Burnley Grammar School

Comment by: Nick T on 16th April 2025 at 16:49



"....Steven and others who back shirtless PE, I’d urge you to consider the risks of cases such as mine."


For sure, Nick, totally agree. I was in exactly the same position as yourself. I think a lot of people today forget what the 1980s were like - Mr Humphries and Larry Grayson on the TV, being laughed at, encouraged by themselves to fuel the idea were were all effeminate mothers boys, , I also remember when The Sun was printing stuff on their front page in banner headlines like "Poofters On Parade" when it was suggested the army should take a more lenient attitude, and their "Eastbenders" when the TV soap introduced two gay characters. It was not easy. At my school you could get a wallop from other pupils for having ginger hair (I was lucky mine was brown). None of this bothered the teaching staff. Turning a blind eye in the "playground" was their speciality.

What I find especially worrying is that Steven was obviously a very young teacher back in 1980, which was our time at school, and while I wouldn't expect older teachers of the time, to understand, I would have expected younger men to have done so. IF "Jack" was telling the truth, a couple of weeks ago, this minimal kit is going on to this day but since he was a "hit and run" poster I do somehow doubt that a standard comprehensive would be like this all the time today - a grammar or boarding school, yes, but a comprehensive?

I lived in a very straight world - I expect you did, too. My situation wouldn't have gone down well at home, my first job was in the engineering industry, and in my spare time I played in a big band. You were on your guard all day, every day, thinking about everything before you said it. To this day I would not want my neighbours or my customers to know about me. That said my life was at it's worst between 11 and 16 and I wouldn't live it again for all the tea in China. Like you, I would urge all P.E. teachers to remember what lads like you and me went through, and many are still going through, and give them the right to privacy. I think this is even more important now that so many are forced to endure school till 18. It might be a more tolerant world, but not everywhere.

Comment by: Steven on 16th April 2025 at 14:23


It would depend who it was, Steven - it it was one of his favourites he would shout at the lads laughing , and tell the object of the humour to leave the gym for five minutes - if it was one he didn't like he seemed to enjoy their humiliation. I have mentioned the conditions of the school before,, but it was an old run-down school which closed the year I left, but it had been known to be on the closure list for a few years, and we only had teachers who were towards the end of the carers, and they really were just eeking out their time. We kept corporal punishment to the end. As less academic lads went there (my interests were music and electronics, neither of which were taught, as nobody had the ability to do so, and the only lesson I enjoyed was technical drawing, and even with that the slightest mistake, like rubbing out being too obvious you would get bawled out, and you could get a whiteboard cleaner thrown at you, or one of the pens. I always felt ill at ease. I think because we were neither academic or athletic,we were considered no hopers. We had two careers advice lessons - one was a day trip to Fords in Dagenham and the other was a visit from an Army careers officer. It was fairly easy to get into either at that time. If you had any other ambitions, I felt they thought you were above yourself. You got no encouragement at all. The school was pretty much off the radar of the LEA., we had an elderly headmaster who was in poor health, and he delegated to the deputy who was a very vindictive and aggressive man (he taught TD by the way!). We only had one good teacher, the art master who was kind and actually remembered we had forenames, and alone amongst the staff called us by them.. Luckily I was fair at art. I was also good at English, but again, no encouragement. For the rest, you would have thought we were in a borstal. It was a single sex school, so we had no women teachers, just these rather jaded old men, and the dislike, frankly was mutual..

My years there really pit me against authority figures,and though I was an employee for a time, I started my own business as soon as I could afford to, in a fairly niche market, so I have always been in control in recent years, so in that respect, school did me a favour, but school for me was a nightmare, especially P.E.

Alan, your concern is exactly what made my life difficult as a closeted gay teenager having to endure PE like this in the 1980s, as well as the general extreme self consciousness that came with that age, as I commented a couple of weeks back.

Steven and others who back shirtless PE, I’d urge you to consider the risks of cases such as mine.

