|
Dear Readers, Family, Friends and Neighbors:
I am the founder of
APROD, (Asserting Parental Rights - it's Our
Duty), a national parental rights group. We have members from across this Nation,
with a vast majority of them from the State of Texas, and our numbers are growing each and every day.
We came together to stop the government from interfering in how we wish to raise our
children. There
are many schools that are adopting mandatory school uniform policies and
mandatory standardized dress policies who are punishing
children for wearing socially appropriate attire, simply because it does not
meet the arbitrary colors they have selected. Worse yet, we
believe that they are teaching our children that they must change if they do not fit
in and they are compelling our children to adopt this notion as their own by
requiring them to act upon it.
APROD doesn't believe this is in the best interest of our children. We are not opposed to
teaching our children that there is attire that is unacceptable for school,
but a simple
dress code does this.
A uniform policy says that only certain things dictated by the
government are acceptable and that is not what this country stands for.
You
may be wondering what is a uniform. Well, that depends on
who you ask. According to Wendell Anderson, "Dress
codes and uniform policies are not the same. Simply stated,
dress codes state what must not be worn; uniform policies state
what must be worn. The distinction is important, particularly in
light of legal challenges." 
Many schools call their policy a uniform
policy and yet they allow for a great variety of choices.
Some schools have allowed only one color choice but still call
their policy a standardized dress policy. We have gathered
a sampling of policies around Texas for example.
It doesn't matter
what they call their policy, whenever they prescribe specific
clothing types as opposed to banning inappropriate clothing, an
opt-out is needed to protect the rights of those parents who
object to the policy because of sincerely help religious and
moral beliefs. You can find some definitions
of the different policies at .
For those who do not know the difference between a uniform
policy and a dress code policy, “Uniforms prescribe a certain standard or
style of clothing to be worn, while dress codes proscribe or prohibit clothing or
grooming practices considered objectionable.” “School Uniform/Dress Code and
School Safety”, Center for School Safety, Issues Brief #1, (1999) at p. 2,
citing from Kaiser, S.B. (1997), The Social Psychology of Clothing: Symbolic Appearance
in Context, Second Edition, New York, Fairchild Publication.
It was this way in Texas at first. The Texas Education
Agency posted at their web, at least site prior their first
administrative ruling regarding uniforms that, "There have been frequent questions asked about the difference between dress codes
and required school uniforms for students. The position that the Texas Education Agency
has taken to respond to these questions is that whenever a school district's policy
identifies specific characteristics of acceptable school attire, such as the color or
fabric, of required clothing it is considered a uniform and the provisions of TEC 11.162,
School Uniforms are in effect. A policy that prohibits certain types of clothing is, by
contrast, more in the nature of a dress code and thus, does not trigger the requirements
of TEC 11.162." They issued a ruling however that said a
standardized dress was not a uniform per TEC 11.162.
Here's the irony about that though, by saying a standardized
dress policy is not a uniform as defined by TEC 11.162, it
brings the constitutionality of any standardized dress code back
into play.
According to “School
Law : School Uniforms Redux,” which appeared in the journal
published on March 2002, Vol.
189, No. 3.,
“The Forney school board adopted the uniform policy
under a Texas statute that authorizes local boards to adopt such
policies.” When
discussing the four-part test that was applied in the Canady
case, the author explained that “… a uniform policy passes
constitutional muster if … [t]he school board has the power to
make such a policy.” The
ruling in the Forney matter pointed to TEC 11.162 as the Texas
statute that gave the school board the authority to adopt the
policy. So what happens when the policy adopted is
no longer considered a uniform pursuant to the very statute they
claim gave them the authority to adopt it?
With the rulings of the Commissioner of
the Texas Education Agency it
is now well established that the Forney policy would not be
a uniform pursuant to TEC 11.162.
In several appeals to the Texas Education Agency the
Commissioner has ruled,
“A
district’s policy concerning dress is not a uniform policy for
purposes of Texas Education Code section 11.162 if a sufficient
number of options as to colors and clothing styles are allowed
so that it is unlikely that the school children would be seen as
wearing a distinctive dress that identifies them as school
children of a particular school or school district. …
Respondent’s dress policy does not require students to wear
“uniforms” as that term is used in Texas Education Code
section 11.162.” Myers v. Columbia-Brazoria Independent
School District, Docket No. 008-R8-999 (Comm’r Educ.
2000). Davis
v. Alvin Independent School District, Docket No. 009-R8-1000
(Comm’r Educ. 2002)
Chelsey L. Edwards v.
Pearland ISD, Docket No. 017-R8-1001. (Comm’r Educ. 2002)
The policy adopted by each school was virtually identical to the
one adopted by Forney. Their
policy is listed in each of the respective but for brevity of
this note, I will include herein only the Commissioner’s
explanation of the policy in Myers, referenced within the
Davis ruling.
