Boy suspended for wearing his hair too long

[cheermom1]

As far as uniforms go I am NOT a fan and will fight this issue if it comes to our town ...here is why, I was the kid that was always picked on in school ..I went to public, private and religious schools and at everyone I was picked on...it had NOTHING to do with clothing and EVERYTHING to do with who has the most money period!!!! it doesn't matter if you wear a uniform or not or any of the dress codes out there you KNEW who had money and who didn't...so my point is that uniforms are not going to stop this attitude that has been in schools and among kids, it will always be there no matter what the kids wears ..so what is the point of uniforms to strip all individuality and have our kids look and act like robots so there is no creativity for kids ....another thing is that they want to start in the elementary for uniforms which doesn't make since b/c it middle and high school is where most of the problems are anyway....

 

[MiniGirl]

Interesting thread.....

I just looked up our school district's policy and long hair is not specifically mentioned. It just says nothing extreme and nothing that would be distracting. It also says that hairstyles which prevent eye contact is not allowed, so I'm guessing this boy would be allowed to have long hair here as long as it was pulled back. No visible tats or body piercings (except for the ears) are allowed though.

I missed a few pages, so forgive me if anyone has mentioned it..... Many of you are saying the school shouldn't be able to make these rules because it is a public school and parents may not have a choice. This little boy is 4 and is in pre-K. Is pre-K required in Texas? I mean is simply not sending the child to school an option or would the child be considered a truant.

Also, a friend (well, acquaintance really) once told me that she really did not like long hair on little boys. She often mistook them for girls and had a recurring dream about this one little boy in particular being abducted from school. The teacher who witnessed the abduction from afar didn't know the boy and kept describing the child as a little girl, so the police were out looking for a girl and lost untold time. Yes, I know it was only a dream, but it really bothered her. She had no problem with longer hair on older boys, btw. It was really all about being about to identify them just by looks. I should also add that in her school it was not uncommon for little girls to wear their big brother's hand me downs.

Bottom line.... the rule is currently in place and it should be followed. If the parent's are that adament, they need to fight to change it in ways that do not punish their child -- start a signature drive on a petition or a letter writing campaign, etc. I do not blame the school for their actions. Once the school sent notice home they had to follow through. To not do so would set a bad precedent and would tell people that they did not have to follow the rules they didn't agree with or that were an inconvienence to them. If the school wasn't prepared to follow through, they should have never sent home a notice informing the parents their son was in violation of the rules.

Personally, long hair does not bother me, and do think the rule is outdated. If we had boys though and it was a rule, we'd follow it though. This is not something I'd be willing to make a stink about. I'd save that for bigger battles down the road.

 

[Planogirl]

Some people have commented that the school will likely lose in this. I wouldn't necessarily think so. Length of hair has been an issue before and the schools still have their rules in place. Maybe the school will and maybe it won't.

 

[Momvic5]

Interesting thread.....

I just looked up our school district's policy and long hair is not specifically mentioned. It just says nothing extreme and nothing that would be distracting. It also says that hairstyles which prevent eye contact is not allowed, so I'm guessing this boy would be allowed to have long hair here as long as it was pulled back. No visible tats or body piercings (except for the ears) are allowed though.

I missed a few pages, so forgive me if anyone has mentioned it..... Many of you are saying the school shouldn't be able to make these rules because it is a public school and parents may not have a choice. This little boy is 4 and is in pre-K. Is pre-K required in Texas? I mean is simply not sending the child to school an option or would the child be considered a truant.
Also, a friend (well, acquaintance really) once told me that she really did not like long hair on little boys. She often mistook them for girls and had a recurring dream about this one little boy in particular being abducted from school. The teacher who witnessed the abduction from afar didn't know the boy and kept describing the child as a little girl, so the police were out looking for a girl and lost untold time. Yes, I know it was only a dream, but it really bothered her. She had no problem with longer hair on older boys, btw. It was really all about being about to identify them just by looks. I should also add that in her school it was not uncommon for little girls to wear their big brother's hand me downs.