Thank you, Alan, for your response.
If you don’t mind my asking—you said that it never happened to you, which implies that it did happen to other boys. I’d be interested to know how your teacher—that revolting old man, as you put it—reacted to that.
I shudder to think what he might have done.

Everything you describe about your old school—your shorts-only PE lessons—makes it sound like quite a bad place, run by fear and intimidation.
It all seems very different from the atmosphere at the school where I started teaching in the ’80s, even though this must have been roughly the same time.

Comment by: Steven on 16th April 2025 at 01:54



Thank you for your reply. I don't, for one moment, doubt your good intentions, but of course, you can't control boys (and girls, I suspect) on the abuse that can go on in the changing room, fore and aft the lessons. I do understand that branded footwear, for example, can highlight the financial position of the families of the various boys, and allow the better off ones to feel superior, but of course, you had a no footwear policy, so that wouldn't be a problem. If my mate had been able to wear a tee shirt he could have turned his back while he put it on - the abuse would start when we went in to the changing room, and as I have said our P.E. teacher (who was a revolting old man) would join in and use the same, often abusive , nicknames the boys used. For example just one lad in our class was called "The Rabbi" by both pupils and the teacher, (we were a bunch of white working class lads). He wasn't Jewish, not that it would have mattered if he was.The teacher should have been ashamed of himself, but it sort of endorsed and legitimised, to some extent the "teasing" in the boys eyes..

The other problem I have with a "just shorts" policy (and thank God it never happened to me, because I was scared and tense throughout all P.E lessons) was that the older you get, the more likely it will be to have an unwanted erection, which, of course, can be covered to some extent with a shirt. When you have nothing but shorts you feel totally exposed. On days when we had P.E. I used to feel sick all day, and on afternoon sessions, I couldn't eat at lunchtimes. I am sure that I was not the only one - then and now. especially as schooldays seem to go on till 18 these days.

Akan, thank you for your comment.

You’re right to point out the tension between my acknowledging the boys’ initial reluctance and my claim that it wasn’t intended to embarrass them. Let me clarify: yes, I fully expected discomfort at first — self-consciousness is a part of adolescence, particularly when it comes to one’s body. But the intention was never humiliation. The aim was to build a disciplined, focused, and equal environment where all boys had the same expectations and where no one could hide behind brands, distractions, or cliques. In my experience, such an environment helped these boys to overcome their sens of embarrassment.

The example of your friend with the noticeable scar is heartbreaking, and I can only imagine how isolating that experience must have been — especially with a teacher who, as you say, joined in the cruelty. I can assure you, that is not how I operated. In my gym, bullying of any kind — particularly targeting someone’s body — would have been dealt with swiftly and seriously. It simply wouldn’t have been tolerated.

Had I had a boy with such a scar in my group, he would not have been exempted from the kit policy. In fact, I believe it would have been all the more important for him to be included equally. Exempting him — even with the best of intentions — would have risked further isolating him and reinforcing the idea that he was “different.” Instead, my approach would have been to ensure that his inclusion was accompanied by firm boundaries around respect, clear expectations for conduct, and a culture that did not allow mockery to take root.

In my experience, boys in that position often benefited most from the policy over time. Being treated the same as everyone else — not singled out, not shielded — allowed them to develop a healthier perception of themselves. They weren’t pitied; they were accepted. And the initial discomfort many felt, including the more shy or self-conscious pupils, often gave way to a surprising sense of pride and solidarity. In overcoming their fear of being seen shirtless, they gained confidence in themselves — and that was something no T-Shirt ever gave them.

So yes — the shirtless rule would have applied to everyone, including a boy with a scar. But he would have had the protection of structure, discipline, and a zero-tolerance stance on bullying. That, to me, is what allows true acceptance — not isolation, but inclusion with support.

As for your point about a plain, budget T-shirt: in theory, that sounds reasonable. But in practice, the problem went far beyond affordability. Missing kit, forgotten kit, selectively worn kit — these issues undermined consistency, wasted lesson time, and often came from exactly the boys who most needed boundaries. A stripped-down, shorts-only uniform was simple, equal, and removed those grey areas completely. It was not about punishing anyone, but about drawing a clear line — and sticking to it.

