Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones

by Guest Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:34 pm

First topic message reminder :

Thousands have signed a petition started by a US mother left furious when her teenage daughter was sent home from school for exposing her collarbones. Stacie Dunn’s daughter, Stephanie, was disciplined by the head teacher of Woodford County High School in Kentucky after wearing a top and cardigan that did not conform to rules. Mrs Dunn, who was called in to the school after her daughter was sent home on 13 August, criticised the establishment in a Facebook post for its “ridiculous” dress code.

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 11898714_10205047610205315_6689208938970330131_n

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 11898714_10205047610205315_6689208938970330131_n

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-teenager-sent-home-for-violating-school-dress-code-by-showing-her-collarbones-10464020.html

by eddie Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:19 pm

Look I totally agree, there's nothing wrong with her outfit - I wear less clothes than that on a hot day!

But it's a school rule.
It's that simple.

by Tommy Monk Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:27 pm

Good point rags...

Dodge... this girl was already free to not wear a school uniform...

But there still needs to be some sort of rules in place.

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:36 pm

eddie wrote:Look I totally agree, there's nothing wrong with her outfit - I wear less clothes than that on a hot day!

But it's a school rule.
It's that simple.

I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree, it is not that simple and it disturbs me deeply. The U.S. is a country with a lot of staunchly defended freedoms that are being taken away from younger people.

In high school the authorities can raid your locker, your bag, even force you to use a see-through bag. They can take away practically anything you own. They can keep you from going to the bathroom. They tell you what you can wear, what style and color your hair can be ... student-run publications can be censored or banned ... kids have been disciplined by being arrested by the police for infractions as minor as writing on their desks: http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/19-crazy-things-that-school-children-are-being-arrested-for-in-america

The United States is supposed to be a place where the government needs a sound reason to not let people do things, not a place where government employees can reign like petty tyrants over schoolchildren. Sorry if I'm making a bigger deal of this than it is, but it really is part of a pattern in which kids aren't being taught to stand up for their rights, they're being taught to submit to authority no matter how unreasonable it is. It really reminds me of this:

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:39 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
eddie wrote:Look I totally agree, there's nothing wrong with her outfit - I wear less clothes than that on a hot day!

But it's a school rule.
It's that simple.

I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree, it is not that simple and it disturbs me deeply. The U.S. is a country with a lot of staunchly defended freedoms that are being taken away from younger people.

In high school the authorities can raid your locker, your bag, even force you to use a see-through bag. They can take away practically anything you own. They can keep you from going to the bathroom. They tell you what you can wear, what style and color your hair can be ... student-run publications can be censored or banned ... kids have been disciplined by being arrested by the police for infractions as minor as writing on their desks: http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/19-crazy-things-that-school-children-are-being-arrested-for-in-america

The United States is supposed to be a place where the government needs a sound reason to not let people do things, not a place where government employees can reign like petty tyrants over schoolchildren. Sorry if I'm making a bigger deal of this than it is, but it really is part of a pattern in which kids aren't being taught to stand up for their rights, they're being taught to submit to authority no matter how unreasonable it is. It really reminds me of this:

I think that "kids" stand up for their "rights" all too often. In fact, they know all their "rights" but need to have more idea of responsibility too. If they don't, they'll grow up into whinging people with a sense of entitlement. A bit of self-discipline and self control wouldn't go amiss.

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree, it is not that simple and it disturbs me deeply. The U.S. is a country with a lot of staunchly defended freedoms that are being taken away from younger people.

In high school the authorities can raid your locker, your bag, even force you to use a see-through bag. They can take away practically anything you own. They can keep you from going to the bathroom. They tell you what you can wear, what style and color your hair can be ... student-run publications can be censored or banned ... kids have been disciplined by being arrested by the police for infractions as minor as writing on their desks: http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/19-crazy-things-that-school-children-are-being-arrested-for-in-america

The United States is supposed to be a place where the government needs a sound reason to not let people do things, not a place where government employees can reign like petty tyrants over schoolchildren. Sorry if I'm making a bigger deal of this than it is, but it really is part of a pattern in which kids aren't being taught to stand up for their rights, they're being taught to submit to authority no matter how unreasonable it is. It really reminds me of this:

I think that "kids" stand up for their "rights" all too often. In fact, they know all their "rights" but need to have more idea of responsibility too. If they don't, they'll grow up into whinging people with a sense of entitlement. A bit of self-discipline and self control wouldn't go amiss.

