Burnley Grammar School

Adam: With all due respect, I am not concerned how "gendered" the girls kit was (does it matter?). The fact remains that at the school pictured above, and many others well past the 1950s, and, apparently well into the 1990s, there was no regard paid at all to boys modesty - I very much doubt the girls were ever made to parade around topless at any time, they were allowed to cover up. This courtesy was not even extended to boys who had to run along public streets with no top on, often in cold and wet weather.

I think that treatment was disgusting, and what is even more disgusting to my taste are the number of elderly gents on this site, who appear to get some homoerotic thrill at the idea that boys should be treated in the same way in the 21st century and regret that it would not now be allowed, so they denigrate today's lads by implying they are "soft"

Bo - some of your experiences mirror mine. I also finished my compulsory education in 1996. The gym and sports hall at my school were both fairly enclosed, neither of them had large windows so you were relatively free from the gaze of anyone who happened to be walking past.

I was in a group of 5 or 6 boys who all ended up doing gymnastics topless once because we had brought the wrong top for PE. Unfortunately gymnastics was a part of PE lessons, which was with your form group at my school, so it was a mixed lesson. As the girls had leotards and footless tights for their gymnastics kit, I guess my school decided us lads needed a different top to go with our shorts.

The girls in my year campaigned to be allowed to wear shorts in PE, this was allowed from Year 9, although the gym skirt and PE knickers technically remained part of their kit until we finished school.

Alan, as for your comment from 6th December I do not think the girls got 'softer treatment' when I was in high school.
Like Bo, I finished my compulsory education in 1996, my experiences are very similar to his.

I feel the girls' PE kits were far more gendered even in the 90s. Top, gym skirt and knickers as 'default' for most of their lessons. It just put most of my female friends and relatives off PE.
By contrast us lads just wore a top and shorts for everything. With hindsight the contrast is bizarre.

James: It just shows that some teachers have ulterior motives, and that parents, pupils and teacher colleagues were ill-advised to trust them as much as they appear to have done in the past - another good reason for CRB checks and probing the mindset of them.

Alan,as you can imagine I was very shy to strip off to my shorts and when the teachers supported the sporting events,my form teacher told me that" she couldn't wait to see me wearing my shorts".I suppose some teachers just enjoyed the sight of so many boys wearing their shorts.

Bo That is appalling as late as 1996 - I think we ought to be grateful for Cyril Smith and Jimmy Savile as it at last rang warning bells that even "important" men were no longer beyond suspicion.

I think it is very noticeable that those teachers had their "favourites" to take their tops off - it has struck me several times on this site that lads who were in shirts and skins schools, were always the ones picked on to be shirtless, (it happens too often to be coincidental) - did nobody question this behaviour? (if I had been a parent I would) and these teachers always seemed to enjoy looking at lads in the changing rooms, under the showers and in the gym with next to nothing on.

if it hadn't been for major well publicised scandals, given the complacency of this country, it wouldn't surprise me if it had continued to this day. I think you are the most recent bloke to have had this treatment, and you have to wonder at the mindset of a headmaster, or head of department, now that students mature much earlier, and have mixed lessons, as to why they allowed such a questionable system to continue.

I don't want to turn this into a grotesque auction, but did anybody have to endure Bo's situation beyond 1996?

Alan, I left school in 1996. To be fair a lot of the girls were okay, there were the inevitable jokes and comments about our bare chests and physique but on the whole they were respectful. I never really understood why we needed to strip off outside during the winter, lessons were hard enough especially in the gym where you were guaranteed to show sweat, Winter for me was hard and even when a vests team was picked, I would end up on the skins team and strip off regardless of the conditions. I think having an unusual name (it was my Grandfather's) was probably one reason I was picked to strip so much. There were a couple of other lads in my class who were also picked to strip off 99% of the time so at least a wasn't just me.

Hi Alan, My education was at a mixed comprehensive school and girls never wore leotards only regulation yellow aertex tops and either skirts/shorts and trainers.
Though officially our kit was vest/shorts for indoors and outdoors, in practice we were kept stripped to the waist. Our gym had large reinforced glass window going the whole length of the gym making it so easy for other lads or girls to pass by and see 30 lads all stripped off and sweating freely. The gym was rarely warm and the coolness hit you walking in. The girls found it fun to watch but they were some of the few. I did not relish being bare chested it was something I had to do. I found being stripped off outdoors during winter was hard. There were sometimes teams of vests vs skins but I very rarely ended up on the vests team
Both teams were handpicked by the teacher who preferred I stripped off as much as possible until I left.

