Ban on hair dye in secondary school.

ger vallely

Hi,i'm not sure if this is in the right place or if it will be considered a tad too basic for a legal forum. If it's wrongly placed-mods please feel free to move it,thanks.

My daughters are in a secondary school here in Galway. The school has always been fairly strict on uniform,which I knew when we signed the girls in to the school. The thing is just last week the principal called all students to a meeting and announced that hair dye has now been banned.Is he/the school within their rights to do this? I know about school policy but if I as parent of a minor give her permission to dye her hair can the principal legally overrule me?

I realise some people agree with this decision but frankly I find it an abuse of his power. But i don't want to cause any problems for my girls and would love to know the law,if any, surrounding this issue. Thanks for your time!

unattendedbag

I don't think it's really a legal issue as they will probably introduce it in the form of a school rule or part of a discipline code. Was this not debated or voted on as part of the parent teacher association or board of management meeting? You have to see what the consequences would be of disobeying this rule. Would they refuse to teach the child and send them home until the hair is rectified? Perhaps then as a parent you can take some sort of an appeal against this. It's probably introduced to improve presentation of students such as banning the likes of purple/green/blue hair etc, which I would be in agreement of.

Back in the day my school had banned make up jewellery and any earrings bigger than stud to prevent fads and crazes taking off where others felt they had to keep up with the trend.

hfallada

I know a lot of schools in Dublin's policy is that the girls hair colour is a natural colour like blonde or brown. Not a trashy purple or blue. I know some America companies require their employees hair colour is a natural colour. I can't see this as a battle that is worth fighting.

EdwardCastle

ger vallely wrote: »

Hi,i'm not sure if this is in the right place or if it will be considered a tad too basic for a legal forum. If it's wrongly placed-mods please feel free to move it,thanks.

I realise some people agree with this decision but frankly I find it an abuse of his power. But i don't want to cause any problems for my girls and would love to know the law,if any, surrounding this issue. Thanks for your time!

To be honest, it would be more in your line to be worrying about your kid's education rather than the issue of hair dye. You're supposed to be the adult and parent not the stroppy teenager.

Legal or not, getting on the principle's bad side is never a good thing, especially when your kids are relying on this person for a decent education.
Word will spread within the school's staff and you will become marked as the 'difficult' parent which will do you or your kids no favours within classes.

School is not a fashion show, it is there first and foremost to give your kids a good education, let that be your priority!

veetwin

ger vallely wrote: »

Hi,i'm not sure if this is in the right place or if it will be considered a tad too basic for a legal forum. If it's wrongly placed-mods please feel free to move it,thanks.

My daughters are in a secondary school here in Galway. The school has always been fairly strict on uniform,which I knew when we signed the girls in to the school. The thing is just last week the principal called all students to a meeting and announced that hair dye has now been banned.Is he/the school within their rights to do this? I know about school policy but if I as parent of a minor give her permission to dye her hair can the principal legally overrule me?

I realise some people agree with this decision but frankly I find it an abuse of his power. But i don't want to cause any problems for my girls and would love to know the law,if any, surrounding this issue. Thanks for your time!

Without trying to sound smart here but would you not be better off focussing your energy on your daughter's education rather than on a perfectly reasonable rule imposed by a school known for a firm stance on uniform and appearance?

Calling it an abuse of power is frankly idiotic and sets a bad example to your daughters.

If you are that exorcised by the rule presumably there are other schools with a less stringent policy where you could send your children.

BTW without arguing the legal rights or wrongs it's probably a good idea for children/young adults not to die their hair. I realise you don't want to hear any of these points but there you go.

coylemj

OP, it would make nonsense of the rule about wearing a uniform if the girls could all dye their hair different colours. Hair dye would then replace clothes as the differentiator and every girl would feel the necessity to colour her hair or risk being branded dull and conformist.

I can see the principal's point. If I was you I'd stop analyzing the legality of it and go along with the policy, otherwise you'll be forking out cash for a new hair colour every weekend.

