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?

Red,

I teach in a primary. All the research evidence is that homework, over and above daily reading (and I would add learning times tables at the appropriate age - neither of these has any marking, but both are very effective) has no impact on outcomes.

But, after lengthy consultation, we set and mark a variety of other homework - spelling and sentences, maths activities etc. Why? Because we cannot shift the perception in the parent body that written homework = good, no homework except reading and tables = bad.

Thecats
This is Mumsnet, honesty is allowed.

So i spend time - valuable time, that I could use in improving the aspects of teaching life that really DO have an impact on what my pupils achieve - to differentiate, set and mark homework. Only for, in every survey, half the parents to complain we set too much, and half to complain that we set tioo little.

You don't need to be intentionally rude

Red, would you prefer me to mark the 96 books I mark each teaching night to a level that means, in the next lesson, the teaching is precisely targeted and children can respond to exactly what they need to do next? Or the 32 pieces of homework, that I KNOW has no impact?

Or would you prefer me to plan an engaging and differentiated lesson that really grabs the class and I can keep moving throughout the lesson so that they really make progress? Or set 3-4x differentiated spelling and sentence homework that really doesn't influence progress at all?

I do set homework, and I do mark it, because that is the school's policy, based on very clear feedback from parents. But I am not clear who I am setting and marking it for, because it doesn't affect the children's progress?

Thecats
Agreed, but it's great fun and the football is quite boring at the moment.

redbinneo

"Bony:"

Can't you read (Boom, burn on you)

"I din't care, so long as it is uniform and identifiable."

different roles have different requirements, how many uniforms would you as a tax payer be prepared to fund?

"It's interesting that you have had several uniformed roles, do you have difficulty in holding down a job?"

It is called having a long career, working in factories, offices, design studios, various dangerous places around the world. Each linked to my chosen profession before I became a teacher.

Its strange that some parents complain when teachers are straight from education, and then make stupid assumptions when you have had the career that they think a teacher should have.

You think it's great fun to be intentionally rude?

It's not fun to be rude to people

Good Lord red. I have to say that it's MN that changed my (uninformed and frankly wrong) view of homework and I now believe that it's a waste if teacher's time and what is taught in class is what's of benefit.

Well i haven't read the full thread as it has snowballed but i'm all for scrapping homework apart from reading, spelling and times tables.
Half the stuff the dc come home with seems to be set because teachers HAVE to issue it and seems like a waste of time for teachers and pupils.

Dc get maths sheets that are basically test papers each week. I've spoken to school about these because often they contain maths that has not been covered yet and SN DD was getting very demoralised by them. I was told it was to challenge them but then I end up teaching the dc how to do it and I'm worried I'm teaching them in methods I used twenty years ago rather than how they want them to do it now.
What was worse is the old teacher used to mark them as incorrect and send them back home to be corrected but not explaining what they had done wrong or how to do I correctly. Thankfully the new teacher does explain.

I agree that some homework is pointless but needs to be set as per the policy ( schools have a policy for everything!). Parents expect homework. I would personally scrap it all apart from making it compulsory to read for 30 minutes every night.

With KS3 I tend to do one SPaG hwk per week and then they are given an option for the other - so for Romeo & Juliet it could be make a mask, design a leaflet, write a diary or complete a police report (something for all). With KS4 I tend to do exam questions that link in to the topic. Google classrooms and other such packages make this much less onerous for pupils and teachers.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/schoolgirls-claim-teachers-enforcing-make-10701146

Make up and school - complete with sad face

The patrolling of corridors with wet wipes is unnecessarily confrontational, if indeed that's happening, as the school doesn't comment.

I would be surprised if the school had not sent out a newsletter before the term began underlining the renewed focus.

Read the first 15 pages but... life is short.

Isn't the hair issue just about a lowest common denominator conformity? Just the language of 'extreme' haircuts or colour smacks of a Daily Express paradigm. As there is no H&S or any practical reason for outrage at a purple mohican, it must just be to not upset very conservative elements? Add to that, an old-fashioned view about 'the workplace'... it's all a bit unpleasant.

Read the first 15 pages but... life is short.

Isn't the hair issue just about a lowest common denominator conformity? Just the language of 'extreme' haircuts or colour smacks of a Daily Express paradigm. As there is no H&S or any practical reason for outrage at a purple mohican, it must just be to not upset very conservative elements? Add to that, an old-fashioned view about 'the workplace'... it's all a bit unpleasant.

