By Anne Jordan

Recently, the Philadelphia school board approved a dress code for its 256 public schools. While all of the system’s 217,000 students will be affected by the measure, each individual school will be allowed to decide how its students should dress.

Reasonable people disagree about whether such a move promotes academic achievement, respect and discipline, as supporters claim, or infringes on personal freedom, as opponents argue. I don’t propose to enter the philosophical debate, but rather to point out a trend that is occurring in districts that have already implemented dress codes: the penchant for frequently revisiting and revising what constitutes acceptable attire.

Granted, it’s hard to get it right. Some dress codes are so general and subjective — “sleeveless garments must be of a length and fit that is suitable to the build of the student” — that enforcement is a nightmare. On the other hand, the more specific and restrictive the rules are about the types of clothing and materials, the deeper local officials sink into the quagmire of unintended consequences. A backlash then becomes inevitable.

In 1999, for example, the school board in Wilson County, Tennessee, passed a strict dress code that required students to wear black or khaki pants or jeans, with white, hunter green or navy shirts and sweaters. Two months ago, the board voted to amend its policy and allow shirts in any solid color (polka dots, stripes, checks and other patterns are still prohibited).

But that’s not the half of it. Whereas the original rules allowed sleeveless and collarless shirts, the revised dress code mandates that shirts must have collars and sleeves. While local clothiers must be overjoyed at the policy changes, you have to wonder how annoyed parents must be to learn that the $45 scoop-neck navy top they bought for Ashley last year will be banned this fall.

Last October, the Putnam County, West Virginia, school district banned shorts that were shorter than 3 inches above the knee. When warmer weather arrived this spring, however, parents and students complained that it was nearly impossible to buy stylish shorts long enough to comply, and lobbied successfully for a return to the previous mid-thigh rule.

Fortunately, low-income families are usually protected from this endless tinkering by subsidies that mitigate the financial hardship of purchasing the required clothing. But whether parents or taxpayers wind up footing the bill, the bottom line is that multiple rounds of wardrobe overhauls make school officials look bad. It’s a lesson that Philadelphia and other places would do well to heed.

Anne Jordan is managing editor of Governing magazine.

Agree? Disagree? Want to expand on a point? E-mail us at mailbox@governing.com, and we'll post your comments here. Please include your name, location, government or business title or job description, and a daytime phone number (for verification purposes).

Recently in View:

School Takeovers and High Expectations: a mixed record (posted May 24, 2000)

The States’ Legal Turf: sorting out responsibilities (posted May 21, 2000)

E-Taxes and Urban Life: taxation and Main Street (posted May 18, 2000)

The City that Hates Hate: the price of public service (posted May 15, 2000)

Technology and the Taxi Fare: fuel surcharges and fairness (posted May 11, 2000)

Complete index of previous columns

Copyright © 2000, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.