Little Tommy Plonker
Yet another outraged Mum. Outraged, I tell you. Her son has been ‘made to shave his head’ by his school headmaster.
Did he have nits? Was this intended to stigmatise him? Is this some new punishment for failing to do his homework?
None of the above.
You see little Tommy Swannack had already shaved part of his head of his own volition – that was expressing his identity, according to his Mum.
The headmaster had merely told him to shave the rest of it to match – and that, according to his Mum, was robbing him of his identity, and she was duly outraged, marched off to see the headmaster and bitterly complained, she did.
Little Tommy must be allowed to look a complete plonker, it’s the only way he can express his true self.
The Headmaster of Elizabethan High School has a tough battle on his hands to raise his school standards. I quote the first comment under this story in the Retford Times.
“I experianced that when i was a the elizabethan. all they cared about was the uniform and wasnt bothered about the grades and lessons. At times i didnt have all the right teachers. Puplis would get bullyed and nothing would get done about it. That school is rubbish and even my mum says so.”
Presumably written by a graduate of the English Department……
-
1
October 7, 2010 at 13:36 -
2
October 7, 2010 at 13:42 -
She needs to send little Tommy to whichever school is unfortunate enough to next employ the prize pillock that the ‘Daily Mail’ reported on yesterday. The teacher who didn’t want to wear a tie.
-
3
October 7, 2010 at 14:28 -
Why should he have to confirm by having a particular hairstyle, or indeed wear a strange uniform, in order to learn? I have no idea, and I object to the whole concept personally. On the other hand, these are the rules of the school, and if his mother doesn’t like them she doesn’t have to send him there. (Strangely though, she does sign up to the idea of forcing him to conform, because she says she’s in favour of the uniform – the only point of contention whether the uniform should be topped off with a ridiculous hairstyle or not).
-
4
October 7, 2010 at 14:53 -
Anna – his hairstyle is not to my liking but then mine wouldn’t be to his. And based upon her complicity, his mother is not to my taste either: nor me to hers. But he looks a nice enough lad, his appearance does not adversely affect me and in the scheme of things, are hairstyles really a matter for schools to legislate on?
I stand to be corrected but I’m sure that the overall educational standards in France are considered to be considerably better than in the UK (surely, they couldn’t be any worse?) and yet from my observations, French schools don’t generally appear to dictate to pupils on matters of dress or style (I would argue that the burqa is a special case). I’m not implying causation but I am suggesting that Britain’s obsession with school dress codes has no basis in educational excellence and everything to do with the control-freakery that has become so rampant in the last few years.
You’ve written some excellent articles around the subject of the state’s excessive and secretive interference in family matters. It’s the notion that it is appropriate for state-sponsored rules about inconsequential matters such as kid’s haircuts that has helped create the acquiescence necessary to this interference with family life and the dismantling of our civil liberties in general.
Judging by the comment from the Retford Times, I suggest that the headmaster might be more gainfully employed worrying about academic standards than haircuts.
-
5
October 7, 2010 at 14:59 -
John – I agree with that, except that it’s the state’s school, and even then the headmaster’s rule not the state’s.
-
6
October 7, 2010 at 15:21 -
Kids must learn discipline and learn to abide by the rules. If they don’t, then over-indulged little twats like Tommy can end up becoming disenfranchised because later in life they think that nobody bothered with them just because they were allowed to do just as they like.
Discipline does work, and, I would suggest, as far as schools go, good discipline goes hand in hand with good academic performance.
Tommy’s mother has done him a huge disservice by trying to be his best friend rather than just be his mother.
At the end of the day
-
7
October 7, 2010 at 15:40 -
Discipline does not require conformity. Discipline is enforcing the rules of the society which is inside the school. Rules such as not bullying, not being disruptive in class, doing as the teacher says, etc. Conformity requires a dress code and it instils a sense of belonging to a group, the school in this case. Without a dress code the school children will belong to goths, mods, rockers, nerds, etc. groups.
Discipline needs to be firm and consistent with no exceptions. Kids will learn very quickly if there is lax discipline and take advantage of it. That’s why there should be no exceptions and it makes a huge difference to the educational standards of the kids.
