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!!!!!!!!

Flower you have a great love of stating unproven theories, platitudes, and your own thoughts, as if they are proven fact.

There is no actual evidence that uniforms are a great leveller - the kids still know who the poor kids are, who wears the same shirt all week, who wears his sister's out of shape hand me down jumper, who can't afford new shoes. Social inequality has increased rather than decreased since uniforms became almost universal and stricter, and the only actual big study suggesting a positive correlation between uniform and school pride was sponsored by the schoolwear Association.

What uniform does is paper over cracks. Educational policy makers live nothing more than a very visible low hanging fruit, and implementing a nice simple initiative rather than actually getting to the bottom of a knotty problem like social inequality and it's impact on educational outcomes.

Do you think the school is unfairly discriminating against the child because of the parent's stupidity/forgetfulness?

Again, we're back to you not being able to back up your basic premise without relying on a single outlier hypothetical. Which yes, is an outlier because you do need parental consent for it, it isn't an application of the everyday rules and exclusion from te everyday classroom for not following them. It introduces many more variables - the many reasons a parent may have for declining to give permission for an off-site trip - and does not deal with the basis of your thesis - that you think it is reasonable to deny children an equal educational if their parents make poor choices.

If a school trip for which parental consent is required is a fundamental part of the curriculum and any child who does not attend will not have the same chance of eg passing exams or learning the full curriculum, I'd suggest the school has made some pretty poor choices. If it is not vital to the curriculum (as I assume most classroom teaching is?) then it's irrelevant to the point.

MsHooliesCardigan

what quite often happens is that a school gets turned into an academy and they get a new HT who wants to 'turn the school around' and starts by bringing in a Draconian uniform policy (despite there being no evidence that this works).

God forbid a new HT would want to turn around an underperforming school, eh?

The evidence question is really moot here. There are endless studies in the US, fewer in the UK, some for, some against, what do you want? One definitive study? How would you go about that then MsHooliesCardigan, what would satisfy you? What sample? What sample size? How would you isolate uniforms as being the only factor to have a statistically significant effect? Precisely what study do you want? Do you have the singular, final, unequivocal evidence that it doesn't work? No. Nobody has, either way. Because it all depends on factors, and you can't prove causality unless you can isolate the factor.

a new HT comes along and says that all pupils have to have black hair to match their blazer, would you just happily go along with that?

What a silly question. Do you really think having a sensible haircut generally considered as being appropriate is equivalent to ordering all children to dye their hair black?

As I said earlier, there has to be a valid reason for any rule. If a 12 year old boy asked you, 'Why am I not allowed to have that haircut?' what would you say? Would you have any answer that doesn't boil down to 'Those are the rules?'

Yes, look at my earlier posts. I have given very detailed answers as to why this haircut is inappropriate that go far and beyond "those are the rules".

In my job, I see a lot of women who have had FGM...

Fortunate that the argument against this ridiculous haircut is not simply "those are the rules" then, no matter how desperately you wish it was.

CountFosco

the best research suggest having a school uniform has no impact on results

Can you substantiate this claim please?

Can you substantiate how having a school uniform has an impact on results Flowerpot1234?

Flowers having just insisted to MissHoolie that "the evidence question is moot" you immediately demand evidence from Count :o One rule for you and another for everyone who disagrees with you hey?

The argument against the haircut is simply "those are the [rather ambiguous] rules" Flower ! Any attempt to invent reasons is purely supposition and rhetoric.

youarenotkiddingme

But I am not a fan of dictatorship and rules for the sake of rules - especially rules that don't reflect the reality of society.

But the extremist view of this haircut does reflect the reality of society. It doesn't in part and in the mind of the OP and others like her, but it doesn't in my mind, other posters, the school, other schools, empoyers, wider society. You can keep on with this mantra about "rules for rules sake" but that's all in your mind; nobody else is saying that so it's rather futile to keep arguing against something others are not saying.

But when it comes to dictating....regardless of their natural body shape... at a cost 3 x as high as a high street uniform skirt... and refusing to allow hairstyles that are fashionable.. and refusing to allow a stud eating or small chain or anything else that will be dictated by someone's personal style... and starts becoming a dictatorship and creating more rules to be fought against.

Body shape, fashion, personal style: put it all these concerns away. Why aren't you wanting to support your child and their school by concentrating on the education and sense of belonging and pride in their their school? I would agree with you on the cost issue but we cannot make a judgment if we don't know the quality. Buying a 3x skirt that lasts may be better value than a cheaper skirt that tears in a month.

It is ridiculous that schools think a haircut will affect the education of a child more than an education in isolation will.

They don't. They think respect for an organisation's rules and a community that you belong to is part of the education, and disrupting others by walking around whilst violating their standards and values is not a good example to other children. It is ridiculous that parents think a haircut is worth putting their children into isolation for.

And I work in education!

Evelynismyspyname

Flowers having just insisted to MissHoolie that "the evidence question is moot" you immediately demand evidence from Count grin One rule for you and another for everyone who disagrees with you hey?

Not at all. If you had bothered to read both posts, or take any of what you read in, you will see I said:

Do you have the singular, final, unequivocal evidence that it doesn't work? No. Nobody has, either way. Because it all depends on factors, and you can't prove causality unless you can isolate the factor.

CountFosco then made the claim that he/she had such evidence. Given I have said I don't believe anyone has it, are you saying you can't understand why I would ask what it is then?

Body shape, fashion, personal style: put it all these concerns away.

Yes, no child has ever been bullied over their body shape, ever.