I know not everyone will agree with my methods, but I hope this gives you a clearer understanding of the thinking behind them. I’ve reflected on this decision many times over the years, and I still believe it was the right one — not because it was easy, but because it worked.

Comment by: Steven on 15th April 2025 at 02:47



....!It’s true that many of the boys were reluctant — some extremely so — when told they would now be required to de PE bare-chested. I fully expected that. At that age, self-consciousness is often heightened, especially among those who aren’t naturally sporty or physically confident. But that was precisely why the change was necessary........

This wasn’t just about discipline in the traditional sense — it was about levelling the playing field. Previously, some boys hid behind layers, behind branded sportswear, behind bravado and distraction. Meanwhile, the quieter ones — the so-called “academic types” — were often mocked, sidelined, or simply overlooked in PE lessons. They were the ones who regularly “forgot” their kit or lingered on the fringes of activity — not because they lacked ability, but because the environment didn’t give them the structure or confidence to fully take part.


Crucially, it wouldn’t have made sense to apply the rule only to the more disruptive or undisciplined boys. That would have undermined the entire purpose. Uniformity must be consistent to be meaningful. The strength of the policy lay in its clarity and fairness — everyone, without exception, followed the same standard. That consistency fostered unity, not resentment.

Once all shirts were off — no exceptions, no debates — the superficial differences began to fade. There was a shared vulnerability, yes, but more importantly, a collective focus. And, quite unexpectedly, many of the quieter boys began to engage more. They were no longer being scrutinised or singled out — they were simply part of the group. For some, it was the first time they had felt genuinely included and respected in a physical setting.........."

Over time, I saw a genuine transformation. — gave them space to build a healthier sense of self, both physically and mentally.......

So yes — the shirts had to come off. Not to embarrass the boys, but to provide a firmer, fairer, and ultimately more empowering framework in which they could grow."


Steven, I disagreed with you before, I do so even more now. I have to say I don't like the word "fairer" - it is a favourite of the government trying to justify the unjustifiable, and we know that isn't the result or the purpose.

In the first paragraph above you admitted yourself that " many of the boys were reluctant — some extremely so — when told they would now be required to de PE bare-chested. I fully expected that. At that age, self-consciousness is often heightened". This is totally add odds with the final line "not to embarrass the boys". I am sure some were, even if they didn't tell you so your face.

If you read my response yesterday you will see I made mention of a schoolfriend of mine who was embarrassed three times a week in term time for six years for his very noticeable scar, for which he was given a very cruel nickname that never left him - even used by the P.E. teacher himself.

How would you have coped with a situation like that, Steven?. I am sure that you wouldn't have joined it, or condoned it, but we all know these things happen, and this unnecessary bare-chest routine just fostered it. I remember his discomfiture to this day, even though it did not personally affect me, nor did I take part in the name calling.

I agree with you about the pretentiousness of high end clothing but surely a tee shirt from Primark (they were not around in London at my time I think the low price equivalent was Waide & Pollard) universally endorsed would have been acceptable?

It’s true that many of the boys were reluctant — some extremely so — when told they would now be required to de PE bare-chested. I fully expected that. At that age, self-consciousness is often heightened, especially among those who aren’t naturally sporty or physically confident. But that was precisely why the change was necessary.

At the time, I was a beginning teacher — young, inexperienced, and still finding my feet. I struggled with maintaining discipline, particularly with the older boys, and I knew that something had to change. I didn’t want to spend every lesson chasing respect through shouting matches and half-measures. I was looking for a solution that would actually work — something firm, clear, and fair.

This wasn’t just about discipline in the traditional sense — it was about levelling the playing field. Previously, some boys hid behind layers, behind branded sportswear, behind bravado and distraction. Meanwhile, the quieter ones — the so-called “academic types” — were often mocked, sidelined, or simply overlooked in PE lessons. They were the ones who regularly “forgot” their kit or lingered on the fringes of activity — not because they lacked ability, but because the environment didn’t give them the structure or confidence to fully take part.

