. The best teachers I remember, the ones who could hold a classroom and who students respected were the ones who didn't bother much with that nonsense.

If 48 kids from one year group are deliberately flouting the school uniform rules then that needs to be nipped in the bud. Far better to send one sharp clear message at the beginning of the school year, than waste endless time throughout the term hauling up individuals and dishing out separate punishments.

The parents who send their kids in wrongly attired are the ones causing their children to miss time at school. Why should they be allowed to constantly waste teachers' and other pupils' time by not being called out very clearly on their behaviour immediately?

freshpopcorn

Gianna Sparse Bun wrote: »

Did they actually send 40+ kids home on the first day for uniform breaches? Surely not? That's ridiculous.

Gianna Sparse Bun wrote: »

No, it's ridiculous to have a student miss a day of school because they're not wearing the right type of shoes. Give a warning and escalate it, don't send them straight home.

To be fair the first day of school not much really happens. The reason they probably sent them all home is because they know the soft approach generally got them no where.

retro:electro

It’s not really about a disciplinarian principle enforcing draconian rules, it’s about teaching kids to do what is required, whether they like it or not.
As I said before, the uniforms are there for many a reason and, if you don’t approve of what your school insists on, then find another school. Don’t embarrass yourself and your child by mouthing off on Joe Duffy— it’s really not cool.

waterfaerie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

While I am disappointed to learn that there is a dress code in the Dáil, "dress in a manner which reflects the dignity and decorum of the House" is rather open to interpretation.

seamus

One could make the argument that wearing a black plastic sack and smearing faeces in your hair would be adequately reflective of the "dignity and decorum" of most national parliaments.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

anna080 wrote: »

It’s not really about a disciplinarian principle enforcing draconian rules, it’s about teaching kids to do what is required, whether they like it or not.
As I said before, the uniforms are there for many a reason and, if you don’t approve of what your school insists on, then find another school. Don’t embarrass yourself and your child by mouthing off on Joe Duffy— it’s really not cool.

I agree that calling Liveline was a cringey move, in fairness, she didn't do herself any favours.

Teaching kids to blindly follow authority even when the rules are patently pointless is stupid, kids can see straight through it and at that age reflexively kick against it, it just leads to time wasted on willy wagging contests between teacher and student, you give the students an opportunity to undermine your authority, and all over an issue that's meaningless. You have to do your homework. Why? So that I can see that you're learning and measure your progress. You can't smoke on school grounds. Why? Because it's illegal, bad for you, and degrades the school environment. You have to wear EXACTLY THIS TYPE OF SHOE. Why? Because I say so.

Like I said, when I was in school, the teachers who actually got the most teaching done were the ones who had cop on about petty nonsense like absolute adherence to the uniform, students liked them, respected them and listened to them. The ones who in your view fought a heroic battle to instill discipline and accountability got fcuk all actual teaching done, people mocked them, deliberately wound them up and ignored them.

waterfaerie

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

If 48 kids from one year group are deliberately flouting the school uniform rules then that needs to be nipped in the bud.

If 48 kids from one year group are deliberately flouting the school uniform rules then that says a lot about the level of respect the Principal has earned, or failed to earn as it would seem.

If a high percentage of my students deliberately showed me disrespect, the first thing I would do is question my own practice.

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

Far better to send one sharp clear message at the beginning of the school year, than waste endless time throughout the term hauling up individuals and dishing out separate punishments.

The parents who send their kids in wrongly attired are the ones causing their children to miss time at school. Why should they be allowed to constantly waste teachers' and other pupils' time by not being called out very clearly on their behaviour immediately?

You've hit the nail on the head there. Why are school staff wasting theirs and their students' time worrying about their footwear?

Maybe instead of everyone arguing about whether or not this one individual was wrong in this one particular case, we should be asking the question, why in the world does it matter what footwear the students wear, other than that they be safe and comfortable? What a waste of time is right!

