Monday, May 22, 2017

It's 80 Degrees and Here It Comes...

I'm not sure I really see much wrong with this dress code but then, I'm old.









19 comments:

Real World said...

What's wrong with this dress code is how bizarrely negative it is. As if the school could just outlaw teenagers from going through puberty or having sexual feelings. Newsflash: you can't regulate that out of humans.

You could make all the students wear uniforms, sure. Because students at Catholic all-girls' boarding schools wear uniforms and they don't have sexual feelings? Or sex? Ha ha ha. Uniforms don't prevent sex. Look at the military, for example.

Humans have sexual feelings because it's part of being human. The same way people experience hunger or thirst or a need to sleep. These are intrinsic. I'm sure SPS finds the students' need to eat inconvenient as well. But they're not educating robots. They're educating humans.


Anonymous said...

Two 'don'ts" for the boys - saggy pants, muscle shirts. Nine 'don'ts' for the girls. Clearly the girls budding sexuality will cause mass chaos.

And that's why dress codes suck.

Feminist

Anonymous said...

What Feminist said.

Rare Commenter

Owler said...

It seems like the rules could be summed up as
1. No bare shoulders or backs (no muscle shirts, spaghetti straps, or strapless clothing).
2. No bellies or sagging to reveal underwear.
3. Shorts and skirts should cover to mid-thigh.
To remove the appearance of gender rules.

Anonymous said...

This code is ridiculous if it is based on 'professional' dress. Bare shoulders are everywhere in summertime offices unless it's a law office and let's hope the majority of our kids aren't headed into that profession. See the current "cold shoulder" fashions with sleeves, shoulder straps, and shoulder showing between. Peasant tops are everywhere too. They reveal zero cleavage. Do shoulders cause an upswell of hormones? Perchance a glimpse of ankle?
What is it, 1870?

Even lawyers wear short skirts with their blazers.

How about a code that says: No display of genitals, cleavage, underpants or bras and leave it at that. Sheesh. And leave the occasional fat bra strap showing under a thin sleeve top alone. Some girls need support for their girls!

Agreed that the code as written is crap.

Justa Mom

Melissa Westbrook said...

Justa Mom, I'm sorry you don't like lawyers but the vast number in the profession are good decent people.

As for this code, CHIHS probably wrote it and that's because the district gives principals leeway and principals in turn give leeway to teachers. No wonder kids feel confused.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - there are appropriate and inappropriate things to wear to school. I don't think it's about hiding bodies as much as the idea that there are a couple of categories of dress like Grandma/religious service, school, work, beach, special occasion.

Most people have some overlap but generally, you'd probably wear different things. That's the point, not trying to shame girls.

Grouchy Parent said...

This dress code business is a perfect example of an area where the district SHOULD be looking at equity issues. Rules for how students should dress are definitely not being policed the same at every school. How much you want to bet they are not policed the same for students of different socioeconomic levels, different races, different genders? How much you want to bet?

I say, call in the equity team!

By the way, here's the state law. Why not just use it?

A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.

Anonymous said...

Wow, what a clear and unambiguous law (sarcasm). There will always be someone affronted and alarmed at something you do. Fundamentalist LDS? Muslims? Mormons? I remember when I was in middle school. We had just moved from a liberal east coast city in New York state to a smaller California central coast town (this was 1973 BTW). I was the new kid in school and it was the first time I had ever encountered Mormons. "Wow" the Mormon girls said regarding my standard outfit, "that is a REALLY short skirt!". To their credit they were always nice and polite about it. But one person's YAWN is the next person's apocalypse. Like many laws, the wording of the WA state law appears useless.

Fortunately, I, personally, am seeing very little harassment and/or shaming or enforcement of dress codes at the public high schools here (though I'll wager you readers have contradicting stories). Now, if we could only work on a challenging curriculum!

-Parent

Anonymous said...

Lake Washington has a much better graphic, more in line with Owler's suggestions.

http://www.lwsd.org/school/lwhs/For-Students/Pages/Dress-Code.aspx

-another parent

Anonymous said...

