BY STACI WILSON
After her sister was turned away from school on the first day, Alicia Osterhout began a campaign to revert to the “fingertip-length” rule that had previously been in place at the high school. She presented her information, as well as a petition that garnered over 300 signatures to the Board of Education on Monday.
A back injury kept Sara Osterhout out of school for her junior year. She was excited to return to Blue Ridge for her final year of school.
With temperatures expected to be in the high 80s, she dressed for the day wearing shorts that hit about half-way down her thigh.
But Sara was kept from even entering the school because her shorts did not meet the district’s revised dress code policy.
The policy in 2013-14 allowed for shorts to be worn at fingertip length, while dresses and skirts were required to hit a girls’ leg no more than three inches above the knee.
Her sister, Alicia, a 2011 Blue Ridge graduate, rallied behind her sister taking to the internet to garner support in asking the school board to reconsider what she calls an “arbitrary” line of measurement.
Alicia Osterhout brought her concerns before the board Monday night, presenting members with a packet of information, including her online petition that garnered over 300 signatures in the past week.
Osterhout told the board she had initially spoken with High School Principal Matthew Nebzdoski who told her the “fingertip length” rule was unfair to students with long arms.
Osterhout said, “The new rule is not fair either.” She said the enforcement of the dress code served to negate the stated purpose of the rule and was disruptive to education.
Board member Christina Whitney said the change to the dress code was discussed when the board approved the student handbook in April. She also said that in the policy in place last year shorts were not specifically mentioned in the policy and “fingertip didn’t exist.”
Superintendent Robert McTiernan put last year’s policy on the overhead for all present to view. The word ‘shorts’ had been added to the three-inch rule policy; and the portion of the policy that called for shorts to be worn no shorter than “fingertip length” had been removed.
Whitney acknowledged she had been mistaken in her comments about the previous dress code policy, admitting it did, in fact, provide for the length of shorts.
Board President Laurie Brown-Bonner said she thought the “three-inch rule” was “cut and dry” and took into account the differences in the length of arms and legs.
Osterhout said that it is difficult when shopping to find juniors clothing that fits the school’s standard.
“We’re not about fashion,” Whitney said. She also advocated for school uniforms that would require students to wear golf shirts and khaki pants to school each day.
Bonner said she was not a proponent of uniforms. “We’re about educating the kids. We took the arbitrary part out.” But added there are “a lot of inconsistencies” on how the dress code is enforced.
Osterhout agreed stating that part of the problem is in the enforcement.
Whitney said, “My motion – no shorts allowed.”
Board member Shane Rumage said part of the reason for the change was to clarify the policy and make it easier for the administration to police.
Osterhout said students were put in the position of choosing between comfort and education.”
“I think that’s a stretch,” Whitney replied.
Board member Chris Lewis also said he would want the skirt length to be longer than required. At three inches above the knee, he said, “Now you’re going to be able to see everything.”
Bonner asked Osterhout to explain how her proposed “mid-thigh” point be determined and then added the board will discuss her proposals and “make changes as needed.”
A parent attending the meeting agreed with Osterhout. She said her daughter’s shorts were “very modest” but still violated the policy. “I believe mid-thigh is appropriate for school,” she said.
Whitney said she has recruited from high schools “all over Pennsylvania and New York” in schools that wear uniforms. She said, that when it comes to uniforms, parents are likely to have “more of a problem with individuality than students do.”
Bonner brought the conversation back to enforcement, asking how the administration could address the disparities without “spending the whole day being dress Nazis.”
Superintendent Robert McTiernan said the three administrators are dependent upon the staff and staff referrals when it comes to dress code enforcement. But he added, if teachers are paying attention to the dress code, then they are not teaching. He said, that with fewer than 50 staff referrals, “we need help.”
McTiernan said, “I don’t want to make the dress code a distraction as a part of the day.”
Blue Ridge senior Julia Stanley said some students don’t find the dress code as important as the board does. “To pull a kid out of class because their shorts are a bit too high is obnoxious,” she said. “It’s not necessary.”
Lewis said he found Osterhout’s points regarding enforcement and length of shorts were valid. “I don’t think three inches and mid-thigh is off too much. I have no issue with that. I don’t think we’re anywhere near uniforms.” He said he would like to take the time to look over and review the packet of material provided to the board by Osterhout.
Whitney said the policy was discussed in April. “It was made public. Nobody was here. I’m not in favor of any changes.
A review of the April board of education meeting minutes does not reflect any discussion or vote regarding the student handbook nor the dress code policy. The board did approve the purchase of the student agendas at the May 5 meeting; and the student handbooks were approved at the June 2 meeting.
Be the first to comment on "Dress code questioned at BR"