![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a very interesting meeting
Feb. 9th, 2016 10:38 amToday I met with the headmistress of the Chorister School to address one of my last remaining concerns: The uniform. At St. Margaret's, girls have the option of wearing trousers, but the Chorister School uniform mandates skirts for girls, and for many reasons, from ability to climb/play/act as desired to reasons of feminism, I struggle with this idea.
I wanted to hear in person what their reasons for it were (in particular since they don't require their female staff to wear trousers), and also whether there was any possibility this policy would be considered for change. The answers were pretty unequivocal: Tradition, and No, but we had an extended discussion of associated issues (such as the fact that for gym, athletics, rowing, etc., girls CAN wear shorts or sweat pants; the fact that private (i.e., British "public") secondary schools will have a similar dress code -- and now I am curious what Durham Johnston (a state school) has; the fact that she has never witnessed any girl feeling like she must act differently as a result of wearing a skirt rather than trousers, i.e., for feeling like she must be "ladylike"; and others), and one item struck me as a way I can perhaps wrap my head around the issue: That part of the uniform is to encourage children to view school not as a place for play but as a place for work; one dresses up for one's school day in the same way that one does for one's job, and that, for these children, school is their "job". I put it in scare quotes, because perhaps "purpose" is a better word.
I suspect I will eventually come around, in part because if this is the ONLY thing that bothers me (I still need to write a post on this "if"), I don't think it's a deal-breaker. Certainly, it's less of a deal-breaker after having talked to the headmistress, which is part of the reason I wanted to speak with her in person.
I wanted to hear in person what their reasons for it were (in particular since they don't require their female staff to wear trousers), and also whether there was any possibility this policy would be considered for change. The answers were pretty unequivocal: Tradition, and No, but we had an extended discussion of associated issues (such as the fact that for gym, athletics, rowing, etc., girls CAN wear shorts or sweat pants; the fact that private (i.e., British "public") secondary schools will have a similar dress code -- and now I am curious what Durham Johnston (a state school) has; the fact that she has never witnessed any girl feeling like she must act differently as a result of wearing a skirt rather than trousers, i.e., for feeling like she must be "ladylike"; and others), and one item struck me as a way I can perhaps wrap my head around the issue: That part of the uniform is to encourage children to view school not as a place for play but as a place for work; one dresses up for one's school day in the same way that one does for one's job, and that, for these children, school is their "job". I put it in scare quotes, because perhaps "purpose" is a better word.
I suspect I will eventually come around, in part because if this is the ONLY thing that bothers me (I still need to write a post on this "if"), I don't think it's a deal-breaker. Certainly, it's less of a deal-breaker after having talked to the headmistress, which is part of the reason I wanted to speak with her in person.