Well said that woman!

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree, it is not that simple and it disturbs me deeply. The U.S. is a country with a lot of staunchly defended freedoms that are being taken away from younger people.

In high school the authorities can raid your locker, your bag, even force you to use a see-through bag. They can take away practically anything you own. They can keep you from going to the bathroom. They tell you what you can wear, what style and color your hair can be ... student-run publications can be censored or banned ... kids have been disciplined by being arrested by the police for infractions as minor as writing on their desks: http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/19-crazy-things-that-school-children-are-being-arrested-for-in-america

The United States is supposed to be a place where the government needs a sound reason to not let people do things, not a place where government employees can reign like petty tyrants over schoolchildren. Sorry if I'm making a bigger deal of this than it is, but it really is part of a pattern in which kids aren't being taught to stand up for their rights, they're being taught to submit to authority no matter how unreasonable it is. It really reminds me of this:

I think that "kids" stand up for their "rights" all too often. In fact, they know all their "rights" but need to have more idea of responsibility too. If they don't, they'll grow up into whinging people with a sense of entitlement. A bit of self-discipline and self control wouldn't go amiss.

Failed reasoning.
You seem to aspire that by questioning is whinging?
Thank goodness we question things to understand them better.
A child learns respsonibility by being taught how to be resposnible. A rule that denies freedom of expression, denies any chance of learning how to be responsible. It denies being questioned, when everything can be questioned. A rule has to be valid and fair, this is not a valid and fair rulle, of which even worse it has no benefits. So how would it teach a child resposnibility?
You sadly blame children for rightly questioning and then claim they should be more responisble when we teach them the least way to be responsible by placing more emphasis on material wealth. If you teach children bad ethics from the start you cannot blame them for being irresponsible, when you created that situation yourself. How you dress is a freedom of expression. How you are wrongly led to believe you should dress a certain way is enforciong your views on others, just as we see happen within religions on codes of dress. Freedom of expression is denied as a beleif has made them become uniformed to how they should dress.
So how do you teach self discipline?
By leading by example but even that has to show its validity

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:02 pm

And yes I have not ended up going out

by Irn Bru Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:17 pm

This school didn't even have a school uniform policy and instead offered a varied range of clothing to wear and I can't see where any of it is draconian.

The collar bone thing is not the issue - that's just where they drew the line below where dress sense should not go any further down particulary for young girls.

Here's the school dress code of pratice...

http://www.woodford.kyschools.us/userfiles/12/Dress%20code.pdf

I wouldn't have thought that it was that difficult to dress in accordance with these guidlines.

The girl is well dressed and there isn't much wrong with that but.....

Here's a study by the National Crime Prevention Council on the subject of school dress codes. It's American of course and a country that has more reason than most in our modern Western world to keep students safe at school. It's well worth a read.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-ED465198/pdf/ERIC-ED465198.pdf

And just remember that many of these students will go on into occupations where dress code will be mandatory particulary in customer facing roles where image means so much so a bit of early learning in that respect may be no bad thing.

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:21 pm

Again no reason why such a rule is even needed.
So we now have a study on uniforming them which teaches nothing but to be subservant to slavery thinking.
You dress how others perceive how you dress.
That denies freedom of expression.
I can produce studies too Irn, that show how poor uniforms are, so that does not argue the points but makes for very lazy debating.
These students have to be given the right to understand freedom of expression and covering the shoulder blades is based on a view to sexualize women in the first place as if its wrong for women or men mind to expose their shoulders?
Is that what you really think?

by Irn Bru Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:27 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Again no reason why such a rule is even needed.
So we now have a study on uniforming them which teaches nothing but to be subservanty to slavery thinking.
You dress how others perceive how you dress.
That denies freedom of expression.
I can produce studies too Irn, that show how poor uniforms are, so that does not argue the points but makes for very lazy debating.
These students have to be given the right to understand freedom of expression and covering the shoulder blades is based on a view to sexualize women in the first place as if its wrong for women or men mind to expose their shoulders?
Is that what you really think?

