School in England bans designer Canada Goose and Moncler jackets

RadishRose

RadishRose

SF VIP
Location
Connecticut, USA
......to keep poorer students from feeling bullied.


Pupils have been banned from wearing expensive designer coats to school to stop other kids feeling poor.


Woodchurch High School in Wirral, in Northwest England, says students are no longer allowed to dress in jackets from Canada Goose, Moncler or Pyrenex, which cost up to 1,000 pounds ($1,280) each.


The Church of England academy sent a letter home to parents informing them that the ban is part of a "poverty proofing" scheme, according to MailOnline.
The letter said: "As you are all aware from an email that was sent out yesterday, pupils will not be permitted to bring in Canadian (sic) Goose and Monclair (sic) coats after the Christmas break.

What do you think of the ban?
 

I think children might as well learn that there are rich people and poor people in the world. I don't know how we all managed to survive without all the PC rules that keep children "protected" and award them the participation trophies nowadays.
 
Good for Woodchurch. Teen years are difficult enough without this sort of incitement to schoolday class friction between the haves and the have nots.
 

C'est Moi said:
I think children might as well learn that there are rich people and poor people in the world. I don't know how we all managed to survive without all the PC rules that keep children "protected" and award them the participation trophies nowadays.
Click to expand...

I agree. I mean this definition of "bullying" is taking things too far. If some kids can afford to wear designer coats why shouldn't they? No one is being physically injured or hurt by this. We can't protect children from reality. As adults, they will have to deal with it everyday. Youth is a time for learning how to cope with the real world as an adult.
 
C'est Moi said:
I think children might as well learn that there are rich people and poor people in the world. I don't know how we all managed to survive without all the PC rules that keep children "protected" and award them the participation trophies nowadays.
Click to expand...

chic said:
I agree. I mean this definition of "bullying" is taking things too far. If some kids can afford to wear designer coats why shouldn't they? No one is being physically injured or hurt by this. We can't protect children from reality. As adults, they will have to deal with it everyday. Youth is a time for learning how to cope with the real world as an adult.
Click to expand...

I agree with you both, kids shouldn't be kept in a protective bubble away from reality...and aren't some putting too much importance on a piece of clothing also? I never heard of those brands, looked them up, nothing very impressive IMO. I didn't have much money growing up, wore a lot of hand me down or off-brand clothing. I always was aware that there were other families who were richer and could buy those things, I was never jealous or felt any less of myself and my family. I think the ban is too extreme and unnecessary.
 
I agree that it's extreme and unnecessary.

Some people are rich, some poor, many in between. That's real life.

What's next - people not being allowed to drive a Mercedes or BMW to work because people who have older cars or take public transportation might feel inferior? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I do not agree with the ban. Kids need to learn everything isn't equal. Let those rich kids wear their $1200 jackets.

I know one rich teenager who buys most of her cloths at thrift stores and she prefers things from the 40s, 50s and 60s. And they aren't fancy cloths either. She also volunteers at a woman's shelter and at Christmas each member of her family gives a cash gift to the charity of their choice and then just give each other small gifts. So I don't think people should be judged by what they wear or don't wear.

There are some places where everyone basically dresses alike, I sure don't want to go there to live.

I was always the poorest dressed child in my class and I surely knew other families had more money than mine. But I grew up into a kind compassionate person.
 
RadishRose said:
......to keep poorer students from feeling bullied.


Pupils have been banned from wearing expensive designer coats to school to stop other kids feeling poor.


Woodchurch High School in Wirral, in Northwest England, says students are no longer allowed to dress in jackets from Canada Goose, Moncler or Pyrenex, which cost up to 1,000 pounds ($1,280) each.


The Church of England academy sent a letter home to parents informing them that the ban is part of a "poverty proofing" scheme, according to MailOnline.
The letter said: "As you are all aware from an email that was sent out yesterday, pupils will not be permitted to bring in Canadian (sic) Goose and Monclair (sic) coats after the Christmas break.

