Girls banned from wearing skirts at school

[Matt Deckard]

Next they'll have to cut their hair short.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/4116726.stm

[jamespowers]

Interesting. Why didn't they just tell them to wear skirts that hit below the knee if they wanted to protect modesty? Makes no sense to go way over to the other side. The hair may be next.
I can see it now.:
"Where do you go to school?"
"At the Broadstone Androgenous Middle School." :p

Regards to all,

J

[jitterbugdoll]

There may well be a dress code that stated skirt length, but if they don't enforce it, it is very easy to break the rules.

Now I wouldn't have been caught dead in a mini-skirt in high school--but I was a pretty conservative teen. However, in my AZ high schools (I went to two because of a move outside of one district), the dress code was stretched to the limit. Very inappropriate (lots of tank tops, halter tops, mini-skirts and short-shorts that didn’t fit or even look good), and either their parents didn’t care what their children wore, or they weren’t aware of what these girls were buying.

Now, when we briefly lived in Georgia, the dress was very strict and heavily enforced. I was almost sent home one day for wearing shorts that were too short. Mind you, the dress code stated “no more then 4 inches above the knee�, and my shorts were probably 4-5 inches above the knee—not short-shorts by any means. I was mortified—and I wasn’t revealing anything!

[jamespowers]

That sounds about right. They have rules already written that are never enforced so they decide to write new ones instead of enforcing the old ones. Great. Then they will start wearing tight, tight pants and get around the rules that way.
I find that rule writers never understand the foreseeable consequences of their rules. Writing new rules never works. Just enforce the old.

Regards to all,

J

P.S. You revealed your knee. :p

[jitterbugdoll]

The real problem is that parents are not enforcing the rules themselves. Honestly, I would never knowingly let my daughter dress like a tramp for school (and geez, so many 14-15 year olds dress like 30-year-old streetwalkers--and I know that quite a few parents not only know they dress this way, but by their clothing.) Sorry, out of the question! (And there are a number of things that I would not buy for my son either, but I digress.)

Of course they will stretch the new rules—this always happens. Didn’t you hear about the law that they tried to pass to combat the issue of women wearing their thong underwear well above the top of their pants (directly related to the disgusting trend of ultra low rise jeans and trousers)? I’ve seen women do this at the office, for goodness sakes! I guess what it comes down to is that no law will make a person classy if the class just isn’t there!

[jamespowers]

The real problem is that parents are not enforcing the rules themselves.
I guess what it comes down to is that no law will make a person classy if the class just isn’t there!

Right on both accounts. Parents who are morons ought to be inconvenienced to pick up their child, take them home, make sure that they are dressed appropriately for a learning environment and then bring the child back. A few happenings like that would fix the problem. Then again, some idiot parent would probably get the ACLU to sue and overturn decency as they have done in the past. This case was not int he US though.
I suppose there will always be people who want to look like bums. There really is no peer pressure to look classy though. The opposite actually exists. As you mentioned, training against this begins at home. Like we say in the livestock exhibition hobby---like kind breeds like kind. ;)

Regards to all,

J

[jitterbugdoll]

I would not be surprised to hear that parents are challenging dress code rules when their child is sent home--and I am sure that they same something along the lines of "this is restricting my child's right to be creative!" In my family, your right to be creative in the form of dressing like a trollop came after you no longer lived at home!

Anyway, out here we had a parent protest--and win--against a teacher who failed a senior because she did not complete her work (makes perfect sense to me--you don’t do the work, you don’t get to graduate with those that did their job!) The school board overruled the teacher and let this girl graduate--and the teacher promptly quit (which I would have done, too.) What kind of society have we created? How can we expect teachers and schools to instill the values in our children (dress, attitude, work ethics, etc.) that should be taught at home?

So true jamespowers—like kind most certainly does produce like kind.

[BellyTank]

The reasoning was on grounds of modesty, appropriateness and equity.
Maybe with conservative teen dressing in mind it is a good idea.
According to that particular article, nobody was dressing like slobs, or sluts for that matter.
B
T

[jamespowers]

"this is restricting my child's right to be creative!" In my family, your right to be creative in the form of dressing like a trollop came after you no longer lived at home!

