An authoritarian approach too far?

Requiring students to ask for a pass to go to the toilet – No
Having a strict uniform policy and applying it – No
Having a weird system of codes based on arm raising – Probably.

Ah, the good old requirements of children today, to be taught to think for themselves and obey.

The political right jusy can’t let their inner authoritarian fetish go. Which is why they aren’t fit to lead.

Sending a year 7 child home on his first day at big school is appalling. To not have checked if anyone was at home criminal. Take your children away, find a school where they like kids

“For example: three fingers in the air signifies a need for the toilet, one hand in the air and one on the nose means the student would like a tissue to blow their nose and one finger in the air indicates the need for a pencil. ”

What means “I know the answer” then?

I don’t see what harm a “tinkle pass” does, but nor do I see the benefit. Sending kids home for not having shiny-enough shoes is the act of a little hitler. Doing so on their first day of school is the act of a bastard. Doing so to an 11-year-old without even checking that their parents are around is failure of duty of care, to be frank.

“Requiring students to ask for a pass to go to the toilet – No”

And ensuring that any child with a medical problem affecting continence will be subjected to a school career full of bullying. A policy that ensures some kids will develop medical problems through having to hold things in. Stupidity of the highest order.

(In Wales the welsh government instructed all schools to provide clean toilets available at all times over 10 years ago.)

“Having a strict uniform policy and applying it – No”

Not to the extent she has. the conservative right has a frankly unhealthy obsession with school uniforms.

And sending children home to empty homes (some of whom at an age when transitioning to a new school creates stress and a process every educational development expert argues needs to be sensitively managed) is a policy that is one child abduction away from seeing this headteacher in jail for negligence.

How the fuck did somebody with this level of ignorance about people rise to become a head teacher?

What happened to poor Miss Blencowe for her to turn out like this? Or was she just born too late? Sounds like the perfect boot camp for turning out future passive-aggressives.
A change in profession would be best all round. I can’t think Charlie’s unusual people-skills would be tolerated for long quite everywhere in the real world beyond the gates of Castle Vale Performing Arts College. Circus ring master? Lion tamer? In other fields where there are no paying clients or staff?

As my father always said, “Shiny clean boots and a spanking short haircut, and you can cope with anything.” Of course that was just before that rather unfortunate suicide business.

I wish you left-wingers were a bit more consistent in disliking authoritarianism. It’s no better when Labour are doing it.

Richard

Are you thus in favour of sending kids of 11 out into the streets with no protection or guardian or food or drink during the school day?

Because that’s the implication of your fatuous distraction rubbish about horrible lefties.

To:margin4error@10

As someone on the left, it is not difficult for me to recognise left authoritarianism and intolerance – which unfortunately has infected much of leftish thinking.

On this particular story, it seems clear from the article that this school has handled implementing its new policies in a ludicrously irresponsibly way by sending pupils home to empty homes. However, this does not mean that a policy encouraging the virtue of being smart and neat in dress is wrong.

Being in favour of school uniforms generally is something that should not be a left/right issue. However I suspect there are plenty on the left (I am not suggesting margin4 error is one) who don’t like the idea of uniforms cos it feels a bit establishment, a bit tory like – and they can’t be doing supporting that – which is I am afraid rather infantile.

@ 11,

there is no such implication in my comment. Nor did I say or imply lefties were horrible, only that their anti-authoritarian instincts are far more pronounced when a right-wing government is in power.

@ 9 Richard Carey

“I wish you left-wingers were a bit more consistent in disliking authoritarianism. It’s no better when Labour are doing it.”

Some of “we left-wingers” are pissed off with Labour for exactly that reason. Perhaps you should wave that tar-brush around a bit less?

There’s good arguments in favour of school uniforms, there’s very few good arguments for strict uniform rules with no wiggle room. Generally if you’re placing priority on absolutist dress codes above educating pupils with scuffed shoes, you’re going horribly wrong.

There is a difference between a uniform/dress code, and a strict uniform that policy requires kids to wear unconfortable clothes and spend too long on meeting the requirement. Too often schools mistake the former for the latter.

As for the headteacher in this case – she has mistaken the job she has for one she wants – prison governer would be more appropiate for her.

@ 13

“Perhaps you should wave that tar-brush around a bit less?”

Aw, I was just trying to throw a little antithesis into the thesis so we could get a synthesis – I meant no harm.

