New headmaster sends dozens of kids home on his first day at school.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3775968/Police-called-school-sends-FIFTY-children-home-day-term-weren-t-wearing-right-uniform.html

Today for the second day running he has refused to allow another 20 children in to be taught because of minor dress discrepancies.

Is he right....or is sending a child home on his first day of starting at secondary school because they are wearing white socks instead of black, or suede shoes instead of leather, proving that he is, as some parents have complained, acting like the gestapo?

"Police were forced to intervene today as parents protested outside a school after 60 children were sent home because of a 'Gestapo-like' approach to uniform.

One girl was left with bleeding feet after being forced to remove her socks while another was turned away at the gates of Hartsdown Academy for wearing trainers to prevent hip pain after a car accident.

Teachers even sent home Ellie King, 14, whose picture is used to advertise the school on the side of buses, for wearing black trainers, which she has been doing for three years.

Of the 60 pupils who were sent home, only half returned back to the school later in the day."

Some of the reasons he gave were just silly (one girl claimed her lack of blazer was due to it being left in school and he wouldn't allow her to go and get it!), but on the whole, good for him! Why go to school in the wrong colour socks? It's not fucking hard to buy the right colour socks!

Yes but Eddie...it was some of the kids first day at a new school. Surely he could have let them in, give them a chance to settle in, before acting like a bloody despot.
It was reported he wouldn't even let the kids past the front entrance to phone their parents....they were milling about outside near the road. Some of these were 11 year olds.

One rule was the school tie had to show exactly 5 stripes below the knot....I suspect he is a bit anal.

Syl wrote:One rule was the school tie had to show exactly 5 stripes below the knot....I suspect he is a bit anal.

Most high schools have that rule, Syl, about the ties. My son's school does.
Mind you, I'm not sure they check them!

Yes he's anal, but perhaps by coming down harder than anyone imagined, he's setting a precedent for any future rubbish that people are about to do?

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:One rule was the school tie had to show exactly 5 stripes below the knot....I suspect he is a bit anal.

Most high schools have that rule, Syl, about the ties. My son's school does.
Mind you, I'm not sure they check them!

Yes he's anal, but perhaps by coming down harder than anyone imagined, he's setting a precedent for any future rubbish that people are about to do?

I agree with schools wearing a uniform. But common sense has to apply...this new head has acted in a way that has alienated a lot of the kids and parents.....not such a good start for him.
I would have been fuming if my 11 year old son, who was exited to be starting a new school, had been barred from entering over a minor school uniform issue.

Common sense would be that the parents had bothered to ensure that the kids had and were wearing the correct school uniform required...

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:One rule was the school tie had to show exactly 5 stripes below the knot....I suspect he is a bit anal.

Most high schools have that rule, Syl, about the ties. My son's school does.
Mind you, I'm not sure they check them!

Yes he's anal, but perhaps by coming down harder than anyone imagined, he's setting a precedent for any future rubbish that people are about to do?

I agree with schools wearing a uniform. But common sense has to apply...this new head has acted in a way that has alienated a lot of the kids and parents.....not such a good start for him.
I would have been fuming if my 11 year old son, who was exited to be starting a new school, had been barred from entering over a minor school uniform  issue.

I take your point but by the same token, you would've had him correctly attired I'm guessing.

Isn't it more that the parents and kids who failed to conform to the requirements and then started kicking off when they were in the wrong, are the ones who are alienating themselves...?

Syl wrote:Yes but Eddie...it was some of the kids first day at a new school. Surely he could have let them in, give them a chance to settle in, before acting like a bloody despot.
It was reported he wouldn't even let the kids past the front entrance to phone their parents....they were milling about outside near the road. Some of these were 11 year olds.

the parents would have been given clear instruction on what the uniform was. blame the parents not the kids. but good for him for making a stand on standards

What a fucking dipshit. His priority is supposed to be educating children, not enforcing the sock color rule.

