We don't like the new school tie; our daughter isn't going to school.

Arca, it may not be fair, but the wearing of a tie (and how it is worn) can sway a prospective employer.

I was helping out a local college last week who were interviewing for the Head of IT position - one of the applicants came in with his neck undone (quite a bit), and the tie down at the first button down from the neck button.

The principal was less than impressed, as part of the job is to work with both internal and external senior management, and first impressions count.

btw, I hate wearing a tie, and when I left the forces I swore I would never wear another uniform (that so didn't work out, as most of the jobs I have had since then involved wearing a suit and tie).

It is about dressing appropriately, and if the child does not learn this lesson at school, what chance does she have in the real world? It may not be fair, but it's real.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Saaf, whatever the rules the school have are, in my opinion, it is idiotic to not have the tie as an option.
You like others have a different take on the matter, that is fine.

The rule might be idiotic to the child's parents but its still a rule that the school has. So rather than taking the child out of school because of teh rule, I would say that it would be more beneficial for the child in the long run to put up with the rule in favour of a school education.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

But as I have said before, although it may not cost the LEA directly in terms of paying for books etc for the child to be educated at home, what is the true cost, in terms of a child who has not had the usual mainstream educating?
Probably someone unable to mix with people, because they have been taught in a confined area.

The parents should think about this before they took their steps to remove her from school. They are the ones inflicting any disadvantages on their child, not the school.

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

.
.
.
.
It is about dressing appropriately, and if the child does not learn this lesson at school, what chance does she have in the real world? It may not be fair, but it's real.

I feel it's also about respecting rules of an establishment. If the parents are saying its ok for her not to follow the rules by taking her out of school, what sort of lesson does that give her for the future too.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Saaf, whatever the rules the school have are, in my opinion, it is idiotic to not have the tie as an option.
You like others have a different take on the matter, that is fine.
The way our country is at the moment, around here at least, 200 people chasing one job, would the fact that a prospective employee wears a tie really sway an employer when they have no jobs?

If they have a choice of 200 people, Employers can be swayed by the most petty of things..

The thing is that people assume that if you wear a suit and tie that you are more professional, and possibly more intelligent. There is no real scientific basis for this (indeed, the opposite is often true - I have met many smartly dressed people who are, to put it politely, as thick as the the proverbial), just a perception that a tidy exterior means you have a tidy mind. I don't believe there is any link, however.

The situation is gradually changing (more and more companies are allowing their staff to wear smart casual clothing at least for behind the scenes functions), but it's going to take a while yet.

As for Uniforms, I am actually in favour of them, particularly at school, but to some extent at work.

At school, not only do they teach people that they do sometimes have a dress code to adhere to, but they can help reduce bullying. The simple reason being that if everyone is wearing the same thing, no one can be beaten up or bullied for having better/worse clothes, or for not wearing the latest trainers. They can still be bullied for other stuff, it's not a total cure.

At work, uniforms can have a practical value. My Sainsbury's uniform was as uncomfortable as hell (cheap polyester and sweat are not a good combination), but it did have the advantage that it stopped me damaging my own clothes for work (important because, being a shelf stacker, there was at least a passing chance that my clothes would be damaged)..

[Jon T]

Why is this being twisted to make it the school's fault.

It was the parents that chose to take the child out of school, not the school telling the child to stay away

It's a uniform/dress code, I have one at work. If I don't adhere to it then I suffer the cosequences(warning letters, diciplinaries etc).

There are no religeous or health grounds for the girl not to wear a tie, she should just wear it and have done with it. She doesn't have any "rights" in this, and all her parents are doing is creating the impression that rules are not for everyone.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Flyboy, what price do you put on a child's education?
It may not cost the LEA, As you have stated, by the way, I do not know for certain if the parents can claim for educating their child at home, they may be able to.
For example, if one of the parents had to give up work so they are at home with the child, they could probably claim benefits of some type, so this whole thing may not be as " costless " as you think.
The tie should be an optional part of the uniform, and certainly not used as an excuse to deny a child an education.

But it is not the school who is denying the child an education, it is the parents. It is the parents who are refusing to send their darling little princess to school, because she doesn't want to wear a tie, just like all the other students do.

One cannot give up work and claim benefits in order to home educate a child. There are no funds, from government, national or local, that are available to access to provide for home education. If this had been the case, I would have taken this option a long time ago with Flyboy10 (a subject for another thread ).

