To think that the school cannot enforce this uniform rule?

[ReanimatedSGB]

DS started back at school on Friday and has come home with an annoying student handbook full of various pissy instructions and threats of hour-long detentions.
One thing I noticed was that 'boys' hair must be no longer than collar length. DS has long hair. While I completely understand a regulation that long hair must be tied back for school, isn't it actually illegal for them to insist that boys can't have long hair? IE sex discrimination?

mrsxi yes, because wearing pantone whatever grey trousers and nothing else is imperative and any other shade of grey will make them fail all their GCSEs and turn them into career criminals. Sounds reasonable to me.

And here I was thinking there were at least 50 shades of Grey

As long as DS hair is neat just as a girl's would be expected to be, no problem. I do however side with schools insisting on uniform. It gives all the pupils a level field, no-one wearing latest trainers, sweatshirt,polo shirts etc. Do not side with having to buy it all from one supplier. Should just be grey/black/blue whatever school has chosen and trousers,skirts, tops, blazers and all the other standard stuff able to be purchased anywhere. Badges should be able to be seen on to blazers. No need for them to be on every item. School I attended,you could be called out if the heels of shoes hadn't been polished up with fronts. Discipline in maintaining a uniform keeping it clean and tidy is good experience for later life.

@mrsxi, care to elaborate on the link between obsessing over the correct shade of grey or whether the logo has been sewn on and confidence to achieve the best in life? I am sure your opinion is very well informed, the result of thoughtful research; I do note, however, that you have forgotten to post about said research, so I dare ask about it!

A couple of years ago there was the case of a London primary school (google St George The Martyr university walk) that forced pupils to walk with their hands clasped behind their backs to achieve confidence, the best in life, yadda yadda ya and some other totally unsubstantiated and nonsensical waffle.

This year a school in Leicestershire came up with something similar, for 'safety reasons' because children had been knocked over by other children racing.

Some parents blew these incidents out of proportion (no, it's not slavery) but what they have in common is the capricious application of a nonsensical rule which lacks any kind of logic or justification. Hands behind your back to achieve confidence? Really? Why? How? Where's the proof? Hands behind your back for safety? Isn't that less safe if a child trips over and falls (hardly a rare event for primary school kids)?

@manicmij , I mostly agree with you. A sensible uniform policy, sensibly policed, removes one potential cause for bullying and relieves pressure off the poorer kids to follow the latest (expensive) fashion trends.

However, it also increases the chance of bullying by kids of other schools. Hey, look, he's from school X, let's beat the out of him!

It is yet to be proven that countries with no uniform rules have worse bullying - maybe there is something else to it, too? Finnish schools have no uniform, are not selective, and are considered among the best in the world. Just to name one.

Well, three days into term, he has been going to school with his hair tied neatly back and nothing has been said. Maybe his dad was right and they just did a C&P on some silly uniform policy from elsewhere...

I'm still going to be keeping a careful eye on the situation, though.

Op, are you the poster I once had a conversation with about Quim magazine at a Xmas meetup many moons ago? I don't really expect you to remember but that memory just popped into my head. Your username wasn't so abbreviated. Apologies if wrong but I thought the writing style was familiar.
As you were..

Yup.

Really most teachers and schools are trying to do the best for your children.

Hmmm. No, super strict uniform codes are to teach conformism and obedience. Neither are behaviours I want imposed on my daughters. Rules like these are not about respect or personal growth, or even education.

DH had long hair decades ago. Had to wear a hair net to be around food same as girls. DS did same. I think that they were trying to embarrass ds into cutting his hair but it didn't work.

If they have not said anything, just keep it neat and ignore the issue.

At my DS' school the rule is that male and female pupils all have a short back and sides.

Obviously not really, but I wonder how the posters on this thread who have an issue with long hair on male pupils would respond if this were the case?

Yet somehow discriminating against our sons is fine.

Its absolutely not fine.

And I wonder what it is about British teachers that renders them apparently unable to achieve what thousands of teachers all ovwrbthe world achieve and choosing instead to rely on hair and clothing to control the children

Uniform and these rules may have started out with good intentioms

However with teachers now bullying the kids themselves, items getting nore and more expensive and hundreds of kids getting sent home for things beyond their control.
None of the arguments in favour stand up any more. And are in fact punishing the kids who would benefit the most from being in school and of course being the source of trouble for the very children the whole idea was supposed to protect.

And bullies bully if it's not clothes it's something else. Bullies do t just stop bullying cos a uniform takes away one subject.

at SGB
Glad you're still here, I had a break and changed my nn a few times but I'm still loving mumsnet.

as long as it is tied back as the girls must do then it should be fine.