Conformity can be as strict or as relaxed as the school likes, but the enforcement still needs to be consistent. It doesn’t make any difference to the educational standards of the kids. It needs to be sensible because like in real life with legal laws, if the rules are stupid or unenforceable it will get abused or ignored. Common sense comes into play as well. Schools setting strict dress codes which can only be bought at a single shop should be castigated if they expel a kid for trying their best to match the style but for circumstances beyond their control couldn’t get the uniform. Conversely, a school which is more relaxed should be allowed to force a child to change their clothes (or hair style) if they haven’t made the slightest attempt to conform.
The only thing in common between discipline and conformity is consistency. Any varying from that and kids will ride roughshod over authority as they take advantage of it.
-
8
October 7, 2010 at 15:43 -
At school, as in life – real individuals have a knack of asserting their individuality without resorting to outlandish dress and/or haircuts.
Empty vessels really do make the most noise.
-
9
October 7, 2010 at 15:59 -
Spot on SadButMadLad. I used to work next to a chap whose desire for conformity expressed itself in a need to sharpen all his pencils to exactly the same length. He had to lay his work papers out with the precision of a state banquet table stting. If he just behaved normally he could have used the time he saved to do his job. I well remember the morning he accused me of being slovenly for placing a sheaf of papers on my desk. In those days I was able to get away with my reply that Jesus didn’t want to save me either. Ah, conformist non-conformists, wonderful people.
-
10
October 7, 2010 at 16:07 -
I am non-conformist – however, in our early years we need discipline.
Real non-conformists – quickly take leave of environments, like school, which constrain their individuality and go on to achieve great things.
The rest of us, either knuckle down or rue the fact that we have not the gonads to say bollocks to the world.
-
11
October 7, 2010 at 17:31 -
Spiral Architect – your perceived conformity to the notion of acceptable hairstyles suggests that you are not as non-conformist as you like to think – although I don’t doubt that you have achieved great things!
I’d also suggest that your recipe for academic success has not worked at the school in question if that quote from a former pupil is anything to go by.
Of course, personal discipline is essential but it’s my view that it can only be supported by the extent that it affects others and within the prevailing moral code. As hairstyles do not affect another’s way of life, I fail to understand why they need to be proscribed.
Unneccessary rules, like most of New Labour’s ‘laws’ are no better than an abuse of power.
-
12
October 7, 2010 at 17:52 -
John,
Surely you are not taking acount of the need for schools to produce (for the pupils sake and society’s) employable adults?
Children need to learn slowly over a period of years that it is not just their ‘free expression’ that counts, but also the need to take into account the needs, views, and requirements of future employers. We have all seen examples of the tattooed, ring through the nose, green haired morons who complain that they can’t get a job, and who fail to even consider moulding themselves into something that an employer might want. There are many of us – moi? – who give up the unequal struggle in favour of self-employemnt, but that is a choice made in maturity, not the result of failing to learn that ‘free-expression’ is not the be all and end all.-
13
October 7, 2010 at 21:23 -
Anna – I’m old-fashioned enough to believe that the purpose of schools should be education: not training nor indoctrination. It is education that provides children with the tools to make sense of the world, that inspires them and provides them with a true appreciation of the need for personal discipline together with the ability to adapt to changing needs. A well-educated child will be able to indulge in healthy free expression but will have no illusions about it being ‘the be all and end all’.
As for part of the group that you mention, I’ll admit that my town centre has become a night-time no-go area during weekends. It is populated by huge numbers of ill-disciplined people all conforming to a lowest-common-denominator form of dress, ‘body-art’ and public behaviour. I’m not suggesting that this issue is a major factor but all the local schools have had sartorial codes for years: perhaps if they had concentrated more on academic standards, some of their students would have the intellectual ability to express themselves outside this nihilistic group-think?
Regards
-
14
October 8, 2010 at 16:39 -
That always presuming that interest was taking in achieving enough education in order to be able to determine a self employment that subsequently offers something of value to those who swap it for their hard earned cash
-
-
-
15
October 7, 2010 at 20:54 -
“Real non-conformists…..” is that like a conformist-non-conformist?
