Pink hair, anyone?

dingdong887180022

May 31

I was lucky to attend a Girls' Public Day's School Trust school (GPDST) . Nowadays they have been rebranded the Girls' Day School Trust, because any suggestion of privilege must be expunged. In my day, many of the girls, including myself, were there courtesy of the Direct Grant scheme, whereby our local authorities coughed up the fees and the travel costs for children who would not otherwise be able to benefit from the private education offered. These days bursaries are available to allow girls from more modest households to attend, but I doubt on the scale of the free places that existed previously.

I enjoyed school and certainly benefited from what was offered. An article caught my eye recently about how some GDST schools have relaxed their uniform rules amid fears that a ban on hair and nail colours could negatively affect pupils' mental health. It seems that these days girls are considered so fragile that following rules is liable to tip them into crisis. I find this both astounding and insulting.

We were expected to follow rules that were sometimes quite draconian – unflattering felt hats worn in public places and no visiting local eateries without the chaperone of an older relative. Far from damaging our delicate egos, it provided ample opportunities to subvert. Of course some complied and others kicked against petty regulations, but we were not damaged by them. Some of us were strengthened by the opportunity to see just how far we could push the boundaries and what we could get away with. It was a game. Rules did not lessen our sense of identity. On the contrary they provided a chance to assert our identities by flouting the rules and scoring points against authority and those in authority were not so stupid that they could not see what was going on. They were raising girls to be assertive, to think for themselves, to challenge perceived injustice and to accept the consequences of the challenge. It was character building stuff.

Denying children that opportunity to challenge, by actively encouraging them to come to school with pink hair, purple nails and with their socks rolled down their ankles, does not seem to me to be protecting their mental health. Encouraging self-reliance, nurturing resilience, accepting rebellion within defined limits are more beneficial than saying " do what you would like with your hair because we are scared that you are too weak to manage otherwise". Expecting high standards in uniform and behaviour but also watching to see how individuals play the system is more likely to produce independent girls who can express their individuality whilst still working within the rules – essential skills for the real world.

Some teenagers need to kick against the pricks and if boundaries are relaxed when it comes to hair etc. what will they choose to rebel against? It is quite a scary thought because minor infringements in sock length are not going to result in any real damage, but by upping the ante, how can a free thinking 15 year old express her need to be different without straying into risky behaviour.

I was actually disappointed by the photo of the girls who had been allowed to wear their hair as they chose. Most had gone for pink highlights. What a disappointingly anodyne nod to self expression. I would have shaved my head at the very least or stuck to a tight, neat plait, in defiance of someone telling me that I was too vulnerable to manage if I was not allowed to choose my own hair style. Furthermore, none of them seems to have bothered to tamper with their skirt length which used to be the classic assertion of identity, even if spending the day with 6 rolls of waist band under your jumper was very uncomfortable and excessively hot.

Or perhaps they did and there is a gaggle of the "naughty girls" with facial piercings, shaved heads and immodest skirts that the school declined to include in the photograph in case it scared off some potential parents.