Why is it even in school rules? Why do school staff care? Could it be because they are incapable of legitimately earning the respect of these teenagers so instead they insist on demanding respect through "rules"?

Respect demanded is not real respect. Rules with no solid foundation in good reason are never going to be respected, especially not by teenagers.

retro:electro

Is it wasting people's time though? I'm sure the principal spotted the shoes, sent him home and said come back when you have the right ones. I'm sure the day didn't come to a stand still for everyone else. Posters have this idea on here that all the pupils are lined up in a row and the principal is walking along sizing them up head to toe. Sometimes it's as simple as meeting the student in the corridor and saying "wrong shoes on today Murphy. Go home and come back when you have the right ones". Some may think this is petty but it's the school's policy and they hold the right to enforce it.

dr.fuzzenstein

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

If 48 kids from one year group are deliberately flouting the school uniform rules then that needs to be nipped in the bud. Far better to send one sharp clear message at the beginning of the school year, than waste endless time throughout the term hauling up individuals and dishing out separate punishments.

The parents who send their kids in wrongly attired are the ones causing their children to miss time at school. Why should they be allowed to constantly waste teachers' and other pupils' time by not being called out very clearly on their behaviour immediately?

And that is why Ireland is run by people with the imagination of a used teabag that sat in the sink for 3 days.
Yes, break them early, make them understand that their input besides "yes, sir" is not desired nor needed. They need to understand that petty rules are the first and most important thing. And that imagination and questioning authority are definitely out of the question.
Then they are ready for work. Trudge in and out every day and do your job. Don't ask questions and don't speak up.
I always wondered why the Irish in Ireland are verging on dull, conformist and downbeaten. It's such a contrast to the Irish abroad. Of course now I get it, if you have to live in such a grey, boring, conformist country, you go mad once you let out, especially the young Irish.
Glad I didn't wear a uniform. It left me with the ability to question and say "that's bullsh*t!"

Sofiztikated

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

It would be more personal yeah, between my brother and friends and myself, I have experience with the way in which 6 schools are run from where I come. My school was without a doubt the least strict in terms of appearance, but the results were far better than the rest. The priority on discipline was with regard to homework and class behaviour as opposed to appearance was definitely to thank.

Funnily enough, when I was going to secondary school, there were 4 in the general area. Of that, 2 were very strict on the uniforms, 1 strict(ish) and mine, not very strict. The 2 that were very strict are the top 2 in the area, in both sporting accolades and exam results. Mine, not so much.

waterfaerie

I don't know how much time was wasted in this instance but I have seen plenty of time wasted over nonsense like this.

It also indirectly causes further waste of time because, as I mentioned before, teachers who assert authority like this are more likely to earn more disrespect in general. They subsequently need to spend more time dealing with classroom management issues, which wastes everyone's time. When it's at whole school level coming from the Principal it's even worse, as it filters down everywhere and you get bad attitudes among the student population..

Shenshen

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Funnily enough, when I was going to secondary school, there were 4 in the general area. Of that, 2 were very strict on the uniforms, 1 strict(ish) and mine, not very strict. The 2 that were very strict are the top 2 in the area, in both sporting accolades and exam results. Mine, not so much.

So, on the basis of the two examples given, we would have to conclude that strict adherence to uniform has no impact, neither positive nor negative, on students' performance, right?

meeeeh

When will kids rebel if not at that age. Over zealous rules just make it easy for them.

I never needed to wear uniform in my life and yet I am capable of putting together work appropriate outfit. But isn't it interesting that in UK an Ireland where uniforms are more pervasive teenage girls are more likely to dress in overly sexualized manner.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

waterfaerie wrote: »

I don't know how much time was wasted in this instance but I have seen plenty of time wasted over nonsense like this.