What do you disagree with from that study and what precisly is it about the school code that concerns you the most?
Are you suggesting that there should be no rules whatsoever and the kids can turn up dressed in the clothes which the school does not want them to wear. - the T-shirts with certain types of messages on them are a good example so start with that.

by eddie Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:33 pm

Cuchulain wrote:And yes I have not ended up going out

Hahahahaha that made me really really laugh Didge. Really!

Don't know why but that really tickled me lol!

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:36 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Again no reason why such a rule is even needed.
So we now have a study on uniforming them which teaches nothing but to be subservanty to slavery thinking.
You dress how others perceive how you dress.
That denies freedom of expression.
I can produce studies too Irn, that show how poor uniforms are, so that does not argue the points but makes for very lazy debating.
These students have to be given the right to understand freedom of expression and covering the shoulder blades is based on a view to sexualize women in the first place as if its wrong for women or men mind to expose their shoulders?
Is that what you really think?

What do you disagree with from that study and what precisly is it about the school code that concerns you the most?
Are you suggesting that there should be no rules whatsoever and the kids can turn up dressed in the clothes which the school does not want them to wear. - the T-shirts with certain types of messages on them are a good example so start with that.

If you read back on many of my points you will see plenty I disagree with Irn.

One how a school takes credit for a child being in uniform outside school and does something good.
Uniforms impose how people should dress, they do not teach how people should respect how people dress.
Please read back because I do not want to have to repeat myself to you when I have made countless points
I am not suggesting there should be no ruiles, where have I ever stated that?
I have rightly stated that poor rules sholuld be questioned.
Once it was the rule that only "white people" were allowed in many facilities.
Now you tell me twas that a good rule to be respected or a rule that most definately should have been challenged and it was challenged?
You make the same poor mistake as Tommy here.

by eddie Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:36 pm

I think every single one of you has a point - I'm Swaying between the two sides, truth be told.

I stand by my point about rules etc but @Ben I didn't realise US schools were so strict?
And @Irn - great points too and also Didge

@Rags and nems I'm with you on the spoilt generation of kids - they are going to be our future and we need to watch them I think

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:37 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:And yes I have not ended up going out

Hahahahaha that made me really really laugh Didge. Really!

Don't know why but that really tickled me

They were feeling poorly, glad that made you amused.
So I eneded up staying in

by eddie Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:38 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:And yes I have not ended up going out

Hahahahaha that made me really really laugh Didge. Really!

Don't know why but that really tickled me

They were feeling poorly, glad that made you amused.
So I eneded up staying in

It was just the way you said it, it just made me actually laugh lol

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:40 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

They were feeling poorly, glad that made you amused.
So I eneded up staying in

It was just the way you said it, it just made me actually laugh lol

I said it because I actually was looking forward to going out tonight Eddie, hence my disappointment or the fact I know I have to even say because of how some of you treat me.
I am a slave sometimes to how others are with me that I sadly now on auto piolet have to justify anything

by Irn Bru Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:48 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Again no reason why such a rule is even needed.
So we now have a study on uniforming them which teaches nothing but to be subservanty to slavery thinking.
You dress how others perceive how you dress.
That denies freedom of expression.
I can produce studies too Irn, that show how poor uniforms are, so that does not argue the points but makes for very lazy debating.
These students have to be given the right to understand freedom of expression and covering the shoulder blades is based on a view to sexualize women in the first place as if its wrong for women or men mind to expose their shoulders?
Is that what you really think?