Bottom line.... the rule is currently in place and it should be followed. If the parent's are that adament, they need to fight to change it in ways that do not punish their child -- start a signature drive on a petition or a letter writing campaign, etc. I do not blame the school for their actions. Once the school sent notice home they had to follow through. To not do so would set a bad precedent and would tell people that they did not have to follow the rules they didn't agree with or that were an inconvienence to them. If the school wasn't prepared to follow through, they should have never sent home a notice informing the parents their son was in violation of the rules.

Personally, long hair does not bother me, and do think the rule is outdated. If we had boys though and it was a rule, we'd follow it though. This is not something I'd be willing to make a stink about. I'd save that for bigger battles down the road.

No, pre-k is not required in Texas.

Just thought I would share our school districts policy regarding boys and girls:

*Boys can not have hair longer than 2 inches from their scalp. Ponytails can not be worn by boys.

*Only females may wear earrings.

*Boys are required to shave mustaches and beards.

*Starting in middle school, all boys are required to tuck their shirts into their pants. Girls are not required to tuck their shirts in for pregnancy and body image reasons. (Parents of boys fight this rule every year, and every year, our boys are still required to tuck their shirts in.)

Boys have it rough in my opinion!

 

[PollyannaMom]

.....I do NOT believe in breaking rules willy nilly or just for my convieince, but I DO believe in standing up against "bad" rules and I think that can legitamitly entail breaking the rule during the fight. I am thankful for our founding fathrs who broke a few rules; I am in awe of and very thankful for the many Europeans who risekd their lives and broke rules to shelter Jews, and other persecuted groups, during WWII; I am glad Rosa Parks and other civil rights leaders broke rules in the USA in the 60s; I have tremendous respect for the passengers on flight 93 who broke the no cell phones in flight rule when they were taken hostage and learned of their fate and did something to save others even when they knew their own lives were over. On a smaller scale, I am grateful to all the people who have worked to change the smaller rules which affect us all day in and day out, and to the parents who raised their children to fight for what is right (maybe by supprting them in a battle as simple as hair when they wer children) so that they DID do the great things I have listed above (and so many more examples not comming into my head at this late hour). I think most of our great achievements have come from breaking "the rules" (either literally or metaphorically).

I think you said this very well.

Some people have commented that the school will likely lose in this. I wouldn't necessarily think so. Length of hair has been an issue before and the schools still have their rules in place. Maybe the school will and maybe it won't.

I do think the school will lose if the parents play the right card -

...Title IX, is a United States law enacted on June 23, 1972. The law states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

I think if the school receives any federal money, and they stress that their son is being denied the benefits of a classroom education by a rule that only applies to boys and not girls, they definitely have a chance.



A lot of folks are saying that this is about societal norms, but if it truely is, then probably the "society" in place (in this case, 4 and 5-year-olds) should have been left to take care of it. - Either the boy would have gotten sick of the other kids thinking he was a girl and asked his parents for a haircut, or the other kids would have decided it was OK and it would very quickly have ceased to be a distraction. I wonder why anyone bothered wasting the ink to make it an official rule in the first place?

 

[1957]

Not sure if any of you remember the "hair" days of the mid-late 60's, but I sure do! During the 1963-64 school year, boys were suspended for having hair below their ears or one inch below their neck line, and girls were suspended for wearing skirts/dresses above their knees or teasing their hair so high that it blocked the view of the student sitting behind them. This was a large public High School. I was a senior then, and saw it happen. I graduated HS in 1964 and University in 1968. My first teaching job was in a public HS, and "hair" was still an issue! Girls who had long hair couldn't let it grow past their shoulders, and boys couldn't have bangs lower than their eyebrows and no lip hair or sideburns. I remember sitting in faculty meeting after faculty meeting discussing this issue. Well, they discussed. I really didn't care. Really stupid!

