Teacher cuts pupil's hair, mum files police report

/edit: I really don't know if that haircut is really a $60 haircut... I could get that haircut with just $3.80... ask the hair? I'm not that silly to spend $60 on a haircut unless I'm going to... no wait when will I ever spend $60 on a haircut??

Hadriel

I can get that for about $2.50.

For free if my dad has the time to cut my hair for me (which is like, almost never. He's either too busy or too lazy).

His hair doesn't even look fancy or styled in any way. I can understand spending a lot of money on very long hair like I pictured he would have, but his hair looks basic and quite short.

And if they cut his hair even shorter, how did they spend another $60 on getting it restyled?

And yeah, I get a trim for like £5. But my hair is kinda weird and styling probably wouldn't work anyway.

My guess is: the teacher cut the student's hair unstylistically, and the mother thought his son looked very bad, and promptly decided to dump another 60 bucks at that guy.

*Who has that "Take my money!" meme?*

/edit: btw Khaini, I'm in the same country as that kid, as are several of us. $2.50? I go Snip Avenue... guess you got the better deal. Then again, I don't cut my hair in the UK. My friends go to an old couple for haircut, for about 10 quids.

Hadriel

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-new...t-20120823

Look at the before and after pic's. This is clearly a retarded action, no matter how you look at it. All she did was cut the tips off so that it would look straight, it probably cost that amount of money to use a feathering method. The parent paid that amount (probably converted to US dollars, so it's probably closer to 25-30 pounds), once again probably to get shampooed and feathered so it was thinner towards the ends.

How much she spent on it is irrelevant, this would be a lot less questionable if it was like ridiculous off the standards, but we're talking about 1-2 centimeters at best, and the school made a big deal out of it. I stand by my case, it was barbaric, unnecessary and just frankly retarded.

Rules are rules. Live by it or die from it.

Hadriel

Terrible rules should be fought back against.

Rebelling is but one way to... fight against... rules. There are other, more civilised ways.

Hadriel

Rules are rules. Live by it or die from it.

Hadriel

[video=youtube;XBxReTNB-X4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBxReTNB-X4[/video]

How I envy those of you whose lives are so sheltered that you can get so outraged at a haircut rule.

As for the $60 haircut: the mother should demand the hair stylist return the money.
Since the rules for boys' hair are state-wide, every person in the country who professionally cuts children's hair should be familiar with them. When the boy went in for his $60 haircut, the stylist should have cut it in accordance with the rules: not touching the ears, etc. As we can see from the pictures, it's not that big of a difference. Not like the boy had truly long hair and told the stylist "don't touch it". There's no excuse for charging money and leaving the boy's hair in a condition he wouldn't be allowed to take the state exam in.

How I envy those of you whose lives are so sheltered that you can get so outraged at a haircut rule.

To be fair, most laws outrage me (I'm almost sure that's not proper grammar looking at it again, but eh, pineapple it) in some way.

How I envy those of you whose lives are so sheltered that you can get so outraged at a haircut rule.

As for the $60 haircut: the mother should demand the hair stylist return the money.
Since the rules for boys' hair are state-wide, every person in the country who professionally cuts children's hair should be familiar with them. When the boy went in for his $60 haircut, the stylist should have cut it in accordance with the rules: not touching the ears, etc. As we can see from the pictures, it's not that big of a difference. Not like the boy had truly long hair and told the stylist "don't touch it". There's no excuse for charging money and leaving the boy's hair in a condition he wouldn't be allowed to take the state exam in.

I don't know about that actually. While it's written state-wide, but that's only in schools, and not written in the constitution. The hairstylist doesn't have to obey school rules, but what I might imagine is that the hairstylist would ask how the customer would like the hair to be done; if he/mom says "don't touch the ears" what's he to do? But then again, we don't know what went through the hairstylist's head. My guess is that the length was a bad judgement on the hairstylist's side, possibly something like "cut enough to not touch the ears" but was actually too long... maybe?

/edit: need to qualify something: school dropouts are on the uncommon side, and they obviously don't need to have short haircuts when they go for a haircut... customer = king afterall.

Hadriel

I don't know about that actually. While it's written state-wide, but that's only in schools, and not written in the constitution. The hairstylist doesn't have to obey school rules, but what I might imagine is that the hairstylist would ask how the customer would like the hair to be done; if he/mom says "don't touch the ears" what's he to do? But then again, we don't know what went through the hairstylist's head. My guess is that the length was a bad judgement on the hairstylist's side, possibly something like "cut enough to not touch the ears" but was actually too long... maybe?

Hadriel

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

How I envy those of you whose lives are so sheltered that you can get so outraged at a haircut rule.

Yeah because 1/2 centimeters justifies failing a student, outright embarrassing them, and doesn't even bother contact the parent until the hair was mutilated. Both sides don't even match, it was butchered.

I've lived in 4 different countries in my life, I guess I should be thankful none of them were outrageous.