No wonder y'all are so weird ...

Ben Reilly wrote:What a fucking dipshit. His priority is supposed to be educating children, not enforcing the sock color rule.

No wonder y'all are so weird ...

Yeah. At least we didn't let 'em in with guns like y'all.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:What a fucking dipshit. His priority is supposed to be educating children, not enforcing the sock color rule.

No wonder y'all are so weird ...

Yeah. At least we didn't let 'em in with guns like y'all.

Maybe you should, they could kneecap this jackass in the cause of liberty.

Ben Reilly wrote:What a fucking dipshit. His priority is supposed to be educating children, not enforcing the sock color rule.

No wonder y'all are so weird ...

it's not weird at all. It's common sense. Uniforms in school ensure that children all dress the same, that no child is appearing to be more 'fashionable' or 'affluent' than another, that poorer children don't feel inferior in respect to this. It levels the playing field at an age when a pair of designer trainers or lack of them can mean the difference between feeling superior or being bullied. If parents can't adhere to this, then they're not doing their kids any favours. No child at school should be made to feel inferior because their parents can't afford expensive clothes or shoes. That's the whole point of the uniform.

If they had sent me home every time I wore the wrong uniform, I'd have done it all the time! Instead we got detention, bah.

Have you got something against socks? Or rules about socks?
Uniforms are there for a reason, some of the reasons he sent pupils home were silly, but....where do you draw the line? Yes school is about education but it's also about teaching discipline.
Some offices and workplaces require a certain dress code.

I can tell you, his message is for the parents: work with me and make sure we get some well-behaved students how won't flout the rules.

One day a couple of kids turn up in trainers... nothing is done... next day a few others do the same... teachers say they can't do that... the kids say that others were doing it yesterday and nothing was done... and are still doing it today so why can they do it and I can't?


Teachers then need to either send all home or allow it...


Then next day more kids turn up in trainers... argue that it was OK for others to do it for a day and not get sent home...


Next day kids turn up in black tracksuit bottoms instead of black trousers...


Nothing is done cos it's only the once... excuses flow... trousers ripped, shrunk in wash, dog ate them etc...


Next day loads more kids do the same... same excuses...


Teachers again have to allow it or send all home... arguments ensue... kids say that others wore tracksuit bottoms yesterday and weren't sent home etc...


A little while later... everyone is turning up in whatever they want... no uniform in sight and any attempt to try to enforce it on some are met with arguments of victimisation and how others were allowed to get away with it before...



So... how can a school get back to a system of where the uniform is a requirement for all pupils and do away with all the slippery slope bullshit and arguments that led to the ensuing free for all...!?



The only way is to draw a line and then start enforcing the rules fully and fairly on all regardless!!!


Which is what appears to be happening at this school... and maybe should happen in other places too... Maybe even some forums...!?

Green from me Thomas.

I believe a 'thank you' is the socially required response...?





Ta luv!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:What a fucking dipshit. His priority is supposed to be educating children, not enforcing the sock color rule.

No wonder y'all are so weird ...

it's not weird at all.  It's common sense.   Uniforms in school ensure that children all dress the same, that no child is appearing to be more 'fashionable' or 'affluent' than another, that poorer children don't feel inferior in respect to this.   It levels the playing field at an age when a pair of designer trainers or lack of them can mean the difference between feeling superior or being bullied.   If parents can't adhere to this, then they're not doing their kids any favours.   No child at school should be made to feel inferior because their parents can't afford expensive clothes or shoes.   That's the whole point of the uniform.

Christ, I wasn't saying the uniform itself is a dipshit, I was saying that this headmaster or whatever is a dipshit!

eddie wrote:Have you got something against socks? Or rules about socks?
Uniforms are there for a reason, some of the reasons he sent pupils home were silly, but....where do you draw the line? Yes school is about education but it's also about teaching discipline.
Some offices and workplaces require a certain dress code.

