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?

You can't rule that Sikh or Rastafarian boys must have short hair, and you're on shaky grounds if you ban braids or cornrows but you can absolutely ban blue hair whether as a school disciplinary matter or a sacking offence for an employee. Whether you should is a different matter, but it's not covered by any human rights or discrimination legislation.

"How do you define discrimination?"

By creating detriment against a protected characteristic or vulnerable group on spurious grounds.

It is NOT legal to deny someone employment based solely on the colour of their hair, and it is NOT lawful to wilfully deny or limit a child's access to education based on appearance.

"Lord chosen hair colour isn't part of a protected characteristic and so isn't protected by law. At least on it's own, if it were part of your religion or culture you might have a case, but even then such protections are not absolute."

Under 16s are vulnerable groups and the state is obliged to provide education in a way that is non discriminatory.

Private schools are, to a degree, different.

"but you can absolutely ban blue hair whether as a school disciplinary matter or a sacking offence for an employee. Whether you should is a different matter, but it's not covered by any human rights or discrimination legislation."

Show me a test case. Bear in mind that under 16s are classed as vulnerable and that the state is obliged to provide equal access to education.

Unlawful discrimination is defined with reference to protected characteristics. Appearance is not protected except insofar as it relates to other characteristics like religion age or race.

"Unlawful discrimination is defined with reference to protected characteristics. Appearance is not protected except insofar as it relates to other characteristics like religion age or race."

It more complex than that because of the state's statutory obligations with regard to education.

Lord, can you quote me a test case where a pupil required to conform to a school dress code by having 'natural coloured hair' has successfully upheld their right to have dyed hair in a school whose written rules state that this is not allowed?

Giles the boy in question had a haircut that would get him barred from many places. It was ridiculous and he did it as a dare. To get a reaction. Think sideshow bob from the Simpsons with two inches shaved in the middle. He was being disruptive. School prevented him from disrupting others

Lord, can you quote me a test case where a pupil required to conform to a school dress code by having 'natural coloured hair' has successfully upheld their right to have dyed hair in a school whose written rules state that this is not allowed. "

I might later when I have time. But I asked for a test case first. So where is it?

The point is, I think, that the child has a right to an education provided by the state, but they do not have the right to insist that that education to be in a specific school or institution. So for example if a child breaks school rules, that 'full time education appropriate to their abilities and aptitudes' can be provided in a PRU, or an exclusion unit, or within a separate room on site, or in a totally different school that does not have those particular rules, or at home, or in hospital, or wherever. And as another poster sad above, governors have the legal right to set rules for a particular school.

Lord, but why should there be a test case in court for what is, essentially, the status quo? Isn't that a bit like someone bringing a test case for driving on the left?

Because what you are asking for, I think, is a test case in which someone who does not have blue hair has demanded that it be enshrined in law that it is not infringing their human rights if they were to get blue hair? Or something?

Quotations from 'The Equality Act 2010 - Guidance for schools"

The Equality Act does not deal specifically with school uniform or other asp
ects of appearance such as hair colour and style, and the wearing of jewellery and make-up, but the general requirement not to discriminate in the treatment of pupils applies here as in relation to other aspects of school policy. It is for the governing body of a school to decide whether there should be a school uniform and other rules relating to appearance,
and if so what they should be. This flows from the duties placed upon the governing body by statute to manage the school.
2.16
Long-standing guidance makes it clear that schools must have regard to their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 (it is here rather than in relation to equality law that most case law has been determined to date) as well as under equality law, and that they need to be careful that blanket uniform policies do not discriminate because of race, religion or belief, gender, disability, gender reassignment or sexual orientation.
Consequently it will be up to the individual school to consider the implications their uniform requirements have on their pupils.
2.17
For example, differences in dress requirements for girls and boys are standard, and where they don’t have significantly more detrimental effects on one sex or the other they are unlikely to be regarded as discriminatory. But it might be unlawful if, for example, the uniform was considerably more expensive for girls than for boys. Schools need also to consider whether flexibility is needed in relation to uniform to meet the needs of a pupil
who is undergoing gender reassignment. It may also be discrimination because of disability if, for example, a child who has a skin condition which means they cannot wear nylon is not allowed to wear cotton trousers as part of the uniform.
16
2.18
There are potential issues around schooluniform policies and religion and belief. Schools should be sensitive to the needs of different cultures, races and religions and act reasonably in accommodating these needs, without compromising important school policies, such as school safety or discipline. It is well established that it would be race discrimination to refuse to let a Sikh child wear a turban because of a school policy requiring that caps be worn, but legal judgments have not supported the absolute right of people of faith to wear garments or jewellery to indicate that faith."

As 'the wish to have un-natural coloured hair', with the sole exception of Muslims who have been to Mecca colouring their beard with henna, does not fall under "race, religion or belief, gender, disability, gender reassignment or sexual orientation.", and it is explicitly stated that schools have the right to set uniform requirements, there doesn't seem to be much room for legal challenge?