Anyway, out here we had a parent protest--and win--against a teacher who failed a senior because she did not complete her work (makes perfect sense to me--you don’t do the work, you don’t get to graduate with those that did their job!) The school board overruled the teacher and let this girl graduate--and the teacher promptly quit (which I would have done, too.) What kind of society have we created? How can we expect teachers and schools to instill the values in our children (dress, attitude, work ethics, etc.) that should be taught at home?

As far as I am concerned, your parents were right. The child is a ward of the parents until they are of legal age. That means the parents make the rules and the child follows them. I could just see my father letting me get away with stuff like that. If I went out dressed like Right Said Fred, I would probably be dead when I got home. I suppose fear is a good thing in some cases. :p
I heard about that case in your area. Didn't she get offered several positions to teach at local private schools? I think that is where she teaches now. Sounds like the place my future children belong. ;)
It is indeed us who are responsible for the outright acceptance of deviant behavior and values. The problem is that the legal system has been working against us. You can't teach values and morals in school because that is related to religion. The courts have ruled, thanks to the ACLU, that teaching right and wrong should be separate from teaching reading and writing poorly. :p
Teddy Roosevelt said it best: "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society."

Regards to all,

J

[jamespowers]

The reasoning was on grounds of modesty, appropriateness and equity.
Maybe with conservative teen dressing in mind it is a good idea.
According to that particular article, nobody was dressing like slobs, or sluts for that matter.

I think you missed Matt's original point about being androgenous wear. That is easily provable by checking out their website. It says:

"Our policy for dress is designed to be :


a) appropriate to the particular activities which pupils encounter in school
b) supportable by all concerned - parents, pupils, staff and Governors
c) gender free so that elements of discrimination should be avoided wherever possible
d) encouraging of community spirit and identity
e) simple to understand, interpret and enforce
f) easily obtainable and maintainable
g) inexpensive"

I don't see modesty mentioned anywhere there. The whole code is extensive though. They don't even allow you to dye your hair and "there must be no jeans, cords, tracksuit bottoms or cargo/combat trousers." I can agree with almost everything there except the gender free stuff. That is my only point of contention.
The rest of the posts are based on what we don't like to see in schools here. :kick:

Regards to all,

J

[BellyTank]

The policy seems quite clearly aimed at equity rather than androgeny, which seems fair in a modern, progressive British mixed gender comprehensive/progressive school, which it seems to be.
There are also 'Schools for Boys' and 'Schools for Girls' in Britain.
Comprehensive schools should be able to offer equity if possible.
But if what you're referring to as 'androgeny' is a means to the end of equity then fair enough. We had the same issues at my High School in the early '80s. Context is the point here I believe and the context appears to be that of a modern, mixed school.

The idea of school uniforms in modern school is to create a sense of equity among students- this is a fair enough idea.

I really don't think hair cutting is a logical, sensible, or reasonable extrapolation-
B
T

[Matt Deckard]

Since when is looking like a female frowned upon? Gender neutral truly means all should look like pre-pubecant boys. Is the traditional skirt of the female gender so torid that after thousands of years we can decide society has had enough? If they are partaking in activities that are going to get the students scratched or have their clothes damaged, don't they usually change into gym attire? Anywho, I'm am against banning traditional wears, whether it be the beanie cap that boys used to wear to school or the skirt that is the traditional female wear.

[jitterbugdoll]

I'm not saying that they are dressing like slobs, but it wouldn't surprise me! When I mention the dress code in Arizona schools, I am not exaggerating. I wouldn’t wear most of the outfits I see teens wearing even as an adult—they are that bad.

However, I don’t feel I was ever discriminated against because I was a girl, regardless of wearing pants or skirts. To me, that’s a tad extreme on the PC scale. Obviously, you can’t wear dresses for every event (for physical education, or something like shop class etc.), but usually that is a common sense issue, or at least an issue that can be addressed in the class itself. For example, if you are going to be working with heavy machinery, you need to tie your hair back, avoid wearing dangling jewelry, etc. I suspect that some people were choosing to bend the rules a little too far, and the school felt that a blanket rule change would be the best way to go.