 

[Tink0374]

I do agree that rules should be followed. HOWEVER: They must be ENFORCED for everybody. My DS16 was at another school when he was 14. Him and several of his friends all had what the school considered "long hair" (touching their collars and longer). My son has thick, wavy hair (so thick it makes me jealous) and so even though it was shorter than a couple of his friends', it appeared more "unkempt". He was given a week suspension (with no previous phone calls to me, although I'm sure he was told) while his friends were not punished at all (I checked with their parents as we all attend the same church and live near each other). When I went to the Parent/Administrator conference, I asked why these other boys were not suspended or given detention, the principal informed me that the other boys were not on his "radar" and he hadn't noticed their hair. Now, understand, these boys were like the 3 (well actually 4) Muskateers and never seperated! They rode to school together, had lunch together, and most of their classes together! My son was simply not from as "privelaged" family as the other three, nor were his grades as good. After several more incidents like this and several complaints to the school board about the principal's "vendetta" against my child, we removed my son from this school. Over the next 6 months to a year, several of the other parents from our area experienced similar instances and followed suit. My child is now an A/B student with hair halfway down his back and couldn't be happier. And neither could I. I also recently signed a petition in our parish to force the school board to have that principal removed from that school. I was #976 on the petition. Quite alot of signatures for a school whose enrollment was 632 last year.

 

[PlainJane]

Then you never met my kid. At 4 he did not want us to touch his hair, it is only after he started playing sports that he wanted it short, but he didn't like it, so it is long again.

I do not agree with people that say rules have to be followed, you can challenge rules and maybe this mom can get that rule changed.
Maybe the school should focus on more important things like keeping the truly delinquent kids out of school. There are so many problem kids out there, but they seem to have all the rights, yet a child with long hair, who apparently isn't doing anything wrong can get suspended. Talk about overkill. This is why the public school system is failing, They can't see the forest for the trees.

I agree that you can challenge rules, but I don't believe you should do so by breaking them. Fight for the change you want, but you still have to follow the rules in place in the mean time.

Example: If you think your area's highway speed should be changed from 60 MPH to 70 MPH, you should work to change it, but it doesn't give you the right to disobey the current speed limit.

I of course disregard the above in extreme situations (i.e. Helping slaves escape illegally), and this definitely isn't one of them.

 

[ChristmasElf]

I thank the Lord each day that I have been able to send my 3 to very high end private schools, we don't have these problems. The parents and students are more interested in getting educated and into college or military academy. He would not be allowed to go to school there with that silly hair doo and I can't imagine any parent wanting him to.

Very HIGH end private schools here in Orlando? High priced maybe but not really high end unfortunately.'
My neighbors daughter goes to Lake Highland Prep. She is not too pleased considering how much they have paid in tuition so far. Windermere Preps tuition is getting absurd.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I find the majority here thinking it's a stupid rule to be so interesting. As I posted previously, DSs attend a private school with the same haircut guidelines for boys as the Texas school. No one thinks about it (until the dean tells you to get a haircut), it's not controversial, and it's just the school's rule. I checked other local school dress codes, and 3 of the top 5 private schools in Atlanta have similar boy hair provisions in their dress codes. You want your child to go to one of these schools, you cut their hair. I haven't heard of any protests. Most parents I know would give their kids green mohawks to get their kids in these schools if that was the requirement.

I then wondered if the boy haircut rule is a Southern thing so I checked out private school dress codes around the US this afternoon (obviously, I have procrastinated about cleaning the house today). I found plenty of private schools from Arizona to Washington to Connecticut to Florida that have similar haircut guidelines for boys. So, boy haircut guidelines appear to be not uncommon in the world of elite, prep schools. (Of course, I know there are MANY, MANY private schools without haircut guidelines so no one needs to start posting examples).

As for the reasoning behind the haircut rule, many here have discussed the distraction issue. Fyi, some private schools justify the rule on the basis that the student represents the school, in and out of school. (Fwiw, private school conduct codes (which can cover off campus activities such as drinking) are also based on the same idea that the child represents the school at all times).

I think the public school aspect of the 4 year old in Texas is significant. If I don't like the haircut code, I send my kids to a different private school. With public school, the parents don't have another option (besides moving to a private school or homeschooling). I posted a question earlier wondering about required public school uniforms. I only saw one response to my question and that poster thought there is a difference between requiring a haircut and requiring uniforms. I consider mandatory uniforms in public schools to be more intrusive than a haircut policy. With uniforms, you lose virtually all individuality in dress AND you are mandating costs in a "free" public school system. With the growing trend of required uniforms in public schools, particularly urban ones, we may hear more cases of families rebelling against public school dress codes.