Sulla Felix

Pretty common for years as far as I'm aware that hair is to be a natural colour. There's usually a flurry of dyeing in the end of August as they all try to get something remotely reasonable looking on top of the pastel blue or whatever they've been sporting for the summer. :pac:

seb65

veetwin wrote: »

Without trying to sound smart here but would you not be better off focussing your energy on your daughter's education rather than on a perfectly reasonable rule imposed by a school known for a firm stance on uniform and appearance?

Calling it an abuse of power is frankly idiotic and sets a bad example to your daughters.

If you are that exorcised by the rule presumably there are other schools with a less stringent policy where you could send your children.

BTW without arguing the legal rights or wrongs it's probably a good idea for children/young adults not to die their hair. I realise you don't want to hear any of these points but there you go.

Ridiculous.

Challenging non-sensical rules and preventing abuse of power sets an excellent example for your daughters. They will learn to stick up for themselves.

No hair dye - what is this, 1940s Ireland again? Can't believe the posters commenting that you should merely fall in line with the principals demands merely because he or she is in a minor position of authority over your children for 7 hours a day. Of course, the same was said about priests and nuns and look what happened there.

Perhaps it is the principal who should worry about educating the children and less about the colour of their hair.

What happens if you let your children dye their hair? Will the principal get them to shave it off?

seb65

coylemj wrote: »

OP, it would make nonsense of the rule about wearing a uniform if the girls could all dye their hair different colours. Hair dye would then replace clothes as the differentiator and every girl would feel the necessity to colour her hair or risk being branded dull and conformist.

I can see the principal's point. If I was you I'd stop analyzing the legality of it and go along with the policy, otherwise you'll be forking out cash for a new hair colour every weekend.

Also ridiculous. First, there's nothing wrong with expressing one's individuality. Second, just because someone dyes their hair pink doesn't mean everyone will want to, or that they'll view those who haven't as dull - never happened in my secondary school days, nor any teenagers I've witnessed ever in my life. Also, if someone doesn't dye their hair, while everyone else does - that's the opposite of conformity.

veetwin

seb65 wrote: »

Ridiculous.

Challenging non-sensical rules and preventing abuse of power sets an excellent example for your daughters. They will learn to stick up for themselves.

No hair dye - what is this, 1940s Ireland again? Can't believe the posters commenting that you should merely fall in line with the principals demands merely because he or she is in a minor position of authority over your children for 7 hours a day. Of course, the same was said about priests and nuns and look what happened there.

Perhaps it is the principal who should worry about educating the children and less about the colour of their hair.

What happens if you let your children dye their hair? Will the principal get them to shave it off?

Abuse of power my hole. By your rationale the OP and children should disregard the rules they find objectionable and seek legal advice. As well as learning how to stick up for themselves they will learn their parent is a nut job who objects to perfectly reasonable school rules.

And of course it is reasonable of you to equate this to abuse by priests and nuns:rolleyes:

seb65

veetwin wrote: »

Abuse of power my hole. By your rationale the OP and children should disregard the rules they find objectionable and seek legal advice. :

I always believe people should reject rules that have no rationale basis.

greentea is just wrong

I dont think that its a ridiculous demand at all. I'm sure a if a girl went and dyed her hair a natural shade nothing would be done about it, or a blind eye turned. Its to stop girls coming in with ruby red hair thinking they are rihanna etc.

This is policy in most schools.

Santa Cruz

More than likely this was introduced after a decision of the Board of Management. There are reasons for a common approach to uniform, jewellery etc.

evolving_doors

seb65 wrote: »

Ridiculous.

Challenging non-sensical rules and preventing abuse of power sets an excellent example for your daughters. They will learn to stick up for themselves.

No hair dye - what is this, 1940s Ireland again? Can't believe the posters commenting that you should merely fall in line with the principals demands merely because he or she is in a minor position of authority over your children for 7 hours a day. Of course, the same was said about priests and nuns and look what happened there.

