Girls being less active due to school uniform

[SummerDays2020]

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2024/feb/15/school-uniforms-may-be-barrier-to-physical-activity-among-younger-girls

I have wondered why schools don't just have a unisex uniform and this seems a good reason to do it. Also to make the uniform less restrictive.

I would think the main issues are shoes and coats.
Parents choose to put their girls in ballerinas and non-waterproof (but “cute”) coats.
Boys wear decent school shies snd decent coats.
Trainers are pointless in s country with as much rain as the uk. You can easily get waterproof boys school shoes.
Even at nursery (no uniform) you see boys in practical clothes snd shoes and girls in cutesy fabric jackets and sparkly fabric trainers in winter. Its parents systematically putting their daughters at a disadvantage.

When I was at school, girls were very active and played in skirts very easily - skipping, chinese ropes, tag, hop scotch, kick the can etc.

The problem is less to do with skirts and more the impractical fashion shoes parents allow their dd to choose and skirts being rolled up so they cannot play without worrying they will flash their knickers.

The even bigger problem is young children are so into screen time they haven't learned at home how to independently play active games. For many boys (not all) their attraction to football is stronger, girls don't have the same common attraction to any particular sport/activity. Sticking girls in a pair of trousers isn't a magical fix.

A campaign to do what limit freedom of choice for girls! A bit different to Jamie Oliver dinners as there is a health benefit. You are not going to make a girl sporty by drawing her up in sports clothes just like you won't make a boy good at football by putting a football kit on him or you won't make someone an amazing guitar player by handing them a guitar.

@Beamur the goal wouldn't be to make the girls more 'sporty' but more 'active' can you see the difference? And appreciate the benefits to girls being more physically active?

No? Ok then.

To get rid of shirt, tie and blazer uniforms. Have more comfortable uniforms.

Joggers, leggings, shorts, skirts, polos, pinnies, summer dresses, jersey material, that isn't restricting choice. Why would you think it is, unless you want to be deliberately defensive and confrontational?

Dd's school uniform seems pretty comfy - polo shirt, jersey dress and a warm cardi. She could wear trousers/skirt if she wanted to but prefers the feel of a dress as it doesn't pull in round her waist. School are fairly sensible and relaxed and they can also wear leggings or tights under if they are cold. Shoes just have to black.

I wouldn't like a tracksuit type uniform as I think sportswear should be for sport, but on the other hand I think blazers and proper shirts are too formal, especially for primary.

Trousers may be an issue for some pubescent girls if they are curvy. I was talking about young children. A poster was saying trousers were an issue for slim girls with narrow hips, but that is no different for boys with a slight build. I had to buy the longer length trousers from m&s in a smaller size for my son, I could not buy from the supermarket.

Apologies, I didn't read your posts correctly. Yes, blazers, ties seem unnecessary.

My DD wears pinafores and dresses because we couldn't get any trousers that were the right length and right waist for her when she started school.

That's why my very small 4 year old wears a pinafore. I bought school trousers in the smallest size I could find but they just fell down, same with skirts. The pinafore is too big but at least it can't fall down.
As she grows, we'll hopefully be able to buy age 4 stuff that fits.

I am really against removing skirts as an option for school uniform. Many girls like skirts. I really dislike traditionally feminine things, like dolls, the colour pink, skirts etc, being looked down upon as inferior.

I agree with this - there's nothing inherently wrong with a skirt, and I don't like the view also on this thread that girls only choose them due to social pressure.
(I wore trousers from reception through to the end of GCSEs, so this isn't me being defensive of my own choice)

Children are socialised by what they see around them. And at school that is most of the girls wearing skirts or dresses.

Lots of girls like being creative with clothes as do boys. I don't think that is linked to skirts and dresses. DS would have wanted to wear costumes to school. I'm not sure why practical and sporty is fine for boys and not girls? Surely that is exactly what uniform should be - fit for purpose? We want children to be comfortable and to be active (not necessarily sporty.) Girls and boys too can wear their other clothes outside of school time.

This was my experience too. I used to dread buying school shoes for my daughter. Even from the stalwarts of Clark’s and Startrite everything was ballerinas or dainty Mary Jane’s with bows and heart crystals and no toe protection like the rugged ‘boys’ styles. I just bought her ones designed for boys through primary school. When she got to secondary she could wear black leather converse and they’ve always been great.

Don’t me started on blazers. Especially in the summer when it’s roasting hot.

It would be good if they let girls wear tracksuits for PE.

We had to wear gym knickers with tiny netball skirts over the top. In all weathers.

Just... why?

@MidnightPatrol all schools i know have identical pe kit for boys and girl - some also gave a skort, but all have shorts, top, jumper, tracksuit bottoms.

I don’t think it’s right to forbid skirts though. My dd finds they fit better and are more comfortable.

M&S do an age 2-3. In longer length and extra long as well if she needs a size 3 waist for a while.

Girls are allowed to wear trousers at the primary and secondary schools my sons went to. Some of them wore trousers, but most wore skirts. It’s ironic that primary school girls go to great lengths to avoid boys seeing their pants, while the secondary girls seem to want to show their pants to the world, judging by the skirt lengths I’ve observed !!

