Teacher cuts pupil's hair, mum files police report

But you said the state exam rules were not specific to a school?

Yup yup, so what I was just saying is that the hairdresser isn't responsible (as in, in any ways legally obliged or wadever) for cutting a haircut suitable for the student. If it's a case of the hairdresser failing to meet expectations or wants from the customers (e.g. supposed to do X but did Y or did not fully do X) then there are grounds to complain, and right now we don't have enough information to know for sure. If I were the mom, I'd complain about the hairdresser too =.= But generally the general barbers/hairdressers would go for the shorter haircuts for boys because they need it and they're used to cutting them so short for others too.

So just to clarify, the ministry's guidelines on uniform rules and the ministry's rules on taking examinations are very much in line with each other. You can don't cut your hair and get away with it for years, but when you are taking a national examination the invigilators, especially the chief presiding officers, have every right to remove you from the examination for failing to comply with rules.


Supposedly the teacher had given (a) letter(s) [I'm not sure of the number either] to the student to give it to the parents prior to the incident. Again we say that it was dumb for the teacher to snip first before informing the parent. Then again, it's also silly to go past the line then toe the line.

Teacher cutting the student's hair? Dumb. Putting it into the context? Even more dumb. Enforcing the rule? Not dumb. Enforcing the rule with the context (of the examination): even more not dumb. Why could he be barred from the exam: he is not following examination rule - be properly attired etc. We're not talking about the day-to-day school life - we're talking about a student who could have lost marks in a national examination for failing to adhere to rules. Serious? Hell yeah. Sure the rules might seem ridiculous or stupid to you, but they're rules. As I said: live by the rules or die from them. Maybe seriousness is not critical here, but when the enforcer of the rule is not someone from your school? Oh yeah we have plenty to be afraid of when we go for national examinations.

My teachers (well... mine...) would check our haircuts days before the examination so that the students won't get into trouble (yeah we're paranoid at times, even my teachers). So you can choose how you want to respond to the rules, but only a few choices are really wise or practical, and one of the unwise choices would be to go in with unacceptably hair. The rules are not unreasonable or irrational either - we've discussed the roots of these rules previously. So what's wrong with being strict and enforcing rules (although the case in question was done in a most inappropriate way)? Because in the first place, if he broke the uniform code rules of the examination, he'd already have failed those that belonged to the school.

If you get to bend the rules this way, you're asking for trouble. How about: you had all the time in the world leading up to the examination to cut your hair, so why wait until after the examination to cut your hair? Are you testing the invigilators? There is nothing to imply that looks are more important than content - rather its your defiance of rules that gets you into deep crap.


I'll also qualify that the chief presiding officer also has the right to let the boy go off because he/she is the enforcer of rules in this case [if the boy enters the examination room with a long haircut], or cut his hair on the spot, or make the boy show up the next day with a suitable haircut etc., amongst the many options available to the chief presiding officer. Again we say that the teacher cutting the boy's hair was not a very wise choice. So you are right: he could have gotten his haircut after the examination, but whether the CPO is going to be strict or lenient is not exactly the best gamble to risk. But the point here is: it's not all black or white, and even the strictest CPO is human and has to take into consideration the implications of his/her action - making the boy take the oral exam another day is probably the most likely outcome that a CPO would dish out after taking everything into consideration. Nonetheless, we don't kid with rules, because the repercussions are severe [it's your bloody future!] and the trouble you get into [disciplinary committee, multiple questionings] for something entirely avoidable is simply not worth it.


I mean, come on. Seriously. How damn hard is it to follow rules? We don't throw rules 1 week before exams - they take ages to get into writing. We brief students and send leaflets to parents ages before the exams. If a rule is really that damn dumb, why don't you complain or make a big fuss out of it on some national forum/talk to a minister to bring up in the parliment? There are all sorts of civilised ways of getting an outcome achieved while still playing by the rules of the game.


tl;dr: When you make a choice, is it worth it? To you? To others? Teachers' choices: not worth it. Enforcement: worth it. Parents: not really worth it. Child: not worth it, if at all. For all the trouble that he brought.

/edit: I feel the frustration of overturned voters. Feels ridiculous.

Hadriel