School skirt policy - could you help me organise my thoughts?

[NigellaAwesome]

I used to be so articulate. Between menopause & a PTSD diagnosis I find I just cannot order my thoughts and find the correct words anymore, so I am hoping some on here can help me?

DD's school are planning to change the school skirt from a standard 6 panelled straight skirt, to a fully 360 pleated affair just below the knee. The reason is to promote modesty and discourage girls from rolling their skirts up at the waistband.

I am no fan of rolled up skirts - I think it looks awful, but something about the proposed change doesn't sit well with me. DD complains that all the girls are routinely kept back after assembly, eating in to their break time, to have their skirt lengths inspected. Meanwhile, boys, who had shirts hanging out, or wearing hoodies in contravention of school uniform policy had nothing said to them.

Quite apart from the double standards, there is something about conveying a message to girls that they are responsible for managing their own modesty / others' perceptions towards them that doesn't sit well with me.

I suppose the flip side of the coin is that school is partly about preparing our children for the world of adulthood and work, in which there are expectations of appropriate dress code, and there is nothing wrong with the proposal - but something just doesn't feel quite right about it. It feels a bit puritanical / handmaidish tbh.

The school have requested parents' views on the new policy, and I want to respond, but cannot articulate my thoughts properly. Could anyone help me order my thoughts?

Schools that I have been to or friends or nieces/nephews, neighbours kids etc uniform regarding skirt length has always been knee length or below the knee. There’s nothing wrong with this. My feedback based on what you have said would be “Can I check the consequences for uniform infringements e.g shorter length skirts for girls and boys having shirts tucked out”.

Pleated skirts can be rolled......

*propose, not proposes.
I still think trousers are the most practical solution. As long as non-skinny is specified - otherwise they will all wear leggings.

Thank you everyone. Here is my draft response, however even I recognise it is too wordy & waffly...

'I am not supportive of a change of skirt. My reasons for this are for even-handedness, cost, and environmental reasons.

The focus of this change appears only to be policing girls' appearance and standard of dress, which I think gives a very damaging message to both girls and boys. With regard to the length of the school skirts, the insistence on having the skirt length below the knee appears to be unnecessary and excessive. In my opinion it is reasonable to ensure skirts are long enough so that underwear is not on show, but beyond that I cannot see the problem with girls' knees being visible.

My child's perception is that standards of uniform are not addressed evenly between the sexes in XXXXX school. The perception is that girls are kept back after assembly to have skirts inspected, yet boys are not challenged for wearing shirts not tucked in, or wearing hoodies to school. If standards of uniform are to be enforced, smartness in dress should be enforced for both sexes - otherwise it’s suggesting that girls appearances matter more than boys.

In terms of cost - girls already face a higher burden for the cost of uniform due to having to buy skirts from specified suppliers rather than boys, who are able to buy low cost trousers from generic providers such as supermarkets. The introduction of a new style of skirt will prevent families from being able to pass skirts down to siblings or for parents to be able to purchase skirts second-hand. I note the proposal to allow both styles of skirt during the 2023/24 academic year, and for the new style to be compulsory from September 2024, however this does not adequately allow for the fact that within a year, all families of girls will be required to purchase a new skirt. I would ask if a Section 75 assessment has been conducted on this issue.

The same issue applies to environmental reasons - despite the proposed introduction date, this still means that in excess of 500 girls will be required to purchase new skirts in the coming year, some unnecessarily.

I would request that school considers these points, and my suggestion would be that whilst the new skirt style could be introduced, it is done alongside the existing skirt style for an indefinite period rather than enforcing a replacement skirt within a set timescale.

As a teacher who has seen many bums and more over the years, I do think we need to address the issue of modesty with girls. I don’t mean this by changing the uniform and giving this as the reason though. I agree that trousers for all would be a much better option. Walking up stairs (think of the stair cases), you really get an eyeful if you look up. This is purely down to skirt length as some were so short. There were some girls who chose not to wear underwear. This would never have been a conversation I would ever have had with a child as a female member of staff so I have no idea if it was on purpose or not. The boys all would specifically look at girls walking up- it was just right there in front of them and pretty impossible to not see it really. Something needs to be done but I agree, I don’t like the idea of telling girls what they can or can’t wear for “modesty” reasons. I can see why the school wants to try and change something though.

It's just not true that you can't roll up pleated skirts. So if that's why the school want them, they are incorrect about that basic fact.

Your letter is good.

Round where I was the difference between the long kilt-type Vs the standard "school" type skirts was that the kilts were always and definitely meant to be well below the knee. So any visible knees meant the dress code wasn't being obeyed. Rather than needing negotiations over whether there was 1 inch of thigh showing or two and were skirts being rolled up or did the person in question have ling legs etc etc etc. Which ends up taking more time than a uniform regulation which is clearly enforceable.

I don't know if that's the thinking here, but I think that was the thinking where I have seen it before.

It doesn't negate any of the points about hand-me-downs or environmental impact though.

Modesty is crap as a reason but our school made this change and it has been great. The reality wasn’t fear of knees but rather horror at the sheer number of arse cheeks, bum cracks and gussets one would see in a day. The fashion is for just over the bum cheek. It’s not a good look for school or work. Now we have plenty of girls in trousers because they hate the skirts and plenty in the skirts which are much harder to roll up so much due to bulk but also because the degree of flare necessitates more length.

