Would you consider these school shoes?

seamus

Shenshen wrote: »

Sure, they're probably not altogether detrimental, but where are the actual, tangible benefits?

- They "level" all students in one aspect, removing any differential in terms of style or wealth, which can be used as a means to isolate or bully children.

- They assist staff and authorities in identifying not only the children that are in your school, but also children who should be in school and are not.

- They remove any potential stress for students or parents in selecting an outfit for each given day.

- They remove one potential distraction from classrooms and hallways.

- They may assist in promoting a sense of community, fraternity and belonging amongst students*

- Having a uniform for part of the day reduces wear and tear on other clothing, which reduces the overall clothing burden on the parent. Especially where you have multiple children attending the same school.

* This is one I've heard said, though anecdotally made no difference to me at all

I would like to note that this is not a proof that uniforms are better, simply a list of tangible benefits of uniforms.

I could come up equally with a list of benefits for not having uniforms.

_Whimsical_

seamus wrote: »

- They "level" all students in one aspect, removing any differential in terms of style or wealth, which can be used as a means to isolate or bully children.
.

I would have to add to this point and say that social leveling does more than prevent isolation and bullying. I've seen among my own family and friends how mixing with people outside your own social group can change a child's expectations for themselves.

One girl particularly I can think of came from a background with little emphasis on academics and her expectations at 12-13 would've been a good job in a supermarket and to work her way up to management like some of her aunts had done. They were really bright people. She joined school in first year, was bright and fun and made friends with well off kids she'd never have thought she'd like and who honestly probably wouldn't have accepted her if they'd been 100% aware of the difference in their class/ background.
Those friends were from families with high academic expectations for their kids, they went to each others houses for sleepovers and did homework and quizzes and competed on school test results throughout school. That girl was very happily swept up into their ways, did great in school, went onto college and she is now a lead on a big research project in Cambridge. Her three best friends from school are doctors. I see, and she'd say, that meeting those girls at 12 was a pivotal thing that happened in her life, it did change her emphasis on the importance of school work and her view of the possibilities that existed outside of what she was used to at home.

I think if you can do anything possible to stop kids being boxed into social groups, and the expectations that come with them, then you really can widen their possibilities long term.

meeeeh

Just to clarify I am not against the uniforms. They make no difference what people will be wearing for work or how will they be able to deal with other adult stuff.

kowloon

When I was in school there was only one place that sold the school jumper and it cost more than any other clothes I owned. The school had 'a deal' with the shop. They were very strict about you buying the jumper and all the other stuff with the school crest on it, some of which was never actually used. They were very strict about you having it all.

pickarooney

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

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.

When I was in school I had absolutely no idea what anyone's parents did, apart from my close friends, nor how much money any of them had. The thought wouldn't have entered my mind.

retro:electro

Uniforms reduce competition, sure- but to the degree that it levels everyone socially? I really don't think so. Every school in my town had uniforms, it wasn't hard to tell who the popular ones were and who wasn't. It was still easy to tell who was rich and who was poor. The girls from similar social backgrounds still acquainted one another and the girls from more disadvantaged backgrounds still formed friendships. Uniforms certainly reduce the stress and intimidation associated with certain social pressures, but they weren't a social mask either. They are just one way of equalising them but students will always gravitate towards someone of a similar social standing to them.

freshpopcorn

pickarooney wrote: »

When I was in school I had absolutely no idea what anyone's parents did, apart from my close friends, nor how much money any of them had. The thought wouldn't have entered my mind.

I think I knew what the majority of my classes parents did/lived/worked/had they siblings etc. Things like this generally comes up in day to day conversation. I did know one guy who knew nothing about anybody tough but he never payed attention.

Shenshen

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

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.

I think that was the thing that first made me question the theory behind uniforms :
A friend of mine worked as an au pair in Bournemouth in the mid-90s. She was looking after 5 children in a single-parent household. They weren't exactly poor, but they didn't live in luxury, either. The uniforms "her" kids wore were handed down from the older siblings, patched up and mended where possible. There were two options of school sweater: it could be bought from a specialist shop with the crest embroidered in, or you could buy the crest and sew it on a cheaper sweater. Her kids all had the sewn-on crest, which immediately labelled them as "not top class" to everyone else in the school. The fact that the uniforms were washed out, didn't fit properly, the sweaters had become baggy and saggy and the trousers were usually a bit on the short side made it quite clear to all that these were not rich children.

