Originally Posted by kronas

i know it didnt say that, however teaches should have noticed that the footwear was inappropriate for school and warned jim before the exam, which they failed to do so.

its way too harsh im my opinion a simple warning should have sufficed, exams are important to be disallowed to sit them on a small technicality is absolutely appaling, are we going to value a persons education and future over a pair of shoes :erm:

Originally Posted by kronas

Originally Posted by Chimaera

When my daughters took their GCSE exams a letter came home the week before, reminding all the candidates that although they were off timetable they were still 'at school' and full, correct uniform was to be worn at all times. Of course some of them tried to 'bend' the rules and turned up with forbidden items of jewellery etc - they were told to conform to the rules or be excluded from the exam! They soon complied with the rules ;)

Originally Posted by nffc

If he was TOLD there would be an enforced dress code it is HIS PROBLEM if he decides to breach it. No-one else's.

If he was allowed to breach it, then other pupils could (to be fair) then do the same- which is the same as effectively telling the dress code to f*ck off.



what condition's that then, chavviness?

Let's be fair- if he had a genuine medical reason to flaunt the dress code, then he should have produced doctor's note documenting the condition, and why he has to wear trainers (although, I'd say trainers were worse for feet than shoes as they seem to be mainly plastic which makes your feet sweat) and take that to the school before the exam period asking for dispensation.

As I previously said, dress code for exams is at the discretion of the centre. If someone decides to breach the rules, if they've been given notice of the rules, then that's their problem.

I can't see how the kid has a leg to stand on. We had to do exams in full uniform as well even in the summer.

Originally Posted by kronas

yes i agree i retracted those statements i made i was still reading the article till the end bit was pointed out :)

Originally Posted by Chimaera

Actually now I come to think about it, one pupil was allowed not to wear school uniform to take the exams............but as her baby was 2 weeks overdue, it was more a case of what she could fit into! :Yikes:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If the school noticed his lack of appropriate shoes before the exams and did nothing, but then decided to send him home 20 mins before the start of an exam, that is totally wrong.
However, even if they turned a blind eye to it, but then sent out a reminder to all pupils that they were to wear appropriate shoes for the exams, then they are entitled to do this, although I still think he should have been given a warning rather than made to miss the exam.

Something tells me we aren't getting the whole story here from both sides.
It could be that he was looking at a fail anyway, and excluding him from the exam would be marked as a no-show rather than lowering the schools grades (assuming that in secondary schools that is the case with the results)
At my school, several years after I left, pupils had to re-take an exam because the average grade was so low.
They had to do this after school and what ever result they achieved it would not change the original one.
It was simply a punishment from the head for the pupils low interest in the subject

Originally Posted by Diamond

I take it I'm the only one who disagrees with the school's decision then?

What harm could wearing the shoes possibly have done during the exam? What good could enforcing this rule have done? What a waste of time and money - educating the student throughout the two year course and paying for the exam entry (about £40 I believe), only to not allow him to take the exam? Quite pathetic really. Even if it's just for the sake of not wasting the school's time and money they should have let him take the exam.

*Hides*

Originally Posted by nffc

So what if you decided it was OK to drive at 70 in a 40 zone because you thought it was a "silly rule" and killed someone- regardless of the rule, its background or its consequences, it's still a rule, and it still needs to be abided by.

No-one has the RIGHT to take an exam especially if they deliberately break pre-informed rules.