The change to a simplified, stripped-down uniform altered that dynamic.

Crucially, it wouldn’t have made sense to apply the rule only to the more disruptive or undisciplined boys. That would have undermined the entire purpose. Uniformity must be consistent to be meaningful. The strength of the policy lay in its clarity and fairness — everyone, without exception, followed the same standard. That consistency fostered unity, not resentment.

Once all shirts were off — no exceptions, no debates — the superficial differences began to fade. There was a shared vulnerability, yes, but more importantly, a collective focus. And, quite unexpectedly, many of the quieter boys began to engage more. They were no longer being scrutinised or singled out — they were simply part of the group. For some, it was the first time they had felt genuinely included and respected in a physical setting.

Over time, I saw a genuine transformation. Posture improved. Confidence grew. Even the way some of them carried themselves outside the gym began to shift. The discipline of a simple, no-nonsense kit — and the removal of old social boundaries — gave them space to build a healthier sense of self, both physically and mentally.

This effect was most visible with the older boys. That’s where the behavioural shift was most dramatic. Discipline, focus, and mutual respect all improved significantly. Some of the most defiant pupils responded best to the clarity and firmness of the new standard.

So yes — the shirts had to come off. Not to embarrass the boys, but to provide a firmer, fairer, and ultimately more empowering framework in which they could grow.

Looking back now, I can say without hesitation: I never regretted the decision to introduce the shirtless kit. It brought structure, authority, and cohesion — not only to the lessons, but to the boys themselves.

Hi Jack! You said you were "shocked" how and when did you find out? Was it before going or was it "dropped on you"? What was the first lesson like, do you remember? Sounds like you've gotten used to it, how long did that take? How comfortable were you with being shirtless (say at the beach or pool or even outside on a nice day) before? Would you say it's been a positive negative or neutral experience for you overall? For example do you think it's helped/encouraged/motivated you to stay in shape?

On a more general note...

I think maybe there are five possible options when it comes to boys being barechested in PE:
* Mandate it
* Encourage/incentivize it but don't require it
* Permit it but otherwise remain neutral
* Discourage but don't forbid it
* Forbid it

be interested to know what other commenters think the "best" path is or what they would do if they were PE teachers (or what they *do* or *did* do if they *are* or *were* PE teachers!)...and whether or not the answer would change depending, for example, on the age of the pupils, or whether it was single or mixed sex/gender lessons, or indoor vs outdoor or what kind of activity they were doing. Also the importance or otherwise of getting "buy in" if not from pupils then from, say, parents, or other teachers, or governors, etc.

Comment by: Matthew S on 13th April 2025 at 23:48



...."Also (excuse me if this is foolish), when you say "Especially in the upper classes, I struggled a lot", do you refer to older teenage boys or top-set pupils with ability?......"

Matthew I took it to mean the older age group, because Steven said his school was "a difficult inner city comprehensive school". I can well sympathize because that was what mine was like.

As I said before Steven sounds a reasonable man, but as I read his original post it made me remember a mate of mine from the age of 11. We were in the same class. When he was born he had some serious obstruction and they had to perform surgery on him, which resulted in a scar, very noticeable, which of course, grew in size as he did, which went from his chest to his navel. He dreaded P.E. lessons not only because he was very self conscious of that fact, but also from eleven to when we left he was always called "Frankenstein" - not only by the other pupils, but by the P.E. teacher as well!. Do people never tire of repeating the same "joke" for six years? I know Steven would not have been the type to join in that cruel "banter", but I do wonder if he had any pupils that had scars the lads were embarrassed by and could not see the damage it did to them, when they were forced into the position of being.on display like that for three one hour periods a week. That is why I say that for many lads to have to appear without shirts was a punishment to them.5nztg

I always regarded doing barechested PE as a very practical method. Quick and easy for teachers and pupils alike, Everyone knew where they stood. It's a common sense kit for boys

Comment by: Yours Truly on 13th April 2025 at 21:32


and

Comment by: Chris G on 13th April 2025 at 21:29


".....Isn't that the point, Alan. Steven didn't force anyone into minimal kit and didn't make everyone suffer....."