@ 14 Cylux

“Generally if you’re placing priority on absolutist dress codes above educating pupils with scuffed shoes, you’re going horribly wrong.”

Normally it means you’re trying to turn your school into your own little fiefdom full of perfectly dressed dolls. Rather than, you know, teaching stuff.

@ 16

Forgiven and forgotten!

I read about this in the Birmingham Mail on Saturday. The head teacher sounds like an absolute nightmare.
The toilet pass is ridiculous because the child is only allowed to use it once a week. What happens if a child has a UTI? When I last had one I needed the loo every 20 minutes. A UTI can quickly turn into a kidney infection which is no laughing matter.

Grammerskool:

What happened to poor Miss Blencowe for her to turn out like this?

Maybe here’s a clue:

Miss Blencowe – who reportedly once dated the son of Chuckle Brothers star Barry Elliot – has refused to comment on the allegations, despite repeated requests from the Birmingham Mail.

So near to a brush with fame, and yet such crushing, bitter disappointment?

My grammar school in ages past had a legendarily authoritarian deputy head in the lower school. Hair, shoe and hymn book inspections were regular and dreaded. However he merely required anyone found non-compliant with his standards to have achieved the standard the next day. The idea of sending a child home would never had occurred to him.

I suspect that parents in my day would have backed up the teachers more than happens today. Perhaps this goes some way to explaining the way this head has behaved. Of course sending a child to an empty home is unacceptable and I hope the governors will give her a hard time for it. It should be a disciplinary matter.

The rest of the stuff she requires the kids to do is simply bizarre.

The school footwear policy or a Captain Queeg moment?
From the school website:

Dear Parent/Carer,

I would like to take this opportunity to clear up some issues over appropriate footwear at our school.
The following footwear specifications are acceptable in our school and students wearing these will be allowed into mainstream lessons. Other students will be held in the main hall until the correct footwear is brought to school:-

? Any brand of black shoe
? Shoes made by the following companies that are black and leather: McKenzie, Vans, Clarks, Rockport
? Black boots including those with a trim on the sole only
? Girls leather shoes with bows/ buckles
? Black suede shoes (confusion has arisen where these look like canvas footwear)
? Patent shoes
? Nike Airforce with Silver Buckle Removed.

The following will not be accepted as part of our uniform.
? Canvas shoes, pumps or black trainers.
? Any footwear that has a brand logo from any trainer manufacturer (Nike, Puma, Reebok, Adidas etc on the sole)
? Any other colour trainer
? Any item of footwear that has a sports logo on the side
? Any trim or piping on the main part of the shoe
? Any item of footwear that may cause a health and safety risk in the opinion of the school
? Ugg boots or boots that go above the ankle in length

I can imagine this will not be the last time advice on acceptable shoes will need to be issued.
I like the one about banning shoes with a trainer manufacturer’s logo on the soles. Cunning litle devils these children. But they won’t escape the shoe inspector.

And this is just for shoes.

Are the senior education officers still in the 1950s at Birmingham Council? If this is council policy, speak to the local head teacher here and find out how the secondary school successfully introduced a uniform policy several years ago with the agreement and support of the kids.

@20 – perhaps she had a threesome with them – and the words “to me”, “to you” are haunting her to this day.

It’s nice to see that the fascist schüle system invented after the Prussian War is still in use. How else are you going to create another Nazi nation?

You know, petty rules like this were one reason I hated school. I would always try to bend the rules by wearing nail varnish and jewellery and every day would have to remove them.

The whole point of such silly rules were, we were told, to prepare us for the world of work. Yet never have I come across a manager who cares about what you wear to the extent of a head teacher. I have a very tiny stud in my nose that not one employer has complained about (even working in 2 nurseries) and yet they were explicitly banned in school.

Strict school uniform rules are not about looking smart, they’re about selecting pupils by wealth, without admitting to doing so directly. This is why many schools require the uniform be purchased from a sole supplier charging hundreds of pounds, and identical looking cheaper uniforms are not accepted.

@ 22 Grammerskool

Perhaps there is some kind of deal going on with McKenzie, Vans, Clarks, Rockport and Nike Airforce with Silver Buckle Removed (whoever that last one is)?

“Are you thus in favour of sending kids of 11 out into the streets with no protection or guardian or food or drink during the school day? ”

They’re 11 for godsake. I know we live in an age that increasingly infantalises ‘children’ until their mid-twenties, to the extent where many children entering primary school can barely talk or dress themselves but this is ridiculous.

