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."

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.

 

[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 ****s 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.
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.
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 ****s 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]

The only thing I liked about Catholic school...

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]

Yeah, right Brad, get rid of the image...

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.

Regards to all,

J