I can tell you, his message is for the parents: work with me and make sure we get some well-behaved students how won't flout the rules.

Here's an idea -- tell the kids they have to go home with a note to their parents explaining the uniform code, and that if they show up again out of uniform they can't have recess or get detention or something.

Don't deprive them of an entire day of education, excessive absences are highly detrimental.

This guy's just a "man" with a tiny prick and a gigantic ego.

eddie wrote:Green from me Thomas.

Haha, why? That was a really ludicrous scenario; just because you let the rules skate for a day or so until the kids are used to them doesn't mean you're then powerless to enforce them later.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Green from me Thomas.

Haha, why? That was a really ludicrous scenario; just because you let the rules skate for a day or so until the kids are used to them doesn't mean you're then powerless to enforce them later.

Parents and kids have had 6 weeks to sort out basic uniform... and clothes are bloody cheap... but instead they are turning up in new £100 trainers etc...

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Green from me Thomas.

Haha, why? That was a really ludicrous scenario; just because you let the rules skate for a day or so until the kids are used to them doesn't mean you're then powerless to enforce them later.

Because it is actually what happens! Everything he's said is exactly what happens to school's uniforms eventually throughout the school year.

How exactly is it ludicrous?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Green from me Thomas.

Haha, why? That was a really ludicrous scenario; just because you let the rules skate for a day or so until the kids are used to them doesn't mean you're then powerless to enforce them later.

Because it is actually what happens! Everything he's said is exactly what happens to school's uniforms eventually throughout the school year.

How exactly is it ludicrous?

It's ludicrous to prevent them from attending classes (which I assume they're entitled to) over a minor uniform infraction when there are many other forms of punishment available to him that wouldn't interrupt their education.

I mean, is this guy paid with tax dollars? Did y'all hire him to be an educator or a petty sock tyrant?

Ben Reilly wrote:I mean, is this guy paid with tax dollars? Did y'all hire him to be an educator or a petty sock tyrant?

Put a sock in it.

The point is, the parents knew what colour socks they were supposed to buy and they didn't.
It's not about bloody sodding socks anyway! It's about endorsing and enforcing rules.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I mean, is this guy paid with tax dollars? Did y'all hire him to be an educator or a petty sock tyrant?

Put a sock in it.

The point is, the parents knew what colour socks they were supposed to buy and they didn't.  
It's not about bloody sodding socks anyway! It's about endorsing and enforcing rules.

Speaking of bloody, one of the girls was forced to have her feet cut up! That's less important than the sock rule?

the twat want locking up for child abuse and endangerment

"one girl was left with bleeding feet after being made to remove her socks???"

"wouldnt let them phone their parents and left em out on the road????

he would do it twice to a kid of mine....not if he wanted to stay out of hosiptal....

Can we talk about something other than socks?

What about children turning up in the wrong shoes, shirts, blazers? There's not much point in having a school uniform policy if no one sticks to it.

eddie wrote:Can we talk about something other than socks?

What about children turning up in the wrong shoes, shirts, blazers? There's not much point in having a school uniform policy if no one sticks to it.

They didn't have to be sent away without a chance to call their parents, though, did they? There could have been a way to keep them in school and still punish them.

Lord Foul wrote:the twat want locking up for child abuse and endangerment

"one girl was left with bleeding feet after being made to remove her socks???"

"wouldnt let them phone their parents and left em out on the road????

he would do it twice to a kid of mine....not if he wanted to stay out of hosiptal....

Why would he be refusing entry to a pupil for having the wrong socks but then telling them to remove the socks if that meant they would still be refused entry...?


And how could this refusal of entry equate to him actively preventing the pupil from phoning their parents...?

Lord Foul wrote:the twat want locking up for child abuse and endangerment

"one girl was left with bleeding feet after being made to remove her socks???"

"wouldnt let them phone their parents and left em out on the road????

he would do it twice to a kid of mine....not if he wanted to stay out of hosiptal....