It also indirectly causes further waste of time because, as I mentioned before, teachers who assert authority like this are more likely to earn more disrespect in general. They subsequently need to spend more time dealing with classroom management issues, which wastes everyone's time. When it's at whole school level coming from the Principal it's even worse, as it filters down everywhere and you get bad attitudes among the student population..

How is a Principal insisting that clearly outlined uniform rules be adhered to wasting everyone's time. Far more problems will arise if rules are seen to be totally ignored by him/her, as it just undermines the whole system.

The time wasting here is by parents like Georgie.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And that is why Ireland is run by people with the imagination of a used teabag that sat in the sink for 3 days.
Yes, break them early, make them understand that their input besides "yes, sir" is not desired nor needed. They need to understand that petty rules are the first and most important thing. And that imagination and questioning authority are definitely out of the question.
Then they are ready for work. Trudge in and out every day and do your job. Don't ask questions and don't speak up.
I always wondered why the Irish in Ireland are verging on dull, conformist and downbeaten. It's such a contrast to the Irish abroad. Of course now I get it, if you have to live in such a grey, boring, conformist country, you go mad once you let out, especially the young Irish.
Glad I didn't wear a uniform. It left me with the ability to question and say "that's bullsh*t!"

Yes, I bet that's what Georgie is thinking as well. "Oh my child is a free spirit, I don't want to break that and stunt his wonderful creativity by making him adhere to boring rules". And that is how speshul snowflakes are created.

Sofiztikated

Shenshen wrote: »

So, on the basis of the two examples given, we would have to conclude that strict adherence to uniform has no impact, neither positive nor negative, on students' performance, right?

Something like that.

If it had been a better argument, I could have weighted in behind her.

Has been claimed that he didn't like them because they were old fashioned.
Has been claimed that the trainers were expensive trainers at €90. They're not. They're a €30 pair of Lonsdales.
She went on Joe ****ing Duffy. In my eyes, you lose all credibility speaking on that ****ing show.

If she had said that they were better for his feet, due to arch support and whatever, I could accept. I'd still argue though, because Lonsdales make ****e of your feet, and have no support whatsoever. A decent pair of trainers that will provide that are a lot more expensive. Hell a decent pair of shoes would likely cost similar.
If she had argued that proper shoes were too expensive, and these were cheaper, I'd accept that reasoning, but she didn't, she claimed they were expensive too.
If she had hit a wall with the school body about the shoes, and getting nowhere with reason and discussion, I'd accept. But she didn't, she went to that ****wit show.

School is a learning experience. Some times you need to learn that there's **** you might not like, but have to follow. Don't like the rules? Make proper inroads into changing them, don't just whinge about being traumatized over a nonsense. Yes you can dissent, but be ready to learn that with dissent against common established rules comes repercussions, fair or not.

waterfaerie

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

How is a Principal insisting that clearly outlined uniform rules be adhered to wasting everyone's time. Far more problems will arise if rules are seen to be totally ignored by him/her, as it just undermines the whole system.

The time wasting here is by parents like Georgie.

My point is that having such a rule in the first place is the waste of time.

Sofiztikated

meeeeh wrote: »

When will kids rebel if not at that age. Over zealous rules just make it easy for them.

I never needed to wear uniform in my life and yet I am capable of putting together work appropriate outfit. But isn't it interesting that in UK an Ireland where uniforms are more pervasive teenage girls are more likely to dress in overly sexualized manner.

Bollicks.

Happens the world over.

freshpopcorn

Gianna Sparse Bun wrote: »

Like I said, when I was in school, the teachers who actually got the most teaching done were the ones who had cop on about petty nonsense like absolute adherence to the uniform, students liked them, respected them and listened to them. The ones who in your view fought a heroic battle to instill discipline and accountability got fcuk all actual teaching done, people mocked them, deliberately wound them up and ignored them.

waterfaerie wrote: »

It also indirectly causes further waste of time because, as I mentioned before, teachers who assert authority like this are more likely to earn more disrespect in general. They subsequently need to spend more time dealing with classroom management issues, which wastes everyone's time. When it's at whole school level coming from the Principal it's even worse, as it filters down everywhere and you get bad attitudes among the student population..

