To not get schools issue with dyed hair?

[fitforflighting]

I suspect I may get flamed for this but I genuinely do not get it.
They have a rule against earrings including sleepers. That I get especially with younger children or in sports were children can end up getting them at worst ripped out.

I can kind of even get extreme haircuts with big shaved stars or strange styles that look unprofessional and might not be allowed by adults in a professional work place.

But this week and last term several of senior age children who had dyed hair brown/red/dark purple etc were sent home from school to re dye or put in isolation by teachers with errr brown/red/purple dyed hair! One of the children's teacher has bright purple hair. It does not make her any less of a English teacher or lesson her professionalism in school I don't reckon so what is the problem for teens?

Green goth just to point out school age kids can't legally have tattoos.

Also you repeat the word adult in your post - that's the key thing. They are adults. Children have their whole lives to express their individuality.
For what it's worth I have tattoos and red hair.

I know junior school is not really at an age when children are colouring their hair but there was a learning mentor in DD's school
Who had Pink and purple hair. Now I'm sorry if one of the children turned up like that . They'd be dragged over the coals. I can't stand. The do as I say not as I do attitude.

Purple, as you've pointed out, the Pisa rankings are of dubious value, not least because they are based on specific tests in limited subjects and not overall attainment levels. However, if Germany comes ahead of the UK in those rankings then you can't claim that failure to have uniforms has a deleterious effect on performance; particularly bearing in mind that the UK's own statistics are contributed to by a proportion of students from schools that either have no uniform or take a relaxed attitude to it.

Then instead of making a huge fuss about something relatively minor and risking your child's education, just go along with it, plenty of time for dying hair and having outlandish styles later on.

Very self centered this debate.

longtimelurker, certainly argumentative pupils can argue about anything and nothing. But I see no point in giving them grounds for arguing about a foolish rule when the teacher's position can solely be defensible on the basis she has to impose it because the head tells her to.

Gruntled you probably won't believe me because my years of teaching count for nothing in your eyes but I think you will find that in lots of schools inclusion is not just worksheets. Schools have VLEs now and access to google classroom etc. Pupils tend to do the same work and have the same outcomes as those in class. The rooms are run by TAs yes, who facilitate the work that has been set. I visited inclusion today to see a pupil who is pregnant and make sure she is where she should be. There were four other teachers in there in their PPA time checking up on their pupils.

Gruntled the point is that those students will always find something to argue about. The answer is not to push back the boundaries over and over again until there aren't any boundaries left.

Also gruntled very few uk schools have no uniform. Most are quite strict with it too.
May I ask if you teach or spend a lot of time in schools?

But, Culture, academies have to comply with the terms of their funding agreements. Standard funding agreements require, amongst other matters, that the curriculum provided to pupils up to the age of 16 is balanced and broadly based, and includes English, mathematics and science, and they have to provide religious education. They also have to supply on their website details of their curriculum, and comply with what they promise in that regard. They have to ensure that pupils are entered for examinations in line with the requirements on maintained schools, and comply with the same requirements as apply to maintained schools with regard to assessments.

An Academy which kept its pupils in isolation doing worksheets all day every day would not be complying with its funding agreement. And if they can't do that for all pupils, they can't do it for one. They are also subject to the same rules as maintained schools with regard to exclusions and discrimination.

According to the OFT 98% of secondary schools in England had a compulsory uniform in 2012. There were 3268 state secondary schools in 2012 (according to Gov.uk), so that's about 65 state secondary schools with no compulsory uniform.

But why should a child's education ever be risked for something relatively minor, whether that's a risk taken by the parent or the school, longtimelurker?

Purple, I didn't say that your experience counted for nothing, I simply said it needs to be weighed against the greater experience of others. I don't understand what you mean by "inclusion is not just worksheets". Inclusion is normally sitting in the classroom. If you mean internal exclusions, it is a fact that many schools do not supply teaching to those in that situation. If VLEs really equate to teaching, why would we need teachers at all? Don't pupils learn from each other and from working in groups? What about social education? Since you ask, I do indeed spend a lot of time in schools. And when you are writing about schools with no uniform rule, have a look at the results of St Paul's GS against the results of similarly selective independent schools which have uniforms.

Culture, if pupils will always find something to argue about it, it is no answer to impose a stupid rule and give them something extra to argue about, and moreover something in which which you will lose the argument.

Culture, what does that statistic prove? You need to break it down into schools that have stupid uniforms (e.g. the stupidly expensive blazer and logo-ridden shirts) as opposed to a generic white shirt/grey or black trousers or skirts uniform; and those which impose uniform rules rigidly as opposed to those that take a reasonably relaxed attitude.

It is however an interesting statistic when viewed in the light of people who correlate uniform with behaviour and attainment. If 98% of schools in the UK have uniforms then, if that correlation were correct, we would have a negligible incidence of failing schools - which unfortunately is not the case. And it's interesting that academies and free schools, which seem to be the ones that make the greatest fetish of uniforms, actually have a higher failure rate than maintained schools.

Well because Gruntled as previously stated, the rules are clearly published by the school, and in no way are they a major injustice to any child, as previously stated whatever the rules are the school have decided that this is best for their commiunity. The person risking the education is then therefore not the school, but the parent and child who decide that this rule is silly and doesn't apply to them.

Your point about students and arguing is utterly wrong, students will find anything to argue about, wearing brand lable jumpers instead of their school ones, mobile phones, literally anything, one person's "silly rule" is to another quite important for any number of reasons. As stated above the rules are set for benefit of the whole commiunity, not because of pettyness or whatever.

But you won't be swayed, oh no, its your right, so in which case its x's right to not follow the rule about jumpers, its y's right to answer her phone in class.

