School brings in trousers only rule for all pupils - schoolgirls said to be in tears ...

[IwantToRetire]

Schoolgirls have been left "in tears" after a controversial new uniform rule was enforced at the start of the school year, with furious parents claiming some pupils were stopped from attending lessons.

The row has erupted after Co-op Academies Trust introduced a trousers-only policy across its secondary schools from September.
Some families have refused to accept the change, with pupils at Co-op Academy Failsworth in Oldham arriving for their first day back on Wednesday wearing skirts.

Parents claim that a number of Year 11 girls were not allowed into class, with other pupils affected when they returned on Thursday.

The policy also applies at Co-op Academy Walkden, Co-op Academy Swinton, Co-op Academy North Manchester, Co-op Academy Manchester and Co-op Academy Belle Vue.

Full article https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/schoolgirls-tears-being-turned-away-100800000.html

If the accounts mentioned earlier are reasonably accurate, then doubtless (awkward parents of) boys will now stop complaining about the sexism of the school letting the girls not follow the uniform rules when the boys had no choice...

(And I thought the T word was verboten here!)

As I drop my sons off for school, in the height of winter I see girls coming to school in skirts that barely cover their knickers, bare legs and often no coats. I imagine there is a lot of social pressure to dress this way as nothing else would explain such stupidity when it is actually snowing.

i think making them all wear trousers is an excellent idea. It also means neither the girls, their teachers or the girl’s parents will waste their time and energy obsessing about the lengths of skirts and perhaps can focus instead on actual lessons.

i don’t care about expressing individuality, this isn’t a fashion show. I they can strut their stuff in their best clothes outside school. The whole point of a school uniform is to make what a child actually wears a non issue.

Black trousers are very forgiving in hiding any bleeds. They can also be bought pretty much anywhere in whatever style, size or fabric the pupil prefers.

In your line of sight? How tall are you?!

M&S is not easy to come by. No m&s anywhere near us locally. And the majority of parents do not shop at m&s for uniform! 😂

Easy to come by is supermarket ranges and cheaper high street options like primark. M&S is out of range for a large percentage of school parents.

good job the supermarkets sell them as well then isn’t it?!

The school cares what fabric it is, so they probably won't allow it.

The barrier isn't me. The barrier is schools insisted on particular vendors and clothing styles for uniforms instead of saying "any grey pinafore dress, any grey trousers".

That's part of the legislation, to stop there being a single supplier who can price gauge. There should be a maximum of 3 items (plus tie for secondary) that can only be purchased from a single supplier.

Christ you do realise this is a theoretical operation pinafore dont you? Theoretical HMS Pinafore. Not a real pinafore.

How long are you going to keep this up?

Supermarkets sell school uniform skorts for 15/16 year olds?

And you have a link to the item to share?

I can't even find revere collar shirts for dd in supermarkets! Haven't found boys shirts/trousers in any size past 12-13 ish for ds all summer!

To be fair, if someone is several metres in front of you then it would be line of sight – and despite not being a pervert, I do find I notice when a teenage girl is wearing something very exposing, as it’s rather shocking and so tends to draw the eye before I (obviously) avert my gaze. I don’t want to see anyone’s pants/bum cheeks, let alone those of a child.

When I was at school, the other girls absolutely rolled (although not to that extent!) in order to show off to each other, to be ‘edgy’, and to be sexually provocative. I don’t think that’s appropriate in a school, and the level of sexual self-objectification is really disappointing to see as a feminist.

Out of stock becuase of the start of the year (and this one does only go up to age15!) but

https://direct.asda.com/george/school/girls-school-skirts/black-school-girls-skorts-2-pack/G008258553,default,pd.html?redirectFromInt=1&srsltid=AfmBOoqgr07iO4RRW7DMkyuCNpFFQyOQqQgJ00q9dSM2kWCFBw48k5biZoE

I am sure the others do other types as well.

m&s do other ones for £9 which can be delivered

amazon have a huge selection.

they are not difficult to come by and if there is more demand from schools they will increase the ranges.