Whilst my school had a strict uniform policy it was only really the principal/vice that enforced it. Teachers were generally grand. Two teachers really enforced it tough but they were strict in all elements of school.(Basically no excuse unless they were valid).
If you every acted out in class you got in big trouble, if you yawned, any talking, got something small wrong wrong, you got a big write out. People dreaded these teachers classes and often mocked them.
One thing about these teachers classes tough was nobody used be flicking sweets/paper at the lad who they bullied, people did their homework(99.99% of the times). When it came to third year they people got brilliant results and whilst they hated/feared everybody wanted them in 5th/6th year because they knew they were brilliant motivators.(You had no other choice to do the work). Same with the leaving leaving cert they get good results from weak students.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

waterfaerie wrote: »

My point is that having such a rule in the first place is the waste of time.

That's fair enough. But in that case, parents should lobby the school to change it, outlining their reasons. Encouraging your kids to break the rules, then going whining on national radio when they're punished for it, is pretty poor parenting in my view.

meeeeh

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Bollicks.

Happens the world over.

No it doesn't. Go around anywhere else in Europe and majority of girls will be in a jeans and top or something similar. They will be wearing less make up too. That is not even up for a discussion. I don't really know if it has anything to do with what they have to wear in school but it is interesting coincidence.

Stab*City

Uniforms are a joke. When i was at school i did everything in my power to wear what i wanted. It got me into trouble a lot but sher.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

meeeeh wrote: »

No it doesn't. Go around anywhere else in Europe and majority of girls will be in a jeans and top or something similar. They will be wearing less make up too. That is not even up for a discussion. I don't really know if it has anything to do with what they have to wear in school but it is interesting coincidence.

No they dont, because although there are no uniforms, there are strict dresscodes. And said codes are respected.

I think you're either making **** up to suit your argument, or you've been watching too much US tv.

Sofiztikated

meeeeh wrote: »

No it doesn't. Go around anywhere else in Europe and majority of girls will be in a jeans and top or something similar. They will be wearing less make up too. That is not even up for a discussion. I don't really know if it has anything to do with what they have to wear in school but it is interesting coincidence.

Teenage girls around the world dress in an "overly sexualized" manner because they are still finding their standard, be it Ballybofey, Brazil or Benedorm.

I put it more down to our sesh culture and the Spice Girls (and the Girl Power, and the extension and growth of it), than being told to wear a pair of proper ****ing shoes.

And I'm back from a trip around Europe, thanks, but I didn't spend much time cruising school discos. But I did stay with families, and through talking, they had much the same concerns.

waterfaerie

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Whilst my school had a strict uniform policy it was only really the principal/vice that enforced it. Teachers were generally grand. Two teachers really enforced it tough but they were strict in all elements of school.(Basically no excuse unless they were valid).
If you every acted out in class you got in big trouble, if you yawned, any talking, got something small wrong wrong, you got a big write out. People dreaded these teachers classes and often mocked them.
One thing about these teachers classes tough was nobody used be flicking sweets/paper at the lad who they bullied, people did their homework(99.99% of the times). When it came to third year they people got brilliant results and whilst they hated/feared everybody wanted them in 5th/6th year because they knew they were brilliant motivators.(You had no other choice to do the work). Same with the leaving leaving cert they get good results from weak students.

If the only reason these "weak students" you know did well in their leaving cert was because they were afraid of their teachers, how are they going to cope in life?

In any case, you can be strict about things that matter, like bullying, and turn a blind eye to things that don't matter, like footwear.

In my experience, it's the teachers who are over the top about the things that don't matter who get the most backlash from students. I'm talking about deliberate misbehaviour for the pure sake of winding the teacher up, not just general classroom silliness between students.

