Cairo Association of Teachers - Newsletter

CAT Tracks for March , 2007 PIERCINGS, TATTOOS, AND TIGGER TOO

Today's legal round-up:

The School Board is looking to determine just what's appropriate for body art and piercings.

By JEFFERY SOLOCHEK

LAND O'LAKES - Want to teach in Pasco County?

Better keep those piercings and tattoos out of sight.

Following a committee's lead, the School Board on Tuesday decided to move forward with a policy that would restrict visible body piercings and tattoos that are "offensive to community standards." That's the court-approved wording for defining obscenity, by the way.

What does that mean? Depends on who you ask.

Board chairwoman Marge Whaley leaned against the idea, noting that many teachers have small roses tattooed on their ankles, while others have tiny ruby studs in their noses. Some might consider those tasteful, or they might have cultural meaning, Whaley said.

"It would seem to me that would be the principal's call," she said, suggesting a policy change might be too extreme.

Current policy doesn't specifically address piercings or tattoos, so it's up to the principal to decide if a teacher's appearance is distracting. And some body art is, vice chairwoman Kathryn Starkey responded.

"I'm more conservative than you," Starkey said, turning to Whaley. "I'm distracted with the Christmas tree thing going on in the ear."

She pressed for language limiting the number of piercings, even earrings, allowed for school employees. That recommendation prompted some jovial commentary.

"Three or four (earrings) in New Port Richey might be acceptable, but three or four in Dade City would not be acceptable," board member Frank Parker said.

"You've got that right," muttered board member Allen Altman, who lives in Dade City, as the room burst into laughter.

"There are, however, plenty of things they do in Dade City that wouldn't be acceptable in New Port Richey, either," assistant superintendent Ray Gadd chimed in, keeping the mood light.

Altman then tried to bring the session back into focus.

"I'm trying to think of enforcement and simplicity," he said.

He said he leaned toward a standard allowing one set of earrings and no visible tattoos. Whaley again mentioned the small ankle tattoos that some women have.

"So we're going to let roses and butterflies but not skulls?" Altman said.

The staff directed the board's attention back to the "offensive to community standards" language, which mollified everyone well enough to let the policy progress.

The board did not take any steps to change the clothing requirements for teachers, agreeing to leave the existing policy alone. It will, however, require all schools to update their attire guidelines to be more complete and reflective of local norms.

The issue arose last summer, when Superintendent Heather Fiorentino suggested changes to the teacher dress code, saying she believed many teachers were dressing inappropriately. The committee convened after the board declined to change its policy, meeting three times over six months before making its report last week.

And...from the San Francisco Chronicle...

ACLU sues Napa school over dress code that requires solid colors, bans all denim

Demian Bulwa, Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writers

Some schools ban gang colors. Others prohibit miniskirts. But 14-year-old Toni Kay Scott and her parents say they weren't prepared for a school that outlawed Tigger on a pair of socks.

For coming to class at a Napa middle school wearing hosiery that portrayed the Winnie the Pooh character -- in violation of the school's solid-colors-only, no-pictures, no-logos dress code -- the seventh-grader landed in the principal's office, and then in a detention program called Students With Attitude Problems.

Now Redwood Middle School and the Napa Valley Unified School District, which approved the code, have landed in court.

The school's "unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and restrictive uniform dress code policy" flouts state law, violates freedom of expression, and wastes teachers' and students' time and attention that would be better spent on education, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a suit filed Monday on behalf of six students and their parents.

Toni Kay, now an eighth-grade honors student, said Tuesday that she's been cited more than a dozen times in the last 1 1/2 years, and sent home from school twice, for such infractions as wearing a polo shirt with the manufacturer's butterfly logo, a pair of pink tennis shoes and a shirt with the insignia of the anti-drug program D.A.R.E.

"All my friends that go to other schools, they can wear jeans. They can wear stripes and patterns. I'm like, I wish I could wear that but I can't," she said.

