Schools must offer girls the option to wear trousers under new guidance from the Education Minister
ITV News
Schools must let girls wear trousers under new guidance from Education Minister | ITV News
New guidelines will require all schools in Northern Ireland to offer girls the option to wear trousers as part of their uniform. | UTV News
New guidelines will require all schools in Northern Ireland to offer girls the option to wear trousers as part of their uniform.
Education Minister Paul Givan said the revised guidance will allow girls to wear trousers as part of their uniform and also for PE and games.
Sinn Féin MLA Cathy Mason has described the decision as a “welcome but embarrassing U-turn by the minister”.
Education Committee chairman Nick Mathison said the minister will have to explain why he “took so long to move on this issue”.
The guidelines are legally binding under the School Uniforms Act which came into operation earlier this year.
Possibly helpful to say which European country… It’s Northern Ireland.
Very true, I have updated the post to include some of the text from the article.
How is Northern Ireland a Country? Isn’t it like Scotland and Wales part of the UK?
And like Scotland and Wales, it’s sometimes described as a country that’s part of the UK.
How in the heck did it take this long for them to figure this out?
School uniforms are great, but forcing freaking skirts on girls is absurd. Or even the opposite way: go boys! Skirts can be amazing - as long you don’t have to wear it!
Edit: I was forced to wear skirts in kindergarten - my poor mother… - but that was over 35 years ago! (And the school let me wear jeans)
Forcing young people into a uniform serves no useful purpose at all. Schools are already too unfree and it sucks if you can’t wear your usual clothes. Being forced to wear a skirt is even more stupid
Uniforms are great for poor populations. Uniforms tend to be cheap, everyone has to wear the same clothes so there is no pressure to wear expensive brands, plus the 2nd hand market is active because kids grow so fast.
People will find a way to show that they have more money and school uniforms really do not prevent this. You can just brag about your expensive watch, phone, perfume and so on. And I really doubt that those custom school district uniforms are cheaper than your main street clothing stores or stores like Primark
It doesn’t matter what you believe, I lived it. Jewellery and perfume were not allowed. The uniforms were not more expensive than normal clothes, especially not 2nd hand. Plus you needed less variety in your wardrobe so got a lot more wear out of these clothes.
So sure, you figured out which kids came from very poor or very wealthy families, but most kids were just in the middle.
I also lived this. We hated uniforms at the time but I hate to imagine the other option. We had second hand clothes we had to dye as it was cheaper.
Came here to say this. I grew up in a mixed class school and some days when kids could wear anything they want, the social financial class would become so apparent. I feel like uniform made us treat each other more equally than not.
This reminds me of discussions we had to write in school. The “expensive brands” argument was always the only somewhat viable pro-argument for school uniforms.
Otherwise, school uniforms are absolutely terrible for poor families and are often used as a way to keep lower classes out if certain schools. Even if there’s a second hand market it still means you have to buy additional sets of clothes. Buying second hand uniforms may also be as embarrassing for a child than wearing off-brand clothes.
I my school days it wasn’t common to mock kids about off-brand clothes. People buying to much branded stuff were more commonly the the target. I knew a kid who came to school with a fake Addidas jacket that said “Aadidas”. Eveyone thought it was cool for being so obviously fake. Expensive phones were important though, even in the late 1990s and 2000s.
“It seems for the very poor/marginalized in any society, uniform can be simply another barrier to education because of the focus on equality, not equity. Ironically, those most in need of education may be denied it via a mechanism that was originally instituted to remove barriers to education.” pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8386814/
I suspect you’re too America focussed. If uniforms are so bad, why are they standard in so many of the world’s poorest countries?
In South Africa, all government schools have uniforms. So there is no excluding someone because they can’t afford a uniform.
Also, there is a lot of overlap betweem school uniforms i.e. lots of grey skirts / shorts / trousers, plus white shirts with the school badge sewn onto the pocket. These clothes are made in huge quantities and sold everywhere.
Also, why would you need to buy extra clothes? You can just wear the uniform all day.
I’m European.
I don’t claim they are generally bad. I said that the argument with “branded clothes” isn’t a very good one and school uniforms can very well be used to exclude poorer students. And I included a link to a study to back that up.
The main reason why many poorer countries have school uniforms is exactly what you say: so that poorer kids and minorities don’t stick out. Whether this really works or helps in any way is a whole different thing.
I just needed a two second internet search to tell me that the financial burden school uniforms put on families is a discussed topic in South Africa. There’s this report for example: lrc.org.za/…/LRC-School-Uniform-Research-Report.p… (FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF CURRENT UNIFORM PRACTICES, pages 22 etc.) or this news report: capetown.today/…/the-outfit-dilemma-evaluating-sc…
And are still going to be more expensive than everyday clothes.
Now you are just being silly. Kids do not want to be associated with their school all day, even less their whole youth including days off. Parents don’t want kids to ruin their school clothes, especially if they are poor. Not to mention that most uniforms are not inteded for kids to play in them, as they often include leather shoes or skirts.
You are looking from the wrong point of view, it has a purpose: to level the children to avoid that the “rich” kids look down on the “poor” kid that cannot (or does not care) have the last trendy outfit.
I was in such situation back at the time, I was in a private school that have many rich kids and while I almost never cared about what I was wearing and thankfully I never had any problems, in other classes there were incidents caused by a rich kid bulling a “poor” (relatively, the school has a price that keep out trully poor families, so the poor was only less rich in this context) kid for the outfit.
And seeing what kids wear to school nowday, a uniform is the lesser devil in my opinion.
Also, wearing a school uniform sometimes build also a sense of appartence that is not a bad thing.
krass dass das bisher nicht erlaubt war, denke ich.
das erinnert mich an das pariser hosenverbot
edit: sry i forgot again that this is an english-speaking community.
crazy that this wasn’t allowed so far
reminds me of the paris trousers law
the uk is almodt impressive in its ability to keep showing just how pathetic and stupid it really is. wtf is wrong with them?
Well I hope boys can also wear skirts if they like.
I always wonder what happens if the children just break the dress code. How can they force them to wear skirts?
In my case lengthy admonitions during breaks and in front of the class, and annoying journal notes for parents. That’s for forgetting instructions to buy a conservative shirt and buying a sweatshirt with a print instead.