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

First topic message reminder :

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."

I do agree schools should have a uniform, I have said that all along.
I just don't agree with the heavy handed, despotic, irresponsible way this new head has dealt with it.

So basically Tommy, you have next to no idea how poor some people are.

Syl wrote:link...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11360819/Average-cost-of-raising-a-child-in-UK-230000.html


"Parents face bills of almost a quarter of a million pounds to raise just one child to the age of 21, new research shows.


Surging childcare fees and expenses linked to education mean the basic cost of bringing up a child in the UK has risen 50 per cent faster than inflation over more than a decade"

Can you break down these 'costs' for us...?


I bet you can't without looking a bit sylly...!

eddie wrote:So basically Tommy, you have next to no idea how poor some people are.

I have more idea about it than you have evidence about any of these kids/families being poor...


And of 'poor' being the reason for failing to provide correct uniforms...

Read the link Tommy...plenty more if you google....don't be lazy.

You made the claim... you explain!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:You made the claim... you explain!!!

Open the link... open your eyes.......and read it, it's not hard.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You made the claim... you explain!!!

Open the link... open your eyes.......and read it, it's not hard.

I wouldn't bother now. He's going "la la la"

Ok...

As you wish... I'll make you look sylly instead...

From your link article...

"...By far the most expensive time for parents is between their child’s first birthday and when they start school. The study calculates that parents will typically spend £61,084 between the aged of one and four, more than a quarter of the total..."
And reason given was 'childcare/babysitting' costs!

And education costs...?

The article claims... £74,000 for this...!?

How many of these parents are paying directly for the school places...!?


However... in the actual category of clothing that we are talking about... it claims just under £11,000 over a 21 year period of time... which works out around £500 a year for everything per year!!!


Surely a pair of regulation shoes or pair of socks or skirt that is long enough is a relatively minor cost in the grand scheme of things...!?


And also... interestingly... the cost of clothing was the only one that was less money now than 2003 figure...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:
Surely a pair of regulation shoes or pair of socks or skirt that is long enough is a relatively minor cost in the grand scheme of things...!?

Minor point, but it won't be just one pair of shoes though. It's very unhealthy to wear the same pair day in, day out.

Neither will it be just one skirt - it will be several skirts, several tops and several pairs of socks.

And the b*ggers will outgrow them quickly and need them replaced regularly.  

They will also need gym and sports clothes.

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Surely a pair of regulation shoes or pair of socks or skirt that is long enough is a relatively minor cost in the grand scheme of things...!?

Minor point, but it won't be just one pair of shoes though. It's very unhealthy to wear the same pair day in, day out.

Neither will it be just one skirt - it will be several skirts, several tops and several pairs of socks.

And the b*ggers will outgrow them quickly and need them replaced regularly.  

They will also need gym and sports clothes.

Does he have kids of his own and realise how expensive it can get is my question Jules?
It's OK for him to want his school run well but dictating to parents is the wrong way to do it in my opinion
because if he offends the wrong parent or parents he's going to get a right whack:lol!:

"£230 thousand to raise a child".


Will it really cost that much ? I don't see how.
But it's certainly very expensive, I know that from experience



The school expenses include -

Bus fares

School meals

School trips

General accessories and learning aids

For practical subjects such as woodwork or cooking - parents supply the raw materials





Apart from school, expenses include -

Keeping them entertained esp during long holidays.

Funding their hobbies - eg swimming or singing lessons,  domestic pets etc

Family holidays

Childminding if the mum does paid work - costs a fortune!!!!

As they get older they will want designer or branded gear and even the most highminded, sophisticated parents will want to comply if only so their kid doesn't feel left out and grow up with a complex.

Replacing the things around the house that they break    

WhoseYourWolfie wrote: 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 ?

I don't mind that bit, Wolfie. The tie makes them look extra smart and absolutely adorable.

Jules wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote: 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 ?

I don't mind that bit, Wolfie. The tie makes them look extra smart and absolutely adorable.

