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 .

[Hoggleludo]

I imagine this is all because it's not always tied back

If he tied it back 100%. Then this might not be the issue.

[prh47bridge]

The head is acting unlawfully. As people have said, this is clear discrimination. Further, the official school exclusion guidance says that it is not appropriate to exclude pupils for uniform issues

Provided the uniform requirements are not significantly more detrimental for one sex than the other they are unlikely to be regarded as discriminatory. Provided both sexes are being held to a similar standard of smartness and the uniform for both sexes is similar in cost, the policy is likely to be upheld.

Where cases concerning hair have reached the courts they have concerned banning of particular hairstyles that was regarded as racial discrimination. It is possible the courts would find that requiring boys to have short hair whilst allowing longer hair for girls is discrimination but it is by no means certain. So the head may be acting unlawfully but there is a good chance he isn't and that the courts would find that this is not discrimination.

And the official school exclusion guidance says no such thing. The current guidance doesn't contain the word "uniform" anywhere. A single offence should not lead to exclusion but repeated and persistent offences can.

[tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz]

But Hoggle the girls don't always have to do that so it's still unfair.

I'm thinking more and more the best idea is he decides he's now identifying as a girl

[RhinestoneCowgirl]

Are schools really still doing this? It's ridiculous! DH was at Catholic boys' school in 80s/90s and wasn't allowed hair that touched the collar. As soon as he left at 18 he let his hair grow and he's had long hair revert since. And he's a very sensible senior manager these days...

[Coyoacan]

A bit shocked by all the rules is rules posters. I also think that it is psychologically intelligent for your pre-teen son to see that you will defend him from stupid rules.

[Stormyjupiter]

My ds has a long hair. He always had it through out primary, and I told him he needed to deal with it when he had residential trip, that he cannot expect other people to do it for him. Otherwise he needed to be cut short.
He still have very long hair, and I had no problem from school. He can wash/brush/tie all by himself now at 12, after a lot of practice.
They can not tell children to cut it off their hair as long as they are maintained properly.

[pointythings]

Radox go and teach in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark... The list goes on. When you can wear what you want, it ceases to become an issue. Other countries manage school trips without anyone disappearing into an alternate dimension. Other countries manage without a 'sense of identity' instilled by a polyester blazer and a bunch of logos. As for 'best' clothes - those don't need to be worn to school.

My DD2 is in 6th form. No uniform. No 'business dress' requirement. No weird rules about hairstyles - DD2 currently has purple hair.
The school is full of respectful hard working young people who are a pleasure to be around.

All schools could be like that if the UK got over its uniform worship and allowed teachers to focus on learning and good behaviour.

[Stormyjupiter]

I've just re-read op, and think your school is totally wrong. There were many girls who have hair longer than inch past shoulder as well as boys. Only time my ds was told to tie his hair was during cooking and pe at that length, exactly same as girls. Now his hair is way longer, so he ties it everyday. But our school have same rule for both boys and girls.

[dementedma]

Cut his hair then and get over yourself

[rwalker]

I'd contact them and say before you make a decision can you have clarification on why girls can have long hair boys can't and how does that fit with there discrimination and equity policy.

[JudyCoolibar]

Whether your son likes it or not, he will find that when he leaves school long hair might not be allowed, so he will have to get used to the rules even when he doesn't agree with them.

All over the world there are children attending schools with no uniforms who subsequently go into jobs requiring uniforms. They do so perfectly successfully with no difficulty at all, without having had to get used to this at school. Why should UK children be any different?

And why should they get used to rules that breach the law?

[JudyCoolibar]

It is possible the courts would find that requiring boys to have short hair whilst allowing longer hair for girls is discrimination but it is by no means certain. So the head may be acting unlawfully but there is a good chance he isn't and that the courts would find that this is not discrimination.

In order to succeed, the school would have to show that the rule was a reasonable means of meeting a legitimate aim. In cases where the issue has come before the courts previously, reliance was placed on a 1996 employment law case about what was regarded as smart in the workplace. Needless to say, we have come a long way since 1996, and there are few if any professional workplaces where long hair on men wouldn't be regarded as perfectly acceptable. The general view amongst education lawyers is that this sort of rule would certainly not be upheld if challenged in the courts. The only reason it hasn't been tested further through case law is that schools have backed down whenever legal proceedings were hinted at, indicating that they and their lawyers clearly know they are on dodgy ground.

Schools can only exclude for serious conduct. If they are operating an unlawful rule or policy, it follows that even repeated breaches of that policy cannot be legitimate grounds for exclusion.

[prh47bridge]

In order to succeed, the school would have to show that the rule was a reasonable means of meeting a legitimate aim

They only have to show that if the rule is held to be discriminatory. The rule being different does not necessarily mean it is discriminatory. The question is not whether boys are being treated differently from girls by this rule. The question is whether boys are being treated less favourably.

It is certainly true that a hair policy that conflicts with religious beliefs or cultural norms is indirect discrimination. But that isn't what is being argued here. And I can point you at plenty of education lawyers who think this rule would be upheld but would recommend backing down, not because they think the school would necessarily lose in court, but because of the reputational damage of looking outdated.

