Just to muddy the waters a bit, (NOTE: this may be long):
The thing that originally got the parents of this school stirred up had very little, if anything, to do with the skirt banning; most of the girls at the school wear trousers anyway, and absolutely nothing to do with protecting male teachers as this wasn’t posed as part of/the problem at the time.
What actually happened was that a letter was sent to the parents last Wednesday stating that, due to the cost of policing the school uniform policy (£25,000 pa was quoted), the school had decided that ALL students would have to wear logo’d trousers- even those who were already conforming to the uniform policy – the vast majority of students - (a weekly average of 8 non-conformists has since been quoted). This was given as a done deal; no prior warning or consultation with parents/students. The letter invited parents to call one of the Head teachers’ representatives to discuss any concerns.
Said trousers would be one style, fit and colour, only available from one supplier, would cost between £16.50 and £19.50 (depending on size) and had to be pre ordered with a 7 week lead time. The supplier wouldn’t actually stock the trousers. The trousers couldn’t be looked at (for quality/fit), nor could they be tried on before purchase.
Naturally, parents were concerned that they faced having to shell out for at least 2 pairs of trousers per child at the school – with a 7 week ord er lead time, tears, dirtiness or loss could not be covered with less than 2 pairs. Trousers that could not be checked out first and if they were anything like the standard range that the school uniform supplier usually provide, would have an eye watering level of synthetic materials as well as being shoddily made – no two “same size” trousers fit the same!
Bridlington doesn’t exactly benefit from even a lower medium socio-economic status: there is a high proportion of unemployment and the few jobs that are available are minimum wage and zero hours contract; many of which are seasonal to boot.
So, £20 for a pair of trousers is no small sweat for most parents! (This on top of the rest of the uniform costs, which, for anyone with a child currently in YR8, would be the 3rd FULL uniform change in as many years by September – initial lay out at YR7, changed again in YR8 due to the school no longer being able to cite it’s “subject specialism” as part of the logo – they didn’t just change the badge, they changed the whole uniform colours, then a change of colours again at YR9 to differentiate between the lower and upper school pupils - BTW: this also includes the PE uniform x 2 (winter and summer)) so a yearly initial outlay of +£350 for each pupil: this being before they grow, lose or damage their uniform mid year etc.
When it was asked of the head what would happen to pupils who still flouted the uniform rules, she admitted that they would be isolated as per current procedure, thus rendering her argument of saving the school £25,000 pa defunct.
Parents queried the price, availability and quality of the enforced trousers – the head backtracked and said that she would investigate “other” suppliers who would be able to source better quality, fit and price options. It was pointed out that these options were already available – even Tesco stock far better quality, fit and price ranges and indeed, the vast majority of the parents used these products already without their child having once been isolated for non-conformity. She said she would take these concerns on board and give feedback at a parent consultation meeting to be scheduled later.
The article hit the papers at the weekend; suddenly the slant was safeguarding - i.e. the male teacher being made to feel uncomfortable when pointing out that a female pupils uniform did not comply to the school standards – this was news to all Bridlington School parents and caused some confusion.
After several complaints to the head teacher’s nominated representative, on Monday, parents received a further letter from the head teacher detailing the majority of concerns along with her responses. The letter ended with parents being invited to attend a parent consultation meeting THE FOLLOWING DAY (Tuesday) being held at 16:30 – not at all strategically scheduled to guarantee minimum turnout....oh no not at all 
....funny how when the school wants to promote itself, meetings are scheduled with a 18:00 start time with at least 2 if not 3 weeks notice......and let’s not forget, this new policy will not be enforced until the new school year! So why the hurry.....hey ho....
Anyway, the upshot of the meeting resulted in the head teacher stating that parents could purchase trousers from wherever they pleased BUT they had to be presented to the school prior to being worn by the student. If said trousers met the uniform policy, the parent would be issued with a “badge” to sew onto said trousers to show that they had passed the school inspection – still not sure if there will be a cost associated with the “badge”.
Anyone found altering/not sporting the badge will be sent to the isolation room.
Skirts will not feature at all for girls or boys as of the new school year.
So, bets on how long it will take for some “bright spark” to come up with the idea of purchasing one pair of trousers, presenting them to the school, getting them passed as suitable and being issued the “badge” only to sew said badge onto unsanctioned trousers then pass on the sanctioned pair to their friends for them to do the same........I’m odds on 2/1 less than 10 nano seconds!