Chesterfield school to review uniform policy after insisting girls wear tights with skirts on hot days
A Chesterfield school is to review its uniform policy after backlash from parents over insisting girls wear tights on hot days.
Brookfield School, in Brampton, recently came under fire for its policy which bans girls from wearing socks instead of tights underneath their school skirts.
In Facebook posts seen by the Derbyshire Times, one parent claimed a teacher at the school said the ban was to stop boys from looking up their skirts as they walked up the stairs.
Posting on his Twitter page in a discussion about modesty shorts, Chesterfield MP Toby Perkins told how parents had come to him with concerns over the uniform policy.
He said: “Have been approached by parents about a Chesterfield school that said girls can’t wear shorts and have to wear tights in 30 degree temperatures because boys walk up the stairs behind them.
“Schools are solving the wrong problem at the moment.”
Mr Perkins was responding to a story in The Mirror, which told how some schools have reportedly asked girls to wear "modesty shorts" under their skirts to prevent the risk of "upskirting".
The Labour MP has since discussed the situation at Brookfield with headteacher Keith Hirst, who says the ban is simply for ‘aesthetic reasons’ and nothing to do with upskirting – the illegal practice of taking intrusive photos up someone's skirt without their permission.
“Parents had contacted me to suggest that in the current hot weather girls should be allowed to wear skirts and socks,” Mr Perkins said.
“Mr Hirst confirmed that this is the uniform policy, but that the school’s leadership are currently reviewing their summer uniform policy and will consider the representations that I and some parents have made.
“This all followed a national news story about an appearance at the Education Select Committee by OFSTED Chief Executive Amanda Spielman in which she claimed that schools that insisted on girls wearing shorts under their skirts to prevent upskirting were ‘victim blaming’.
“In my conversation with Mr Hirst he confirmed that the policy was based on what the school considered to be a smart appearance and said that there had been no suggestion that this policy was being enforced for anything other than aesthetic reasons.”