To think if the school says that girls can no longer wear shorts to school, then they should say the same for boys?

[MrsSchadenfreude]

DD1's school has no uniform. She got sent back to the dorm last week because she was told that shorts were no longer permitted for girls at school. They are not "short shorts" with her arse hanging out, and she was wearing thick tights underneath them. They have since banned shorts for girls but not for boys. The boys seem to get away with wearing what they like" vest tops and shorts, T shirts with inappropriate slogans and pictures (eg a photo of a woman's breasts, a cartoon of the cookie monster with a naked woman thrown over his shoulder), whereas girls get sent to change for any minor infraction - eg a skirt that is slightly above knee length.

They have no dress code as such (we have checked). AIBU to think they should bring one in for both sexes, if they are going to police the girls so rigorously?

(We have already had one run in with the girl, as the girls were expected to do their own laundry, whereas the boys get it done for them, and have won that battle...)

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Well they do have the opportunity now, Bertrand.

I think the main problem is that the last head of boarding was there for about 100 years, and the new head is only finding out slowly about his little "foibles" - eg he agreed immediately with us re the washing issue and changed it. I think a lot of the "foibles" were not written down and evolved over time.

Oh and the school is not full boarding; some of the boys who wear the inappropriate tee shirts are dropped off in the morning by their parents...

[SoldierBear]

You are describing a school with an engrained ethos of inequality and fairly blatant sexism. It is unlikely this will change markedly during the remainder of your DDs time there.
You are also describing a school where parents and teachers find it appropriate to allow boys to wear sexist and degrading tshirts.
You want your DD to remain there because they get good exam results.
This is about more than exam results -it is about the core values shared by the school community. The "new broom" can only achieve so much - and the attitudes you describe will not change overnight. They might become less obvious, but they will still be there.
If this was a state school, would you be so forgiving?
You are not just paying for the time your DD spends in class, but also for the pastoral care out of class. With the attitudes you describe, this sounds like it will be pretty crap. Why continue to expose her to this unsupportive atmosphere?

[MrsSchadenfreude]

I want DD to remain there because she is halfway through the course for her final exams. And I don't want to pull her out and send her to a different school at this time.

And I only found out about the tee shirt issue on FRIDAY. Two days ago.

[SoldierBear]

Okay, you want her to remain in the same school, rather than transferring to another school where she could complete the course despite the fact that you know the school has an engrained ethos of inequality and sexism.

You've only known about short-gate for two days but the laundry issue occurred prior to this. So, two instances of sexism, plus the additional issue of the school being content to allow boys to wear t-shirts that demean women.

What is really bothering you is that your DD isn't allowed to wear shorts.

Fair enough - go down and tell them she is wearing shorts as it doesn't breach their non-existent uniform policy so they have no grounds to say she can't wear them.

[MrsSchadenfreude]

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for her to complete her course elsewhere. I have no worries about the school's pastoral care at all. I told the new head of boarding about the laundry issue, he thought it outrageous and changed it immediately. I don't think he could have done more than that. I am going to email the school about the tee shirt issue and dress code, and no, she won't be wearing shorts again.

[Babymamamama]

What message does this give the girls. Wash your own clothes but the poor ickle boys must have theirs washed for them. Absolutely dreadful sexism. I would not be paying good money for my daughter to be taught these kind of values. This kind of subtle subjugation of women in the making is very damaging.

[couchparsnip]

It sounds like the school is open to criticism so it is definitely worth pointing out the sexism in this policy. I don't get people saying the school is bad because a bad school wouodn't be open to change. Clearly they respond to criticism because the laundry situation was rectified as soon as it was pointed out.

[MrsSchadenfreude]

I agree, Babymamamama - this is why we asked for it to be changed. And it was.

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Exactly, Couchparsnip. It was a legacy from old, long standing staff who have now moved on. Where issues have been brought to the attention of new staff, they have been changed.

[404NotFound]

Obviously dress code rules are essential, and given the nature of teenagers to argue and quibble, they need to be laid down in writing.