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

No it doesn't. Go around anywhere else in Europe and majority of girls will be in a jeans and top or something similar. They will be wearing less make up too. That is not even up for a discussion. I don't really know if it has anything to do with what they have to wear in school but it is interesting coincidence.

Are you saying that teens don't dress provocatively in the States, where most schools do not require uniforms?

seamus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No they dont, because although there are no uniforms, there are strict dresscodes. And said codes are respected.

And in the whole scheme of uniform -v- no uniform, this is the key.

There are equally as many arguments for having uniforms as there are for not having uniforms. I've seen this discussion time and time again, I've had it with people time and time again.

And there is no conclusive reason why one approach is better than the other. When you have no uniform, you still have a dress code. Children still have to be dressed in weather-appropriate clothing, it needs to not be too distracting/revealing/provocative, it needs to not have big slogans or crazy designs on it. Footwear needs to be suitable (i.e. no sandals). And so forth.

Either way, you are going to be policing what children wear to school.

In reality it comes to "I like uniforms" versus "I don't like uniforms". If the former win out at your child's school then you just have to put up with it, or try to influence the school board/council/parent's association to remove the uniform. Having your child engage in petty little protests will do nothing except affect your child's experience at school.

freshpopcorn

waterfaerie wrote: »

If the only reason these "weak students" you know did well in their leaving cert was because they were afraid of their teachers, how are they going to cope in life?

In any case, you can be strict about things that matter, like bullying, and turn a blind eye to things that don't matter, like footwear.

In my experience, it's the teachers who are over the top about the things that don't matter who get the most backlash from students. I'm talking about deliberate misbehaviour for the pure sake of winding the teacher up, not just general classroom silliness between students.

Well all I know is whilst people hated these teachers and often wished they died. They were all delighted to have them for their leaving cert. I was gutted I didn't have them for my leaving cert. I honestly don't know how they'll cope in really life but these were the teachers that helped to to get A's and B's in the leaving and go onto third level.
What you experienced happened with these teacher in the first few weeks of first year but people got so sick of write outs, detentions, community duties, etc. They behaved.

dr.fuzzenstein

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Teenage girls around the world dress in an "overly sexualized" manner because they are still finding their standard, be it Ballybofey, Brazil or Benedorm.

I put it more down to our sesh culture and the Spice Girls (and the Girl Power, and the extension and growth of it), than being told to wear a pair of proper ****ing shoes.

And I'm back from a trip around Europe, thanks, but I didn't spend much time cruising school discos. But I did stay with families, and through talking, they had much the same concerns.

I do have to say though, you are aware the Spice Girls formed in 1994?
The average wearer of a school uniform will hardly know who they are. More likely their parents will, even though the kids of that generation will have largely finished school and college by now...

_Whimsical_

I think uniforms are a wonderful idea in schools. They are a social leveler, the erase that visual statement of class and background. In this day and age it's particularly important when children are so conscious of clothes and labels and trainer brands etc. If you can get rid of all that in the school environment every child has a much easier time feeling comfortable and making friends with a wider socially diverse group.

In my school most of the kids were from a very wealthy background and were snobby about it. My wardrobe was entirely from Dunnes and Penney's. We wore a uniform but I was definitely conscious of it when we did PE and they all had their branded tracksuits and runners. I actually remember being around 9 and one day another girl coming in in a tracksuit I recognised from Dunnes and being absolutely delighted!

Branded runners are so expensive now that they really do make a statement about your background. I think it's no harm to enforce strict uniform policies even on shoes provided you can buy cheap shoes as part of the uniform.

meeeeh

anna080 wrote: »

Are you saying that teens don't dress provocatively in the States, where most schools do not require uniforms?

I'm talking about continental Europe where I grew up and inter railed extensively in my late teens.

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm talking about continental Europe where I grew up and inter railed extensively in my late teens.

So your point isn't universal?