---------- Post added at 13:30 ---------- Previous post was at 13:08 ----------

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Saaf, whatever the rules the school have are, in my opinion, it is idiotic to not have the tie as an option.
You like others have a different take on the matter, that is fine.
The way our country is at the moment, around here at least, 200 people chasing one job, would the fact that a prospective employee wears a tie really sway an employer when they have no jobs?
The wearing of a tie should not be used to gauge a person.

Any employer who is expecting a certain amount of professional commitment and gravity to the position they are offering, would at least expect a candidate to do the same. Whenever I interview someone for a position, I will always take into account their professional ability, their competency and their commitment to their future and to the recruitment process. That includes turning up for an interview appropriately prepared; including being dressed accordingly. If I am interviewing someone for a position as a project manager, for example, I will expect them to turn up with a copy of their CV, any references and a breakdown of what they want to achieve in the position and how they will accomplish it; I will also expect them to show me the courtesy of wearing a suit, shirt, collar and tie. If they turned up in t-shirt, jeans and trainers, they wouldn't even get in the door, because if they can't be bothered to commit to this, what can I expect from them as an employee.

There are more things that are important in the upbringing of kids than throwing a tie around their neck.
Sadly now missing it seems, basic good manners like holding the door open for someone, helping the old lady from the bus with her shopping trolley, basic simple things that can make our kids better people, hopefully.

You have described the very reason why it is important to follow the rules that are set out. They are there to educate children that there are rules to be followed and standards to be met. Otherwise we will never see those days again.

So IMO the tie should be optional, that is my opinion, does not mean it has to be a shared one.

But the tie is not optional, in this case and that is the rule needs that to be followed.

But as I have said before, although it may not cost the LEA directly in terms of paying for books etc for the child to be educated at home, what is the true cost, in terms of a child who has not had the usual mainstream educating?
Probably someone unable to mix with people, because they have been taught in a confined area.

But it is the parents who have decided to not allow her to go to the school, not the school. It is they who will have to make sure they educate their little princess in an appropriate manner, or they will fall foul of the law.

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------

With all of this said, I have to admit that Flyboy10 starts year seven, next year and the secondary school he is going to have actually deleted ties entirely from the uniform (he is most disappointed, as he loves wearing a tie, go figure ). For the very reason that the school in this thread had changed the tie to a clip on. But that still doesn't change the fact that this school has a rule and it needs to be followed.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So...I don't see your problem, they have implemented a phasing in of the change, which is what you were asking for. Three years is plenty of time to phase in a change of uniform. But we are talking about a tie, not a whole uniform.



But standards are standards and the school has made the decision on uniforms and the children have to abide by them, because they are the rules. What next? Don't do the homework, because that changed? Or, because the school has decided that they will come down harder on bullies, the children don't have to abide by those rules, because they weren't the rules when they joined the school?



PTAs are not consulted about changes in uniforms.

That is not the function of a PTA.




Why didn't you find somewhere else to park, get the bus, or walk? If you had a problem with their method of consultation, why didn't you challenge them about it?



The parents have withdrawn their child, not the school, it won't cost the LEA a penny.



So...if the children refuse to wear the existing uniform correctly and break the rules, why should the school stand for it? The school decided that they should wear a tie, which they can't abuse, but this child still didn't want to follow the rules. So she was sanctioned because of it; as is the prerogative of the school. Should the school not do this to children who break the rules?



As I said, the parents decided to withdraw the child, it won't cost them anything.

1 they chose the worst way they should either implemented for all which they didn't so they already had some doing and some not or done it by natural wastage ie started with year 1 and just moved it up each year this problem wouldn't be here then

2and 3 i think i know its not the PTA job but thats how it works if it doesn't at your school you are lucky !

4 we did but still the school seemed to believe that despite most disagreeing that most had because their most is those they were choosing to consult with not those of us who were disagreeing who they seemed to think didn't count

it cost them and the council quite a bit as once their method failed abysmally they had to do what we told them in the first place thus spending money which would have been better spent on redoing a car park almost the same as we started off with

5 on

it will while they are in dispute the council will end up forking out for home tutoring or even more likely they will end up with her being taught in a separate class room at the same school to get her through the exams

plus they now have a growing band of kids opposing ties altogether which will likely end up with no tie which i find even sadder

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

1 they chose the worst way they should either implemented for all which they didn't so they already had some doing and some not or done it by natural wastage ie started with year 1 and just moved it up each year this problem wouldn't be here then

They have chosen the way they feel, as is their right, to carry out the change in the most efficient way. Taking five to seven years to change a uniform is not efficient, nor is it practical. It breeds contempt amongst those who will be made to feel different. To balance this effect, with the wishes of the parents to not have to spend more money on unnecessarily buying ties, they have planned it over a three year period. The average life-time of a school tie, is less than two years.