Bullying goes on in schools that allow everyone to dress as they like because kids pick on some for not wearing the latest fashions but the same
happens with the labels in school uniforms as well.
Some are really expensive and some cheap and the bullies know a good make from a non descript maker.
Uniforms change nothing in my opinion!

Tommy Monk wrote:Ok...

As you wish... I'll make you look sylly instead...

From your link article...

"...By far the most expensive time for parents is between their child’s first birthday and when they start school. The study calculates that parents will typically spend £61,084 between the aged of one and four, more than a quarter of the total..."
And reason given was 'childcare/babysitting' costs!

And education costs...?

The article claims... £74,000 for this...!?

How many of these parents are paying directly for the school places...!?


However... in the actual category of clothing that we are talking about... it claims just under £11,000 over a 21 year period of time... which works out around £500 a year for everything per year!!!


Surely a pair of regulation shoes or pair of socks or skirt that is long enough is a relatively minor cost in the grand scheme of things...!?


And also... interestingly... the cost of clothing was the only one that was less money now than 2003 figure...!!!

Well you are agreeing with what I said about school clothes being as cheap now as when my own son needed a school uniform 20 odd years ago.

There are plenty other figures you can link to online to prove how expensive kids are.....it makes your claim that child benefit covers the cost absurd Tommy....so it looks like you are the silly billy here not me.

Jules wrote:"£230 thousand to raise a child".


Will it really cost that much ? I don't see how.
But it's certainly very expensive, I know that from experience



The school expenses include -

Bus fares

School meals

School trips

General accessories and learning aids

For practical subjects such as woodwork or cooking - parents supply the raw materials





Apart from school, expenses include -

Keeping them entertained esp during long holidays.

Funding their hobbies - eg swimming or singing lessons,  domestic pets etc

Family holidays

Childminding if the mum does paid work - costs a fortune!!!!

As they get older they will want designer or branded gear and even the most highminded, sophisticated parents will want to comply if only so their kid doesn't feel left out and grow up with a complex.

Replacing the things around the house that they break    

Don't forget feeding them....growing kids cost a fortune to feed.
Sadly more nowadays because of all the fast food outlets and the fact that many mothers have forgotten how to cook proper meals.

blackie333 wrote:

Jules wrote:

I don't mind that bit, Wolfie. The tie makes them look extra smart and absolutely adorable.

Bullying goes on in schools that allow everyone to dress as they like because kids pick on some for not wearing the latest fashions but the same
happens with the labels in school uniforms as well.
Some are really expensive and some cheap and the bullies know a good make from a non descript maker.
Uniforms change nothing in my opinion!

Bullying should be clamped down on in schools as soon as it starts.... a bully will bully over anything, they pick their targets no matter what they may be wearing.
What uniforms do do is put all kids on the same level, which encourages a sense of all pulling together...ie unity....ie uniforms.

Syl wrote:

blackie333 wrote:

Bullying goes on in schools that allow everyone to dress as they like because kids pick on some for not wearing the latest fashions but the same
happens with the labels in school uniforms as well.
Some are really expensive and some cheap and the bullies know a good make from a non descript maker.
Uniforms change nothing in my opinion!

Bullying should be clamped down on in schools as soon as it starts.... a bully will bully over anything, they pick their targets no matter what they may be wearing.

What uniforms do do is put all kids on the same level, which encourages a sense of all pulling together...ie unity....ie uniforms.

Absolutely correct, Syl. That is indeed the whole point of a uniform (uniform = unity and uniformity). Whether a particular child is wearing a prestigious label or not, at least it's a uniform.

And bullying within schools was tackled head on many years ago. Anti-bullying campaigns are a massive thing in schools nowadays.

I also agree with your post about feeding kids. Costly! They're always hungry!

blackie333 wrote:

Jules wrote:

I don't mind that bit, Wolfie. The tie makes them look extra smart and absolutely adorable.

Bullying goes on in schools that allow everyone to dress as they like because kids pick on some for not wearing the latest fashions but the same
happens with the labels in school uniforms as well.
Some are really expensive and some cheap and the bullies know a good make from a non descript maker.



