Indirect discrimination in school policies

[Vanillanelle]

I've realised that the school dress code (non uniform school) that I haven't read since my kid started 7 years ago is indirectly discriminating against girls (mixed school). The principal won't be thrilled about being challenged on it but the members of the governors I know might be more open to discussing it. Any suggestions for how to go about constructively bringing this to the school, resources I can cite, etc?

What is the dress code? (My assumption would be that skirts are not allowed?)

Is your child still at the school? Presumably the dress code is split by sex, and is more specific and restrictive for girls than it is for boys?

I've just realised, I didn't say in my OP, this is a primary school, so children up to 12 years old.

No, the code just refers to "children" rather than boys or girls. But many of the clothes that are specifically named are clothes that are typically worn by girls, eg, short shorts/skirts, off the shoulder tops, etc. The policy was introduced in 2018 following a consultation, but what I can find in my emails, the consultation had no reference at all to a dress code (I completed it) and a draft final policy wasn't circulated for parents' review before it was signed off by the governors. It came to my attention as the policy was recently highlighted to the girls, but not boys, of the oldest classes.

I've done enough drop offs and pick ups to have never seen clothes that fall outside the bounds of the policy and I'm cross that this has been highlighted to the girls and not across the whole year group or to the parents.

I agree that highlighting the policy to girls only and not everyone, is appalling.

However, I'm not sure why you feel the policy is indirectly discriminatory? It sounds like it doesn't mention boys or girls specifically, and, if you consider stereotypical girls and boys choice, then girls simply have more choices so you'd expect girls' clothing to be mentioned more.

Unless the "girls" rules are massively stricter than the boys rules or the boys could wear something the girls couldn't I'm not sure of your point?

No, there aren't "girls'" rules per se, but one rule says no short shorts - how many shorts marketed to girls in any high street store contain the same amount of material as shorts marketed to boys? And a no underwear on show rule - how about a 5 year old doing cartwheels or handstands in the yard or pe? One sex is more likely to be wearing a skirt or dress than the other. That fits my understanding of indirect discrimination.

It just means wear shorts under your dress. Everyone does that anyway.

They have probably had a talk on it because one or two girls have been pushing the boundaries.

I couldn't get het up about this

I get your point but i have a feeling they'll avoid any complaints by using the fact that the terminology used was "children" and then arguing that one or two items could be unisex. Like short shorts or boys wearing the top of their underwear(either on purpose or by accident) on view(which I bet has never been enforced) or whatever else they can find.

The no underwear one really pisses me off too (especially for little ones) and I brought it up several times at the school DD is at and at any schools I've worked in.

I get your point but i have a feeling they'll avoid any complaints by using the fact that the terminology used was "children" and then arguing that one or two items could be unisex.

You don’t avoid discrimination by just saying ‘children’ if policies affect one group of students more than another.

Do you want children (including girls by default) to wear short shorts, have their underwear on show and wear off the shoulder tops to school? The school obviously had parents with no common sense who allowed this and so the rules were put in place . I am not sure what you want to achieve other than a fight where there maybe doesn't need to be one. Look more to society where boys and men where more practical clothing and woman are encouraged to wear exposing clothing . Not sure what your point is. Not sure what year your child is in but saying you've not looked at dress code since year 7 reads like this hasn't been a daily worry for you.

If there's something that boys are allowed to wear that girls aren't, that's a problem.

But it sounds more like your problem is that clothing marketed towards girls is actually unsuitable for wearing it to school. Of course underwear shouldn't be on display so anyone who wants to do handstands can wear trousers or can wear shorts under a skirt whatever sex they are. Of course shoulders should be covered, you are dressing for school not for the beach. Shops sell what there's a demand for so don't buy the clothing that is unsuitable for school

I can only think of skirts relating to biological sex where older girls are wearing them when on their period, to avoid a pad being seen. 10 year olds wearing a skirt when on their period are unlikely to be doing cartwheels.

School suitable clothing is available to fit both sexes.

No underwear on show also dealt with the fashion for boys to wear trousers halfway down their backside (or even lower) so that you could see their boxers. Rationale: far too time from 2015-18 telling boys we really didn't want to be seeing their pants or bottoms and to pull their trousers up. And no vests as outerwear works for both sexes.

Just because it was more likely that girls would turn up on an own clothes day wearing cycle shorts and a crop top, that doesn't mean the boys can wear exactly what they want - even if the most likely outfit would be a football shirt and football shirts if hot.

no underwear on show

It would help if schools didn’t insist on white blouses or shops sold ones with thicker material.

My daughters didn’t wear ‘modesty shorts’ under their summer dresses in infants school. Why should they?

On the other hand my niece’s private school definitely does discriminate when it comes to uniform. The boys wear grey trousers. The girls have to wear very expensive, dry clean only, woollen kilts that cost three times as much as the trousers. They also wear tights with them and we all know they are a consumable.

The boys parents will be buying countless pairs of those trousers as their boys grow.

My girls wore the same three skirts all the way through secondary school.

You’d be better off using this energy, taking a stand against the designers/manufacturers/retailers of girl’s clothes. The policy dictates more around clothes generally worn by girls because as a rule, it is clothes for girls that are more inappropriately or impractically designed. Are the school supposed to create problems with (traditionally) boy’s clothes just to even things out?

So what traditionally boys clothes would you like the school to mention as inappropriate in their policy to even things out?

I agree with you that they shouldn't have just talked to the girls about clothes but make sure you check this is what actually happened before you complain.

I wouldn't consider a brief glimpse of underwear as a small child does a cartwheel to be "underwear on show". That's more likely to refer to the half mast trousers (normally a boy thing) and skirts so short they are virtually a belt (which I wouldn't have thought were a thing at primary level anyway).

There are plenty of girls shorts available that would be acceptable to the school. Too short shorts are not appropriate school wear.

I think OP needs to be careful what she is protesting, as the response may be simply that everyone has to wear a top (with shoulders covered) and trousers (not too tight and not exposing underwear).

Girls can wear trousers under these rules though.

I think it is fair to remind the 'older girls' of the rules if it is the older girls who are breaking them.
If it were boys with low slung trousers showing their underpants they would do the same.

Tbh when it comes to shorts, it's a pain to buy any nice ones that aren't too short in my eyes. I normally end up buying boys' . They're cheaper too .

I'm a teacher and I'm afraid I disagree with you. In fact I have just had a similar discussion with some female students on a school residential trip. They were angry because I challenged them about wearing tiny shorts and very cropped/low-cut/partially seethrough tops. They told me it's sexist because none of the boys are being challenged for their clothes, and they are just wearing whats in fashion, and I am victim-blaming. I told them to consider why it is that fashions for men never seem to involve exposing their butt-cheeks or midriff, and maybe they should direct their anger to the fashion industry or to society at large.

Regarding OP's school uniform dress code: you can't blame a school for quite rightly banning pupils from showing underwear/shoulders/midriffs. Blame society for consistently marketing these items to girls only.

Ok I've got one.

Boys allowed white ,brown or black socks/tights.
Girls only allowed white ,cream or brown socks/tights.

Majority of the boys wear black, cheap, available everywhere,don't show dirt after a 5 minute walk.

No one can answer why girls can't wear black, except for the ridiculous "it doesn't go with the uniform".

I presume your daughter’s skirts didn’t have to remain knee length (as my niece’s kilts do) and were not dry clean only?

Re boys underwear on show a few years ago, are we forgetting girls thongs?