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!!!!!!!!

ponderingprobably

Isolation means they are still set work, they still get to learn, they still are permitted on the premises of the school whose values they have disrespected and whose standards they have let down. Isolation - it's such a small step, it's not disproportionate at all. Very unfortunate that the OP decided to do this at this point and start their son's secondary education in such a manner, but she knew the policy, if she was unsure she could have checked, and she knew the punishment that would be handed out. How on earth can she be "fuming" or surprised that the school is carrying out the isolation it said it would?

Disproportionate would be expelling or being sent home from school for the entire duration of time that it would take for his hair to grow back.

They are still learning the school routines and getting to know their peers. They will not benefit from cooperative work and practical work.

True. All of that missing out lands at the feet of the OP who is responsible for the haircut and for all these consequences. Instead of being "fuming" the OP should be primarily concerned about the choice she made, the effect her choice had on her son, and downright embarrassed.

it does not offer the swift resolution that would be available for more obvious and rebellious uniform infractions.

Then don't violate a school rule which cannot be swiftly undone then!

Flower, once again, I would point out that the school should be avoiding a situation whereby a child suffers for their parent's bad choices. This punishment which is being discussed, makes no attempt to avoid this. Schools should be aiming to close any attainment gaps and be sensitive to detect scenarios where these attainment gaps might occur, so that they actively avoid them. This type punishment creates attainment gaps when the child comes from a background with norms vastly different to the school's.

The school easily could have issued a written warning, not to repeat the hairstyle, for the case in point, and communicated this on on a child's computerised record to other staff/issued a note in their planner, so that other staff do not take further, unnecessary, action.

CountFosco 148 citations is not that big a number actually, and number of citations is no gauge of a paper's value or validity. If you are an academic, you'd know that.

Now, the paper you linked to has been widely criticised, not only has its findings been contradicted, but it and similar papers have been criticised for its research method and sampling bias, and has even been described as "misleading" in its analysis.

You claimed the best paper supported no-uniforms. It does not. It isn't the best paper. I, on the other hand, accept that neither side of this argument has proved unequivocally a case for or against and to do so would require complete isolation of the uniform variable to do so, which in a live environment is virtually impossible. Hence I stand by what I said - these calls for "evidence to show uniforms increase performance" through any generalisability is moot and ridiculous, as it would be to call for evidence that it has no effect.

If I was the OP, I would be seeking a swift resolution with the the school, pointing out the misunderstanding, why it occurred and the fear that my own, genuine, mistake was causing my child's education to be detrimentally effected.

Flowers I think I've missed the explanation of why the child is isolated for short back and sides and the detrimental effect of others of this haircut.
Could I kindly ask you give a quick explanation again as this thread is so long I'm not sure how easy it'll be to locate it.

Tia

I don't see it either and I generally pick up on this sort of thing.

Is an explanation forthcoming?

Is it a class thing?

ponderingprobably

Flower, once again, I would point out that the school should be avoiding a situation whereby a child suffers for their parent's bad choices.

Once again, I would point out that the parent should be avoiding a situation where their child suffers through their own bad choices.

It is not up to a school to run around catering for poor parental choices everywhere. The school is not the parent's Nanny. The school is an organisation with values and standards, it has hundreds of pupils, it lays out its standards and what it expects from children who attend it, and the parents agree to abide by these by sending their children there. The school is a step away removed from the responsibility, which lies with the parent. Accountability and responsibility FIRST lands at the feet of agent of action - in this case the parent.

This punishment which is being discussed, makes no attempt to avoid this.

I cannot fathom why you keep saying this. It has avoided this - it allows the child on the school premises still. The child is in violation of its standards, yet allows the child to still come to school and receive an education, awful haircut and all. If there was "no attempt to avoid this" the child would have been told to remain at home until his hair abides by the school's standards. He hasn't.

The school easily could have issued a written warning, not to repeat the hairstyle

The parent easily could have sent their child to school with an non-extreme and normal haircut. Just like all the other parents managed to do whose children were not put in isolation. Why allow a child who is not meeting the standards and disrespecting the school's rules to attend classes and sit alongside other children who were not allowed (if they wanted) the same haircut? That is grossly unfair on all the other children. There has to be a visible penalty, not only for punishment but for fairness to others. And why bother with a written warning when the school dress code and threat of isolation is in itself a warning of sorts? Just get it right the first time and stop wasting the school's time.

There is a boy in year six herethat mad shirt sides and a man bun! Would secondary schools allow that, out of Interest?

I think class /culture does come into it, sadly, make.

This cut is the opposite of the cliched 'middle class' floppy hair look.