[[https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiAse-70ZrKAhVCORQKHX5vAqEQFgggMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdera.ioe.ac.uk%2F7044%2F4%2Funiform%2520guidance%2520-%2520final2.doc&usg=AFQjCNHOdlZ6LlWNZh9Nw7qoG8DB6WB9CQ&sig2=uxlb9bgF29_nR7smZcwfGA&cad=rja]] may also be relevant, ansd it no-where supports Lord's assertions, especially wrt the Human Rights Act.

Opps this

Hair is not a part of uniform. Next!

All documents that I find state very clearly that it is the legal right of schools to set uniform requirements, and as long as they do not involve direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics (of which 'being a teenager who wants blue hair' is not one), it is their legal right to enforce these, up to and including exclusion under certain circumstances.

"A head teacher can discipline a pupil for breach of uniform/appearance policy. However, DCSF does not consider exclusion to be an appropriate response to breaches of school uniform/appearance policy, except where they are persistent and defiant. Where a pupil repeatedly refuses to comply with school uniform policy even if they do not otherwise display poor behaviour, we believe that exclusion could be an appropriate response, depending on the circumstances of the case.

14. A head teacher or a person authorised by the head teacher may ask a pupil to go home briefly to remedy a breach of the school’s rules on appearance or uniform. This should be for no longer than is necessary to remedy the breach. This is not an exclusion, but an authorised absence. However, if the pupil continues to breach uniform rules in such a way as to be sent home to avoid school, or takes longer than is strictly necessary to effect the change, the pupil’s absence may be counted as unauthorised absence. A pupil must not be sent home indefinitely or for longer than is strictly necessary to remedy the breach as this could amount to an unofficial exclusion. In all such cases parents must be notified and the absence should be recorded. When making this decision, the child’s age, vulnerability, how easily and quickly the breach can be remedied, and the availability of the parent, will need to be considered. If the pupil then repeatedly infringes the school’s rules on uniform or appearance, this may constitute a disciplinary offence and may be grounds for exclusion.

15. Where a pupil is not adhering to school uniform policy, a school should be considerate and discreetly try to establish why not. There may be good reasons why a pupil is not attending school in the correct uniform. For example, their uniform may have been lost, stolen or damaged. Sending the pupil home or excluding them may not be appropriate in every case. If a pupil is not wearing the correct uniform because their parents are in financial difficulties, a school should be sensitive to the needs of the pupil. A school should give parents time to purchase the required items and/or consider whether a school or local authority clothing grant can be supplied. A pupil should not be made to feel uncomfortable, nor discriminated against, because their parents are unable to provide them with the required items of school uniform. "

Note uniform / appearance policy in the above document, of which hair is definitely a part. It is an extract from my link.

There is also a reference in that document to the fact that a rule against 'cornrow' hairstyles could be seen as indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of race, and so is not allowed- hairstyle is definitely included in the remit of 'appearance policy'.

That's an awful lot of verbiage on something that isn't necessary or even in the best interests of the children!

I have to say that allowing deviations in uniform in the basis of religion is a slippery slope. Religion isn't inherent. In the case of many children it's the choice of their parents. If a child is actually religious themself again it's their choice. If you allow deviations due to one kind of choice how can you refuse another kind? (I appreciate this will not be something that individual schools or staff can do anything about but it's worth considering as part of the wider debate.)

The position of Government, as stated in that same document is:
"1. School uniform plays a valuable role in contributing to the ethos of a school and setting an appropriate tone. Most schools in England have a school uniform or dress code, and other rules on appearance. DCSF strongly encourages schools to have a uniform as it can instil pride; support positive behaviour and discipline; encourage identity with, and support for, school ethos; ensure pupils of all races and backgrounds feel welcome; protect children from social pressures to dress in a particular way; and nurture cohesion and promote good relations between different groups of pupils. Above all, many schools believe that school uniform supports effective teaching and learning."

so deciding that you don't want to do it because you don't like it is not really going to get you anywhere as a legal challenge IYSWIM?

On the case law request, btw, sometimes case law doesn't exist because a case cannot be made. So, for example, there won't be case law on 'I want to drive on the right not on the left', because a legal case could not be constructed in which there was any law to argue that that was OK IYSWIM?

A case can always be made. It just won't be successful if there's no basis in law. So you could challenge driving on the left by contesting a charge for doing so and appeal if found against. If you were found for or against by a high enough court that would set legal precedent.

An exclusion isn't a legal charge against you, it's an administrative act by a school. So on being excluded for blue hair you would presumably have to, after exhausting appeal channels within the school system, sue the school for breaching your rights under the Equalities act (maybe by suggesting it indirectly discriminates against your culture or beliefs as some hairstyle rules might). The case may not have legal merit, but you can still make it. If a high enough court decides one way or another on the case then you have legal precedent. That we don't have that is an indication that no one felt strongly enough about it to bring such a case (which may, in part, be an indication of the legal merits of the case, but not necessarily). Not that a case couldn't be brought.

If that's the schools uniform policy regents kids need to stick to it or find a different school more in line with their ethos :)