I remember a time when 11 year olds used to manage just fine by themselves (and I’m not yet out of my 20s).

Any parent who sends their child to school without paying close attention to the uniform policy is responsible for neglect.

“Strict school uniform rules are not about looking smart, they’re about selecting pupils by wealth, without admitting to doing so directly. This is why many schools require the uniform be purchased from a sole supplier charging hundreds of pounds, and identical looking cheaper uniforms are not accepted.”

Yeah, it’s much better to let kids go in whatever designer gear is in fashion this week. Muppet!

Everything about this is ridiculous, the behaviour of the headmaster, then the behaviour of the parents for assaulting the teachers. What must the kids think?

@29 Perhaps you could point to where I said that.

Richard

Whatabout those lefty Lib Dems who have been much less vocal about a whole host of longstanding state practices over the last two years?

Paul d

I’m sure much of what you have said if fair and reasonable, but it would surely have been better for Richard to say that rather than just go for a bit of an anti-lefty attack that doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny (lets face it, this site was pretty hostile to the last Labour government large because that government was rather authoritarian).

Also – I should add – I actually don’t like school uniforms. I much prefer that children be required to dress smart and abide by a dress code – as is common in the workplace for adults. But that’s less because I don’t like the establishmenty nature of uniforms (few people in establishment actually wear uniforms anyway) and more because I don’t like patronising children and much prefer to treat them as grown-ups in what limited ways we can.

On the other hand – I have no problem with children having to ask to leave the class room for whatever reason, since they are at school and are expected to be in the classroom for a reason.

@ 29 Adam

“Yeah, it’s much better to let kids go in whatever designer gear is in fashion this week. Muppet!”

That’s right, because there’s no middle ground whatsoever between ludicrously pernickety and draconically enforced uniforms (down to the brand of the shoes, FFS) and kids just turning up in jeans and hoodies.

Only muppet I can see on this thread is you.

@23 planeshift

I’m still laughing!

@Tom iow #26:

Strict school uniform rules are not about looking smart, they’re about selecting pupils by wealth, without admitting to doing so directly.

To the contrary; to the extent that they are about wealth, they are about ensuring that the less well-off children don’t dread going into school because their parents can’t afford the designer gear that wealthier children’s parents buy for them. That applies to clothes, jewellery, makeup, the whole shebang; and professions of “rebellion” against uniform codes should be carefully considered in that light.

#33, “That’s right, because there’s no middle ground whatsoever between ludicrously pernickety and draconically enforced uniforms (down to the brand of the shoes, FFS) and kids just turning up in jeans and hoodies.”

That is so true.

People will always fond ways to subvert rules. The trick is to get them to do it in ways that don’t involve spending money.

Good reasons for uniforms and imposing the policy:

a) Minimal distinction between richer and poorer,
b) Wreckage of (generally) cheaper bits of uniform instead of the stuff they actually like
c) Helps with school togetherness / identity (apparently)
d) Discipline: an early lesson that you can’t always do what you want.

Speaking as a parent, b) is definitely a winner. Unlike this irresponsible Head.

@ 35

Agreed, Robin: that’s the only rule I’m sorta in favourish of school uniforms.

There are a lot of good things here frankly. Good uniform, permission to go to the toilet, forms of address for teachers. It is all part of discipline that a lot of schools have lost.

However, weird hand signals to convey what students should be saying is strange. Cards telling students how to speak to teachers instead of relying on basic etiquette and discipline…just odd.

“Please miss, Emily’s just wet herself”

“Emily, why didn’t you put your hand up?”

“I did miss, but it ran through my fingers”

@ 39 Freeman

Well, yeah. There are people who think that uniforms should be abolished and that teachers should be addressed as “Fred”. I’m ok with that, I see pros and cons. And there are probably people who think that kids should be able to wander out to the toilet without asking, although I think that’s a recipe for trouble. None of those things are the issue here.

What you’re describing in your first paragraph is a perfectly ordinary school. This, however, sounds like no ordinary school. Kids get sent home (or to wander around town alone all day, a much better recipe for trouble) for breaking rules that sound pretty pointless and almost Kafkaesque. Kids aren’t allowed to go to the loo in class time more than once a week (although the OP doesn’t make that clear), begging the question of whether peeing your pants is more conducive to learning. There seems to be an obsession with form over function.

