>>>Since school is compulsary until age 16, and it's a public school (as far as I can tell), I'm with the parents. It doesn't hurt him or anyone else to have long hair. I can understand a policy of requiring hair below the collar to be pulled back or braided, but cutting is ridiculous. Our schools have dress codes, but many young men have long hair. I say, As long as the boy wishes it, Fight, fight, fight! :o) I guess that while he is missing out on the socialization aspect of school life, he is gaining by one-on-one instruction. I'd question whether or not that teacher is qualified to teach all subjects (a problem with many high school in-school suspensions) but at that age, probably so.
>>>
>>>OK, joking aside....there's a bit of a deeper issue here. Whether we're talking about the 70's', 80's, or today - teachers (elementary, middle school, high school) often say that one of the bigger distractions in school is kids going out of their way to be "different" in non-intellectual terms.
>>>
>>>I honestly think parents should take a harder line stance on their kids distinguishing themselves by how they think and perform in school, rather than by aspects of their appearance. When my daughter is 12, she'll be setting herself apart from others by cleverly quoting Aristotle - not because of her hair or clothes. If I had a son, I'd only let him have long hair if he also showed some depth.
>>
>>Good luck. By the time you're dealing with teens and pre-teens, you generally learn to choose your battles. Hair length (or color) is rarely important enough to be one of them.
>>
>>A simple rule goes a long way in those years: Nothing permanent. So grow your hair out or shave it or braid it, or grow a beard (well, not Katy, I hope <g>) or wear stupid t-shirts or go to school without a coat in winter; fine. Piercings (other than ears for girls), tattoos, etc. No way.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Very scary when I agree with Tamar, but here I do.
>
>We laid down the law on my oldest boy (and the same will apply to the youngest) that hair can be his choice (up to some freakish point which he never approached), but tatoos and impalements were not allowed period. Find another home if he wanted them. If his friends showed up with impalements, they were fair game for my criticism too.
>
>One of his friends looked like a victim of a shrapnel grenade with all the hardware and color on him - I still give him grief about it (we get along fine by the way). Over the last few years (he's 24 now) he has spent thousands of $$ trying to get rid of the tatoos and on medical bills. He has told me repeatedly that he wished his mother had forbid the stuff like I did.

I have been predicting for a while that tattoo removal will be a huge growth industry. Not joking. All this appearance stuff goes in cycles (the main reason being it's a reaction to those who came before you). In this case reversal is going to be a lot more painful and costly than the cost of a haircut.