From sensible uniform policy to idiotic control freakery. Take a bow Matthew Tate.
So the wrangle over uniforms grumbles into its third day and this man makes himself look even more of a tit than he did before. Now, I have no problem with a uniform policy. When I was at school we had a fairly sensible uniform policy in place – black blazer and trousers, grey shirt and school tie. Shoes weren’t mentioned. Not until some plonkers turned up with their Doc Martins spray painted silver, but the school pretty soon put a stop to that.
So, all in all, a no-fuss, sensible policy that needed little in the way of policing. Where Tate has gone horribly wrong is that he has adopted a highly prescriptive approach to every item of clothing, so a child with perfectly suitable black shoes is sent home because they are suede not leather (suede is leather), and there is a tiny little bit of brown in them. It’s at this point the policy crosses the line. The shoes are perfectly sensible and perfectly fit for the purpose. Tate is being overly officious.
His excuses are that it instills discipline and respect.
Let’s deal with these shall we?
Discipline is essential in the classroom. The wearing of prescriptive uniform is not necessary for this to happen. Discipline is about a state of mind – a state of presence from the teaching staff, as is asserting authority. I recall teachers who could do this with a look; didn’t matter a fig what we were wearing. A simple uniform of sweatshirt and slacks will work perfectly well. Also, the best form of discipline is self-discipline and that comes from self-respect. Respect for others and authority is not necessarily a given; it has to be earned. If Matthew Tate wants respect for himself, his establishment and the education system, he has gone the wrong way about it.
This is not just a kick-back from a few parents who couldn’t be arsed (although in some cases, it clearly was), there are parents here who sent their children to school in perfectly acceptable clothing, that Tate took exception to because he is micromanaging to the point of absurdity. I certainly don’t respect him because he is so obviously a control freak, so why should his charges? This is not the armed services, where people willingly enter into a contract to be put through this kind of nonsense. These are children in school and the parents are his customers.
There is an argument that they need to understand that rules are in place and must be obeyed. Well, yes, maybe. Rules that are patently absurd simply engender contempt. They undermine those rules that are absolutely necessary – for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools, if you were. The wearing of black suede causes no harm. The proscription against them serves no purpose other than “it’s the rules innit”. The rule is clearly silly, for it is a rule for the sake of having a rule and will merely bring the rules as a whole into disrepute – deservedly so.
Also, when it comes to such things as discipline and rules, I would rather an educated free-thinker in my organisation who was able to challenge a rule than a compliant drone who obeyed without thought. Clearly Matthew Tate is intent on creating the latter. He is a buffoon. He has made himself look foolish. It really is time he stopped. A sensible school uniform policy can be created and enforced without this nonsense.
Addendum: To those of you commenting in support of Tate, I would make the following observation. Nowhere have I suggested that a uniform policy for schools is a bad idea. It does tend to limit distractions. It does not, however, instil respect, for that is something that has to be earned.
My issue with Tate is not one of principle, but of proportion. He clearly has no concept of what is proportional. That he has ended up all over the front pages tends to underline this assessment. A sensible policy, sensibly policed would have avoided all of this. And nowhere is there any evidence that the parents on the whole are deliberately flouting the policy or that their charges have never heard the word “no”. This is largely a myth without any supporting evidence.
David Niven told of the time a director wanted him to cry for a particular scene. He said he couldn’t cry to order and the director asked him to repeat it a little louder so he did. The director then turned to the rest of the crew and said “What we have here is an actor who can’t act”.
Matthew Tate is obviously a teacher who can’t teach. I’ve stopped being surprised by teachers who admit they can’t teach but maybe he should consider a change of career, something where being a stickler for the minutiae of the rules would be an advantage, traffic warden perhaps.
Well, indeed. Reading some of the complaints it seems that people genuinely believed they had followed the policy, but the policy changes according to the whim of the headteacher (blazer one day, shoes the next even though the shoes were okay the previous day) or is not sufficiently clear and simple. That said, the majority of those shown in the pictures who were sent home looked perfectly fine to me. As I said, this is a school, not the army.
Even power freak wheedle themselves into these positions of power. It’s about time we brought back the cane and that people started to push back on these petty tyrants. The council would do something if enough complained.
Might yet. I doubt the publicity has gone down too well.
I hate to say it but I actually support the guy although I take your point that one can be too over officious.
The school has a uniform policy and parents should respect that and dress their kids accordingly. But then I would say that as I went to a Public School. Incorrectly dressed pupils were sent home to change and this was never questioned because the parents respected the school.
The problem these days is that adults don’t respect rules. Any rules. They just think that they’re above such things. It’s one of the reasons this country is rapidly going down the shitter and descending into a state of anarchy where people feel they can do any damn thing they like.
From what I can gather, the policy is not only far too prescriptive, but was sufficiently ambiguous that parents thought they were compliant. The reaction could – and should – have been rather more adult. A letter to parents in the first instance. But that said, a much looser uniform policy would have been more sensible as well. The bloke’s a jerk.
