We previously discussed whether England was becoming a “Nanny State,” including the effective banning of nannies. The concern is that well-intentioned measures are creating climate of governmental control and the gradual reduction of rights in England, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Now a school in England has been students from wearing “expensive” jackets because it may “poverty shame” other students. It is not clear who will make the judgment of a jacket that is too expensive to wear or wear parents are to shop to guarantee that they are not dressing their kids too well.
The concern over the feeling of other kids about clothes is not unfounded. Indeed, one of the reasons for school uniforms is that it removes the whole array of issues surrounding clothing. However, outer coats are generally not regulated. What is interesting is that the school appears to have school uniforms.
The letter sent to parents of kids at Woodchurch High School in Merseyside informed parents that “pupils will not be permitted to bring in Canadian [sic] Goose and Monclair [sic] coats after the Christmas break.” Those items can apparently go as high as $900 (at the rate my kids lose their jackets, there is no chance they will be seeing their items in their closets).
Parents reportedly asked for the prohibition on other parents with one saying “They feel stigmatised, they feel left out, they feel inadequate.” So the solution is not to simply speak to your kids but seek to bar other parents in choosing coats?
22 thoughts on “English School Bans Expensive Coats To Prevent “Poverty Shaming””
Years ago I had a woman come in my store and as often happens we developed a conversation. She told me her daughter came home from school one day and she was crying. So she asked her daughter what was wrong. The daughter sobbingly said, When I was in gym class today, I was the only girl who didn’t have designer underwear.
And yet the likes of isaac goe on a diatribes to tell us just how more advanced and better all of the rest of the developed nations are than us?
There isn’t much actual poverty in Britain as the term would have been understood the year my father was born. There is anomie, there is what sociologists call ‘social disorganization’, there is anxiety, there is insecurity.
Those kids with imaginative parents would be wearing old horse blankets to school, potatoes sacks, etc. This seems more of an opportunity for creativity and comment rather than limiting one’s wardrobe. A long time ago, I bought my 12 year old nephew a leather White Sox jacket. He proudly wore it to school where a bully stole it from him. Lessons in life are to be learned not avoided.
I think the idea is good, but they should go after the kicks for after school wear. Some of those can go to $2k or better.
They should instead go dressed as bums to see if they get harassed for “posh shaming”.
Are that many kids wearing $900 coats that there are kids feeling left out? If Johnny has nice things, Jack has to make him not enjoy them unless Jack gets one, too? What kind of message does this send? These kids are going to graduate, and go out into the world, where they will encounter well off, well-dressed people, as well as shabbily dressed people. This is how you produce adults that think Socialism is a grand idea. Everyone gets it, or no one does.
These schools are attacking fashion houses’ children’s lines.
Canada Goose kids jackets go from $425 to $750, with a vest for $275. “Built for superior outdoor durability, our Logan Parka is a high-performance jacket that holds warmth in the harshest conditions. Additional fabric extends in the sleeves, which means it will grow with your child as he or she gets bigger. Providing essential warmth and protection, this modern design will surely become a seasonal favourite.” The design allows the sleeves to be lengthened, extending the years of use. If you buy something of quality that lasts 3 years, how does the cost compare to buying a kid a new coat ever year? Winter in England is so cold. I’d invest in the warmest, highest quality coat I could afford if we lived there. It may not be $750, but it would be the best I could provide.
School uniforms are fine. If they are going to quibble about coats, then the school should provide a uniform coat. Otherwise, this is teaching the children intolerance, and that they have the right to control what others have. Not a good trend.
I agree. There never seems to be a limit.
Problem solved…..Go naked
An Indian tribe does it everyday in Peru. They wear a waist belt, wrist braces & carry a wooden whistle. This rare video of Mashco-Piro was taken in 2014. There was some talk, then the Mashco signals to 200 warriors hiding behind the tree line. It was an ambush. The guy recording the video cuts it & runs for his life. The village of Monte Salvado, Peru was destroyed.
I went to an English boarding school which mandated uniforms in order to avoid that very problem.
Unfortunately the school required the uniforms to be bought at one store – a very expensive outfitters where the required “kit” came to over 1,200 pounds (in 1969)!