And the really big question, one so big that none so far dare ask it, is: what kind of grown woman, communicating with teenagers, insists on calling a toilet break a “tinkle”? The whole thing sounds terrifyingly twee and twee-ly terrifying, like Professor Umbridge.

Having checked a more in-depth version of this story over at Representing The Mambo, I’m told that the kids were informed they would have their bags checked (not for guns or drugs, but to make sure their phones were off and that they had the right pencils), and that the cards say something like “I am missing a super-important learning opportunity because I need a tinkle”.

It really does sound like one tiresome individual with an overinflated ego is trying to hold the school in thrall, rather ineffectively. Dolores Umbridge again…

@41. Chaise Guevara

LOL! A lot of it sounded reasonable up until the point where students would communicate with hand gestures like chimps. What ever happened to “Excuse me, could I have a tissue” or a teacher saying. “If you phone goes off during class it will be taken away”.

She’s a new head at the school.
And its the start of a new term.

I guess most of us know that part of teacher training these days – is that it’s important to start with a new class being firm and forceful.

Later on you can mellow out and become the ‘firm but fair’ teacher that most people would respect being a good teacher.

But at the start – it’s all about the ‘firm’ – and about zero tolerance.

None of us here have asked what the school strengths and weaknesses are – that any new head must now address.

Maybe general flaunting of rules, to the detriiment of being able to teach classes ? Maybe not.

But without further info – I suspect it’s too easy to mock unfairly.

Zero tolerance on uniforms is not a wromg way to start a new school IMHO.

(And yes, I too think the hands-signals is curious)

Here’s the Ofsted report from Jan 2012:

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/1896805/urn/103506.pdf

The performance of boys was significantly below that of girls. Disabled students and those with special educational needs also make much less progress than expected in mathematics and
English…
In three lessons observed, behaviour was poor and
the learning of students was inadequate because of persistent low-level disruption…
As a result, boys as a whole lose out on the gains in important wider skills that many girls
achieve…
Some teachers do not follow the
school’s behaviour policy and have difficulty maintaining a disciplined learning
environment…
The school has not been effective in ensuring
consistency in the application of the behaviour policy…
Some teachers are still planning lessons that do not actively engage students…

By the way:

RedPasto – it was totally below the belt for you to pass on here info about this teacher’s previous love live.

What the hell has that got to do with this theme?

Have you so little respect for the teaching profession?

Blimey – that has made me angry.

@ 43 Freeman

“LOL! A lot of it sounded reasonable up until the point where students would communicate with hand gestures like chimps. What ever happened to “Excuse me, could I have a tissue” or a teacher saying. “If you phone goes off during class it will be taken away”.”

Well, yeah! I’m no disciplinarian, but a draconian school would not be worth writing home about. This, however, is just bizarre. And I suppose I shouldn’t have a problem with twee nonsense and hippy crap, but I have to admit it sets my teeth on edge. Seems like she has lots of groovy ideas and no idea what she’s doing.

@JV #44:

Maybe general flaunting of rules, to the detriiment of being able to teach classes ? Maybe not.

But without further info – I suspect it’s too easy to mock unfairly.

Zero tolerance on uniforms is not a wromg way to start a new school IMHO.

Disclosure: I have a daughter at a secondary school with relatively strict uniform rules, and I have no problem with such rules or their sensible enforcement.

We are however here talking about a 12-year-old girl on her first day at her new school being sent to an empty home because she was wearing the wrong shoes.

She cannot possibly have had a history of flouting uniform rules; not checking that there was an adult at home before sending her there without any previous warning was quite frankly disgracefully reckless, and if Gramnmerskool’s comment above is correct, a clear breach of school uniform policy:

The following footwear specifications are acceptable in our school and students wearing these will be allowed into mainstream lessons. Other students will be held in the main hall until the correct footwear is brought to school

There’s a bit more to this story though isn’t there? From that Birmingham Post article:

Miss Blencowe took over as head teacher in time for the new school year was after previous head Clive Owen resigned.

Teachers walked out three times in March amid claims of poor leadership and bad pupil behaviour at the school, which is set to become an academy.

And the Ofsted report from this year is pretty damning too. So a new headmistress is appointed to turn around a failing school – where one of the main problems is lack of discipline.

If you look at the flashpoints listed above, what is being implemented is an enforced uniform policy, no talking in class, no leaving class without a good reason, no mobile phones in class, and formal respect to be shown to teachers.