Why would "transition" be verboten? This thread is about school uniform rules.

If the school wasn't applying its own rules consistently before, that's a separate matter.

I am talking about the sex discrimination by association that the parents face because of having girl children instead of boy children. I am talking about the sex discrimination that the girls themselves face.

The parents of existing male pupils whose uniforms from last year still fitted didn't have to shell out for a new uniform item to satisfy a rules change. The parents of existing female pupils did, solely because of the rules change.

The existing male pupils turned up in the uniform they wore last year and went to class unimpeded. The existing female pupils who did the same were sent home.

Honestly, if I was one of the parents affected, I'd be submitting a FOI to ask for the Equality Impact Assessment about the rules change and all emails and meeting minutes concerning the rules change. I'd be writing a formal complaint to the chair of govenors and I'd be seeing if my home insurance covered legal advice.

The families of dozens of girls, and only girls, have been financially disadvantaged explicitly because they have daughters. The girls whose parents couldn't afford to, or refused to, replace a perfectly good skirt were punished in a way that no boy could be under this rule change. This is a feminist issue.

Fair enough.

Probably still not an option yet, but if demand increased and more styles/bigger sizes were available it could be a future option.

Not enough supply to have a whole cohort of girls in skorts though. Trousers are still the most feasible option at present.

I never understand why this question gets asked about these subjects. You're telling me you cant see someones arse cheeks and knickers when they're walking in front of you with their skirt rolled up high? Of course you can

And funny enough one of the several objections to trousers on this thread has been that apparentlly you cant hide sanitary towels that effectively wearing trousers because they show the bulge. Quite how, in black polyester trousers I do not know, but lets say they do, I will ask the same question, how tall are you to see that in your line of sight?

How long are you going to pretend that school-approved pinafores suitable for post-pubescent girls are just as easy to find as back-to-school skirts?

I havent pretended they were easy to find, I was giving an example of what they could use instead. Which Ive told you already. Are you having trouble today?

You could however, argue that the school is stopping sex discrimination by moving to trousers only. My dd's tartan skirts are £22 a pop where as the boys can buy supermarket black school trousers.

Its just depends how you spin it!

You've heard of camel toe, yes? That's what women with deep pelvises get when wearing "smart" polyester school or office trousers.

Now put a pad under those trousers. It's going to show, and it's going to be uncomfortable.

The example you gave, a school would reject as inappropriate. That's the problem.

It's not the change in uniform that's sexist, it's the failure to allow existing female pupils to wear the uniform from last year their parents have already paid for on the same terms as the existing male pupils.

A phased transition to trousers wouldn't have been a problem.

Tangentially, my daughter and I (both different heights/body shapes) tend to find men's low and mid rise trousers very comfortable (sometimes taking up hems) to wear - often more so than women's trousers/jeans. They have a very roomy crotch depth, and as long as they're not higher rise and sit at or just above the pelvic bones, then the waist/hip ratio doesn't matter.

That's a pretty weak argument though.
Blazers/ties that get worn for years need a transition. But shirts/trousers are often (not always) bought every year.

Why wear a uniform at all?

All these girls happily wear trousers out of school sorry. It’s not hard

I went through three skirts and two jumpers and two sets of shirts (three for a week, not five). The third skirt was only because my idiot dad repaired a split seam with linen button thread "so it wouldn't split again" so next time it went, the fabric tore instead of the stitches breaking. He had the decency to spring for the replacement, at least.

We didn't have blazers but I would have needed two for the growing I did.

When your mum can't afford to put the hot water on every day but she's the one the divorce settlement says buys the uniforms, you don't get new shirts until the old ones are threadbare or you are bursting out of them.

The news article explicitly mentioned year elevens. They are the exact set of kids whose parents will be thinking "new uniform for one year? Nah".

A phased transition is exactly how my school handled a uniform change for all uniform items, including socks and tights. It's perfectly reasonable.