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

Well, quite. The French manage without them.

As someone without much spare budget for frivolous things, I appreciate a uniform because it means they wear the same thing day in and out, and mostly just need very cheap clothes for slobbing about in at home after school, plus only a few 'going out' outfits. It does save money for many people, as there's no constant pressure to keep up with what the other kids wear (not that mine would care, tbh).

I'm glad things have changed, @OtterlyAstounding , cos I still remember when i passed the 11-plus to go to grammar school, the blazers were massively more expensive than those at the local sec mod, and were nowhere near as warm and practical, being barathea (a word I’ve never typed in my life!). I STR they were over 40 quid. This would have been in 1964. I think that was a lot of money back then.

Oh wow! That's extremely expensive! I suppose it must vary by school as to the cost

Uniforms are still relatively expensive where I am (NZ), but my children's school is fairly average, and all you really need are two shirts (£20 each, converted pricing), one pair of trousers (£30), a pair of shorts (£25), a tie for the girls (£8!), and a jacket (£40) to get by. Jumpers and blazers are optional. It’s expensive as an initial outlay, but the uniform lasts most kids at least two years if bought slightly too big, and can be handed down/sold on – and is still cheaper than buying mufti to be worn every day, which kids want to be stylish/branded/new.

OMG I cannot understand the ‘trousers in the summer are a health risk’ or ‘why do girls have to look like boys’ comments. They are trousers. I have worn jeans/trousers 95% of the time for 21 years and never been mistaken for a man nor had issues with cystitis/UTIs because of it. I do like a skirt/dress and recently bought half a dozen pf them, but trousers are so easy and more practical.

They are just an item of clothing that: ensures girls cannot be ‘up-skirted’ on staircases/under desks; that girls can’t roll them so high that a) they look bizarrely pot bellied from the excess fabric at their waists and b) they cannot flash their underwear off to all and sundry; the modesty of girls from faiths requiring they cover more of themselves is automatically preserved so school doesn’t have to engage in complaints from religious parents; and, yes, it removes the whole circus over which uniform a trans identifying child of either sex should wear, because it is now the same.

Long overdue in my opinion.

Yes. It was a covert way of keeping “undesirables” out of grammar schools!

If women hate trousers so much, why is it so difficult to find skirts? I go into M&S or FatFace or any other store and what I see is trousers, trousers, trousers, a few dresses, and maybe the odd skirt. All my female colleagues come to work in trousers. My love of skirts - I even have hiking skirts - is often commented on.

Frankly it's beyond me why school uniform isn't tracksuit bottoms and t-shirts. That would be the most sensible thing for them to wear.

You're really making a mountain out of a molehill there.

It's partly about fitting in, partly about girls being persuaded to think their value lies in being objects of sexual attraction. A girl who wears trousers or refuses to roll-up her skirt is seen by her peers, not entirely incorrectly, as quietly criticising the rest of them. Girls from religious backgrounds may get a pass; their understanding has at least advanced that much.

I would love to know if girls at single sex schools keep their skirts rolled once they get to school.

But even if not a uniform then they could still say no skirts. Would that be ok to ban if it was their own clothes?

Not all girls roll up their skirts and those that do not all of them roll it up that short. Most don’t bother. It is certain girls who took it too far which then meant every girl was then affected.

If a girl is flouting the uniform rules and wearing their skirt so short that her underwear is on show, then accuses a member of staff of perving at her when said member of staff pulls her up on it, then yes, the blame absolutely lies with the girl.

but ALL girls are being blamed.

Yep same here, so I wear bigger trousers

I'm all in favour. About 20 years ago the girls at my old school wrote an open letter asking to be allowed to dress the way almost all women at work do, rather than in a uniform more like something in fetishist images than anything a woman in retail, business or farming would wear during the day.

And they were listened to, black trousers uniform from then on. Plenty of choices of styles in Dunnes or Penneys/Primark.

Two points - this is in Ireland where secondary school summer term ends at the end of May, and where skirts are much less usual work wear than they are in England. Anyway, everyone was happy, until - a new male headmaster decided 'girls look nicer in skirts' and the uniform reverted.en in a position of power.

The girls are there to study, not to look nice for powerful men.

The local co-ed school still has a trousers and jumper uniform for all pupils.

