"Dress Coded"

[luvsJack]

OK, here's our dress code... it applies to all middle school students (not elementary or HS):


So, with the exception of saying "Girls may wear skirts that cover the knee", it seems pretty even male/female. There is nothing that says why there's a dress code. I've now had three kids go through this school. They all hated the dress code. I agree some of the rules seem silly (I've had to take a belt to oldest DD because she'd keep forgetting hers). But they're all pretty simple to follow. And yes, it usually is pretty hot when school starts back up in the fall. Too bad, no shorts.

As long as the dress codes are applied to boys and girls equally, I don't have a problem with them.

I do think it's funny... some on this thread hint (or flat out say) that their child shouldn't be uncomfortable, but if someone else is made uncomfortable by what others are wearing, "it's their problem". And it doesn't have to be anything with exposed skin... find a shirt with a NSFW image or wording on it... should kids be allowed to wear that?

As a former teenage boy, I'll admit there were times I was distracted by what the girls were wearing (and it wasn't always about what skin was showing).

There is a difference in wearing a shirt with something offensive on it and a middle school girl being made to feel uncomfortable because she is being measured daily. Big, huge difference. No one should be made to be uncomfortable in their own skin. So having an issue with her being made to feel like she can't wear shorts does not result in someone thinking its ok to wear offensive t-shirts.

Teen boys are distracted by teen girls. Period. It has nothing to do with clothes or fit of clothes. They just are.


I, personally, am not against dress codes; I have seen what having too lax of one can result in.

Didn't really have a problem with the uniforms but I do know they didn't do anything that they are said to do. They aren't necessarily cheaper than having to buy regular clothes--if you buy the inexpensive ones, they look like dishrags in a few weeks so you are just having to re-buy and that's a good trick once back to school sales are over. And the cheaper stores have a different cut than the more expensive ones and the kids can tell at one glance. So they don't keep down the "I have more money than you" mess. The only benefit I agree with is that if someone was to walk in to the hallway that doesn't belong there, the school police or the teachers can tell at a glance.

But even the shorts sold as "dress code approved" and the same shorts every kid in a school is buying can not pass the fingertip test on some girls. Girls are proportioned differently. If a teacher sees a girls whose shorts are obviously too short, calls the girl into the hall and has her measure the shorts to her fingertips; I don't have an issue with that. But having every girl stand and do it, especially when some are obviously NOT too short, is ridiculous. And sending a girl to the office to wait for someone to bring more clothes or sent home because her shorts are just a little above the fingertips is also ridiculous.

 

[Wishing on a star]

The idea that girls/women should have to cover their body because of a guy....
Okay... that is what is used to justify Burqua's, big long kimono's, neck-to-toe historic women's dress, etc.
And, actually restrict a woman's abilities and freedom of movement.
IMHO, there is absolutely nothing okay about that justification or argument, at all.
Nothing.

I agree with reasonable body coverage... No bootie shorts, skimpy cami tops, etc.
But, other than that.

And, as far as wearing a belt. If this is at a private school where the families choose, and a certain uniform/look seems to be very important/integral, then, hey, that is a choice. Have at it. None of my concern.

However, I can find absolutely no valid reason (note the word VALID), at all, whatsoever, why anyone in a public domain should be able to demand that my child wear a belt, to require that I, as a parent, make them do so. The last thing I would ever, in a million years do, is punish my child over such a thing. Wouldn't happen.

 

[Wishing on a star]

OP, I had mentioned shorter Capri pants...
If this is not something that would work with your daughter, due to preferences or any other reason, then perhaps take some pants and get them hemmed into shorts that are long enough that there would be no question about the length, and should be no 'inspection'.
Maybe that would be one approach/solution???

My son has long legs. So, when the shorter lengths of shorts came into style, it was hard to find shorts that looked right. That didn't look too short on him. (No dress code issues)
I took pants and had them hemmed into shorts with the better, longer, length.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Hey, I am laughing now at the tight, short-shorts, like Coach Mellor wears on that 80's TV show!!!!!!
Don't think they would pass muster today at many schools!!!