Now THERE'S a man who hasn't forgotten his priorities, people!

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

it's not weird at all.  It's common sense.   Uniforms in school ensure that children all dress the same, that no child is appearing to be more 'fashionable' or 'affluent' than another, that poorer children don't feel inferior in respect to this.   It levels the playing field at an age when a pair of designer trainers or lack of them can mean the difference between feeling superior or being bullied.   If parents can't adhere to this, then they're not doing their kids any favours.   No child at school should be made to feel inferior because their parents can't afford expensive clothes or shoes.   That's the whole point of the uniform.

Christ, I wasn't saying the uniform itself is a dipshit, I was saying that this headmaster or whatever is a dipshit!

Well...that's alright then!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:What a fucking dipshit. His priority is supposed to be educating children, not enforcing the sock color rule.

No wonder y'all are so weird ...

it's not weird at all.  It's common sense.   Uniforms in school ensure that children all dress the same, that no child is appearing to be more 'fashionable' or 'affluent' than another, that poorer children don't feel inferior in respect to this.   It levels the playing field at an age when a pair of designer trainers or lack of them can mean the difference between feeling superior or being bullied.   If parents can't adhere to this, then they're not doing their kids any favours.   No child at school should be made to feel inferior because their parents can't afford expensive clothes or shoes.   That's the whole point of the uniform.

no, It's wierd in the year 2016

and really pathetic behaviour Ben is right he job is to educate not look at socks.
No wonder Your all so uneducated too worried about how many stripes on your ties.

and a loose uniform rule prevents bullying and strict uniform Ruile encourages bullyign and teach children that you are supposed to be a bully like this principal is.
truth is he is 'the bad old day' style teacher that is bad example to All Pupils that suffer under him, the sooner those 'bad teachers' are purged from the education system the better.

If the HEAD IS SO WORRIED ABOUT UNIFORMS let the school buy them, then ther's no excuse for turning up in the wrong clothes.

We are all uneducated? Fuck me, do you read your own posts?

All Brits are uneducated "hill shepherds" don't you know that!

IS IT ANY WONDER, when the British education system is in such a mess...

The Ol' Blighty must be one of the last countries in the world that insists on ties, of all things, being a part of their daily uniform ?

Surely student welfare and education standards should be their priorities --  ahead of regimentation and uniform disclipline ?        

Down here, most schools -- apart from some private and religious-based establishments --  only have ties, and blazers, as uniform on special occasions.

A lot of high schools actually have polo shirts rather than full-button 'business style' shirts as their day-to-day wear. Many schools also have enough room in their uniform policies as to allow jeans and joggers/ runners --  as long as they are of a specified colour and quality.
And tracksuits on sports days in winter..

And then there's the upside of modern day uniforms in many primary schools -- much more practical and easy-care compared to a generation or two ago, and in most cases more easily affordable..

     

Wearing a uniform isn't making our education system a mess wolfie, but I'll tell you what it is.

Parents not being at home as much and teaching children the basics at home. They're needing to work longer hours and not enough is being done at home.

I've worked in education for a few years and we always used to try and instil the continuation of our education at school, to the home.

It amazes me that anyone can defend this idiot, who has been all over the news now defending his decision, saying how much he loves this school and cares about the pupils.
NO...he does not. He was a new broom who wanted to sweep clean and show off his authority...which he has in the pettiest of ways.

The first day of any school term is a chance to settle in, not be refused admittance over minor uniform issues. He put the kids he refused entry in danger as some of them could not get in touch with their parents, so they were left milling around outside on a busy road.
He is an idiot.

He shouldn't have put anyone in danger that was wrong, but showing a certain amount of "I take no bullhsit" authority is not a bad thing, especially in a high school where the older males are nearly men themselves.