My friend told me at one point how much that saddened her, and how much it actually weighed on the children. She could understand it as little as I could, as class and clothes were honestly never an issue when we went to school. Yes, you could tell the goths from the punks from the goody-two-shoes, but that wasn't about a pre-determined class, it was about what that individual chose to be.
It made me heartily dislike the class system, and the school uniforms which are a symptom of it.

jeonahr

For those saying that it's ridiculous that they get sent home etc., it's all down to the 'broken window policy'. People who won't break small rules are less likely to break big rules. Surely parents know the school and their reputation and rules before sending us children off into someone else' arms.

Stephen15

jeonahr wrote: »

For those saying that it's ridiculous that they get sent home etc., it's all down to the 'broken window policy'. People who won't break small rules are less likely to break big rules. Surely parents know the school and their reputation and rules before sending us children off into someone else' arms.

So kids who wear black runners to school are more likely to steal, murder and rape than ones who wear slip ons

freshpopcorn

Stephen15 wrote: »

So kids who wear black runners to school are more likely to steal, murder and rape than ones who wear slip ons

Well in the work place I always found them to be more troublesome. They found it hard to understand small basic rules should be obeyed just as much as the big ones.
I'm not saying their murders/thieves but they wreck your head and you could never rely on them.

_Whimsical_

anna080 wrote: »

Uniforms reduce competition, sure- but to the degree that it levels everyone socially? I really don't think so. Every school in my town had uniforms, it wasn't hard to tell who the popular ones were and who wasn't. It was still easy to tell who was rich and who was poor. The girls from similar social backgrounds still acquainted one another and the girls from more disadvantaged backgrounds still formed friendships. Uniforms certainly reduce the stress and intimidation associated with certain social pressures, but they weren't a social mask either. They are just one way of equalising them but students will always gravitate towards someone of a similar social standing to them.

I don't think they're a mask no. However they do reduce differences, they do increase the chance of there being more social mobility in terms of interaction and reduce a need for self consciousness.

pickarooney wrote: »

When I was in school I had absolutely no idea what anyone's parents did, apart from my close friends, nor how much money any of them had. The thought wouldn't have entered my mind.

Most kids won't know that, I wouldn't have known or cared myself as a child. I did notice that some kids were going on holidays to Disney in Orlando, having birthday parties in McDonald's and that if one girl got a cool pair of runners, new school bag or a nice tracksuit for PE several other girls would be appearing in the same over the next few weeks. I only knew the reason why they had so many more new things than me or my friends at home as I grew up.
It wasn't a big deal for me, I didn't feel hampered by it, I grew up with different values at home and felt plenty proud of myself. The only time I did feel a bit awkward was at PE as I got slightly older and people started discussing where they got things and admiring others clothes. Maybe more a girls school thing. I was glad it wasn't an everyday thing.

Shenshen wrote: »

I think that was the thing that first made me question the theory behind uniforms :
A friend of mine worked as an au pair in Bournemouth in the mid-90s. She was looking after 5 children in a single-parent household. They weren't exactly poor, but they didn't live in luxury, either. The uniforms "her" kids wore were handed down from the older siblings, patched up and mended where possible. There were two options of school sweater: it could be bought from a specialist shop with the crest embroidered in, or you could buy the crest and sew it on a cheaper sweater. Her kids all had the sewn-on crest, which immediately labelled them as "not top class" to everyone else in the school. The fact that the uniforms were washed out, didn't fit properly, the sweaters had become baggy and saggy and the trousers were usually a bit on the short side made it quite clear to all that these were not rich children.

My friend told me at one point how much that saddened her, and how much it actually weighed on the children. She could understand it as little as I could, as class and clothes were honestly never an issue when we went to school. Yes, you could tell the goths from the punks from the goody-two-shoes, but that wasn't about a pre-determined class, it was about what that individual chose to be.
It made me heartily dislike the class system, and the school uniforms which are a symptom of it.

Now you can buy uniforms in Aldi for 10 euro though. It is however undeniably much easier buy one outfit to be worn everyday for a family with money difficulties than to buy something for 5 days of the week. I don't think young kids will notice whether your crest is ironed on or not. They will much more be likely to notice you wear only two or three tracksuits over the course of a year.

ToddyDoody

Also, if you went to my school, you needed a shoe with a good heel you could take off and use as a robust weapon.

Those 'shoes' would only be good for batting flies.

pickarooney

I presume Lonsdale doesn't have neo-nazi connotations on Ireland ?

snowflaker

pickarooney wrote: »

I presume Lonsdale doesn't have neo-nazi connotations on Ireland ?

Neo-poverty A Sports Direct owned label now

Sofiztikated

pickarooney wrote: »

I presume Lonsdale doesn't have neo-nazi connotations on Ireland ?

None whatsoever, at least none that I know of.