And yes, there are private schools for boys and girls here—I even have a friend that attended one. He used to be annoyed that they had to wear khaki slacks and collared shirts, plus keep their hair neatly trimmed—but in the grand scheme of things, those are not horrible rules.

And teaching right from wrong, or morals and rules, doesn't even have to tie into religion--it's just common sense/courtesy. But even if you were allowed to teach certain aspects in class, if no one is reinforcing the concepts at home, they will never stick. But alas, that is part of a much bigger societal issue!

[BellyTank]

It didn't mention that looking like a female is frowned upon.
Anyway- Girls will still look like Girls, not pre-pubescent Boys.
Practicality, mutual comfort and equity seems to be the issue.
And using the term 'Gender-Neutral' or actually 'Gender-Free' does not mean creating androgenous kids at all, it is just the term they have used to describe the school's dress policy- maybe not the perfect words to use- It's the uniforms they're referring to, not the kids or their values, or those of their parents.
If it makes English school life a better experience then it's OK.
B
T

[Big Man]

It has been my observation that the majority of the time "dress codes" and/or "policies and procedures" are developed because there is an isolated incident the school administration can't or won't deal with directly.

[Biltmore Bob]

was the girl's uniforms. I went to Catholic school. I was the first generation in my diocese to go co-ed. Up to then boys and girls were separated. Some in entirely different schools and locations. Good or bad it seemed to work.

[Brad Bowers]

You mean, you liked the girls' uniforms on the girls, right Bob? Just clarifying. :) Otherwise, that's an image I don't want in my head!

Brad

[Biltmore Bob]

I mean I wasn't wearing them or anything.

Your turn Belly Tank...

[BellyTank]

Well... the Catholic schoolgirl uniform thing does seem to have some appeal but I'm with Bob on this one-
it's for appreciation at a safe distance, not from inside the crisp blouse, ..and ... pleats...er...Bob...is this helping any..? :kick:

B
T

[jamespowers]

What I can't understand her is the reference to "equity" when it comes to boys dressing like boys and girls dressing like girls. As far as I know the dictionary tells me it has to do with justice and fairness. I do not understand how that translates to girls wearing shirts of the appropriate length instead of pants. This is not the courts. It is a school system.
A system of uniforms as mentioned by BB would be just fine. Girls have theirs and boys have theirs. Simple. That would end all the PC equity concerns. It would all be the same. Their problem is that they do not have a uniform per se. They have guidelines. A simple change from guidelines to uniform would probably solve the problem and everyone would be the same absolutely---if you are concerned about those things.
As for hair we have:
"ii) Hair – no colouring of hair – dyed, bleached, high or low lighted - no extremes of hair style – less than a No 2 cut, too many clips or bands, braiding, excessive use of hair gel, Mohican etc. The school will respect genuine cultural and religious needs"

Sounds ok to me except the last sentence. That leaves a big loophole and I could see the jerks saying that they are american indian and the Mohawk is one of his "genuine cultural and religious needs."
I agree with Matt. There is no crime in looking like the gender you are. :p

Regards to all,

J

[Biltmore Bob]

And, the patent leather shoes, white knee high socks...no BT you did not help any...

[BellyTank]

Well, it seems quite plain to me that they DO already have a school uniform.
This policy is being considered within the school uniform policy.
Nobody said there was a crime in looking like the gender you are...
It still seems based upon practicality and uniformity, not about looks.
The criteria that caused the consideration of the new policy has been brought about by teachers and school Governors, some of which are surely the students' parents and apparently the students also had input. If teachers, students and parents are for it , then OK- who else should decide what's best for them?
Not us surely...
B
T

[jamespowers]

Well, it seems quite plain to me that they DO already have a school uniform.
This policy is being considered within the school uniform policy.
Nobody said there was a crime in looking like the gender you are...
It still seems based upon practicality and uniformity, not about looks.
The criteria that caused the consideration of the new policy has been brought about by teachers and school Governors, some of which are surely the students' parents and apparently the students also had input. If teachers, students and parents are for it , then OK- who else should decide what's best for them?
Not us surely...