Uniforms change nothing in my opinion!

That's a strange post. On what do you base that assertion? Were your kids bullied in school?
Dunno why you quoted me either, as your reply has nothing to do with my post.
I guess you quoted the wrong post.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Ok...

As you wish... I'll make you look sylly instead...

From your link article...

"...By far the most expensive time for parents is between their child’s first birthday and when they start school. The study calculates that parents will typically spend £61,084 between the aged of one and four, more than a quarter of the total..."
And reason given was 'childcare/babysitting' costs!

And education costs...?

The article claims... £74,000 for this...!?

How many of these parents are paying directly for the school places...!?


However... in the actual category of clothing that we are talking about... it claims just under £11,000 over a 21 year period of time... which works out around £500 a year for everything per year!!!


Surely a pair of regulation shoes or pair of socks or skirt that is long enough is a relatively minor cost in the grand scheme of things...!?


And also... interestingly... the cost of clothing was the only one that was less money now than 2003 figure...!!!

Well you are agreeing with what I said about school clothes being as cheap now as when my own son needed a school uniform 20 odd years ago.

There are plenty other figures you can link to online to prove how expensive kids are.....it makes your claim that child benefit covers the cost absurd Tommy....so it looks like you are the silly billy here not me.

No... I'm saying kids school clothes are so cheap there are no excuses turning up in brown shoes instead of black or in a mini skirt...


And I never said child benefit was supposed to cover all costs... just go towards covering some costs...


Have a look at where your article gets its claims from... can see that at the bottom of article...!

There are plenty other sources.....I even found one where you put your own circumstances in it will calculate the average cost of bringing a child up in your area .

The point you don't seem to get though is many families are struggling to even put food on the table. The child benefit may have been used for food or essentials for the child long before a school uniform has even been thought of.

Rubbish... all parents know about school uniforms... it's not a new invention...


The Telegraph article was nonsense...

Tommy Monk wrote:Rubbish... all parents know about school uniforms... it's not a new invention...


The Telegraph article was nonsense...

You do a lot of subtle twisting of words sometimes don't you?
I didn't say parents didn't KNOW about the uniforms, I said the money would have been spent on food and essentials before the uniform had been thought of.

People on a very tight budget can only stretch the income so far.

Tommy....I have come to the conclusion you have never been very poor.

All the kids had clothes... expensive tracksuits and trainers were what some turned up in...


Others needed only get other small parts of uniform like a long skirt or a correct colour pair of socks... very low cost to put right.


Where is your evidence that any of these were flouting uniform regulations because they were too poor to supply it...?


Plus... any parents struggling to pay for all uniform requirements are able to notify school beforehand and get special arrangements...

Tommy Monk wrote:

All the kids had clothes... expensive tracksuits and trainers were what some turned up in...


Others needed only get other small parts of uniform like a long skirt or a correct colour pair of socks... very low cost to put right.


Where is your evidence that any of these were flouting uniform regulations because they were too poor to supply it...?


Plus... any parents struggling to pay for all uniform requirements are able to notify school beforehand and get special arrangements...

Parents gave interviews pointing out  the minor discrepancies in the school uniform that had got the children barred.....so SOME may have had expensive trainers, certainly not all.

So you think a  skirt that isn't quite  long enough or the wrong colour of socks should get a child banned from entering school?

Hartsdown Academy is a poor scoring school compared to the national average, poor scoring schools are usually in poorer areas, so the chances of some of the families being poor is high.
Where is YOUR evidence that they could all afford the uniform?

In England you will possibly get help with buying school uniform if you are already claiming certain benefits, not everyone is...so your last sentence is wrong.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/how-citizens-advice-works/media/press-releases/citizens-advice-parents-find-school-uniforms-more-costly-this-year-than-last/


"School costs now putting some parents off first choice of schools

New findings from Citizens Advice on the cost of sending a child to school find that parents are spending hundreds on school uniforms. A quarter of parents will spend £100 - £150, the most common cost found amongst those surveyed.

