Would you consider these school shoes?

freshpopcorn

Synthol wrote: »

Stopped reading after runners are not shoes. Yeah I think you're right there buddy, it's actually a jacket.

By the way the mother and the lad knew they were runners. The lad didn't want to wear shoes because shoes are to old fashioned for him. So even the people involved know the difference.

IrishTerrier42

freshpopcorn wrote: »

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Besides, it does no harm to let kids know at that age that there are rules they may not always agree with, but have to live with regardless. That's life and they'll be in for a big shock when they join the working world in places like offices or the service industry.

Synthol wrote: »

Stopped reading after runners are not shoes. Yeah I think you're right there buddy, it's actually a jacket.

When I worked in hotels I always praised principals like this. It's important that people learn the difference between shoes and runners and if your require to wear shoes you wear them and not a pair of runners.

shoe
noun

• 1.a covering for the foot, typically made of leather, with a sturdy sole and not reaching above the ankle.

freshpopcorn

IrishTerrier42 wrote: »

shoe
nounnoun: shoe, plural noun: shoes

• 1.a covering for the foot, typically made of leather, with a sturdy sole and not reaching above the ankle.

Yes the policy says a black leather shoe and runners/runner style shoes are not allowed!
I've had the definition of a shoe thrown in my face before and I showed them the contract they signed.

LordSutch

freshpopcorn wrote: »

By the way the mother and the lad knew they were runners. The lad didn't want to wear shoes because shoes are to old fashioned for him. So even the people involved know the difference.

runners :cool:

Same as trainers?

I know a lot of older people call trainers 'runners', but are they the same thing?

freshpopcorn

LordSutch wrote: »

runners :cool:

Same as trainers?

I know a lot of older people call trainers 'runners', but are they the same thing?

Yes, in my area most people call them runners. The English people call them trainers and the kids who watch to much American TV call them sneakers.

muttnjeff

Picture the scene-mid august-back to school shopping-mom and 16/17 year old boy.
At the shoe shop. Mom picks out nice black leather shoes.
Son-I'm not wearing them they're gross!
Mom-it's school policy-you must wear black shoes.
Son-Im not wearing those yokes. get me these ones,(As in picture) they're black, they'll do.
Mom-Are you sure school will accept those shoes?
Son-well Im not wearing the other ones. These are fine.
Mom-OK so-hands over money
Roll on september. week two back at school. Principal does uniform blitz and 47 are sent home for various bits and pieces of wrong uniform.
Son arrives home
Mom-What are you doing home?
Son-got sent home for having wrong shoes.

now what happens next??

A.. Mom-I told you to get those other shoes but you refused. Now you can pay for the other ones out of your own money/pocket money/whatever

or

B. The cheek of that school. I'm calling Joe Duxxxy


Which scenario traumatised the child?/ A or B ?

IrishTerrier42

If the contract specifically said no runners then fair enough, he shouldn't have worn them. My point still stands though that runners ARE shoes and I don't know why some people here are trying to claim that they're not?

freshpopcorn

IrishTerrier42 wrote: »

If the contract specifically said no runners then fair enough, he shouldn't have worn them. My point still stands though that runners ARE shoes and I don't know why some people here are trying to claim that they're not?

Most school/work policies clearly state either
Black footwear.(So anything that's black)
Or Black Shoes(Runners/runner style footwear are strictly forbidden/not allowed.)(This is what the lads policy said)

It's a bit like if you had a 16 year old son and ye had a formal event in the family. You bought him a suit and he needed shoes he asked you for €90 to go to the shop for them and he lands home with a pair of Nike Airmax. Most parents I know wouldn't be happy in this situation and they'd be telling the lad the difference between a shoe and a runner.

Electric Sheep

IrishTerrier42 wrote: »

If the contract specifically said no runners then fair enough, he shouldn't have worn them. My point still stands though that runners ARE shoes and I don't know why some people here are trying to claim that they're not?

They are a sub set of shoes that is expressly forbidden in the uniform policy.

Gumbo

Kids go to school to lean and to also enjoy themselves. Make friends and run around playing games. Shoes should be optional. Full black runners should be allowed.

If my schools didn't allow runners, would I have got to play as much football or Hurley as I did, probably not.

School system needs to cop in to themselves.

freshpopcorn

kceire wrote: »

Kids go to school to lean and to also enjoy themselves. Make friends and run around playing games. Shoes should be optional. Full black runners should be allowed.

If my schools didn't allow runners, would I have got to play as much football or Hurley as I did, probably not.

School system needs to cop in to themselves.

In my secondary school you brought your runners in your bag if you want to play soccer at lunch time and you changed for PE.
If your going around kick balls in your shoes there going to look scrubby/worn and wouldn't look good with a uniform.
PS he's in 5th year he's a little big to be running around playing games.

Stephen15

end of the road wrote: »

i agree. all though in it's defence, it is supposed to (in theory at least) stop the keeping up with the joneses nonsense that the dim in society practice. sadly though, in a lot of cases it's hugely expensive with no competition or choice. that doesn't help the situation, along with the voluntary contribution that actually isn't voluntary. the costs mean we have to pay out quite a bit in grants and things to help, when instead we could force down the costs and help that way.