Previous posters mention that this closely clippered back & sides cut is very commonly done by Turkish barbers as well as for children with Afro hair. I can easily see how, if schools are not sensitive to the ethnicity, cultures and communities they are placed amongst, in their rules, it will contribute towards lower educational attainment in large sectors of society.

I cant believe people are still using g the argument that "OP has broken the school rule and eedoinsobke for her child's isolation"
There was NO rule to say short haircuts are not allowed.
The ops son had his hair cut into a short tidy style what detrimental effect is that going to have on his education?
Isolation on the other hand will have an effect on his education. High school is a totally different learning environment, different specific subjects, much more hands on in some subjects. How on earth will he kept up stick in a room on his own?

The hairstyle rule is ridiculous there is no clarity 'no extreme' means just that. A short Hair cut is in no way extreme. It's neat tidy and easy to manage. Doesn't get in the way in practical classes etc.

If the school can't be clear on thier their own rules and leave them open to interpretation by individual teachers them how are parents supposed to second guess what the hell they mean?

responsible for
Stupid phone.

Loving the idea that a short back and sides one of the oldest hairstyles in the book is "Not a normal haircut" talk about clutching at straws!

It is not up to a school to run around catering for poor parental choices everywhere. The school is not the parent's Nanny. The school is an organisation with values and standards, it has hundreds of pupils, it lays out its standards and what it expects from children who attend it, and the parents agree to abide by these by sending their children there. The school is a step away removed from the responsibility, which lies with the parent. Accountability and responsibility FIRST lands at the feet of agent of action - in this case the parent.

I'm afraid it is amongst the school's legal responsibilities to close the attainment gap, in order to compensate for bad parenting choices. They should be taking specific steps, laid out in a clear and open policy in order to do this. Our school has this policy on their website and it covers difficulties with uniform, as well as taking specific steps in seeking to engage parents, so that that school information and culture is clearly communicated.

I fail to see how having your child's hair cut into a short back and sides is a 'poor parenting choice'.

There has to be a visible penalty, not only for punishment but for fairness to others.

No there does not, to this extent. That is tantamount to using punitive humiliation.

Punishment should be fair, discrete and swiftly resolve a situation. It should de-escalate any conflict and move positively towards resolution. There should not be a culture whereby pupils are encouraged into constantly questioning other pupils' reprimands and teacher's handling of disciplinary infractions.

There needs to be a school culture which actively ensures it is inclusive and sensitive to different backgrounds, abilities, differences, difficulties and disabilities, which involves the considerations, I have outlined.

Flowers, why do you think a short back and sides is classed as an "extreme hairstyle"?

Delete, so do I TBH. I used the term, with regard to those who viewed it at such.

DeleteOrDecay and ponderingprobably

The parent chooses (by out and out choice or by choosing to live somewhere with this school as their default allocated school) to send their child to a particular school.
The school has standards and values, and a dress/appearance code is part of upholding such standards and values.
The parent has chosen to break these codes, sending their child with something like a Skin Fade haircut, which is against school rules.
The child, as the parent knew, would be put in isolation should the rules be broken. Hey presto, the child is put in isolation, something that ponderingprobably finds will have a very significant effect on the boy's education.

We have a child in isolation because the parent sent them to school with an inappropriate and school rule-breaking haircut. This whole situation is created by the parent's choice.

And you don't think such a parental choice is poor? What, you think that was a good choice, do you?

OP cut childs hair into short back and siides

She has said a number of times that its not as short as a fade and her school did not clarify a grade length

The school is a step away removed from the responsibility, which lies with the parent. Accountability and responsibility FIRST lands at the feet of agent of action - in this case the parent.

The school is responsible for their actions. In this case, clearly communicating a rule which has an, undeclared but strict and exacting implementation, with lengthy punishment which will detrimentally affect a child's education, involvement and full immersment in the school community is not acting responsibly.

The parent, was able to make a genuine mistake, due to the unclear nature of the rule and has been offered no ability to respond in order to swiftly resolve and rectify the situation. Her ability to respond, thus her responsibility, has been eroded.

The whole situation has been caused by the schools lack of clarity

Worrying in a schoolteacher

Why did auto correct do that

Worrying in a school....

And you don't think such a parental choice is poor? What, you think that was a good choice, do you?

The haircut is not, implicitly, a 'poor' choice. It is practical and contains has historical offensive connotations (such as skinheads, offensive 'gangland' markings cut into it). Whether it is seen as 'respectable' or extreme, is subjective and open to interpretation and depends on the context of the wider community the school is placed amongst. Sadly, this subjectivity, can be strongly linked to class and ethnicity social norms.

...contains no historical...Typo.