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 .

Jesus Christ just cut his hair

Can the op afford to take the school to court?

It's highly likely any legal action would be in her son's name and he would qualify for legal aid, so yes, she can.

There is nothing illegal about uniform/hair rules at school. It’s not work.

There is if the rules breach the law on discrimination, which applies to schools in just the same way as it does at work.

Why are people talking about court and discrimination? It's hair. Just cut it.

I'd be looking at other schools. The batshittery at the top runs deep. It sets a very dangerous precedent that surface-level detail is more important than substance or content.
And for the record I am fully aware about the need to follow rules but you must absolutely question them given that the ones I have to consider could get people killed or injured. It is very wrong to have a school uniform infraction considered as serious as lesson disruption or assault.

I benefited from girls creating havoc in their teenage hears order to have the right to wear trousers. Up til then all girls had to wear skirts. They probably learned more in that protest than in many a classroom.

So why do lawyers say the issue regarding hair can be determined by a school then, if it’s black and white discrimination? Equality in schools refers to access to curriculum not hair length.

Schools are able to set rules but must adhere to cultural requirements, not what a child likes to have. The idea that this is a battle worth fighting just isn’t worth pursuing, legal aid or not. Not that LA would be guaranteed in this case anyway as it’s hardly vital. It won’t happen.

Does he tell Sikh boys they have to cut their hair too? I bet he bloody doesn't.

Would they seriously exclude him if he won't cut his hair?? Don't they have to provide education for him from Day 6? And presumably if he won't cut his hair he can't go back at the Day 6 point - I just can't see where a school can go with this.

I would would fight his one if it were my child, and it sounds to me as if you probably will too. Good luck!

Time that could be better spent focusing on education.

Indeed. So why do schools spend so much time on creating stupid rules and enforcing them? It's nothing more than nonsensical control for controls sake.

Sikh children have a cultural reason to have long hair. That’s different.

Schools can be asked to amend uniform and appearance rules. However you might find many parents like the rules and will be happy with the changes. You, as an individual parent, can ask and use the complaints system if you wish.

Many schools believe smart appearance equals smart minds and better behaviour. A bit like the John Lewis ethos. Or British Airways. They see appearance and uniform as part of their ethos and they are allowed to have those views. There is a lot of evidence that the majority of parents are ok with this and how many boys have long hair? A minority. It’s possible to find a school that does not have appearance rules so parents should target them if it means so much to their DC.

Many schools believe smart appearance equals smart minds

PMSL

Dd (bless her) was always immaculately turned out for school.
This appearance certainly didn’t translate to intelligence.

The most intelligent person I have ever met was a fellow school pupil in my primary school who always looked like he had been dragged through a hedge backwards.
He came from a very nice family but despite wearing the correct uniform it just didn’t look the same as everyone else.

He is now a scientist at the top of his field

Indeed. So why do schools spend so much time on creating stupid rules and enforcing them? It's nothing more than nonsensical control for controls sake.

And so arbitrary. Kids know kids who go to other schools. What does it teach them about society that one kid is allowed to have hair of X length and his friend isn't - purely on the whims of two headteachers?

If headteachers are truly concerned with respect for authority and discipline surely they would be better off working from some common rule book that doesn't make (some of them) look like dictatorial dicks.

Get his hair cut, it's a small price to pay for an education.

As I said earlier, i'm ambivalent about uniforms. However, I'm happy to get on board with a sensible policy if the school chooses to have one. I can see the point of it being a leveler up to a point. However when it comes down to someone having a bit of white on an otherwise compliant sock or a narrower leg on a pair of trousers etc I really wonder what the point is.

Hair and other personal attributes that can't be put on and taken off when not in school as really none of their business, whether it's applied fairly across boys and girls or not.

