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

Quite possibly, yes.

You've never worked with teenagers, have you? Or at least, not recently.

Yes you did. But I was specifically responding to the bit I quoted. You know, the bit where you said you're surprised people are angered by this. They are angry because they've had an option removed.

I do think girls rolling their skirts up can be an issue. I guess if trousers are the only option then there needs to be more choice for styles. Like there was in the 90s. So it is easier to find a style that fits.

It isn't that simple. You can't just send your child to any secondary school you want. Parents don't have a real choice in many areas.
And it doesn't surprise me that some girls might be in tears. Trousers especially school trousers don't suit every girl. And they can be particularly uncomfortable and impractical during your period.

Cringe!

Who cares what fabric its in, you're completely splitting hairs. The design is a solution. But no matter, trousers are also a solution and already in place for these girls

whats the point you are making?

SOME girls will push boundaries by wearing too short a skirt or trousers that are super tight. I am sure if a teacher reprimand them they will kick up a fuss

but I will always side on the fact the girls have a right to choose clothes that they feel comfortable in. Some girls will prefer skirts and some trousers. This has been the case for over 70 years. There is absolutely no reason why in the year 2026 anything has changed that should warrant girls no longer having that choice.

A lot has changed.
A hell of a lot.

If you worked in schools and/or with teenagers you you be well aware.

So let’s blame the girls then rather than deal with the problem.

Yes, I'm surprised that people who undoubtedly wear trousers on a regular basis are being angered at having to wear trousers as part of their school uniform. It's weird to be angry that you have to wear something you most likely already wear?

I'm also surprised by many of the reasons for protesting - that girls will faint, that girls can't wear trousers, that they're being made to look like boys, that they're not flattering...they're not exactly feminist (or rational) arguments. About the only argument that makes sense is that parents who have just bought school skirts shouldn't have to spend more money.

And they're not having an option removed so much as going from one singular option to a different singular option. They have as many options as the boys do.

A pp said the uniform just mandated 'smart black trousers', so girls have the option of multiples retail styles and fits - I'm sure they'll be able to find something cheaply priced that both fits them, and the uniform policy.

Once more for the slow readers:

The parents decided not to buy trousers, yet the girls are being punished.

This, and the school's money-wasting insistence that parents of existing female pupils replace last year's skirt that still fits with brand new trousers, which the year elevens will wear for just one year, are the real problems here.

This is sex discrimination. The parents of girls are taking a punch to the wallet that the parents of boys do not take. Girls alone are being punished for a rule change that their parents decide whether they can comply with.

That's kind of the point....
Teachers/school staff are not allowed to deal with the problem. So they are removing the problem. Problem solved!

Well you can double layer under a skirt - tights, shorts whatever and wear a bulky pad, folded loo roll or whatever emergency thing you have to hand. Trousers are unforgiving. You can see what's underneath.

Even if you leak down a leg you can still wipe it off. Trousers end up with a stain until they get washed.

The fact that you say that like it’s a good thing just worries me about the future

Yes, I do agree with this. Phasing the skirts out (if they can't refund the parents - unlikely!) over the next two years might be the most sensible move.

Although interestingly, at most schools where I live, the girls' uniform is more expensive than the boys' (if they don't have the option of trousers) as the skirts are usually nearly twice the price of trousers, so sex discrimination is built in. I'm not sure if that's the case in the UK though?

Girls could wear shorts under. All the teen girls I know do. The skirts weren’t the issue. It was someone looking upstairs and blaming girls.

Yes I wouldn’t be buying new for year 11!

These days parents often have to sign a behaviour contract with the school saying they will ensure their children follow the school rules, which in this country usually includes a uniform policy. (Whether it should include such a policy is different question which I have a lot of sympathy about.)

If the parents decide to break that contract on behalf of their children, they know what the consequences will be and it's on them, not their daughters or the school. That behaviour is just pure idiocy on the parents part to think that the rules they signed up to magically don't apply to them or their children.

Some of the arguments are definitely ridiculous. But I'm not sure that they've changed from one singular option to a different singular option. I assumed (maybe wrongly) that girls previously had the choice of trousers or skirts? So they have removed an option.
I guess "smart" is up for interpretation. The trousers we wore in the 90s wouldn't be allowed in the schools here these days, despite being classed as "smart trousers" back then.

If this is only about girls rolling their skirts up why are Skorts not the first option rather than trousers? Or Skorts or trousers as a choice.

I live and work in this area and there are more around me thinking it’s not just to protect the girls or teachers and is an erosion of freedom of choice for girls who are allowed to have a choice by their families.

The fact you are arguing for girls to show off their bum cheeks at school, or risk teachers being accused of heinous acts just for doing their jobs, worries me!

I very much doubt there is a single adult working in a secondary school today that doesn't understand this uniform rule, even if they wish there could be options, they completely understand why it has come to this.

Probably because the new legislation means schools cannot require too much branded uniform, and trousers can be bought anywhere. Skorts are hard to come by. Sports skorts are possible, but not school uniform style skorts.

Ah, I assumed it was only skirts before, so you could be right, and they're removing an option. I think calf length skirts or culottes being allowed seems like a good compromise.

At one point, the SLT at the school where I worked would indeed send girls home. Latterly, they would not for fear of accusations being made.

Provided the clothing was black, as required by the school uniform policy, the SLT chickened out of sending girls home.

I'm no longer teaching, but there has been a flurry of secondary school posts on local social media the past couple of weeks here and in many of the photographs girls are wearing what can only be described as tight micro-mini skirts. At least they're wearing them with black tights, however.

I'll add that I'm seeing girls going home from the local high school wearing similar skirts and boys wearing black shorts (though possibly they've had P.E. at the end of the day).

M&S do one for £12. I’d say that was pretty easy to come by

When the school changes the rules for only the girls, and does so in a way that costs girls' families money and gets girls punished whilst the boys are completely unaffected, that's sex discrimination on the part of the school.

It could been avoided with a phased transition for existing girl pupils.

Thank you for your reply that makes sense but in my local town there is a bespoke school uniform shop supplying the blazers and sports kit for local schools. This I am sure could easily be solved so girls can have a choice. Although it is owned and run by a man