What do you disagree with from that study and what precisly is it about the school code that concerns you the most?
Are you suggesting that there should be no rules whatsoever and the kids can turn up dressed in the clothes which the school does not want them to wear. - the T-shirts with certain types of messages on them are a good example so start with that.

If you read back on many of my points you will see plenty I disagree with Irn.

One how a school takes credit for a child being in uniform outside school and does something good.
Uniforms impose how people should dress, they do not teach how people should respect how people dress.
Please read back because I do not want to have to repeat myself to you when I have made countless points
I am not suggesting there should be no ruiles, where have I ever stated that?
I have rightly stated that poor rules sholuld be questioned.
Once it was the rule that only "white people" were allowed in many facilities.
Now you tell me twas that a good rule to be respected or a rule that most definately should have been challenged and it was challenged?
You make the same poor mistake as Tommy here.

So we are agreed that there should be rules then. Fine, so what is wrong with the rules that the school has published? Are they so draconian that people would get that upset about them? Are you ok with the T-shirts?

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:52 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

If you read back on many of my points you will see plenty I disagree with Irn.

One how a school takes credit for a child being in uniform outside school and does something good.
Uniforms impose how people should dress, they do not teach how people should respect how people dress.
Please read back because I do not want to have to repeat myself to you when I have made countless points
I am not suggesting there should be no ruiles, where have I ever stated that?
I have rightly stated that poor rules sholuld be questioned.
Once it was the rule that only "white people" were allowed in many facilities.
Now you tell me twas that a good rule to be respected or a rule that most definately should have been challenged and it was challenged?
You make the same poor mistake as Tommy here.

So we are agreed that there should be rules then. Fine, so what is wrong with the rules that the school has published? Are they so draconian that people would get that upset about them? Are you ok with the T-shirts?

No we are not agreed.
You claim to design the parameters here on a rule.
I beg to differ, a rule should have validity that does not effect the well being and equality of others.
I think I made my point very clear that this rule has no benefit, and hence why I have asked throughout of which only Eddie has actually tried to answer and make a good case of. I still disagree as I made clear. So again I agree there should be "valid" reasonable rules.
Are they stupid rules?
Yes, plain and simple, as how does bare colarbone make for a reason to be covered?

by eddie Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:54 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

They were feeling poorly, glad that made you amused.
So I eneded up staying in

It was just the way you said it, it just made me actually laugh lol

I said it because I actually was looking forward to going out tonight Eddie, hence my disappointment or the fact I know I have to even say because of how some of you treat me.
I am a slave sometimes to how others are with me that I sadly now on auto piolet have to justify anything

Really? Why would you feel you need to justify yourself? If people don't believe you that's their problem, right?

I'm sorry you had to stay in and I wasn't laughing AT you, I just found the way it came across as funny

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:55 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I said it because I actually was looking forward to going out tonight Eddie, hence my disappointment or the fact I know I have to even say because of how some of you treat me.
I am a slave sometimes to how others are with me that I sadly now on auto piolet have to justify anything

Really? Why would you feel you need to justify yourself? If people don't believe you that's their problem, right?

I'm sorry you had to stay in and I wasn't laughing AT you, I just found the way it came across as funny

Like i said Eddie
Some here are fixated with my private life and sadly I have to continually justify this when I never should have to

by Irn Bru Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:03 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

If you read back on many of my points you will see plenty I disagree with Irn.

One how a school takes credit for a child being in uniform outside school and does something good.
Uniforms impose how people should dress, they do not teach how people should respect how people dress.
Please read back because I do not want to have to repeat myself to you when I have made countless points
I am not suggesting there should be no ruiles, where have I ever stated that?
I have rightly stated that poor rules sholuld be questioned.
Once it was the rule that only "white people" were allowed in many facilities.
Now you tell me twas that a good rule to be respected or a rule that most definately should have been challenged and it was challenged?
You make the same poor mistake as Tommy here.

So we are agreed that there should be rules then. Fine, so what is wrong with the rules that the school has published? Are they so draconian that people would get that upset about them? Are you ok with the T-shirts?

