I wore stuff like that in high school but my school had a very lax dress code and it wasn't an issue. Honestly i wear similar (but better patterns) dresses to teach in(minus the bra straps showing).
Looks like she has really long hair too that likely covered most of her back anyway.
I haven't been in a school for awhile, but backless, halter dresses are okay for teachers? This is assuming you aren't wearing a jacket or sweater as well.
Note, I have the most lax dress code ever, so this isn't judgment, just asking.
Well I teach In college but yeah on really hot days it's ok. I usually bring a sweater but sometimes it comes off if I'm hot. I am also an acting teacher so it's pretty lax in my classroom
I don't see how we can say it's appropriate or not when we can only see the back.
IMO, it's backless, so that right there knocks it off the appropriate list. Plus, it's a halter, so I would ASSume there may be more cleavage showing than what would be appropriate for school.
Post by penguingrrl on May 25, 2015 15:17:15 GMT -5
It's a cute dress, but definitely wouldn't have passed dress code in my HS or my girl's current elementary school, both of which don't allow sleeveless shirts/dresses on anyone; the official rule is that shoulders must be covered. I think that's too strict and it makes me angry at the elementary level, but if that's the rule then she has to follow it if it's equally applied as it is here (boys can't wear anything sleeveless, nor can girls).
I don't think the dress is school inappropriate. Shrugs.
I was shocked to learn that teens around here are allowed to wear bandeau bras under (unlined) lace shirts. That would NOT fly in the Midwest. California is a different world.
I once vented to my English teacher about our school's "no sleeveless top" requirement, scoffing at how ridiculous the idea that a shoulder is somehow provocative. She then told me I should read a certain poem where the poet discussed just that...more in a devil's advocate type way, though, than as an endorsement of the policy. I think she was just trying to push me to make a better argument.
I don't find the dress itself to be an inappropriate outfit, but I do think it would violate a lot of school dress codes. Every school I've either worked in or attended have had stipulations like: 2" straps on tank tops, no bare backs (including the upper back that this dress shows), no halter-style tank tops, etc. I am OK with schools having a dress code like that. I also just don't like the look of wearing a regular bra with a halter so that the straps show - personal preference there.
I really only have issues when the dress code is one thing for boys and one thing for girls (like the swim party example above about only females having to cover with a shirt) or when the BS about women tempting men with their clothing choices gets brought in. Blech.
I do think this student had many points I agree with, but wish she wouldn't have tried to take low blows at the administrator in her letter. It makes her seem childish and petulant, when in reality, she has a lot of good points that people should listen to.
I don't think anyone is saying the dress itself is inappropriate. It is, however, inappropriate for school without some type of sweater or something, because it likely violates school dress codes.
I don't see how we can say it's appropriate or not when we can only see the back.
According to the letter, the back/shoulders is what the administrator found objectionable. I don't think she's trying to hide the front, just display the area that violates dress code.
I wouldn't like that dress on a middle schooler. A late teen/early adult? Eh. I've seen worse. To me a dress code is about preventing kids too young to know better from being inappropriate. Someone that age knows the signals they send, and if not, it's a good time to learn. I think you think you learn better from peer reactions than you do administration rules. If it's not dangerous or illegal, I think at this age it's practical to let it go.
I went to high school in Utah, anything that wasn't considered "modest" was against policy (shoulders had to be covered, necklines modest, and shorts could be 2" above the knee). There were plenty of ways people wore clothing they liked without going against the dress code (eg: a tank top with a shirt under it, jackets, etc.). Her dress could have been made appropriate if she put on a jacket, like others have pointed out, or a t-shirt underneath.
While I agree that the school officials were out of bounds calling the dress a "sexual distraction", sending her to detention sounds a bit much and I feel like information is missing. Did Wiggins back talk? Did the school try to assist Wiggins to be dress-code appropriate so she could get back to class? My old high school offered several options: A-ask you to cover up with a sweater or go home and change B-no sweater or ability to go home, here's a bright orange t-shirt to wear until the end of school, or C-refusal of t-shirt required a call home and you were kicked out for the day plus detention.