And to the poster who says that OP should just chose a different school. We don't all live in urban environments with a choice. In Scotland for example, most DC go to a catchment school and anyone applying elsewhere is responsible for their own transport to get DC to school. Public transport is shit. However, schools here don't seem to be that concerned beyond the expectation that a shirt/tie and usually black bottom half are worn. Blazers are encouraged and trainers are discouraged. Hair etc is the pupils own business as long as it's not a safety concern or abusive (i.e.swastika shaved into the side). High fashion and cult allegiances (such as being obviously goth etc) are also discouraged.

Kids still seem to be able to manage to self discipline and learn despite wearing black leggings with boots or skinny trousers or a skirt above the knee.

However, schools here don't seem to be that concerned beyond the expectation that a shirt/tie and usually black bottom half are worn. Blazers are encouraged and trainers are discouraged. Hair etc is the pupils own business as long as it's not a safety concern or abusive (i.e.swastika shaved into the side). High fashion and cult allegiances (such as being obviously goth etc) are also discouraged.

An NO football colours!

Oh yes, no football colours - other than if your blazer/tie happens to match the team you support...

So why do lawyers say the issue regarding hair can be determined by a school then, if it’s black and white discrimination

Because it really isn't as black and white as many people on this thread seem to think. Having different rules for girls and boys is not necessarily discrimination. The question is whether one sex is being treated less favourably - Equality Act 2010 S13.

@roarfeckingroar
Jesus Christ just cut his hair

Actually JC is usually shown with hair way below collar length.

prh47bridge

“Having different rules for girls and boys is not necessarily discrimination. The question is whether one sex is being treated less favourably - Equality Act 2010 S13”

So if the rule was intending to be equally favourable to both sexes in requiring both to be of a comparable standard of acceptable grooming, that might have worked a couple of decades ago. But now it is pretty normal for men to have long hair, so allowing girls to grow theirs and boys not does seem to be treating boys less favourably.

Sex discrimination, pure and simple. Not OK. Threaten legal action and newspapers.

Many schools believe smart appearance equals smart minds and better behaviour

The only ‘study’ that actually purported to support this belief was funded and carried out by a school uniform manufacturer

A school in Kent discussing their no-uniform policy rochester-college.org/study-with-us/lower-school-year-7-11/non-uniform-education

“A recent Harvard study said: “relaxed, liberal schools that shun uniforms and encourage pupils to call teachers by their first names produce students who are more highly motivated than more disciplined establishments". The Sutton Trust meanwhile says: “There is no robust evidence that introducing a school uniform will, by itself, improve academic performance, behaviour or attendance.””

The (state) that school my kids attended that had a no uniform and first names policy was the one, amongst 3 good state schools they have attended, that had the best progress score, was highest in its respective league table, and had the best behaviour and lowest level of bullying.

prh, I can see the difference in rules for boys and girls isn't always a discrimination. But I can't understand in mixed sex school to have different rules regarding length of hair.
Fortunately our school have no difference between boys and girls. But if they did, I won't be happy, especially they changed the rule after my dc has started. When accepting school place, we agree with the rules they set, so if people have agreed, then they need to decide to accept it or go somewhere else. But in OP's case, they have changed the rule after new head. Can they do that?

So if the rule was intending to be equally favourable to both sexes in requiring both to be of a comparable standard of acceptable grooming, that might have worked a couple of decades ago. But now it is pretty normal for men to have long hair, so allowing girls to grow theirs and boys not does seem to be treating boys less favourably

Actually, I think long hair for men was more common a couple of decades ago. It was certainly much more common in the 1960s and 1970s than it is today. And note that I'm not saying definitively that this school's policy would stand up in court, just that it might. The question is whether the court would think that limiting the length of boys hair is treating them less favourably.

But in OP's case, they have changed the rule after new head. Can they do that?

Yes, a school is free to change its uniform policy and any other rules at any time. The relevant legislation gives schools very wide powers.

Purely coincidental to this thread my DS has a friend round at the moment. A boy from high school. He has hip-length ginger dreads.