Shenshen

seamus wrote: »

And in the whole scheme of uniform -v- no uniform, this is the key.

There are equally as many arguments for having uniforms as there are for not having uniforms. I've seen this discussion time and time again, I've had it with people time and time again.

And there is no conclusive reason why one approach is better than the other. When you have no uniform, you still have a dress code. Children still have to be dressed in weather-appropriate clothing, it needs to not be too distracting/revealing/provocative, it needs to not have big slogans or crazy designs on it. Footwear needs to be suitable (i.e. no sandals). And so forth.

Either way, you are going to be policing what children wear to school.

While I absolutely agree that it's beyond stupid to allow or even make your children fight your battles or you, I disagree with the "policing" what your children are wearing. Unless "dress code" has now come to mean "be dressed, and don't look too stupid", then no, most of Europe does not have dress codes in schools, either. There are no requirements on wearing or not wearing sandals (when I was in my teens, being barefoot was fashionable for a short while, so some students would show up barefoot for the summer; and we used to have one forgetful genius who occasionally showed up in her house slippers, having forgotten to put on shoes before leaving the house), no requirements on slogans or logos (within the limit of the law - you may well get sent home in Germany for wearing a swastika), and as for distracting or revealing, there are no rules and regulations. If you show up in a basque and suspenders I would imagine that teachers might take some action, but I honestly wouldn't know as I've never seen it.

My point is, if there are as many arguments for uniforms as against, that implies to me that having uniforms makes at best no difference at all to what your child learns and how he or she experiences school.
And if that's the case, why go to all the hassle of having a uniform policy and enforcing it? It seems a waste of time and effort.

Sofiztikated

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I do have to say though, you are aware the Spice Girls formed in 1994?
The average wearer of a school uniform will hardly know who they are. More likely their parents will, even though the kids of that generation will have largely finished school and college by now...

Yup, I was in school around then.

My point still stands. Wearing "overtly sexualised" clothing by teenagers nowadays, has more to do with them, than with having to wear a school ****ing uniform. (ie slightly more than **** all vs **** all.)

freshpopcorn

Whilst in my post I may come across as all for the uniform in school if I was a principal and could get my way I'd leave it up the parents to decide if they want a uniform in a vote.
If they didn't want one that would be fine but if they did want to keep them. I'd expect what was in the schools policy about the uniform to be worn.

seamus

Shenshen wrote: »

And if that's the case, why go to all the hassle of having a uniform policy and enforcing it? It seems a waste of time and effort.

Because you will have to go to that effort anyway. Some children push boundaries and some parents are idiots. Some 8 year old girls will turn up in belly tops and have to be sent home to change. Some 13 year old will turn up in a t-shirt with "Fnck Jesus" written on it and have to be sent home to change.

The actual day-to-day effort is small, only a small number of students will have to be pulled up on it, but it's always there whether or not a uniform exists.

So like I say, it boils down to whether a uniform is wanted.

To use your own words - "having no uniform makes at best no difference at all to what your child learns and how he or she experiences school."

There is no "right" answer. You appear to dislike uniforms, that's your prerogative. Schools without uniforms are not superior to those with, and vice-versa.

Shenshen

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I think uniforms are a wonderful idea in schools. They are a social leveler, the erase that visual statement of class and background. In this day and age it's particularly important when children are so conscious of clothes and labels and trainer brands etc. If you can get rid of all that in the school environment every child has a much easier time feeling comfortable and making friends with a wider socially diverse group.

In my school most of the kids were from a very wealthy background and were snobby about it. My wardrobe was entirely from Dunnes and Penney's. We wore a uniform but I was definitely conscious of it when we did PE and they all had their branded tracksuits and runners. I actually remember being around 9 and one day another girl coming in in a tracksuit I recognised from Dunnes and being absolutely delighted!

Branded runners are so expensive now that they really do make a statement about your background. I think it's no harm to enforce strict uniform policies even on shoes provided you can buy cheap shoes as part of the uniform.