No we are not agreed.
You claim to design the parameters here on a rule.
I beg to differ, a rule should have validity that does not effect the well being and equality of others.
I think I made my point very clear that this rule has no benefit, and hence why I have asked throughout of which only Eddie has actually tried to answer and make a good case of. I still disagree as I made clear. So again I agree there should be "valid" reasonable rules.
Are they stupid rules?
Yes, plain and simple, as how does bare colarbone make for a reason to be covered?

We're not agreed then and we don't need rules!? The collar bone is a red-herring because that's just where the school drew the line.

So what is it in the these rules that you find so bad to the extent that people are getting really upset about?

Don't you think that the study I showed you made some very valid points in respect of safety at school for the students? I thought they did.

I'm off to watch the footie highlights but I'll probably be back later on.

What about dress codes in the employment sector? Are they stupid as well?

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:09 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

No we are not agreed.
You claim to design the parameters here on a rule.
I beg to differ, a rule should have validity that does not effect the well being and equality of others.
I think I made my point very clear that this rule has no benefit, and hence why I have asked throughout of which only Eddie has actually tried to answer and make a good case of. I still disagree as I made clear. So again I agree there should be "valid" reasonable rules.
Are they stupid rules?
Yes, plain and simple, as how does bare colarbone make for a reason to be covered?

We're not agreed then and we don't need rules!? The collar bone is a red-herring because that's just where the school drew the line.

So what is it in the these rules that you find so bad to the extent that people are getting really upset about?

Don't you think that the study I showed you made some very valid points in respect of safety at school for the students? I thought they did.

I'm off to watch the footie highlights but I'll probably be back later on.

What about dress codes in the employment sector? Are they stupid as well?

1) Rules have to hold validity, so your view I have to agree on rules has conditions.
Do you understand that?

2) I find that its poor to deny freedom of expression to a girl or boy that covering their shoulers is wrong. That is the message being sent out here by a rule to cover them.

3) So you go off a study as you are doing here not actually understanding anything that is being debated her makes your valid? Aagin I can show counter studies, what is needed here is reason

4) Again in the employment secture is a choice, like I say please read back so I do not have to repeat myself to someone who has been that lazy to not bother reading through the whole thread.

Again answer my question, as I show respect to answering yours.
What benefit does this rule provide?

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:44 pm

The dress code policy of the school:

http://www.woodford.kyschools.us/userfiles/12/Dress%20code.pdf

Ben, get your point completely, I have been reading about students sent to jail for minor trangressions in school and in some cases no transgressions, the child had learning difficulties. What they are doing is horrendous, but I think this is just a case of breaking the dress code. However, when at this time of year its hot in Kentucky, the dress code seems arbitary.

by Guest Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:46 pm

So has anyone actually forwarded a view that uniforms work for children?

by Ben Reilly Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:59 pm

eddie wrote:I think every single one of you has a point - I'm Swaying between the two sides, truth be told.

I stand by my point about rules etc but @Ben I didn't realise US schools were so strict?
And @Irn - great points too and also Didge

@Rags and nems I'm with you on the spoilt generation of kids - they are going to be our future and we need to watch them I think

Thanks! I've enjoyed and learned from this thread as well.

There was a lot more about U.S. schools that I could have mentioned -- I'll put up some images rather than describe them:

Police with guns in schools

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 920x920

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 920x920

"Active shooter" drill with actors playing wounded/dead students

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 School-shooter-drill

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 School-shooter-drill

Metal detectors

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 Adama-Metal-detectors

It's basically just more fear-driven decision making that is making our kids grow up in a police-state environment. It's definitely fodder for a lot of conspiracy theories, but that just obscures the fact that many of these people will grow up not understanding their right to privacy, freedom of expression, besides the damage that growing up in an atmosphere of paranoia and intimidation must be doing.