The fact that these requirements have caused outrage to pupils and parents alike may provide a hint as to why the school has been performing the way it has.

@ 49 TimJ

“The fact that these requirements have caused outrage to pupils and parents alike may provide a hint as to why the school has been performing the way it has.”

Or, you know, it’s because she’s decided to humiliate people for having a bladder, check through people’s bags like she’s playing cops and criminals, and hurl kids out onto the street all day because she doesn’t deem their shoes shiny enough.

But you can keep ignoring all the bits that don’t suit you if you want. A man hears want he wants to hear and disregards the rest…

On the ‘tinkle pass’ thing, the issue there is not the requirement that children be given a pass to cover them for being out of the classroom while going to the toilet but the wording on the pass which reads:

“I am missing a super learning opportunity because I need a tinkle.”

Given that is a secondary school we’re talking about, I’m inclined to doubt the claim that children are missing out on a ‘super learning opportunity’ purely on the basis that a school that genuinely provides a good education would not be resorting to the use of infantile language – ‘tinkle’, FFS – when communicating with children who are at least 11 years old.

That said, I think its fair to suspect that the infantile language on the pass is deliberately contrived in the hope that it will shame children into not asking to go to the toilet during lesson and represents a rather unpleasant and ill-conceived attempt to apply the ‘nudge’ bollocks to the school.

‘Tinkle’ is that how bodily functions are referred to by, err academics?

Anyway, supposing a pupil wants a ‘poo-poo’ – do they show FOUR fingers, or perhaps they just bend over and show the crack of their arse?

Or, you know, it’s because she’s decided to humiliate people for having a bladder, check through people’s bags like she’s playing cops and criminals, and hurl kids out onto the street all day because she doesn’t deem their shoes shiny enough.

I’d have thought that this is just an attempt to inculcate classroom discipline in a school with no history of it. Is “no mobile phones allowed in a classroom” really playing “cops and criminals”? Look at the Ofsted report – consistent low level disruption in class. Is that something you’d be happy to put up with – even though it’s damaging the educational attainment of the pupils? Or is it something you’d want to correct?

I’ve taught in the UK – albeit very briefly – and the easiest way for a class to disrupt a new teacher is a spate of “can I go to the loo” (or, more directly, getting up and walking off and saying when challenged “I need the loo!” nice and aggressively). You then get half the class following suit. How would you cope? It would be a lot easier if there was actually a school policy and you knew the head would back you up.

The other place I’ve taught was a mission school in Africa. Most pupils at UK schools would get something of a shock at the sort of discipline required in classrooms there.

@Tim J #53:

<blockquote.Is “no mobile phones allowed in a classroom” really playing “cops and criminals”?

No; but searching bags is. My daughter’s school’s policy is “if I hear or see it, it’s confiscated”. Much more sensible than looking for trouble.

And the published school policy on uniform was not to send the child home – see above. So she’s not even following her own rules. Arbitrary decisions in breach of school policy are no way to instil respect for school rules or discipline.

@ 53 TimJ

“I’d have thought that this is just an attempt to inculcate classroom discipline in a school with no history of it. Is “no mobile phones allowed in a classroom” really playing “cops and criminals”?”

You’re still doing it.

The issue isn’t a no-phones rule, it’s searching through kids’ bags as if they have no right to privacy.

Seriously, if you can’t talk about what’s actually there, why are you involved in the conversation at all? Did you look at the thread and think “Ooh, what this needs is an army of straw men”?

“Look at the Ofsted report – consistent low level disruption in class. Is that something you’d be happy to put up with – even though it’s damaging the educational attainment of the pupils? Or is it something you’d want to correct?”

I’d want to correct it. Now explain why humiliation, lack of privacy and potential pissed pants are the best way to do that.

“I’ve taught in the UK – albeit very briefly – and the easiest way for a class to disrupt a new teacher is a spate of “can I go to the loo” (or, more directly, getting up and walking off and saying when challenged “I need the loo!” nice and aggressively). You then get half the class following suit. How would you cope? It would be a lot easier if there was actually a school policy and you knew the head would back you up.”

My word! Something that actually applies to the story in question! Why not have a school policy that you stay sat down until the teacher says you can go to the loo? Rather than a card deliberately designed to demean the children in your care?

“The other place I’ve taught was a mission school in Africa. Most pupils at UK schools would get something of a shock at the sort of discipline required in classrooms there.”