Bo:

You have my sympathy - as I get older, I wonder why we tolerated the pathetic and dictatorial old men who ruled their little kingdoms in the gym - and you increasingly wonder why they were so obsessed about getting kids clothes off. Was your schooling post or pre 1980s?

Hi Alan, My education was at a mixed comprehensive school and girls never wore leotards only regulation yellow aertex tops and either skirts/shorts and trainers.
Though officially our kit was vest/shorts for indoors and outdoors, in practice we were kept stripped to the waist. Our gym had large reinforced glass window going the whole length of the gym making it so easy for other lads or girls to pass by and see 30 lads all stripped off and sweating freely. The gym was rarely warm and the coolness hit you walking in. The girls found it fun to watch but they were some of the few. I did not relish being bare chested it was something I had to do. I found being stripped off outdoors during winter was hard. There were sometimes teams of vests vs skins but I very rarely ended up on the vests team
Both teams were handpicked by the teacher who preferred I stripped off as much as possible until I left.

James was lucky in that he did his PE lessons in a heated gymnasium. The two gymnasia at my old grammar school were not heated, and each had one wall fully glass panelled from floor to ceiling with only single glazing.

These glass walls kept out the wind, but little else. As can be imagined, the temperatures therein were not much different from outside, at any time of year.

Any 'heating' in these vast echoing voids was provided by ourselves, as we were regularly pushed to our limits by the humourless PE master.

I became so hot from all the exercise that I ended each session being glad that the gym was not heated!

William: No I don't - I think you would find in a real world scenario if one boy chose to wear a shirt in lesson one, more would join him in future lessons. It must have been even worse for co-ed pupils, where boys were wearing minimal kit, while the girls, in their leotards gawped at them, especially as the school leaving age increased (the way we are going people will be attending school soon when they are 20, so the old rules would be entirely inappropriate now). I genuinely believe some teachers were voyeurs, but luckily for everybody's sake (including their own) their wings have been clipped now.

Tom:

Obviously everybody is different, but you must remember that other lads at your school were probably grateful the regime wasn't too draconian. If you are reserved, you probably still would be, regardless of how some dictatorial teacher made you conform in your teens. I am sure if you had felt that strongly and taken your shirt off, nothing would have been done. The fact you didn't suggests that you were probably more at ease with your status quo

Alan, I’m not particularly bothered about the choice of shirtless, vest or t-shirt. I do feel kit should be more basic than schools now demand with the lists of branded items, baselayers, tracksuits etc.

My comments about the content of lessons are my observations having been reluctant to take part in and realising in later life that it has hampered me physically and mentally. I also believe mandatory showers would have forced me to face up to and overcome body issues.

I’m always happy to agree to disagree. My thoughts just add a different opinion into the forum.

Alan,what seemed illogical and unfair was that we were expected to wear just our shorts in a heated gymnasium and wear the same in the freezing cold outside.

Alan, How would that work if only a couple of boys wanted to wear vests and the rest were barechested, or vice versa? Wouldn't the tiny minority feel more uncomfortable than if all the boys wore the same kit? Don't you think the majority might laugh at them?

There was a typo in my ptrvious message: should read "shirts" not shorts", but the gravamen of my argument remains - just because A is happy with the status quo doesn't mean B is, or should be.

Tom B, I agree with you about allowing exceptions. To allow boys to miss showers is not in my view empathetic. Bodily hygiene should not be optional. Our gym routine was nothing under shorts, no tops and compulsory communal showers. This was quite a shock to a shy and skinny boy like me, but the fact that there were no exceptions made it easier. Gym vests were in our uniform list but we never wore them indoors and at an all boys school I could never see any reason for them. I never felt remotely humiliated. In time I grew to like our minimal kit. It was practical when you were exerting yourself.

I agreed also with Ambrose's concluding sentence on 6th December. If children at school are not sometimes required to do things they would rather avoid, how will they know what they are capable of? At first I would have gladly dodged the showers but because I had no choice I realised after a couple of weeks that they were nothing to make a fuss about.

