School stands up for discipline and rules

[nffc]

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

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.

Originally Posted by kronas

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.

[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

[nffc]

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

Ours were the same. We had to wear jackets / ties, full uniform, even in the summer, well we had to take them in- once we were inside the room we could take ties/jackets off.

They also said they had the right to stop us taking the exams if we "didn't look smart"...

[kronas]

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.

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

[MadGamer]

Makes me wonder sometimes.

[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!

[nffc]

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

Pfft, all that typing for nothing
__________________

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!

Yeah but that's a valid reason.

[allieyoung666]

I agree with nffc on this fair enough if you are pregnant, then yeah it is the case of whatever fits at the time. But why didnt the boy send a letter into school before the exams had started then?? I bet they would have accomdated him then!
If I go to work in the wrong shoes I get made to change them.
He looks a right chav anyway, I hate these kids who love to make a point and then kick off because they have lost. He knows what to do in future then!

[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

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*

[allieyoung666]

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

God thats a first!!! But I think the school were hoping that he would come in correct atire so they must of thought let him get on with it.
Kids nowadays will try and get away with anything today, this includes wearing the incorrect uniforms.

[nffc]

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*

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.

[MadGamer]

Makes me glad i have never gone into my school without one piece of incorrect uniform.

[Xaccers]

If a school wants its rules to be followed then it must enforce them all the time.
If it fails to do this then it should not punish someone for breaking the rules that everyone else has been allowed to break without prior warning or continued rule enforcement.
All this kid now has to do is find another kid in the school who's still attending and not wearing the correct shoes and he can use that as an example of being singled out.

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.

But surely wearing the wrong type of shoes isn't comparable to deathly driving? Whose lives are being put at risk by wearing those shoes? But yes you are right when you say rules ought to be followed. What I am trying to say is that if I were a teacher in that school who taught that pupil, I would be rather frustrated at the fact that the time and energy spent with the pupil on teaching the subject was completely wasted because of a rule like that, if the student isn't qualified for it then that is two years worth of his lessons wasted. So I would say an exception to the rule in this case should have been made.

Not necessarily for the pupil's sake, for the school's sake.