How do you feel about the way schools often seek to control how girls dress

@mathsman Yes there is, a dress code that applies equally to staff and students alike. Most employers have stricter codes for their staff than they do for their customers. Why do schools do the exact opposite?

@Sharon Although schools are indeed "employers" the students are not usually viewed as "customers". Your suggestion is neat but would be unlikely to be embraced in democracies.
However, your solution doesn't address the issue of how not to objectify females of any age. But say some more please.
For example, please specify a complete dress code applying to all teachers and students and staff.

@mathsman The fact remains, students are the schools' customers. It's just that, in the UK, state ("public" for US readers) schools have something of a monopoly in an area. I like to compare schools with local libraries. Both are council funded and supposedly free at point of use. Users of the library are its customers.

As far as I am aware, local libraries do not impose a uniform or dress code on their users. The only dress code I would impose would be "reasonably clean and tidy" and would apply to staff and students (of both sexes) alike. Much the same as anywhere else such as the library or even the local supermarket.

Some employers require their staff to wear a uniform so perhaps teachers should. I don't know of any other company or service provider that requires its customers to wear a uniform though.

@Sharon Libraries are not a good analogue for schools.
And "customers" does not sit well with "school-children", receiving an education.
But I take your point.

@mathsman Libraries and schools are both council provided and funded services, free to their users. How about college? They provide educational facilities just like schools. In some cases for a fee (same as private schools) and sometimes the fee waived or publicly funded like a state school.

Students are similar to customers in that they use a service for which the provider is paid. Maybe a better analogy would be with a health centre's patients. Are you required to wear a uniform to visit your GP? I'm not. :)

@Sharon Minors are "required" to attend school. That's the significant difference.

@mathsman Even if that were true (it isn't) I don't see what difference it makes. It sounds very much like saying it's OK to exploit parents because they're unable to shop around for a better deal.

Parents have to provide their children with an education, not necessarily send them to school. Local authorities are required to provide suitable facilities, [b]free at point of use[/b]. By forcing parents to buy overpriced uniforms form designated suppliers in order to us those facilities, they are, in effect, charging a fee for them.