School Board relaxes student dress code, again | Eastern North Carolina Now

    The Beaufort County Board of Education, meeting in its regular monthly meeting Monday night, (1-24-11) dispatched a relatively short agenda quickly. The largest amount of time was spent on awards and recognitions followed by a discussion of revisions in the student dress code. The issue focused on whether students might be permitted to wear collarless "spirit wear" shirts. Essentially these are T-shirts with some type of school spirit graphics on them. They are currently prohibited because the code prohibits T-shirts except as undershirts.

    You'll hear in the discussion how this issue will now be addressed following a return of the policy to the next meeting. They decided to allow "spirit wear" shirts.

    In the event you are not inclined to watch this and the other videos we will post from the meeting, allow us to simply mention that they spent more time on T-shirts than they did on whether to eliminate teacher recruitment scholarships and the Reduction in Force policy that was proposed. We'll have a separate video on that issue. But as has been true so many times in the past, the dress code got more time and attention than anything else in Monday night's meeting.

    For those who have not been following this issue over the years, the dress code when first implemented was one of the strictest in the state. Over time it has been relaxed several times and now some students and parents say it is virtually meaningless at some schools, with variations such that some things are permitted at some schools which are banned at another. You detect some of this in the discussion in this video:



    Commentary

    The discussion Monday night was a perfect illustration of what we have said all along about how Beaufort County Schools has approached the issue of student dress. In a nutshell, we have always said: "what's the point?" We heard numerous stabs at answering that question. The best one we ever heard was when Dr. Moss contended it was a "safety" issue. Remember that? They were wrestling with the kinds of coats student could wear, fearful that someone would smuggle a weapon. The dress code did not accomplish that objective, in that students still brought weapons.

    Then it was uniformity and this naturally was used to defend uniforms. But there was a public backlash against the restrictiveness of the prescribed uniforms so the nitty gritty of uniformity yielded to variations. First it was colors, if we recall correctly. Then other variations. You can go into any school today and find a wide range of dress, with more variation than uniformity across the system. We were never told what would be accomplished if uniformity were achieved and maintained except it would make it easier for a parent to know what was permitted. But as what was permitted began to expand the variations, parents obviously might have still known what was permitted but not necessarily what was not permitted. And it has now come down to what it is that is permitted and what is not permitted is as much a function of who is making the decision rather than the uniform application of a prescribed policy.

    Now we hear them discussing variation by days. So one might ask, if wearing a particular kind of shirt is not a problem on certain days, why is it a problem on another day?

    We agree with Terry Williams. What difference does it make if a student wears a shirt with a collar or without a collar. We were once told that collars were required because without them the girls would show too much. But nobody ever explained to us why that meant boys couldn't wear T-shirts.

    We hate to think about the time that has been consumed on this issue. Even at the school board level. But it is even worse to think of the administrative time that has been expended on this. And for what?

    So not only has the policy come virtually full circle but the question comes back to where we started: What's the point? What is the legitimate educational objective for a dress code? If it is to prevent "indecent clothes" why are skin tight clothes allowed? If it is, as Dr. Moss once claimed, to prevent disruption and distraction, then the question still stands: What's the point? Does it work?

    So that brings us to our suggestion. Adopt a dress code that is designed and measured by its effectiveness in actually, really preventing legitimate problems with student learning or discipline. Don't deal with the dress, deal with the impact the dress has on the legitimate educational objectives of the school. And guess what. In 1969 that is exactly what the U. S. Supreme Court said: If the dress causes a disruption or a distraction from the educational process it can be prohibited if that is necessary to eliminate the disruption or distraction. Absent "a material disruption or distraction...neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional right at the school house gate." (Tinker v. Des Moines)

    But, some say, "that leaves it as a judgment decision." To which we would respond: "Certainly. And if we have administrators who can't make that judgment then we need to ask ourselves how we can allow them to make much more important judgment decisions. And we think the answer to that is simple: Let the administrators do their jobs as their best judgment entails. It is their job to maintain a safe and orderly environment. Let them do their job and support them in doing so. Indeed, hold them accountable for doing so."

    Of this much we are sure...If you adopt a dress code there will always be students who will push the limits. The line will always be changing. It has always been that way and it always will, no matter what a school board decides. So, what's the point in the school board trying to sit behind a desk and write rules? Unless you just want to let them think they are in charge, when most of the teenagers in the system know that's not true.

    So, what's the point?

    Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.