Girls are liberated from the slow thighs together shuffle and can once again enjoy the delights of moving their legs in strides. I don’t want to see anyone’s arse at school and suspect your school feels the same.

the kilts were always and definitely meant to be well below the knee.

But what does that mean...meant to be below the knee. Says who?

Wherever they are meant to be, they aren't below the knee at our secondary school.

I just really hate these suggestions that all girls should wear trousers. How is that a useful suggestion to take away an option from the girls?

Some may not suit trousers. Some may not want to wear trousers. Why remove the choice?

My DD was horrified when the girls in her year were rounded up and sent to the hall to have their skirts measured before being lectured about modesty and “their own safety” and mentioned being distracting for boys/male staff.

I wrote a strongly worded email to the school saying that their focus on girls’ clothing being a cause for boys’ poor behaviour was misogynistic and that any male teacher who had an issue concentrating when confronted with girls’ clothing, shouldn’t be working in a school.

To shame girls for the way they dress sends out entirely the wrong message about their responsibility to police boys’ behaviour.

I did concede that correct uniform was important, but that - as others have mentioned - this should be dealt with in conjunction with the wrong coloured socks, hoodies being worn on school premises and extreme haircuts/inappropriate jewellery or make up, which contravene school rules too.

Hate the suggestion of banning skirts. Some girls are more comfortable in skirts than in trousers. Trousers do not suit all shapes. I would not have welcomed that development at all.

'Male as default' is incredibly irritating.

We have the pleated skirts, it doesn’t stop them rolling up and they are worse because they stick out. And as a teacher or member of staff it’s a nightmare, if you say something to certain girls you get accused of perving, if you don’t you get a telling off from slt for not enforcing school rules. I mention that rolling them spoils the line and makes them lumpy round the middle.

We have those pleated skirts, they are fine, practical, look nice and there is nothing wrong with girls wearing them.
I would not be complaining about this at all

I don't get what's so bad about modesty? Like anyone not in a micro-skirt must be some Puritan.

There are girls that wear their skirt so short to the point where it's not suitable for girls that age. It shouldn't be about lecturing on safety or blaming. But it's just not appropriate for a school. You can have fun and experiment with mini skirts on the weekend.

Really don't see the issue with a slightly longer skirt.

I’ve always found more pleats are worse for blowing up with a gust of wind/running around etc. this sound silly when the cost of living crisis is going on, never mind the sexism aspect. Instead of making everyone wear wear trousers, make everyone wear ankle length kilts. Then everyone can be modest/immodest, depending on how much they roll them up.

Wrote a long reply and deleted but basically to say, it's a good letter but in principle I would prefer longer skirts (as an option for either sex) with a trousers option and ideally a shorts option too. This is presuming that the skirt option allows for socks to be worn alongside. My dd's school got taken over by an academy chain and the logo skirt option was brought in, the only option to be worn with it was 40 denier (minimum) tights. The rationale given was to stop boys taking photos on their mobile phones as the girls walked up glass staircases. My dd assured me that the boys at her school weren't like that, it was a phone free school and didn't have any glass staircases.
I mean it's better to have longer skirts which can be worn with socks than having to wear thick tights year round.

Ours had pleated skirts. They still rolled them up so they all had a huge roll round the waist. It wont work is my only reason.

The correct length for a kilt is that the hem touches the ground when the wearer is kneeling down.

that’s how we measure them in Scotland.

it’s ridiculous that some schools think skirts have to be a specific style and bought from a specific shop. What’s wrong with “navy blue or black, knee length”? And accepting that some will roll them up.

Pleats at DC's school, still get rolled up.

I altered kilts to short-mode by removing pleated waistband and top 20 cm and replacing with a broad band of ribbed jersey elastic. The result is good when worn with a sweater over: kilt at DC's preferred length (mid thigh), soft and comfy waistband, no need to roll, and a sleek, smooth silhouette on account of not having a fat wadding of pleats around the middle. Nobody has pulled her up on her altered kilt.

But what we really want is shorts. This would be the best thing ever!

Quite apart from the double standards, there is something about conveying a message to girls that they are responsible for managing their own modesty.

Perhaps I'm not fully understanding the gist, but who else would be responsible for managing the modesty of an individual as determined by their choice of clothing? Boys definitely flaunt the dress code but they don't seem so keen to have their buttocks poking out of their shorts as girls do.

I hated this the constant policing of women’s bodies - ds wore skimpy trousers he was almost bursting out of - (it was lockdown - he had a growth spurt) no comments about his hems being too short. Dd got detention for her skirt. I detest cheap polyesyer uniforms - they look hideous - not smart, they have no place in a modern workplace. Dress for the job - jeans and a sweat shirt is all that is need - goddamn HTs and their vanity projects.

I think it's best to have a uniform that both sexes can choose from, including a kilt-style skirt. So::shirt, jumper, blazer, trousers and skirt. Also, uniform inspections are for both sexes.

DD's school is girls only and she can wear trousers if she wants to. Some girls from certain religious and/or cultural backgrounds wear trousers or an ankle-length skirt, or an abaya in school colours approved by the Head. They get checked at the gate for any infractions by the Head and one of her assistants.

Why not get all the children to wear skirts? Why does it have to be trousers?

I don't agree with this at all. My DD has never wanted to wear trousers to school and why should she be forced too?