Yes, it is.

However a good deal of the heat on this thread has been generated by teachers being criticised for merely doing their jobs, as if they had any choice in following the rules set by their employers.

Echt that's my thought - surely the school would have commented

pieceofpurplesky
I wrote:
The class of students most likely to be adversely affected by problems in the class environment is actually girls who are relatively quiet and well behaved but who are in class with boys who are unruly...

You read:
The class of students most likely to be adversely affected by problems in the class environment is actually girls, who are relatively quiet and well behaved but who are in class with boys who are unruly...

Lack of a comma makes a difference.

'pieceofpurplesky Fri 08-Jan-16 07:48:04

Actually math girls tend to be equally disruptive in a class - if not more so at times. Luckily a teacher with good classroom management and skills can combat this. There is no dumbing down of questions based on gender in my class - I differentiate by ability.

^My comment on 'dirty doctors' etc reflects on the fact that it is men who have objectifies women in this way - I don't think many people look at a young girl in uniform and immediately think 'sexy school girl'.
As I have said throughout this most pupils prefer a uniform, teachers uphold rules and I like a uniform when I teach.^

Oh and red lipstick - not 'slut shaming' to ask an 11 year old to remove - the policy is subtle. Red is not subtle.

How do you evaluate 'ability' without being affected by all sorts of unconscious gendered expectations? If you have the answer to this, then bottle it and prepare to go on a lecture tour.

Again, '...The real issue, [Beard suggests] is not merely guaranteeing a woman’s right to speak; it is being aware of the prejudices that we bring to the way we hear her.' There is a large body of studies illustrating the hidden prejudices that go into evaluation of girls' vs. boys' work and 'ability' -- no teacher can stand up, hand on heart, and state that ability is something that can be objectively measured. Teachers tend to even assign more weight to neatness in girls' work than they give it in boys' work. Initiative and boldness and other 'masculine' traits tend to be weighted more in boys when assessing 'ability'.
'Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s cousins recall her as “very bright, very bossy” when she was growing up. “As I began to climb the ladder, I had to cope with the different vocabulary used to describe similar qualities in men (confident, take-charge, committed) and women (bossy, aggressive, emotional,) ” she said in her memoir. She also noticed how men behaved in ways that would be dismissed if they had been women. “If women leaders had acted the way Arafat and Barak did during Camp David,” she wrote, “they would have been dismissed as menopausal.”'

When you draw attention to a girl's appearance and criticise it, in a classroom, there is no other word for it than shaming. There are many shades of meaning to the word 'subtle'. In the case of 'unsubtle' lipstick colours, red is unacceptable or considered 'unsubtle' because of its association with sex, which is something that could probably only discombobulate the adult in a room full of eleven year olds. Other colours might be considered 'unsubtle' because they are extremely bright or dark neon pink, or goth black or aubergine purple but red is in a class of its own where 'subtlety' is concerned because it transgresses so many of the shades of meaning of the word, and I suggest that a child of 11 wearing red lipstick needs much more 'subtle' handling than being told publicly to go to the bathroom and wipe it off.

I realise you have no choice about enforcing rules, but I am wondering why the rule is in place and what it attempts to teach. Why is the policy 'subtle'?

It is really important to try to understand how much of the sexism of the wider society we absorb, as women, how we police each other's behaviour and appearance and to what end in general, and in particular how that translates to classroom approaches.

While it is true that in the patriarchy women tend to be objectified, the role of women in dividing ourselves into sluts and saints, madonnas and whores, needs to be examined. Many of us are the handmaids of the oppressors though we would object strongly to that accusation. Should we be participating in this exercise? Should we be teaching 11 year olds that wearing an unsubtle/ sexy lip colour is a bad thing, and if we should, why is unsubtlety a bad thing? Are we trying to tell a child wearing red lipstick that she is responsible for any consequences of crossing certain lines?

We are certainly telling the boys in the classroom that it is fine to point out the red lipstick, and that there is something negative about red lipstick or 'unsubtle' makeup, and that it is ok to single out the wearer of red lipstick in public. Even if the boys are still very much children, an incident like this will leave a mark. Policing behaviour that has sexual overtones is a minefield.