2and 3 i think i know its not the PTA job but thats how it works if it doesn't at your school you are lucky !

No PTAs are the sole form of parental consultancy, in any school I have ever heard of. So, instead of my school being the lucky one, I would say that it is the normal one.

5 on

it will while they are in dispute the council will end up forking out for home tutoring or even more likely they will end up with her being taught in a separate class room at the same school to get her through the exams

No it won't. The parents have decided to withdraw their child from state education. The cost will be theirs. She will not be given any extra help to get through her exams. If she has missed lessons because of her and her parents' stupidity, that is their look out.

plus they now have a growing band of kids opposing ties altogether which will likely end up with no tie which i find even sadder

No they don't. They have one stroppy, moody teenager with excessively over-indulgent parents, who can't say "no" to their little princess.

[haydnwalker]

I don't think the "clip on ties" were the issue here. I would be very against clip-on ties personally. Kids need to learn how to tie them. And if she were a well behaved pupil, maybe she would have gotten a warning so she could tell her parents about it. Also if they were going to be "phased in over 3 years" then whats the problem on the schools part? What if parents cant afford them right now?? So long as the tie is in the school colours or whatever, then the style, IMO is irrelevant!

i've been following this thread since it started and i have to say i aggree with Flyboy on this
the school have gone out of their way to implement the change ,a very minor change,and lets face it how much is a school tie ?i don't know ,my kids school doesn't have ties but i wouldn't expect to pay more than a fiver for a clip on so in my opinion the parents have pandered to a spoiled brat
when i was at school it was considered "fashionable"to wear a tie a certain way ,one year it was a huge knot ,the next a tiny knot ,and the bullies in the school would target kids with the wrong knot so i can see what the school are trying to do
the parents of this child should be gratefull to the school for making every effort to stamp out bullying

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by haydnwalker

I don't think the "clip on ties" were the issue here. I would be very against clip-on ties personally. Kids need to learn how to tie them. And if she were a well behaved pupil, maybe she would have gotten a warning so she could tell her parents about it. Also if they were going to be "phased in over 3 years" then whats the problem on the schools part? What if parents cant afford them right now?? So long as the tie is in the school colours or whatever, then the style, IMO is irrelevant!

But it's very relevant. Having the tie at half-mast and the knot about a foot wide, disrespects the uniform and in turn, the school itself and looks slovenly. There is a dress code and the school has rules, so it is just as much to do with fllowing rulles in a wider sense than the actual tie.

If it was a case of learning to tie a tie, I would have thought that at fifteen, most teenagers would have already learned that.

The problem about the phasing, is that this little madam was part of the phased introduction, but decided that the rules do not apply to her, like they do to everyone else.

[cookie_365]

Three points:

1. Clip on ties are a crime against style. I'd maybe wear one if it'd save my mum's life, but I'd make sure there was no photographic evidence, and I'd make it the rest of my life's work to track down and silence any witnesses.

2. If you've spent your teenage years wearing a clip on tie, how are you going to work out how to tie a real one when you go for your first job?

3. This dumb headmaster doesn't even understand what the point of a uniform rule is. Teenagers want to rebel. They want to break the rules. So give them a nice pointless rule that they can break without any ill effects for anyone. Far better to have them rebel by wearing not quite the right knot, rather than by vandalising things or shoplifting.

[haydnwalker]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But it's very relevant. Having the tie at half-mast and the knot about a foot wide, disrespects the uniform and in turn, the school itself and looks slovenly.

True. I completely Agree.

There is a dress code and the school has rules, so it is just as much to do with fllowing rulles in a wider sense than the actual tie.

Also true.

The problem about the phasing, is that this little madam was part of the phased introduction, but decided that the rules do not apply to her, like they do to everyone else.

That wasn't the point at all... The point was, she was a good girl, not the usual rebel for the sake of being a rebel type. Maybe she genuinely didn't like the clip on tie and decided the proper tie one was better.

Also - nowhere in the article did it say that particular girl was one that wore her tie incorrectly

I stand by the "School Rules" thing. But being sent out of class for not having a clip on tie, is completely Over-The-Top!

If you were the teacher would you

(a)Kick her out of class because shes an evil rebel that needs to be taught a lesson (bearing in mind her "usual" demeanour)

or

(b)Give her a stern warning that it wasn't school uniform anymore and that tomorrow she needs the clip on one worn?

I'd choose b and then if it happened again and again further action would need to be taken.