Perhaps it is the principal who should worry about educating the children and less about the colour of their hair.

What happens if you let your children dye their hair? Will the principal get them to shave it off?

Ya fight the power, stick it to the man.

Meanwhile... your kids signed up to obey the rules, rules have to change in schools every now and then .like a new bullying policy etc.
If you want to take a test case then go for it, your solicitor will probably tell you you have a great case...its been done to death on Joe Duffy too.
Remember the student who was refused because she had a baby !
Ethos wins ANY argument in court... and you signed up to it too!
Sorry! If it makes you feel any better I bet the principal probably has their hair dyed too!

Tiddlypeeps

I don't agree with these kinds of rules, I don't think they achieve anything other than wasting teachers/parents/students time and effort trying to enforce them. However I also don't think it's worth fighting since you run the risk of pissing off people who have the potential to give your kids a hard time if they take their mind to it.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

More than likely this was introduced after a decision of the Board of Management. There are reasons for a common approach to uniform, jewellery etc.

Care to share what those reasons are? I've yet to hear even one semi-reasonable argument for a uniform dress code in schools.

The whole stopping kids from competing/judging each other based on clothing thing has been repeatedly debunked. You remove one source of competition between kids and they just find another. Pencil cases were a popular one when I was in primary school, secondary school it was all about who had the straightest hair, GHD's were the latest craze.

Cost is also not a good argument since uniforms cost an absolute fortune and kids need after school clothes anyway plus clothes for the weekends.

johnnyskeleton

ger vallely wrote: »

Hi,i'm not sure if this is in the right place or if it will be considered a tad too basic for a legal forum. If it's wrongly placed-mods please feel free to move it,thanks.

My daughters are in a secondary school here in Galway. The school has always been fairly strict on uniform,which I knew when we signed the girls in to the school. The thing is just last week the principal called all students to a meeting and announced that hair dye has now been banned.Is he/the school within their rights to do this? I know about school policy but if I as parent of a minor give her permission to dye her hair can the principal legally overrule me?

He can't tell you how they should wear their hair, but you can't tell him who he does or does not let into his school.

hullaballoo

seb65 wrote: »

Ridiculous.

Challenging non-sensical rules and preventing abuse of power sets an excellent example for your daughters. They will learn to stick up for themselves.

No hair dye - what is this, 1940s Ireland again? Can't believe the posters commenting that you should merely fall in line with the principals demands merely because he or she is in a minor position of authority over your children for 7 hours a day. Of course, the same was said about priests and nuns and look what happened there.

Perhaps it is the principal who should worry about educating the children and less about the colour of their hair.

What happens if you let your children dye their hair? Will the principal get them to shave it off?

You should really google "non sequitur".

Then, try and figure out how you got here from the 1960s.

seb65

hullaballoo wrote: »

You should really google "non sequitur".

Then, try and figure out how you got here from the 1960s.

1940s actually. Perhaps you could expand on your logical fallacy point and make an argument instead of an assertion.

hfallada

I dont see how asking a female not to have her hair colour a particular colour, is in anyway different from the fact most boys school require certain haircuts. In my secondary school you werent allowed hair shorter than a blade no 4 or long hair. A ban on long hair and short hair is found in most schools. Why should females get any special treatment?

Engine No.9

greentea is just wrong wrote: »

This is policy in most schools.

Yeah, but its hardly enforceable. What happens if the kid goes in to school with the hair dyed? They get a lecture, possibly sent home, possibly suspended. Then the parents take it up with the school and ultimately the department who basically tell the school to cop on that they have a legal obligation to educate the child regardless of their hair colour. If the child is otherwise unproblematic, this rule is totally unenforceable.

evolving_doors

pajopearl wrote: »

Yeah, but its hardly enforceable. What happens if the kid goes in to school with the hair dyed? They get a lecture, possibly sent home, possibly suspended. Then the parents take it up with the school and ultimately the department who basically tell the school to cop on that they have a legal obligation to educate the child regardless of their hair colour. If the child is otherwise unproblematic, this rule is totally unenforceable.