They're cheap, they're sold in Heatons/Sportsworld, there's a decent sole on them, they can look reasonable in the right setting.

jeonahr

Stephen15 wrote: »

So kids who wear black runners to school are more likely to steal, murder and rape than ones who wear slip ons

Relax. Talk about over-exaggeration. When I said that I meant it as a principle.

pickarooney

jeonahr wrote: »

Relax. Talk about over-exaggeration. When I said that I meant it as a principle.

Is it not a principle that's been widely criticized, debunked even?

LordSutch

They're black lace up Lonsdale trainers, and as trainers go they seem very tame, but, and here's the but....
What if another lad turned up in a pair of giant black Air Max trainers, because he saw the other lads shoes and thought, well if he can bend the rules so can I.

If the school says no trainers/runners then that rule must be applied.

freshpopcorn

LordSutch wrote: »

They're black lace up Lonsdale trainers, and as trainers go they seem very tame, but, and here's the but....
What if another lad turned up in a pair of giant black Air Max trainers, because he saw the other lads shoes and thought, well if he can bend the rules so can I.

This is where the problem starts. If you allow any leeway people take advantage.

Stephen15

LordSutch wrote: »

They're black lace up Lonsdale trainers, and as trainers go they seem very tame, but, and here's the but....
What if another lad turned up in a pair of giant black Air Max trainers, because he saw the other lads shoes and thought, well if he can bend the rules so can I.

If the school says no trainers/runners then that rule must be applied.

Used to happen in my school. People did wear black air maxes. They went on a clampdown at the start of the year to little fruition as teachers weren't taking sanctions just having a word with the student/s in question.

The student/s may or may not change the shoes to formal shoes. These things would only be taken notice of in September. Come into to school in the middle of November or January and none will pay any attention.

freshpopcorn

Stephen15 wrote: »

Used to happen in my school. People did wear black air maxes. They went on a clampdown at the start of the year to little fruition as teachers weren't taking sanctions just having a word with the student/s in question.

The student/s may or may not change the shoes to formal shoes. These things would only be taken notice of in September. Come into to school in the middle of November or January and none will pay any attention.

You must have went to a school with a lack uniform policy!

freshpopcorn

Even Prince George gets sent home for not wearing the correct uniform!

http://southendnewsnetwork.com/news/prince-george-sent-home-on-first-day-of-school-for-wearing-wrong-trousers/

retro:electro

That's actually gas!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

freshpopcorn wrote: »

You must have went to a school with a lack uniform policy!

The words you need there are "gone" and "lax" (as in "relaxed").

Not wishing to be a grammar Nazi or make personal remarks, but I find it interesting that people think a school should prioritise uniforms and rule-adherance ahead of aducation and then make simple mistakes like these.

Cortina_MK_IV

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The words you need there are "gone" and "lax" (as in "relaxed").

Not wishing to be a grammar Nazi or make personal remarks, but I find it interesting that people think a school should prioritise uniforms and rule-adherance ahead of aducation and then make simple mistakes like these.

freshpopcorn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The words you need there are "gone" and "lax" (as in "relaxed").

Not wishing to be a grammar Nazi or make personal remarks, but I find it interesting that people think a school should prioritise uniforms and rule-adherance ahead of aducation and then make simple mistakes like these.

Yes we can all make mistakes. I made some in my post as I do in many posts. You also made a mistake.
However the difference is they were mistakes. I did not intentionally do this. The lad knew exactly what he was doing was against the rules.

PowerToWait

It's the usual bs. Blatant flouting of the rules, 'shur it's grand, they're black, we're Irish, we're not hung up on stuff like that'.

This comes from home, the parents are up in arms because the kids can't do what the fuyck they want. Then the kids think they can do what they want. You don't like the rules of the school, find another school and don't assume your lumpen progeny are above the rules.

Many of these dicks are living vicariously, fighting back against their own teachers from a decade or so ago through their kids, it's pathetic.

Seriously annoys me. You don't do anybody any favours by giving them a pass to do what they want. There are many different reasons for rules, and many opinions on same, but they're rules whether you agree with them or not.

jeonahr

My school's strict about uniform. Rightly so, every parent knows the rules of the school before sending their kids there. And no offence, but the messers do end up being the kids who like to flaunt the fact that they're breaking rules, whether it be makeup, wrong uniform etc.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Cortina_MK_IV wrote: »

In fairness, those are typos (so was that) rather than actual errors. I mean - you don't really think I think education is spelt with an a, do you?

pickarooney

Is it true this school sent someone home because his hair was too short?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Yes we can all make mistakes. I made some in my post as I do in many posts. You also made a mistake.
However the difference is they were mistakes. I did not intentionally do this. The lad knew exactly what he was doing was against the rules.

