Student suspended for long hair

[Wingnut]

Excerpt:

BALCH SPRINGS, Texas— Taylor Pugh has been suspended from pre-kindergarten because he likes his hair a little on the floppy side.

Full article: Texas parents school tangle over boys long locks

Thoughts?

[Wingnut]

Here's the thing that really gets me. The kid is growing his hair out for a Locks of Love-type program, yet the school district has this to say: "...students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live."

How is donating his hair to a charity for cancer patients not being a constructive member of society? I'd say that if this is his decision, and he's only 4 years old (what's a 4-year-old doing in kindergarten anyway, by the way?), he's well on his way to becoming a constructive member of society already.

[pam]

Hmmm I have mixed thoughts on this. Looking at the picture in the article I don't really consider his hair as something way out there. It's a little boy with longer hair.

On the other hand, if the district has set policies in place as far as grooming and clothing standards and it's in black and white and provided to each of the parents..they have a right to enforce their policy.

And then you have the issue of them not enforcing another suspension but having him separate from the rest of the kids? Either you enforce the policy or you don't. Separation just points out that he is different and makes others look upon him as someone not following rules and having to be "punished" per se.

Is this more about the parents fighting the system or the child not wanting to cut his hair? I'm looking at it more being about the parents.

[pam]

It doesn't say he's in kindergarten, it mentions pre-kindergarten.

[pam]

My daughter was 4 when she started kindergarten in California. The cut off date was the child had to be 5 by December 5. She turned 5 in September shortly after the school year started.

[Wingnut]

It doesn't say he's in kindergarten, it mentions pre-kindergarten.

I missed the "pre-."

[Dravin]

1. Schools can have dress codes. I don't see the hair code as particularly egregious even if I don't think the kid's hair is all that crazy or distracting (well, maybe if he keeps on getting referred to as female by confused school folk).

2. I'm getting the vibe that the kid is a pawn for the parents. They want to buck the system and they are using their kid to do it. Vicarious rebellion as it were. Cut the kid's hair and then fight the school, if you can get it settled in your favor then grow his hair out.

said Taylor's father, Delton Pugh, said Wednesday. "I don't think it's right to hold a child down and force him to do something ... when it's not hurting him or affecting his education."

If it got him suspended (out of school or in school) I'd say that's affecting his education, wouldn't you? I mean, you can argue that it shouldn't be, but it is. See my comment #2.

[NeuroTypical]

If you expect common sense to rule over policy, don't look at a public school.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's the thing that really gets me. The kid is growing his hair out for a Locks of Love-type program. . .

I highly doubt that. Combining the parents' background (Dad's a tattoo artist), the weasel-term "eventually" (a year? Eighteen years? When male pattern baldness has set in?), and the average four-year-old's exposure (or lack thereof) to programs like "Locks of Love", I'd bet dollars to donuts that daddy's just trying to give Junior a lesson in nonconformance. Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily; I just wish he'd be honest about it.

[Wingnut]

Cut the kid's hair and then fight the school, if you can get it settled in your favor then grow his hair out.

I so agree with this to a point. I also think that requiring missionary-style (practically) haircuts is a little extreme. This boy's hair (based on the picture in the article) didn't seem distracting to me -- he was a cute kid! Longer than shoulder-length though, and I would be distracted.

I highly doubt that. Combining the parents' background (Dad's a tattoo artist), the weasel-term "eventually" (a year? Eighteen years? When male pattern baldness has set in?), and the average four-year-old's exposure (or lack thereof) to programs like "Locks of Love", I'd bet dollars to donuts that daddy's just trying to give Junior a lesson in nonconformance. Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily; I just wish he'd be honest about it.

It does sound a little like that, but I'm choosing to give the family the benefit of the doubt.

[hordak]

I think it's ridiculous. It it was safety issue, no hair over the ears so they can see for BOYS and GIRLS i could understand but it's not. It's like telling girls they can't wear pants, or play football because they are meant for boys.

[Dravin]

I so agree with this to a point. I also think that requiring missionary-style (practically) haircuts is a little extreme. This boy's hair (based on the picture in the article) didn't seem distracting to me -- he was a cute kid! Longer than shoulder-length though, and I would be distracted.

I'm not defending the particular dress code. I defend the concept of dress codes though (but reserve the right, as in this case, to think they are being silly). I think in the end though it is a trivial thing to disrupt your child's education over even if the long term consequences are most likely nill.

[Gwen]

i didn't read this particular article but i saw a video reporting on it the other day. what bothered me (and it's killing me i can't find the video now) was they showed a glimps of the school policy of hair that is acceptable for boys. it had hairstyles that i thought would be far more or equally distracting than this boy's hair. if the issue is distraction then they need to rethink the policy. my other issue is kids need to learn to deal with differences around them. when they are about town you don't want them so sheltered that they rudely stare and comment at/about ppl.

this would fit in the rule they have for off the ears etc.....

[Moksha]

"If the school district is not more concerned with hair than education, then who will be?"

- Rabbi Rand, The Complete Retentive, Pg. 666, Dollarville, Galt Island, 1959,

[talisyn]

He's a really cute little boy. I like his hair. Maybe the problem started when a teacher saw him go into a boy's bathroom and thought he was a girl? If they ban long hair for boys they should ban short hair for girls.