The whole keeping with Jones' theory still happens though kids aren't in school 24 hours a day 365 days a year they go out at the weekend with friends and at holidays and are expected to wear the general teenage uniform of Nike/Adidas runners and tracksuit.

waterfaerie

spurious wrote: »

I agree completely, but people love to sign their children up to these places, then moan when it doesn't do what it says on the tin.

Plenty schools with no uniform if it's such a big deal to parents. Not a great example to set their children to agree to a set of rules and then at the first opportunity start try to get out of it. Storing up trouble there.

Where?

pickarooney

anna080 wrote: »

Eh? You actually want me to explain to you how wearing the one item of clothing for a year is cheaper than wearing multiple, more expensive items of clothing for the year? Maybe you need to go back to school.

This is a dichotomy entirely of your own fabrication. There is not simply
1. One trousers, shirt, jumper worn every single day and never washed
OR
2. Brand new expensive designer clothes changed every day.

There's the entirely reasonable middle ground of purchasing clothes at reasonable prices and wearing them for a sensible into of time then washing them.

Like adults do.

And children in other countries.

And pretty much everyone.

I don't know if you believe strongly in what you're saying or if you're putting any thought into it, but it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny nor does it bear any real relation with the reality of hundreds of millions of schoolchildren.

retro:electro

pickarooney wrote: »

This is a dichotomy entirely of your own fabrication. There is not simply
1. One trousers, shirt, jumper worn every single day and never washed
OR
2. Brand new expensive designer clothes changed every day.

There's the entirely reasonable middle ground of purchasing clothes at reasonable prices and wearing them for a sensible into of time then washing them.

Like adults do.

And children in other countries.

And pretty much everyone.

I don't know if you believe strongly in what you're saying or if you're putting any thought into it, but it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny nor does it bear any real relation with the reality of hundreds of millions of schoolchildren.

Who said they are never washed? Right. We are talking about the one off payment of a uniform being cheaper than having to constantly buy formal wear for school. €250 stretched out over three years, versus maybe €50 a month, probably more, on jeans/trousers/jackets/shoes/tops/dresses etc....which will need to be updated/rotated more than you think.
It's clear to me which option is cheaper. Not sure I can help you further really.

Stephen15

anna080 wrote: »

Who said they are never washed? Right. We are talking about the one off payment of a uniform being cheaper than having to constantly buy formal wear for school. €250 stretched out over three years, versus maybe €50 a month, probably more, on jeans/trousers/jackets/shoes/tops/dresses etc....which will need to be updated/rotated more than you think.
It's clear to me which option is cheaper. Not sure I can help you further really.

But the majority of kids still need clothes for outside of school. No one goes around in their uniform at home but you can wear normal clothes at home and at school.

retro:electro

Stephen15 wrote: »

But the majority of kids still need clothes for outside of school. No one goes around in their uniform at home but you can wear normal clothes at home and at school.

You wouldn't need as much and certainly not as much formal wear. Anyone who thinks they wouldn't be buying more clothes throughout the year for their kids if they didn't have uniforms are kidding themselves.

waterfaerie

vintagecosmos wrote: »

How are they going to learn to respect authority if their parents are openly fighting against it.

Why do they need to learn to respect authority?

I'm a teacher and I don't expect my students to respect me because I have some sort of authority over them. I expect them to treat me with respect because I am a human being and I treat them likewise. I end up getting far more respect from the kids than my more authoritarian type colleagues.

In my experience, the more you demand respect, the less you deserve it.

vintagecosmos wrote: »

How will they take it when an employer says no piercings or visible tatoos?

Comparing it to employment is ridiculous.

Firstly, you don't need to have been to a school with a strict uniform policy to have basic cop on when it comes to expectations in a workplace. Do you think employed adults run riot in countries where they have been through a less authoritarian school system?

Secondly, the type of employment people go into is usually their own choice. You can choose not to apply for jobs that have a dress code you're not comfortable with. As many others have pointed out, in most areas there is not much choice when it comes to school, especially secondary school.

And if you insist on comparing it, then my point about respect in school also applies to employers. Employers who treat their staff with respect tend to get more respect back.

By the way, I have a tattoo. When I decided to become a teacher I knew I would need to keep it covered, so I keep it covered. Do you think I need the Principal or some other "authority" figure to tell me that? Do you think if I had attended a school without a strict uniform policy that I wouldn't have learned that same basic cop on?

On a side note, I spent a long time teaching overseas and I didn't need to keep my tattoo covered there, but that's a bit off topic.

Stephen15

anna080 wrote: »

You wouldn't need as much and certainly not as much formal wear. Anyone who thinks they wouldn't be buying more clothes throughout the year for their kids if they didn't have uniforms are kidding themselves.