Several boys who won scholarships could not afford the uniforms and so did not attend.
The rule making do-gooders have still not grasped the law of unintended consequences.
OFF TOPIC….What about the princess”s e-mails?
TDS seems to be most virulent in the morning.
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
I am just going to cut and paste, since you’ve asked this question on all threads.
Sure, Fish Wings. Here is Professor Turley’s take on the matter:
I agree that it was baffling for her to conduct any business, no matter how trivial, on a private email. However, due to the precedent set by Hillary Clinton, she could send the plans to the latest nuclear sub to her nanny and not get prosecuted.
Similarities – she discussed government scheduling business through a private email.
Differences – She didn’t lie about the private email, she didn’t withheld records of those emails from the government, destroy private emails discussing government business, set up a series of private servers in her bathroom, where anyone with access to her house with zero security clearance could access them, she didn’t have tech guys without any clearance back it up to the Cloud, which is like shouting the contents on the street corner, she did not distribute classified information, she didn’t lie and claim she didn’t recognize classified material or markings, she didn’t destroy thousands of those emails while under subpoena, she didn’t wipe her pirate server where she hid her communications with Bleach Bit and Acid Wash, and then lie about it, shrug her shoulders, mug for the camera, and ask, “Do you mean, did I wipe it with a cloth?”
What Ivanka did was wrong. It is not in the same galaxy as what Hillary Clinton did. After Hillary Clinton got off for acts several orders of magnitude greater and in violation of multiple federal laws including the mishandling of classified information, they had better not look hard at Ivanka, who never discussed any classified information at all.
That said, really Ivanka?
Hope this clarifies the question obviously preying upon your mind today.
and the women in large but probably not majority numbers rejected first class citizenship with it’s rights and responsibilities to stay with life as a baby factory producing replacement for the next war.
No sign of them being involved in rejecting the draft and the corresponding status of men as cannon fodder. Nor did the women reject the freebie access to college money while the man have to change their draft status to ‘on call volunteers.’ nor supporting the notion ‘if it’s worth doing enough will volunteer, if enough do not volunteer it’s not worth doing.’ R. Heinlein.
Think the draft is gone? Stupid is as stupid does go to sss.gov – read it and weep. It only takes five minutes to put it into action and you give them an up to date list of who to ‘call.’ Replaced every year on the men’s 18th birthday.
You can thank Charles Wrangel for that.
and for the record the /s/ 24 years combat arms and zero time as a REMF.
Two best pieces of advise ever given.
Means two things but use the double negatives e.g ‘we don’t need no’ translates to ‘we need some.’ it’s a plaintive cry for help, for real education, and a rejection of what passes for educators. Followed by broad hint for the students to follow Frank Zappas admonition IF they want a better life…. and the last line condemns the present system
Daddy’s flown across the ocean
Leaving just a memory
Snapshot in the family album
Daddy what else did you leave for me?
Daddy, what’d’ja leave behind for me?!?
All in all it was just a brick in the wall.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.
We don’t need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it’s just another brick in the wall.
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall.
I don’t need no arms around me
And I dont need no drugs to calm me.
I have seen the writing on the wall.
Don’t think I need anything at all.
No! Don’t think I’ll need anything at all.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.
All in all you were all just bricks in the wall.
Zappa “If you want to get laid go to college if you want an education read a book (sometimes go to the library.) And it places the responsibility on the individual instead of a failed system of society.
For those smart enough to decipher it’s a way out of ridiculous poverty a path to choose something else besides continued failure. For the rest well there is your reason for the existence of the Stupid Party.
courtesy a free independent unaffiated self governing citizen. Just as the founders intended.
toss as brick it’s ‘unaffiliated.
There is a town in the eastern sector of North Carolina named “Kinston”. Up until the time of the American Revolution it was spelled and pronounced “Kingstown”. The most bitching about the change comes from the women who live in that town. They “lost the G spot” and complain as if they are still Brits.
If the parents comply then it’s their own damn fault.
For this, and the Leeds story:
Wrapping themselves in a socially expensive cloak of virtue.
It’s a knockoff.
Comments are closed.