They have a "dress code" not a uniform. There is a difference. In the code there are various choices. In a uniform there are no choices. That is just the way it is---no optional parts and no color choices.
Second of all, where does it say it was brought about by parents and teachers? The quote I mentioned above says "supportable by all concerned - parents, pupils, staff and Governors." It doesn't say brought about by. :kick: It is just "designed to be" supported by those groups. It doesn't say it is "overwhelmingly supported by the parents teachers and staff" anywhere. If it did then it would be their choice. In fact, the BBC article says: "Some parents are unhappy at the ban and think that it has been imposed because some girls were wearing short skirts."
I have found that, in my dealings with school districts and such, they do whatever they feel like and tell you what they have decided after they have decided it. :rolleyes: This sounds no different.

Regards to all,

J

[Brad Bowers]

There was talk a while back about instituting a dress code for teachers in one school district here in Utah. Seems the teachers were dressing just as bad as the students. The teachers didn't necessarily like the idea of a dress code. Maybe they don't consider themselves professional!

Brad

[BellyTank]

Yes, they DO actually have a school uniform.
If you read the dress policy again you'll hopefully realise this.
Look at points b,d,e,f and g in the dress thing-
The 'no jeans, etc' is just removing the loopholes from the dress code which is a uniform, probably defined by colour and garment type- if the uniform trousers should be black, then they don't want cords or cargos or black jeans to be worn, they want more formal and generic clothing. That's what I read from the text- There are some sound reasons for putting teenagers in uniforms.
They do indeed have a uniform. My High School had a uniform too and the same kind of clothing exceptions-

The Board of Governors is made up of parents, community and educators.
Some parents disagreed with the proposal blaming 'too-short' (uniform) skirts.
Of course students have concerns either way, that's easy to believe.

I still don't see anything wrong with modifying the school uniform to be more suitable for all concerned.

B
T

[Matt Deckard]

"I still don't see anything wrong with modifying the school uniform to be more suitable for all concerned."

Should girls be banned from ever wearing skirts in favor of pants?

[jamespowers]

Fine.
I can see that I am not going to convince you and you are certainly not going to convince me.
I think I would wear the gray socks over the white ones though, no tie...may be the black tie...no maybe the blue stripe tie. Then I would have to decide if I want pleated front or flat front trousers. I wonder if I would wear black toe caps or wingtips. Maybe oxfords. Gee, this uniform has so many choices. I wonder how "uniform" I might actually look.
I could even see modifying the school dress code to allow students to arrive in Orwellian overalls, tennis shoes and dickeys too because it would be more comfortable and suitable for all concerned. Big Brother would like that. They are all the same They wouldn't even have to have a PE dress code. It could be used for all purposes. :rolleyes:

Regards to all,

J

[Vladimir Berkov]

At the private school I attended, all the boys had to wear blue cotton slacks and a white buttondown or polo shirt, single-colored socks and a belt. Girls could either wear the exact same thing, or one of those grey/black/white patterned pleated skirts with the outfit. Younger girls in the elementary school could wear those sort of "blouse" skirts with the two straps over the shoulders.

In all the years I went there, there was never an issue with the girls wearing skirts. Nobody ever complained that I know of. Some girls wore skirts most of the time, some wore pants most of the time.

And for gym, there was a separate uniform which we changed into which was identical for girls and boys.

[Zach R.]

Seeing as I am still in High school, I might as well add my .02 about dress codes.

(I am probably in the minority in my generation, but I dislike the over-casualness of todays society as much as some of the older members here. That being said...)

If you don't look past the surface/facade of the "Code of Conduct" of every school in my area, you'd think that they have the strictest dress codes ever: no skirts/shorts shorter than mid-thigh, no pants below waist, yada yada yada.

And they would, but I know of no school in the radius of 50 miles that actually enforces virtually any part of the dress code that they waste 50 pages of paper on in a little booklet to give to every student and their parents each year.

You could walk down the hall and you'd see people actually coming to school in those flannel pajama pants(usually with an obscene word over the rear), hotpants on the girls(I even saw one in men's swimtrunks); and on the guys you have wife-beaters, t-shirts with alcohol/drug promotions, or pants low enough that you could see approximately 2/3rds of their underpants! All of which were clearly banned in the dress code.