Again - I made typos (proofreading not actually being taught in school); you got the entire word wrong.

Stephen15

freshpopcorn wrote: »

You must have went to a school with a lack uniform policy!

I wouldn't say they did I'm sure you would have got in trouble if you wore coloured runners and you would have definitely if you wore a non school jacket. I wouldn't it was lax or overly strict but somewhere in the middle for general discipline aswell as just uniform.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

pickarooney wrote: »

Is it true this school sent someone home because his hair was too short?

Not sure - I think he got suspended for actually challenging the rule and not getting it cut, rather than sent home.

EDIT https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pupil-suspended-for-having-long-hair-awarded-3-500-1.701423

freshpopcorn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again - I made typos (proofreading nto actually being taught in school); you got the entire word wrong.

It was a mistake. You made one as well deal with it!
I had a speech impediment as a child/teenager. Struggled massively at English writing/reading so the teacher did the best they could with me.
I never made mistakes on purpose this lad didn't make a mistake he broke the rules because shoes were to old fashioned for him.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It was a mistake. You made one as well deal with it!
I had a speech impediment as a child/teenager. Struggled massively at English writing/reading so the teacher did the best they could with me.
I never made mistakes on purpose this lad didn't make a mistake he broke the rules because shoes were to old fashioned for him.

Speech impediments don't effect your written English, but we're going off-topic.

Which is more imporant: that a school make and enforce rules for the sake of it, or that a school educate? Because it came across in the first post I quoted that you felt the former was the priority.

freshpopcorn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Speech impediments don't effect your written English, but we're going off-topic.

Which is more imporant: that a school make and enforce rules for the sake of it, or that a school educate? Because it came across in the first post I quoted that you felt the former was the priority.

You've made several mistakes as well. (You started nitpicking)
The speech impediment was my biggest issue and it caused me to have difficult pronouncing and this caused me to have issues with spelling/etc.
I think it's important that you encourage your child to obey all rules and not break them because they seem small to you. I think part of education is you learn to follow rules and regulations because it prepares you for the work place. In my previous posts I have said that I found people who's school had policies on uniforms and when the schools didn't enforce them I found that they were bad to comply with the uniform in the work place because they had the attitude that school didn't take it seriously so why should it be taken seriously at work.

freshpopcorn

pickarooney wrote: »

Is it true this school sent someone home because his hair was too short?

From my understanding of it the school had a policy on hair as well as do most schools. The only rule that was in my school was it couldn't be below your collar.
I think this lads school said you couldn't get your head shaved and this is exactly what the lad did got some or all of his head shaved.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

freshpopcorn wrote: »

You've made several mistakes as well. (You started nitpicking)
The speech impediment was my biggest issue and it caused me to have difficult pronouncing and this caused me to have issues with spelling/etc.
I think it's important that you encourage your child to obey all rules and not break them because they seem small to you. I think part of education is you learn to follow rules and regulations because it prepares you for the work place. In my previous posts I have said that I found people who's school had policies on uniforms and when the schools didn't enforce them I found that they were bad to comply with the uniform in the work place because they had the attitude that school didn't take it seriously so why should it be taken seriously at work.

I haven't made mistakes where I've gotten entire words wrong.

... an therin lies my point. You feel that preparation for life in an environment of rule adherence is important and a school's role is simply to make and enforce rules, as illustarted in your original post.

I disagree. When you see things like mimimum-alcohol pricing, it's a shame that people are trained to obey willingly and not trained in how to stand up and debate issues and make changes.

What if students got sent home for making mistakes as well as non-compliance with uniform policy? Would this be acceptable?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

freshpopcorn wrote: »

From my understanding of it the school had a policy on hair as well as do most schools. The only rule that was in my school was it couldn't be below your collar.
I think this lads school said you couldn't get your head shaved and this is exactly what the lad did got some or all of his head shaved.

It was the policy that was found to be discriminatory by law.

freshpopcorn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I haven't made mistakes where I've gotten entire words wrong.

... an therin lies my point. You feel that preparation for life in an environment of rule adherence is important and a school's role is simply to make and enforce rules, as illustarted in your original post.

I disagree. When you see things like mimimum-alcohol pricing, it's a shame that people are trained to obey willingly and not trained in how to stand up and debate issues and make changes.

What if students got sent home for making mistakes as well as non-compliance with uniform policy? Would this be acceptable?

