A DISTRATION – It is the catch-all phrase that educators use when they do not approve of a student’s behavior, apparel or hair. The all-encompassing term is the lowest common denominator of behavior interventions. It can be true, of course. Some student behavior is indeed a distraction to the educational process. Clearly, pink hair does not fall under this prevue.
The low down (thanks to KY3):
I have substituted in elementary schools off and on for years and I have seen many a hair style: pink, purple, green, blue, Mohawks, faux hawks, and all sorts of corn rows and sticky-out doodads. None of it, and I saw not a single one, was a distraction to the educational process. Tight-fitting, low-cut, boob showing tit bibs are a distraction. Skin-tight spandex shorts that show off the genitals (be it a fella’s package or a ladies camel toe) are distracting. Shirts displaying hate speech – God hates Fags or Christians Suck – are distracting to the learning environment. It’s hard to learn in an environment where you are hated.
Pink hair as a distraction, on the other hand, is nothing more than a veil of deceit. It is a way to enact one’s personal code onto others. A principal dislikes or disagrees with the bright coloring of one’s hair. Most likely it is on based on some religious morality and idea of how children should look and dress. But a distraction to the educational process it is not.
Perhaps there are other issues beneath the surface here. Regardless, pink hair should not be the basis for any suspension. Period. The administrator is wrong and I suspect he or she will end up having to backtrack.
Interestingly enough, a child’s hair has been a contentious matter before.
The low down (thanks to KY3):
- 12-year-old child’s father dies from cancer
- Pink is the banner color of cancer
- Child dies hair pink to honor her father
- School suspends her: Pink hair is a distraction
I have substituted in elementary schools off and on for years and I have seen many a hair style: pink, purple, green, blue, Mohawks, faux hawks, and all sorts of corn rows and sticky-out doodads. None of it, and I saw not a single one, was a distraction to the educational process. Tight-fitting, low-cut, boob showing tit bibs are a distraction. Skin-tight spandex shorts that show off the genitals (be it a fella’s package or a ladies camel toe) are distracting. Shirts displaying hate speech – God hates Fags or Christians Suck – are distracting to the learning environment. It’s hard to learn in an environment where you are hated.
Pink hair as a distraction, on the other hand, is nothing more than a veil of deceit. It is a way to enact one’s personal code onto others. A principal dislikes or disagrees with the bright coloring of one’s hair. Most likely it is on based on some religious morality and idea of how children should look and dress. But a distraction to the educational process it is not.
Perhaps there are other issues beneath the surface here. Regardless, pink hair should not be the basis for any suspension. Period. The administrator is wrong and I suspect he or she will end up having to backtrack.
Interestingly enough, a child’s hair has been a contentious matter before.
Posts
1 comment:
This is the same school district where when a tax levy was on the ballot people opposed to it said to cut the gifted program because "those kids are smart enough already and they don't need it." They also said the only purpose of school is to make the kids ready to work for the businesses in the community.
I wasn't surprised when I heard where this happened.
Post a Comment