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!!!!!!!!

So it's against the law for parents to take them out of school in term time, but ok for school to send them home because of their hair?!
That's outrageous! I would complain to the local authority OP.

This ridiculousness over hairstyles makes me really pissed off. I went to a very well thought of Grammar in the 1980's and despite being quite strict on uniform (i.e. Skirts not belts etc) any haircut was fine. Students were allowed to be individuals, we had a couple of punks, one with a full Mohawk, loads of long haired lads and several goths. All of these students would have been pulled up for slacking on schoolwork but provided they kept that up they were allowed to do whatever they wanted with hair/makeup etc.

And I don't generally read the Daily Mail, so I suppose I could be at a disadvantage, in terms of what schools consider extreme. Thankfully I have a child who will go to considerable lengths not to stand out, if they can help it. This is my child's vigilance, not so much my own. If left to me, I might make a similar mistake. At my secondary, the haircut, would not have been classed as extreme. I remember Flat Tops being the trend a lot of boys followed with no intervention from the school. The Secondary I went to got good results. I successfully attended their 6th form and from there university, as did many others.

It's just that if you Google "army haircut", there it is. How much more conformist can you get?

A definition which is widely understood, understood culturally, understood at a society level, understood across the school by all the other parents, understood by me, understood by others, understood in the media, understood across YouTube, understood among teenagers, understood in blogs.

Interesting that many people on this thread exist outside culture and society, isn't it?

'Extreme' is relative to both time and community and as you have allowed, varies over time. Schools - surely homes of reasoned thinking - should be able to recognise this and better articulate their uniform policies.

And now - as the arbiter of what is extreme on the societal level, what blade counts as 'extreme', as schools can't decide whether 2 or 3 is beyond the pale?

Meh, it's still a Chavvy haircut that ends up on the front page of DM online.

That's the definition of an extreme haircut that we've been groping for. If only the school's head could be so honest about his or her contempt for chavs.

That's the definition of an extreme haircut that we've been groping for. If only the school's head could be so honest about his or her contempt for chavs

Indeed.

Flowerpots to Seeingadistance

You keep asking the same question and keep claiming nobody can answer it. But posters have. I have - very specifically, I may add. Why do you keep claiming it?

Seeingadistance: What colour is the sky?
Posters: Blue:
Seeingadistance: Why does nobody answer me? What colour is the sky?
Posters: We've told you, blue.
Seeingadistance: The question I keep on asking and nobody will answer because none of you know is what colour is the sky?
Posters: We keep on telling you, look at our earlier answers.
Seeingadistance: I keep on asking, and nobody can answer, doesn't that just go to show they don't know, blah blah blah...
Posters: confused

My questions are not being answered, or at least not in any meaningful or objective way.

My question: Why should a child be isolated because he has a short back and sides?

Answers:

Because he broke the rules.
Because it's a chavvy haircut.

My question: Who is harmed, and in what way, by a child having that particular hairstyle, or any other hairstyle?

Answer: .... tumbleweed ...

Maybe it would be helpful to back up a bit. You seem to consider it appropriate and actually quite unremarkable for a child to be isolated for breaking the rules. I don't. Until this thread I was not even aware that this happened. It does not happen at my son's school. Until this thread I associated isolation with prisons - as a punishment or when there is risk to the isolated prisoner or others - and with healthcare to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Isolation should not be undertaken lightly, on a whim or for no sound and justifiable reason. The only occasions I can think of when it might be appropriate for a child to be isolated in school is where they are making or being subjected to threats of violence. And even then, it should be a measure of last resort and in the short term while other arrangements are being made.

I cannot see why a child should be subjected to isolation because of his hairstyle. If this is a punishment then it is disproportionate. If this is a measure taken to protect the child and his classmates, then ...? How can they be harmed by his hairstyle?

And what difference does a hairstyle make anyway? I mean, really! What a waste of time and effort this is for schools and for parents. Let them have their hair however they want. Their choice.

