School stands up for discipline and rules

[Russ]

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

When I was at school and it happened at nursing college, they made the person take them off!!! and they could pick them up at the end of the exam.

But wouldn't that be as bad as wearing incorrect footwear?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Russ D

But wouldn't that be as bad as wearing incorrect footwear?

Possibly worse. He could have smelly feet.

I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Sure, give the kid a warning, and throw him out of the next exam if he does it again, but I really don't see what purpose is served by refusing him entry. This school needs to get a sense of proportion.

Unless of course we are only hearing half the story here (which wouldn't surprise me)

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Diamond

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

No, I think it's ridiculous and a totally OTT reaction.

Fine, *normally* if someone's breaching the school's dress code, yes, send them home to change, but that won't usually result in them missing an important exam!

It would have been much more sensible to give him a warning and let him take the exam. If he came to the next one still wearing them, then it's his own fault.

And frankly I wouldn't want to wear someone else's shoes!
__________________

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-

What on *EARTH* are you talking about?

How the hell can you compare someone wearing an inappropriate pair of shoes with *KILLING SOMEONE*???

[Richard M]

Originally Posted by Graham

What on *EARTH* are you talking about?

How the hell can you compare someone wearing an inappropriate pair of shoes with *KILLING SOMEONE*???

K' chill out.

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

Children have to be learnt from an early age

Its "taught".

My, what a lot of perfect little 16 year old kids we all must have been. Never wore the wrong thing to school, misbehaved in class, had a quick smoke or snog behind the bike sheds.

This judgement was way out of proportion. As some posters have already said, he should have been given the oportunity to take the exam, with a stern warning to not do it again.

If he had a medical reason not to wear someone elses shoes maybe it was because he didn't want to infect the shoes with athletes foot or something. Personally, I wouldn't wear someone elses shoes in case THEY have athletes foot or a verruca.

The school has a duty of care towards pupils and this decision has not only caused him to miss an exam but may be detrimental to his entire performance at a crucial stage of his education. In fact, the fact that it has made the bbc news website probably means that the whole school and surrounding schools are probably all talking about it and it is causing a distraction to all the pupils.

Those on this thread saying things like he looks like a chav and the type to cause trouble must be VERY good judges of character to be able to tell from 1 photo.

If the school did this out of some nefarious plot to cook the school league tables then in my opinion whoever took the decision needs to lose their job. I'd be interested to know what his result in the mock exam was. I wonder if they'd have sent an A* pupil home.

Kudos to Diamond and a few others here for not jumping on the holier-than-though bandwagon.

Yes, rules need to be enforced but with a bit of common sense and this was a bad decision.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

Yes, rules need to be enforced but with a bit of common sense and this was a bad decision.

So was wearing the wrong shoes.

Why should schools be blackmailed into accepting lower standards of school behaviour just because pupils, for whatever reason, want to flout the rules?

Being responsible for your actions and planning for eventialities is all part of being independent.It's time that some school children learned that.

It's fine to ask adults to use common sense but we also need children to exercise some as well.

[Paul K]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

If he had a medical reason not to wear someone elses shoes maybe it was because he didn't want to infect the shoes with athletes foot or something. Personally, I wouldn't wear someone elses shoes in case THEY have athletes foot or a verruca.

If he had a legitimate medical reason for not wearing his proper school shoes since April then surely he or his parents would have told the school this via letter?

"I have been wearing them and not one person has said anything to me about them, because they are so much like shoes."

This to me makes it seem like he had not informed the school of any medical reason why he couldn't wear his shoes and the only reason why he hadn't been told to change them till now was because they looked like shoes from a distance.
It's not as though the school doesn't make it's pupils aware of the uniform requirement http://www.temple.medway.sch.uk/uniform.htm

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

Children have to be learnt from an early age, rules are rules, they are there for a reason, this school had a uniform and they stick by that, if they let every single child off then their would be no point in having rules.

But that's not the way society works!

Look at the 'rules' in your job contract - can you honestly say that you always comply with them to the letter? Never made a personal phone call on company time?

Half the threads in the basement (I may exaggerate slightly ) seem to be from people whining about getting caught by speed cameras because they've been, err, speeding. 'Rules is rules' isn't a very popular argument on those threads.

And I'm sure some of the posters on this thread of the 'they should throw the book at the chav scrote and there's no leeway in the rules' persuasion are the same ones who say 'I personally think the speed limits wrong, so the law doesnt apply to me; everyone does it; i probably wouldnt have killed anyone if I'd had a crash; my speedos crap so I shouldnt have to be expected to look at it; it was a clear evening so they should have a bit of discretion' etc etc etc.

My point is: when it's us who are breaking the rules - and we do it all the time - we expect a bit of leeway if leeway is reasonable and no one else suffers because of it. So why shouldn't teenagers be able to expect the same? After all, school is about preparing kids for adulthood .....

BTW - allie - just cos I quoted you doesn't mean I'm referring to you about the speed cameras bit - I'm not !!

Originally Posted by Paul

If he had a legitimate medical reason for not wearing his proper school shoes since April then surely he or his parents would have told the school this via letter?

This to me makes it seem like he had not informed the school of any medical reason why he couldn't wear his shoes and the only reason why he hadn't been told to change them till now was because they looked like shoes from a distance.
It's not as though the school doesn't make it's pupils aware of the uniform requirement http://www.temple.medway.sch.uk/uniform.htm

Didnt he say someone elses shoes, not shoes themselves.

[Kliro]

What on *EARTH* are you talking about?

How the hell can you compare someone wearing an inappropriate pair of shoes with *KILLING SOMEONE*???

He is saying that the boundary has to be drawn somewhere, it is a simple concept, you can't accept one rule and say anouther is stupid, just because thats your opinion.

It is comparable, because they are both rules...

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Kliro

He is saying that the boundary has to be drawn somewhere, it is a simple concept, you can't accept one rule and say anouther is stupid, just because thats your opinion.

It is comparable, because they are both rules...

But the it read was to suggest that just because the effects of breaking one rule could be as serious as killing someone, that no rule should ever be broken. Which is daft

Originally Posted by Kliro

He is saying that the boundary has to be drawn somewhere, it is a simple concept, you can't accept one rule and say anouther is stupid, just because thats your opinion.

It is comparable, because they are both rules...

Have you ever downloaded music on a P2P or had a drink at your age? I'll bet you have. And that is breaking a rule set by the government.

Having read through the this thread I'm amused that those I expected to be on this students sides were who I expected and those not were who I expected.

However I did think allie might have been on the lad's side.That was the joker in the pack..

Come September teachers will no longer be required to invigilate exams as part of a new agreement on teacher's duties.Should be interesting to see what happens about such rules then..

Carry on...

Oh and I bet he did give it some lip but under the circumstances that was only to be expected-after all he had got out of bed especially for the exam..

OK who stole a posting?

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

OK who stole a posting?

Blooming chavs, they'll nick anything that's not nailed down