No pants options?

[Anonymous]

DD is about to graduate after 12 years of uniform-wearing. Never ever once have I seen pants on girls or heard a single request for them, from DD or any other kids or parents. Now, ties/belts for K boys I think is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mind goes back to the 10 degree mornings we had this winter. How did the girls at these "no pants" schools keep warm? Could they wear more than tights under their uniforms?

At my daughter's jumpers & skirts for girls school, tights or leggings may also be worn. Children often wear sweat or pj pants under their uniforms to walk to school in the winter, and take those off once they get to school.

[Anonymous]

Oh yes! Sweatpants under skirts. I remember those days.

But usually that kind of flexibility comes after ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are accepted at a school with a uniform...and looking at their website it says that a skirt/jumper is required for girls aka no pants option. Overall we really like the school so not sure this is a huge deal, but DD HATES to wear dresses/skirts and I envision some fights in the future. Why can't girls wear pants? This isn't the 1800s!

No reason she should fight with you. Let he school deal with it.

[Anonymous]

I feel like the title of this thread is like a 1980s frat party theme. God bless earnest DCUM!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She'll get used to it. If it's a good school, it's worth adapting!

A school that does not allow an elementary-school girl to wear pants is a school that most likely does other things I really wouldn't want. (Not the OP.)

This.

[Anonymous]

My DD's school allowed girls to wear leggings under the required skirts. It's hardly like wearing skirts at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She'll get used to it. If it's a good school, it's worth adapting!

A school that does not allow an elementary-school girl to wear pants is a school that most likely does other things I really wouldn't want. (Not the OP.)

This.

Absolutely this. And even more, just. . . yuck. It's not the 1950s.

[Anonymous]

I thought the thread title asked for a private school where there was an option not to wear pants.

[Anonymous]

I'd have to agree that it sounds incredibly outdated to not allow pants as a uniform option for girls.

That said--most uniform pants for girls are really wretched, and I'd think fleece-lined tights/shorts/leggings (with the requisite skirt) would be preferable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand requiring uniforms. I do not understand why a private school would not allow females to wear pants. Is it a religious thing? Catholics are allowed to wear pants. Maybe just Mennonite women have to wear long skirts? It just seems so sexist to me- have the girls outside freezing or self conscious just so they look feminine to the boys? I just don't understand the point.

DD's all girl Catholic school allows solid navy or black leggings under the skirts. The girls are very active.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the thread title asked for a private school where there was an option not to wear pants.

Me too. Maybe Waldorf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd have to agree that it sounds incredibly outdated to not allow pants as a uniform option for girls.

That said--most uniform pants for girls are really wretched, and I'd think fleece-lined tights/shorts/leggings (with the requisite skirt) would be preferable.

Right. In practice, this is what happens. If people really wanted "slacks" as an option, it would be added, but there's not a demand for it.

[Anonymous]

Agree with PP. Even with a pant option, the girls don't wear them, so OP, don't worry about it. Your DD will want to dress like the other girls in skirts/jumper with tights, leggings, and shorts is what she'll want to wear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the thread title asked for a private school where there was an option not to wear pants.



Me too. Maybe Waldorf?