Foundation and Policy Guidelines Legal for Student Dress Codes in Massachusetts Public Schools
Many school superintendents, school committees and charter school administrators favor some form of guideline in their schools. In practice, a wide variety of dress codes are enumerated in school handbooks. In 1998 Lynne Isaacson in her "Student Dress Code Policies" article claimed that close to twenty five percent of American public elementary and middle schools had implemented codes involving uniforms. Justification for these clothing restrictions include enhanced self-respect, diminished pressure to purchase expensive designer clothing, uniformity reflects core community values, and elimination of gang related clothing, insignia and colors. In California school districts mandating a school clothing standard, parents maintain the option to request an exemption from the dress code. In 1996 Long Beach California Superintendent Carl Cohn provided evidence to demonstrate that implementation of a standardized clothing policy resulted in a 51% decrease in fighting, a reduction of 18% in vandalism and a drop of 32% in school suspensions. Less than 1% of Long Beach, California parents demanded an exemption.
In Massachusetts, Pyle vs. the School Committee of South Hadley 423 Mass., 283, remains the landmark case involving the constitutional requirements of public school dress codes in Massachusetts. This determinative case turned on "whether high school students have the freedom under MGL.c 71 s 82(1994 ed.) to engage in non-school sponsored expression that may responsibly considered vulgar but causes no disruption or disorder." The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit answered in the affirmative.
Specifically, could the administration prohibit students from wearing T shirts emblazoned with the following: "Coed Naked Band, Do It To the Rhythm, and See Dick Drink, See Dick Drive, See Dick Die, Don't Be a Dick" as disruptive to the school's basic educational message? Could public school authorities also prohibit obscene, profane, lewd or vulgar apparel even if such messages were political? The court held that "it is sufficient for our purposes to recite that the plaintiffs, at the time, high school students, wore T shirts to school that administrators found unacceptable and prohibited under the school dress code, but that no disruption or disorder was caused thereby". The shirts failed to rise to the level of prohibited apparel under the law.
The following represents a summary of dress code policy guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Education.
1) The policy should focus on pedagogical and school safety.
2) Consider including justifications in school dress code policy such as student safety, decreasing criminal activity, preventing gang members from wearing gang colors, maintaining classroom discipline, promoting student self-respect, and discouraging peer pressure.
3) Be able to justify the action demonstrating the link between a certain kind of clothing and disruptive behavior.
4) Protect student's other rights of expression.
5) The dress code requires flexibility to accommodate students whose religious attire may be inconsistent with the dress code. i.e. yarmulkes, head attire.
6) Provide evidence of reduction in suspensions and fighting to demonstrate the effectiveness of the clothing restriction policy.
7) Consult with an attorney well-versed in First Amendment rights and decisions and Massachusetts Law to update or modify the procedure.
Attorney Paul ODonnell regularly consults with Massachusetts School Administrators,School Committees and teacher unions on contracts, employee issues and student rights.