The gym regime made me realise that I could cope with more than I thought. That was good; it helped to make me resilient. I am sorry that some contributors found a bit of communal nudity difficult. My parents told me that showers etc were nothing to worry about as we were all boys together - and to me that was far more helpful than being allowed to opt out.

Tom B:

Why do some people have this obsession with shirtless PE? Wouldn't it better to allow those boys who want to take their shorts off to do so, because they are comfortable with it, and those who are not comfortable with it to be allowed to wear a tee shirt?

Some people seem to think just because they happen to be comfortable with something, that should apply to everybody. Everybody is different.

Of course this is academic because these days I doubt any school would force boys to strip because there are laws to safeguard pupils, and as the school leaving age has been raised it would be inappropriate to dictate to older teenagers how to dress.

The last paragraph there resonates with me Ambrose.

Inclusion is about reassuring shy lads that there is nothing to be embarrassed about rather than allowing exceptions. Taking a shower with contemporaries is absolutely healthy in my view.

Danny C: As I wrote previously, in my first school it was common practice for sports staff to use the showers with the boys until the mid 70's. You must remember that this was 50 years ago and acceptable practices are now very different. It was more usual to shower with the older boys - 14 and above - and I always kept to one end of the large shower area rather than mix in with the boys.

Back then if a pupil had been reluctant to remove his shirt or use the shower I would have pointed out that he should know that bodies come in all shapes and sizes, and boys mature at different rates as he had been told in sex education lessons.
Very few boys that I taught had anything to be embarrassed about. I can only think of two; one who had a micro phallus and left for a private school after two weeks, and one who had undergone heart surgery as a youngster. He was very proud to show off his "zipper" scar on his chest which fascinated his friends.

I would be concerned at a pupils lack of self confidence and encourage them to see that there was little difference between them and their peers. Nowadays of course, I don't have the stamina to coach sports!

Danny, how did the girls react to you being barechested? Did they ever tease the boys?

What reason was given to remove your top in drama class? Were they mixed lessons?

Ambrose, you said that while at teacher training you were "encouraged to share the showers with pupils" but does that mean that you actually did so? Do you believe that being barechested, or even entirely naked, has male bonding advantages as some people seem to assert. I can't say that it ever felt like it did for me.
What would you say to a boy, both back then and if different right now, who came up to you and was open about his self consciousness and said something like - "Sir, I don't feel comfortable taking my shirt off like you are asking, can I wear something please" and "I'd prefer not to use the shower". Some people deny it, but you'd be amazed just how many boys and now men out there who are like this and wished they could have said this and been shown some empathy.

Alan:
I agree with you in part. The sport I was involved in coaching required the players by convention of the times to be dressed in white sports gear for matches. The boys removed their shirts if they wished in training sessions, but it was their own decision, and if they were seen "prancing around" they were told to play properly.
Most were enthusiastic football supporters and would have preferred to wear a football top, but this was not permitted at the time for matches, although coloured tops are now regularly seen.

How astute of you to work out that I spent over 20 years teaching tech drawing and graphics. I never had pupils removing clothes in those lessons, but I did insist on them attending with clean hands and the homework that had been set properly completed - whether they liked it or not. That way they achieved better standards of attainment and presentation.

Ambrose:

"As to "making them do things against their will", if you only did what you wanted to, some pupils would achieve well below their potential."

Could you explain how making boys prance around in just a pair of shorts and nothing else will make them achieve their "potential"?. Their potential for what?. Does a tee shirt automatically make you a loser?. If you were not very successful at, lets say, technical drawing, would removing your clothes suddenly make you into a wizard of the drawing board?

Let's be honest about this - it is all about power and control and damn all to do with "achieving your potential"

Dave:

" So what's the difference? Being shirtless for PE is the same as is wearing no shirt for a swimming class."

Well, I should say that in a pool everyone there is in a state of undress - in a public street with boys involved in cross country , they will be the only ones in that state - plus of course they will be in water, not being gawped at by anybody who happens to be passing the school playing field or gym window, as happened at the dump I was taught in.

When I was at teacher training college in the late 60's we were encouraged to let pupils address us by our first names. In the school I joined nobody used their first names with pupils until we had a 6th form; after all, the staff would never have dreamed of addressing the Headteacher as Bill or Jack.

