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Anonymous wrote:I'd have to agree that it sounds incredibly outdated to not allow pants as a uniform option for girls.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.
Anonymous wrote:I thought the thread title asked for a private school where there was an option not to wear pants.![]()
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.
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.
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.)
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!
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?