 

[luvsJack]

The idea that girls/women should have to cover their body because of a guy....
Okay... that is what is used to justify Burqua's, big long kimono's, neck-to-toe historic women's dress, etc.
And, actually restrict a woman's abilities and freedom of movement.
IMHO, there is absolutely nothing okay about that justification or argument, at all.
Nothing.

I agree with reasonable body coverage... No bootie shorts, skimpy cami tops, etc.
But, other than that.

And, as far as wearing a belt. If this is at a private school where the families choose, and a certain uniform/look seems to be very important/integral, then, hey, that is a choice. Have at it. None of my concern.

However, I can find absolutely no valid reason (note the word VALID), at all, whatsoever, why anyone in a public domain should be able to demand that my child wear a belt, to require that I, as a parent, make them do so. The last thing I would ever, in a million years do, is punish my child over such a thing. Wouldn't happen.

A lot of schools have in their dress code that a belt must be worn if belt loops are present. I think it was a way to combat the sagging pants problem.

 

[tzolkin]

A lot of schools have in their dress code that a belt must be worn if belt loops are present. I think it was a way to combat the sagging pants problem.

Which is ridiculous because every person I have ever seen wearing their pants below their butt has been wearing a belt to hold them in that position (without sliding completely off their legs). And most people who wear pants that fit properly around their waist do not need to wear a belt.

 

[luvsJack]

Which is ridiculous because every person I have ever seen wearing their pants below their butt has been wearing a belt to hold them in that position (without sliding completely off their legs). And most people who wear pants that fit properly around their waist do not need to wear a belt.

I don't disagree at all. And they may just be using the saggy pants as an excuse to require the belts, I don't know. It was always an aggravating rule. For dd the belt had to be black or brown. Now she had lots of belts for other outfits but none were brown or black so we were forever hunting that dang school belt. And she would put it on last so if she was going to forget something, that was it. The times she forgot, she realized on the way to school so I would run back and get the belt and bring it back before she got caught without it.

 

[sam_gordon]

There is a difference in wearing a shirt with something offensive on it and a middle school girl being made to feel uncomfortable because she is being measured daily. Big, huge difference. No one should be made to be uncomfortable in their own skin. So having an issue with her being made to feel like she can't wear shorts does not result in someone thinking its ok to wear offensive t-shirts.

I agree with reasonable body coverage... No bootie shorts, skimpy cami tops, etc.

My point is people ARE ok with a "dress code". There have been some in this thread that have said they are against any dress code. If you didn't say that, I wasn't referring to you.

What people have a problem with is the level the dress code gets to.

 

[luvsJack]

My point is people ARE ok with a "dress code". There have been some in this thread that have said they are against any dress code. If you didn't say that, I wasn't referring to you.

What people have a problem with is the level the dress code gets to.

Actually you said that some were saying (and I was one that said it) the girl should not be made to be uncomfortable but were ok with others being made uncomfortable. That isn't necessarily true.

 

[Wishing on a star]

We disagree about a LOT. But I have no problem with a reasonable dress code.

I will say that the idea that a female who is not covered from head to toe is to blame for any male discomfort is just ridiculous.
Look at my post about that, above. #162

 

[DisneyOma]

The boys rarely wear super short shorts so I don't have an issue with just being girls checked.

LOL, you are pretty naive if you think teen girls aren't distracted by teen boys. Does it effect their learning- who knows, for some I'm sure for others maybe not. Do I care one way or another, nope because I have no problem with schools setting rules and expecting students and their parents to follow them.

So for those saying it's sexist are you saying that if a boy comes in in booty shorts he wouldn't be dress coded?

Here a tank top isn't an issue as our students can wear them, however they can't wear spaghetti straps.

All of what you've stated above is why it's considered sexist (I'm sure there's more, but I just went through the first page) The OP stated that all the girls in shorts were being checked. Were all the boys in shorts checked too? If not, that's sexist. If the rules being checked are being applied to the girls and not the boys, that's sexist. It was about all girls in shorts, not just booty shorts. Tanks tops vs spaghetti straps - why the distinction? Because more females wear spaghetti straps than males? Sexist.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I will also add, if a dress code or school uniform is designed in place to be restrictive so that students could not wear anything that looks like 'money'.
Anyone who would support that is showing a blatant bias, as well as class discrimination.

