To think that red hair on a 14yo isn't a discipline issue?

[GilbGeekette]

14 yo DD (just starting Year 10) has just been sent home from school on her first day for having "too bright" hair. Her hair is dyed auburn/red (having had it neon pink all summer) in accordance with, I thought, school policy of dyed hair having to fall into the spectrum of 'natural' hair colour. Her HoY rang me (apologetically, it must be said) and I accepted (even though I disagree) that they weren't happy with the colour, and said I would re-dye it tonight. This wasn't good enough, and I was given a choice between her spending the day in the 'isolation room' (with no set work) or her coming home and me re-dying it now. I've taken the latter option, as I'm a SAHM - if I was working this wouldn't have been an option.

I'm accepting (ish) of the school thinking that her hair isn't a reasonable colour, but AIBU in thinking that verbal assurances from me that it would be rectified by tomorrow morning should be enough? Fwiw, there are no discipline/behavioural issues with DD and school, (quite the contrary - they've always been extremely positive about her) and until now I thought that we'd all had a good relationship...

I am probably in the minority here but I thought the main purpose of school was to educate; ie, pupils learn stuff.
So whether your hair is pink, green, long, short or in a jar on your desk, it is not going to affect your ability to absorb and comprehend information.

That wasn't how you put it though Dilys - it was put you turned up in a top with straps and opened toe shoes - nothing about the handbook stipulating that these items are not allowed - you were sent home in your own time to change as the company didn't like the outfit.

That is a bit different to a uniform of a suit at work stipulated in handbook.

If I turned up in a trouser suit and then I was asked to go home and put on a skirt suit - then again I would state no, just as the boy turned up to school in a skirt this year

Dilys specifically mentioned a dress code which, to me, meant as per some kind of staff handbook rather than the whims of a manager.

Yes, I was talking about our staff handbook which specifically says "items x y z are forbidden - if you turn up wearing them we reserve the right to send you home to change". Obviously I've never actually done so, because I'm not 14.

I can't help but feel that the tie wearing elephant in the room is the fact that state schools, and academies in particular, are trying to emulate grammar and private schools that get better results (on average) and have better behaviour (on the whole) than them by bringing in similar uniform rules. They pretend they haven't realised that uniforms are not the reason they get better results/have better behaviour. It is purely a distraction from the real issues at play.

I am so glad I now live in a country that thinks school uniforms are a weird British aberration. My children's school has three rules on clothes (no spaghetti straps, backless tops or gang colours) and none on hair. It is a well respected school with no more of a discipline problem than any other.

I find the make the children resent their teachers for telling them off for breaking totally arbitrary rules because it is somehow beneficial concept really really odd. It just makes you slightly despise the teacher and the school, making it more likely that you break more important rules because you extend the 'rules are stupid' thinking to everything else.

I can remember being told off for looking scruffy at school (my regulation school uniform didn't fit very well as it was very badly made) by teachers who in my opinion looked like bums. at 15/16 you can imagine that didn't go down very well. dh has a permanent resentment of authority figures having had repeated run ins for not having his hair short enough at school.

It's all such incredibly stupid stuff, especially when you consider that if the child is heading to university they will then have several years to look like whatever they choose before deciding on the sort of workplace they wish to join (and where they will get paid for conforming to whatever rules are in place).

I agree nooka. Are you in the US? just wondered about the gang colours thing, do they never wear blue or red, isn't that tricky?

One of my kids is in a PRU (for health reasons) and they don't care at all about uniform and/or hair colour. My dd is currently sporting pink hair and so far none of her schoolmates have felt the need to do the same. Quite frankly this school has much bigger fish to fry to do with the kid's various health issues to worry about what they're wearing. It's a much better place for it IMO, one less thing to fight against!

I'm in Canada. My town doesn't have a huge gang problem, and when I asked about it I was told that it was more if they noticed a group of kids all wearing something that was clearly to show allegiance (associated with bad behaviour).

Oh I forgot, one more rule, they aren't allowed to wear anything with swear words written on it.

What was the outcome in the end OP?

I believe you will find it in one of today's newspapers, Pippin.

I read the article too. Her hair is gorgeous and looks natural.

I disagree.

I spotted the story too so just googled this thread to find it again. OP (presuming this is you and your daughter rather than a total coincidence), your Daughter looks like a lovely girl. I love her hair colour - I'm not sure it looks natural but mainly because they've made you dye it a darker shade meaning it now looks less natural than it probably did when it was brighter! Love the colour though.

Oh, what now? What newspaper? Whichever one it is - that isn't me/us?

In our case, we dyed her hair dark brown and all is fine. But seriously, what newspaper??

Daily Mail

My goodness. Clearly I was missing a trick here I googled "hair dye/school exclusion" and the number of articles that came up was quite impressive. Still I think I did the right thing dying it though, and having sensible conversations with the school.

I had a bit of sympathy with the OP till I saw the DM story in today's paper. And the mother came across v badly. Bad, bad move to publicly diss your child's school.

The OP is saying it wasn't her in the article.

My 18yo DD has hair this colour. She went to a school that stated no hair dye at all, so she waiting until she had finished her GCSEs at 16 before dying it.

I think it's a stupid rule, she thought it was a stupid rule and is much happier at college where she can look how she pleases.

BUT, the key thing was she waited. You cannot go blatantly disregarding whichever rules you fancy. She can wait two years to dye it red.

Argh - that article isn't me and my daughter! I'm not passing judgement on people who got to the papers to get their PoV across, but it's not something I'd do. And it's the Daily Fail

I love the way there is the obligatory "sad" photo of mother and daughter looking tragic.

MrsRobertDuvallHasRosacea

very odd lighting on those photos too, which seem to disguise the true hair colour...

I think the problem arises when schools go half-way on make-up/hair dye etc. Much better to have a blanket "no dyed hair" rule than to say pupils must have hair that is a colour that credibly exists in nature - it leaves too much room for interpretation. "No chemically treated hair" would be an even better rule - no streaks, permanent waves or straightening, all of which are vile on teens.

Ahh, I did wonder if that article was about you OP.

Glad you got it all sorted.