Before I say anything else, I have to say that Steven sounds to me quite a likeable man, if, in my view, a misguided one. At least he responded openly, unlike the drop and run ex-teacher last week, so anything i say here is not a personal attack on him.

I agree with YT that the method employed was about subjugation. I know he meant well, but in my opinion Steven went about it the wrong way. I am sure though, in his case, his methods had no sleazy edge to them. It reminds me of a situation that occurred once with our well named Mr. Burke. Some idiot threw a stink-bomb in his class towards the end of the summer term. I don't know who did it, there were six possible suspects but I don't know if they were acting alone or jointly and severally. Of course, Mr. B wanted to know who did it, and seemed to think the culprit would own up (as if! - he was a demon with the cane). Of course nobody confessed, so all of us got an hour's detention (it was the last lesson of the day) Thirty boys suffered for the crime of between one to six lads.

Now Chris, what can I say?. I can only assume you are a government spokesman, who always manage a pusillanimous excuse!. You juggle with words mate. Steven was the one who changed the rules, so he DID force the boys into minimal kit, and I am sure he is honest enough to admit it. In so doing he probably did make some of the lads feel they were being punished. I know that wasn't his intention, but as they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I would only punish the guilty.

Steven, please excuse someone without professional experience asking you something. In your 12th April comment you show thoughtfulness, even kindness, when you say, "I knew I didn’t want to rule through fear or shouting" and "It wasn’t about humiliation or severity". If a pupil new to your classes had shown some clear reluctance or embarrassment at doing PE in shorts only, you would have responded sensitively?

(Incidentally, I note there were some concerns about numbers of overweight children in the United Kingdom even in the nineties).

Also (excuse me if this is foolish), when you say "Especially in the upper classes, I struggled a lot", do you refer to older teenage boys or top-set pupils with ability?

Thank you for any responses you are happy to give, and thank you for sharing your professional knowledge and recollections on this site.

Hi Alan,

Steven's post demonstrates my earlier point about subjugation. Teachers of both genders come to find that while girls can be worked with boys must be worked on. And it is about undermining them, stripping them to make them feel self-conscious and vulnerable.

Boys in particular seem to need to know that there is a line there and will keep pushing until they find one. I have posted previously about the biology teacher at my school, who, no doubt aware that as a petite, young, cute woman she would be particularly vulnerable, ran our first two or three classes like Herr Flick. I have also mentioned several other teachers who failed to establish that line and had unhappy, stressful working lives as a result.

But there is a flipside. Once the teacher has established their authority they can start to build a more genial relationship with their students. Our biology teacher turned out to be interesting and likable. But she had to know the lesson was learned first. And it's my guess that is what Steven did with the boys he taught.

' I would further put it to you that the quieter lads who did not cause trouble, had to pay for those who did.'

I was one of those quieter boys who never played up. (Thankfully there was no shirtless PE at my school.) But you are absolutely right, such boys just get lost in the fray.

Just a final thought. My secondary school was quite rough. But we still got through it with vests for PE and athletics outdoors and rugby-style tops for outdoor stuff. It's a but sad that it still always has to be boys coming in for that sort of treatment.

Comment by Alan, 13th April:

"Would it not have been better, in retrospect, just to have picked out those lads who were causing trouble, and forced them into minimal kit, instead of making everyone suffer?"

Isn't that the point, Alan. Steven didn't force anyone into minimal kit and didn't make everyone suffer. He introduced a new way of doing things that everyone accepted, and brought his pupils on-side without resorting to force or threats.

Thanks for your reply Steve. I can understand your aim, but I know, as I was never a tearaway, for want of a better word, that had I been one of the pupils, who, up until that point, had been allowed to wear a shirt, had that been removed from me (literally), I would very much have resented you.

A lot of lads, as you will have read in these posts, felt very insecure in minimal kit - I have given my reasons before, so I do not intend to rehearse them here.

Would it not have been better, in retrospect, just to have picked out those lads who were causing trouble, and forced them into minimal kit, instead of making everyone suffer?.