When I was in school, our dress code prohibited certain “money” brands and articles of clothing in an effort to prevent students from being jumped and/or shot and killed for them. The guidelines were in place with student safety in mind, not a desire to discriminate against those with more affluence.

 

[Aladora]

I'm not a big fan of dress codes, but I'm not "anti dress code" either - are we required to be all or none?

Of course a NSFW image or words is inappropriate - just the same way as cussing at a teacher would be inappropriate. There is nothing specifically written in my child's handbook that says that it is wrong to swear at a teacher, but of course doing so will get you into a world of trouble. The same should be true if you were to try to wear clothes that had that type of language on them.

Dress codes need to be gender-neutral anytime they're used within public venues.

I love the dress code that our school district just approved a year ago:

1.0 RATIONALE
1.1 The District is committed to providing students with learning environments that are safe, responsive, and inclusive.
1.2 The District recognizes that decisions about dress reflect individual expression of identity, socio-cultural norms, and economic factors and are intensely personal.

3.0 POLICY
3.1 Students may attend school and school-related functions in dress of their choice under the conditions that the choices:
3.1.1 Conform with established health and safety requirements for the intended activity; and
3.1.2 Do not promote drugs or alcohol; display offensive language or images; or encourage discrimination.

That's the entirety of the policy. In case anyone is curious, section 2.0 is Definitions and the section is entirely blank.

 

[Wendy31]

I think I attended a school w/ one of the strictest dress codes ever.

We girls weren't allowed to wear pants or shorts. We had to skirts & dresses to school. At some approved school functions, we could wear culottes - but they couldn't be form-fitting at all. We had to wear socks or hoisery. No sleeveless tops. No low cut tops. No form-fitting tops.

Our skirts & dresses had to be knee-length. We were often lined up & asked to stand on our knees - if our hemlines weren't touching the floor, our skirts were too short.

I was a cheerleader, &, at the beginning of the year after we had received our uniforms, we had to have a "dress rehearsal" for the high school administrator (who was a woman). We'd stand at attention in front of her while she examined our uniforms. She'd instruct us to suck in our stomachs so that we wouldn't have "guts" & the uniforms would look nicer. I was a petite little girl - so I was lucky. She took some of the other cheerleaders aside & told them they needed to wear shapewear under their uniforms.

We'd go to cheerleading camp at a very conservative college. In between the dorm & the practice gym, we'd have to wear a dress or skirt. We'd change into our practice clothes in the gym & then change back into our skirts to go back to our dorms.

Anyway... dress codes just make me laugh remembering my school days! LOL!

I do think dress codes are needed because I think students need to learn how to dress appropriately for different occasions. If schools didn't have dress codes, there'd always be kids trying to wear completely inappropriate attire.

But I don't like dress codes that are sexist. The excuse that a guy can be distracted by what a girl is wearing irritates me so much. I grew up that way. DH & I are not raising our children that way. We give our sons way more credit than that!

However, I will say that, due to there being more variety to female clothing, there often ends up being more "rules" for girls - simply because there just ends up being more to regulate.

We had a local school administrator get in loads of trouble this past school year - it even made the national news. Apparently, at his school, boys were coming to school in athletic shorts, & athletic shorts are against the dress code - even though the shorts were regulation length. So, during his morning assembly announcements, he reminded the boys NOT to wear the athletic shorts and proceeded to blame the rule on the girls. He was just kidding (&, from what I heard from people who know & work w/ him, he's a great guy & a wonderful teacher), but he even went so far as to blame everything bad in a guy's life on girls - going all the way back to Eve.

The guys' athletic shorts were long enough & fit the dress code length, but, as girls' athletic shorts are made to be worn shorter & don't fit the regulation length, the school had tried to make a non-sexist rule & outlaw all athletic shorts. The guys complained that their shorts were long enough, & this particular administrator tried to make a joke about it - "If you want to complain, complain to the girls. It's their fault you can't wear athletic shorts."

 

[Skippy918]

At our middle school orientation they stressed the dress code especially for the girls. If girls wear leggings they have to wear tunic length shirts to cover their bottoms. I don’t understand why this rule exists. Not all leggings are skin tight.

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

And don't even get me started on public schools that try to regulate students' hair length...