“The
policy at issue required students to wear blue, gray, maroon, or
white shirts with collars and sleeves, paired with blue jeans or
blue or khaki pants. Female
students were also allowed to wear knee-length, blue or khaki
skirts or jumpers. The
Commissioner found that because students were allowed to wear a
number of clothing styles and had several color choices that the
policy did not require uniforms to be worn.” Davis, Id.
The policy in Davis did not
allow for blue jeans and the one in Edwards allowed for a
couple additional color choices.
Basically however when you compare the policies across
the board the biggest difference between the policies is the
name. The three schools in these rulings called their policies
“standardized dress,” and they specifically deny having a
uniform policy and being held to the protecting provisions of
TEC 11.162. Forney
on the other hand called their policy a uniform and did not
deny that it was one.
If a policy is not a uniform under TEC 11.162, then a district
cannot look to that statute for support and authorization for
their policy. If
Forney does not have a uniform pursuant to TEC 11.162, then they
can no longer claim that it is what gives them the authority to
implement it.
Things do get even stranger though and further inquiry is
needed. A parent who was denied an exemption from Forney ISD
appealed to the Commissioner and the Commissioner found that the
policy was a uniform policy but found in favor of the parent,
because the Board’s denial was arbitrary capricious and
without substantial evidence.
Norma T. v. Forney Independent School District, Docket No.
040-R5-101 (Comm’r Educ. 2002)
I know this appears to be an inconsistency on the part of the
Commissioner; however, an explanation was provided in the
footnote of a later decision.
In that case the school had also adopted a policy
virtually identical to Forney ISD and the others, but in that
case the Commissioner ruled it was a uniform, as it had in Forney.
The Commissioner stated, “The Respondent does not
dispute Petitioner’s contention that Respondent’s policy
requires uniforms. Hence,
whether Respondent’s policy is a uniform policy or a dress
code is not an issue in this case.”
Shannon L. Watkins
v. Crandall Independent School District, Docket No.
027-R5-1101. (Comm’r Educ. 2003)
As you
can see, it throws a wrench in the works.
If Forney had made the argument before the Commissioner
that the policy was not a uniform, then the Commissioner would
have ruled that it was not a uniform. After the Littlefield
ruling however, I do not think it would have looked very good
for Forney ISD to now claim that it did not have a uniform
policy. As for
Crandall ISD, I believe they just didn’t make the argument
fast enough. This argument will no longer work for schools
at the TEA level though as long as parents realize that it is
not a uniform and claim their exemption because of TEC Chapter
26.
Back to Littlefield, what would have happened had the
Plaintiffs argued in federal court that it was not a uniform
pursuant to TEC 11.162? Without receiving authority from TEC
11.162 to implement such a policy it would have failed the first
part of the test and therefore it would not would not have
passed constitutional muster. Now there are some that
would rightly claim that TEC 11.151 gives a school board the
general power to adopt rules and regulations necessary
to run their school. However, those rules and
regulations must be in accord with the Texas Education Code and
that code stated in §26.001(c) that “Unless
otherwise provided by law, a board of trustees, administrator, educator, or
other person may not limit parental rights.” Since
Texas has classified parental rights as a fundamental right and
since we've also provided that parents have the right to direct
the religious and moral training of their children, then a
school board cannot adopt a policy that limits parental rights
unless that policy is the least restrictive means of furthering
a compelling governmental interest. What's that mean in
everyday terms? A school board cannot adopt a standardized
dress policy without an opt-out provision for parents who
object, because it has a lesser restrictive means available to
it, that being a regular dress code that can prohibit any attire
that interferes with the educational process and to do so would
limit fundamental parental rights.
Moving
along, there have been many myths proffered by those who feel it is
permissible to coerce others into accepting their viewpoints on school uniforms, but they
are just that, “myths.” If you get past the anecdotal perceptions offered by
those who have a vested interest (for instance the survey paid for and presented by the
owners of Land’s End, who just recently were able to sell their business to Sears for
$1.9 billion dollars, after they were able to increase their profits through the cornered
market of school uniforms. (http://www.fashionwindows.com/visual/2002/sears.asp),
and look instead at the empirical evidence that compares all the influencing factors in
both schools that have and have not implemented uniforms, you find the truth about
uniforms. Please review the “Hearsay and Myths Regarding the Effectiveness of
Uniforms” found at http://www.aprod.org/myths.htm.
Follow the links to the studies and reports. Find out what they haven’t been telling
you about uniforms.
We have started an on-line petition to address our
concerns. It can be found at http://www.petitiononline.com/7767/petition.html.
Perhaps this is something that you are interested
in.
If
anyone wants help putting their beliefs to paper to ensure that they are articulated
correctly, please feel free to contact us.
Vickie M. W. Crager
Founder of APROD
(Asserting Parental Rights –– it’s Our Duty)
www.aprod.org
|