As you say, it is the public school aspect which is significant--so all the private school norms are really not valid. MANY private schools also require uniforms, attendnace at religious functions, etc. I have NO issue with any of these things at a private school and do think at such schools if you do not like the rule you should leave, OR work to change it without brekign the rule ever (because you have a true choice not to be there in the meantime).

Interesting thread.....

I missed a few pages, so forgive me if anyone has mentioned it..... Many of you are saying the school shouldn't be able to make these rules because it is a public school and parents may not have a choice. This little boy is 4 and is in pre-K. Is pre-K required in Texas? I mean is simply not sending the child to school an option or would the child be considered a truant.

.

That is a good pont and i had wondered that as well. However, the rule appears to be for all, so as he ages this will continue to be a problem. Maybe it is better to fight it in pre-K (when the boy will not miss more essential schoolwork sitting out) than in an older grade

Just thought I would share our school districts policy regarding boys and girls:

*Boys can not have hair longer than 2 inches from their scalp. Ponytails can not be worn by boys.

*Only females may wear earrings.

*Boys are required to shave mustaches and beards.

*Starting in middle school, all boys are required to tuck their shirts into their pants. Girls are not required to tuck their shirts in for pregnancy and body image reasons. (Parents of boys fight this rule every year, and every year, our boys are still required to tuck their shirts in.)

Boys have it rough in my opinion!

Boys have body image issues too! My son, whose hair does not go onto his collar, would not make the hair less than 2 inches rules. It is the same length all around--a very old fashioned cut that he chose (when he was 4 actually) and loves. He tried it short this summer and HATED it and complained about how long it took to even grow that back: about 6 months to really get it even again. Is this a PUBLIC school?

I think you said this very well.

Thanks Iwas so sleepy when I wrote it I was not sure if it even made sense

I agree that you can challenge rules, but I don't believe you should do so by breaking them. Fight for the change you want, but you still have to follow the rules in place in the mean time.

Example: If you think your area's highway speed should be changed from 60 MPH to 70 MPH, you should work to change it, but it doesn't give you the right to disobey the current speed limit.

I of course disregard the above in extreme situations (i.e. Helping slaves escape illegally), and this definitely isn't one of them.

Okay, so who gets to decide what is a big enough deal to fight by breaking the rules and what is not. I think lots of people would have said '"t is just a seat on a bus" (which was eventually successfully fought laregely parcipitated bu "rule breaking") or "it is just a star to wear on clothes" (which was not fought on any large scale and led to much worse things following). Both of these issues sound pretty unimportant when looked at on the surface only. Your example of speeding, and a previous poster's example about a stop sign ARE different. Not following the rule in those cases carries a very high likelyhood of injuring innocent bystanders who have every right to have expected you to stop at a stop sign, etc. Now, if the rule were only men had to stop at the sign, or only women had to keep their spped at 60 or below THEN peopel would be already expecting to see cars go through the intersection without stopping and cars going faster than 60 and no one would be endangered by you breaking the rule to prove it's idiocy and I think you would have a valid point and probably support you in your endevours. Nearly any rule that holds one gender, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation to different standards than the other liekly exists only to let the rule makers feel more comfortable by protecting the "norm" or giving themselves a benefit denied others. This is really never right in my book. Rules applied to all equally are more likely to need to be fought without breaking htem AND more likely to be succesfully challenged in such a fight.

I have a question about your bolded statement. How do you feel about the early days of the US revolution? Do you feel the various acts of "treason" taht the British subjects participated in as they fought to become an independant country were justified? They wre not fighting against anything so extreme as slavery.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I'm wondering why it's okay with the school to have the hair in braids but not loose. It's still long hair. Weird.

