How important does the colour of a child's hair have to be before it becomes more important than the child's education?

This petition began following an incident at Ormiston Maritime Academy in Grimsby, where my child was removed from their ordinary education because their hair had been dyed a colour the school considered inconsistent with its appearance policy.

The policy requires students' hair to be a "natural colour".

That sounds straightforward until we begin asking what it actually means.

Human hair naturally occurs in black, brown, blonde, red, grey and white, with an enormous spectrum of shades between them. My child's hair has subsequently been dyed dark red — a colour that unquestionably occurs naturally in human beings.

I have also been informed that another student at Ormiston Maritime Academy was placed in isolation after dyeing their hair ginger, while another was placed in isolation after dyeing their hair white.

And this exposes a fundamental problem.

If ginger is a natural hair colour, but dyed ginger is unacceptable, then is the rule actually that hair must be a naturally occurring colour? Or must it be a colour that could naturally occur on that particular child?

If it is the latter, who decides what nature could plausibly have given them?

More importantly: why are we taking children out of classrooms to answer that question?

Rules should have a purpose

Schools need rules.

We expect schools to maintain environments in which children are safe, teachers can teach and students can learn. Rules concerning bullying, behaviour, attendance, dangerous items and disruption have an obvious relationship with those responsibilities.

But rules should not exist merely because rules have existed before.

When a school restricts something about a young person's appearance, it should be reasonable to ask what educational, behavioural or safeguarding purpose that restriction serves.

And when breaking that rule results in a child being removed from their normal lessons, the threshold should surely be higher still.

A child with blue hair can read.

A child with pink hair can solve an equation.

A child with white hair can study Shakespeare.

A child with ginger hair can sit quietly in a science lesson without preventing anybody else from learning.

Changing the colour of their hair does not remove any of those abilities.

Removing them from the classroom does remove their opportunity to use them.

We are teaching children something — but what?

Schools do considerably more than prepare young people for examinations. They help children learn how to become adults.

We tell young people that education matters. We encourage them to develop confidence, independence and a sense of identity. We tell them that people should be judged by their actions, their effort and the way they treat others.

Yet a student can behave respectfully, complete their work and arrive at school ready to learn - and still find themselves separated from their classmates because somebody has decided their shade of hair is unacceptable.

What lesson does that teach?

That conformity of appearance is more important than participation?

That looking correct is more important than learning?

That a student who has done nothing to disrupt another person's education should lose part of their own?

Those are questions worth asking.

This is not an argument for schools without standards

There are entirely legitimate circumstances in which schools need to regulate appearance.

Hair may need to be tied back around machinery, flames or laboratory equipment. Certain items may create genuine safety concerns. Schools must also be able to intervene where appearance is being used to display abusive, discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate material.

Those rules have an identifiable purpose.

But hair colour itself does not create a safeguarding risk, prevent learning or interfere with another student's education.

Schools are preparing children for a world in which adults have red hair, blue hair, tattoos, piercings, religious dress, unconventional clothing and countless different forms of personal expression - and nevertheless work alongside one another perfectly successfully.

Education should help young people navigate that world, not pretend it does not exist.

What we are asking for:

We are asking for national guidance in England that prevents students from being removed from their ordinary education solely because of their hair colour.

That includes being sent home, placed in isolation or internal exclusion, or otherwise prevented from participating in their normal lessons.

Schools would remain able to establish reasonable appearance standards and intervene where there is a genuine educational, behavioural, practical or safety justification.

But where the issue is simply that a student's hair is the "wrong" colour, education should come first.

This is bigger than one child, one hair colour and one school.

It is a question about what we believe education is for.

If a student arrives willing and able to learn, we should need an exceptionally good reason to prevent them from doing so.

Hair colour doesn't prevent education. Excluding students does.