Would you consider these school shoes?

end of the road · 07-09-2017 04:06PM

anna080 wrote: »

If the parents/children abided by the rules nobody would ever need to be sent home for those reasons. But that would mean taking responsibility and following school procedure, which people seem to have issue with.

that's because those petty rules are pointless and are only implemented just to be difficult. they serve no purpose and are a waste of time. nonsense about working life later on means nothing. shoes are shoes and the rest. a uniform in itself is fine but the petty nonsense over it needs to stop.
questions should be asked about the relationship between some schools and certain shops which mean huge expence for debatible quality also.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 07-09-2017 04:07PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

A lady rang up liveline saying her son got sent home from school for wearing these to school. He didn't want to wear black shoes because they were to old fashioned for him. The school policy stated he was meant to wear black leather shoes.
In my opinion these are runners and not shoes.

The mother sounds like a total idiot. Is she going to go running to Joe Duffy everytime her little snowflake is made obey a rule he doesn't like?

retro:electro · 07-09-2017 04:10PM

end of the road wrote: »

that's because those petty rules are pointless and are only implemented just to be difficult. they serve no purpose and are a waste of time. nonsense about working life later on means nothing. shoes are shoes and the rest. a uniform in itself is fine but the petty nonsense over it needs to stop.
questions should be asked about the relationship between some schools and certain shops which mean huge expence for debatible quality also.

Again if you think it's petty nonsense you can either choose to send your child to another school or home school them. Schools have rules, not all of them I would agree with- but if I'm choosing to send my child there it's not about what I agree/disagree with. Those are the rules and I'll abide by them or else go somewhere else.

freshpopcorn · 07-09-2017 04:18PM

end of the road wrote: »

that's because those petty rules are pointless and are only implemented just to be difficult. they serve no purpose and are a waste of time. nonsense about working life later on means nothing. shoes are shoes and the rest. a uniform in itself is fine but the petty nonsense over it needs to stop.
questions should be asked about the relationship between some schools and certain shops which mean huge expence for debatible quality also.

I had to supervise and mange people in hotels the people who I always had issues were the one's who had a poorly enforced uniform policy at school. They used honestly wreck my head. They were people I could never rely on or trust.

freshpopcorn · 07-09-2017 04:19PM

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

The mother sounds like a total idiot. Is she going to go running to Joe Duffy everytime her little snowflake is made obey a rule he doesn't like?

Her son also got suspended last year for getting a hair cut that he knew was band. I'd say the school reports are he's a pleasure to teach.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 07-09-2017 04:48PM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's perfectly fine to question authority, I'd say healthy in fact, as respect is a two way street. Those shoes look fine to me, the important thing is that the kids are happy in school, and their well being and education is the most important thing in the school environment

Yes, but not over trivial things like this. Some people really need to learn to choose their battles, and not start going off on crusades just for the sake of it. Specifying black leather shoes is not an infringement of her son's human rights, it's a normal uniform policy that exists in schools up and down the country.
And if he gets 'traumatised' when he is punished for disobeying a simple rule, then he should just bloody wear the right shoes in the first place. This is a case of a ridiculous mother rearing a brat who thinks he should be allowed do what he wants.

retro:electro · 07-09-2017 04:53PM

If the child is traumatised over being told he's wearing the wrong shoes, then he sounds like the type of child who has never been told no or put in his place by his parents. These are the types of children who come into problems in later years because they have no idea what authority even is never mind not have any respect for it.

nice_guy80 · 07-09-2017 04:58PM

its usually the parents who are the problem, not the kids

any excuse to be different and cause hassle

pickarooney · 07-09-2017 05:02PM

anna080 wrote: »

They really shouldn't be falling apart after three months, so I'm afraid I don't believe you there. If you're buying from the correct places they'll last you years. Maybe you're overwashing them or ignoring the instructions? Uniforms have great structural integrity if washed correctly. Mine is still around and looks perfect.
Also, do you know how much money you are saving by virtue of having a uniform? For 8 months of the year, children are wearing the exact same clothes and yet parents are somehow aggrieved by that.

That sounds a little unhygienic. Not to mention logically unsound. If a child wore a non-uniform shirt and trousers every day for the year, why would that cost more money?

The hoops people jump to in order to justify an opinion with no real basis in fact is astounding.
This, in a country where back to school costs are, what, 1200 euros or something mental. We don't spend anything near that for 5 years of primary for both kids where I am. 120 quid for a flimsy crested jacket and people will defend this blatant gombeenism and make out it's a bargain.