Dude, why the hell does the school not have a dress code to cover this? Like other pp said, the school's reasoning is douchetastic and I can't believe they couldn't have gotten her to change without resorting to that leve of bs.
I went to private school, so we wore polos/oxfords and long ass shorts that we would roll up any time we thought we could get away with it. I do not think this is appropriate for high school school particularly with the tattoo showing, but I would have worn it to a college class I will also not be allowing my kids to get tattoos while they are under the age of consent and I am likely footing the bill so there is that. I think parts of her letter are spot on, but she reverts to some bratty stuff that makes it less effective.
I know people hate uniforms but I like them. Takes away the grey area. You can express your individuality at home.
1. According to the article, the complaint from the vice-principal seems to be only about exposing her back and shoulders. What the front of the dress looks like is a moot point. That wasn't the concern from the principal. If it's a halter, the bodice can look any number of ways, including high-necked. Stop getting hung up on this.
2. She's in Canada and Canada does not have a minimum tattoo age. She's 17 and she may have had parental approval for her tattoos, but none of that matters. The issue isn't her tattoos and judging her for them is taking away from the main point of the way she's being treated.
3. To the best of our knowledge it doesn't seem that her school has a specific dress code. In retrospect, creating a dress code that treated girls and boys equally would solve this problem, but the problem of putting the burden of "modest dress" on girls is still a big one.
So many of the posts in this thread are hung up on her actual dress. Her point remains the same. There IS a double standard when it comes to how girls dress. Girls are NOT responsible for the sexual thoughts boys have. Girls are NOT required to cover their bodies because it might induce lustful thoughts in boys. The vice-principal was absolutely wrong in his reasoning for her to cover her body. She is not responsible for the actions and thoughts of the boys around her.
"2. She's in Canada and Canada does not have a minimum tattoo age. She's 17 and she may have had parental approval for her tattoos, but none of that matters. The issue isn't her tattoos and judging her for them is taking away from the main point of the way she's being treated."
Hey relax @ajl. I'm the only one who brought up the tattoo and I'm certainly not hung up on it. And I don't judge her for it, I judge her parents for it. But now it seems I need to judge Canada too. Anyway it was an off hand throwaway comment and I otherwise agree with your other points.
It is expected that all students dress with appropriate taste in order that the educational process is not disrupted. Dressing for school means that you wear clothes in the manner they are intended to be worn. For the purpose of safety and continuity of the instructional program, we ask your cooperation in making District 2 schools a positive learning environment. We ask that you keep the district dress code policy in mind when purchasing school clothes. We ask that you keep district 2 dress code standards in mind when purchasing school clothes.
While at school or at any school-sponsored event, students shall be dressed and groomed in a manner that will neither adversely affect the instructional program nor violate reasonable and acceptable standards of cleanliness, safety, or appropriateness as judged by the principal and administration of Harrison Trimble High School.
The following items are prohibited:
A. Clothing or articles of clothing related to a group or gang which, in the judgment of the principal/designee, may provoke others to violence, disrupt school operations, or intimidate students and staff members, including, but not limited to:
• Pants which were slit or frayed at the cuff line
• Pants worn below the waist (sagging)
• Pants which do not fit without a belt
• Pants which have been altered to fit around the waist
• Pants cut-off below the knee
• Pajamas
• Shorts below the knee that have been cut off and not hemmed
• Shorts worn below the knee with socks up to the pant line
• White ribbed tank top undershirts worn as outer garment
• Sunglasses worn in the classroom
B. Clothing with inappropriate messages (e.g. alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, sexually related, obscene symbols/pictures).
C. Undergarments without appropriate outer clothing or outer clothing which exposes underclothing.
D. Swimming attire
E. Spiked collars, spiked wristbands, or other clothing, jewelry, or accessories that could pose a threat to student physical well-being and safety. This includes Goth make-up and accessories.
F. Clothing that is excessively revealing for a school environment:
The aim of this policy is to foster a responsible and respectful attitude toward appropriate dress. The administration of Harrison Trimble High School reserves the right to modify and interpret this policy as deemed necessary to determine disruptive and unsafe attire.