-
-
-
17
October 7, 2010 at 19:02 -
More common sense than I can shake a stick at, Sir1
-
-
-
-
-
18
October 7, 2010 at 18:55 -
Am I right in thinking that there are a number of schools in inner city USA which have transformed the prospects and results of their pupils by some extraordinary and “blue skies” thinking, out of the “left field”.
These controversial techniques have included weird cultish behaviour which is regarded as outlandish by the educational establishment, including:
A strict code on dress – and hair.
Insisting on politeness and respect.
A zero tolerance of disruptive behaviour.
And the power to exclude any child (note I said child there, not “Potentially Learning Person” or “customer”) who transgresses. One strike and they’re out.And – just to show I am not a complete fascist – matched with high expectation; how to apply for a job on Wall Street or whatever; how to write a CV; what careers can be achieved – and so on.
Simples, as it that b****y annoying Meerkat says!
-
19
October 7, 2010 at 20:09 -
In any discussion about the rights and wrongs of school uniforms we should remember the resurgence of school uniform in recent years arose out of a spate of highly publicised bullying cases in which the victim was singled out for not having cool enough trainers / sweatshirt etc.
-
20
October 7, 2010 at 21:50 -
Apologies for going off topic but the Police appear to be making up the law again to suit their pc bias (unintended pun).
-
21
October 8, 2010 at 08:10 -
How can any libertarian support this idea?
Education withheld from children who don’t conform to an “acceptable” appearance?
I can stomach, just maybe, the idea of withholding benefits. But education?
Society needs misfits. Most are a waste of space, maybe. But ALL progress throughout history has come from misfits. Misfits are not just a nuisance and a burden on society, a small fraction of them are vital to the future. You can’t predict which. The state would like to eliminate all misfits, and just keep the status quo. Do you subscribe to this?
Those with unusual hair will not be educated? Is that okay with you?-
22
October 8, 2010 at 08:36 -
Part of the purpose of school uniform is to minimise distraction in the classroom. If a pupil has a bizarre new haircut or unusual clothing, the attention of the class will focus on that rather than the work in hand; multiply that by the number of pupils and, even if each pupil does it only once, you have a serious impact on the education of the group.
If parents could be trusted to appreciate this simple fact and avoid attention-seeking extremes, schools could allow reasonable freedom; as it is, some parents are more likely to condone the disruption.
Of course, there will always be the ‘misfit’ with the DIY hairstyle – in my day, blue food colouring was a favourite; a wise Head demonstrates the importance of not distracting others by insisting on restoring the status quo for that reason.
-
-
23
October 8, 2010 at 08:33 -
Well done that headmaster, promote him to taking charge of the discusting appearance of University graduates.
-
24
October 8, 2010 at 08:48 -
If a citizen has a bizarre new haircut or unusual clothing, the attention of the population will focus on that rather than the work in hand; multiply that by the number of citizens and, even if each citizen does it only once, you have a serious impact on the education of the group.
If citizens could be trusted to appreciate this simple fact and avoid attention-seeking extremes, states could allow reasonable freedom.
-
25
October 8, 2010 at 09:06 -
A fair point – however most citizens exist in a wider context than that of a small group who have only thirty-five minutes to learn and understand photosynthesis or quadratic equations.
In a brand-obsessed culture, school uniform is a useful leveller; outside school, pupils are free to express themselves as they wish.
-
-
26
October 8, 2010 at 12:55 -
There is an important point which is always forgotten by those who support “good” rules.
Some people will not submit to them.There are perhaps three kinds of people-
1 Those who wish to conform. These are not a problem
2 Those who will conform, given some inducement. These are who you’re aiming at.
3 Those who will not conformto your “good” rules.
Some of these people would turn out to be important innovators. But you are willing to alienate them from society, and deny them an education. In a larger context, you will make them criminals. It is a cost you are willing to pay, for the benefit of types 1 and 2.It’s a viable point of view, but, for a haircut?