I’m afraid your memory hasn’t served you well. The grammar school blazer may well have been more expensive, but it certainly wouldn’t have cost £40 - unless you went to Eton!
On average, Barathea blazers cost around £5 in 1960. By the time I started grammar school in 1971 the same blazer would have been around £16. My wool / barathea blazer lasted me 5 years because the idea was to get one bigger to ‘grow into’.
My sister went to the secondary modern school - they didn’t have blazers. The vast majority of uniforms were wool or mixed fibres in the 60s and 70s.

All girls who flout the rules. I would,d hazard a guess that the girls who do t flout the rules aren’t that bothered and just get in with it instead of starting an argument for arguments sake.

ah yes those good girls who get on with it and don’t complain. You either push the boundaries and roll your skirts up or you are meek and mild and don’t care about these things.

it is horrifying the stereotypes in this thread.

girls have had this choice for ever. They now have less choice which to me is a backwards step. I simply see it as a chipping away of girls rights one tiny bit at a time. You might think it’s nothing but I find it frightening how things are going now.

Big step in the right direction - dress inline with the school uniform (proper length skirt) or as at this school, you can’t be trusted to wear a skirt. Do parents really want their daughters walking around with skirts the length of their knickers - hardly attractive- they are just attention seekers.

Again! NOT ALL THE GIRLS!!

omg I am genuinely getting worried now. Let’s collectively shame all girls because they MiGHt wear short shirts.

We all managed without them. And there was far less horrible shaming of girls. Far less spent on shit polyester clothing, and far less of the stupid petty power struggles.

It's the laserfocus on girls' appearance that seems to be the issue, to me.

The boys just recede into the background, while girls get shit whatever they do or don't do.

It isnt all girls
we have laws even though not all men are perverts and the same applies here

Preteen/Teenage girls often don't have a clue about sex or the social rules or consequences. When they wear a short skirt, it's often because that's what the girls in the years above do, or the girls in music videos, or onTiktok.

Ascribing some quite damning motivations and intent to them is inaccurate and doesn't help. Suggesting they are deliberately and calculatedly inviting sexual attention is projection. A 12 year old girl has only a faint understanding of any of it, unless things have gone badly wrong.

Pubertal girls are not young children, but they're not women either. Body shapes are changing, they are often between child's clothing and still too small for women's clothing. It is somehow very hard to find decent, wearable uniform that families can afford.

wear trousers doesn’t make girls look like boys. I wear trousers, I don’t look like a man.

My children's school has done this.
There have been lots of complaints, but in fairness to the school there has been no requirement for the trousers to be made from a particular fabric. They have also opened up the choice of styles permissable massively and provided a visual guide, so that if you cannot find the ones linked in the right size you can buy any pair that looks similar to any of those pictures.

As Pps have said the Halara one have proved to be very popular with larger girls who struggled with skirts. They are allowed to wear tailored shorts all year round if they wish, although most girls would rather wear trousers.
At the end of last term (for most of the half term) when we had heatwave conditions, they were allowed to wear their PE kits every day to be more comfortable And stay cool. Some of the girls wear very short shorts and this has never been commented on, and so I genuinely believe the issue with skirts is the underwear / cheeks on show.

I have been a secondary school teacher in the past and the problem does seem to have become worse. Skirts have always been rolled but I don't remember seeing underwear or cheeks when a teacher ( boys - yes and that was always addressed, and according to my son is addressed at their school too), whereas I have in town here before the uniform policy changed, and sadly it was probably about half, rather than a minority.
I think the school has handled it as best they can, although if you read Facebook and the local press, you'd never think so. Also, in fairness I have not heard the very tired narrative of "it's distracting" from the school, which is clearly completely wrong. However, I do think that it's fair to say, underwear and bums on show have no place in a professional environment where the clientele are minors, regardless of the gender of the student.
My daughter has just started at the school and has no issue with the uniform. I do wish they had allowed culottes or skorts, but they have at least given them plenty of choice.
The school also made the point that constantly having to confront significant numbers of students about dress code violations several times a day was negatively impacting relationships between staff and students and I also think that's fair. As Pps have said, teachers don't want to waste so much time on clothing. Hopefully it can now be better spent.