AIBU to be fuming that DS has been sent home because of his hair???

[brodyblake]

DS had his haircut just before he started secondary school. In the uniform rules, it just saying no "extreme hairstyles" does not give any kind of description as to what those may be. Bugger me, he goes in with a perfect uniform, a nice smart haircut and is told it's a no!!! They have said that he is to be in isolation until it grows to an acceptable length they didn't say what would be classed as extreme!!!!!!!!

Remember also that implicit in concept of responsibility, is the ability to respond. Unfair, unclear and discriminatory rules erode this ability.

AnneGrommit

I am happy that the state provides an education for my children. I am unhappy that I have to buy special clothes in order for them to access it and that that access can be denied even then because of a haircut.

Then you have choices:

If your unhappiness is overriding:
a) If you can, earn more or redirect your financial resources, and go private.
b) As above, move.

If your unhappiness is not overriding:
c) Not appreciate the state provided school, undermine and disrespect its values and rules and fail to teach your child basic understanding of rules, why they are there, and good behaviour that will work out to their benefit, and create the circumstances for them to miss lessons and face disciplining
d) Appreciate the state provided school and the rules and values that exist in it, abide by them, and give your child the best chance possible to get the most from their education.

Up to you.

Flowers do you also live a place where unicorns float on by? Who actually in reality can just up and move so their child can retain some sense of self worth and individuality.

No one has suggested abolish uniforms or have uniform standards and policies.

But it is getting to the point that schools base their worth and propaganda on their physical image rather than on what goes on within it.

The definition of uniform from (OED) is (n)
The distinctive clothing worn by members of the same organisation or body or by children attending certain schools

So by definition a blazer or jumper of tie is uniform but a haircut is not! It also doesn't say uniform has a meaning of needing to be identical just the item is distinctive to belong to an organisation.

The government also has a responsibility to provide education to children. They've signed up to the idea that children have a right to education.

Yet still they get put in isolation and prevented from participating in classes for having the wrong socks on or having a haircut the HT doesn't like.

Flowers your posts contradict themselves now.

ponderingprobably I agree with you that the school's rules need to be clear, as I have already said. The school does have a responsibility to ensure its policies are clearly communicated and clearly understood. We shall have to disagree about the OP's case then - I would argue it is blatantly obvious to most that a skin fade hair cut, or anything like it, would be considered "extreme" and is highly inappropriate for school.

So if there is absolutely no way on earth a parent can move to put their child into the school without a uniform policy that is so desperately important to them, then they need to live with the school that is available to them, have some respect, and abide by the rules.

Should schools not have respect for the communities that feed them? Does enough money buy you the choice to disrespect others? Actually, also, is it not disrespectful to neglect to point out where institutions are making errors that could have a detrimental effect on the wider community?

Good point artbitary. It doesn't say "children have a right to an education but only if they wear certain shoes and have a certain haircut, wear an expensive skirt way beyond the means of many and relinquish any sort of individuality or autonomy over their own personal appearance"

We shall have to disagree about the OP's case then - I would argue it is blatantly obvious to most that a skin fade hair cut, or anything like it, would be considered "extreme" and is highly inappropriate for school.

I think this is subjective and dependent on how widespread the haircut in question and how it is generally perceived within the community the school is placed within. As with the picture posted upthread, in the 1930s, the haircut was popular amongst people with high social status.

youarenotkiddingme

Who actually in reality can just up and move so their child can retain some sense of self worth and individuality.

If it's so desperately important to you, you''ll find a way. What's stopping parents who feels this is so important that they'd endanger their child's education, from doing so? If they don't, stay, and respect the school.

No one has suggested abolish uniforms or have uniform standards and policies.

Yes they have, several PPs have on this thread.

But it is getting to the point that schools base their worth and propaganda on their physical image rather than on what goes on within it.

The school system is a mess for many reasons. I don't think any school bases its entire worth on a physical image. Have you not heard of OFSTED or results rankings?

The definition of uniform from (OED) is (n)..So by definition a blazer or jumper of tie is uniform but a haircut is not!

Oh dear me. We are discussing uniform policies. School uniform policies include hair, makeup and jewellery.

It also doesn't say uniform has a meaning of needing to be identical just the item is distinctive to belong to an organisation.

Oh dear me. Definition of distinctive: "characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others." That one thing is uniformity. How could a school's clothing be distinctive and show it belongs to that school if it's not identical and uniform youarenotkiddingme?

So Flower, how would you suggest the OP, after misunderstanding the uniform requirement, rectified the situation? Should her son's education continue to suffer for this mistake which cannot be rectifies overnight?

Would this suffice?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/WIG-QUALITY-synthetic-youthful-GFW994-6/dp/B0073J9NHW/ref=sr113ssit?s=beauty&ie=UTF8&qid=1505549460&sr=1-3&keywords=men%27s+wigs

Or would that too be seen as subversive? How do think the school should deal reasonably, with a mistake such as this?

ponderingprobably

I think this is subjective and dependent on how widespread the haircut in question

Yes, of course there is subjectivity in this. With subjectivity comes the relativity in terms of how widespread, and context. Ideally a school will have an image of every single unacceptable shoe/haircut, but practically speaking that is difficult. What I would argue - and I know you would disagree - is generally speaking, that haircut is not run-of-the-mill, is not simple, the contrast between the top and bottom is extreme, the visibility of the bare head under the shaved part is too apparent, etc etc from every possible angle, that is an extreme and unacceptable haircut.

As with the picture posted upthread, in the 1930s, the haircut was popular amongst people with high social status.

