School plan doesn’t have uniform appeal

Friday, Aug. 23, 2002 | 11:17 a.m.

When 7-year-old Drew Ketchum shows up for his first day of second grade at Vanderburg Elementary School in Henderson, he'll be breaking the rules before he even steps foot on the campus.

That's because his mother, Carrie Ketchum, has decided her son will not be wearing his school's new mandatory uniform.

"I just don't believe the color of a child's shirt determines their behavior and performance," Ketchum said. "We live in a country of freedom of choice, and freedom of expression. School uniforms do not support those ideals."

When school opens Monday, Drew Ketchum will be afoul of the Clark County School District's new pilot uniform program taking place at three Henderson elementary schools. Administrators say response to the plan has been largely positive, but critics question whether uniforms in public schools do more harm than good.

When the School Board passed the pilot program, administrators reasoned that the uniforms -- essentially a strict dress code that limits colors and patterns -- will focus children on education, instead of who's wearing the latest fashions.

Wearing uniforms won't eliminate class distinctions, Ketchum said. Wealthier children will still wear designer labels, and pricey accessories such as sneakers, Ketchum said.

"If they don't want children to judge each other based on their clothing, then teach children principles, morals and values," Ketchum said. "Don't hide behind the uniforms."

Vanderburg Principal Catherine Maggiore said Thursday she has spoken with Ketchum several times and tried unsuccessfully to resolve the mother's concerns.

The schools are ready to enforce the policy. If students arrive at school out of uniform, "progressive disciplinary action" will be taken, Maggiore said.

The first offense will result in a teacher speaking privately with the student, with a letter being sent home on the second offense, Maggiore said. A third offense will result in a parent-teacher conference, Maggiore said. A fourth offense will initiate the principal's involvement, Maggiore said.

"Parents have every right to disagree, but there are rules and we all have to operate within the system," East Region Superintendent Edward Goldman said. "If the school board had voted the other way, those of us in favor of uniforms would have had to accept it."

Students who are repeatedly out of uniform will not be allowed to attend classes, Goldman said.

"This is no different than the school district's dress code that says students must wear shirts," Goldman said. "It's just a more stringent dress code."

Under the terms of the pilot study, parents opposed to the uniform policy may request a zoning variance to another school. Goldman said so far he has had a handful of complaints from parents but no requests for transfers.

But critics say the issue is bigger than clothing.

Gary Peck, executive director of the Nevada ACLU, said the pilot study is a clear violation of the children's rights to freedom of expression. The ACLU has not yet decided whether it will formally challenge the program, Peck said.

Still, supporters credit school uniforms with everything from improved attendance and classroom demeanor to reducing the risk of intruders on campus. Students focus on their studies, instead of the latest fads, administrators say.

Three elementary schools taking part in the pilot study -- Vanderburg, Twitchell and Lamping -- have had voluntary policies in place for several years, each with better than 90 percent compliance, district administrators said.

The uniform policies allow some flexibility -- for example, at Vanderburg children may wear clothing in khaki, navy, forest or hunter green, white or black watch plaid. Girls may wear jumpers, pants or skirts, while boys may choose from pants or shorts. Denim clothing, or outfits bearing designer logos, is not allowed.

But a small faction of parents have spoken out against the policy, which was approved by the Clark County School Board last month.

Stephanie Pocchia, whose son attends Lamping, said she believed the survey used to gauge parental support for the policy was flawed. Forcing children to wear uniforms will be a hardship for parents who cannot afford two sets of clothing for their children, Pocchia said.

Board Member Susan Brager, who voted against the pilot study, said she was concerned that a child would buy a school's uniform colors only to be rezoned into a different school the following year. Board Member Denise Brodsky also opposed the study, questioning why the uniforms needed to be mandatory when the voluntary program had been so successful.

Low-cost and no-cost uniforms are being made available by each school's PTA, administrators said.

The decision to buck the uniform policy was a difficult one, Ketchum said. While she worries that her son will be ostracized, Ketchum believes there will be more harm if parents comply.

Drew is largely unaware of the controversy, and his mother is trying to keep it that way. She said she isn't sure what she'll do if the school disciplines Drew.

"Some day when he's old enough," she said, "I'll teach him that having the right to express yourself is a right you have to protect."