Chris Laning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Interestingly, these are still battlegrounds in some places. The
school I work for is a Catholic private school for girls, and they
have always worn uniforms.
Until this year, pants have only been allowed by special exemption to
the few students we have whose families are Muslim (whose definition
of modest dress includes having legs covered). This year, by radical
innovation, students could wear pants during the winter, and some did;
but they had to be the official uniform pants, which are on the
expensive side. Requests by students for the option of wearing pants
are frequent, but always blocked by faculty who feel they are
"unprofessional looking" unless they are the tailored uniform pants.
Our students don't feel this is fair, especially since the other
Catholic high schools in town that include girls _do_ allow pants.
(For the one that requires uniforms, they must be a particular color
of Dockers.) The faculty who object claim that if pants were allowed,
it would be too difficult to define which pants were OK and which were
too tight, too low-slung, or too baggy and "gang-like."
It will be interesting to see what happens :)
This reminds me of a bizarre rule we had at my school, in the 80s. I
don't remember being allowed to wear trousers except on the way to and
home from school, as part of uniform. But in the top 2 years, when you
were no longer legally obliged to stay in school, you didn't have to
wear uniform. This was standard in my area, I don't know if the same was
true across England. The idea was that you got used to wearing the kind
of smart clothes that would be required when you left and got a job. We
were allowed to wear "smart denim trousers" but not "jeans". I never
did understand what the difference was!
Jean
--
Jean Waddie
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