Yes, but as you and I agree on, context and how widespread something is, is relevant, so we are not in the 1930s so that is irrelevant. I would say from my personal observational experience that this haircut is more common in the North of England, seems to be a trend in young teenagers, is only seen in some communities in the South, is hardly ever seen in adults in the workplace, if it is ever seen a negative impression is formed of that person in those higher than them, and if I were to interview anyone with such a haircut it would not be received well.

I posted on the thread that limited spoke about where the OP's DS's school had decided that long hair was not acceptable for boys (but fine for girls). Everything I posted there applies here.
If Rosa Parks had posted on Mumsnet and said,
'Am I being unreasonable to think that black people should not be made to sit at the back of the bus, there would be people on here screaming 'Well don't get on the bus if you're not prepared to follow 'THE RULES!!!!'
Dress codes at work have generally become more relaxed at the same time as schools have become ever more anal about skirt length and shoe style.
It just means that teachers waste huge amounts of time policing these rules.
For a rule to be respected, there needs to be a valid reason for it e.g. Health and safety, fairness, things running more smoothly etc. None of those apply here.
IME, if DC are forced to follow rules which are clearly ridiculous, they're more likely to see all rules as stupid and not follow ones that are there for a genuine reason.
Teenagers are trying to form an identity and how they look is a part of that. Children attend school just over half the days of the year for 6.5 hours. By dictating rules about haircuts, you are enforcing a rule about appearance when they're not in school i.e. Every evening, every weekend and 13 weeks a year when they're on holiday.
It really worries me how many total sheep there are on here.
If the Pankhursts hadn't broken the precious rules,you wouldn't have a vote.

I would say from my personal observational experience that this haircut is more common in the North of England, seems to be a trend in young teenagers, is only seen in some communities in the South, is hardly ever seen in adults in the workplace, if it is ever seen a negative impression is formed of that person in those higher than them, and if I were to interview anyone with such a haircut it would not be received well.

Oh dear, talk about perpetuating a North South divide!

ponderingprobably

So Flower, how would you suggest the OP, after misunderstanding the uniform requirement, rectified the situation? Should her son's education continue to suffer for this mistake which cannot be rectifies overnight?

Yes, her child's education does need to remain as per the punishment. There is no way this OP could have been 100% confident such an extreme haircut wasn't, well, extreme. This is not a standard haircut. Therefore, even me being generous to the OP, they must have had some level of not being sure. In not being sure, they should have checked with the school. Or looked around at other children and formed a very clear impression - are any other children with this haircut sitting in the classroom, or are they sitting in isolation? Ah, I wonder why that is?

The OP and the child chose to put their child into this position, and this is the consequence. The child should quite correctly now have to handle the consequences of their choice and learn to make better choices in the future if they wish to fully be part of the school community.

www.google.co.uk/search?q=nicola+adams&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8n86HgarWAhWmDsAKHXjRCVwQ_AUIEigC&biw=375&bih=559#imgrc=JJiQ4XjF1H4ZwM:
Nicola Adams, Olympic gold medalist. Frankly, I'm surprised she was allowed to compete with her awful chavvy hairstle.

Flowers so you would not accept the wig, I linked to. Why not. Are wigs also unacceptable?

The state is not bestowing education upon us. It is our right.

ponderingprobably

Flowers so you would not accept the wig, I linked to. Why not. Are wigs also unacceptable?

You asked me what I thought the OP's school should do. I didn't think a wig was an option in the OP's case - she didn't mention that it was. It sounds like it's not an option, that the school takes a abide-or-isolation stance, which the OP would have known about, and hence made her choice. Given that, I would not say the introduction of another mechanism such as this wig would be the way forward. The school and parents need to stand by the rules they signed up for.

If you're asking generally whether wigs could be a solution to violations like this, theoretically it could make sense, but I fear you'd have parents like the OP putting an extreme wig on their child an moaning they didn't think it was extreme..

limitedperiodonly

The state is not bestowing education upon us. It is our right.

Who gives you that right?

I think bringing Rosa Parkes into this is ridiculous. On that note you might as well talk about slavery, which was entirely legal, but inhumane.

That's out and out discrimination and in no way comparable to this scenario.

If the hair cut was linked to religion or culture, then the OP would have a case to argue, however I feel isolating a new child to the school is extreme and detrimental to the child's wellbeing.

Flowers I think it is probable the misunderstanding was genuine. The rule was open to interpretation. As for looking round the classroom, this was the child's first day at Secondary. Poor thing, is what I thought. If this was hair dye or a tie tied incorrectly the infraction could possibly been remedied more quickly. It is unfortunate hair which is too short cannot. And what if a child had the beginning so f alopecia and chose this haircut to disguise that? Would they have to be deal with been singled out still? Or standing out more still, at least?

ponderingprobably The trouble is, every parent could say they didn't understand. If I were a Head, I'd look around and wonder what it was then that meant several hundred other children's parents didn't seem to misunderstand, why did the OP? Because it would seem then in this case that the rules were pretty clear. And the only differentiating factor here is the parent and the child. So why didn't this OP understand what all the other parents did...?

If the child had no part to play whatsoever in knowing this haircut was possibly/definite inappropriate, I'd agree, poor thing. Poor thing having to pay for the OP's parenting choice.

Who gives you that right?

My forebears earned it and I'm not going to give it up Flowers

I think bringing Rosa Parkes into this is ridiculous.

Do you really SandyY2K ? Well, I think that a ridiculous thing to say. And it's Parks btw. Another good reason to pay attention in school