But it's not though, sunshine. Fine, that is. In an awful lot of schools, long hair on boys just isn't allowed. If it were then if course the same rule would apply re tying it back, why ever not.

But it should be allowed that's the point. Dictating someone's hair cut is a step too far.

Hair kept tidy and clean should be enough in everyone.

The fact you would hack your kids hair off to suit someone on a power trip is disturbing

OP should write to the school governors and address the issue, boys have every right to have long hair and girls have every right to have short hair. I'd say these are stone age rules but even back then men had long hair!

It may seem trivial to some people but teenagers are at the stage of trying to form an identity and how they look is a part of that. The thing about making rules about hair as opposed to uniform is that it is effectively making a rule that applies when they're not in school which works out as nearly half the year. A kid can take their uniform off when they get home but they can't grow their hair long and then cut it off to go to school.

Excellent point well made Hoolies.

My son's long hair isn't even neat though it is imacculately clean. There are pupils with hair dyed all sorts of colours. They are reasonably strict on uniform. Despite all these hairdos, they still manage to be one of the highest academic achieving schools with no disciplinary issues and a happy bunch of pupils and teachers.

I often wonder if the reason there are so many schools with problems is because kids are never made responsible for their behaviour.

If you are rude about someone's appearance or clothes or hair or body then that needs dealing with.

Except the default answer is to keep adding regulations removing every opportunity. We are trying to shelter kids from the fact that people are different sizes and shapes and have different hair styles, that people wear make up in different ways, that sone like loose baggy clothing others prefer more fitted clothing etc.

At no point are kids being held accountable for their actions.

When in fact unless you are in a consensual intimate encounter witg someone (or someone is deliberately trying to use their body to intimidate you).it is perfectly possible to not see people dressed any which way with hair styles any which way and have to stand there staring. It's perfectly easy to look away and get on with your day. And people who make judgements on hair styles or people who make comments should be diciplined.

The answer is not to make kids change their clothes or their hair styles or change who they are to protect those who think.its ok to be arseholes.

Maybe if we held people accountable for their actions rather than expect victims to alter their behaviour or seeking to go through life teaching kids that the answer is to remove opportunities to misbehave rather than teaching them to be responsible for themselves , maybe things wouldnt be so bad

imagine someone turned up to any of the large banks wanting a job if they had hair down to their shoulders do you honestly think they'd get in the front door?

Utter bollocks- I have worked for 3 different large banks over the years and every single one had several men with long hair. From the top of my head I can think of 18 different men with long hair but I'm sure there where more. One guy had hair that grew up and out so his hair was big. Some of them had dreadlocks, others just had long straight hair (sometimes tied back, sometimes not.)

2 of the 3 offices required business dress the other was smart casual. In the business dress offices hair had to be tidy so the men with long hair tied it back. Tattoos where also not forbidden but had to be covered.

I don't think you are being unreasonable OP.

Hear hear Giles . My child was bullied at school. Even one of the bullies parents implied that it was my son's fault for basically being quiet and not liking football (and being borderling aspergers) instead of wondering why his own child was a bulying shitebag.

There is something so wrong about a place who's answer is to make kids who are bullied work with or play with the very person making their lives miserable in some weird idea of "resolution" and then sends some kid who's never laid a finger on anyone or caused any trouble is sent home or put in isolation over the wrong shade of grey or a hair style.

Scrap uniform

Scrap rules on appearance (barring swear words ,racist, homophobic slogans on clothing) etc

And deal with the kids...

The only reason people think.uniform.works is because all the likely people to be in violation are the ones from unsupportive homes , and "problem kids" and the poor kids who's parents can't afford it and all the resources and ergo all the kids likely to require nore behaviour management or need extra support with things, are sent home so aren't in class to cause any "problem"

And I wonder what it is about British teachers that renders them apparently unable to achieve what thousands of teachers all over the world achieve and choosing instead to rely on hair and clothing to control the children

It's worth remembering a couple of things here:

1. The vast majority of teachers probably give not the teeniest of fucks what your child's hair looks like. But they are paid to do their job, part of which is upholding the school rules.

2. Why would Headteachers try to make the kids look so smart and conformist if that wasn't something that helped sell the school to potential parents? Many many parents (perhaps sometimes even subconsciously) equate formal uniform and neat-looking children with a good school. Unfortunately they sometimes don't like the uniform rules so much when it's their child having to comply with them.

3. Having to enforce uniform rules makes teachers' jobs harder, not easier. It does not help control students. It creates problems where there don't need to be any.

Uniform does not make a school good or make its pupils behave better. It's pure marketing. And the targets of that marketing are the potential parents (not the current ones).