To think that infant school pupils don't need special cover up knickers?

[DrSeuss]

A local FB seller is flogging gingham over knickers to wear with school summer dresses. Just in case a child of five should do a cartwheel and someone should see her underwear for a brief moment, presumably? My daughter is five. While I would not wish her to run around showing her Frozen themed undies to the world all day, I have no wish to teach her that she must cover herself at all times. Having taught as a peripatetic in primary schools, I always walked a fine line between wishing they could sit on a carpet without flashing me their pants and thinking that their innocence and lack of inhibitions were to be held onto as long as possible since they would be sexualised soon enough.
Would any of you want to buy the chequered modesty preservers?

Yeah imo you really need to think like a 5year old and not a grown up in these kind of situations

I think the knickers over nappy argument is a bit daft and sheep like. the frilly knickers over the plastic pants were probably to look pretty as plastic pants over terries maybe not be pretty enough for some. Maybe over disposables people just want their baby to look coordinated, pretty, an extra layer for leakages, who knows.

It just looks nice really baby dresses are usually short so the pants just went with the dress

The problem is little girls knickers sold in multipacks from primark or asda, which is where the majority get their underwear from -do not cover little girls!

Also, young children are not the best at keeping themselves clean after going to the toilet

Shorts cover everything

If girls want to wear dresses -which lots of them do, then they should be allowed to wear shorts without adults getting on their high horse about it

If they want to wear tailored shorts they should be allowed to do that too although wearing them in the winter with a pair of wooly tights just looks daft

Those dresses with the matching knickers were really short, which made crawling easier.

Fucking fucking gender. Shitting all over our kids' childhoods.

This, with nobs on.

If 'modesty' needs preserving, the uniform should take account of that.

The thing with saying 'just wear shorts instead' is that dresses are allowed and other girls are in them. And, since DD mostly thinks she's a princess/fairy/unicorn, she's always going to want to wear a dress.

I have no problem with uniform for older kids, but I really don't see the need for one for little ones.

Yeah was for the crawling i had 90s babies it was all about the matching pant 😁

I think ideally girls and boys would wear shorts. I guess the dresses are more comfortable on really hot days?

I am against telling little girls they need to cover up too.

To play devil's advocate, maybe some parents worry they will get teased of their knickers show or similar?

I think ideally girls and boys would wear shorts. I guess the dresses are more comfortable on really hot days?

as I said, they can.

but if you wear shorts you still have to wear the shirt and tie.

a dress can just be worn as it is

So minus 6 inches below the k nee and its the same as winter unifirm.

I have 2 boys & have realised that the issue of boys accidentally flashing underwear never arises because they wear shorts/trousers all the time. The issue is surely that girls' dresses in summer are impractical. I think shorts under dresses are fine or perhaps girls should wear shorts & a polo shirt like boys do.

The girls can't wait for summer uniform, they love the dresses. They are also allowed to wear skirt, shirt and no tie but 80% of them choose the dresses (they're not cool in yr6 ) because they're cooler and so much simpler to get changed after swimming etc.

This is interesting for me. I wore gingham dresses in the 80s and don't remember it being the slightest problem. On the other hand I don't remember doing a lot of cartwheels ...

DD is a talented gymnast and is rarely seen the right way up, and I do wonder about the continuous, Technicolour view of her knickers as she does handstand after handstand. Think as Pps have said, it may be partly that little girls pants are designed more after adult women's and have less coverage - may investigate Big Pants. Shorts under dresses sound horribly hot and uncomfy, and hate the idea of telling an 8yo she has to wear something extra 'for decency/modesty'.

Tailored shorts would be great but while dresses are on offer she won't wear them!

They can't at my DD's school. But not worth changing schools for.

The icky pants and 5 year olds argument makes some sense.

But so does the "fucking fucking gender" comment.

I have boy/girl close together. The difference in the quality, thickness and coverage of their pants (from the same stores) is remarkable.

You could use girl pants as strainer, whilst camping under boy pants.

I teach so regularly see a wide array of pants!

For me it's absolutely nothing to do with sexualisation, but little girls pants often do not cover everything, particularly during energetic playtime activities.

I wouldn't want a child to be inadvertently showing others their bits for a range of reasons (embarrassment mainly, there are often older children around who will take the piss) so think the shorts are a great idea. If the pants did their job they'd not be necessary.

So then why make uniform be dresses/skirts/pinafores, MissClarke?

(And yes, you've admitted to teaching so I'm holding you to account for the entire ed system. )

Haha! Well I suppose they are lighter and cooler.

Skorts are the way forward!

ML you are right they both make sense

I think it's appropriate.

My 3yo wears short shorts under her skirts as she's always running around and I feel like she should be covered decently.

I was abused as a child and wouldn't wish it on anyone, my daughter most of all. So getting her decently covered ensures she can go play and have fun without my constant 'flapping' trying to pull her skirt she's covered and worrying about disgusting people thinking inappropriately about my daughter.

If, when she's 5/6 and upwards, she doesn't want to wear shorts under skirt then that's her choice and I'll stick by that choice.

I know some of you will disagree and think I'm over protective. Damn right I am. I'll never allow what happened to me, to happen to her. She'll have a fun childhood, a good childhood. While I do the worrying for/about her in private where she doesn't know.

My daughter has always worn shorts/leggings under dresses/skirts - she hates tights but also hates her skin touching - this may be because I am the same so she sees it as normal. I can't bare my legs touching and so wear leggings the majority of the time. She wears dark pe shorts under her summer dresse and there are a few in her cass that do it.

Miaow don't despair you're not alone. I never could one and thought you either could or couldn't. However, I recently learnt that unless you have a certain aptitude for such things, they can be taught. If you really want to learn, start with bunny hops and make those wider and farther. You will get there eventually (especially you are under 10).

My daughter has always worn girls boxer shorts. They are so much nicer. It's not because I was worried about her flashing because we live in a hot country where children spend most of their time wearing only underwear, but it was because I spent my childhood with my baggy knickers riding up and making me permanently uncomfortable. The same reason my boys wear fitted boxers rather than briefs. Knickers and underpants are both really annoying items. I wouldn't buy one pair, let alone a second pair to cover the first ones.