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:00 am

Picture paint a thousands words when backed by reason

Top draw Ben

by Ben Reilly Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:07 am

sassy wrote:The dress code policy of the school:

http://www.woodford.kyschools.us/userfiles/12/Dress%20code.pdf

Ben, get your point completely, I have been reading about students sent to jail for minor trangressions in school and in some cases no transgressions, the child had learning difficulties. What they are doing is horrendous, but I think this is just a case of breaking the dress code. However, when at this time of year its hot in Kentucky, the dress code seems arbitary.

Yeah, that's kind of odd to spell it out like that. I just want to point out that I think the concept of a dress code itself is fine, but that this dress code should be updated. Rules aren't always right or reasonable, and people should be free to express the fact that they find rules unreasonable even if (maybe even especially when) the majority disagrees. All sorts of evil used to be legal, and it took people speaking up to change it.

There are a lot of details we don't know about this, as well. I'd be particularly interested to know whether anybody actually thought she was disrupting class, and whether this "tight collar" rule is consistently enforced.

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:14 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sassy wrote:The dress code policy of the school:

http://www.woodford.kyschools.us/userfiles/12/Dress%20code.pdf

Ben, get your point completely, I have been reading about students sent to jail for minor trangressions in school and in some cases no transgressions, the child had learning difficulties. What they are doing is horrendous, but I think this is just a case of breaking the dress code. However, when at this time of year its hot in Kentucky, the dress code seems arbitary.

Yeah, that's kind of odd to spell it out like that. I just want to point out that I think the concept of a dress code itself is fine, but that this dress code should be updated. Rules aren't always right or reasonable, and people should be free to express the fact that they find rules unreasonable even if (maybe even especially when) the majority disagrees. All sorts of evil used to be legal, and it took people speaking up to change it.

There are a lot of details we don't know about this, as well. I'd be particularly interested to know whether anybody actually thought she was disrupting class, and whether this "tight collar" rule is consistently enforced.

True, there is a lot we don't know. She wasn't flashing her books and was tidy, so why all the fuss I don't have a clue. The rules say they have to 'cover their collar bone' which seems pathetic in the heat, even and V neck would not cover your collar bone!

by Ben Reilly Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:51 am

sassy wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
sassy wrote:The dress code policy of the school:

http://www.woodford.kyschools.us/userfiles/12/Dress%20code.pdf

Ben, get your point completely, I have been reading about students sent to jail for minor trangressions in school and in some cases no transgressions, the child had learning difficulties. What they are doing is horrendous, but I think this is just a case of breaking the dress code. However, when at this time of year its hot in Kentucky, the dress code seems arbitary.

Yeah, that's kind of odd to spell it out like that. I just want to point out that I think the concept of a dress code itself is fine, but that this dress code should be updated. Rules aren't always right or reasonable, and people should be free to express the fact that they find rules unreasonable even if (maybe even especially when) the majority disagrees. All sorts of evil used to be legal, and it took people speaking up to change it.

There are a lot of details we don't know about this, as well. I'd be particularly interested to know whether anybody actually thought she was disrupting class, and whether this "tight collar" rule is consistently enforced.

True, there is a lot we don't know. She wasn't flashing her books and was tidy, so why all the fuss I don't have a clue. The rules say they have to 'cover their collar bone' which seems pathetic in the heat, even and V neck would not cover your collar bone!

I was talking to someone else about this and it occurred to me -- what percent of the annual Western-world production of women's tops would actually comply with this rule? Smile

Even the quite-modest collar of this top wouldn't pass muster:

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 Spin_prod_1286468012?hei=444&wid=444&op_sharpen=1

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 Spin_prod_1286468012?hei=444&wid=444&op_sharpen=1

by Irn Bru Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:00 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

No we are not agreed.
You claim to design the parameters here on a rule.
I beg to differ, a rule should have validity that does not effect the well being and equality of others.
I think I made my point very clear that this rule has no benefit, and hence why I have asked throughout of which only Eddie has actually tried to answer and make a good case of. I still disagree as I made clear. So again I agree there should be "valid" reasonable rules.
Are they stupid rules?
Yes, plain and simple, as how does bare colarbone make for a reason to be covered?

