ChatterBank0 min ago
Birmingham Pupil Suspended 'for Peaky Blinders Haircut'
http://
Not sure what is wrong here. This little lad looks very neat and tidy to me !
I had hair only marginally longer when I was a lad in the 50's.
Not sure what is wrong here. This little lad looks very neat and tidy to me !
I had hair only marginally longer when I was a lad in the 50's.
Answers
can't see anything wrong with it, i see loads of children with number 1 2 or 3 haircut length very sensible, less for the nits to cling to .
07:21 Thu 12th May 2016
Ab Editor - //Often these things are in place to stop bullying (for those who don't have or can't afford) the fashionable haircut. //
Absolutely.
Peer group pressure can be fierce, and by definition, fashion in clothing is often expensive, and some children are forced to miss out because their parents can't afford to keep up - hence the need and reasoning behind uniform.
If you are going to have a uniform policy, you need to enforce it fairly and evenly.
I can see that 'peaky blinders' haircuts with their echoes of earlier times, can be seen as smart, but if the next trend is going back to drainpipe jeans and leather jackets with fringes and chains on them, and drape jackets with fish hooks in the lapels, and DA's that take three pots of Brylcreem a week to maintain, then that is when a consistent application of a uniform policy comes into its own - and that is why they are applied.
Absolutely.
Peer group pressure can be fierce, and by definition, fashion in clothing is often expensive, and some children are forced to miss out because their parents can't afford to keep up - hence the need and reasoning behind uniform.
If you are going to have a uniform policy, you need to enforce it fairly and evenly.
I can see that 'peaky blinders' haircuts with their echoes of earlier times, can be seen as smart, but if the next trend is going back to drainpipe jeans and leather jackets with fringes and chains on them, and drape jackets with fish hooks in the lapels, and DA's that take three pots of Brylcreem a week to maintain, then that is when a consistent application of a uniform policy comes into its own - and that is why they are applied.
My son attends a Catholic college and their policy on hair is no extreme cuts or cuts with the razor shapes in them (don't know what the proper term is). He has a short back and sides, because it looks smart (and is the only boys' cut I know).
As far as I know a short back and sides cut has been around forever and was never really deemed fashionable. So following the school's logic you can have any haircut within the school uniform policy remit but once it becomes fashionable because it is on TV for instance (which seems to be the issue here) it is then not allowed.
If the school don't specifically rule out a haircut by name or provide a photo for parental guidance, how can they deem something as unsuitable after the child has had that haircut for a number of months? Just because a TV program (which I very much doubt any 8 year olds' would be allowed to watch anyway) has that haircut does not make it fashionable. I would think that the fact that Peaky Blinders is set in the early part of the 1900's would be one of the reasons for the haircut.
As far as I know a short back and sides cut has been around forever and was never really deemed fashionable. So following the school's logic you can have any haircut within the school uniform policy remit but once it becomes fashionable because it is on TV for instance (which seems to be the issue here) it is then not allowed.
If the school don't specifically rule out a haircut by name or provide a photo for parental guidance, how can they deem something as unsuitable after the child has had that haircut for a number of months? Just because a TV program (which I very much doubt any 8 year olds' would be allowed to watch anyway) has that haircut does not make it fashionable. I would think that the fact that Peaky Blinders is set in the early part of the 1900's would be one of the reasons for the haircut.
As far as I'm concerned it still comes down to the school considers that all the children are uniform is more important then their education. Another case is being taken to the high court because a father took his child on holiday during term time and " the child's education suffers", yet this school can interrupt a child's education because somebody doesn't like his hairstyle.
Andy,
I will rephrase for you then, I would hope that a violent program that is on after 8 o'clock at night is not viewed by 8 year old children.
The point is that as I and other ABers have said that style of haircut has been around for decades why should a child who has had that haircut for a number of months (with no apparent problem) now be sent home because it is suddenly unacceptable because a TV program has now made it "fashionable"?
I will rephrase for you then, I would hope that a violent program that is on after 8 o'clock at night is not viewed by 8 year old children.
The point is that as I and other ABers have said that style of haircut has been around for decades why should a child who has had that haircut for a number of months (with no apparent problem) now be sent home because it is suddenly unacceptable because a TV program has now made it "fashionable"?
Talbot - //Do you have a realistic notion of what children watch on television today?
It appears not.
That doesn't appear arrogant at all, nope not at all ... who did you say was spoiling for a fight? //
I think you are - but you are wasting your time.
I am attempting to confine my responses to the thread - why don't you join me in that endeavour?
It appears not.
That doesn't appear arrogant at all, nope not at all ... who did you say was spoiling for a fight? //
I think you are - but you are wasting your time.
I am attempting to confine my responses to the thread - why don't you join me in that endeavour?
Parsley - //I would hope that a violent program that is on after 8 o'clock at night is not viewed by 8 year old children. //
I would hope so too - but sadly it is often not the case, thanks to the advent of digital recordings, the notion of suitable viewing times has ceased to exist - but I do take your point, and thank you for the clarification of your view point.
// The point is that as I and other ABers have said that style of haircut has been around for decades why should a child who has had that haircut for a number of months (with no apparent problem) now be sent home because it is suddenly unacceptable because a TV program has now made it "fashionable"? //
Obviously that is for the school to answer in terms of a specific instance of uniform policy enforcement.
My viewpoint is based on the wider concept of uniform policy, its reasons and its applications - but as I have pointed out earlier on, the story of a parent keeping their child away from school, or a child being suspended from school because of uniform policy, are a tedious and monotonously regular staple of the press.
The story dies a quick death - until the next one.
I would hope so too - but sadly it is often not the case, thanks to the advent of digital recordings, the notion of suitable viewing times has ceased to exist - but I do take your point, and thank you for the clarification of your view point.
// The point is that as I and other ABers have said that style of haircut has been around for decades why should a child who has had that haircut for a number of months (with no apparent problem) now be sent home because it is suddenly unacceptable because a TV program has now made it "fashionable"? //
Obviously that is for the school to answer in terms of a specific instance of uniform policy enforcement.
My viewpoint is based on the wider concept of uniform policy, its reasons and its applications - but as I have pointed out earlier on, the story of a parent keeping their child away from school, or a child being suspended from school because of uniform policy, are a tedious and monotonously regular staple of the press.
The story dies a quick death - until the next one.
Whatever the school rules, suspending an eight year old because of a haircut his parents allowed him to have is mindless. Whoever took that decision does not consider the interests or the education of the child a priority and is not, in my opinion, worthy to be deemed an 'educator'. A decision to exclude the little boy from school could create in him a negative attitude of resentment alienating him from the education system for life. Quite shameful. The child shouldn't have been involved in the fracas at all. The problem should have been resolved in a sensible manner with the parents.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.