Formal wear what do you mean by that. If uniforms were abolished kids could wear what they want so no need for formal wear. Children going to school in countries without uniforms don't exactly go around wearing suits.

end of the road

Stephen15 wrote: »

The whole keeping with Jones' theory still happens though kids aren't in school 24 hours a day 365 days a year they go out at the weekend with friends and at holidays and are expected to wear the general teenage uniform of Nike/Adidas runners and tracksuit.

oh yeah i know that but what i meant was that the keeping up with the joneses nonsense is one of the arguments used for a school uniform.

anna080 wrote: »

Who said they are never washed? Right. We are talking about the one off payment of a uniform being cheaper than having to constantly buy formal wear for school. €250 stretched out over three years, versus maybe €50 a month, probably more, on jeans/trousers/jackets/shoes/tops/dresses etc....which will need to be updated/rotated more than you think.
It's clear to me which option is cheaper. Not sure I can help you further really.

250 euro is likely on the low side in terms of the cost of a uniform unfortunately.

The J Stands for Jay

anna080 wrote: »

Who said they are never washed? Right. We are talking about the one off payment of a uniform being cheaper than having to constantly buy formal wear for school. €250 stretched out over three years, versus maybe €50 a month, probably more, on jeans/trousers/jackets/shoes/tops/dresses etc....which will need to be updated/rotated more than you think.
It's clear to me which option is cheaper. Not sure I can help you further really.

What's all this about formal wear if there's no uniform? €50 a month on clothes? Are they throwing them away instead of washing them?

retro:electro

Stephen15 wrote: »

Formal wear what do you mean by that. If uniforms were abolished kids could wear what they want so no need for formal wear. Children going to school in countries without uniforms don't exactly go around wearing suits.

Formal wear, casual wear whatever it is, you'll be buying extra and therefore spending more money. Why do I feel like you're just going to keep being padantic with whatever I say just for the sake of it?

freshpopcorn

waterfaerie wrote: »

Comparing it to employment is ridiculous.

Firstly, you don't need to have been to a school with a strict uniform policy to have basic cop on when it comes to expectations in a workplace. Do you think employed adults run riot in countries where they have been through a less authoritarian school system?

Secondly, the type of employment people go into is usually their own choice. You can choose not to apply for jobs that have a dress code you're not comfortable with. As many others have pointed out, in most areas there is not much choice when it comes to school, especially secondary school.

And if you insist on comparing it, then my point about respect in school also applies to employers. Employers who treat their staff with respect tend to get more respect back.

All I can tell you is from what I experienced in the hospitality industry. You have people studying Hospitality in college and they get a work placement or training in a hotel. (So they have an interest) When you meet them for interviews/induction training they wear the correct shoes and on the first day of work they land in a pair of runners. I spoke with these people in the past.
I found people had the attitude that school was fine about them wearing runners when they were meant to be wearing shoes and they expect the same in the work place.
I and others found you can be really nice at first but it generally gets you know where. You give someone the benefit of the doubt one day and let them off with a quite warning. They then land in again when they are serving very important clients in the hotel in pair of black runners.

The J Stands for Jay

anna080 wrote: »

Formal wear, casual wear whatever it is, you'll be buying extra and therefore spending more money. Why do I feel like you're just going to keep being padantic with whatever I say just for the sake of it?

If there is a uniform, you will need:
1. School uniform
2. Normal clothes.

If there is no uniform, you will need:
1. Normal clothes.

The requirement for less stuff would clearly indicate the no uniform option to be cheaper.

Stephen15

anna080 wrote: »

Formal wear, casual wear whatever it is, you'll be buying extra and therefore spending more money. Why do I feel like you're just going to keep being padantic with whatever I say just for the sake of it?

But you won't unless the kids don't change when they go home they still need normal no uniform which they can wear everyday.

retro:electro

McGaggs wrote: »

If there is a uniform, you will need:
1. School uniform
2. Normal clothes.

If there is no uniform, you will need:
1. Normal clothes.

The requirement for less stuff would clearly indicate the no uniform option to be cheaper.

Wrong. You will need more normal clothes than you'd usually need.

Stephen15

anna080 wrote: »

Wrong. You will need more normal clothes than you'd usually need.

Wheres the evidance

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

It's a known fact that black leather shoes radiate energy which your brain absorbs, which is essential to get an education. Why do you think our shoe-less ancestors were thick as ditches? Why do you think so many barefooted cultures around the world are so dim witted? It's obvious, shoes make you smarter.

PandaPoo

anna080 wrote: »

Formal wear, casual wear whatever it is, you'll be buying extra and therefore spending more money. Why do I feel like you're just going to keep being padantic with whatever I say just for the sake of it?

My son was in a school with a uniform and now one without. Much cheaper without a uniform. I mean he has the clothes anyway and would be changing into them after school, the extra few hours in the morning make no difference.

The J Stands for Jay

anna080 wrote: »

Wrong. You will need more normal clothes than you'd usually need.

If we take that to be true, we can assume the extra amount of normal clothes needed would be equal to the amount of school uniform clothes needed (it would actually be less in the case of schools where they insist on blazers and special school coats/jackets/tracksuits). Due to the widespread policy of only allowing certain suppliers distribute the school uniforms, the uniform is actually more expensive than a similar amount of normal clothes. The logical conclusion is that the uniform is causing greater expense.