School stands up for discipline and rules

In a word.DISCIPLINE!

I bet not one student has failed to attend any public exams in anything but the correct attire and with the correct attitude and mentality at this particular school since.

If the school backs down over one rule where does it end.This school chose to start at the correct attire rule.Not at the talking or passing notes stage.

Now I'm sick of going round in circles.

Bye.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

In a word.DISCIPLINE!

I bet not one student has failed to attend any public exams in anything but the correct attire and with the correct attitude and mentality at this particular school since.

If the school backs down over one rule where does it end.This school chose to start at the correct attire rule.Not at the talking or passing notes stage.

Now I'm sick of going round in circles.

Bye.

Don't worry, I'm with you as well.

Whilst I disagree with the thrust of Coggy's argument.... the going round in circles bit touched a nerve Time for lunch methinks

Originally Posted by Incognitas

In a word.DISCIPLINE!

I bet not one student has failed to attend any public exams in anything but the correct attire and with the correct attitude and mentality at this particular school since.

If the school backs down over one rule where does it end.This school chose to start at the correct attire rule.Not at the talking or passing notes stage.

Now I'm sick of going round in circles.

Bye.

Hear, hear. Would this boy's behaviour be considered acceptable if he worked for the Police, an airline or any other business with a strict dress or uniform code? Would anybody seriously expect an employer in such circumstances to allow it to pass with an indulgent 'just don't do it again', when there was no good reason for the breach of the rules in the first place? I fail to see why some people seem to be in such a hurry to trivialise the wearing of school uniform. School is preparation for life and life is full of rules and conventions that have to be obeyed for a variety of reasons. If this boy has, after 11 years, failed to learn this simple lesson, then on his own head be it.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Electrolyte

He wouldn't use a pair from lost property (or what ever it is called) as he stated he had medical problems with his feet.

I don't know the school, or exactly what happened. However, one thing I do know is that at Uni, we have procedures in place that enable us to make allowances for students with medical conditions. I'll admit that students are allowed to wear what they want anyway, so there are no rules for what they wear in exams (unless they turn up with the answers written all over their shirt), but I am pretty sure the school would have procedures in place for them to make allowances for medical conditions.

[paulyoung666]

**** me , 14 pages about a pair of trainers and some ppl still dont get it , he shouldnt have worn them , end of conversation , nuff said

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

**** me , 14 pages about a pair of trainers and some ppl still dont get it , he shouldnt have worn them , end of conversation , nuff said

That's the point. While I agree that he should have followed the school rules (based in what I read in that article), some poeople don't agree. Everyone "gets" it, it's just not everyone agrees the school is right.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by scastle

I don't know the school, or exactly what happened. However, one thing I do know is that at Uni, we have procedures in place that enable us to make allowances for students with medical conditions. I'll admit that students are allowed to wear what they want anyway, so there are no rules for what they wear in exams (unless they turn up with the answers written all over their shirt), but I am pretty sure the school would have procedures in place for them to make allowances for medical conditions.

That medical conditions lark is bull sh*t though.

If it was true:
- he would be entitled to wear them, had he checked, as it's the school's decision. If he has proof then that's fine. Blimey, you get 5% more marks if your moggy dies before an exam!
- it soon f*cked off after the problem came to light, because he said he'd wear the proper shoes in future
- it was blatantly bull to avoid wearing the other shoes, he had a CHOICE and he CHOSE to go home
- no doctor would recommend wearing plastic trainers over normal leather shoes because they make your feet sweat more exacerbating any medical condition he would have.

TBH, it's cr*p.

Originally Posted by scastle

I don't know the school, or exactly what happened. However, one thing I do know is that at Uni, we have procedures in place that enable us to make allowances for students with medical conditions. I'll admit that students are allowed to wear what they want anyway, so there are no rules for what they wear in exams (unless they turn up with the answers written all over their shirt), but I am pretty sure the school would have procedures in place for them to make allowances for medical conditions.

Of course.We make allowances and provision for reading,writing and learning difficulties.Broken legs,pregnancy,school phobics you name it it will be accomodated PROVIDED we know in advance.As far as the Special Needs Assistants are concerned they will accomodate those with known special requirements right up until the point of no return.We are very accomodating provided there is discussion BEFORE the day of the exam.

All we expect is that students try to shoulder some of the responsibility that is theirs to shoulder.They have to notify us BEFORE the start on an exam of any potential problems.

NFFC, I think the medical reasons were directed at wearing someone else's shoes rather than shoes per se. Could be wrong. TBH that does sound lame.


Scastle, with you totally.

Everyone - this has got v dull. Should we invite Nugget in for some enlivening punning?

[Chimaera]

Originally Posted by andyl

NFFC, I think the medical reasons were directed at wearing someone else's shoes rather than shoes per se. Could be wrong. TBH that does sound lame.


Scastle, with you totally.

Everyone - this has got v dull. Should we invite Nugget in for some enlivening punning?

I think he's on holiday - he's certainly been conspicuous by his absence lately!

Originally Posted by andyl

NFFC, I think the medical reasons were directed at wearing someone else's shoes rather than shoes per se. Could be wrong. TBH that does sound lame.


Scastle, with you totally.

Everyone - this has got v dull. Should we invite Nugget in for some enlivening punning?

From the original link.

The school said he was offered alternative shoes from lost property but he chose to go home instead.

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.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by andyl

NFFC, I think the medical reasons were directed at wearing someone else's shoes rather than shoes per se. Could be wrong. TBH that does sound lame.

As incog said... Chose not to "because of a medical problem with his feet"... so, there was the implication the problem was with his feet not with wearing the other shoes.

Originally Posted by nffc

As incog said... Chose not to "because of a medical problem with his feet"... so, there was the implication the problem was with his feet not with wearing the other shoes.

He said "he did not want to wear someone else's shoes" because of his "medical condition"

[nffc]

Originally Posted by andyl

He said "chose not to wear someone else's shoes"

Yes he said "chose not to wear someone else's shoes because of a medical problem with HIS feet" NOT with the shoes!

Surprised that needed spelling out!