Mood: Sing the title in the tune of Poppin’ Collars from the Jamie Foxx Show. 

Last month, Woodchurch High School, located in Birkenhead, England, banned the wearing of expensive coats such as a Moncler or Canada Goose due to socioeconomic status slander and feelings. Story here

Story Recap

Woodchurch High School officials decided that they were not going to allow students to wear expensive coats to school. These coats, Moncler and Canada Goose, cost about $1,200 and they don’t want the “poorer” students who can’t afford them to feel ashamed or inadequate. 

For people who cannot afford such expensive items, the article mentions that the school is noticing the effect on them b/c they aren’t coming to school as often and some are bullied.  

By taking away the right to wear these coats, the school believes that they are leveling the playing field, but this isn’t the only thing they have taken away from the students. In the past, they have disallowed teachers to ask students about their weekend activities as well as taken away the right to buy pencil cases. 

The article mentions that the students are less distracted and can focus more on learning and less on clothing. It was also mentioned that the parents have been supportive of the bans. 

A Rant in my Spirit

Okay, I get it! 


The school doesn’t want students to be made to feel any different from their peers and they want all students to focus on their education without distractions.

However, how can they ban expensive coats when there are sneakers and other items such as electronics, that can solicit the same results they’re trying to minimize? 

What do I mean? 

The inequality between the students, even without the coats, can still form in other ways. 

Let’s be real. 

There are iPhones, Jordans, laptops, tablets, LeBrons, purses, jewelry, cars, and other things that can have the same effect on those “poorer” students than the expensive coats do.

So, my question becomes if you take away the coats, what will they take away next? Are school officials going to ban jewelry? Sneakers? Phones?

Are they gonna stop teachers from asking about how someone’s pet is doing? Talking about job opportunities? College acceptances? Caring for a hangnail? 

A Word of Advice:

download (1)

I understand the need and drive to keep students engaged in their education, but you can’t take everything away to appease the “poorer” students and make it more comfortable for them.

Not only is that not realistic, but it doesn’t help them to learn how to handle the situation properly in the real world. To me, this just seems like a band-aid on a gunshot wound. A short-term solution to a long-term problem. 

While it works for now and seems giving them the results they want as well as the support from the parents they need, it still doesn’t prove that students are really learning anything from this course of action in the long run.

Agree or disagree? Comment below.