On the subject of rules, if they are patently absurd or overly officious for the sake of it, then yes, disobedience is inevitable. I’ve spent a lifetime kicking back against silly rules. I am sufficiently aware that I can recognise the sensible ones and ignore the silly ones. It does not instil respect for authority in me as that has to be earned. Making up officious rules merely earns my undying contempt and I react accordingly.
Kids will always try and bend the rules (trainers instead of shoes, black jeans instead of trousers etc), not just because they are stroppy kids, but because if they get away with it, their position in their peer group rises, and that is what motivates kids today. If nothing is said, then someone else will go one step further and bleat, “But sir, Shane (or Chardonnay Beyonce) wore …….. and nothing was said. So why can’t I wear this?” And so it goes. For a lot of those kids turned away, it was probably the first time in their lives that anyone has said “No, you can’t do/wear that.” and they don’t like it. Apart from the (sponsored) footwear worn by athletes or footballers (footballers are not athletes IMHO), a team wears the same uniform; servicemen and women wear the same uniforms, subject to their sex and regiment or corps; as do ambulance crews and fire fighters. This instills not only discipline but an assertion that they are all part of a team which should work together. Can you imagine a Man U supporter wearing a blue shirt because it shows off their fake tan better? If these kids (and their parents) don’t accept that this dress code is there for a reason, then they will find it difficult to accept other rules they will meet later in life (“Brown, you moron. Who said you can wear flip flops to work on a building site?” ).
School is not the place for fashion shows, especially ones which will place one child above another in the school pecking order. If they want to dress up like Miley Cyrus or Julian Clary, do it after school.
I’m with the Head teacher, and others like him.
Of course kids will bend the rules. That can be managed without this massive overreaction by anyone with an iota of understanding of human psychology. This just tells me that he has no idea about how to engender respect and discipline. It has undermined his authority, not enforced it. And, go back to what I said earlier, parents believed that their children were compliant. This suggests that the policy was poorly put together. And, again, I repeat, a simple easily enforced policy makes sense.
I just passed a whole lot of kids coming home from school today. They were all wearing uniform. Sure some variation in shoes for example, but all were sensible and appropriate. Tate is a buffoon. So, no, I do not support him. He’s just the kind of small-minded, petty tyrant that would have made me rebel at school. And I wasn’t natural rebel.
As for the team point – all of those you mention choose to be a part of that team. School is thrust upon children. When I was at school, I refused to take part in some sporting event or other. The head of house berated me for lack of loyalty. I’ll say now what I said to her. Loyalty is earned. There was nothing in my school or my house that did anything to earn loyalty and it didn’t get it. I was there to learn, not be part of a team. It’s a school – enforced imprisonment for a decade of our childhoods. It is not the armed services, or emergency services, so the comparison does not hold up. If it wants respect and loyalty, then it had better put some effort into earning it. Matthew Tate has a lot to learn about that, frankly.
As for Brown and his flip-flops, see my comments above about sensible rules and those imposed for no good reason. This one falls into the latter camp. Given my industry is full of rules for very good reason and people obey them, I deduce, actually, adults are perfectly capable of recognising the difference and parents, realise that this one is just plain silly.
“For a lot of those kids turned away, it was probably the first time in their lives that anyone has said “No, you can’t do/wear that.””
Spot on! And this is the crux of the matter. I hope he sticks to his guns.
If it was a sensible and pragmatic policy, I’d agree with you. However, even children are capable of recognising petty bossiness for what it is. When I was at school, I resented wearing a tie. So as soon as I was out of sight, I took it off. I didn’t wear one for years – even when exhorted to by employers. I lived. Thing is, the rule was absurd. I could see it, they could see it. Rules that exist solely for the sake of imposing rules undermines the obedience of rules that are necessary. Better a free thinker than an automaton.
I agree with Longrider on this one. A sensible school uniform policy sensibly enforced is a good thing, Everyone seems to be in agreement so far. This however, seems to be something else entirely and it appears that Matthew Tate is making a fool of himself.
I did see one suggestion that made some sense. The school provides the uniform and parents order from them. Well, in that case, being pedantic will be simple because you enforce what you supply. As it is, there is frequently more than one supplier for uniforms in my experience, consequently, they aren’t uniform.
If the school has a monopoly on supply, what will happen to the price? I recall a story that was covered on the Jeremy Vine Show, where a single supplier was providing the school’s uniforms at about five times the going rate. The supplier was paying the school for being made the sole provider of the uniform. Students were stamped on for having almost identical, but not quite, uniforms from different suppliers that cost a fifth of the price. Middle class parents were going along with the racket because the riff raff were being kept out of the school by the fact that their parents couldn’t afford the uniform. They were basically paying a subsidy in order to get an exclusive school that was nevertheless paid for by the state.
I thought that the whole thing stank and that criminal charges should have been brought against the school and the supplier. Of course Vine’s witless acolytes entirely missed the point.
That’s always a possibility, of course. I wonder what happens with other uniform suppliers where there is only one issuer, such as the police?
That said, I only mentioned it as a solution to the kind of extreme detail Tate is insisting upon. The best solution is a simple uniform that is affordable and easily managed. One of the schools around here uses sweatshirts/polo shirts and plain black slacks. Looks fine, works okay and all the kids wear it. And, being very simple is easy to police.