Next time you complain about anything in the UK, I’m just going to shout “BE GRATEFUL YOU’RE NOT IN AFRICA!” at you. Fair?

“Any parent who sends their child to school without paying close attention to the uniform policy is responsible for neglect”

Ever been around kids?

Parent ensures kid is in new uniform and has polished shoes. Kid walks to school. Perhaps the walk involves going through a park or field (mine did), its raining or the kids stop to tackle the obesity crisis by playing football.

Lots of reasons why shoes may not be as shiny when pupil arrives as they were when they left the house.

One of the lawyers here can confirm this, but my understanding is that a school is legally responsible for the welfare of children once they reach their premises. So sending them home without checking whether parents will be there is a clear violation of this, if one child was hurt or suffered an accident the school would have had a lawsuit. Such negligence on the part of a manager would lead to displinary action in most places of work. But because tories have an unhealthy obsession with school uniforms they are praising this policy.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of a strict uniform policy, there were other ways she could have enforced it on the new day of term. She could have simply instructed teachers to inspect uniforms, issue letters to parents on violations of it, and imposed detentions/extra homework etc to those who violated it. Although at least to be consistent she should have made teachers carry a pass saying “I am missing an opportunity to teach by being forced to carry out this anal policy of ensuring your shoes look like a mirror”

Instead she’s made her school a national laughing stock, risked a lawsuit, but at least given her pupils a vaulable lesson; that people in positions of authority are stupid, impose rules that have no logic, and that the conservative party regards obedience to these stupid rules as more important that educating kids.

Chaise et al

Overall – I feel too many folks here are criticising a teaching professional without any basis in reality.

Are any of us in a responsinle job not open to people finding 1 thing we do curious or silly?

Why such disrespect for the teaching profession shown here?

To try and get this debate grounded in reality -hw about this:

If you want to criticise the new head of a difficult, failing, school: then you should first tell us what direct experience of such schools you have yourself.

Without that – the conversation here can so far removed from reality as when my teenagers explain what’s wrong with the way the English football team prepare for key games !

So – my personal experience of failing schools and teaching in general?
None direct. But I know very well 2 Heads (a Junior and a Primary – so not the same challenge as secndary I guess): one is abit of a trouble shooter, choose headships where the schools are not doing well and spend 5-10 years there to sort them out.
Both tell me constantly that Parents are a bigger problem than the kids! A particularly big challenge to get parents to cooperate with the school in enforcing rules on their ‘darling little child’ !

So Chaise – how about you as you’ve chipped in a good whack: what’s your experience of failing schools and teaching?

@ 57 JV

Boring ad homs are boring. I’ll be sure to bring this up every time you express an opinion on something outside of your career path, though.

It’s interesting that the two people defending this school are apparently incapable of discussing the issues. Tim’s straw manning the entire thread, and JV is desperate to play the man, probably because he doesn’t know how to kick the ball.

I pretty much agree with Planeshift, in that ill-considered and/or poorly applied rules can be almost as damaging as not having rules in the first place.

I did stop nodding at “and that the conservative party” though. All that from one Head, after a few days, and without hearing her side of the story?

The latest revelations on the Katyn massacre have also been revealing: the left murdered 22,000 Poles in cold blood, then the Democrats covered it up. Yes, you Obama!

@ JV – My mother was head of department in a difficult inner city school. Achieved fantastic results given the circumstances, and would never have thought to waste her time enforcing an uneforceable uniform policy to kids that would have regarded being sent home as a ‘day off’, and parents that regarded school as a waste of time and uniforms as an unnecessary expense.

I’ve also undertaken research on behalf of LEAs into various aspects of school policies, although that was several years ago.

Thats a little more experience than you have I suspect…

Undoubtedly, this school had a problem that the new head is attempting to solve.

Since she had previously been successful in turning round a failing school, it could be assumed she is adopting the same strategy or, at least, a strategy based on her previous experience. A change in culture will always be resisted in any organisation and it needs strong leadership, and sometimes shock tactics, to effect it.

Of course what would be nice is if parents had a chance to select the kind of school regime they believed to be in the interests of their child.

Some will benefit from a highly authoritarian regime whilst others will not. If they had a voucher to spend, they could choose.

