When school rules are ridiculous.

Thankfully the decision has now been overturned.


"A school refused to let a self-conscious girl wear a hoodie and cap to cover her hair loss before backing down after parents and students staged a furious protest outside the gates while wearing hats.

Ella Goodwin, 13, felt uncomfortable wearing a wig to school after losing patches of her hair, but was told that she must adhere to the uniform policy at Heritage High in Clowne, Derbyshire.

Children gathered outside the premises yesterday morning and donned hats in support for their fellow pupil, prompting the school to change its stance.

One parent said that some children were not let in, while others were placed in isolation and the police were called.

A message sent by the school's Year 9 manager reads: 'I have spoken to Senior staff with regards Ella wearing a hoodie and baseball cap and unfortunately because of school policy around uniform we are unable to authorise her wearing them.

'We do however have a couple of students in school currently who are wearing wigs.

'I wondered if Ella would like to meet with her and talk about her experience. If this would make Ella feel better about wearing her wig in school.

'Let me know if she would like to talk to another student and I will arrange it.'



https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/familyhealth/school-refuses-to-let-girl-wear-hoodie-and-cap-to-cover-her-hair-loss/ar-BB1gRBpB?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Rules are rules but depending on certain situations - like this, I should think that said rules can be broken or relaxed for a time at least, other pupils and parents have to understand this though and not try to make it because 'she's doing it, my little treasure should be able to' reason for not complying with the rules as this is what not allowing rule bending is generally about. Common sense. (Wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of her mother though.)

Vintage wrote:Rules are rules but depending on certain situations- like this, I should think that said rules can be broken or relaxed for a time at least, other pupils and parents have to understand this though and not try to make it because 'she's doing it, my little treasure should be able to' reason for not complying with the rules as this is what not allowing rule bending is generally about. Common sense. (Wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of her mother though.)

You are talking about Exceptions. Every contract has a list of them (yes, school rules are a part of the contract). Obviously, this school doesn't have an exception that covers this situation. This leads to the next question: how would this exception be phrased?

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:Rules are rules but depending on certain situations- like this, I should think that said rules can be broken or relaxed for a time at least, other pupils and parents have to understand this though and not try to make it because 'she's doing it, my little treasure should be able to' reason for not complying with the rules as this is what not allowing rule bending is generally about. Common sense. (Wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of her mother though.)

You are talking about Exceptions.  Every contract has a list of them (yes, school rules are a part of the contract).  Obviously, this school doesn't have an exception that covers this situation.  This leads to the next question: how would this exception be phrased?

Clothing designed to cover a medical procedure or condition is allowed.

See how simple that was.

"Children gathered outside the premises yesterday morning and donned hats in support for their fellow pupil, prompting the school to change its stance.

One parent said that some children were not let in, while others were placed in isolation and the police were called."

This could have been handled so simply if only someone with common sense and empathy was running the school.
Instead it escalated so other pupils and parents, and even police were involved.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are talking about Exceptions.  Every contract has a list of them (yes, school rules are a part of the contract).  Obviously, this school doesn't have an exception that covers this situation.  This leads to the next question: how would this exception be phrased?

Clothing designed to cover a medical procedure or condition is allowed.

See how simple that was.  

Well done.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Clothing designed to cover a medical procedure or condition is allowed.

See how simple that was.  

Well done.

You two can go and stand in the corner wearing one of these each if you can't debate properly in the thread.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well done.

You two can go and stand in the corner wearing one of these each if you can't debate properly in the thread.

I simply stated a common sense exception for the silly uniform rule.

Then Quill agreed with me.

We're turning a corner here woman.

Yeah, Syl.  You talk about debate, and we are giving it to you.  I suggested a category of solution, and MD filled in the blank.

You can take or reject the answer, but it's in the finest spirit of tending to the question.

Well then I will take the credit for starting a thread that finally got the two of you to debate properly instead of squabbling like  primary school rejects.

No need to thank me.

Syl wrote:Well then I will take the credit for starting a thread that finally got the two of you to debate properly instead of squabbling like  primary school rejects.

No need to thank me.

Personally, I think he suffered a head injury that temporarily affected his thinking in a positive manner.

