School District revises dress policy

Friday, Nov. 19, 2004 | 11:05 a.m.

A new dress code regulation approved by the Clark County School Board Thursday would let individual campuses create stricter policies after demonstrating parental support.

Families that do not want their children to have to abide by a dress code at their schools can seek transfers to other schools under the new rules.

But the controversy and the legal battle over dress code issues in the district appears to be far from over. A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada said the new policy is worse than the one over which his organization took the district to court.

In a 6-1 vote Thursday night, the School Board approved a revised version of Regulation 5131, which has been the center of a firestorm of community debate.

Under the new regulation, which takes effect immediately:

Agustin Orci, deputy superintendent of instruction for the district, said he met earlier this week with the 17 principals of all the "Dress for Success" schools and expected all of the schools would immediately begin the petition process laid out in the new regulation.

"They were adamant that the dress code has had positive impact on student achievement as well as the overall climate of the school," Orci said.

The School Board's vote comes two weeks after U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt ruled Liberty High School could not expell junior Kim Jacobs because of her refusal to comply with the campus' "standard student attire" policy.

School Board member Denise Brodsky was the lone "nay" vote Thursday, saying she was uncomfortable that the revised version still allowed schools to discipline students who did not follow the stricter dress code.

Brodsky said she was also struggling with the fact that 17 of the district's principals appeared to have used a loophole in the existing regulation to enact "Dress for Success" and "standard school attire" policies without consulting the community.

"Unfortunately there are principals who did this in a very underhanded way and manipulated the system, circumventing the will of this board," Brodsky said. "We are taking high-achieving students who have never had disciplinary problems before and we are making martyrs out of them."

School Board Vice President Larry Mason, who has staunchly opposed the mandatory uniform policy, said he was supporting the revised regulation because parents and students will have the opportunity to be directly involved in the decision process. However, Mason added, it's important that principals don't attempt to wriggle out of gathering the necessary community support. He urged Superintendent Carlos Garcia to keep a close watch on the survey process and ensure those requirements are met.

The battle over the district's dress code policy has been a prolonged -- and often bitter -- fight. Some parents say campus administrators are exceeding their authority and circumventing the School Board's own regulations and requirements. Others have expressed frustration with district officials' reluctance to concede that khaki pants and solid-color collared shirts equate to a uniform.

The list of speakers during Thursday's public comment portion of the meeting was evenly divided between those who applauded the stricter dress codes and those who questioned its appropriateness in a public school or whether there was even evidence of a connection between attire and student achievement.

Justine Guerrero, whose father told the School Board he chose to purchase his family's new home because of its proximity to Liberty, said the school attire has created an atmosphere of "unity and pride." The dress code is no different from the requirements made by many employers, Guerrero said.

"We come to school to learn and not for any other reason," Guerrero said. "That's our job. And just like any other job there's a dress code. If you want to express yourself, do it outside of school."

Shauna Parks, whose daughter is a fourth grader at a "Dress for Success" campus, said there have been no conclusive studies that show uniforms improve student performance. She also questioned allowing district officials to conduct the surveys rather than a more neutral third party.

"You are allowing the very people who want uniforms to run the process," Parks said, drawing a smattering of applause from the audience.

Jacobs, who accumulated 25 days of suspension, returned to classes at Liberty's Bermuda Road campus Monday.

Liberty students have been required to wear khaki bottoms and solid-color red, white and blue shirts since the school opened in 2003. Jacobs instead wore blue jeans and frequently donned T-shirts bearing religious messages. School officials told her on Oct. 27 that she could not return to the school and referred her to the district's alternative program for students with behavioral problems.

Word of Jacobs' victory appears to have spread quickly through the school population. On Thursday, 90 percent of the students were not dressed in the required campus attire, said Principal Emilio Fernandez.

"It was a real shame," Fernandez said. "There was a lot of confusion about what the rules were now. Hopefully the School Board has cleared that up and we can move forward as a community."

Hunt limited his decision to the fact that Liberty did not survey parents before enacting the policy and did not address the larger issue of its constitutionality.

Bill Hoffman, senior counsel for the district, told School Board members Thursday that the constitutionality question will likely be decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has not yet ruled on the issue. The Nevada ACLU filed the suit on Jacobs' behalf, seeking to have her disciplinary record wiped clean. It also sought monetary damages for alleged emotional distress.

Hunt's written decision included several "signals" that could be interpreted as favorable toward the district's position, Hoffman said.

Hunt cited a Louisiana case where a school's dress code policy -- nearly identical to Clark County's -- was upheld as constitutional. Hunt also did not find that Jacobs' religious rights had been infringed upon because she hadn't been allowed to wear a T-shirt bearing verses from the Book of Mormon.

Allen Lichtenstein, attorney for the Nevada ACLU, said the district's revised policy "is actually worse" than the earlier version.

In order to join a pilot study of mandatory uniforms, the district required schools to survey parents, with a return rate of at least 51 percent and 70 percent in favor of the policy.

The new regulation seeks a flat 55 percent favorable rating.

"A school could have 3,500 kids, they get 10 surveys back and if 55 percent of those 10 are in favor it's acceptable," Lichtenstein said. "What they've done is lower the bar significantly. It also destroys the district's argument that the overwhelming majority of parents support these policies."