In the unlikely event of them shaving swastikas or obscenities into their hair, that can be dealt with as and when it ever happens.

Otherwise, who is going to harmed by sharing a classroom with someone with a short back and sides, or a mullet, or long ringlets, or a blue undercut, or ...?

Seriously, why is a school wasting time and resources and yes, depriving a child of an education, because of the way his hair is cut?!

The rules are nonsensical and serve no useful purpose.

Ladies I've now read the whole thread.

Arguing with each other is stupid so stop. I'm not going to say flowers is being purposefully obtuse or that see and jazzy are flogging a dead horse or that jay clearly didn't read the mfing thread, but ...

Summed it up nicely there buck

Seeingadistance

Answers:
Because he broke the rules.
Because it's a chavvy haircut.

I can't help you any more. The sky is blue. The answers are here. I'm sorry you can't see them. I can't help you any more.

Until this thread I was not even aware that this happened. It does not happen at my son's school. Until this thread I associated isolation with prisons - as a punishment or when there is risk to the isolated prisoner or others - and with healthcare to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

OMG.
Again, if you are not aware enough to, even at a general knowledge level, know about children being put in isolation for misbehaving or know the difference between a child put in isolation in a school and prison isolation or infection disease isolation, again, I simply can't help you any more.

Seriously, why is a school wasting time and resources and yes, depriving a child of an education, because of the way his hair is cut?!

There are 524 messages in this thread about a child being put in isolation for violating the dress code of a school. If you cannot answer that question for yourself, or read all the replies that have explained this, again I simply cannot help you.

I'm sorry Seeingadistance, but there's no point carrying on our exchange. It's not that you disagree with me that's the problem, it's that nothing gets through, you don't seem to be able to assimilate answers given to you. Farewell.

Farewell, FlowerPot.

It's been ... interesting.

seeing im a bit disappointed that you are taking the high road to be honest

Flowers, I'm really curious as to what life experience has lead you to your conclusions.

Do you really have so little empathy and respect for parents whose life experiences and culture differs from your own?

You know the ones who cannot simply up sticks and move for the chance of getting their child into another school? Or the ones who, no where in their conscious thinking, would look twice at the haircut in question? Because it appears all around them? Has done for decades? So will not view it as extreme. Maybe they don't religiously read The Daily Mail, so don't know about what some schools will view as extreme or the somewhat extreme and rigid punishments they deal out for infractions of rather vague uniform policies... Maybe they didn't think they would have to Google or look on YouTube to see what constitutes an extreme haircut. Maybe this haircut did not even register - as it is popular where they live? And why so flippantly mention 'The North of England' as if culture there can be disregarded, somehow?

It seems rather strange to me to view this kind of punishment as in anyway constructive. Not only have you not convinced me, I am left rather baffled as to your world views.

Rufus, on a practical level, my laptop has eaten two very lengthy posts I'd put together for this thread, and when it comes to FlowerPots, I think I've said all I have to say to someone who thinks it's ok to punish a child by isolating them and depriving them of an education because their perfectly acceptable haircut is deemed "extreme".

Buck3t is right, and that horse has been well and truly flogged.

Anyway, FlowerPot was good enough to wish me farewell, so I thought it only polite to respond in kind.

And now, I'm off to get my clippers. Community Council meeting tomorrow evening, and I think a Number 2 will be suitably "extreme" for such a wild night out!

I remember the utter shame I felt failing all my exams and being utterly unable to learn because one lad in my class had a short back and sides. It was terrible, really affected my entire life. The day after he first sauntered in with his slightly too neat to be allowed haircut anarchy broke loose, 3 girls turned up naked, one rocked up riding a donkey and burnt all the textbooks. All because one brand new, excited and scared boy on his very first day at a brand new school dared to have hair slightly shorter than expected but never actually declared. How can you even read in a room with someone breaking that unspecified rule. Of course we all know one person's or one educational body's interpretation of the word 'extreme' must be automatically known and understood by every parent of every child attending, even those who had only briefly visited prior to the start of term. It's great that a very vague rule is translated to the exact same degree by parents from all races and backgrounds, of all ages and social standing. Really helps save space in the paperwork not using any extra words to clarify the rules.