How do kids in other countries not stab one another to death and get addicted to crack when they don't wear uniforms? It's nothing short of a miracle.

freshpopcorn · 07-09-2017 05:04PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

its usually the parents who are the problem, not the kids

any excuse to be different and cause hassle

A very funny thing about parents who kick up hassle outside a school gate is. They generally have one or two people who nod away with them but in general they are hated by the other parents/staff/etc. They rarely see this tough. Some schools nearly have parties when families are finished with them.

retro:electro · 07-09-2017 05:07PM

pickarooney wrote: »

That sounds a little unhygienic. Not to mention logically unsound. If a child wore a non-uniform shirt and trousers every day for the year, why would that cost more money?

The hoops people jump to in order to justify an opinion with no real basis in fact is astounding.
This, in a country where back to school costs are, what, 1200 euros or something mental. We don't spend anything near that for 5 years of primary for both kids where I am. 120 quid for a flimsy crested jacket and people will defend this blatant gombeenism and make out it's a bargain.

How do kids in other countries not stab one another to death and get addicted to crack when they don't wear uniforms? It's nothing short of a miracle.

Shirts and socks are cheap and can be bought in Tesco or Penneys for €5. A new clean shirt and socks everyday, grand. Cheap. The jumper and trousers/ pinafore only need to be washed once a week unless dirty.
Back to school costs are expensive but we are lucky to live in a county where no parent will struggle with costs. The Government subsidize for those who can't afford the costs. Allowances are given to those who are struggling. Please point to where I said it's a bargain? It's not a bargain- but it's a whole lot cheaper to have a uniform than to not have one.

LirW · 07-09-2017 05:10PM

I have 2 sets of normal uniforms and one tracksuit for him and that gets taken off at home straight away so we get through the week. I don't know how many sets you'd have in secondary though.
Once he was outside playing though he's usually dirty, so I don't really save anything with washing. Don't wanna be smart here, but all the neighbors kids do it the same way.
At least in the current primary he's attending they aren't strict with footwear, kids wear whatever closed shoes they want really. Mine has a navy pair of GEOX, they help him a bit with his slightly sweaty feet.

end of the road · 07-09-2017 05:17PM

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

Yes, but not over trivial things like this.

agree, the heads of some of these schools need to get over their little power trips and stop sending children home or expelling them for trivial matters, while allowing more serious issues to go unpunished for fear it would damage the reputation of the school if it got out that that issue existed.

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

Some people really need to learn to choose their battles, and not start going off on crusades just for the sake of it.

they did learn to choose their battles, they chose to fight against nonsense and are making things difficult for the school with their petty nonsense. as it should be. there are rules and then there is nonsense.

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

Specifying black leather shoes is not an infringement of her son's human rights, it's a normal uniform policy that exists in schools up and down the country.

nobody said it was an infringement of human rights, however she bought black shoes as far as she was concerned. if the school can't be bothered to make it fully clear what they wanted exactly that is their problem.

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

And if he gets 'traumatised' when he is punished for disobeying a simple rule, then he should just bloody wear the right shoes in the first place.

or he should break the rule which serves no purpose.

Mohammed Fat Crayfish wrote: »

This is a case of a ridiculous mother rearing a brat who thinks he should be allowed do what he wants.

it's not no . it's a case of a mother challenging nonsense which serves no purpose and which does jot for the education of a child.

freshpopcorn · 07-09-2017 05:22PM

end of the road wrote: »

nobody said it was an infringement of human rights, however she bought black shoes as far as she was concerned. if the school can't be bothered to make it fully clear what they wanted exactly that is their problem.

She admitted she bought a pair of black runners even tough she knew they were against the rules. She knew what the school expected but shoes were to old fashioned for the kid.

end of the road wrote: »

a school is not authority. the only authority are the gards, courts, and parents.

When you send your kids to secondary school the parent(s) child generally agrees and signs a code of conduct in which they agree to obey the school rules and this generally includes the uniform.

end of the road · 07-09-2017 05:24PM

anna080 wrote: »

If the child is traumatised over being told he's wearing the wrong shoes, then he sounds like the type of child who has never been told no or put in his place by his parents. These are the types of children who come into problems in later years because they have no idea what authority even is never mind not have any respect for it.

a school is not authority. the only authority are the gards, courts, and parents.

anna080 wrote: »

Shirts and socks are cheap and can be bought in Tesco or Penneys for €5. A new clean shirt and socks everyday, grand. Cheap. The jumper and trousers/ pinafore only need to be washed once a week unless dirty.
Back to school costs are expensive but we are lucky to live in a county where no parent will struggle with costs. The Government subsidize for those who can't afford the costs. Allowances are given to those who are struggling. Please point to where I said it's a bargain? It's not a bargain- but it's a whole lot cheaper to have a uniform than to not have one.