Weirdly enough, parents of boys manage to find fitting trousers for their small, skinny 4 year olds. My youngest is by far the shortest if his class, he has trousers. Now in year 2, he finally fits in a street size 4-5. My oldest is extremely skinny/ underweight due to several medical issues. He has trousers.
I completely take the point for older girls - from puberty on it is a lot harder to find fitting trousers for girls.
But for young girls - it’s parents’ preference, not fit.

Really? My DCs schools still serve chips, fish fingers, burgers, ice cream, muffins etc and that’s all in one week.

I have said on numerous mumsnet threads for years that uniform needs scrapping and if not completely then a tracksuit with a tshirt and hoodie type top is fine for a uniform.

All this bullshit about preparing them for the corporate world, is just that bullshit. So they leave school after wearing a shitty blazer and skirt/trousers for 7 years and most likely if going in to the corporate world go to uni, where they can wear whatever the hell they want, and currently at the uni I work at its tracksuits and jeans with more holes in than I have ever seen! So how on earth arr these students going to cope with the corporate world after 3 or 4 years at uni wearing a tracksuit?!?!?! (Please note the sarcasm)

We do not need uniforms, they are a waste of time for kids and young adults at school. Let them be comfy, let them be free to run about and play and do whatever they want at play/lunchtime without worrying about ruining a £50 blazer etc.......

I don't know.
I mean back in the 80s we had a uniform, and the girls did not wear trousers at all. If they had my dsis would have been wearing them, but it was not an option. It was skirt, blouse and tie in winter and summer dress in the summer for us at primary.
The boys played football and British Bulldog and the girls played tag, elastics, skipping games and did gymnastics. Anyone else do the "knives fork spoons.... gym movement" game? Both lots had times of climbing trees.

At secondary the boys played football and rugby and British bulldog (when it hadn't been banned) and the girls generally stood around and tried not to freeze in winter and chatted in summer. Except occasionally the boys wanted the girls to join in on British bulldog, normally far more to do with flirting than anything else. I do remember a game called "Blue Murder" briefly being popular before it was banned. I think the idea, if I remember rightly, was boy v girls tag with the idea they stripped each other if caught. Can't imagine why that one was banned!
Again the girls were in short, tie and skirt.

I don't remember any time anyone felt they were stopped because of their uniform. Yes, uniforms got ripped sometimes-that was definitely on the list of reasons when BB was banned. Parents complaints at damaged uniform. The other reason was normally broken bones...

But I don't think it's very different nowadays for the boys. As far as I can tell with ds his normal lunch time activity was football, followed by some variation of tag. Sometimes they had a couple of girls joining in; they were welcome if they wanted. When younger there were a couple who liked football. Once he'd got older the reason more often was they fancied one of the boys.

The girls do do less. They still play tag a bit; I think elastics has pretty died out round here, but I think that's just because it's not played. Skipping games and gym though isn't done. But it's not because the girls have a problem. Having talked to children fairly recently from a variety of primary schools about it, it's that they've been banned for fear of injuries. Half of them chose to wear shorts or trousers most of the time, all barring one had a polo shirt uniform rather than shirt and tie.

So is it to do with the uniform? Or is it to do with the girls' activities are not considered safe? I'm trying to think when I was at primary. There was a girl in dsis' form who three times at least broke her wrist doing a cartwheel. I cannot remember any other gym injuries at lunchtimes. I do remember football injuries and definitely injuries from British bulldog.
So maybe it's to do with our thoughts as adults more than the children themselves feeling restricted.

Exactly. Some children just don't enjoy sports, regardless if they are in a single girls school, wear gym kit or baggy tracksuits or have the most kind PE teacher.

Some other hate music. Some are great in language, some aren't.

I grew up without uniform in Germany and cycled to school until I had my A-Levels, I still hate sport. I love going to museums, reading books, looking around antique stores and enjoying a gentle walk in the park.

And for me a any uniform, stiff blazer, normal primary one or a tracksuit is still a uniform and pushes children into a box. What's wrong with letting children be individual and wear what they want as long as it's suitable?

Unless you lock your DD away it is not just about what toys you buy etc. Would Granny have been equally inclined to get those things out for a boy - probably not. But unless you are massively pushing 'boy' toys etc. you have no hope of even touching the messages in our culture of what girls wear and what boys wear.

This isn't about sports, it's about movement. Primary DC don't tend to play sports at lunch/break. But they should be being active as for good health they should get an hour's worth of exercise. This is about health not talent. Girls are moving less when wearing school uniform and less than boys when they wear school uniform too.

Personally I think footwear is a bigger problem than skirts. I’d love a school that banned Mary Janes in favour of trainers for all.

Boys are getting more exercise which is better for their health. Girls don't necessarily have to wear trousers but they are being restricted with what they wear compared to boys. Would you insist your DD wore a skirt rather than shorts even if you knew it meant she would be less healthy? Do you insist on her wearing skirts for P.E?