 

[PlainJane]

As you say, it is the public school aspect which is significant--so all the private school norms are really not valid. MANY private schools also require uniforms, attendnace at religious functions, etc. I have NO issue with any of these things at a private school and do think at such schools if you do not like the rule you should leave, OR work to change it without brekign the rule ever (because you have a true choice not to be there in the meantime).
That is a good pont and i had wondered that as well. However, the rule appears to be for all, so as he ages this will continue to be a problem. Maybe it is better to fight it in pre-K (when the boy will not miss more essential schoolwork sitting out) than in an older grade


Boys have body image issues too! My son, whose hair does not go onto his collar, would not make the hair less than 2 inches rules. It is the same length all around--a very old fashioned cut that he chose (when he was 4 actually) and loves. He tried it short this summer and HATED it and complained about how long it took to even grow that back: about 6 months to really get it even again. Is this a PUBLIC school?


Thanks Iwas so sleepy when I wrote it I was not sure if it even made sense


Okay, so who gets to decide what is a big enough deal to fight by breaking the rules and what is not. I think lots of people would have said '"t is just a seat on a bus" (which was eventually successfully fought laregely parcipitated bu "rule breaking") or "it is just a star to wear on clothes" (which was not fought on any large scale and led to much worse things following). Both of these issues sound pretty unimportant when looked at on the surface only. Your example of speeding, and a previous poster's example about a stop sign ARE different. Not following the rule in those cases carries a very high likelyhood of injuring innocent bystanders who have every right to have expected you to stop at a stop sign, etc. Now, if the rule were only men had to stop at the sign, or only women had to keep their spped at 60 or below THEN peopel would be already expecting to see cars go through the intersection without stopping and cars going faster than 60 and no one would be endangered by you breaking the rule to prove it's idiocy and I think you would have a valid point and probably support you in your endevours. Nearly any rule that holds one gender, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation to different standards than the other liekly exists only to let the rule makers feel more comfortable by protecting the "norm" or giving themselves a benefit denied others. This is really never right in my book. Rules applied to all equally are more likely to need to be fought without breaking htem AND more likely to be succesfully challenged in such a fight.

I have a question about your bolded statement. How do you feel about the early days of the US revolution? Do you feel the various acts of "treason" taht the British subjects participated in as they fought to become an independant country were justified? They wre not fighting against anything so extreme as slavery.

Well, for your Rosa Parks example, it was not just a seat. That seat represented all of the unequal treatment thrust upon African Americans.

For the statement about the stars, Jews had been targeted in the past. There was large number of Jews who immigrated to America during the gilded age because Russia was persecuting them (of course not the only example). There was IMO, cause for concern. They placed the star on them to blatantly show that they were less than the rest of society.

In the above two examples, there is an unabashed singling out of a race/religion. They were using the stars, the bus seats, the water fountains, etc. to show everyone else that they were less in the eyes of the government.

A school not allowing boys to wear their hair long is not a rule put in place to demonstrate that boys are less than girls.

As for the American Revolution, they colonists didn't exactly have a legal way of changing things, in the same sense that people in this country (and some others) do today. They had no representation in England (not that it would have been too terribly practical anyway, with transport as it was back then), and England tended to do what worked best for their own pocket books and endeavors. They went as far as forcing citizens to quarter British soldiers. I'm not completely naive, and I know many of the reasons for the war were for the benefit of wealthy colonists. Whether the fault of geography of the British government, the colonists only really had the option of rebelling, and I do think it was justified.

This mother has legal channels she can wade through, that the colonists never even dreamed of.

On your point of who gets to decide what is a big enough deal to constitute breaking a rule or not? That is up to each individual; however, their rule breaking may lead to consequences, as seen in this case. Whether it is worth it to them must be based on their own ethics and what they're willing to risk.

 

[MiniGirl]

That is a good pont and i had wondered that as well. However, the rule appears to be for all, so as he ages this will continue to be a problem. Maybe it is better to fight it in pre-K (when the boy will not miss more essential schoolwork sitting out) than in an older grade

Oh, I agree with you there. I was just wondering if it was possible to pulll him out of school without any consequences so that he didn't have to sit isolated in the library all day. His parents could continue to fight the battle while he is at home.

