Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

00100001 · 08/09/2015 22:42

Oh, you were one of those parents

anklebitersmum · 08/09/2015 22:45

I've heard it all now. Tidy, non-ridiculous hairstyles are racist? Wow.

00100001 Grin

holmessweetholmes · 08/09/2015 22:47

I don't think anybody on this thread has claimed that uniform has anything to do with fairness, kindness etc, but anyone who thinks that society or large institutions can function without rules is deluding themselves. Is it also not ok for companies to have dress codes? I think most people who work have to follow at least some rules set down by their employers, no?

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 08/09/2015 22:53

Yes anklebiter - banning hairstyles worn widely by specific ethnic groups IS racist. Hmm

I'm not sure why the Littlejohn-esque 'I've heard it all now'

Snowfilledsky · 08/09/2015 22:54

This thread has gone a bit weird....

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 08/09/2015 22:55

Some businesses need dress codes, some don't. The point being that there are certain reasons why you need a uniform in certain contexts. 'Because the rules mmmkay' is not a valid one.

00100001 · 08/09/2015 22:58

A lot of you fail to understand that some people's children are too free spirited, precious and unique to have to conform to these so-called rules. These parents have deiceed because they obviously have vast experience if running schools that they obviously know better and will allow their child to rebel against the machine. Because their falowrs must be butired and have room to grow and be themselves at whatever cost.

I mean, seriosly, you make your child go to school in correct uniform? Do you even love your child?

00100001 · 08/09/2015 22:59

Flowers must be watered*

holmessweetholmes · 08/09/2015 23:10

00100001 Grin .

BoomBoomsCousin · 08/09/2015 23:20

If the government brought in a law requiring everyone to wear a red, white and blue shirt with a dove grey suit would that be something we should all just accept? Maybe they could just make it a requirement for anyone receiving NHS treatment (because then you'd always have the option of treating yourself or going private, so it wouldn't really be an imposition would it?). We could mutter about how much better it was to know that people who got NHS treatment were truly a part of the Nation and felt so much pride in it. Also, we'd be able to spot all those people who wouldn't turn up to their appointments or stick to their treatment regimes since obviously sneaking in a bit of green on your shirt would indicate that you couldn't be trusted to follow rules about something that mattered. And hooray for that. Then instead of treating them NHS staff could spend their time lecturing them on the right dress code and how it disrupts healing for everyone when they wear a suit the wrong shade of grey. And lots of red, white and blue wearers could tut about what self-important precious flowers the non-conformists thought they were expecting to be able to get NHS treatment without wearing the correct clothes.

RushallBumblebee · 08/09/2015 23:31

I am proud to be the parent of a child who thought the rule was pointless and tried to change it.... ok so shes not Rosa Parkes or Gandhi but she sat in a room with people who were a lot older than her and in a position of authority over her and put her point across in a reasoned argument which got the results she wanted.
The first time she did this was not wearing leather shoes at primary school... she was 10 and prepared to stand up for what she thought was wrong and unfair.
to me thats far more important that learning to follow the rules

Snowfilledsky · 08/09/2015 23:36

I'm out. This thread has got very strange.

anklebitersmum · 09/09/2015 00:50

"This is an important decision," said G's solicitor, Angela Jackman, after the hearing. "It makes clear that non-religious cultural and family practices associated with a particular race fall within the protection of equalities legislation."
The judge emphasised that the school's "short back and sides" hair policy was perfectly permissible and lawful, but exceptions had to be made on ethnic and cultural grounds.
He stressed that the school was "not in any way racist" but had made "an honest mistake" in failing to allow for exceptions, adding: "The school has had glowing Ofsted reports and there is no question that it is an excellent school."
The judge said headteacher Andrew Prindiville had justified the policy as necessary to stop the gang culture prevalent in the area, in which haircuts were used as badges of membership, coming into the school.
Cornrows were not necessarily gang-linked but other styles, like the skinhead haircut, might well have that connection, the judge said.
The fear was that allowing exceptions to the "short back and sides" rule would undermine the anti-gang policy.
But the judge pointed out that exceptions were already made for Rastafarians and Sikh boys who wore hair beyond the collar, and similar exceptions should be made for African Caribbeans.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf I was unaware of this particular case and quite frankly I am amazed that when the whole family went to visit the school with their son the hairstyle issue wasn't immediately brought up so that the whole hair policy was addressed before the child became a victim of it. However since this was clearly a landmark case in 2011 I would hope that schools are unlikely to be making the same "honest mistake" in 2015 as there is now a concrete legal presidence.

And for the record I would not have classed either cornrows or a well managed afro as a ridiculous haircut.

Gileswithachainsaw · 09/09/2015 07:10

Oh how gracious of them to give someone approval fir a hair cut and decide it's not going to make them think the kids in a gang Hmm

if katie Hopkins started going on about how shed only talk to people with certain hair cuts you'd think she was a judgmental cow (which she is) yet we allow schools to make judgements basically not wanting to be seen dead with anyone who's not a sheep on a daily basis.its the same thing wrapped up in "uniform rules"

the girl in the photo is dirty greasy and her clothes don't fit.

in primary school that would be a cause for concern but it's ok to just get rid of her fir a hair cut so no one has to deal with teh problem?

so let's keep up appeared appearences shall we, get rid of anyone who doesn't look how we want and deny them an education over hair.

how is that acceptable

Spartans · 09/09/2015 07:15

Our school doesn't worry about the length of skirt as such. The school skirt has a logo top and bottom and as long as it's not rolled up. It's doesn't matter how long or short it is. They agree that a short skirt isnt a distraction and that if people think it is that's their issue.

