Showing Ankles at school

[ArntNise]

I have received a text from my daughter's secondary school...

"It has come to my attention a considerable amount of female students are showing bare ankles. Please can I remind you that school uniform policy is long black tailored trousers, include pockets and fly, covering the ankles. Black socks to cover the ankles should also be worn. Skirts should be knee length with black tights. Thank you for your support."

I have read this and laughed. AIBU to laugh? How do I respond to the school?

PS I have name changed as part of my username was my name.

@TroubledLichen I will not be responding - my original focus was on showing ankles...

As my daughter wears tailored trousers, I hadn't thought about leggings etc., and that there would be a problem.

DSs school had a clamp down when pupils started wearing black jeans instead of school trousers.

The covering ankles thing I think is just to indicate trouser length required. Not a pearl clutching we can't have girls exposing ankles thing.

@itsbetterthanabox sandals and black ankle socks? 😀

its the fashion isnt it? skinny trousers, slightly too short, no obvious socks, and ankles showing.
Shocking stuff indeed.

I don't get the slightly too short trousers fashion, it just looks stupid.

@Sparklingbrook new male head so a lot of pearl clutching going on as he makes / leaves his mark.

yes i am really glad my daughter doesnt go for that look, for some reason i find it really irritating. I daresay some teacher got irritated as well.

It's not that the ankles are female OP - it's that currently, the students flouting the uniform rule about trousers are female. The text is just being factual (although not sure it needed to clarify the gender of the offenders, I am sure that is what it meant). Also agree with others that some studenrs will either not be wearing socks and / or wearing those awful tight as leggings type trousers which stop above the ankle or other such legwear. I doubt it's being all Victorian - it's just a sensible, practical uniform. If socks are worn, there should be no problem if trousers ride up when students are sitting down. I don't think that's the problem - it's trousers which contravene the uniform policy, to which you presumably agreed by sending your child to the school in question.

Agree it looks stupid. But teens will be teens!! I have an odd aversion to ankles being on show in trousers anyway. Even when people are wearing those sports leggings. Their ankles always look freezing.

What else has he done ArntNise?

Totally agree Lashings.

Ankles?????? I that all?
What about the good old days and rolling waist bands over until you could practically see our knicks!

@Lashings my daughter's trousers do not contravene the policy. I guess it was the wording that tickled me

Sparkling plenty of hip young men sporting an inch or so of well turned ankle in our neck of the woods.

That was skirts presumably Honky.

Yes skirts .

The sensible headteacher decides that maybe teaching the kids is more important than faffing about ankles and ignores this sort of thing.

But not ignoring pedal pushers and shorts being worn instead of the school trousers specified on the uniform list.

The wording is hilarious! But in actual fact, all it means is that the girls are following the current (predominantly female) fashion for 7/8 or ankle-grazer trousers rather than sticking to the standard uniform of full-length trousers. Presumably this hasn't caught on amongst the boys just yet.

I think it looks fine in summer, quite Audrey Hepburn-esque (though fair enough that the school don't want the uniform to be subject to whatever fashion craze happens to be in this year or next), but ridiculous in winter. We live in a very studenty town and the number of girls shivering in the street with exposed ankles while there were several inches of snow on the ground was just silly. Why not dress appropriately for the weather? Now I feel like my mother , but still!

Presumably this hasn't caught on amongst the boys just yet.

It has with my DS!

Rolled up trousers, white socks.

As school uniform is black socks, however, he doesn't do this with his school trousers - although he seems to wear the waist around his hips.

They wouldn't get away with at my daughter's school - they have to choose from a specified list of trousers; the school give product codes for M&S and the supermarkets and you have to choose from those.

People try it on of course but I don't think they get very far.

My son will be showing ankles and knees soon if he carries on growing at the rate he is at the moment.

Also I can imagine some students wearing trainer socks instead of ankle socks, so that probably comes in to play somewhere too.

You wouldn't normally see bare ankles if black socks were worn with ordinary ankle length trousers. Sounds as if people aren't adhering to uniform rules hence this Victorian type message. I feel quite sorry for the person trying to implement this. It's just this constant rule pushing which even went on in my day and that's going back a bit.

This is why schools put in place very strict uniform policies that specify the supplier: because people take the piss.

Of course a pair of formal school trousers shouldn't show your ankles. I couldn't give a shit about ankles myself, but that isn't how the uniform is supposed to be worn. 'Long black trousers' doesn't mean long shorts.

It's a non-issue. There's a vogue for kids to wear shoes without socks - I'm seeing it with school shoes at my son's primary. They want them to wear socks to school and I think that's entirely reasonable. The fact that it's highlighted bare ankles is admittedly unfortunate because it has Victorian Prudery overtones, but it's a red herring.