I suppose it could happen but it would be in the schools code of conduct when you were entering the child into the school. So you would know what you were getting yourself into. My mother would not have sent me to such a school where I'd get sent home for spelling errors because she knew I wouldn't have managed there. You still have made spelling mistakes and it wouldn't be a suitable school for you either.
This lad and his mother knew the policy on shoes/runners/haircuts and they broke them. I know lads who went to the tech instead of the CBS because they knew the uniform policy/etc was to strict for them. There is also a big difference between making a mistake and breaking the rules on purpose.

retro:electro

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Speech impediments don't effect your written English, but we're going off-topic.

Which is more imporant: that a school make and enforce rules for the sake of it, or that a school educate? Because it came across in the first post I quoted that you felt the former was the priority.

Just because he made a few grammar errors doesn't mean he isn't educated. You're being quite rude and presumptuous, actually. Didn't your parents/school teach you manners?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

anna080 wrote: »

Just because he made a few grammar errors doesn't mean he isn't educated. You're being quite rude and presumptuous, actually. Didn't your parents/school teach you manners?

Never said he wasn't.

Bitches Be Trypsin

jeonahr wrote: »

My school's strict about uniform. Rightly so, every parent knows the rules of the school before sending their kids there. And no offence, but the messers do end up being the kids who like to flaunt the fact that they're breaking rules, whether it be makeup, wrong uniform etc.

My winged liner didn't make me a messer?

waterfaerie

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think part of education is you learn to follow rules and regulations because it prepares you for the work place.

This is exactly what's wrong with this country. There should be no rules that aren't founded on good reason, not in school, not in work, not in any part of life.

Also, if students here were taught to think for themselves, maybe you would't be encountering so many people who need to be spoonfed the basics when they start work.

freshpopcorn

waterfaerie wrote: »

This is exactly what's wrong with this country. There should be no rules that aren't founded on good reason, not in school, not in work, not in any part of life.

Also, if students here were taught to think for themselves, maybe you would't be encountering so many people who need to be spoonfed the basics when they start work.

When I worked in Hospitality I was always grateful to principals who enforced uniform policies because I found that it helped prepare them for the work place so to me the rules were their for a good reason.
I had similar view to you in the past up until I had to manage people.

meeeeh

freshpopcorn wrote: »

When I worked in Hospitality I was always grateful to principals who enforced uniform policies because I found that it helped prepare them for the work place so to me the rules were their for a good reason.
I had similar view to you in the past up until I had to manage people.

You had to work with some seriously dumb people if they needed 13 years of wearing school uniforms to understand why is sometimes required to wear uniform to get paid.

freshpopcorn

meeeeh wrote: »

You had to work with some seriously dumb people if they needed 13 years of wearing school uniforms to understand why is sometimes required to wear uniform to get paid.

I apologise to all the posters who I might have come across as a twat in this thread. I just gave my experience of the workplace and how I found people who went to schools with poorly enforced uniform polices generally behaved at work. It took them a lot of getting used I mean a lot. It would really wreck your head to be honest and even tough you might not relies it customers in the hotel would complain if somebody brought them their room service wearing a pair of black runners instead of shoes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I apologise to all the posters who I might have come across as a twat in this thread. I just gave my experience of the workplace and how I found people who went to schools with poorly enforced uniform polices generally behaved at work. It took them a lot of getting used I mean a lot. It would really wreck your head to be honest and even tough you might not relies it customers in the hotel would complain if somebody brought them their room service wearing a pair of black runners instead of shoes.

You didn't.

You just came across as having a distorted view of the purpose of education. That doesn't make you a twat.

I've worked for several years in customer service myself and everything I learnt I learnt on the job. Yes, I've had to wear a suit before as part of a dresscode, but that was because I was meeting customers face to face. There was a very valid and practical reason for it, and I understood this, so I had absolutely no problem wearing it, even though I hate suits.


I worked night-shift in a call centre where they tried to bring in a dress code of no jeans and t-shirts even though we worked at night in a call centre that customers never visited. There was no practical reason for it so we argued against it on these grounds and said maangement never followed through on the proposal. I (and a lot of my colleagues) would have quit if they had done so.

No amount of nit-picking rules for the sole reason of having nit-picking rules would have changed my approach in either case.

waterfaerie

freshpopcorn wrote: »

When I worked in Hospitality I was always grateful to principals who enforced uniform policies because I found that it helped prepare them for the work place so to me the rules were their for a good reason.
I had similar view to you in the past up until I had to manage people.

So you keep saying and I'm sure you're right. The fact is, you're comparing people from schools with uniform policies that were enforced well and schools with uniform policies that were not enforced well.

I'm talking about the idea of schools with no uniforms in the first place. Imagine a school where the only rules were ones that had a very good reason. I think you would find people from such a school wouldn't have a problem adhering to workplace rules, assuming those rules were also reasonable.