If it goes against the Ethos then Ethos wins every time. Remember the school who refused to admit a teenager who had a baby on the grounds that it went against the ' catholic' ethos..... place this extreme lunacy against a simple hair dye case!

Also, The department can't tell schools what to do as the state merely provides 'for' education ...the state doesn't provide the education, they just pick up the tab.

234

pajopearl wrote: »

Yeah, but its hardly enforceable. What happens if the kid goes in to school with the hair dyed? They get a lecture, possibly sent home, possibly suspended. Then the parents take it up with the school and ultimately the department who basically tell the school to cop on that they have a legal obligation to educate the child regardless of their hair colour. If the child is otherwise unproblematic, this rule is totally unenforceable.

While the state has an obligation to provide free primary education, there is no obligation to provide secondary education and there is no obligation on a particular school to educate a particular child.

Peregrinus

In general, schools can adopt disciplinary codes which include matters of presentation, appearance, uniform, etc, and, with limited exceptions, they can include in them any requirement that a parent can (legally) make of their own child.

Is a school ban on hair dye wise? Is it practical? Is it necessary? You can argue the toss on these questions, but it's perfectly legal.

If a parent is unhappy with a school's ban on hair dye, the best strategy is to try to persuade the school to drop or modify the ban. An argument that it's illegal and that your child does not have to observe it and cannot be penalised for not doing so is going nowhere.

saltyjack silverblade

Where I went to school there was a no uniform policy but there was a strict enough dress code-no belly tops (which were all in fashion) and nothing that was overly revealing. People were sent home. Hair dye was not to be unusual but could be natural colours. They were always very correct in what they told us they could and could not do legally.

I would think the principal in the school had an issue with one person and the sweeping rule was brought introduced. The reality would be if your daughter turned up with brown/black/blonde hair then it wouldn't be a problem. The rule is there in my opinion to give the principal extra leverage.
Personally I don't see the argument about the ethos of the school when it comes to hair dye. The ethos and the rules are very different.

Interestingly my school allowed all to have pierced ears (fe/male) as according to them there was an ECHR ruling that said your ears were not on your face and as such uniform policies did not apply. Never found the ruling myself though I didn't look very hard.

Engine No.9

saltyjack silverblade wrote: »

Interestingly my school allowed all to have pierced ears (fe/male) as according to them there was an ECHR ruling that said your ears were not on your face and as such uniform policies did not apply. Never found the ruling myself though I didn't look very hard.

Unless you're one of these guys, then your hair wouldn't normally be on your face either so I don't see a problem and if there indeed is a ECHR ruling then I don't see any reason why the OP should not let her kids going in to school with any colour hair they want. Personally, I wouldn't let my kids go in with the blues, purples, pinks etc... But if the OP is down with it, I don't see how the school has any legal way around it.

Engine No.9

234 wrote: »

While the state has an obligation to provide free primary education, there is no obligation to provide secondary education and there is no obligation on a particular school to educate a particular child.

Weird, I thought the minimum age for leaving school is 16. Absolutely no reason anybody that age in this country should still be receiving primary education. Surely secondary education is also provided for as a minimum obligation up to age 16. Hardly the point of the topic, but still.

234

pajopearl wrote: »

Weird, I thought the minimum age for leaving school is 16. Absolutely no reason anybody that age in this country should still be receiving primary education. Surely secondary education is also provided for as a minimum obligation up to age 16. Hardly the point of the topic, but still.

The state's obligation to provide is separate from what you are discussing.

Also, if you read through Art 42 you will see that there is a right to educate your children at home if you so choose.

Carawaystick

I'd ask if there's a ban on hair dye for staff of the school.
What's sauce for the goose...

