School stands up for discipline and rules

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by allieyoung666

And you are just rude out of order and reported!

Hmmmm ..... Not MY opinion Allie.

I saw his post as a lighthearted summarisation of all that has gone on in this thread.

I really think you need to calm down. Just becasue someone posts something you don't like does not mean that they are wrong.

Your posts over recent times have come across as angry, and with that frame of mind it will be particularly easy for people to wind you up.

Please consider your posts before you hit the button.

I have watched your posting style, and am saddened by the fact you seem to be perpetually spoiling for a fight. If I am wrong, please PM me and we will discuss.

Remember, this is a forum, it's virtual. If someone is getting under your skin, walk away for a while, calm down, and then post.

Originally Posted by andyl

EDIT: Another greenie. Please do keep them coming as they give this pitiful figure great succour at this difficult time.
EDIT 2 And another. That's the spirit. I'm feeling revived already!


Have a nice day... the sun is, after all, shining.

andyl - Please avoid discussion of reputation received or given out in threads. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Mick

andyl - Please avoid discussion of reputation received or given out in threads. Thank you.

Sorry, thought if names weren't named it was ok. Won't happen again because, as we know from this thread, rules is rules!

Originally Posted by andyl

6. Graham has a well thumbed copy of the Dictionary of Quotations which he puts to effective use (although if we knew who Inigo whatsisname actually was that use would be even more effective!)

I recommend that you go out immediately and grab a copy of The Princess Bride.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I recommend that you go out immediately and grab a copy of The Princess Bride.

Aha, I see. Good is it?

[Pierre]

6. Graham has a well thumbed copy of the Dictionary of Quotations which he puts to effective use (although if we knew who Inigo whatsisname actually was that use would be even more effective!)

Wasn't he out of the Princess Bride.

My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.???

Oh ok maybe not.

After reading this thread I'm going with "It was a stupid reason to be kicked out of the exam". Even if rules apply, he should have got a warning before going any further, or it isn't really "fair" on the pupil.

Can I just draw everybody back to the central fact of the case here: regardless of whether you think the school was in the right, or heavy handed, they DID NOT kick him out of the exam. They offered him a range of solutions. He opted to go home for his own shoes, and HE DECIDED FOR HIMSELF that he would not have time to get back to school. We have only his word for it that there was no time.

Originally Posted by Chris T

Can I just draw everybody back to the central fact of the case here: regardless of whether you think the school was in the right, or heavy handed, they DID NOT kick him out of the exam. They offered him a range of solutions. He opted to go home for his own shoes, and HE DECIDED FOR HIMSELF that he would not have time to get back to school. We have only his word for it that there was no time.

But they didn't offer him the most sensible solution of letting him take the exam in a pretty innocuous looking pair of trainers (which, OK, according to him, he had been wearing to school for weeks without challenge. We could debate for hours - oh we have! - the validity of his statements over others).

I don't think anyone is disputing that he was technically in breach of uniform rules, it's the manner in which it was dealt with which is contentious. Therefore whether the school was heavy handed is central to the debate.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Can I just draw everybody back to the central fact of the case here: regardless of whether you think the school was in the right, or heavy handed, they DID NOT kick him out of the exam. They offered him a range of solutions. He opted to go home for his own shoes, and HE DECIDED FOR HIMSELF that he would not have time to get back to school. We have only his word for it that there was no time.

Quite correct, if this exam was so important to him why didn't he take the schools offer of wearing a pair of shoes, just for an hour or two while he sat his exam.

If it was that important to his future???????? If I'd have felt that it was that important I'd have worn anything they asked me to.

I remember when I was at school and our headmaster kept a wonderful array of massive brightly coloured kipper ties for those boys that came into school without the school tie, and we would have to wear it all day.

If you were looking to apportion blame I would put it 60/40 to the boy. He knew he was not wearing proper shoes and was given an alternative just for the duration of the exam and he didn't take it.

The school on the other hand may have chosen an inappropriate time to strictly enforce school policy

Originally Posted by Pierre

Quite correct, if this exam was so important to him why didn't he take the schools offer of wearing a pair of shoes, just for an hour or two while he sat his exam.

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.

Originally Posted by andyl

But they didn't offer him the most sensible solution of letting him take the exam in a pretty innocuous looking pair of trainers (which, OK, according to him, he had been wearing to school for weeks without challenge. We could debate for hours - oh we have! - the validity of his statements over others).

I don't think anyone is disputing that he was technically in breach of uniform rules, it's the manner in which it was dealt with which is contentious. Therefore whether the school was heavy handed is central to the debate.

Yes and no. OK, I'll grant you, the school's reaction is a valid strand of the debate. But the boy's reaction is a separate strand. It's getting frustrating that some people are intertwining the two. Even if the school was being heavy-handed, they did absolutely nothing that prevented the boy from sitting the exam. At the end of the day he chose not to sit it.

[orangebird]

My main concern is that the school found the boys attire more important than sitting an exam, and felt that he had to change his shoes there and then, rather than telling him not to do it again. Where are the teachers priorities? Policing school uniform or ensuring children get the best education they can? Jobsworth.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Yes and no. OK, I'll grant you, the school's reaction is a valid strand of the debate. But the boy's reaction is a separate strand. It's getting frustrating that some people are intertwining the two. Even if the school was being heavy-handed, they did absolutely nothing that prevented the boy from sitting the exam. At the end of the day he chose not to sit it.

True, but it have been perfectly possible for the school to allow the boy the sit the exam. They could have given him a warning and exclude him from the next exam if he 're-offended'. I would have absolutely no problem with that.

Like others have said. I think exams are an inappropriate time to start enforcing rules strictly if this has not been done in the past.

Originally Posted by orangebird

My main concern is that the school found the boys attire more important than sitting an exam, and felt that he had to change his shoes there and then, rather than telling him not to do it again. Where are the teachers priorities? Policing school uniform or ensuring children get the best education they can? Jobsworth.

The problem with that is, it assumes that the boy had no prior record of disobeying rules. How do you know he wasn't on a final warning of some kind? The article doesn't say one way or the other.