That's a lovely thought, but I doubt it actually translates to reality very well. Unless you outlaw all jewelry and watches, enforce regulation haircuts, only allow one brand of mobile phone to be brought in, and regularly check that no student has a non-regulation bag, non-regulation pens, non-regulation ringbinders or other stationary, class and background will remain blindingly obvious to those who know how and where to look.

I went to school in a country without uniforms. The things I wanted - NEEDED to have because the other kids had them were little stuffed toys that were all the rage back in the late 80 (Monchichi, no idea if they ever were a thing here), tiny hand-held computer games (pre-gameboy, but they were still horrendously expensive), and a different haircut from what my mother would allow me.
Not having these made me stand out as the poor kid. And a uniform would not have made a blind bit of difference.

pickarooney

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Bollicks.

Happens the world over.

I'm not sure it does. Foreign visitors are routinely nonplussed by the tarty get-up of the young wans cause sure you wouldn't get that in Spain/Germany/Italy/Norway/Uzbekistan. Or they don't really pay attention to what's going on around them at home.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Shenshen wrote: »

My point is, if there are as many arguments for uniforms as against, that implies to me that having uniforms makes at best no difference at all to what your child learns and how he or she experiences school.
And if that's the case, why go to all the hassle of having a uniform policy and enforcing it? It seems a waste of time and effort.

I can see the merit in some of the arguments in favour of uniforms, like that it can lead to bullying, takes financial pressure off. The town nearest where I went to school had I think three secondary schools in it and part of their reasoning was that if kids were acting the maggot around town on lunch or mitching, people would know which school to complain to

When I started in my secondary the rules were relatively lax*. You had to have grey trousers, a blue shirt, the school tie, and a navy jumper with the school crest on it (you could buy the crested jumper from the school or just a crest to sew on), there weren't any rules on shoes. That generally worked fine, apart from the few teachers who'd come down on people trying to get them to button the shirt the whole way up, roll their sleeves down, take that tie off and tie it on again properly etc. Lot of people didn't always bother with the tie and that was usually fine, depending what day you caught a teacher on they might tell you they'd be checking you were wearing the next day.

One teacher had a thing about the ties in particular. You're not coming into my class without a tie, she'd roar. Cue Rambo ties, ties as belts, ties tied around arms, and half the class wasted having a stupid argument about whether that technically constituted wearing the tie.

What I'm saying is, a sensible uniform policy reasonably enforced is one thing. Sent home for the wrong kind of black shoes is another.

*a new principal came in when I was in sixth year and tried to tighten things up. War. War for the whole year.

pickarooney

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I think uniforms are a wonderful idea in schools. They are a social leveler, the erase that visual statement of class and background. In this day and age it's particularly important when children are so conscious of clothes and labels and trainer brands etc. If you can get rid of all that in the school environment every child has a much easier time feeling comfortable and making friends with a wider socially diverse group.

In my school most of the kids were from a very wealthy background and were snobby about it. My wardrobe was entirely from Dunnes and Penney's. We wore a uniform but I was definitely conscious of it when we did PE and they all had their branded tracksuits and runners. I actually remember being around 9 and one day another girl coming in in a tracksuit I recognised from Dunnes and being absolutely delighted!

Branded runners are so expensive now that they really do make a statement about your background. I think it's no harm to enforce strict uniform policies even on shoes provided you can buy cheap shoes as part of the uniform.

To be honest, if I absolutely had to pick an Irish social class to associate with expensive runners and track suits it wouldn't be the toffs..

Shenshen

seamus wrote: »

There is no "right" answer. You appear to dislike uniforms, that's your prerogative. Schools without uniforms are not superior to those with, and vice-versa.

They seem to me to be well-intentioned, but mis-directed.
I get that the idea of make every student the same appeals to many, and yes, I agree that that would be a nice thing indeed, making children forget about whose parents have money and whose don't. Only I don't see that they accomplish that, at all.