I do remember that one of our lads, who was extremely violent even at school (he organised the playground protection racket at our place) ended up serving a term for GBH when he was twenty, so I do not for one moment think all schoolboys are angels, I think if it is your blueprint for life it is going to happen.

Hello Alan,
You're absolutely right to question what "earning respect" really means. It’s a term that can be used too casually, and I don't take it lightly.

When I said I earned the boys’ respect, I didn’t mean it in the sense of dominance or submission. What I meant was this: I learned to create a space where expectations were clear, where structure replaced chaos, and where every student — especially the quieter, more reserved ones — could feel safe, seen, and able to participate without being drowned out by the louder voices.

The shirtless uniform policy wasn’t about punishment. It wasn’t a response to bad behavior. It was about setting a collective standard — stripping away status symbols, distractions, and ego games that so often play out among teenage boys. It was about returning focus to movement, teamwork, and discipline. And I led by example: calm, consistent, present and it did indeed help that my leadership was clearly visible by them being stripped to the waist.

Did that approach feel strict? Yes, to some. But my goal was never blind obedience — it was creating a shared rhythm, a sense of fairness. Over time, I saw something shift: the boys started showing up differently. Not out of fear, but with a clearer sense of what was expected, and why.

And no, not everyone responded the same way. But many of those "quieter lads" you mentioned — they were often the ones who benefitted the most. They told me they finally felt able to participate without being shoved aside by the more dominant personalities.

So no, I don't believe I simply controlled them. I guided them — and in return, many of them offered trust, even enthusiasm which I had never seen to such an extent in a shirted group of boys. That, to me, is a form of earned respect. Not perfect, not universal, but honest.

Thanks again for raising the question — it’s an important one.

Comment by: Steven on 12th April 2025 at 03:35


Forgive me, Steven, but you boast that you "earned respect". Could you enlighten us as to HOW you earned it?.

I'd put it to you, that through your authority, you made those lads subservient to your wishes. I would further put it to you that the quieter lads who did not cause trouble, had to pay for those who did.

You might have "earned respect" from other teachers, but you merely controlled the boys.

I was packed off to boarding school and the PE kit from the age of 9 through to 18 was exclusively bare chests or "skins" indoors and outdoors was usually either skins vs vests for football and rugby and just plain stripped down for cross country, athletics and outdoors fitness sessions regardless of the season or weather conditions. Some here may find this harsh but a lot of boys didn't really bother with tops during summer holidays if they weren't required (they usually became goalposts!) My parents also fully approved of this approach and knowing them I'm sure they actively encouraged the teachers to keep me stripped down as much as possible and It was unusual for me to keep a vest on for a full lesson.

Steven, I experienced something similar with vests. Though the school's official PE vests were sky blue a good number turned up for the first lesson with running vests, others with a whole host of different coloured vests. The PE teachers simply made us all strip outside until everyone had the correct vests.

Comment by: Steven on 12th April 2025 at 03:35:

Well said Steven.
How did you introduce the change of kit? Suddenly overnight, or with advance warning? Did anyone complain or object?

Hope you have your hard hat and thick skin ready!

Back in the early 1980s, I started my career as a young and enthusiastic teacher of boys PE, full of energy and ideas. But very quickly, reality in a difficult inner city comprehensive school hit me. Especially in the upper classes, I struggled a lot. Discipline was shaky, respect was almost non-existent, and every lesson felt like a battle for control.

I knew I didn’t want to rule through fear or shouting. I needed to find another way — something subtle, but firm. After some thought and discussions with fellow teachers, I made a bold decision: I simplified the boys' PE uniform. From then on, they wore only the PE shorts — barefoot and bare-chested. Nothing else. No distractions, no hierarchy among them — just focus, simplicity, and equality.

But I kept my tracksuit on. That deliberate contrast — me in full gear, they in minimal kit — created a clear and immediate shift. It wasn’t about humiliation or severity. It was about structure. They could feel the boundaries now. I was the teacher, the authority — not just someone trying to blend in. And they, dressed alike, were ready to move, to listen, to learn.