As a parent I don't disagree with a clear dress code such as no underwear showing, shorts to mid-thigh and the like. Rules that apply to both genders. Although, I do want the rules to be applied without shame. Especially, for middle schoolers who can experience a change in body from start of school day to end. I want administrators to recall the awkwardness of this time of life and speak to students with understanding, but also clarity about the expected apparel for the next school day.

On the other hand I was offended to receive the same message from my elementary school this week. As if I would send my Kindergartner to school in a crop top and booty shorts. An insulting message to parents and tone deaf on the part of the school. Our school administrators should know better than to just blindly pass along a message from the District without regard to the audience.

E/MS Parent

Melissa Westbrook said...

E/MS, maybe you wouldn't send your elementary-aged child to school in a crop top but someone else might. The idea of reminding parents is to let them know that a dress code exists avoiding, "I had no idea."

Outsider said...

Some people here seem to think that boys can't wear mini-skirts and spaghetti straps, or girls can't wear boxer shorts with their pants buckled around their knees. That's, like, so totally cis-normist! Or gender binary-ist, or something. I am sure there is a word for it.

The dress code would be fine if they just use some more woke, inclusive clip art.

Anonymous said...

While the sign says it applies to all genders- it has pictures of girls in all but one picture. Let's take the focus off judging girls for what they wear. Really what is wrong with tank tops? Or thin straps? Some of them actually serve the purpose of crossing in the back to hold clothing on!

I found this article helpful:
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/09/16/438852964/dress-code-drama-whats-a-principal-to-do

BTW I just had my own issue with my 7 yo being shamed for wearing an athletic dress that had straps that actually hold the dress on her very tall slender body. Basically every skirt is already too short for her, she just has to wear bike shorts under every dress. She hates pants or shorts because none of them ever fit her.

-Feminist

Anonymous said...

Do male/female admins/staff adhere to a modest dress code? I've seen high-level admins and teachers in tight bike shorts, short baby doll dresses revealing cleavage, etc. Role models?

-McClureWatcher

Hockey Dad said...

We had one paid parent helper who regularly dressed like a cross between Betty Boop and a dominatrix. She dressed like that for years. Then suddenly one year, boom, normal mom in jeans. What changed? The male principal left and we got a female principal. It's an elementary school, so I doubt any of the kids cared. But, yeah, if the dress codes begins, "School is a professional environment and you are expected to dress appropriately, as you would for a job..." then she actually routinely broke several of the no-no's in the Sealth flyer.

Anonymous said...

Why not just put up a figure of a generic body shape and shade in the areas that need to be covered, regardless of sex? Then they shade in the shape of a tank top with reasonably thick straps, a reasonable neckline, and reasonable armpit/side coverage, and shade in the shape of a pair of bike shorts? That should cover it all.

I wonder if the rules apply to cheerleading outfits? Can they wear them to class on game days? Do the rules also apply to sports outfits/uniforms, like wrestling onesies or running shorts or tennis skirts? If it's ok to show more skin while engaged in sports, why not also while in class? It's not "necessary" during sports, just customary.

no shame

Melissa Westbrook said...

No Shame, I cannot say what all schools do but Roosevelt does allow the cheerleaders to wear their uniforms on game days. The skirt is short but they are actually pretty covered otherwise.

As for sports, it's different from school. Wrestlers actually do wear their uniforms for a specific sports reason, not to show skin. And basketball uniforms are much bagger and longer than when I was in high school. Runners wear shorts because it's usually a hot endeavor to run, do hurtles, etc.

Anonymous said...

Story on front page of Seattle Times right now: Puyallup students went on protest walkout over a dresscode similar to the one Melissa posted. They said it is sexist.

EdVoter

Melissa Westbrook said...

I read that article. Look, if the students want to act as the people who decide what is appropriate, let them. I think people might be surprised - if they picked who is on this panel fairly - what they say.