Years ago, my middle school actually banned flip flops after a few isolated incidents happened in the halls and some students were injured. Oh, sure, they banned them but that stopped no one from wearing them and nobody did anything else about it after the "ban."

This may seem long winded and pointless, but my point is that the schools make their dress codes seem like a big deal(and if implemented, would be) but don't enforce them after all of the pomp and circumstance over them.

[carpecaligo]

I've been in co-ed Private school my entire life. Nuns, plaid skirts & White blouse, the whole deal.
In Highschool, Our dresscode was the option of a winter & summer skirt or Kakhi pants. There was a separate Gym uniform which we ignored.
When skirt length became an issue (before my time) they added blue stockings/nylons to the dress code. - But no matter how short the girls rolled the skirts, we always wore shorts underneath.

My skirt (a couple inches above the knee) was nowhere as short as many of my classmates - But I can't remember a girl ever wearing the pants. It was just something you didn't do. The shorts underneath our skirts paired with blue stockings offered about as much coverage as we cared to have.

I can't imagine my school ever forsaking the traditional uniform for the sake of a bunch of PC equality BS.
Isn't the goal of schools not only to teach classes, but also to try and instill morals such as modesty and self respect rather than create more rules to disregard?
If girls have to wear the same uniform as boys, I forsee that terrible trend of Baggy Pants hanging off the wearers backside becoming a little more popular. Or perhaps super-tight instead.

[BellyTank]

By the way JP, you're a CAB!

Maybe it's not clear to you but in the context of England and English schools, it's quite obvious that the school has a uniform. I know for a fact that this school has a regular school uniform- be convinced- accept the fact and then the rest is easier to stomach. I lived in England for many years and have some understanding of this issue. Trousers as uniform have been available to Girls for a long time.
You can actually understand that they have a uniform from reading the school dress guide, even though the word 'uniform' doesn't appear in the text you posted. As I mentioned- that list is loophole-filling.
There is actually a photo of a girl in school uniform in the article but no mention of the word 'uniform'- it's not perfect journalism- confusing the issue and the readers- maybe not aimed at Americans and a lack of knowledge of British schooling. In Britain, readers would probably understand from the context that there is a uniform at this school.
The word 'ban' is also a stupid choice, it's not a ban of skirts per se, it's more of a deletion of uniform skirts from the uniform code- a modification of school uniform policy and rules. Semantics but could have been better worded. If the article was engineered to create a knee-jerk reaction, it certainly has- among Americans at least.
The 'skirt ban' sounds maybe more outrageous without the context of the uniform. A skirt is often optional in these type of schools, trousers are already available to Girls. All the school are doing is taking away the option of wearing the skirt.
Within the context of 'a school having a uniform', the concept is easier to understand- they can do whatever they want.

Uniforms are used in England to promote a school identity and maintain an essence of discipline and to avoid competition and aggrevation between students based on family economy- if modifications to the uniform code are going to help then it seems kind of reasonable to me, although quite harsh perhaps. Maybe PC at work for sure- but in this world, if someone complains, the matter must be addressed somehow.
It seems from what I've seen in Enhland and read just now that across the English school system, young girls are quite comfortable wearing pants- it's nothing new at all.

This is the type of uniform they have- see the trousers-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/zaphobeeblebrox/Four20girlslarge.jpg
B
T

[jitterbugdoll]