Syl wrote:It amazes me that anyone can defend this idiot, who has been all over the news now defending his decision, saying how much he loves this school and cares about the pupils.
NO...he does not. He was a new broom who wanted to sweep clean and show off his authority...which he has in the pettiest of ways.

The first day of any school term is a chance to settle in, not be refused admittance over minor uniform issues. He put the kids he refused entry in danger as some of them could not get in touch with their parents, so they were left milling around outside on a busy road.
He is an idiot.

Kids were turning up in tracksuits and all sorts of inappropriate clothing apparently...


The parents have had 6 weeks to sort out uniforms... clothes are cheap enough and we all know that even on benefits they get more than enough money to buy them!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:It amazes me that anyone can defend this idiot, who has been all over the news now defending his decision, saying how much he loves this school and cares about the pupils.
NO...he does not. He was a new broom who wanted to sweep clean and show off his authority...which he has in the pettiest of ways.

The first day of any school term is a chance to settle in, not be refused admittance over minor uniform issues. He put the kids he refused entry in danger as some of them could not get in touch with their parents, so they were left milling around outside on a busy road.
He is an idiot.

Kids were turning up in tracksuits and all sorts of inappropriate clothing apparently...


The parents have had 6 weeks to sort out uniforms... clothes are cheap enough and we all know that even on benefits they get more than enough money to buy them!!!

And they shouldn't be turning up in tracksuits, uniforms are good for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.
But he has acted irresponsibly, there are better ways to make your point than being a heavy handed gestapo wannabe.

Some of the kids had the correct uniform on just not to his liking, one girls skirt was too short, she was 5'10'' thats why. One girl had the wrong colour socks, one pupil had black suede shoes instead of leather....some had black leather shoes but they had Velcro fastening which was not on the acceptable list.....all petty reasons and ones that could have been sorted out without putting kids as young as 11 out on the street with no way of contacting their parents.

They had plenty of time to have the correct attire...


And I'm sure they all had the means to contact parents...

Tommy Monk wrote:

They had plenty of time to have the correct attire...


And I'm sure they all had the means to contact parents...

Some DID have the correct attire....a tall girls skirt would obviously be shorter on her than it would on a much shorter girl....school clothes go on age or waist size not bloody height.

How can you be sure they all had means to contact their parents?
Not everyone has a mobile phone, the head wouldn't allow them into school to make a phone call, and many parents work and probably couldn't get back to school even if they wanted to.

1. Muslim girls of all heights manage to get skirts that are long enough...


2. Bet they all had their phones out texting and Facebooking etc... so claims of no means of contacting parents is totally unbelievable... plus if all parents were working then even less reason for failing to pay for correct attire...

Tommy Monk wrote:

1. Muslim girls of all heights manage to get skirts that are long enough...


2. Bet they all had their phones out texting and Facebooking etc... so claims of no means of contacting parents is totally unbelievable... plus if all parents were working then even less reason for failing to pay for correct attire...

Unless skirts are made to measure (costly) school uniform skirts are sized on age or waist size not length.

Many people who are struggling financially also work ......and most of them did have the uniform, just not to the expectations of the Hitler wannabe.

All supermarkets sell school clothes... and primark too... and all bloody cheap!!!


Are you really trying to say that out of the whole school... only one girl was so tall as to not be able to find a skirt of regulation length...?


And none of the ones in question had the correct required uniform... That's WHY they were refused entry!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:All supermarkets sell school clothes... and primark too... and all bloody cheap!!!


Are you really trying to say that out of the whole school... only one girl was so tall as to not be able to find a skirt of regulation length...?


And none of the ones in question had the correct required uniform... That's WHY they were refused entry!!!

I know all supermarkets sell school clothes, I said if they are made to measure to get a longer length they would be costly.

One girls mother spoke about her girl being 5'10'' and the normal school skirt was too short on her. Maybe there were others, not everyone was interviewed.

The head was looking for fault....no doubt he will ban mobiles next, just to ensure that NONE of them can phone home when he turfs them out.