We're not agreed then and we don't need rules!? The collar bone is a red-herring because that's just where the school drew the line.

So what is it in the these rules that you find so bad to the extent that people are getting really upset about?

Don't you think that the study I showed you made some very valid points in respect of safety at school for the students? I thought they did.

I'm off to watch the footie highlights but I'll probably be back later on.

What about dress codes in the employment sector? Are they stupid as well?

1) Rules have to hold validity, so your view I have to agree on rules has conditions.
Do you understand that?

2) I find that its poor to deny freedom of expression to a girl or boy that covering their shoulers is wrong. That is the message being sent out here by a rule to cover them.

3) So you go off a study as you are doing here not actually understanding anything that is being debated her makes your valid? Aagin I can show counter studies, what is needed here is reason

4) Again in the employment secture is a choice, like I say please read back so I do not have to repeat myself to someone who has been that lazy to not bother reading through the whole thread.

Again answer my question, as I show respect to answering yours.
What benefit does this rule provide?

So what are the conditions on your rules then?

It's not just about covering their shoulders though is it. The collar bone was just where they drew the line. So how far do you think their freedom of expression should go? I gave you the example of the T-shirts and the possible messages that could be displayed on them. What's you view on that?

The study is from a reputable source is it no? And there are several points made that say uniforms have made a positive difference in some schools whilst also pointing out about gang warfare and people promoting it. What's your views on that?

How is it a choice in the employment sector? That can only be true if you choose not to work for a company that has a dress code. Would you do that?

by Irn Bru Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:08 am

Ask Nicky Morgan or Michael Gove from the Education Ministry who have issued out advice to local authorities on school uniforms.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269113/school_uniform_guidance_2013.pdf

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:15 am

This girl didn't have to wear school uniform...

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:01 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

1) Rules have to hold validity, so your view I have to agree on rules has conditions.
Do you understand that?

2) I find that its poor to deny freedom of expression to a girl or boy that covering their shoulers is wrong. That is the message being sent out here by a rule to cover them.

3) So you go off a study as you are doing here not actually understanding anything that is being debated her makes your valid? Aagin I can show counter studies, what is needed here is reason

4) Again in the employment secture is a choice, like I say please read back so I do not have to repeat myself to someone who has been that lazy to not bother reading through the whole thread.

Again answer my question, as I show respect to answering yours.
What benefit does this rule provide?

So what are the conditions on your rules then?

It's not just about covering their shoulders though is it. The collar bone was just where they drew the line. So how far do you think their freedom of expression should go? I gave you the example of the T-shirts and the possible messages that could be displayed on them. What's you view on that?

The study is from a reputable source is it no? And there are several points made that say uniforms have made a positive difference in some schools whilst also pointing out about gang warfare and people promoting it. What's your views on that?

How is it a choice in the employment sector? That can only be true if you choose not to work for a company that has a dress code. Would you do that?

Conditions?
How absurd. did you actually answer any of my points or address them?
No
They draw the line on the collarboine you offer no valid reason why it is needed?
Stop wasting my time with drivel
You then go off a source, WTF
Can you not debate for yourself now and your whole arguiment hinges now on others/
Again I have show uniforms are nothing more than a form of control and constriction, they offer nothing to making a student better tbut serve to benefit a school. You wish to control children it seems with forms of dress and offer no explanation how they benefit. You want me to to reson against a study you cannot back up yourself and thus wasting my time
You need to stop deflecting and offer up reason
Employment is a choice we chose what career we have and then I do not back the reason to have uniforms there either, so bang goes your absuredity there also. The only reason that would be valid is for protective clothing.
So do you even understand the study Irn?
Or just backing it because you fail to understand anything here?

So I will ask again, what benefit does this rule have?
To make backward parents like you feel comfortable because you are the one sexulizing young girls or boys by having their collarbones exposed?

by Original Quill Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:17 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sassy wrote:The dress code policy of the school:

http://www.woodford.kyschools.us/userfiles/12/Dress%20code.pdf

Ben, get your point completely, I have been reading about students sent to jail for minor trangressions in school and in some cases no transgressions, the child had learning difficulties. What they are doing is horrendous, but I think this is just a case of breaking the dress code. However, when at this time of year its hot in Kentucky, the dress code seems arbitary.