I’ve just noticed this on the ‘not acceptable’ list:

boots that go above the ankle in length

Jeebus, if my old secondary school had tried that one they have had to send half the lads at the school home, but then I come from a generation in which the standard school footwear for any self-respecting male was, as a minimum, a pair of ten hole DM’s, steel toecaps optional unless you were taking woodwork/metalwork as an option.

@61 Pagar

Completely agree. We need more discipline of children in schools preferably in the form of Academies where the teaching staff are free to do whatever they want.

Tim’s straw manning the entire thread

Not a bad effort for 2 short posts out of 63 that…

@JV #57:

Apart from having a daughter at a school that has a strict uniform policy with which I agree?

I only know one head well; the (just retired) head of a secondary school who took on a second, failing, school that needed a “superhead”. I don’t think she would have agreed Ms Blencowe’s approach…

I wonder what Sir Ken would make of it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=fvwrel

@ 64 Tim J

“Not a bad effort for 2 short posts out of 63 that…”

Yes, well done. Have a cookie.

Unity @ 62,
DM’s (shoes in particular) are actually perfect for school children.

Cool, hard-wearing to a bonkers degree, and whatever they might look like on day 1, they’ll look relatively very smart by day 10.

My kids had them briefly, but they seemed to go off the idea when we praised their sensible choice. Should have known better.

Doc Martens always crippled me, though I struggled on after laying out what was a fortune for me at the time. Thank goodness I discovered Kickers and Monkey boots!

DM shoes???

Ooh no, not when I was at secondary school (late 70s/early 80s) – the shoes looked far too much like the unflattering police issue stuff that WPCs used to tat around in for them to be cool.

Cool, in terms of DMs, was strictly a function of the number of laceholes in the boot. The 6-hole workbook was seriously uncool – worse than the shoes – especially if you got lumbered with the dimpled leather ones, while the 8 hole boots were considered minimally acceptable. To be considered cool, however, you needed a 10-hole pair of DMs as a minimum and you got cooler in proportion to the increasing number of lace holes you could wangle out of your parents, with extra brownie points if you could get a letter off your parents telling the school that your DMs were the only decent pair of shoes/boots you owned in order to get away with wearing a pair of cherry-reds.

Having the right pair of DM’s was a very serious matter back in the day.

@69 Kickers and Monkey boots? Perfectly acceptable female attire at the time but not something any of the lads would have been seen dead wearing.

My school had a slightly similar policy.

If the teacher wouldn’t let you go the toilet we’d stick two fingers up and go anyway.

Frankly they were lucky if we didn’t shit on their desk.

Unity, I remember those days, but I’m talking about much younger children in the early 90s (including female).

Please tell me you didn’t gob by the way.

Unity @ 62,
DM’s (shoes in particular) are actually perfect for school children.

I wore Docs for school.

My brother still does – and he’s a teacher. He teaches chemistry and they are resistant to pretty much anything short of Alien blood.

And I’m wearing Docs now even though I work in an office so wearing Docs has proven good preparation for work for both of us.

“and one finger in the air indicates the need for a pencil”

Which finger?

@70. Unity: “To be considered cool, however, you needed a 10-hole pair of DMs as a minimum…”

Clarification point, in advance: I have never been a father so I cannot be trendy Dad.

But my non-work footwear is black patent DMs (10 hole) or blue tartan patents (similar but less comfortable). I wear jeans over the DMs, rather than skinhead style. I think that I should buy a red pair of patent DM boots for when my work shoes fall apart.

Chaise

> Seems like she has lots of groovy ideas and no idea what she’s doing.

This is not her first headship. nor her first failing school it seems.

But in your book she has ‘no idea’ ?

Seriously Chaise, you’re losing the reasonable approach of your better days.

@ JV

“This is not her first headship. nor her first failing school it seems.

But in your book she has ‘no idea’ ?”

OK. She may have good experience in the day-to-day running of a school, and for all I know is a skilled educator, but for some reason wants to push her singular and unpleasant ideas. Like booting kids out to wander the streets. Better?

“Seriously Chaise, you’re losing the reasonable approach of your better days.”

I over-egged it a bit above, but I’m not taking this from the guy who wrote a 10-post ad hom up-thread.

*10-paragraph, I meant!

A tinkle pass allowing one trip to the toilet a week? Won’t that be fun for girls with erratic and heavy periods? They’ll like the boys laughing at the stains on their skirts/trousers when they aren’t allowed to the toilet to change when they need to unexpectedly. Or will the school issue “heavy unexpected menstruation” passes?