Or if you and your child are hell bent on pushing the envelope, consider bleaching the hair.
Bleach being completely different to dye.... and also probably used in the school anyway....
expect at least a battle, if not a war...

thalia_13

Next step is asking is it illegal for.the school to ban mobile phones in school. Honestly if you cant see here, that you are enabling a 'entitled' attitude in your child, that if they don't like certain rules, you will fight their ground for them.
I saw the shift in.attitude towards school rules over the last few years. Parents demanding the childs phone back when.it was confiscated for use in class. Parents demanding their child wear shoes other than school uniform, because they felt their child should be allowed express indivuality.
All I can say here is that, in my opinion, children no longer seem to have any regard for rules and regulations. A school.code of conduct was one thing that taught us to adhere to rules, a degree of conformity I agree, but ultimately respect for the school and its teachers, and for our fellow students.

ger vallely

I must say that I am horrified at some of the responses. How dare any one of you comment on my approach to my children's education. Both of my daughters are A students,bright,interesting and very interested in their education. I have hopefully helped to instill in them a love for knowledge and respect for themselves and other people. My interest in their education is not in question here so if you are just looking to give unfounded abuse here, please don't bother.

As for the other responses-thank you for your input. I guess from the replies that this is a fairly common situation. Yes the decision was reached by the board of management. They also reached a decision to ban coloured shoe laces. Can you all honestly say that a rule is a rule and should just be obeyed without any thought or self interest? Bright laces,purple hair all of these decisions have served to cause more of the students to find different ways to rebel. There seems to be very little understanding of teenagers and their love to fight a cause.

I would not wish either of my daughters to get in to any trouble in school. They both have impeccable records in the school and would not try to cause any hassle. They pride themselves on their achievements and are involved extra curricular activities within the school. Yet my youngest daughter had dyed her hair bright red(not to look like Rhianna as had been previously stated by someone, it was her hair that was dyed and did not affect her performance. The ban on hair dye/shoe laces is like a throw back to the eighties. Surely the principal ought to be more dynamic and progressive, engaging the students (some of whom are 18 and over)whilst still maintaining his authority. This time and effort ought to be put in to promoting anti bullying,anti theft and pro fitness and positive body image .

veetwin

ger vallely wrote: »

Surely the principal ought to be more dynamic and progressive, engaging the students (some of whom are 18 and over)whilst still maintaining his authority. This time and effort ought to be put in to promoting anti bullying,anti theft and pro fitness and positive body image .

Agree entirely but I bet a huge proportion of his time is taken up by nut job parents raising legal objections over perfectly reasonable school rules. Maybe he and the board of management feel that purple hair and pink shoe laces are a distraction from the business of education.

The concept of uniform seems to be lost on some here. The clue is in the name. Presumably parents are aware of school policy in this regard when they enroll their children.

veetwin

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'd ask if there's a ban on hair dye for staff of the school.
What's sauce for the goose...

Or if you and your child are hell bent on pushing the envelope, consider bleaching the hair.
Bleach being completely different to dye.... and also probably used in the school anyway....
expect at least a battle, if not a war...

Yes because bleaching a child's hair is an excellent idea:rolleyes:

Xenji

I remember about 10 years ago having my hair dyed blood red and being told by my principal not to come into school at the start of transition year unless I dyed it back, went in anyway with it and nothing happened, he said he could not make me dye it back to its regular colour and could not stop me from coming in, he just hoped I would of got scared and dyed it back.

veetwin

Xenji wrote: »

he just hoped I would of got scared and dyed it back.

Maybe he hoped that you would concentrate on your grammar instead!

Xenji

veetwin wrote: »

Maybe he hoped that you would concentrate on your grammar instead!

Grammar nazi :P

"would have"

wexie

ger vallely wrote: »

Can you all honestly say that a rule is a rule and should just be obeyed without any thought or self interest?

NO!! You should always question authority and hold it up to the light. Nothing wrong with authority but slavishly accepting authority because of 'authority' is a terrible thing. These rules are complete and utter nonsense.

ger vallely wrote: »

Bright laces,purple hair all of these decisions have served to cause more of the students to find different ways to rebel. There seems to be very little understanding of teenagers and their love to fight a cause.