-
27
October 8, 2010 at 14:12 -
Zaphod, I agree with you in many ways – incidentally, I am writing this at 2pm because I work part-time, having resigned from my full-time job rather than submit to rules introduced by a new manager.
In an ideal world, teachers would concern themselves with what is inside the child’s head rather than on it and pupils would be free to wear what they liked to school.
Unfortunately, as other comments pointed out, this has led to bullying – not only of children, but of parents struggling to afford the ‘right’ brands. In addition, it sets the scene for a constant battle over what is acceptable.
Uniform is a way of reducing the impact of these problems; the message this boy’s haircut sends, when combined with his uniform, is that the school does not take its dress code seriously and that pupils may flout these – and by implication, other – rules with impunity.
-
28
October 8, 2010 at 15:45 -
Macheath,
Just as a matter of interest, I went to a school back in the late fifties where there was no uniform, highly avante garde in those days. You could wear what you wanted. I only had a selection of brown velvet and lace collared ‘mufti’ dresses from a previous school – I was a dead duck socially in a sea of grey v-necked marks and sparks jumpers and levi jeans……the kids imposed a far more austere uniform than the schoool would ever have dared to!
The shame of it all burns my cheeks to this day.
(Being six foot even at that age, and with galloping acne only added to my distress!)-
29
October 8, 2010 at 16:51 -
Anna – Consider yourself lucky – I was at school in the 60s when school caps were de rigueur! I too was six feet tall by the age of 12 and on the few occasions anybody made me wear it, felt thoroughly humiliated (especially as it was begrudgingly borne on top of a hairstyle not unlike wee Tommy’s – the village barber was between sheep-shearing gigs).
My experience was the reverse of your own: uniform was mandatory and the justification in those days was that rich and poor would look alike. It was nonsense of course; the poorer kids had to wear secondhand clothes while the more affluent ones turned up in new uniforms every year, if not each term. I used to believe that the impoverished would have been less conspicuous if they could have worn civvies bought on a budget unconstrained by the need to buy very expensive uniforms.
Based on your experience, neither policy seems to offer a solution to what is surely the intractable problem of difference..
-
-
30
October 8, 2010 at 16:18 -
MacHeath – Is it not the case that bullying is largely endemic to social interaction and that the uniform/hairstyle issue merely displaces such activity? Isn’t moral education the only real hope of prevention? Bullies attack those they perceive to be weaker than themselves and will create a justification to pick their fight: if it’s not about uniform it will be about any other random feature of the victim.
My feeling is that society would benefit greatly if schools (and governments) actually dealt with the source of the problem rather than try to mask it by introducing new rules (and laws) that unneccessarily burden all of us with restrictions not of our making. To my mind, a school claiming to introduce a uniform policy to curb bullying is analogous to our government making all air passengers submit to increasingly rigorous and intrusive security checks rather than use profiling.
All the best on the job front…
-
31
October 8, 2010 at 18:47 -
‘Isn’t moral education the only real hope of prevention?’
Certainly. The problem is how it can be achieved in the face of contradictory signals from parents, peers and the media.
Bullying, ostracising and discrimination will take place whatever you do; a uniform is one way to try to reduce it in the classroom. There’s no answer – just a set of least worst options.
-
-
-
-
32
October 8, 2010 at 15:47 -
Like many people, I suffered from bullying at school from other kids. It seemed natural enough. We’re all primates playing the pecking order game. I avoided them when possible. I didn’t lose anything by having minimal contact with the bullies among my contemporaries.
Unfortunately, I was also bullied by teachers. Because I didn’t look how they wanted me to look. I couldn’t avoid them, so I just learned to depise them. My education was sub-optimal as a result. My respect for authority was not nurtured.
I’m not complaining, but nothing will persuade me that they were right to sacrifice my education to prevent bullying. It’s not as if bullying by children was, or is now, eliminated as a result. The sacrifice was futile.The bullying argument is just a rationalisation. Uniform is there to bolster authority’s place in the pecking order. Parents support it because it makes their life easier. It’s understandable, but it is wrong.