Like I said, I don't support uniform that much, but I do support things that WORK for most of the people there. When you are part of a community you can't expect for exceptions to be made for you in rules when you decide you don't like them, and as part of the hidden curriculum is a good lesson for students to learn.

Gruntled it fundamentally doesn't matter what the actual rules are about uniform/dress code. I don't care whether the school my children go to has a uniform or not, that isn't what affects the school's atmosphere and results directly. The point is that there will always be rules, some parents/students will object to some aspect of the rules. However, the rules need to be applied fairly, consistently, with respect and with compassion.

I didn't/don't argue with students about rules. They attempt to argue, and I apply the schools rules as fairly, consistently, kindly and compassionate as I can. Teaching should never be about winning/losing, as either you or the student will lose, neither of which is desirable.

Internal isolation is specifically allowed under current govt guidance on behaviour for all state funded schools. Activities must be as constructive as possible. Why would this be in govt guidance on behaviour policy if any use of internal isolation breaks the schools funding agreement?

I haven't claimed those statistics prove anything at all! A previous poster asked how many state secondaries didn't have uniform, so I looked for the most recent figures I could find. Not making any kind of point at all about it.

I haven't claimed those statistics prove anything at all! A previous poster asked how many state secondaries didn't have uniform, so I looked for the most recent figures I could find. Not making any kind of point at all about it.

Longtime, I haven't said that individual pupils should ignore the rules. In my son's case I did, because the rule conflicted with another and overriding rule, namely the law of the land. However in relation to the wider issue I am saying that the rules should not exist in the first place, in which event the issue will not arise. You are not answering my point that, given that pupils will argue about anything, it is foolish to give them something silly to argue about where your position is so weak. How does a uniform rule benefit the whole community, especially when it involves an uncomfortable and expensive uniform?

Culture, yes, there have to be rules. There do not have to be stupid and pointless rules.

Internal isolation is allowed, obviously, but not on a long term basis.

Gruntled a few things:

St Paul's school for girls is an independent and one that is selective, so wouldn't be included in that data, like for comparisons are not beneficial.

Your other points about "failing" schools, OFSTED said last year that the number of outstanding and good schools is the highest ever, 81%!

Finally, the point you made about acadamies having more failing schools, well that would be because many schools that were failing have been forced to become academies! It seems that a lick of paint, a new ambitious staff and dynamic leadership does not paper of the cracks of major socio-economic problems.

Blah, anyway, school in the morning! Night all x

An Academy which kept its pupils in isolation doing worksheets all day every day would not be complying with its funding agreement.

The scenario envisaged, that of a pupil being in isolation because of a uniform breech would, one imagines, only be for a very short period of time.

Oh, I'm going to stop going round in circles with this now, but one last time...

It doesn't matter what the rules are, whether strict or liberal. It doesn't matter whether you as one individual think your school's rules are stupid/pointless/silly. There will always be some parents/students who find one or more rules to be stupid/pointless/silly. The school should enforce whatever the rules are fairly, consistently, kindly and compassionately.

You as a parent, Gruntled, find compulsory uniform to be silly and pointless. Other parents value a uniform. Neither opinion is more or less valid than the other, but both can't be accommodated in the same school rules. So whatever the school position is on uniform, it needs to enforce it, irrespective of whichever parents find it silly/pointless.

(If a school's rules are sexist, racist or otherwise discriminatory then of course they should be challenged in whatever way possible. )

And I'm confused, now you agree that isolation is allowed, when previously you said it would contravene the school's funding agreement?

I think there are two separate issues here.

1. What uniform policy should state schools have?

1. What obligation do pupils (or parents for younger kids) have to follow these and what should the sanctions be if they don't?

My personal opinion is that for 1. I think it's fine for a school to either have a uniform or not, and ideally governors should consult parents on this issue. The school have a duty to provide a uniform which is affordable and non discriminatory, or to ensure the non uniform is not offensive. I think uniform choice reflects the character of the school and I appreciate that different schools go for different things.

For point 2 my view is that pupils have a duty to follow the rules of the school whether they like them or not (though of course if they genuinely view them as discriminatory they should take action to change them). It's the duty of the school to provide a good education and it should be the duty of pupils and parents to support the school by adhering to the rules even if the rules are a PITA (such as weekend detentions).

If I ran a school I would have a uniform, mostly because I think it's a good social leveller.. I also (separately from the uniform issue) think it's very important to teach children that life isn't fair and they can't just do whatever the hell they like all the time and that they need self discipline and a degree of obedience. Unfortunately there are lots of rules which may seem pointless or undesirable but still have to be followed (though teaching them how to evaluate these things and push for change effectively is also a good skill to learn).... But is teaching obedience and discipline through uniform a good idea? I'm not sure.

I am so glad that my school(s) had a strict uniform/appearance policy. It reduced the number of things that the bullies had to pick on. I would dearly love to think that this was now no longer relevant. But bullying appears as rife, and destructive, as ever. And appearance, and compliance with trend, as ever remains something regularly picked out. Who'd be a teenager?

Oh, I forgot to mention, if there are rules there should always be sanctions for breaking them. I'm not sure what the sanctions should be for breaking uniform rules though, but definitely nothing which removes a child from the classroom. I'd probably go for a rule which removes a privilege from them instead.

Rules cannot be applied by people who break them themselves.

Lord brightside if you attempted to do that in the school I teach in security would escort you out and you would be asked to find little Lord fauntlebrightside a new school.... Thank God.

Its always the Moron parents with nothing better to do who wail when little Jimmy is asked to remove his £90 air max and put some proper School shoes on... As Clearly stated in the school rules. Don't like it. Find another school.