Yeah, that's kind of odd to spell it out like that. I just want to point out that I think the concept of a dress code itself is fine, but that this dress code should be updated. Rules aren't always right or reasonable, and people should be free to express the fact that they find rules unreasonable even if (maybe even especially when) the majority disagrees. All sorts of evil used to be legal, and it took people speaking up to change it.

There are a lot of details we don't know about this, as well. I'd be particularly interested to know whether anybody actually thought she was disrupting class, and whether this "tight collar" rule is consistently enforced.

I get where you are coming from, Ben. Looking at this young woman, she is the picture of modesty and taste. Somehow, if that doesn't meet with someone's approval, my instinct is to say something's wrong with the code.

But that would just substitute my standards for their standards, and that's not right. It is Kentucky after all, and that is Old South. So they are bound to be behind times (haha...I can judge, if I can't substitute). If that is the standard of the community, so be it.

I do think it is more of form for form's sake. Dress codes, yes we need them; but only to the extent that someone's genitals are not showing. I come from San Francisco, home of Gap, Levis, Old Navy and Silicon Valley, and we've done away with ties altogether. I think the rule--indeed, the structure of the rules--in this case is too restrictive. But again, it's Kentucky, where they marry their own sisters. If they need collarbones and calf-lengths, bless 'em and check back in 50-years.

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:28 am

Is There any proof that she was looking t.e same in school as she does in The picture...?

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:35 am

Is there any proof she was not?
The onus is on you making a claim to prove otherwise and you cannot.
All of which is irrelevant anyway when the point is this school has a very absurd and daft rule, which does not benefit the children in any capacity

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:38 am

She is making the claim... with no proof that she was actually dressed like that when sent home.

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:39 am

No you are making a claim of lying, thus the onus is on you to prove if she is.

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:47 am

No, she is making the claim that she was dressed like that... no proof...just a claim...

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:49 am

How many more times.
You that is you claiming she is lying.
That means you have to prove if she is.
You also have not once offered a valid reason to even have this outdated and backward code.

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:54 am

She is making the claim... with no proof... so just a claim...

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:55 am

She made a claim on the school which we know the school sent her home.
You are claiming she is lying at what she dressed at school with.
Onus is on you

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:02 am

Also you do realise Tommy that picture was taken "in" the school, which makes her story more credible.

Stacie brought her daughter, Stephanie, a scarf to cover up, but it still didn't appease the school.

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 11898666_10205048473826905_8362071484895651630_n

The school's principal even reached out to the angered mother to talk about the possibility of easing up on the strict dress code.

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 Screen-Shot-2015-08-18-at-11.57.28-AM

http://www.littlethings.com/stacie-dunn-daughter-dress/

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:07 am

To be honest with you... I don't really care about any of this story!!!

lol!

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:08 am

Really, so when left red faced as you have been you now decide you are not interested.

Hilarious

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:14 am

Not red faced at all... she was breaking the rules and ncr sent home... end of story.

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:15 am

Very much red faced

She was rightly breaking a daft rule, so much so that now it has brought about the possibility of a change. Well done that girl

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:25 am

Yeah... what a maverick...!!!

lol!

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:32 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Yeah... what a maverick...!!!

Teenage girl sent home for violating school dress code - by showing her collarbones - Page 3 Thanku-twatty-I-won-the-bet-u-really-r-a-twat-meme-21817

by Guest Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:48 am

Tommy Monk wrote:To be honest with you... I don't really care about any of this story!!!

Have to say I agree!
All a bit of a non story, if they disagreed with what the school did,they could have just approached the head who seems to be amenable to compromise. But then mummy wouldn't have had her 15 minutes of fame and daughter wouldn't have had her photo everywhere!
U.S. Schools have bigger problems than a brat that cant obey a simple rule.

by Sponsored content