 

[tzolkin]

At our middle school orientation they stressed the dress code especially for the girls. If girls wear leggings they have to wear tunic length shirts to cover their bottoms. I don’t understand why this rule exists. Not all leggings are skin tight.

Our rule is that the top/dress/skirt that they are wearing with the leggings must be long enough to be within dress code without the leggings. Covering their bottom is not long enough; it must be mid-thigh or longer.

 

[Colleen27]

I do think it's funny... some on this thread hint (or flat out say) that their child shouldn't be uncomfortable, but if someone else is made uncomfortable by what others are wearing, "it's their problem".

You don't think there's a difference between physical discomfort caused by an inability to wear weather-appropriate clothing and the "discomfort" of seeing someone in clothing you don't personally approve of?

Eh... I hear that one a lot, and I'm not sure it works out as well as planned. I wore a uniform (not just a dress code) in grades 1-12. Yes. We were all wearing the same ugly jumper or the same color pants, but the "fitting in" just changed. Just thinking of high school, it wasn't about what clothes you were wearing... it was about what shoes you wore, or what purse you had, or whether you had real diamond earrings, or what car you had (or thought you'd get for your 16th birthday. My answer: no car.)

Exactly. We have kids whose uniforms are all high-quality brands that fit beautifully, accessorized with Coach belts and purses and real jewelry... and we have kids in ill-fitting, unisex uniforms from Kmart paired with accessories from Claires. Having a uniform doesn't do a single thing to cover up income differences between students, and if anything, they make the "have nots" feel worse because it is possible to go to Target and get street clothes that fit well and are at least semi-cute, but with uniforms, cheap tends not to fit kids who are any way out of standard for their age/size. So the more developed girls get shirts that are uncomfortably tight across the chest, the tall kids get shorts that aren't quite long enough, etc.

I do think there are some pros to uniforms, but in my experience, most of the big selling points don't really pan out as promised - they don't eliminate outward signs of class or style, they don't save families money, and they don't end the hassles of dress code enforcement. (They do, however, make mornings with my budding-fashionista 10yo much easier - special events and dress down days are So. Much. drama in picking the right outfit that I have nightmares of going through it every day once she gets to high school!)

Local Catholic school requires all uniform pieces, jacket, socks and shoes of every student to be bought from the same company. These pieces are very expensive. And the kids could still who had more money by who had several outfits and who had the same two they wore over and over. So even when everyone truly has the exact same clothing, they still know.

DD's school went to that policy when she was a junior. Fortunately it was phased in, with only the incoming classes having to comply, because there's no way I'd have quietly laid out another $500+ for the newly-required uniform (which does not have any pieces in common with the previous uniform - no more hand-me-downs!). All pieces have to come from a specific store, in specific styles, and they are really expensive. The shoes are $140, the white blouse $47, etc. And every piece is embroidered with the school logo so there's no fudging and buying something that is "close enough". By the end of the first year, you could tell which families bought a full wardrobe of uniform clothing and which were trying to get by with a few days' or a week's worth because they really haven't worn well, and two years in, you can REALLY see which families bought a new school wardrobe over the summer compared to those still wearing their first set.

 

[sam_gordon]

You don't think there's a difference between physical discomfort caused by an inability to wear weather-appropriate clothing and the "discomfort" of seeing someone in clothing you don't personally approve of?

Yes, they are two different kinds of discomfort. But it's still discomfort. Plenty of people actually have to work outside in heat and have to wear pants and long sleeved shirts, in addition to doing physical labor. Sorry, I don't see how forcing kids to wear long pants and collared shirts is that much of a imposition.

 

[luvsJack]

Yes, they are two different kinds of discomfort. But it's still discomfort. Plenty of people actually have to work outside in heat and have to wear pants and long sleeved shirts, in addition to doing physical labor. Sorry, I don't see how forcing kids to wear long pants and collared shirts is that much of a imposition.

You are missing the point. It’s not about being uncomfortable in long pants. Or physically uncomfortable at all. It’s about being made to feel uncomfortable by the measuring of the shorts. Of feeling like your clothing and/or body is being scrutinized. And at that age it’s a big deal. Maybe not to an adult but to a middle school girl it is.