On your point of who gets to decide what is a big enough deal to constitute breaking a rule or not? That is up to each individual; however, their rule breaking may lead to consequences, as seen in this case. Whether it is worth it to them must be based on their own ethics and what they're willing to risk. [/B]

I agree with this, too. It is up to the individual to decide and accept the consequences. Unfortunately, in this case, the little boy is the one being punished for his mother's (or parents') civil disobedience, and I think that is what bothers me most about this.

I guess I just truly don't understand this fight. I mean this kid is in pre-K, and there are going to be a lot of battles down the road. When my kids were in public school, I kept my mouth shut about a lot of the little things I disagreed with or didn't like. That way when I needed to challenge something that I felt was important I could do so without being seen as a trouble maker. (For example, one year I was able to get my dd's class assignment changed, and another woman I know wasn't. I feel it was because this was the first time I had ever asked for anything from the school. The other woman challenged them and made a stink several times a year about different things.) Perhaps these parents do feel this is an important enough issue, but I openly admit that I don't get it. I understand where they're coming from and do think the rule should change, but I wouldn't be willing to become "one of those parents" for the sake of my kid's hair.

 

[luvmy3]

Well since pre-school is not mandatory for this child, this shouldn't even be an issue. If he can't abide by their rules then he can just not attend since he isn't required to. If the alternative that was given isn't what the mother is willing to do, discontinue his enrollment and give his spot to a family more deserving, one that appreciates the priveledge to be there and has no problem abiding by the rules. If the mother has an issue with that then fight the rule for when he is required to start Kindergarten, from home.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

Well since pre-school is not mandatory for this child, this shouldn't even be an issue. If he can't abide by their rules then he can just not attend since he isn't required to. If the alternative that was given isn't what the mother is willing to do, discontinue his enrollment and give his spot to a family more deserving, one that appreciates the priveledge to be there and has no problem abiding by the rules. If the mother has an issue with that then fight the rule for when he is required to start Kindergarten, from home.

This is my opinion, too. Don't put this poor little boy through this for your own gain.

 

[Momvic5]

Boys have body image issues too! My son, whose hair does not go onto his collar, would not make the hair less than 2 inches rules. It is the same length all around--a very old fashioned cut that he chose (when he was 4 actually) and loves. He tried it short this summer and HATED it and complained about how long it took to even grow that back: about 6 months to really get it even again. Is this a PUBLIC school?


Yes, this is our district's rules for our public schools. I can live with all of them, but I totally agree with you, boys have body image issues too. Parents fight this every year, and every year, the rule remains - boys tuck their shirts in! It is unfair.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Well since pre-school is not mandatory for this child, this shouldn't even be an issue. If he can't abide by their rules then he can just not attend since he isn't required to. If the alternative that was given isn't what the mother is willing to do, discontinue his enrollment and give his spot to a family more deserving, one that appreciates the priveledge to be there and has no problem abiding by the rules. If the mother has an issue with that then fight the rule for when he is required to start Kindergarten, from home.

So that means that Sikh boys are not welcomed at school as in their religion boys do not cut their hair, even when they grow up they have turbans to keep their hair neat.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

So that means that Sikh boys are not welcomed at school as in their religion boys do not cut their hair, even when they grow up they have turbans to keep their hair neat.

Huh? Same thing. Deal with the issue separately from the child. File an appeal or whatever the district has in place for a problem, but do not use your child to make your point.

Most schools do have a way to deal with religious issues, btw.

 

[luvmy3]

So that means that Sikh boys are not welcomed at school as in their religion boys do not cut their hair, even when they grow up they have turbans to keep their hair neat.

Again, this has nothing to do with this situation because this boy does not have long hair because of his religon. All public schools have exceptions for religious customs, I'm sure this one is no different. This child is not wearing his hair long because his religion dictates it, he's wearing it long because his parent does. It is this parent's choice to send him there being that pre-school is not mandatory. When a parent makes a choice to send their child to school, they make the choice to abide by the rules set by the school.

 

[auntie]

So that means that Sikh boys are not welcomed at school as in their religion boys do not cut their hair, even when they grow up they have turbans to keep their hair neat.

That would be an issue where we live in NY as well. If I had to guess, more than likely one of the reasons our public schools don't have an rules regarding hair length.