Goldilocks I'm so sorry for what happened to you. Did the lad go to prison?

Yep youre right seeing

Hope the meeting goes well

goldilocks

*Goldilocks I'm so sorry for what happened to you. Did the lad go to prison?^

Probably worse, might have a manual job and live in the north of England. I bet his own kids have crew cuts. Oh the shame it having to go to school with someone like that!

It reminds of the film Hairspray where the heroine gets detention for her hairstyle

That was a comedy though

'Thats a hair dont'

Buck3t

Ladies I've now read the whole thread.

Arguing with each other is stupid so stop. I'm not going to sayflowersis being purposefully obtuse or thatseeandjazzyare flogging a dead horse or thatjayclearly didn't read the mfing thread, but ...

Thanks for summing up everything I wanted to say

I'm particularly enjoying Flowers' long wordy posts explaining why she/he can't be bothered to repeat why this sort of style is regarded as extreme and how it affects learning.

Let's face it, as pp have said, it's pure snobbery. It's not an extreme style in the least. It will not have any affect on a pupil's learning. The only reason for banning it is so that when the school's pupils are out and about in their school uniform, they won't look 'chavy' and the school will look like it has a 'better' class of pupil.

(Sorry, hate that word, but we all know what it means. I've put better in quotes as this is not what I myself think)

OP, if you're still around, I hope you've managed to communicate to the Head that he or she needs to clarify what extreme means so this doesn't happen again.

I thought of this thread last night when checking DDs homework planner. I came across the rules and noticed the no extreme haircuts went on to explain 'nothing under a Grade 2'.

Hope your DS is soon out of isolation.

In all seriousness I just feel sad for someone turning up first day of new school, big school, and being in trouble for something you have no control over at all. I remember the sick feeling of being in trouble, not doing homework etc but something I couldn't control would be just awful. Missing first days, all the info, all the friendships starting and groups forming. It's a very different thing for an older established pupil to be in isolation for any reason, particularly a vague single word mention! It's such a turbulent age, so many changes, the peer structure so different to adult life.

As a young teen I moved hundreds of miles to a new school and was traumatic enough but the uniform made it a lot worse. I went from a secondary with a navy uniform to another navy one- should have been easy but the rules were so different. For one the new school insisted on a sweatshirt at all times over a shirt with tie, no clip on possible. I'm a hot hot person, I hated it beyond anything. The sweater was thick and fairly rigid so either I ended in one that swamped me but fit my chest or fit normally to my body and was tight and bulky on my chest. The larger one, after half a year, suddenly didn't meet requirements so I spent a lot of time in a jumper that fit my waist but was tight and very uncomfortable on my chest. It made movement stiff and just everything was annoying, particularly changing for PE. It fit their uniform rules at the cost of some of my freedom and a lot of my happiness. The reason I bring it up is because a lot of my memories of learning, socialising, just everything at 14-16 or so was how uncomfortable I felt. Uniform rules can be bloody ridiculous and so arbitrary. Like shoes for example, just flummoxes me sometimes how a pair of shoes deemed fine for a boy are forbidden on a girl- not getting into the whole skirt v trousers thing, just how can a black standard no-logo pair of clarkes be ok for a boy but if a girl wears the same pair nope, not uniform, terrible, must wear the flimsy ones with a bar instead of full foot ones. Baffling rules in the name of providing the best education.

School rules about this kind of extreme adherence are nothing to do with education or bullying.

Teachers, Headteachers and Governors who get all turned on by the correct little unformed soldiers marching down their corridors in neat little rows are, I think, getting some kind of sexual thrill from the exactitude of the little ones dressing just so. So when a child deviates from the masturbatory fantasy, education is the least important thing on their mind. They should probably go teach at Sandhurst or something instead.