There is no way to explain why red lipstick is forbidden but that other shades are allowed that is not sexist and shaming. No way.

Mathanxiety:
'At stake is the question of whether girls are equals in the classroom or just viewed however subconsciously as a potential distraction for boys, and the disproportionate time and attention accorded to policing the appearance of girls suggests that schools believe that boys need protection from distraction and that they exist more for the benefit of boys than for girls.'

Cricketballs:
The only policing of appearance of girls in regards to this point has been with regards to skirt length; this is not for the benefit providing protection from distraction for the boys, (who in my experience of the worst offenders against uniform rules) but of a decency aspect. I do not want to be able to see anyone’s underwear

Despite the disclaimers and the anecdotes, I very much suspect that skirt length rules are in place to prevent boys from distraction. There is a lot of distance between 'fingertip length' or 'knee length' and 'short enough to see underwear'. Also, you are missing the point about requiring girls to submit to checking and singling out in public. The lesson of that is not lost on boys, who are not blind to the implications of the policing of sexuality that is going on or to the context of that -- a wider world that features a seemingly permanent wallpaper of male privilege, one that is so utterly dominated by the 'male gaze' that even well educated women cannot see how they are propping it all up.

Has anyone taken the trouble to find out what in boys' appearance distracts girls? Are tight trousers worn by boys that reveal a shapely derriere distracting to girls? How about a nicely turned ankle on a boy whose trousers are a few inches above his shoes? How about a manly upper body stretching the seams of a shirt, a wisp of moustache? Boys walking around a school with their hands in their pockets... What is that all about?

What does 'decency' really mean, anyway?

Wrt my post being demeaning to boys, read what I wrote again, this time paying attention to punctuation. You might also pore over the many studies examining boys' behaviour in classrooms and gendered expectations on the part of teachers, at all levels of education.

Regarding girls' success at GCSE level, you can also look at the serious problem of girls opting out of STEM subjects in droves beyond that point. The reasons for this are all related to the observation of Mary Beard -- 'I saw that, somehow, I was there as sort of a favour.' The factors that go into making girls think they are tolerated as guests but are not really part of the club need to be tackled.

"pieceofpurplesky Fri 08-Jan-16 12:23:00
Boy would have played up to his audience and fooled around some more why did you do that? Was pissed wasn't I. Messing around. Did it for a date. I would have reprimanded the language and tried to get the class to settle. Miss do you like my hair? Do you think it's nice? Sarah loves it don't you Sarah? Jo is going to have his done like this later. Then the miss why is he allowed to have hair like that it's stupid and it is distracting me
Etc etc"

I realise this was speculation on the part of Pieceofpurplesky, but all of the above is an excellent example of what happens when you infantilise students by making them wear uniform, showing that you do not hold each individual responsible for their own learning.

It is also an excellent example of the complete lack of faith in students that sadly so many British adults seem to hold.

Teenagers take the piss because they understand on some level that the rules are absurd and contradict what the school is trying to achieve, i.e. students who are actively and enthusiastically engaged in their own education.

On the one hand schools want to see maturity of approach to studies -- on the other, the students are treated as if they couldn't possibly muster the maturity to handle freedom to wear what they choose.

Actually, given so many posts here illustrating the right hand not understanding what the left hand is doing, I suspect I am being generous in ascribing any sort of clear goal to schools.

Gileswithachainsaw:
if they can't behave in the presence of these people then they can't behave. so no you don't have good dicipline. you have removed situations to avoid dealing with it

^^This.

And thus schools do the opposite of preparing students for the real world of work.

I really am being generous in assuming that they understand what they are doing.

Some of the teachers on this thread seem incredibly disempowered, and I'm curious to see that one of the sources of this disempowerment is apparently parents.

So homework has to be set because of parental expectations, uniform has to be imposed and policed because of parental expectations. This even though evidence suggests that neither make any significant difference to educational outcomes.

And yet as parents we feel equally disempowered. Schools it seems to us do not listen at all. They rarely engage and are often very difficult to communicate with.

Teachers talk about parents rejecting their schools because we think they are a bit scruffy or set insufficient homework. And yet in practice very few families have any true choice about where we send our children, and very little information about the rules is provided until a non optional 'contract' is placed in front of us (usually long after any possible 'choice' of school) Often those documents refer to policies that are unavailable to parents in any case, and changes in practice (like sudden crack downs on petty infringements) appear suddenly. Clothes and hairstyles that were totally acceptable one term are suddenly outlawed the next. None of it really makes much sense.

