My son MUST have HAIR CUT for secondary school!

[strewthy13]

We have been informed that we MUST get our sons hair cut before he goes up to secondary school this year. If we don't the school will refuse to let him attend. We have written to the school and quoted the sexual discrimination act etc but they will not budge. The school rules say hair no longer than the collar and will not be tolerated. Hair off or him off. We are really not happy about this and needless to say our son is devastated to say the least. Our child has had long blonde hair since he started to walk...thoughts and ideas would be very much appreciated. If anyone has had the same experience that would be helpful too!

Hmm sex discrimination is not a minor thing though is it? It is the cause of many inequalities and evils in the world.

I would speak to my MP if they were likely to be sympathetic. Two of my DS's mates had very long hair through high school. They tied it back and it was never an issue.

My own DS2(10) has always had long hair. There have been a couple of decrees about hair cutting over the years which we have (basically) just ignored. Not sure what we would do if it was an issue for him at high school.

Dd2 is starting a new school in September and we were brought into an information evening. The HT is s really lovely and generally laid back guy and he runs an excellent school. However at least 20 minutes of the 40 minute meeting was discussing boys haircuts. It is obviously a bugbear of his but really how it affects the boy's learning is a mystery to me. I teach adults, if they are lucky enough to still have hair they wear it whichever way they choose. Seems sensible to me.

Its not sexism to have a rule that they should have it cut to X length.

It is if the girls are allowed to have theirs longer

At my DS's school, they boys just need to tie it back, the same as the girls.

It's school not the military, why can't the lad have long hair? It's a rule, but it's a pointless one that should be challenged if it is not the same for girls.

DS2 (16) is a metal head. His hair is down to his waist and yes he's in a metal band. He passed 9 GSCEs this morning. The only issues he's had in the past was to tie it up for triple science, no big deal.

He also had a very distinctive art style and was told over and over again that he wasn't following their rules of art. He passed Art too. I don't get all this putting children in boxes rubbish. They're not allowed to think for themselves.

I wouldn't like to be too confident about succeeding with a sex discrimination argument. Have a look at paragraphs 52 to 61 of this case.

Can anyone explain the thinking behind rules about hair? I get that it's intimidating to be sitting beside someone with, eg, a swastika shaved on to their head but how is any particular length, colour or style relevant to the school?

Why should little boys go round looking like little girls? Life is confusing enough as it is.

Oh, FFS, men have had long hair at least since the 1960s, to say nothing of the wigs etc worn up to the 19th century. I refuse to believe that anyone seriously looked at the Beatles or the Stones and thought "They've got long hair, they must be women."

OP this is blatant discrimination

what is the hair rule for girls?

Also I think the Sikh case will be relevant. If it's a boys only school then any Sikh boys will have topknot or turban, your son should be allowed the same. But in general it's a crazy rule.

Schools appear to need reminding what century we are in.

uniform doesn't affect results
but kids learn that in life you have to do what you are bloody told sometimes
Interesting how the kids who are wankers ( normally with parents support) about uniform manage to dress VERY conservatively when they get a Saturday job with uniform restrictions

and long blonde hair barf

like the women who go on about their sons curls ( ratty horrible hair ime)

It's the rule at our school and we had a group of boys in a band that played Download during their GCSEs whilst having short hair (two left for A levels so they could do their own thing more). We are a traditional boys grammar. I am not allowed to dye my hair the colour I want or have the piercings and tattoos I'd like. None of these rules are secrets.

Judy Coolibar - I'm not a lawyer but I'd have thought that the case you linked to could be appealed. Schools should have a policy that is "fair and reasonable". I'd have thought that banning braids is neither of those.

Get it cut.

It won't be about safety, it's about conformity. Unfortunately I think they are entitled to discriminate in this way as long as it's reasonable, e.g. they will argue that long hair on a boy is a potential disruption to the uniform policy and I suspect they will get away with it ☹️

in life you have to do what you are bloody told sometimes

Not if the rule is bullshit based on fuck all. Those rules you can challenge.

Interesting how the kids who are wankers ( normally with parents support) about uniform manage to dress VERY conservatively when they get a Saturday job with uniform restrictions hmm

So having long hair makes a child a wanker? You sound lovely. (Fwiw I bet most teen boys are literally wankers

The case linked to by JudyCoolibar makes interesting reading.

I not sure I agree with what it says but it seems having different "conventional" dress or hairstyles for females and males is not necessarily discriminatory.

"There's no evidence that wearing school uniform or adhering to strict hair/jewellery codes has a beneficial effect on learning."

Actually there is plenty of evidence for this, although research is divided.

If the school intend to go down the "conventional" route then I hope it isn't more than a couple of decades old. If it is I guarantee there will be photos (possibly even in the reception area) of male staff with longer hairstyles and female staff with short cropped hair.

Interesting how the kids who are wankers ( normally with parents support) about uniform manage to dress VERY conservatively when they get a Saturday job with uniform restrictions

Which precisely illustrates why uniform rules in schools are a total waste of time. People don't need to be taught to wear uniform, they just do it if they have to in later life. I wonder how people think other countries which don't normally have school uniform manage? I've never come across reports of mass rebellion in those countries against the prospect of wearing uniforms for nurses etc.

The thing is, when you choose a school and are offered a place, you are implicitly agreeing to the expectations set by the school. You'll probably be asked to sign a home/school agreement too.

If the school was chosen on the basis of it's ethos, results, atmosphere, preparation for life, choice of subjects etc, then the OP must decide whether maintaining the status quo in terms of length of hair, trumps the other stuff. If it does, she'll need to be looking for an alternative school where they accept differences in hair length. If not, the hair will have to be cut. I don't think the school will alter it's policy.

I'm not a lawyer but I'd have thought that the case you linked to could be appealed.

It was in 2011, it's a bit late to appeal! And as they won on the race discrimination point I imagine there would be no point in appealing.

Going to school is about education, part of that is learning to follow the rules. Even ones we don't like. Maybe you should home educate.

"There's no evidence that wearing school uniform or adhering to strict hair/jewellery codes has a beneficial effect on learning."

Actually there is plenty of evidence for this, although research is divided.

Really? The best evidence comes from countries where there is not and never has been a uniform tradition, and they seem to perform as well as and better than the UK in terms of results and careers.

It's also noteworthy that St Paul's Girls' School, which has no uniform policy, regularly heads the league tables against similar selective private schools which do require uniforms.