Exclusion for hair?(41 Posts)
I need some help with an issue regarding my sons hair. He was isolated today and was not permitted to attend any of his lessons. Reason for this was because his hair was too short.
I did not get a letter from the school or a note given to my son. I checked the school's policies and their code of conduct and there is nothing regarding hair, only in regards to uniform and female student's wearing make-up and jewelry.
Can they do this? Legally?
for your earlier comments, free range.
I wish more people in education shared your point of view.
I monitored internal exclusion last period today. The pupils in there had half-heatedly completed a couple of worksheets and effectively learned nothing all day.
Well according to the op he was in isolation, which means he was given work but isolated from his peers. He wasn't being denied an education.
Creamteas - that was exactly the point I was making!
Titchy Technically if the child is in school they are receiving an education.
But in my experience the education provided in internal exclusion areas is not comparable to what they would be doing in the classroom. He will not necessarily be following the usual scheme of work, or have access to specialist areas (such as science labs). So whilst they are still being educated, they are denied the education they should have received
So what are the school doing to him titchy ?
Whatever posters' feelings about uniform and hair regulations, let's just be absolutely clear - the OP's child is NOT being denied his education. I doubt there is any state school in the land that would EXCLUDE (as opposed to an internal exclusion) any child just for uniform infringements. In addition any child that is excluded, is also provided with an education elsewhere.
So let's not believe that this child, or any other, is being denied an education because their hair or skirt is too short.
freerangeeggs I hope my (currently reception and pre-school aged) kids encounter as many teachers like you as possible in future! I am amazed and horrified at the idea of excluding a child from education for a haircut. And to those saying 'ah but lawyers can't have pink hair' - well I have a sneaking suspicion that the top set, engaged, clever child with pink hair that freerangeeggs mentioned, once they'd got their a-levels and a law degree, would probably work that one out for themselves without too much trouble. Though probably they would have the sense to choose a profession where pink hair is neither here nor there. I know a rather distinguished professor at a top university who has a fine head of purple/pink/green/orange hair, depending on her mood and the seasons, and it doesn't seem to have held her career back.
schools HAVE to make their kids employable
Many jobs are boring ,mundane .
I have coped with such jobs because my education allowed me to find other ways to nourish my mind and spirit .
I do so hope that this factor is included in the "making kids employable " .
freerangeeggs I wish you'd taught my son .
Uniform infringements are used subjectively in my experience, so not everyone who breaks the rules gets punished.
My eldest two DS were both very different pupils, one was academic, engaged positively and was a high achiever. His many and varied uniform infringements were never picked up on. The other one was not academic, hated school and did the minimum if that. He was not let off any of the uniform rules and attended many a DT as punishment (which only served to make his dissatisfaction with school greater).
The school always denied the difference, but it was there.
First of all, it's not me that makes my school policy. I tell the boys to do up their top buttons, tell the girls to pull their skirts down, etc just as often as I'm required to do. I'm glad I went to university for five years so that I could complete this difficult and important task. So the suggestion that I somehow impart to my pupils the opinion that 'appearances don't matter' (not my opinion that they don't - but yes, it's my opinion that they shouldn't) is frankly stupid and not based on anything I've said in my previous posts.
My suggestion in my previous post was that short hair is associated with certain racial and socio-economic groups and as such any rule against it will disproportionately affect children from those groups.
That's fine. Have a rule, even if it is pointless. But when the result of an infraction is the exclusion from education of a child whom the school is supposed to serve, you've crossed a line. It is no longer in the child's best interests and as such you are doing that child a disservice.
At the very least this is an over-the-top response to a minor infraction. I have seen children swear and shout at teachers, cause fights with other pupils, bully and throw chairs who received lesser punishments than this child has received for letting his mum cut his hair short.
And to the poster who said that "gender, race and sexuality don't matter" - you must be very naive.
There are very few jobs where a smart, clean appearance isn't required. I'm self employed and could turn up in whatever get up I wanted, however the business people who employ me may not be so impressed. New clients are offered a free hour of my time and, in that short time, I have to sell myself. That doesn't mean Burberry and Sorbie haircuts but it does mean smart and well kept.
i struggle to believe you are a teacher free range, if so you do your pupils a huge diservice if you have them think that appearances don't matter, or that many jobs do not have dress codes - even asda have uniforms!
Appearance and conformity - to an extent - are pretty crucial in a lot of professions. I'm a lawyer - we have policies at work about dress code and appearance. Clients expect professional standards and appearance is part of that. Might not be right, but it is the way of the world. Children need to learn that as they get older and apply for jobs (even Saturday jobs), they need to look smart and well-turned out (as well as learn to smile, have good posture, good handshake, eye contact and confidence).
It's a reality of life that people are judged for their appearance- I don't think that's going to change, and I don't think I want to fight to change it.
Appearances matter- gender, race, sexuality don't.
fair enough, but I am the person doing the hiring. get your pupils used to it.
Maybe if you, and others like you, are valuing appearance over skills and suitability then you're a much bigger problem that I am.
private school parents are able to create connections that state school kids have to find for themselves
sorry, but as an employer and hirer of subcontract firms, piercings, shaving and tattoos all SCREAM intellectual insecurity - and given the choice of 'comfortable' business contacts or 'edgy' ones, edgy lose out every time
skin colour is NOT the issue - my biggest problem is tattoo blue after all.
schools HAVE to make their kids employable - and if you think appearance is not integral to that, you are the problem.
Well he's not in a workplace. He's a child, in a school, and entitled to an education.
I'm a teacher. I don't understand all this bullshit about uniform. I think uniforms are a great idea, if they're practical. As it is, I watch children every day operate heavy machinery/cook/draw and write creatively wearing shirts (buttoned up to the top) and ties. Ties ffs! In a workshop!
And then schools just have to go and take it a bit further, often claiming that uniforms help children to prepare for the workplace. Because it's a difficult thing to learn, y'know - wear a tie to work.
What this comes down to, as unfortunately is the case with many English schools today, is marketing. Look how smart our children look! That MUST mean we're doing a good job. Look, OFSTED! They're wearing blazers! God forbid they should get a 'chavvy' haircut like those working class children.
I'm speaking from experience when I say that black/working class children are disproportionately affected by these ridiculous, pointless rules. The 'education' children receive in exclusion is NOT good enough to make up for time they lose in class. I've seen some very vulnerable children punished this way and it makes me very, very angry.
This is what comes of schools that are more interested in outward appearances than they are in children's wellbeing and learning. The best school I ever worked in had a lax uniform code; children came in with their hair dyed every colour under the sun. On one memorable occasion one of my clever, funny, hardworking top set boys came in with neon pink hair. The ethos was inclusive and warm, the discipline was the best I've ever seen and the children were heavily involved in various activities in the local community. The school is in the Good Schools Guide and had fantastic results.
These teachers need to find something more important to occupy their time than writing lists of approved haircuts.
is it in the school rules?
it is at our school.
race is not the issue
stop conflating issues
number 2 or 3 cut is just fine
number 1 cut is provocative in most situations - ESPECIALLY later workplaces ...
This makes me absolutely fume.
As soon as I read the OP, I wondered if the child was black/mixed race. I have seen this punishment meted out to many children of these backgrounds and as far as I can see it's institutionalised racism that for some reason is considered to be acceptable and remains unchallenged.
The children likely to get these styles of haircut are disproportionately black/mixed race/working class/male. The style is considered innappropriate partly because it is associated with these groups.
Exactly how is his (practical, sensible) hairstyle affecting his education or that of other pupils?
If it was my child I would absolutely flip my shit if he was excluded for this, school rules or no. This needs to be challenged more often.
Our school says no shorter than a grade 3, no hair dyes, no shaved patterns etc but it is all written down in the policy documents.
In fairness it does sound like a very extreme hair cut (less than grade 1 is a skin head surely?) so I can see why they aren't happy. Have you asked them to clarify the policy and explain how he will be supervised this week?
My DS1 had a one week break and lunchtime isolation because his hair was deemed to be too short. The school said it was too aggressive looking - He had a number 1 cut all over that was not aggressive. He was able to go to lessons with the other children, but not socialise with them at break times.
I was so angry (and aggressive) as it was me who had decided to cut his hair that length and not him. Also it was that length when he started in September and nobody said anything. It was so unfair.
I spoke to the Head of Year three times in the week to express my 'concern' and threaten to escalate this to the Headteacher, but on the Friday they said it had grown sufficiently for him to be able to have his breaks with his friends from the following Monday. How convenient! It did not look any different or less aggressive.
My DD's school (also in Essex) has a stated policy of no 'unnatural' hair colours, or internal exclusion, but nothing about LENGTH of hair.
And it seems hit and miss as to whether a child gets put into isolation for unnatural hair colour too. Y7's will definitely get put in iso, Y8 too. Y9 onwards is more subjective, and a dark red or plum is often OK, but a bright pillar box red, or bleached and dyed blue/green/pink will still get put in iso.
DD (Y10) currently has her hair a deep burgundy shade, done at the start of the summer holidays and STILL not faded or grown out much, and nothing has even been mentioned - but that might be because DD lucked into the one form tutor whose hair is a different bright colour each week.
My friend's DD, however, has a really strict form tutor, and was put in iso for two pale pink, washed out streaks in her fringe left over from a weekend dance show...
But for a buzz cut?! Really?!
Your poor son must be freezing
Our school - anything shorter than #2 for boys is a no no.
And the weather is cold - amazed he let you!
Join the discussion
Please login first.