Those of us who were going to be involved in sports coaching when we left college were encouraged to join the boys in the showers at the end of the day. I found this a common practice in my first school with the younger staff members until the mid 70's. We didn't get a "thrill from watching vulnerable teenagers undressing". (Mr. Dando) We all knew what teenage boys looked like, and it was often the boys who were more interested in how they compared to each other and to an adult.
As to being in the same room when pupils are changing for sports, it is still a fact that the teacher is responsible for the activities of the pupils for the whole lesson. You do not leave a class unsupervised at any time. Boys are very capable of picking on the class members who stand out as different; the very fat or thin, the shy and timid, the poor sportsmen who often lose their side a game even though they are trying their best. The very presence of a teacher stops a lot of unwelcome comment or bullying behaviour towards such pupils and should not be seen as anything but good supervision of the whole lesson.

I do agree with Alan when he says that encouragement not belittlement is the best way to get good results, but not every pupil enjoys every subject. As to "making them do things against their will", if you only did what you wanted to, some pupils would achieve well below their potential.

I've read through the recent comments.There are many interesting point of view.
I know my point of view is very simple but I would like to know the answer.
All of the boys are shirtless for swimming lessons even in mixed lessons. So what's the difference? Being shirtless for PE is the same as is wearing no shirt for a swimming class.
I could understand the shyness thing. I've been a bit shy too to wear no shirt playing shirts vs skins in some PE lessons but if I think it over it is the same as in compulsory swimming classes.

Tom B:

Nothing wrong with Mr Smith or Ms Smith (mrs and Miss too if you like) but lets all stop pretending when you attend school in your teens we are Richard Todd in The Dam Busters.

i never mentioned branded tracksuits, but if you want kids to be interested and not feel they have gone back sixty or seventy years as long as they are clean and tidy there is no need to run round with very little on. It is 2020 and attitudes and behaviour has changed. If you want boys and girls to stay on at school till they are 18, you can't treat them like babies or borstal inmates.

Maybe you are right, my views are outdated.

I guess Sir and Miss are outdated and pupils, sorry, students should address teachers by their first names.

Maybe hard physical training is outdated and a branded tracksuit is the key to gaining strength and physical confidence.

I make my comments about the experience of boys simply because I was one. Boys and girls are different and physical education should be conducted separately in my opinion to give both sexes the education required.

I guess we all have our own views on the matter.

Tom B:

You write: "I do feel the obedience and discipline a tough education system instilled is something I would like to see return."


Why, for God's sake?. The "age of deference" is long in the past. You might regret that, I don't. Could it be because you were treated toughly, that you feel that you want, for need of a better term, to have your own back?. Does it make what you and me went through, possibly, any easier because you would want to put lads through it today?. As regards D & O I have worked in a range of institutions and companies large and small. These days bosses don't bark their orders using only surnames, or expect (or want) to be called "sir". These ancient practices apply only to the armed services, some very obscure arcane organisations and (possibly) to the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Sir Philip Green and Sir Alan Sugar, who treat their staff like cattle., and boast about it. Anyone that works for such an organisation can seek their remedies by resigning, children are forced to go to school for x number of years, and should not be treated in the same way.

As regards your remark about children only being allowed to "wear shorts and possibly a vest" (Thanks for that!) some girls are as badly behaved as some boys, some a good deal worse - would you recommend the same remedy for girls, who seem on the whole to get very soft treatment?.

It seems to me some educators and their admirers subscribe to Orwell's "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others"

It would give me no pleasure to think some scared little 11 or 12 year old went through the same indignities I did, the same shouting and yelling, calling you by your surname as if you were a criminal.

There has to be something wrong with grown men who insist on being called "sir" all day by kids, and likes to demonstrate the power they have over them by making therm do things against their will. Education should be about learning, wanting to learn and exploration - the sort of back to the past ideas you have will do nothing to promote that.

If any teachers read this site, I would like to ask them if, when they started teaching, they received any mandatory psychological assessment about their character, and suitability for the job, because it seems to me that most teachers have either a strong dislike of children, or an overweening desire to enhance their own feelings of self-worth, by this discipline kink, a typical trait of those who lack self esteem. I would also like to know their motives for wanting to see boys running round with next to nothing on.