Why aren't you wanting to support your child and their school by concentrating on the education and sense of belonging and pride in their their school?

Where is the evidence that education, sense of belonging or pride are enhanced by hyper-strict and inflexible uniform rules? Or uniforms at all?

I would agree with you on the cost issue but we cannot make a judgment if we don't know the quality. Buying a 3x skirt that lasts may be better value than a cheaper skirt that tears in a month.

Is that a decision schools should be making for parents? Feels like overreaching to me.

They don't. They think respect for an organisation's rules and a community that you belong to is part of the education, and disrupting others by walking around whilst violating their standards and values is not a good example to other children.

The standard is very artificial, in relation to haircut, if it does not fit with the standards of the community the school is placed amongst, though.

Equally not all work environments hold to the same strict standards. I've worked in creative environments where edgy clothing and haircuts were standard and somewhat expected. Food hygiene environments, where this short haircut would not be frowned upon. In fact as they grow older, many men, in authoritative positions, decide on extremely short hair to disguise baldness.

So why would a school chose values and standards incongruous to many sectors of our wider society?

Evelynismyspyname

The argument against the haircut is simply "those are the [rather ambiguous] rules" Flower ! Any attempt to invent reasons is purely supposition and rhetoric.

Posters, schools, advisers and I have given you reasons in our arguments against the haircut. They all go beyond "those are the rules". If you choose to not hear any of these other reasons, or you choose to interpret them as "attempts to invent reasons", and pre-load our points of view with false interpretations that suit your narrative and desired position, there's not a lot anyone can do about that. Debating with you is therefore completely pointless. You have put your stake in the ground about where you believe everyone else is coming from, and that is your delusion. No point in engaging with you any further then, is there?

JassyRadlett

I can't really make head nor tail of your posts at the best of times, but especially this last one.

I have given you a scenario. It's really, really simple. Are you able to answer my question or not?

Do you think the school is unfairly discriminating against the child because of the parent's stupidity/forgetfulness?

Flower the same could absolutely be said of you. You seem to think your personal views are fact and dress down those who are not of the same opinion as you with sneeery little "oh dear"s and emoticons. You have not provided any actual evidence to support your opinions but are presenting them as fact yet see fit to demand that those who haven't drunk the look aid provide evidence. It is, indeed, not worth answering your rather wobbly, sometimes contradictory, sometimes back tracking posts.

*KOOL aid not look aid.

Jassy did address your question, by pointing out that your scenarios were comparing apples to oranges. The thread does not run exclusively on your terms and she is entitled to point out that your question was a straw man.

I have given you a scenario. It's really, really simple. Are you able to answer my question or not?

I explained (twice, clearly) why your scenario was irrelevant to the point at hand unless the trip was a fundamental and irreplaceable part of the curriculum, in the same way as classroom teaching. In which case the stupidity of the teacher and the school would outweigh any stupidity by the parents.

(Cheers Evelyn. All getting a bit through the looking glass....)

And now, Flower, as I've answered your question, care to answer any of mine?

So, has anyone here been able to articulate why a short back and sides is "extreme" and why a child with such a haircut has to be isolated from their classmates?

What unacceptable risks to self or others are posed by this particular short haircut?

Looking through the posts supporting strict uniform rules and rules banning these sorts of haircuts, when you dig into them the consistent narrative is 'because other options don't present as nice and middle class.'

Every poster who has claimed the haircut as 'extreme' doesn't have anything to back it up except arguments that boil down to 'it's not nice according to my norms'.

Which is really pretty dreadful. And should be challenged.

No one is able to articulate the reasons Seeing because there is no logical reason, other than those are the rules.

Can't see any risk either in a short back and sides but clearly some of us live on a different planet.

I don't know. Maybe I should just say fuck it, maintain the status quo, it benefits my kids if they not only have the 'right' haircuts, clothes and accents but also have the confidence boost of having it reinforced daily that their norms are the norm, and reap the benefits of other kids feeling that they and their community's norms are lesser and to be suppressed as somehow degenerate or dangerous.

But I don't want my kids to actually live in a world that thinks that's ok.

This does seem an extreme haircut to me, sorry. Isolation is usually a room where children do their regular work without the rest of their class btw. Most schools don't allow less than Grade 2 so it's not a surprise.

polly, the trouble when the overly short hair is the infraction, there is no quick remedy. Isolation should not be imposed indefinitely, as the child cannot learn to fit in with normal school life. This benefits nobody. Especially and importantly when starting a new school. Resolution should be sort swiftly. This rule (vague) description and particular punishment has been ill thought through.

Can you say why you think the haircut is extreme Pollymere?

Not being argumentative that's a genuine question. As seeingadistance says, no one has actually articulated why it's extreme, other than to say they think it's extreme.

Yes, the isolation is going to have to go on for several weeks, I imagine, until the boy's hair grows to a length that satisfies school rules. Surely it's not acceptable for a punishment for something like this to go on and on. Kids get less punishment for bullying.

If they want to punish do so and then let the kid back into the main school.

I think that haircut looks fine and I don't understand why it would merit punishment. However, as a non-Brit, (culturally) it doesn't surprise me.

The English appear to dislike anything outside of their own norms of conformity and I'm really struggling with this at the moment.

My 11 yr old is going to the best school in his area and it would appear that means he has to dress as though he is is some sort of junior level accountant. I am genuinely bemused as to why he has to be suited and booted at age 11,and the effect this will have on his education, but clearly they feel it will be beneficial in the long term.

I hate it. It's part of the reason we're leaving the UK. Thank Christ for options.