Yeah because 1/2 centimeters justifies failing a student, outright embarrassing them, and doesn't even bother contact the parent until the hair was mutilated. Both sides don't even match, it was butchered.

I've lived in 4 different countries in my life, I guess I should be thankful none of them were outrageous.

I said "haircut rule", not "haircut". The teacher was out of bounds for cutting the boy's hair, everyone agrees on it including her own principal, no point beating a dead horse.

However, people here are acting as if having this law (that boys with long hair can't take the elementary school graduation test) is horrible oppression, a denial of basic human rights, and a sufficient reason to not live in Singapore. Seriously?

You want to talk about stupid and oppressive rules?
When I was in third grade we went to Houston, Texas, for my father's post-doctorate. The school made me swear allegiance to the American flag every morning, even when they knew I could barely speak a dozen words of English, and was not an American citizen.

I had a lot to say about this initially but my thoughts boil down to this: What kind of lesson are we teaching the supposed leaders of tomorrow if having hair that is slightly too long is grounds for public embarrassment, humiliation and the possibility of having one's future ruined?

Whatever can be said about his getting warning letters and such prior to this incident, I think it is a dumb rule to bar students from exams just because their hair is long because that in turn implies that appearance trumps results and it was worse of the teacher to just cut the kid's hair off like that because of what she threatened to do if he didn't comply. There's also the possibility that this kid will always link exams to that one time when he got made a spectacle out of and I'm sure that can't be anything great either.

I had a lot to say about this initially but my thoughts boil down to this: What kind of lesson are we teaching the supposed leaders of tomorrow if having hair that is slightly too long is grounds for public embarrassment, humiliation and the possibility of having one's future ruined?

Whatever can be said about his getting warning letters and such prior to this incident, I think it is a dumb rule to bar students from exams just because their hair is long because that in turn implies that appearance trumps results and it was worse of the teacher to just cut the kid's hair off like that because of what she threatened to do if he didn't comply. There's also the possibility that this kid will always link exams to that one time when he got made a spectacle out of and I'm sure that can't be anything great either.

Yeah, what kind of lesson are we teaching the leaders of tomorrow, that they are not above the law?
Where will we get our Nixons and Clintons if kids don't learn they can disregard any rule they deem stupid?

If a law is stupid, the voters can work to change it in many ways. But as long as it is in force, they should obey it. Especially in the case of this kind of law, which may be stupid but is not that much of a hardship.

 Digressive story

One day, my sister, who was doing her military service at the time, asked my father, "Drive me to base today please?"
He asked, "Why?"
And she said, "I hear the Military Police are out in force today. They're sure to catch me with my hat off at the bus station."
"So wear your hat?"
"But it's ugly!"

I actually don't disagree on the hair cutting so much as when it was done (Right before an important exam, really?), the punishment if it was not done that instant (Docking marks, really?) and the actual consequences of said action (I could barely see the change in hair length).

My point is there was absolutely no reason why he couldn't have had it get cut after the exam and after the teacher had time to relay to the mother that this was going to happen because it was against the school rules. There was actually a similar incident in Malaysia where a girl was suspended from school for a week for wearing a miniskirt while doing a school community event (This event did not need them to wear uniforms, but word has it that a teacher did tell the girl not to wear a short skirt though she says otherwise). This girl was a straight A student with a good record and on top of that she was helping out willingly, so I should think getting one severe black mark for breaking a rule when others would have to pretty much engage in bullying and smoking in school to even get a suspension like that is way over the top.

Tl;dr A rule is not so much an absolute as a lesson and guideline. Make them be absolutes without considering the context and they lose their power.

My point is there was absolutely no reason why he couldn't have had it get cut after the exam

If you had read the thread you'd have seen that it was actually a requirement of this national exam (which is oral), that children are not allowed to take it unless they conform to the dress/appearance code.

If you had read the thread you'd have seen that it was actually a requirement of this national exam (which is oral), that children are not allowed to take it unless they conform to the dress/appearance code.

I did see that and read the entire thread, to which I said

Whatever can be said about his getting warning letters and such prior to this incident, I think it is a dumb rule to bar students from exams just because their hair is long

And looking at your post above, no, I really don't think it's oppressive or no reason to live in Singapore or anything like that (I in fact think it's a pretty cool country). Rather, I think it is completely not cool to bar students from taking national exams for such a rule being broken because he can always get his hair cut afterwards while I seriously doubt that they would let him take the exam later.

Rather, I think it is completely not cool to bar students from taking national exams for such a rule being broken because he can always get his hair cut afterwards while I seriously doubt that they would let him take the exam later.

That makes about as much sense as "give me a passing grade now, and I promise I'll learn the material later."
What guarantee does anyone have that the child would get his hair cut, after the stiffest sanction ("you won't be able to sit the exam") has been removed?
And if the school goes and forcibly has his hair cut after the exam, you and everyone else will say, "They didn't have to do that, there was no time pressure"...
It's a requirement for the exam.
It's not new. Probably been that way since the British held the area.
How hard is it to just follow the rules?