I know that teenagers in groups behave very differently to teenagers at home, but really I don't understand why parents are told to pick your battles and focus on what matters, but schools and teachers seem to go out of their way to create confrontation about issues that do not matter in any way at all.

Maybe if pupils weren't forced into conforming uniforms they'd not feel the need to add bright makeup and outrageous hairstyles? At my children's school most kids have quite boring haircuts and wear jeans and t-shirts. None of the teachers have complained about my dd's liking of colourful stripes in her hair or ds's apparent permanent post Christmas adoption of a trench coat. I don't get the impression that either are of any interest to anyone except themselves. As it should be really.

but schools and teachers seem to go out of their way to create confrontation about issues that do not matter in any way at all.

Teachers do not do this. I can assure you they would far just get on with the teaching, they do not get to choose the uniforms or whether or not to enforce the rules. It is their job.

It would be a very brave school that chose to ditch uniforms. They have to make decisions for years, because of the effects of public perceptions of the public image of schools and their projected recruitments. And yes, outsiders judge appearance. They look at their competition, the surrounding schools and follow suit.

Teachers talk about parents rejecting their schools because we think they are a bit scruffy or set insufficient homework.

I've heard of the former, but never the latter, and certainly not on this thread. The parents start to complain once they're in.

Teacherwith2kids:
'Excellent behaviour management is dealing very quickly, often unobtrusively, and very effectively with anything that arises with a minimum of disruption to the lesson (I don't even need to say anything to get a child to move. I simply point to where they need to go, while continuing to teach. They move. Learning goes on.) But removal of the root cause of the problem, on a short-lived basis sufficient for the class / child to regain focus, is a universally-used technique by good behaviour managers.'

I disagree with this.

Good behaviour management should never be the be all and end all of classroom management. Good management consists of finding ways of creating enthusiastic learners, not in putting out little fires all day every day. It involves finding and eradicating the obstacles in the way of enthusiasm, encouraging self discipline, fostering true self esteem and a sense of personal responsibility in each individual in the room.

...............

The continued reliance on Lurker's post as justification for various rules regarding appearance makes it clear how ridiculous it all is. Apparently rules about personal appearance and details of school uniforms are in place to pander to fear of various kinds on the part of the general public, a completely irrational response to a completely irrational expectation.

The inability to understand Giles' (100% logical) contention that if appearance was not going to garner attention then 'attention seekers' would have nowhere to turn has me scratching my head.

Schools hand themselves to disruptive students on a plate in an effort to make an impression on the public. So much time and effort are wasted in the school on policing appearance, and so many positive alternative approaches to discipline are eschewed, when actually no amount of yardage of blazers is going to fool anyone you would really like to see sending their children to any given school.

Piece
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
This is infantilisation, or as Giles remarked, removing the responsibility of governing their own reaction and the chance to practice self control. How does this square with the aim of creating an environment where students are actively engaged in their own learning and responsible for their own conduct?

Having experienced the RC school approach to makeup and uniform and out of uniform days when my DCs were in elementary school, I found myself nodding in recognition to details of teachers shouting at girls wearing makeup as described in the DM article. Far from mocking the girls (DM sad face lol) I feel very strongly that the school is humiliating girls in a way that will ultimately put them off having anything to do with practicing the RC religion, and the management should pay close attention to unintended consequences. This is a sad example of everything that is wrong with uniform policy.

Hah -- a claim that no coloured bras are allowed as they distract the boys, from the same school.
'The Barlow’s uniform policy, outlined on its website, reads: “Our pupils are ambassadors of the school and are expected to dress and behave in a way that reflects the standards we seek to achieve.”'
There is a large part of me that suspects most of this is about class too, mixed with a large dose of misogyny, all adding up to the perception that only slappers wear makeup.

The conflation of outward appearance with any kind of virtue or merit boils my piss, speaking as an RC parent and as a feminist. RC schools are very quick to state that they consider themselves the agents of parents, and the RC church emphasises that parents are the first teachers of their children, yet clearly the parents allow their daughters to go to school wearing makeup, so what gives?