I think the principal (and many posters here) should learn to pick their battles. If there was a bit more flexibility in allowing the kids to express their individuality (FFS they're teenagers!!) they would have to put less effort into finding new and imaginative ways of doing so.

Really? Dyed hair?

Where's the harm?

(*cue lots of misguided eejits who'll argue that dyed hair is the first step on the way to a life of teenage pregnancy and a life of crime)

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

evolving_doors

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually you'll probably find that then state has little involvement in the education of your child. Schools are run by voluntary bodies such as religious orders, only thing the state does is pick up the tab and issue guidelines on curriculum etc. Same as the CRC debacle.... charities left to do the work that the state won't take responsibility for (but they'll still throw a few coppers their way). As Brendan O Connor said about his daughter ...she's not a charity case she's a citizen... I think the state should have More involvement with our citizens and Not farm it out to charities etc...

WhatNowForUs?

Armelodie wrote: »

Actually you'll probably find that then state has little involvement in the education of your child. Schools are run by voluntary bodies such as religious orders, only thing the state does is pick up the tab and issue guidelines on curriculum etc. Same as the CRC debacle.... charities left to do the work that the state won't take responsibility for (but they'll still throw a few coppers their way). As Brendan O Connor said about his daughter ...she's not a charity case she's a citizen... I think the state should have More involvement with our citizens and Not farm it out to charities etc...

Difficult one. To much State is bad, not enough State is bad. Its a difficult line to find and is probably constantly changing as society changes and develops.

wexie

Armelodie wrote: »

Actually you'll probably find that then state has little involvement in the education of your child. Schools are run by voluntary bodies such as religious orders, only thing the state does is pick up the tab and issue guidelines on curriculum etc.

And there you have the source of oh so many problems, including the slavishly accepting of 'authority'

Armelodie wrote: »

Same as the CRC debacle.... charities left to do the work that the state won't take responsibility for (but they'll still throw a few coppers their way). As Brendan O Connor said about his daughter ...she's not a charity case she's a citizen... I think the state should have More involvement with our citizens and Not farm it out to charities etc...

[/sarcasm]Dirty Dirty Words!!!! Go wash your mouth!![/sarcasm]

Boskowski

Individuality is all good then as long as they're all wearing a uniform, have natural hair color and use a blade 4. They'll have them do vows for no sex before marriage next. Have I travelled back in time, I thought I was still in western Europe?

I know this will sound a bit 'immature' to most from what I gather but in my humble opinion definitely a battle worth fighting for if nothing but for the sake of it.

evolving_doors

wexie wrote: »

And there you have the source of oh so many problems, including the slavishly accepting of 'authority'

Dirty Dirty Words!!!! Go wash your mouth!!

Our state has no authority...wake up ...theyve farmed everything out left right and centre

What's better? Leave it to religious orders? Or take it in charge ...whether you like it or not you're a citizen of the state, you pay your taxes....so are you happy its farmed out to other interests? Irish water....national lottery...HSE ...Esb... all examples of passing the plate to avoid accountability but yet the citizen gets shafted on the double...

Sure no probs your child is welcome in this school....now where's your goddam baptism cert?

Face facts the state has 0 involvement in education as things stand... If they had then maybe we ccould hold people to account and have a real say.

evolving_doors

Boskowski wrote: »

Individuality is all good then as long as they're all wearing a uniform, have natural hair color and use a blade 4. They'll have them do vows for no sex before marriage next. Have I travelled back in time, I thought I was still in western Europe?

I know this will sound a bit 'immature' to most from what I gather but in my humble opinion definitely a battle worth fighting for if nothing but for the sake of it.

Ya fight the power OP....stick it to the man..
Grabs popcorn and await result of lengthy legal mess...