they wouldn't need to subsidize it that much if the costs were brought down, by forcing an end to any relationship between schools and shops. school uniforms should be completely generic and should be clothes that can be bought in any shop. the school should have to buy the crest and they can sew it onto the jumper. we probably have the most expensive back to school costs in europe, if not the world and that needs to change. change is hard but it will be for the better.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 07-09-2017 05:27PM

end of the road wrote: »

agree, the heads of some of these schools need to get over their little power trips and stop sending children home or expelling them for trivial matters, while allowing more serious issues to go unpunished for fear it would damage the reputation of the school if it got out that that issue existed.

they did learn to choose their battles, they chose to fight against nonsense and are making things difficult for the school with their petty nonsense. as it should be. there are rules and then there is nonsense.

nobody said it was an infringement of human rights, however she bought black shoes as far as she was concerned. if the school can't be bothered to make it fully clear what they wanted exactly that is their problem.

or he should break the rule which serves no purpose.

it's not no . it's a case of a mother challenging nonsense which serves no purpose and which does jot for the education of a child.

I totally disagree. Whether you regard it as a trivial rule or not, it's a rule that is not impacting, in any harmful way, on her son. Choosing to break it and then go running to the media is, on the other hand, risking making her son a laughing stock; particularly when she talks about him being 'traumatised' about being sent home from school.
If he's that easily traumatised, then she shouldn't be using him like this to make her point. There are battles that need to be fought, and battles that don't really matter. This one is not one that she needs to fight, or that is going to achieve anything wonderful. All she's done is drag her son into a public debate in a way that does him no favours.

retro:electro · 07-09-2017 05:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

a school is not authority. the only authority are the gards, courts, and parents.

they wouldn't need to subsidize it that much if the costs were brought down, by forcing an end to any relationship between schools and shops. school uniforms should be completely generic and should be clothes that can be bought in any shop. the school should have to buy the crest and they can sew it onto the jumper. we probably have the most expensive back to school costs in europe, if not the world and that needs to change. change is hard but it will be for the better.

Are you actually giving out that we have a state subsidized system? I would just love it if uniforms were abolished. The whole lot scrapped along with the allowance towards their cost. Parents would have to learn to be self sufficient and pay for their child's fancy gear all on their own. "Mam I want this" "Mam I can't wear that". You'd be spending a fcuking fortune a month decking your child out in formal and active wear. Only then would people come crawling back with their tails between their legs begging for the old days when we had the uniform and we were all the one.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 07-09-2017 05:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

a school is not authority. the only authority are the gards, courts, and parents.

they wouldn't need to subsidize it that much if the costs were brought down, by forcing an end to any relationship between schools and shops. school uniforms should be completely generic and should be clothes that can be bought in any shop. the school should have to buy the crest and they can sew it onto the jumper. we probably have the most expensive back to school costs in europe, if not the world and that needs to change. change is hard but it will be for the better.

When this happened at my nephew's school my sister in law sourced a place that would supply the crest separately for a few euro, then approached the school and got an agreement that parents could buy plain jumpers and sew the crest on themselves.
She didn't go around creating drama and encouraging her kids to break the rules and pontificating on the radio about it. She come up with a practical solution and then got buy in from the school. In other words she behaved like a grown up, not someone who had never mentally left the school yard and thought she was a big hero because she broke the rules.

One eyed Jack · 07-09-2017 05:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

a school is not authority. the only authority are the gards, courts, and parents.

That's completely wrong - the school and the staff of the school are in fact a legal entity, with the Board of Management of the school being a legal entity which decides the school policy in conjunction with parents and staff.

The teachers btw including the principal are acting in loco parentis, so they are by law in a position of authority over the children. It's not some power tripping nonsense, it's teenagers and their parents with their "fight the powah" attitudes that are a pain in the hole to deal with when they are being unreasonable, like going on a national radio station to complain that their child was traumatised after being sent home because he told the parent he didn't want to wear anything less fashionable than a pair of €90 runners which actually turned out to be €30.

Yeah, everyone else is the problem of course, that's a great attitude to be instilling in anyone. Fight da powah!! :pac:

LirW · 07-09-2017 05:34PM

I went to school in a country where only certain private schools had uniforms (and guess what, these kids were picked on because of that). Nobody would want uniforms there really. But they enforced other stupid rules like changing into slippers and to do so you need to rent yourself a locker from the school.

retro:electro · 07-09-2017 05:37PM

LirW wrote: »

I went to school in a country where only certain private schools had uniforms (and guess what, these kids were picked on because of that). Nobody would want uniforms there really. But they enforced other stupid rules like changing into slippers and to do so you need to rent yourself a locker from the school.

We had the slipper thing in my school too and it was because we were in a county school and would often have muck and crap on our shoes and they didn't want us bringing it inside. The locker was to place your shoes into once you've changed them so nobody would steal them.

seamus · 07-09-2017 05:38PM

end of the road wrote: »

agree, the heads of some of these schools need to get over their little power trips and stop sending children home or expelling them for trivial matters

They don't send children home or expel over trivial matters.

they did learn to choose their battles, they chose to fight against nonsense and are making things difficult for the school with their petty nonsense. as it should be.