But schools need to give more thought to how this is done in order to avoid accusations of sexism. It shouldn't really be that hard to formulate rules in a way that covers most of the obvious uniform transgressions without appearing to treat the girls and boys differently.

The obvious ones are: no ripped jeans, no shorts, no offensive slogans, all tops must have sleeves, no underwear on display, no midriffs, chest or bumcracks to be visible. The only really girl-specific thing would be skirt-length, but even that can be phrased in a way that doesn't make it sound as if female bodies are somehow more of a problem than male ones.

It shoudln't be that hard, really, even allowing for the fact that you're dealing with teenagers. And there is absolutly no excuse for schools to phrase their clothing policy in any way that suggests that girls are responsible for male responses, like the school in Yorkshire that recently banned skirts because they made male teachers feel uncomfortable.

I'm sure schools don't set out to be discriminatory, it's mainly that people make rulings without thinking the wording and the implications through properly.

[SirChenjin]

Bottom line is that you shouldn't even have to write that email in 2015.

Fools and their money...

[Kampeki]

It sounds like the school is open to criticism so it is definitely worth pointing out the sexism in this policy. I don't get people saying the school is bad because a bad school wouodn't be open to change. Clearly they respond to criticism because the laundry situation was rectified as soon as it was pointed out.

Well, yes, they have responded to the OP's criticisms when she has made them, but the issue for me is that they didn't realise there were problems with this approach before the OP pointed it out. I wouldn't want my dd to be educated by adults who need to be told that blatant sexism is unacceptable.

The OP only found out about the t-shirts on Friday. What other issues has she not yet uncovered, I wonder?

[SirChenjin]

Exactly Kampeki. This isn't a conversation the OP should even be having to have with the school - it's inconceivable that any school or teacher in 2015 would believe that is OK. But hey - exam results are good.

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Kampeki - the new head of boarding didn't know that this rule re the washing was in place. When it was drawn to his attention, he changed it immediately.

404 - exactly.

[BertrandRussell]

Agreed. The little "foibles" will have informed the whole ethos of the school.

And the no shorts for girls but sexist t shirts for boys thing happened under the new regime- so no old school foibles there.

[MrsSchadenfreude]

SirChenjin - I wonder if you would be so offensive if this was a state school? Somehow, I think not.

[Kampeki]

Perhaps not, OP, but I presume that a number of staff must have seen the offensive t-shirts?

And somebody in a position of authority over your dd told her that the girls would have to do their own laundry while the boys would have it done for them.

The new head of boarding might be reasonable, but there is clearly a culture in the school as a whole that I would find intolerable.

[SirChenjin]

No need to wonder - I would absolutely take the same stance if a state school had such ridiculous, sexist and outdated rules. HTH.

[BertrandRussell]

Well, I certainly would be- in fact, probably more so, because if it was a state school it should have guidelines in place to stop this sort of thing happening. So a state school would have a hideously sexist ingrained ethos and a complete disregard for statutory requirements. A private school would only have one of those.

[SirChenjin]

And quite why the Head has to be informed by parents about the goings on in his school is baffling - what sort of a ship is he running that he is oblivious to such practices on his watch?

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Well yes, SirChenjin, but would you be so rude to me?

Kampeki - yes, the old head of boarding...

There is no "new regime" in the school, only in the boarding house. And FWIW, almost all of the boys who are wearing the tee shirts are not boarders, so have parents who think it is acceptable to wear stuff like that to school.

[Kampeki]

Of course we would feel the same if it was a state school. Gender equality is not only for the wealthy!

[Kampeki]

But the school has turned a blind eye to the t-shirts, OP?

As they presumably turned a blind eye to the old boarding master? Or was he sacked?

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Kampeki - I asked if SirChenjin would be so offensive. Not whether s/he would disagree with the issue. It is indeed wrong on all levels, and across the board. There is a state Catholic school near me, where the girls are not allowed to wear trousers as part of the uniform. I think that is wrong as well.