It changed everything. The noise faded. The respect returned. The energy in class became purposeful. I finally had their attention — not because I demanded it, but because I earned it.

I continued to teach PE with the boys in shorts only until I left the profession in the early 2000s.

Comment by: Leo on 9th April 2025 at 19:35


"Good to see someone of the old school, Pete, standing up for mandatory shirtlessness in school gyms for boys. How can anyone be against such a thing? A large PE group of shirtless boys look fine and well presented.

Of course a lot of physical education in gyms should be done shirtless, why do you need a t-shirt in a gym at all? Sensible schools mandate this, just like sensible schools mandate that all must shower after PE lessons. As I read an old Christine post, these schools are higher achieving with PE if they do this. It doesn't surprise me, shirts off for PE shows you mean business and expect to work hard, that's how I felt it was when I did this at school in my day, topped off with a shower at the end and a good bit of naked camaraderie as we got the sweat or dirt washed off. Communal showers naked with your classmates had their fun moments......."

Wow, Leo - such enthusiasm! - if you read these postings you must realise that many do not agree with you.


Let's leave the bloody gym for a moment and go to the Mathematics room. Mr. Higham said that he worked as a P.E. teacher for "21 years till 1991". We don't know if he went to a specialist P.E. university like Loughborough at that time, or if he was just an also-ran from an ordinary TTC, and he was forced into becoming a PE teacher. Whichever, he must have been at least 23 by 1970, which suggests he was born at the latest by 1947, so he is an elderly gentleman of 77/78 now, and it would be presumptuous to expect him to have modern ideas - a bit like expecting Johann Sebastian Bach to sound like Bela Bartok.

He is also taking at face value a "one-off" poster's assertion that he has P.E. lessons in 2025 of 1970 (lack of) standards. Call me a cynic but I am always a little bit suspicious of one-off postings. On the internet you can be whatever you want to be.........

You sound just like teachers that made my life an absolute misery at school back in the 1970s Pete Higham.

Most PE teachers ultimately fail in their jobs.

Doesn't the last part of Dominic's post prove that. Most of you used to make people dislike any physical activity and dread it, for all manner of reasons from team selections, shirts and skins, doing games they dislike, forced showers, made to go shirtless, freezing outside, being made to feel inadequate, the list goes on.

Yet a lot of people who disliked PE at school found they liked doing gym or related activities when they left and did so under their own steam, often despite, not because of PE in school.

Matthew when I started at secondary school in 1985 I remember being just one of three boys who appeared to wear a vest under their school shirt. I remember our new PE teacher being very sarcastic to us about it and telling us it was about time mum allowed us to stop doing so. I remember telling him my grandad wore white vests and he was 80, and he said he was from an older generation and boys in my time, mid eighties, didn't need to wear such things anymore. One of the other boys with me said his mum told him it was hygienic to wear a vest, and he said something about what's hygienic about living in a vest that gets sweaty under your shirt or something similar to that kind of thing.

He made us all remove school shirts and vests and turn out for the PE lesson bare chested. We were given no other option, I remember he was sarcastic and said to someone else, you can have a choice, shirtless or a bare chest, which is it? The school gym kit was officially a white vest and a stripe but we hardly ever wore it. I had the same PE teacher much of the time for the gym and he obviously disliked vests of any kind.

When it came to school showers he made it quite clear he did not expect to have to keep telling us to take showers fresh back in the changing room from PE, he expected us to do so without being told and would be looking out for anyone who thought about leaving without having one. Various boys often used to turn the showers on ourselves.

There was no recognition by that PE teacher, or any other, that any of us would have any anxiety about doing PE bare chested or going in the showers stark bollock naked with it all hanging out on view, in front of those in our class or any of the actual teachers who paid quite close attention, or so it felt.

There was a lot of sarcasm in our school from a couple of PE teachers and personal comments made to our faces about what we looked like or how we managed. I really disliked sarcastic smirking teachers, and PE teachers who effectively did what the hell they liked with us.