Easy tovadvise Boskowski when its not your daughter....

wexie

Armelodie wrote: »

Our state has no authority...wake up ...theyve farmed everything out left right and centre

What's better? Leave it to religious orders? Or take it in charge ...whether you like it or not you're a citizen of the state, you pay your taxes....so are you happy its farmed out to other interests? Irish water....national lottery...HSE ...Esb... all examples of passing the plate to avoid accountability but yet the citizen gets shafted on the double...

Sure no probs your child is welcome in this school....now where's your goddam baptism cert?

Face facts the state has 0 involvement in education as things stand... If they had then maybe we ccould hold people to account and have a real say.

hang on, lemme go edit my post

Boskowski

Armelodie wrote: »

Ya fight the power OP....stick it to the man..
Grabs popcorn and await result of lengthy legal mess...

Easy tovadvise Boskowski when its not your daughter....

I understand that and I don't expect the OP to follow my 'advice'. Its just my opinion that the whole boys schools, girls schools, uniforms, school rules thing is ridiculously nineteen50ies. And now some principal decides they can't dye their hair. If we heard something like that from a muslim country we'd all be agreeing how backward they are.

Carawaystick

veetwin wrote: »

Yes because bleaching a child's hair is an excellent idea:rolleyes:

It's hardly much different to dyeing or shaving a child's hair.
Many dye's have a bleach in them anyway.

Victor

I think rules have their place.

What rules are in place for the creation of new rules? If one signs up to a set of rules, shouldn't they be the rules applied?

For a change of the rules, wouldn't it be better to have a vote than a diktat?

johnnyskeleton

pajopearl wrote: »

Yeah, but its hardly enforceable. What happens if the kid goes in to school with the hair dyed? They get a lecture, possibly sent home, possibly suspended. Then the parents take it up with the school and ultimately the department who basically tell the school to cop on that they have a legal obligation to educate the child regardless of their hair colour. If the child is otherwise unproblematic, this rule is totally unenforceable.

No, the department of education will try to get them a different school with less strict discipline.

veetwin

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's hardly much different to dyeing or shaving a child's hair.
Many dye's have a bleach in them anyway.

I wasn't making the argument that dyeing was a good idea either.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

I think rules have their place.

What rules are in place for the creation of new rules? If one signs up to a set of rules, shouldn't they be the rules applied?

For a change of the rules, wouldn't it be better to have a vote than a diktat?

A vote can be pretty much the same thing as a diktat, if you happen to have voted in the minority!

I think the real issue here is not how the rules should be made - there may well have been a vote at the level of the board of management - but who should make them. The board of management? The parents? The pupils? The teaching staff?

The default position is that the responsibility for managing a school rests - unsurprisingly - with the managers. There are some limits set by the education legislation or by other legislation but, within those limits, management is a matter for managers.

Of course, it may be prudent or desirable to consult the parents, the pupils or the staff in regard to certain matters, and even if you don't consult them formally it's necessary to consider their views, interests and likely reaction to any proposed rules. But the responsibility for deciding when and how people should be consulted, and how much weight should be attached to their opinions, rests once again with the school managers.

Glinda

This thread brought to mind something that happened a very long time ago (since I am quite old :P).

My baby brother was selected to represent Ireland in a team sport at European Championship level. At sixteen he was the youngest member of the men's team and it was very unusual for someone his age to make the men's team, so we were all very proud and excited. The competition was in a warm country and all the members of the team had their hair cut very short, dyed platinum and a shamrock shaved into their hair for the finals. Coupled with the sun tan they got at the venue, they all looked amazing when we went to the airport to meet them on their return home one Saturday afternoon.

Cue Monday morning when he went back to school, proud as punch with his medal. He was immediately sent home, suspended (you've guessed it) for having his hair dyed. He was gutted. My mam took him straight to the hairdresser to have it dyed back to mousey brown but the hairdresser had to do this in two steps (first step orange!) and obviously she couldn't do anything about the shamrock growing back.

Mam sent him back down to school the next day with a letter from the hairdresser explaining that it would be a few days before she could do the second stage. Boom - straight back home again, suspended for a week this time.

Talk about twisted priorities.