I think the real question here is--why are they *really* taking away this option of wearing a skirt? All uniform issues aside, were they having issues with the boys being able to 'control' themselves? An issue with the boys complaining that girls can wear things they can't (this issue came up in my public school, and for a brief time in the early-mid 90s you saw quite a few guys who took to wearing skirts 'just because'.) Was it simply an issue of some girls taking advantage of the rules? Plenty of American catholic schools require uniforms, and as Carpecaligo pointed out, quite a few girls wear their skirts as short as possible just for the sake of being rebellious and raising a few eyebrows. Perhaps that is what happened here--and the school either could not or would not enforce this rule, and instead chose to ban wearing skirts altogether. Zach also noted an important point—many uniforms/dress codes are written and put into effect, but not officially enforced. Conservatism is not something limited to England, and I do know that Catholic schools in America, who have equally strict uniform rules, have not sent students home even when they broke these rules. Why, I used to be friends with a girl who attended catholic school along with her older sister. Let me tell you, her sister dressed very inappropriately, and wore her skirts ultra short and with very goth/punk accessorizing (duct tape, combat boots heavily smudged eyeliner--a very non-'good catholic schoolgirl' look). And yet, I don’t think she was ever sent home because of her fashion choices…therefore, I wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘no skirts’ rule was a byproduct of girls taking advantage of the system—a rule change thinly veiled in the form of ‘gender equality’.

[BellyTank]

Well, we'll likely never know-
B
T

[ITG]

Anyway, out here we had a parent protest--and win--against a teacher who failed a senior because she did not complete her work (makes perfect sense to me--you don’t do the work, you don’t get to graduate with those that did their job!) The school board overruled the teacher and let this girl graduate--and the teacher promptly quit (which I would have done, too.) What kind of society have we created? How can we expect teachers and schools to instill the values in our children (dress, attitude, work ethics, etc.) that should be taught at home?
Oh man alive! As a teacher that infuriates me and I would have quit too. So many times parents want to challenge fair rules because they think their child is an exception to the rule. If the child doesn't put forth the effort, then by all means, they get what they deserve.

I now teach in the same school district I grew up in. Back in the early 1990s, I got caught with my shorts being too short (they weren't at my knees!). I was buying a size up to get it long enough because I was taller than then average teenager. Well, now the districts policy has changed. Shorts must be at the fingertip of your longest finger. Skirts must be halfway between the knee and the finger tips. Teachers are expected to adhere to this same policy of course.

BT, deleting the choice of wearing a skirt sure does sound like a banning to me. Not saying you're wrong, but just calling it like I see it. My humble opinion. Just like if I'm not allowed to chew gum in class, then that sounds like it's banned to me.

Oh a few years ago, my half sisters' district instituted a uniform policy. Well, my dad searched everywhere for the proper clothes requested. Well, just about everyplace he went, they were sold out. So he told the school that the girls may have to start the year without a uniform. He was told that they would not be able to come to school until they had a uniform. Needlesstosay, he was not happy. I told him I didn't think a school could deny a child an education because they didn't have the proper uniform on. (I'm not talking in regards to breaking dress code in relation to length.) He finally found some appropriate clothes, but had to search all over for it.

[BellyTank]

Doesn't seem like so much of a 'ban' when they're taking away one of two enforced options. 'Ban' just seems like a dumb choice of words to use in this case. Doesn't really matter.
But if people can see that there is a umiform in use at this school the situation is vastly different from if they had no uniform at all.
B
T

[Matt Deckard]

You can use weapons, though you just can't use guns... we're not banning guns, you just can't use them.

[BellyTank]

Like I said, it's a stupid word to use.
B
T

[jamespowers]

You can use weapons, though you just can't use guns... we're not banning guns, you just can't use them.

More like: you can use your head just not the brains inside it. :p

Regards to all,

J

[BellyTank]

Remember that this is within an individual institutional and regarding a piece of school uniform and its perceived disadvantages within that institution.
That is the context.
There doesn't seem any more life left in this topic.
B
T

[Jen]

Too bad they won't let the boys wear kilts...

In my high school, around 1975, there was a rule that girls could not wear pants, meaning everything from jeans to proper dress slacks. One young woman had an after school job at a rather up-scale boutique. She came to school one day wearing (according to the teacher who told the story to me) dress slacks, a silk blouse, pearls, etc. (A deliberate slap in the face of authority, no doubt!) She was marched to principal's office, where they demanded that she go home and change. Instead, she borrowed a cheeleader friend's half leotard and transformed her silk blouse into a mini-dress (actually longer than the costumes worn by the cheerleaders). The policy was promptly changed.

In my day, a friend of mine who was wont to dress in '30s style was sent to the principal's office for wearing "a costume to school." Luckily, his dad was a lawyer.