School stands up for discipline and rules

**Chris** · 04-06-2005, 17:11

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4608655.stm

And quite right too, in my view. That'll teach the chavster a lesson.

Paul K · 04-06-2005, 17:21

Now, now, mention the c word and you will only get lynched

I think the school is right, the student knew his footwear wasn't allowed but just because he got away with it normally he thought he could wear them to his exams where they do tend to enforce rules more strictly.

Russ · 04-06-2005, 17:25

I'm with Scouse on this - he knew the school rules and I don't see it being their fault that he got away with it for so long.

nffc · 04-06-2005, 17:29

Pretty much nailed as well.

There's no official guideline on dress code for exams, except that it's at the discretion of a centre as to whether a candidate is suitably dressed to sit an exam or not.

These rules were made clear to the candidates, if he was unsure as to its suitability then he should have checked or asked for dispensation if he had a genuine reason. He's sixteen and old enough to realise.

It's about time discipline in schools was enforced more strictly. Bring back the birch.

Xaccers · 04-06-2005, 17:32

Well, if a company allows its staff to do something against their rules, such as using the internet access to visit non-work related sites, then they cannot discipline an employee out of the blue for doing it.

Had the school reminded everyone just prior to this incident what the uniform rules were, and then enforced the rules without exception, then they can do this.

Russ · 04-06-2005, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well, if a company allows its staff to do something against their rules, such as using the internet access to visit non-work related sites, then they cannot discipline an employee out of the blue for doing it.

I'm not sure it says it "allowed" him to break the rules?

Paul K · 04-06-2005, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well, if a company allows its staff to do something against their rules, such as using the internet access to visit non-work related sites, then they cannot discipline an employee out of the blue for doing it.

I'm not sure it says it "allowed" him to break the rules?

The student is quoted as saying he has worn the footwear to school for a while though, which is what I think Xaccers is talking about.

Russ · 04-06-2005, 17:50

Just because the school didn't notice doesn't mean they approved his footwear!

kronas · 04-06-2005, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Just because the school didn't notice doesn't mean they approved his footwear!

i know rules are rules but he said that he had been wearing them since april without a problem so it is unfair that on a exam he is told he is breaking uniform rules.

he also has a medical condition which disallowed him from using shoes provided by the school.

i think its hugely unfair that for a long time he was wearing them when it came to an exam he was told 'no'

Russ · 04-06-2005, 17:57

It doesn't say the school allowed him to wear them - just because they didn't notice doesn't mean they were allowing it.

And I don't think he had a medical reason for not wearing the shoes the school provided - it's just a matter of general hygeine.

nffc · 04-06-2005, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Just because the school didn't notice doesn't mean they approved his footwear!

i know rules are rules but he said that he had been wearing them since april without a problem so it is unfair that on a exam he is told he is breaking uniform rules.

he also has a medical condition which disallowed him from using shoes provided by the school.

i think its hugely unfair that for a long time he was wearing them when it came to an exam he was told 'no'

He knew what the rules were, the onus is on HIM to check.

Paul K · 04-06-2005, 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

It doesn't say the school allowed him to wear them - just because they didn't notice doesn't mean they were allowing it.

And I don't think he had a medical reason for not wearing the shoes the school provided - it's just a matter of general hygeine.

If he did have a medical issue that was the reason for wearing the other footwear it soon cleared up when he was not allowed to enter his exams

Quote:

Adam said he would wear shoes for the rest of his exam and would consider retaking his English literature GCSE at night school.

kronas · 04-06-2005, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

It doesn't say the school allowed him to wear them - just because they didn't notice doesn't mean they were allowing it.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

And I don't think he had a medical reason for not wearing the shoes the school provided - it's just a matter of general hygeine.

Quote:

Adam said he chose to return home because he did not want to wear someone else's shoes because of a medical problem with his feet.

Russ · 04-06-2005, 18:05

Well as Paul said, it soon 'cleared up'.

kronas · 04-06-2005, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Well as Paul said, it soon 'cleared up'.

ok i was still reading the article, if he did intentionally wear them with full knowledge he was breaking the dress code then i agree.