He seems back to "normal" now.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Well then I will take the credit for starting a thread that finally got the two of you to debate properly instead of squabbling like  primary school rejects.

No need to thank me.

Personally, I think he suffered a head injury that temporarily affected his thinking in a positive manner.

He seems back to "normal" now.

Are we talking about the school principal?  If not, let's get back on topic and continue the discussion:

I am a lawyer.  I draft contracts for a living.  This situation is someone’s failure to anticipate a conflict-breeder in a contractual relationship: what happens to the dress & hygiene codes when a person cannot meet the conditions due to illness or abnormality, not self-made?

The answer is to rewrite the contract, addressing the conflict, and outlining the preconceived accord, so that everyone knows what is to be expected.  That is the purpose of contracts...to anticipate contingencies and thereby avoid conflicts.

The fact that I agree with MD is incidental.  It means that for once MD followed logic, rather than the typical southern prejudice/anger/violence response.  It means that for once MD was following the methods of reason, and abandoning his usual gotcha style, borne of insecurity.  I applaud his new-found tact, but let’s not get all gushy and lose sight of the topic.

How can any contract cover every unforeseeable event?

Syl wrote:How can any contract cover every unforeseeable event?

It's an art, not a science.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:How can any contract cover every unforeseeable event?

It's an art, not a science.

So common sense should intervene surely.

Syl wrote:How can any contract cover every unforeseeable event?

By making them long.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's an art, not a science.

So common sense should intervene surely.

Common sense? Always. Contract drafting is about anticipating contingencies, by reference to the past, and with anticipation of the future, and drafting acceptable solutions agreed to by all. No commoner sense than that.

One would think that if a body of people are qualified to run and govern a school, they would have the sense to sort out a relatively simple problem without it escalating so much the police had to intervene.

If a pupil broke their toe would they still be required to wear regulation black leather shoes ?

It's the same sort of thing.

Syl wrote:One would think that if a body of people are qualified to run and govern a school, they would have the sense to sort out a relatively simple problem without it escalating so much the police had to intervene.

If a pupil broke their toe would they still be required to wear regulation black leather shoes ?

It's the same sort of thing.

Precisely.

Without commenting on the rights or wrongs of this particular case, it does now seem to be the default position of pupils - and their parents - to gather outside the school gates, form an intimidatory (and sometimes violent) mob, make demands and issue threats against individual heads and teachers using the anonymity of social media.

Dangerous games....

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Without commenting on the rights or wrongs of this particular case, it does now seem to be the default position of pupils -  and their parents - to gather outside the school gates, form an intimidatory (and sometimes violent) mob, make demands and issue threats against individual heads and teachers using the anonymity of social media.

Dangerous games....

It certainly escalated out of hand, but I really think had the school allowed the girl to wear a cap in the first place all this would have been prevented.
The school advised she wore a wig, most young girls would feel more self-conscious in a wig than with a baseball cap covering her hair loss.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Without commenting on the rights or wrongs of this particular case, it does now seem to be the default position of pupils -  and their parents - to gather outside the school gates, form an intimidatory (and sometimes violent) mob, make demands and issue threats against individual heads and teachers using the anonymity of social media.

Dangerous games....

That's democracy at its finest, Fred. What are mobs to some, are coalitions and caucuses to others, associating far a purpose, as is their right. It's only dangerous if the remedy exceeds the need, and that doesn't seem to be the case here, does it? The young woman has a serious affliction, and would like to present herself with dignity. The rules don't let her.

Syl wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Without commenting on the rights or wrongs of this particular case, it does now seem to be the default position of pupils -  and their parents - to gather outside the school gates, form an intimidatory (and sometimes violent) mob, make demands and issue threats against individual heads and teachers using the anonymity of social media.

Dangerous games....

It certainly escalated out of hand, but I really think had the school allowed the girl to wear a cap in the first place all this would have been prevented.
The school advised she wore a wig, most young girls would feel more self-conscious in a wig than with a baseball cap covering her hair loss.

I'm sure she didn't want the extra attention, but a gigantic rainbow, afro wig might have made a point too.