From MNHQ - we need your comments....

human beings have a right to be individual and to look however they feel comfortable and happy looking.

imo this applies whether you're 3 or 30.

a haircut doesn't affect your acedemic performance or disrupt class and therefore i feel very strongly that it should not be legal to have rules that dictate how a child can wear their hair, whether or not there is a uniform or dresscode.

and dresscodes for 3 year olds? wtf?

The nursery over-reacted.

BUT - let's face it he does look bloody awful. His mum needs to have a chat with herself if she thinks hair gel and aftershave is good for a three year old. She should have said no to the hair and encouraged his creativity into a more healthy outlet (playdough, painting?).

They are all wrong - the mother is wrong for letting her poor child have that stupid haircut.

The nursery is wrong for creating such a big deal out of it. Schools - yes - I support uniform codes and dress codes etc up to the hilt.

But a nursery is not a school, children at that age are supposed to be expressing themselves and finding their personalities. Time enough to stamp out all that malarky when they get to primary!

IMO the only rules for nursery clothing should be 1) not dangerous (dangling jewellery etc) and 2) not offensive to others (dressing up as hitler or something!)

However if the nursery had a policy on haircuts outlined in their paperwork and the mother chose to flout it then her tough cheese I'm afraid.

I think the nursery was out of order on this issue. It's not for them to decide what's tasteful or not. Perfectly OK for them to bitch about it amongst themselves, out of earshot, of course.

3 is too young for a child to want a certain hairstyle/gel isnt it? Maybe, but I do remember having my DD's hair cut to a nice chin length bob at 6 years from long and she was devastated. The teacher gave her a lolly because she could see how upset she was on her first appearance at school with the new hairdo. I felt like a horrible mum, even though it looked lovely but the hairdresser was sissor happy and DD refused to go back there.

Agree with everything marina said.

It's two issues - allowing a child to dictate what he wants when perhaps it isnt appropriate, and, the nursery being incredibly strict when it doesnt really matter/is misplaced.

Personally, I scoffed when I got DS's hair cut (he's just shy of 3yrs) the other day in a barbers and the guy asked if I wanted gel put in his hair. What possible need does a 2, nearly 3 year old have for gel?????

I find it hard to believe that a 3 yr old boy insists on his hair being gelled every morning.

It's totally his mother's taste (or lack of) being put on him .

Which is obviously entirely normal ,we all do it ,we just have better taste

I think the nursery is being ridiculous,I hope she moves him.

Re Rachel(mumsnet) - I think you "lose" the "from MNHQ" if you are not posting from your usual PC.
Exactly the same thing has happened to Jane(mumsnet) tonight on another thread - and she reckoned that's what it was
Rachel is Old Tyme. One of the original Gang of Three

I find it odd that hat sort of haircut is banned. I had to google it to see what it meant and found a photo of the boy. Chavtastic, yes, but I don't understand why it would be banned in a nursery. Am I missing something about the significance of these haircuts? Do they have an underlying meaning?

I let my son choose his hair. I certainly don't let him choose everything or do as he wants but I do let him choose his hair. He has quite long hair for a four year old boy but I would be shocked beyond belief if a state nursery told him to cut it! Or even if a state primary did, quite frankly. It looks nice and he like it. Fortunately here in the hippy South West there are plenty of boys with long hair at the school he'll be going to as parents here somehow manage to discipline her children without giving them a short back and sides.

rachel has started lots of threads, would have thought hq would have been on to her before now

That's pathetic. All of this over a haircut? It is down to a parent to decide how their child's hair should be cut, not a nursery. Since when have nurserys been given the right to tell parents how to cut their childrens hair? Rules should be there to protect the children, not to punish them for having a hair cut.

I worked in a nursery where one little girl dressed as a dog for two weeks
she even went around on all fours

No 3 year old child of mine would decide how their hair was going to be cut
There's plenty of time for choices like that when they're older
Agree with bree.

i was wondering thre same thing

about rachel(mumsnet) i mena

why no (from mnhq) ?

Children should be able to have varying hairstyles. I'm 40 and know a lot of men who are still recieving therapy thanks to bolw pudding cuts.

that haircut would only last of 10 minutes before it grew out anyway. but agree with breevandercamp

Chavtastic....

Its Ta-vis not tay-vis.

An old hairdresser of mine was called Tavis.

Think its a bit barmy.
But I can see both sides.

A haircut won't prevent him from learning nor will it make him into a badly behaved child but on the otherside it does look bloody awful.

I'm more concerned about his name- Tavis

Is that pronounced like Travis or Davis?

What a sordid business! I don't really know what a tramline haircut is, but unless it constitutes a fire hazard or something I don't understand why the nursery needed to get involved. What am I missing?

Well, you pick your battles with a 3 year old don't you? If one of my children really wanted their hair done a certain way, I'd probably allow it.

Oth if they wanted to eat a whole easter egg or watch tv all day, or spend £20 on something they happened to like the look of whilst out shopping (as was my experience earlier in the week), the answer to all those would be a definite no.

Its only hair.

I haven't read the whole thread. When lo's parents applied for nursery were they told "your child will be turfed out if he has a non-conventional haircut"?

not my choice of hairstyle on a child, gel is too much faff in the mornings, (thank goodness i have girls and just put their hair up), and i think maybe the nursery are right.

but i dont have all the facts.

DS2 went to nursery in red wellies shorts and a jumper one day while learning to dress himself, how ever I would have to say no way does a 3 year old get to gel his hair.
Mum should have said no to the hair cut explaining it was a grown up cut

I think that both tramlines and the wearing of aftershave by three year olds should be banned in all state schools, together with pierced ears for the under fours and ridiculous shoes that give no support to the feet at all...that way my school wolud have no kids at all to teach and I could read a book in peace.

If the nursery's policy on this was unmistakably clear, and communicated to the parents in advance of the hair being cut, then they are justified in excluding him. Otherwise they are not.

IMO.

Oh, ffs!! Gel isn't acceptalble to you lot on a 3 year old. Tram lines would never be seen on your children... After shave is not acceptable on a 3yo. The mother is 21...and I expect working class. She has probably dressed him in fak Burburry Everybody.........needs to get over them selves.