They are a strict school. They also have rules on hair that makes allowances for religious/cultural observance.

Leopard print hair is neither religious or culture. If it was and a parent was concern it was an issue, there is a simple solution.....speak to the school. Explain why and discuss it.

Sending your child with leopard print hair on the first day knowing its against the rules they have, then putting your child's photo in the paper with a miserable face is pathetic behaviour.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 09/09/2015 07:24

It seems everyone has forgotten one of the primary purposes of the uniform and that is to prevent demonstrations of wealth. Without uniform, there would be constant passive aggressive battles between children and their parents about who has the most expensive shoes, who wears designer labels, who's parents can afford the latest fashions. Uniforms neutralise this and make everyone the same so that they can share the same educational experience.

Once the rule is set, you must have strict guidelines because otherwise you have to start making calls about whether it's OK to have highlights but not to have leopard print hair. Where is the line on common sense? It's different for everyone. So far better to say "no hair dye", period. Simple rule, easily enforced. It seems harsh, perhaps, but it's the only way to ensure that the purpose of the uniform in the first place is upheld.

It is completely beyond me why anyone has so much of a problem following such simple guidelines.

IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou · 09/09/2015 07:59

but the rules about uniform are just rules for the sake of rules.

Try turning up at my place of work in your jeans & DMs.

Or with bright purple hair.

You'd be asked to leave & would be having a chat with HR the next day. If you wanted to keep the lovely wages coming in you'd have to comply...

There's no harm in getting people prepared for real life.

IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou · 09/09/2015 08:00

It is completely beyond me why anyone has so much of a problem following such simple guidelines.

It's 'cos little Florence/Jimmy is an individyool & shouldn't be stifled.....

Spartans · 09/09/2015 08:19

I also think people forget that the schools get stricter in part, because so many parents don't just do as they are asked.

Uniforms used to be fairly laid back but people always push boundaries and attempt to do something different just because they want to. So schools start closing the loop holes.

Our school only allows the logo skirts because girls were wearing skirts so tight they couldn't sit down and/or were ripping. They tried other things first such as saying 'pleated skirts' and 'skirts that you can move about easily in'

But teachers aren't there to argue with kids about whether their skirts are too tight or impractical. They are there to teach. So they brought in logo skirts

00100001 · 09/09/2015 08:37

rushall I'm pretty sure I could have argued the toss and made very reasoned arguments about any tiny detail of our school's rules at school age too.

Why shouldn't I have called my teacher's by their first name? I mean, calling the teacher Mr Smith instead of Gary has no effect on my education whatsoever. In actual fact, calling him by his first name would improve my confidence and let me develop a better relationship. So in fact that is what I will be doing from now on. Oh, is this against school rules? Well, fuck you an that horse, my parent support me, and there's fuck all you can do. Put me in detention? No, I shan't be attending that. A detention for calling an adult by their given name serves no purpose in my education.

Also, this petty rule of turning up for 8.45am registration has no effect on my education whatsoever, so I will turn up at 9.05am and head directly to the first lesson. Also, I will write in yellow highlighter, as the instrument I write with has no bearing on my education.

JoH1978 · 09/09/2015 08:57

None of those are moral or ethical issues though, the wearing leather shoes is. An adult would not be made to wear leather shoes as a vegetarian, no reason why a child should be.

BoomBoomsCousin · 09/09/2015 09:20

Uniform doesn't stop the demonstration of wealth. Costs for strict uniform can deter less well off families from even going to a school in the first place. Where that doesn't happen it is easy enough to tell the children whose parents can't afford a clean shirt each day or more than one skirt, or new shoes when the cheap ones they have are battered by the end of the second week. The ones who patch instead of replace or have to keep wearing clothes that are too small for them etc. While a free choice on clothes will have some people going down the route of spending more money it also gives those with less money the opportunity to not spend so much and, if they are so inclined, to compensate through creativity.

BoomBoomsCousin · 09/09/2015 09:23

00100001 Writing in highlighter does have an impact on your education because it makes it harder for a teacher to read your work; missing registration does too as it disrupts the administration of the school. Calling your teacher by their first name doesn't particularly. Though it's reasonable to have rules about being polite to other people that could include calling them by the name they wish to be known as. It does seem a bit disproportionate to deny someone an education because they wish to call a person by the same name that the majority of people use.

Bunbaker · 09/09/2015 09:41

I think 00100001 is being tongue in cheek BoomBoom

I agree with school uniform in principle, but DD's school are getting increasingly petty about it. They need to enforce the uniform rules with all pupils, not just a few to "make an example of" because it doesn't work. There are still pupils walking around wearing skinny trousers and very short skirts.