[eternalopt]

I might have missed this, but has OP said yet whether it's a state funded school or a private one?

[WaxOnFeckOff]

I've not rea d the full thread but honestly tell them to get to fuck. I've said this before, I'm ambivalent about uniform but if it exists then I would ensure that my child complied with it during school.

Hair is something e lse, when they come home they can remove their uniform and school has no right to dictate what they wear in the evenings and weekends. However they are dictating what their hair should be like for the 70 plus % of the time they are not in school. As long as it is not a health or safety issue they can take a running jump as far as I am concerned.

And to have different policies for girls and boys is another issue.

[WaxOnFeckOff]

My DC attended the Scottish state school of the year, are consistently in the top few for academic success abducted they don't give a shit how DC have their hair, if they have beards or if it's coloured etc.

These kids go into all sorts of places including top level unis, jobs and apprenticeships.

[radox11]

@pointythings an extreme response to my post! I didn't say that uniform prevented children from disappearing into another dimension, I said it made them easier to recognise on a school outing

I'm sure that even in countries where schools do not have uniform there will be some kind of dress code that pupils must follow. In Germany or Denmark are the teenage girls allowed to turn up in a miniskirt and crop top and that is ok?

Everywhere in life there are conventions around clothing. Most bars and clubs have dress codes for men (shoes and collar) but not women. Lots of workplaces would expect men to wear long trousers but it would be acceptable for a woman to wear a skirt. If you are a builder you would be required to wear a high-vis jacket and steel toe caps. In some Arab countries women have to cover their shoulders in public (even if they are not Muslim). A beach side or poolside restaurant ask you to put on a shirt before entering... the list goes on.

I'm not obsessing about uniform (I have bigger fish to fry in life) but I can certainly see benefits to it, in a way that I can't necessarily see benefits to not wearing it. However that doesn't mean that I think all schools without it are useless and lose children to other dimensions!

[JudyCoolibar]

prh47bridge, there really cannot be any doubt that this is a discriminatory rule. Given that boys and girls have the same types of hair and are doing the same lessons, it cannot be anything but, as boys at this school are not permitted to have the same range of choices in relation to hair as girls.

[JudyCoolibar]

I didn't say that uniform prevented children from disappearing into another dimension, I said it made them easier to recognise on a school outing

And yet schools all over Europe apparently manage school outings just fine despite not having uniforms.

As for the rules around that, they can be very limited. I see that Camden School, for instance, simply says that "Students at the school may wear what they wish, but are expected to dress appropriately for an educational environment. Students should not dress in a manner likely to offend public decency, or wear clothing which prevents or interferes with identification through recognition of the whole face for security and safeguarding purposes or communication and learning." Sounds eminently sensible to me.

[Aethelthryth]

Just cut it.

[tegucigalpa13]

Can you share the exact wording of the school’s policy on hair and appearance?

That would make it easier for us to assess what is going on.

[Oliversmumsarmy]

Lots of workplaces would expect men to wear long trousers

Do they?

Dp works in a very staid office based job and he is in the minority (probably because he is old) in turning up in a suit.
A lot of men during summer months do turn up in shorts.

Most companies he is around don’t bother with dress codes any more.

I think schools are behind the times with their office ready work wear for those in years 12 and 13

As for leaving school and being asked to cut his hair by a potential employer. Again employers really couldn’t give a crap about how long someone’s hair is. They wouldn’t ask for it to be cut as they could be landed in court as it could be considered both a sexist and racist demand.

[radox11]

@oliversmumsarmy my OH works in the city for a huge global company and certainly wouldn't be allowed to wear shorts to work. He is expected to also wear long sleeves. Whilst I'm not saying that I agree with this, I am using it as an example of conventions around clothing. However I am not stupid... I am fully aware that not everyone who has a job has to wear long trousers and long sleeves! My dad is a builder and lives in torn jeans and paint-stained t shirts.

People really get a bee in their bonnet about this don't they?

[WaxOnFeckOff]

I work in an office environment for a large organisation and we dress down permanently now. Not allowed anything offensive but otherwise pretty much anything goes. People have all sorts of hair, facial hair, tattoos and piercings. Still managed to do their work.

Not many in the senior management team right enough but that could be an age thing or recruitment thing etc. But again people who want to move up might need to conform to a more subdued look.

[FennyBridges]

I would question why boys have to be different from girls with regards to hair. Sounds like this Head is stuck in the last century.

If you son is refusing to tie his hair back for science experiments of PE - I get it. Girls have to tie their hair back too. However, aside from that it is discriminatory.

I do not think a work analogy is helpful. Rules are important, however, your son is accessing his right to an education, whereas meeting a work policy criteria for a company is someone willing to meet those criteria in exchange for working there and, ultimately, payment.

I'd be inclined to cut his hair to his collar because it's tidier (my son has long hair but I keep it to his collar) and then write a letter; a blistering attack on their policies using emotive concepts like discrimination and examples of Sikh boys who, for religious reasons, do not cut their hair. Cutting his hair to his collar means your son won't be excluded in the short term, but his hair will grow back.

Good luck!