When she picks out her clothes every morning, she said, "I'm asking myself, is this OK for school, or am I going to get dress-coded?"

The school policy, in effect for more than a decade, requires students' clothes and backpacks to be entirely solid colors: The only colors permitted are blue, white, green, yellow, khaki, gray, brown and black. The only acceptable fabrics are cotton twill, chino and corduroy.

No jeans or "denim-looking" clothes allowed. No pictures, words, symbols or patterns, except the school logo. And definitely no Tigger.

The school's policy statement says the rules were developed "to ensure the safety and protect the instructional time of all students." District Superintendent John Glaser said Tuesday that the school board reaffirmed the policy last year.

Both Glaser and Michael Pearson, the school's principal, declined to comment on the suit. But in a 2005 interview with the Napa Valley Register, Pearson said the policy allows the school to level the playing field.

"We do not have to deal with issues of kids who are dressing a certain way because their parents are able to shop at the fashionable stores," Pearson said. "You cannot tell on my campus the kids that come from a low-income family."

The policy was also defended by a parent, Mike Blom, whose two sons used to attend the middle school. He said repealing the policy might make it harder to regulate gang clothing.

"Our time with the children is relatively short before they become adults," Blom said in an e-mail. "There are so many ways to enhance their personalities outside of what they wear."

The suit, filed in Napa County Superior Court, illustrates the tension between school authority and student autonomy that is also being played out on the national stage.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard an Alaska high school student's challenge to his suspension for displaying a banner reading, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," outside the school as an Olympic torch parade passed by.

The student said the banner was a prank intended for television cameras and that his punishment for off-campus expression was unconstitutional. The school principal said the banner promoted drug use in violation of school policy.

The case could lead to a narrowing of the Supreme Court's 1969 ruling that declared students have the same right of free speech as other Americans, as long as that speech doesn't disrupt the educational process.

The Napa lawsuit dates from Toni Kay's first day at Redwood Middle School in September 2005.

According to the suit, the girl went to class wearing a denim skirt, a brown shirt with a pink border and long blue socks with pictures of Tigger. She was escorted to the principal's office by a uniformed police officer and was sent to the in-school suspension program, the suit said.

Toni Kay's sister, Sydni, now in the sixth grade, was given a warning last year for wearing pink socks, and was sent to the principal's office last month for wearing a T-shirt reading, "Jesus Freak," the suit said.

Another plaintiff, eighth-grader Meilissa Phan, was cited once for wearing a ribbon in her hair, and another time for wearing a pink ribbon pin in support of breast cancer awareness, the suit said.

"I don't like wearing the same things everyone else is wearing," 11-year-old Sydni said Tuesday. "You're sitting there and five other people are wearing the same thing."

Her mother, Donnell Scott, said, "I think my children should be able to, within guidelines, express themselves. This is a public school. It's my job to decide what's appropriate for them. It's (the school's) job to educate."

California law allows schools to adopt dress codes to address gang problems and other safety concerns. Schools can also require students to wear uniforms, if parents are given six months' notice and are allowed to exempt their children. The lawsuit said the Redwood Middle School policy is the equivalent of requiring students to wear uniforms, without the parental exemptions provided by state law.

The suit seeks a court order banning enforcement of the policy or allowing parents to exclude their students. It does not seek damages.

Other Bay Area school districts have a variety of clothing policies. Most ban gang-related symbols and revealing attire. Some prohibit red and blue colors associated with prominent gangs, and some ban low-sagging jeans.

Uniforms are required in some San Francisco schools and in nearly all elementary and middle schools in San Jose. Karen Fuqua, spokeswoman for the San Jose Unified School District, said the policy helps school officials spot nonstudents and encourages youths to focus on learning instead of competition in apparel.

Occasionally, she said, someone objects to the stifling of youthful creativity, and the district replies, "Let their creativity show in the classroom."