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?

Boom, I had an experience different from yours. Both are valid - they give different perspectives on this debate. My experience is not 'wrong', yours is not 'right', they both are our experiences IYSWIM?

[Also, I suspect it may depend on the 'gap' between the child in question and the norm. My experience was perhaps particularly extreme because the remainder of my peers were from families able to pay private school fees.]

Anyone remember the "Chinese School" experiment from back in the summer? Everyone in a tracksuit, girls and boys?

Simples!

You think it's a stupid rule, many don't. It's not objectively stupid. Your opinion /= objective fact.

No-one has been able to come up with a good reason for the rule. The closest to a respectable reason is the one about children not competing with each other to wear designer clothes and/or bullying each other but, as pointed out upthread, the reality is that it doesn't happen. At most, it justifies having a very basic uniform limited to requiring, say, dark coloured plain trousers and skirts, and plain coloured shirts and jumpers. It doesn't justify logos and blazers.

Do you really think that a private, high-fee paying,highly selective girls school that gets excellent results is a good example of why ordinary state schools would get better results without uniforms?

For goodness sake, READ what I actually posted. I compared it with other private, high fee-paying, highly selective schools that have uniforms and pointed out that its results demonstrate that good results aren't predicated on having a uniform.

But gruntled, as previously stated your statement about "silly rules" can be applied across the board, other people may think other rules are silly and choose not to follow them.

We come back to the issue of rules which actually are silly, as opposed to those that people think are silly.

Gruntled, I do think that the (often erroneous, but very pervasive IME) public perception of schools based on their uniform (and uniform adherence) is relevant.

A highly-selective private girls' school may not need that "perceived marker of quality" for its reputation.

teacherwith2kids, your experience was pretty specific to having a scholarship in a posh girls' boarding school - it doesn't seem to accord with people's experience of state schools.

The day I get a call about a hairstyle or uniform infraction regarding my son is the day that I ask for a copy of the staff dress code policy. I'll then use my flexi to stand outside the school in the morning and police the teachers coming in regarding their appearance.

I remember being bawled at one day when I was 15 for forgetting to put on my school tie. "Where's your tie boy?!?! Where is it?"

My response to my female teacher?

"In my kitchen, where's yours?"

(IOn the blazer vs jumper, I absolutely agree with you on what a basic uniform SHOULD consist of, but again public perception is different: 'You can tell school Z is really rough. They don't even have blazers.'

Yes, there is a public perception of schools based on their uniform - it is part of the very odd attitude we have in this country. It needs to be changed from the top down. It is interesting and indeed encouraging that there seems to be a steadily increasing number of people who question it.

Another thing I found funny was at school was being ranted and raved at for having the wrong jumper on by teachers who had BO, dandruff etc.

What a cheek.

Another thing which I think is unacceptable is the requirement to refer to teachers as Miss and Sir.

That won't be happening.

IME, the rules on hair dying in secondaries of my acquaintance:

• Up to 6th form: not allowed
• 6th form: discreet natural colouring is fine.
• Adults in school: as for 6th form but without 'discreet' - so dyed ash blond is fine even if very different from natural hair clour, but pink is not.

It it in line with the uniform policy: up to 6th form strict uniform, 6th form more flexible dress code with uniform elements, staff dress code without uniform elements.

Seems to work well.

Lord,

That should be fine, as long as you choose your school carefully - but for goodness sake choose a school in line with your views. IME different schools have different policies. 'Mr / Miss / Mrs / Dr X' is most common, though not universal.

Oh for goodness sake, read what I wrote too... I have said clearly that what kind of uniform or dress code a school chooses it not relevant. I am agreeing with you that uniform is unimportant when it comes to results/ a good school atmosphere. What is actually important is parents and students supporting the school, and whatever the rules they should be applied fairly, consistently and with compassion. Rules on uniform or dress code are always going to be fairly arbitrary, at the discretion of each school. If you think that uniform is stupid then you need to tell your school that however you can, campaign to change it (maybe one of those petitions that MPs have to debate, speak to your MP or whatever) or if that doesn't work look at alternative schooling for your child that suits your subjective opinion about uniform. Maybe that private girls school you like to keep referring to?

Lord, of course you will do all of those things, and then be asked to take your child elsewhere.

Gruntled, see that's thing, its objective, as long as the rules aren't oppressive, sexist, dangerous, it can be good just to let the status quo go.

Also what you want is top down policy change? Stand for parliament on that mandate them, but as I said in a PP when part of the consultation group on a new secondary school, parents in the majority wanted uniform and in consultations with parents since, again in the majority the backed uniform. You can't ask for exceptions to be made because you don't agree with it.

Lord,

Do you believe that, in all ways, children and adults are absolutely equal, in that all rights and responsibilities and rules that apply to adults, should also apply to children and vice versa? So that any distinction whatever is 'wrong' and should be challenged (e.g. every person on a bus must pay the same fare regardless of age)?

There are all kinds of circumstances in which the 'rules' applied to adults and children are different - children must receive full-time education, for example. Within all kinds of institutions there are different 'rules' and 'responsibilities' for different groups of people based on their position or experience - in a hospital, for example, what a nurse may do and what a surgeon may do are very different.

Why is a school different?

You can't ask for exceptions to be made because you don't agree with it.

I didn't.

Gruntled, so if you don't want exceptions to be made, what you want to happen is for schools to have no uniform rules (or significantly relaxed ones) because SOME people object to them, even if the majority DO want a uniform? So rather than individual exceptions, you want the rules changed for all because some don't like them? Or have I misunderstood you?

Another thing which I think is unacceptable is the requirement to refer to teachers as Miss and Sir.

I think you'll find that no such rules exist. They are a custom.That is all.

Why do you object to it? What would you prefer?

(I'm with echt - why is Miss / Sir worse than 'Mr X/ Dr Y'? Or, due to your thoughts of total equality between children and adults, would you be looking for a school in which as the adults call your son Tom, he therefore has the right to call every adult by their first name too?)

Well, here's a possibility; maybe most parents don't want their children to have orange or purple hair, so perhaps the school is tailoring its policy to accommodate this view?

Many things could go wrong in life, but it will be an eternal comfort to know that I'll never have to teach Brighter's little smasher.

As an observation, I am in Australia, and I find that my pupils always call me Ms echt, not Miss. I find it utterly charming, so much more polite, less peremptory than "Miss".

I address all parents by their title and surname; it is bizarre to me to communicate: Dear Geoff and Noeleen, your, etc. Let's face it, the reason you're writing is rarely a good one so the pally first name terms is not appropriate.

Should that be "are" appropriate?