Supermarkets sell school uniform skorts for 15/16 year olds?

And you have a link to the item to share?

I can't even find revere collar shirts for dd in supermarkets! Haven't found boys shirts/trousers in any size past 12-13 ish for ds all summer!

In your line of sight? How tall are you?!

good job the supermarkets sell them as well then isn’t it?!

The school cares what fabric it is, so they probably won't allow it.

The barrier isn't me. The barrier is schools insisted on particular vendors and clothing styles for uniforms instead of saying "any grey pinafore dress, any grey trousers".

Thank you for your reply that makes sense but in my local town there is a bespoke school uniform shop supplying the blazers and sports kit for local schools. This I am sure could easily be solved so girls can have a choice. Although it is owned and run by a man

Cringe!

Who cares what fabric its in, you're completely splitting hairs. The design is a solution. But no matter, trousers are also a solution and already in place for these girls

M&S is not easy to come by. No m&s anywhere near us locally. And the majority of parents do not shop at m&s for uniform! 😂

Easy to come by is supermarket ranges and cheaper high street options like primark. M&S is out of range for a large percentage of school parents.

M&S do one for £12. I’d say that was pretty easy to come by

They have brought this on themselves.

I am sick and tired of seeing school girls going around with skirts, so short, you can literally see their knickers and arse cheeks hanging out the back of it. It's not even deliberately looking. It's in your line of sight walking down the high street.

It's absolutely indecent and it's not empowering. School is a professional environment where you go to learn and obtain qualifications. They wear a uniform it's not a fashion parade. No woman would be permitted to remain at work dressed like that with her knickers on display so why is it ok at school.

I think young girls and women would do well to remember that dressing in such a way is no more empowering than wearing a burqa. Both are geared up to the needs and wants of men.

If there are in tears over it, they need to grow some kind of backbone. Crying over not being able to wear a skirt to school - is that is. They can wear a skirt at any other point in their own time. It's hardly a tragedy.

When the school changes the rules for only the girls, and does so in a way that costs girls' families money and gets girls punished whilst the boys are completely unaffected, that's sex discrimination on the part of the school.

It could been avoided with a phased transition for existing girl pupils.

Probably because the new legislation means schools cannot require too much branded uniform, and trousers can be bought anywhere. Skorts are hard to come by. Sports skorts are possible, but not school uniform style skorts.

These days parents often have to sign a behaviour contract with the school saying they will ensure their children follow the school rules, which in this country usually includes a uniform policy. (Whether it should include such a policy is different question which I have a lot of sympathy about.)

If the parents decide to break that contract on behalf of their children, they know what the consequences will be and it's on them, not their daughters or the school. That behaviour is just pure idiocy on the parents part to think that the rules they signed up to magically don't apply to them or their children.

Probably because the new legislation means schools cannot require too much branded uniform, and trousers can be bought anywhere. Skorts are hard to come by. Sports skorts are possible, but not school uniform style skorts.

Girls get home for wearing trousers that are too tight all the time. Are they going to be accused of ‘looking’ too?

Some of the arguments are definitely ridiculous. But I'm not sure that they've changed from one singular option to a different singular option. I assumed (maybe wrongly) that girls previously had the choice of trousers or skirts? So they have removed an option.
I guess "smart" is up for interpretation. The trousers we wore in the 90s wouldn't be allowed in the schools here these days, despite being classed as "smart trousers" back then.

If this is only about girls rolling their skirts up why are Skorts not the first option rather than trousers? Or Skorts or trousers as a choice.

I live and work in this area and there are more around me thinking it’s not just to protect the girls or teachers and is an erosion of freedom of choice for girls who are allowed to have a choice by their families.

The fact that you say that like it’s a good thing just worries me about the future

Yes, I'm surprised that people who undoubtedly wear trousers on a regular basis are being angered at having to wear trousers as part of their school uniform. It's weird to be angry that you have to wear something you most likely already wear?

I'm also surprised by many of the reasons for protesting - that girls will faint, that girls can't wear trousers, that they're being made to look like boys, that they're not flattering...they're not exactly feminist (or rational) arguments. About the only argument that makes sense is that parents who have just bought school skirts shouldn't have to spend more money.

And they're not having an option removed so much as going from one singular option to a different singular option. They have as many options as the boys do.

A pp said the uniform just mandated 'smart black trousers', so girls have the option of multiples retail styles and fits - I'm sure they'll be able to find something cheaply priced that both fits them, and the uniform policy.

Once more for the slow readers:

The parents decided not to buy trousers, yet the girls are being punished.

This, and the school's money-wasting insistence that parents of existing female pupils replace last year's skirt that still fits with brand new trousers, which the year elevens will wear for just one year, are the real problems here.

This is sex discrimination. The parents of girls are taking a punch to the wallet that the parents of boys do not take. Girls alone are being punished for a rule change that their parents decide whether they can comply with.

Once more for the slow readers:

The parents decided not to buy trousers, yet the girls are being punished.

This, and the school's money-wasting insistence that parents of existing female pupils replace last year's skirt that still fits with brand new trousers, which the year elevens will wear for just one year, are the real problems here.

This is sex discrimination. The parents of girls are taking a punch to the wallet that the parents of boys do not take. Girls alone are being punished for a rule change that their parents decide whether they can comply with.

Why is modesty considered negative? Some places you need to dress modestly. Work and school are some of those places.

It is not a sex discrimination thing. Boys aren't allowed to show their pants either in low trousers. And in most secondary schools boys aren't allowed to wear shorts!

Once more for the slow readers:

The parents decided not to buy trousers, yet the girls are being punished.

This, and the school's money-wasting insistence that parents of existing female pupils replace last year's skirt that still fits with brand new trousers, which the year elevens will wear for just one year, are the real problems here.

This is sex discrimination. The parents of girls are taking a punch to the wallet that the parents of boys do not take. Girls alone are being punished for a rule change that their parents decide whether they can comply with.

That's kind of the point....
Teachers/school staff are not allowed to deal with the problem. So they are removing the problem. Problem solved!