I'm not a fan of hair restrictions. Clothes, sure. In fact, pleeeeeeaaaaase enforce the dress code, especially with those dumb low-cut pants. I think that's a worse distraction than shaggy hair. But then, I'm the mom who allowed her daughter to go to school last year with blue tips in her pretty blonde hair. I noticed this year there was an addition to the dress code specifically aimed at hair color that does not occur naturally..so what do I know about it?

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

If his hair was half his height, maybe it'd be considered a valid distraction. Otherwise the school system made much more of a bigger deal out of it than his hair ever could have. Though I also think if the parents wanted him to have it like that, they should have tried other schools in the first place.

[Mahone]

If his hair was half his height, maybe it'd be considered a valid distraction. Otherwise the school system made much more of a bigger deal out of it than his hair ever could have.

I don't think the school made a big deal out of it. The parents did. The school stuck to their guns regardless of the media coverage, which is what I would have done had I been the one who was supposed to implement the rule (I'm fairly stubborn). If this boy gets away with not conforming to the dress code now, it will just set off a long line of people doing the same thing, and that will eventually mean they'll have to conform the dress code to meet the pupils own standard. I don't agree with all the rules I'm given, and I probably wouldn't agree with this. Therefore the most sensible solution is to leave and go somewhere else. If that really isn't an option, then the parents and the child should just do as they say. It's not exactly a difficult problem for them to solve, 20 minutes at the barbers and this whole thing would go away. Or am I missing something here?

Edited December 19, 2009 by Mahone

[beefche]

I don't think the school made a big deal out of it. The parents did. The school stuck to their guns regardless of the media coverage, which is what I would have done had I been the one who was supposed to implement the rule (I'm fairly stubborn). If this boy gets away with not conforming to the dress code now, it will just set off a long line of people doing the same thing, and that will eventually mean they'll have to conform the dress code to meet the pupils own standard. I don't agree with all the rules I'm given, and I probably wouldn't agree with this. Therefore the most sensible solution is to leave and go somewhere else. If that really isn't an option, then the parents and the child should just do as they say. It's not exactly a difficult problem for them to solve, 20 minutes at the barbers and this whole thing would go away. Or am I missing something here?

From the article:

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Earlier this year, a seventh-grader in the district was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His parents chose to home-school him.

[Mahone]

The district is known for standing tough on its dress code. Earlier this year, a seventh-grader in the district was sent home for wearing black skinny pants. His parents chose to home-school him.

I wish we had a bit more of that :)

[pam]

It's like telling girls they can't wear pants,

This argument always makes me laugh as back in my day..yeh yeh..let's hear the age jokes...girls weren't allowed to wear pants. Pants of any kind. Then they let up on the rule and it was during the hot pants era. So we went from one extreme to another.

[LDSVALLEY]

Personally I think the issue over hair length is kind of nuts for the school board to create.

However my opinion does not matter. It is a school board policy and the parents should be teaching their child to conform to the laws of the land. (12th article of faith.)

If they have an issue with it, then they should keep their child in conformance of the policy, while working with the school board and community to get the policy changed.

I watched a Father march his family out of the chapel, resign all callings, and only attend sacrament because a Young Woman's Leader dared to take his daughter aside and quietly remind her that she had been told if she attended Young Women anymore not dressed appropriately then she would have to leave. That this was the third time and now she had to go home.

The Father, instead of talking to the daughter, or even requesting a meeting with the Young Women President and Bishop made it a very public affair. He expected the church to change the dress standards because he was struggling with a daughter attending church. But what about the girls who followed the standards? After this issue the Young Woman President gave up enforcing it since she was not supported by the Leaders in the Ward. So then the girls who had followed it got upset when others who were not didn't get talked to. And of course the one who started all this then looked at the fact that she was singled out. So instead of being about not proper dress it was the Leader not liking her.

The end result, the girl ended up with a live in boyfriend two years later and pregnant. The Son lost any interest in going on a mission or even showing up. The Father after a year of anger found out he had cancer. He had a year to live, came back to church, apologized to the former YW Leader etc. He's gone now, his son shows up some times. His wife was able to rejoin choir which he had forbidden, was recalled to Primary which she had loved.

But by not following the policy, then by the parents not supporting the Leaders many more people were effected in a negative fashion. This hair length issue being played out is the same deal. Lots of time and money will be wasted on a tiny issue. This is not a lesson to teach a child how to protect a freedom but how to only worry about what they want and not following the rules or working to change bad policy in a reasonable manner.

Why can't the children wear what ever hair length they want? Why should someone be excluded.

Why can't any member who wants attend the temple? Why should someone be excluded.

Why can't women have the priesthood, other religions are allowing female leaders. It's old fashioned just like women wearing pants.

We should always question things we think are wrong, but in a manner that does not do more damage.

[LDSVALLEY]

By the Way

At the moment my hair is down to my shoulders. Not because I am not a good Priesthood holder but because money has been tight and I was saving $12.00. My Mother In Law can cut it for free but everytime she was coming down something happened. So were going up to her place over Christmas! I have to now it would cost me $17.00 to get long hair cut!

[Mahone]

This argument always makes me laugh as back in my day..yeh yeh..let's hear the age jokes...girls weren't allowed to wear pants. Pants of any kind. Then they let up on the rule and it was during the hot pants era. So we went from one extreme to another.

From a British perspective, that post really does sound quite amusing :)

[mightynancy]

I think the hair policy is ill-advised. If I were the parents, I'd be accusing the district of sexism before anything else. :)

They should come spend some time in my school - at least that kid's hair is clean.

[pam]

From a British perspective, that post really does sound quite amusing :)

hahahahahahahahaha I bet it does.