I’m not saying I should have had an easy ride. If you want to be different, you’re gonna get social pressure. It’s a choice. I didn’t mind being ostracised, ignored, or teased, or even beaten up, by the sheep. I didn’t need them. But authority denied me my right to an education. And 45 years later, it’s still doing it to other kids. And it has not stopped bullying either, has it? What is to be done with the fat kids, the four-eyes’, the stupids, the swots? Are you going to find a way of normalising those too, to appease the bullies?
I can’t get angry with you, you’re clearly very reasonable. But you’re either part of the solution, or part of the problem.
Bullying by authority is much, much worse than bullying by kids. It does far more damage. And it lasts a lifetime. Where’s my education, Dude? Where’s my career? Society invested a lot in me, but it’s not getting the returns that it hoped for. Please stop doing that.
-
33
October 8, 2010 at 19:42 -
Zaphod, I’m sorry to hear your experience of education was so negative – I don’t deny there’s a lot of authoritarian bullying in the system that should not be there; a situation like this is best handled with good humour and sympathy.
Personally, I would not mind if the entire class turned up dressed as the cast of ‘Priscilla, Queen of the Desert’ as long as they were prepared to work to the best of their ability, but I can imagine some teachers would find that difficult to deal with and, sadly, that level of diligence is rare.
My own children attended a school where there is a strict uniform policy. Every September for five years, I wrote a letter to the Deputy Head asking them to relax three of the most draconian uniform rules – alas, without success.
We therefore explained to our children that, since we (and they) had chosen this school, we were honour bound to abide by its rules or go elsewhere, even if we disagreed. Perhaps we have been fortunate, as neither seriously infringed the rules despite being somewhat flamboyant dressers by choice (the elder is a committed steampunk and lives in full Victorian costume, the younger prefers hoodies of unspeakable vulgarity).
It’s been an interesting afternoon; I hope we meet here again on a point we can better agree on.
-
-
34
October 8, 2010 at 20:45 -
Respect, Macheath.
My main theme, so often, is this-
When you ban something “antisocial”, you don’t stop it happening. You may reduce it by 95 percent, but you also turn a small number of your subjects into criminals who now have a grudge. The numbers vary, the pros and cons are often nebulous, but there is always a cost. It needs to be acknowledged.Smoking Hot points out, with some justification, that my discovery of sex, drugs, and rock n roll may have also had some small impact on my waning enthusiasm for continuing education. Bah.
-
35
October 8, 2010 at 23:07 -
Tommy is 11 years old. He wears glasses. He tried a stubby-mohican. It made him look like an 11 year old with glasses and a stubby mohican. His school told him to shave it off. His mum has made a fuss.
Being 11 years old, Tommy probably knows that, thanks to the last Government’s whim, he can’t leave school at 16. He has to remain in some kind of education until he is 18 and can look forward to his tonsorial choices being limited until then because there’ll always be some corduroy-tied Geography teacher or Course Tutor who will tell whoever happens to be the Head Bloke that Tommy’s hair isn’t acceptable and the Head Bloke will climb down from his plinth and demand that Tommy (he of the glasses and the stubby 11-year old version of the stubby mohican) shave his head down to an acceptable Grade 2 ‘tu’penny-all-off’ to conform to the standards expected by whichever educational establishement Tommy happens to be.
If Tommy can’t shave his hair into a mohican now, when can he? Can he do it when he’s 16 and trying to get a place on an apprenticeship? Will he stand more chance of securing a place as a learner bricklayer without a stubby mohican? It’s much more likely he’ll by then be an ordinary bespectacled boy with an ordinary haircut when he lines up to secure the training place/university place which will saddle him with a personal debt of over £20,000 at the last reckoning. So Tommy wanted a silly hair-do. He’s 11. And he wears glasses. And he knows he’s going to be in some kind of full-time education until he’s at least 18. By the time he leaves school or enforced training, everyone’s going to expect him to join the line of youngsters queueing up for either a job or £20,000 debt or both.
Can someone explain to me when, under these circumstances, Tommy might be at liberty to choose to sport a stubby hairstyle he feels complements his spectacles?
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }