From MNHQ - we need your comments....

I think the school should concentrate on providing a good early years education rather than worrying about hair styles or uniform.

The little boy is too young to make a decision like a haircut. He should not be punished for his mother's (weird... but legal) decision. He is three years old.

I think the idea of three year olds having a strict dress code is vile. My son was allowed to wear anything he liked to nursery. I don't like uniform on three year olds, its too formal.

I would like to see nit infested kids get excluded. Or older children who totally wreck the lessons of other children by distruptive behaviour.

I don't see why a nursery should refuse to take a child on grounds that his haircut isn't suitable. As long as he wears the uniform, there shouldn't be a problem.

I wonder how long it will be before some nursery has a dress code for parents doing the picking up and collecting.... no fleeces, full make up must be worn, no plastic carrier bags....
so, the nursery claims it has strict rules about dress code. As long as these rules were communicated to the mother, I think it's a fair cop. She was wrong to let her child flout them.

However, I question whether it's right to have nursery dress codes like this. Agree with PPH, if the haircut was not a health and safety risk, what is the harm?

Dress codes have more relevance for older pupils who get to and from school without parents - a way of helping the school present a good image to the general public. This would not apply to three year olds under the care of their parents

I'd agree to an extent that it's important how a 3 yo looks.
Obviously a kid in torn, dirty, ill-fitting clothes, grubby skin and matted hair will stand out for all the wrong reasons. But could you imagine a child like that being suspended??
And this boys hair will not send out any negative messages to his little 3yo chums - just some adults, who, quite frankly, should know better.

I disagree with that tatt. How you look does matter, and plays a huge part in all societies, and in the animal kingdom as kitty said. It's not just important to shallow superficial people.

I guess she'll say the earing was his idea too and she had no influence whatsoever over these choices?

Very well said PPH.

ScienceTeacher - WOW! You got that from a snippet on the news? My, how perceptive you must be......

He was on the BBC News this morning. Poor little thing had an earing too. I suspect he's mum's little trophy child - a doll to dress up.

(Carrie from MNHQ, I heard you on the radio last evening on the programme with Mariella frostrup.)

i agree with peahead and soupys bastard lovechild, word for word.

deffo deffo.

tatt surely all societies place a great importance on looks? I think it has nothing to do with how we raise out kids as such, it's a natural human trait.

Each society, each culture has its own set of values and codes and how you look plays an important role within them.

It matters in the animal kingdom to.

to those who are shallow and superficial, it matters. It wouldn't if we raised children better.

Tatt how you look does matter though

If a 3 year old took a pair of scissors to their hair - or their siblings - would the nursery then ban them?

Personally I don't think children should turn up in designer clothing and have their parents complain if it gets dirty. And I wasn't impressd by the boy with shoulder length curls, poor thing.

We ought to teach children that who you are matters and how you look doesn't. Pity parents have never been taught that.

Was I on it?????

LGJ strike QV from her Christmas card list.

Which could be a threat.....if she could be organised enough to send them early.

Ner ner ner ner ner

It is,

but, but, but...........I thought you would agree with me >>>

Is that better

Why are you presuming that?
I am actually. I was pretending to be the bastard lovechild of peahead and soupy for a while but I'll change back if it makes you happier

DragonPeaHead

I am presuming you are not PPH.

Because we can

And why should we comment on the parents' decision in all of this? Why is whether he wanted his hair like that or whether he wants gel in his hair even a matter for discussion? The issue is entirely about the nursery.

The nursery is wrong
It is not the nursery's job to act as style arbiter
It is the nursery's job to keep children safe and protected. To that extent they can (and should) impose rules on eg dress (fair enough to ban shoelaces for under 3s if they will trip up on them/trip other children up, for example) and hair to the extent it is a safety issue (difficult to see at nursery - but akin to requiring long hair to be tied up in science classes). However a short hairstyle, no matter how ridiculous, has no safety or protection implications for the wearer or any other child.
What is the view of the nursery on, for example, cornrows in hair? What is the difference between the hair of one child bound into cornrows and the hair of another cut into tramlines? Nothing, except aesthetics.