Wherever they learned to pick their battles, they should get their money back. Why fight over something where you stand to gain absolutely nothing if you win. So he'll get to wear black runners to school? What has he gained? Absolutely nothing. The runners are no cheaper than shoes, they're not better for him, and they don't last longer.

As I mention above, when a school has a uniform, then it has to enforce that uniform. Parents and children fighting battles because they don't want to wear a part of it, are idiots. If you don't want a uniform, then fight it on that basis. Don't agree to wear one part of it, but not another. Because that just makes you look like a curmudgeon and a time waster.

This mother is doing nothing except making school difficult and stressful for her son. She's a moron, not some crusader to be lauded.

freshpopcorn · 07-09-2017 05:39PM

LirW wrote: »

I went to school in a country where only certain private schools had uniforms (and guess what, these kids were picked on because of that). Nobody would want uniforms there really. But they enforced other stupid rules like changing into slippers and to do so you need to rent yourself a locker from the school.

anna080 wrote: »

We had the slipper thing in my school too and it was because we were in a county school and would often have muck and crap on our shoes and they didn't want us bringing it inside. The locker was to place your shoes into once you've changed them so nobody would steal them.

The slipper thing seems to has stopped now in the past few years.

xtradel · 07-09-2017 05:40PM

Why's his leg so hairy?

LirW · 07-09-2017 05:42PM

anna080 wrote: »

We had the slipper thing in my school too and it was because we were in a county school and would often have muck and crap on our shoes and they didn't want us bringing it inside. The locker was to place your shoes into once you've changed them so nobody would steal them.

Basically same reason, but the locker rent was high, I think like 30 quid a month (I remember my mom really struggling to pay it because we didn't have much money).
But believe me, we got creative dodging these rules because they wanted us to wear mainly the classic Birkenstock like ones which were very cold because the school building was very old and had old bad radiators. I remember always walking around in a spare pair of Converse like shoes that I just got for school, made my 14 year old goth self feel good.

Rubberchikken · 07-09-2017 05:43PM

If the policy regarding shoes coat etc are spelled out clearly then parents should abide by that.
The kids/parents opinion that proper shoes are 'old fashioned' doesn't count in those circumstances.

I'm only surprised he didn't want to wear his pants tucked into his socks to show off his 'shoes'

pickarooney · 07-09-2017 05:44PM

anna080 wrote: »

Shirts and socks are cheap and can be bought in Tesco or Penneys for €5. A new clean shirt and socks everyday, grand. Cheap. The jumper and trousers/ pinafore only need to be washed once a week unless dirty.
Back to school costs are expensive but we are lucky to live in a county where no parent will struggle with costs. The Government subsidize for those who can't afford the costs. Allowances are given to those who are struggling. Please point to where I said it's a bargain? It's not a bargain- but it's a whole lot cheaper to have a uniform than to not have one.

Right there, you just did again, where you say it's a whole lot cheaper to have a uniform. You're implying it's a bargain.

I asked you how it was cheaper but you didn't answer, so I'm not sure what to make of your insistence that it costs less than no uniform or that Irish people are lucky back to school costs are astronomical compared to other countries other than a blind defence of a position with nothing to back it up.

But maybe you were just getting around to that bit, so I won't jump to that conclusion just yet.

LirW · 07-09-2017 05:44PM

I'm only surprised he didn't want to wear his pants tucked into his socks to show off his 'shoes'

Nah he'd be considered a cyclist then and bullied into trauma

retro:electro · 07-09-2017 05:47PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Right there, you just did again, where you say it's a whole lot cheaper to have a uniform. You're implying it's a bargain.

I asked you how it was cheaper but you didn't answer, so I'm not sure what to make of your insistence that it costs less than no uniform or that Irish people are lucky back to school costs are astronomical compared to other countries other than a blind defence of a position with nothing to back it up.

But maybe you were just getting around to that bit, so I won't jump to that conclusion just yet.

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.

freshpopcorn · 07-09-2017 05:49PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Right there, you just did again, where you say it's a whole lot cheaper to have a uniform. You're implying it's a bargain.

I asked you how it was cheaper but you didn't answer, so I'm not sure what to make of your insistence that it costs less than no uniform or that Irish people are lucky back to school costs are astronomical compared to other countries other than a blind defence of a position with nothing to back it up.

But maybe you were just getting around to that bit, so I won't jump to that conclusion just yet.

I personally always felt happy to have a uniform. Everybody wore the same thing and that was that. We had no school coat and everybody had various hoodies/jackets and they used be a lot of pressure to have a good one. People used spend a packet on them. They year after I left they got a nice jacket and that's what worn.

Would you consider these school shoes?

Comments