A previous poster said she liked them because they made them all the same, and in the same sentence complained about how snobby the rich kids in his/her school were. It's a pretty stark contradiction.

From what I've gathered, they are an extra-expense to parents who may already struggle to make ends meet, and don't achieve what they advertise.
Sure, they're probably not altogether detrimental, but where are the actual, tangible benefits?

retro:electro

I said this earlier, but there was one traveller girl in my year who simply refused to wear her uniform to school. She would turn up every day in a belly top and glittery jeans, and she'd be sent home straight away. She did this every single day. The school eventually stopped sending her home and instead had her mother leave her uniform in the school so she could walk to school all dollied up and change once she's on the premises. There are a lot of people out there with questionable choices in fashion, to say the least. If you think there is time wasted with how things are now, it would be ten times worse sending students home who come to school with revealing attire.

Shenshen

Gianna Sparse Bun wrote: »

I can see the merit in some of the arguments in favour of uniforms, like that it can lead to bullying, takes financial pressure off. The town nearest where I went to school had I think three secondary schools in it and part of their reasoning was that if kids were acting the maggot around town on lunch or mitching, people would know which school to complain to

When I started in my secondary the rules were relatively lax*. You had to have grey trousers, a blue shirt, the school tie, and a navy jumper with the school crest on it (you could buy the crested jumper from the school or just a crest to sew on), there weren't any rules on shoes. That generally worked fine, apart from the few teachers who'd come down on people trying to get them to button the shirt the whole way up, roll their sleeves down, take that tie off and tie it on again properly etc. Lot of people didn't always bother with the tie and that was usually fine, depending what day you caught a teacher on they might tell you they'd be checking you were wearing the next day.

One teacher had a thing about the ties in particular. You're not coming into my class without a tie, she'd roar. Cue Rambo ties, ties as belts, ties tied around arms, and half the class wasted having a stupid argument about whether that technically constituted wearing the tie.

What I'm saying is, a sensible uniform policy reasonably enforced is one thing. Sent home for the wrong kind of black shoes is another.

*a new principal came in when I was in sixth year and tried to tighten things up. War. War for the whole year.

That really ties in (pardon the pun) with my experience : Clothes are not much of an issue to most children, unless adults make them an issue.

_Whimsical_

Shenshen wrote: »

My point is, if there are as many arguments for uniforms as against, that implies to me that having uniforms makes at best no difference at all to what your child learns and how he or she experiences school.
And if that's the case, why go to all the hassle of having a uniform policy and enforcing it? It seems a waste of time and effort.

It can influence how your child experiences school though and consequently I'm sure how they learn.

Clothing does delineate people into social groups and reflects background, values and interests to both other students and to teachers. Like it or not people do judge you, even subconsciously and often wrongly on appearance. Children are so much more conscious of appearance and brands now and those things have sadly become a reflection of self-worth even amongst some adults.

If you can afford to send your child off to blend in with the "cool kids" well and good for you, if you can't and your child heads off to school in their older siblings old tracksuit then your child's chances are being limited. You're defining his place in the social order, who he'll mix with and that will influence what his expectations and ambitions for himself will be in later life. That very much does affect learning and the emphasis a child places on academic pursuits for themselves.

Why would we not see value in leveling that social playing field in every way we possibly can? Sadly you can't completely do it but uniforms do serve a function in at least removing visual cues for those prejudices.

_Whimsical_

pickarooney wrote: »

To be honest, if I absolutely had to pick an Irish social class to associate with expensive runners and track suits it wouldn't be the toffs..

That in itself is revealing though. You're saying you make a judgement on someone's background on the basis of clothing.

I'd think the same now but when I was a kid it was different. Most peoples dads were doctors, dentists, solicitors and lectures, only maybe 4 people had mums who worked. Brands were good, Dunnes was not.