Over two thirds of parents with a child attending an academy school will fork out over £100 for uniforms compared to half of parents at state schools.

Worryingly, some parents are now telling Citizens Advice that school costs are impacting on their first choice of school.

Citizens Advice ran an online survey from the 21st – 29th August which collected 527 responses. The survey asked parents and guardians about financial costs based on one child for this coming school year. It finds:
•More than half said school uniforms are more costly this year than last.
•Over sixty percent (63%) said uniforms had to be bought from specific shops.
•Nearly a third of parents have had to save up for school uniforms.
•Of those surveyed, the majority believe that school uniforms don’t represent good value for money.

Government guidance says schools should take into account the views of parents and pupils on significant changes to school uniform policy. Yet Citizens Advice research finds that when schools were making changes or introducing new uniforms, over two thirds of parents haven’t been consulted by the school.  

Second hand uniforms can be a good way to save parents money but under half of parents said they are not available to them at all. But for a fifth of parents the school does provide the opportunity to buy second hand uniforms.

Gillian Guy, Chief Executive, Citizens Advice said:


“Back to school is breaking the bank for some families. When it comes to getting children ready for this school year, parents are finding it more expensive than last.


“Mums and Dads are spending hundreds on school uniforms, with many often forced to purchase clothing from specific shops leaving parents with no cheaper alternatives.


“Low wages and squeezed family budgets have meant that some have had to save up for uniforms, whilst others are relying on friends and family to help cover the cost.


“Worryingly, some parents have now found school costs so unaffordable it’s impacting on their first choice of school.  Costs should not be a barrier to choice. That’s why these costs need to be carefully monitored and schools need to consult more with parents, not just leave them counting the costs when it comes to term time.”  

It’s not just school uniforms that are making Mums and Dads anxious. Over a third said that school meals will cost over £250 for the school year and one in six reported transport totaling the same. A third of parents will spend up to £50 on school trips with some saying this will cost over £200. "

Syl wrote:Tommy....I have come to the conclusion you have never been very poor.

You think?

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:Tommy....I have come to the conclusion you have never been very poor.

You think?

I've never been poor...!?





I've always been poor!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

I've never been poor...!?





I've always been poor!!!

It's all relative...some people say they are poor because they cant afford a TV as big as their neighbours.

I've got a 15 year old second hand TV that cost me £100...


I've had it about 5 years...

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I've never been poor...!?





I've always been poor!!!

It's all relative...some people say they are poor because they cant afford a TV as big as their neighbours.

And some people say they're too poor to buy school uniforms when they are spending all their money on other luxuries...

Tommy Monk wrote:I've got a 15 year old second hand TV that cost me £100...


I've had it about 5 years...

That was just as example.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

It's all relative...some people say they are poor because they cant afford a TV as big as their neighbours.

And some people say they're too poor to buy school uniforms when they are spending all their money on other luxuries...

Yes some do....others don't, read the CAB link.

Maybe so... but not these lot in op...one bought a short skirt instead of a longer one... one had bought wrong colour socks... others in trainers that I can bet were much more expensive than a pair of shoes... others turned up having bought velcro ones instead of laces...


None poor... just stupidly disregarding the requirements...

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe so... but not these lot in op...one bought a short skirt instead of a longer one... one had bought wrong colour socks... others in trainers that I can bet were much more expensive than a pair of shoes... others turned up having bought velcro ones instead of laces...


None poor... just stupidly disregarding the requirements...

I have already told you skirt size comes in age or waist size....perhaps at the specialist shop the head recommended length size varied, but the skirts cost 3 times as much.
How do you know the shoes were new? No doubt the parents would have replaced suede shoes and Velcro fastenings with black leather lace ups when they replaced the older shoes.

You have NO empathy for people on a tight budget.

Tommy I accept you watch your money and don't consider yourself rich, but if you have children you can't just not treat them or take them out.

Surely a girl can find a skirt long enough...?


Even the recommended shop had 3-4 different lengths and they were £11 I think...