Was it really 40 years ago, well I can still smell and see the gym and changing rooms and some of the guys there and those teachers as if it was just last year. Such strong, powerful memories.

Keeping fit and active and going to a gym for a while a few years ago was so much more enjoyable than the school one, and I kept my shirt on!

Good to see someone of the old school, Pete, standing up for mandatory shirtlessness in school gyms for boys. How can anyone be against such a thing? A large PE group of shirtless boys look fine and well presented.

Of course a lot of physical education in gyms should be done shirtless, why do you need a t-shirt in a gym at all? Sensible schools mandate this, just like sensible schools mandate that all must shower after PE lessons. As I read an old Christine post, these schools are higher achieving with PE if they do this. It doesn't surprise me, shirts off for PE shows you mean business and expect to work hard, that's how I felt it was when I did this at school in my day, topped off with a shower at the end and a good bit of naked camaraderie as we got the sweat or dirt washed off. Communal showers naked with your classmates had their fun moments, all part of growing up. Kids in school were made not to fear group nudity and forced into accepting it, for most of us it worked well. My teachers never let boys wear tops in the school gym and always made us shower whether any of us liked it or not. If you didn't like it then it was tough, they were determined to make you like it by doing it over and over and over again. That's not cruel, it's just tough love of sorts that makes boys grow up.

Good to also see Jack say he got used to it and doesn't mind it. I'm not sure why schools should feel guilty about telling boy pupils to do PE lessons shirtless, yours Jack clearly doesn't and you admit you don't mind. Four years of such PE sounds like it has had a confident effect on your self image. When I was 12 or 13 I was quite a chubby kid at school who was clearly rather overweight drinking too much cola and eating too many Mars Bars. By doing shirtless PE at school in our gym I wanted to shape up and look better and it made me do so and when I was 16 I had lost the chubby overweight appearance and was taller and average to good shape, and I think being told to do my PE shirtless was a big reason for that. I never felt hard done by getting told to remove my top for PE just because I was a bit plump around the middle. Seeing the better shaped boys each week exposed gave me a great reason to do something about my own fitness and shape.

Pete Higham post.

Twenty one years until 1991 so that covers the whole of the seventies and eighties decades, a time many here went to school and speak about.

I appreciate your honesty there Pete, why pretend otherwise if that's what you think. You actually sound just like many of the PE teachers most of us in those decades had and if I'm being honest I wouldn't expect you to change your mind.

Comment by: Matthew S on 8th April 2025

Matthew, that's interesting. Reading back through this discussion, there appears to be a noticeable correlation, at least among the generation brought up to wear vests as regular daily underwear, between first encountering bare-chested PE and permanently discarding those vests as daily wear.
I should perhaps add that from the time that I entered my teens, my usual night attire was just vest and underpants, so for me, and I suspect many other boys of my age, bare-chested PE led naturally and quickly to bare-chested sleeping.

Comment by: Pete Higham on 8th April 2025 at 19:32




".....I've been a state school comprehensive PE teacher in the past, for 21 years until 1991 and most PE classes I took this was the expectation. I have no reson to doubt those decisions were sound.......

There are no excuses for boys to be silly about being a bare chest top in PE in any circumstance. I apply the same attirude to showering as well......"


Mr Higham. Sir, You were no doubt one of those teachers who were in the "if I'm happy then everybody is happy" brigade.

Clearly you had no empathy, but that was usually the way with teachers of your vintage, however, where I do want to bring you to task is your rather snide sign off " being far more mature than one or two oldies on here are who seem to feel hard done by"

Two points: 1) Some of us had reason to feel that way and.2) By your own admission you left the business 34 years ago. A bit rich referring to men younger than yourself as "oldies".!.

Thank you for your reply, Gerry. I did stop wearing vests completely.

(I had nothing against the garment as such - I just took up my mother's suggestion).

Comment by: Matthew S on 7th April 2025:

Matthew, it sounds as though we both had "sensible" mothers as far as vests were concerned. Did you stop wearing vests completely on your Mum's suggestion, or only on PE days?