School says my son must cut his hair or be excluded

[alexis52]

I have 2 children 1boy aged11 1 girl aged 14. They both go to that same school but recently they have a new head master who changed some of the uniform policy's. to begin with they were good changes like skirts can't be shorter than the knee and ties had to come down to the stomach but then he changed the hair policies. This did not effect my daughter because she fell into all the categories but it did effect my son. His hair is about an inch or so past his shoulder, the head said that boys hair must not come over The colour and I got an email telling me to cut his hair. I have refused to cut his hair and long hair doesn't effect his work because he ties it up for certain classes like PE and cookery and doesn't play with it. The school have now threatened that if I don't cut his hair soon he will be excluded .

'too'

Just tell them he identifies as a girl.

Well done for standing up for your DS, OP.

It's very old fashioned and overly controlling for the school to say your DS must cut his hair because he's a boy. My DS has long hair and if his school demanded he cut it we'd fight it.

Those people saying to just cut it make me despair. We shouldn't encourage people who think they can bully our DC because they have a bit of power and that includes head teachers.

Teaching your DC they can stand up for what's morally right and challenge bad decisions by those in power is an important lesson in my opinion.

So, I've just RTFT... The HT us out of line. Hair tied up should be enough.

Just tell them he identifies as a girl.

This made me all at the same time!

What exactly does standing up for what he thinks is right actually involve though? In this case it’s a court case and exclusion and loss of education. It’s all very well to fight this rule but as prh47bridge says very eloquently, this has not been tested in the courts and is by no means guaranteed to be successful.

Law, as it applies to schools, is a grey area with regard to challenging appearance rules. I look forward to the pictures in the newspapers and the court case.

Oh Lord, this is such an entertaining thread.
We have gone from a haircut to personal liberties and court cases.
Probably easier if he just stopped living in his 70's time warp and had a haircut.

To the posters on the 'just obey the rules and cut his hair' side - would you support your daughter's school if it announced that students spent too much time fussing with their hair in class, it was distracting, and from now on everyone had to have hair no longer than a bob?

If not, why is OP's son's case different?

So he spends about 18% of his week at school but people are okay with some jobsworth dictating what he looks like for the other 72%?

How about if the said what clothes he had to wear in the evenings and weekends, or what pjs he should have?

It's not really about boys v girls, it's about interference in stuff that has nothing to do with them and has no impact on learning or health and safety. That's why they should be told its none of their business.

Nope. Sexist bollocks. If girls can have long hair then so can the boys. I'm all for a smart appearance but that shouldn't involve adhering to sexist gender stereotyping.

, never heard of this thing called, "discipline"? You join a community, a club, a school, an organisation, anything; each have their own rules, you don't like it, leave it. What's the problem

In all the groups, community organisations, clubs etc that I take party in there is room for people to politely ask for a review when things seem outdated, unnecessarily restrictive etc.

Some schools would do better to behave like that.

Most sensible people respect rules which have a clear purpose and wider benefit for all. Petty unnecessary rules without clear purpose cause respect to be undermined.

There is no logic for an arbitrary 4Cm difference for the length of hair allowed for boys and girls. Is the OP not even allowed to bring this up politely with the school?

They are schools, not dictatorships.

No it doesn't, at least, not as far as the law is concerned. It means treating a person or a particular group of people less favourably than others. Treating some people differently is not automatically discrimination.

"Less favourably"?

Two groups.
You tell the first, "You CAN have long hair."
You tell the second, " You CAN'T have long hair."

The second group is being treated less favourably. They are having their choice restricted. Being denied a right the other group enjoys. Sounds like discrimination to me.

This doesn’t, at the moment apply to school appearance rules though. You might think it should and therefore would have to be tested in the courts. What you think isn’t the legal position. However the big issue against the school is lack of consultation (as far as we know) and whether a court might agree with the parent. What seems a bit odd is that this hasn’t been tested before except on cultural and religious grounds. So those groups know where they stand. You might, if you were the school, argue that culturally more boys have shorter hair than wish to have long hair so they are maintaining cultural norms. (I’m going to hide under a hard hat but if I was advising the school, that’s what I would argue).

The second group is being treated less favourably. They are having their choice restricted

That doesn't necessarily meet the legal definition of less favourable treatment. You may think it should but the courts have, time and again, decided that denying a choice to one group that is allowed to another is not necessarily treating them less favourably. For example, a rule that allows girls to wear trousers or skirts but says boys must wear trousers is denying boys the opportunity to wear skirts but is likely to be upheld by the courts. However, if the uniform for boys was significantly more expensive than the uniform for girls that probably would be ruled illegal.

So far I have spoken to the head master and explained to him that it's gender discrimination and told him that he would have his hair up for school and he agreed to it

Glad that the HT has seen sense. I'm all for logical rules that protect people from a health and safety perspective, but very much against rules for rules sake.

Yay!

I'm sure the head teacher had bigger things to worry about right now .... doubt he gives a fuck about this !!!!

Excellent news.

Common sense prevails,

Well done OP.

I'm sure the head teacher had bigger things to worry about right now .... doubt he gives a fuck about this !!!!

The question is why he gave a fuck about it in the first place.

Cut it or change school. Easy!

Queens this had been resolved. The school realised they were brought ridiculous.

It makes no odds if you think its fair, do you think he should jeopardise his education for a principle? Maybe you dont think his schooling is important, thats the message you are giving the head. He has the rest of his life to have his hairstyle choice

I see it got resolved but I seriously think you should have had more important things to worry about