And eddie... what makes you think I've got its got money but am just careful with it... rather than me just not having that much money at all...?


I've had many a stint out of work and having to claim jsa and even had a stint on esa...


I know what being poor is all about!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Surely a girl can find a skirt long enough...?


Even the recommended shop had 3-4 different lengths and they were £11 I think...


And eddie... what makes you think I've got its got money but am just careful with it... rather than me just not having that much money at all...?


I've had many a stint out of work and having to claim jsa and even had a stint on esa...


I know what being poor is all about!!!

The skirts at the shop the school "strongly recommends" were priced between £12 and £15....an average priced skirt at Asda (for eg) costs between £3.50 and £5. They would be shorter on a girl of £5'10'' obviously.

This is going fucking nowhere fast.

Other tall girls get long enough skirts and Muslim girls manage to get skirts long enough to cover their ankles... plus girls can wear trousers... so your continued waffling about this one point is superfluous...

Ho dare you accuse me of waffling...
Repeating myself because you keep posting the same inane answers over and over maybe....waffling no.

How dare you say my answers are 'innane'...!?

Well I just read another thread where I gave you a greeny...so they are not ALL inane.

See... you're not so sylly after all...!!!





Have a green from me too!

The problem isnt the fact he wants to enforce his rules like a modern day ghengis khan.....more the idiot way he went about it.
firstly a school (and by direct implication ESPECIALLY the head) is in loco parentis, and thus MUST act in a way that a reazonable parent would. In this he has failed, causing one child injuries which, if a parent acted similarly, would be primae facia evidence of physical abuse. He further then endanvers the cildren by ejecting them from the school,denys them access to a phone to inform their parents and also knowingly ejects some children knowing full well that the parent is ONLYavailable in the case of an emergency (which incorrect uniform is not). The man is a ully himself, and would be heading for a long interview down a dark ally if it was one of my kids affected.

Indeed, had i been the ,arent of the girl whos feet were maxe to bleed by his insanity, I,d have insisted that those cops who turned up arrested the prick for common assault. Granted it eventually may not have gone very far,but it WOULD have made the gits life difficult.

Mind you......if he,d tried that game at my scool, he would have had a student strike to contend with, Not to mention a student uprising. Bloody hell the following day the ENTIREscool would have turned uo out of uniform and simply taken their places....I mean.....whats he going to do....beat them all up?

These kids were refused admission to the school so were therefore still under the responsibility of their parents and themselves.


Many of the parents were there kicking off too!!!


And those who had made their own way to the school and not under the direct supervision of parents were obviously deemed responsible enough by the parents to be under their own responsibility outside school and outside of direct parental supervision.


And what feet injury did he cause by simply refusing entry...?


Either suitable footwear was being worn and entry was given... or suitable footwear was not being worn and entry was refused...!?


If one of the kids was denied entry for unsuitable footwear... then any foot injury they sustained would be from their own actions in the unsuitable footwear they had chosen to wear... or in this case... the girl took off her footwear and socks and started jumping around barefoot outside school in a tantrum by the sounds of things!!!

Jules wrote:

blackie333 wrote:

Bullying goes on in schools that allow everyone to dress as they like because kids pick on some for not wearing the latest fashions but the same
happens with the labels in school uniforms as well.
Some are really expensive and some cheap and the bullies know a good make from a non descript maker.



Uniforms change nothing in my opinion!

That's a strange post. On what do you base that assertion? Were your kids bullied in school?
Dunno why you quoted me either, as your reply has nothing to do with my post.
I guess you quoted the wrong post.

Where do some of these idiots think the cheapest school uniforms come from?
It must be third world countries where slave labour is common practice and often produced by kids deprived of any schooling.
People just dont care where they come from if the price is cheap enough.
Uncaring gits! Think about it you dimwits, you cant buy stuff that's ultra cheap unless someone in the world is being exploited.
I wear copies as well but at least I feel guilty and I dont have kids.
Admit it, you dont care if a kid on the other side of the world works 15 hours a day for a pittance as long as you can buy your kid a uniform
for next to nothing do you?