s/o - elementary girls in leggings

[Anonymous]

In the examples provided, the shirts or sweaters cover the model's bottom, which is how I always see kids wearing leggings, even my own daughter. Regardless, I think the issue would be directed at the 6th graders versus the kindergarteners, but they need to make a blanket statement. Not saying I agree, but that is probably the rationale used by the ES. (Sort of like the no spaghetti straps on girls tops.)

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the thread in DC Public Schools re Deal middle school banning leggings, in which lots of people expressed disapproval of girls wearing leggings as pants.

I'm seriously confused, as the mom 5 year old who is starting kindergarten and whose fall wardrobe is half jcrew "cozy" leggings (nice, thick, not at all sheer). you really think the kids in the below pics look badly dressed?

https://www.jcrew.com/girls_category/leggings.jsp
http://www.hannaandersson.com/pdp.aspx?from=SC&pcid=393&styleid=43741&simg=43741_001
http://www.hannaandersson.com/pdp.aspx?from=SC&pcid=393&styleid=43741&simg=43741_001

My daughter has a big stomach and hates tight waistbands--and most elastic band pants slide down give her terrible plumber's rear.... Leggings are the one thing that fits her decently. Are you telling me seriously that she must only wear them with dresses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leggings should generally be treated like tights. Who here would let their kid run around in tights with nothing else covering the bottom. That's what it looks like.

It's not what it looks like when my kids wear leggings. Not to mention that my kids' leggings are made out of cotton/lycra of a weight at least as heavy as a T-shirt. I've never seen any tights like that.

Like the PP, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question, "Why aren't leggings pants?" And like the PP, I think that "Because DCUM says that they're not" is a bad answer.

I'd also like to know what leggings are, if not they're not pants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the examples provided, the shirts or sweaters cover the model's bottom, which is how I always see kids wearing leggings, even my own daughter. Regardless, I think the issue would be directed at the 6th graders versus the kindergarteners, but they need to make a blanket statement. Not saying I agree, but that is probably the rationale used by the ES. (Sort of like the no spaghetti straps on girls tops.)

That is another dumb rule, in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

No big deal-comfortable,cute,easy to wear

[Anonymous]

Of course it's fine. She's five!

[Anonymous]

My girls refuse all pants with zippers, buttons, or snaps. That pretty much just leaves leggings. Many are loose enough they look like pants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leggings should generally be treated like tights. Who here would let their kid run around in tights with nothing else covering the bottom. That's what it looks like.

Not exactly what it looks like imo.

If you cannot see underwear, whatever is covering the bottom half of the body is probably fine.

If you can see underwear through whatever is covering the bottom half of the body, it is likely not appropriate.

Some leggings would work fine as pants, others probably not.

My daughter has thick dark colored tights that don't show her underwear. Those meet your criteria too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leggings should generally be treated like tights. Who here would let their kid run around in tights with nothing else covering the bottom. That's what it looks like.

Not exactly what it looks like imo.

If you cannot see underwear, whatever is covering the bottom half of the body is probably fine.

If you can see underwear through whatever is covering the bottom half of the body, it is likely not appropriate.

Some leggings would work fine as pants, others probably not.

My daughter has thick dark colored tights that don't show her underwear. Those meet your criteria too?

Mine, sure. Not sure about the dress code of wherever she might wear them, so that might or might not be a problem. Seriously, I don't get this obsession this board seems to have with what other people are wearing. If the private areas and undergarments are covered and the outfit doesn't present a safety risk, it's all fine imo.

I mean, I personally think just wearing tights on the bottom sounds uncomfortable and would look weird, but if there's no visible underwear I don't see how it's wrong or how those tights are any less valid as pants than any other pants if that's what someone wants to wear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My girls refuse all pants with zippers, buttons, or snaps. That pretty much just leaves leggings. Many are loose enough they look like pants.

Then they're not leggings. They're knit elastic waist pants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My girls refuse all pants with zippers, buttons, or snaps. That pretty much just leaves leggings. Many are loose enough they look like pants.

Then they're not leggings. They're knit elastic waist pants.

Nope, they are leggings. Says so on the label. And if my kid were heavier, they would fit tight like leggings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My girls refuse all pants with zippers, buttons, or snaps. That pretty much just leaves leggings. Many are loose enough they look like pants.

Then they're not leggings. They're knit elastic waist pants.

Nope, they are leggings. Says so on the label. And if my kid were heavier, they would fit tight like leggings.

These are they**:

http://www.hannaandersson.com/pdp.aspx?from=SC&pcid=27&styleid=36086&simg=36086_45H


See? Leggings.

** Before you correct me on my grammar, too: You are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My girls refuse all pants with zippers, buttons, or snaps. That pretty much just leaves leggings. Many are loose enough they look like pants.

Then they're not leggings. They're knit elastic waist pants.

PP, that's a terrific idea. Thank you! Let's all start calling them "knit elastic-waist pants" and move on.