What do you think of the ban?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking the school doesn't want the responsibility of keeping the expensive jackets from being lost or purloined. In my experience kids tend to lose expensive items through their own carelessness and rather than 'fess up to the parents they claim that the item was stolen. The school then spends a lot of time playing detective and fending off hostile parents before the item turns up somewhere the kid left it the last time they used it, or in the case of clothing, where they took it off and left it.
 
Just wanted to add a final thought, kids with nice clothes are not immune to bullying themselves. I was badly bullied and picked on everyday in elementary school. It was a parochial school. We wore uniforms so our clothes had nothing to do with it. I was punched, kicked, spat upon, you name it. But I did have nice coats, rings, bracelets and hats. (Yes we sometimes we wore hats back then). I learned to find comfort and self esteem in these things and even got compliments on them from other kids who would bully and abuse me. It all served to teach me important life lessons and coping mechanisms. What's inside is what matters and having healthy self esteem is important.
 
What parent in their right mind would pay that amount of money for a school coat.......the stuck up snobby type out to make an impression.

I have never heard of any of those brands, not only are they ridiculously expensive (especially for school children), looking at the logos you also have to pay for the privilege of advertising for the companies.

The school has done right in my opinion especially if it helps to stop bullying in schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pam
I think the pupils should all wear uniforms and the school should stick to educating them in the subjects they need to learn
 
My secondary school had a tyrannical principal who insisted on all pupils wearing a school uniform. This started to fall apart in the 60's when we senior pupils started to rebel by wearing non regulation scarves, hats and overcoats. It was reluctantly agreed to relax the rules for senior pupils, but this never led to any bullying, jealousy etc.. as most of us were from pretty equal backgrounds. Perhaps the most distinguishing feature was the quality of shoe you wore - and how well you could tie a 'Windsor knot' in your tie.
 
I think the best thing to do was to make the children were uniforms. In my day I went to a Catholic school and we wore uniforms. My Granddaughter goes to a public school and they also wear uniforms. It makes things easy on the parents also since they have the children's school clothes without going crazy picking out what to wear each day.
 
I'm not sure where you'd draw the line in this case. Is a $1000 coat a no-no but a $999 coat would be OK? What about a used $1200 coat that you bought at a thrift shop for $400? If you ban the $1200 Brand "A" jacket, the kids will just wear the $1200 Brand "B" jacket. There always have been and there always will be a great divide between the haves and the have-nots.

Personally, I thinks it's absolute ridiculous to put $1200 coats and $500 sneakers on kids, but it's not my place to regulate what other parents buy their kids.

I like the idea of uniforms for school. My granddaughter attended a public elementary school that had a uniform....white or forest green polo shirts with the school logo and khaki pants, skirts, or shorts. That's a great equalizer but unless there's also a uniform coat or shoes, there you go with the great UN-equalizer again.
 
Warrigal said:
I'm thinking the school doesn't want the responsibility of keeping the expensive jackets from being lost or purloined. In my experience kids tend to lose expensive items through their own carelessness and rather than 'fess up to the parents they claim that the item was stolen. The school then spends a lot of time playing detective and fending off hostile parents before the item turns up somewhere the kid left it the last time they used it, or in the case of clothing, where they took it off and left it.
Click to expand...

The article states "A secondary school in Merseyside has banned pupils from wearing expensive designer coats in an attempt to stop “poverty shaming”." So no mention of items being stolen, and why would the school be responsible for theft anyway?
 
jujube said:
I'm not sure where you'd draw the line in this case. Is a $1000 coat a no-no but a $999 coat would be OK? What about a used $1200 coat that you bought at a thrift shop for $400? If you ban the $1200 Brand "A" jacket, the kids will just wear the $1200 Brand "B" jacket. There always have been and there always will be a great divide between the haves and the have-nots.

Personally, I thinks it's absolute ridiculous to put $1200 coats and $500 sneakers on kids, but it's not my place to regulate what other parents buy their kids.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top