LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 1
Legal Entanglement Project: Part 5- Paper Assignment
Anissa Mitchell
Liberty University
EDAS747
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 2
Introduction
Tyrone Middle School is a culturally diverse school that serves students and staff
members of all different nationalities and backgrounds. Tyrone Middle School is determined to
ensure achievement for all scholars and provide a safe and quality educational setting with
engaging and rigorous classroom experiences that create educated, respectful and responsible
citizens who are prepared for college, career, and life. A component of the “safe” and “equality
educational setting” extends to the school’s dress code which seeks to contribute to the health
and safety of the individual, promote a positive educational environment, and not disrupt the
educational activities and processes of the school. While the dress code has no ill intentions on
students, there have been several complaints filed by students regarding the inequality of the
school’s dress code. The Florida state statues provides a dress code that Pinellas County School
Board (PCSB) has adopted with little to no changes and Tyrone Middle School uses the same.
The issue with the is a matter of concern for the school, district, and state of Florida as the policy
fails to be inclusive to all students and target specific students.
Overview
The Legal Entanglement Project consists of part, four of which was completed prior the
presentation of this paper. The four completed parts were scaffolding of what the focus of the
paper will be. In this part, the paper will focus on addressing potential legal entanglements
regarding the school dress code policy in at Tyrone Middle School within Pinellas County
School Board (PCSB). The paper will include school-based information and data, as well as
knowledge on cases and literature completed in previous parts. There will also be
recommendations provided based on the potential legal entanglements to be implemented. All
information in the paper is provided to the school staff, students, and visitors to ensure equality
of opportunity to all for a healthy learning environment.
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 3
Case Law Review
There aren’t any national laws or doctrines that sets the precedent for school’s dress
codes. However, there is one case currently seeking for the supreme court to hear it, Charter Day
School v. Peltier.
Blaine v. Board of Education
Like Brown v. Board of Education, this case was not about one person but three. The
named individual Steven Blaine, Kenny Luginbill, and James Vaughn were all students at
Campus High School in, Sedwick County, Kansas. In 1971, those three students were expelled
from school due to their hair length being “extreme” and not incompliance with the school’s
dress code. Campus High had a very odd dress code. The policy has specifications for both male
and female students regarding their hair. The female student’s “hair must be styled or arranged
so as not to cover the eyes.” The male student’s hair code was as follow: "Sideburns,
moustaches, and beards are acceptable if kept clean, well-groomed, and of moderate length.
"Boys hair shall be no longer than the bottom of the ear lobes on the sides and no longer than the
bottom of a dress shirt collar in the back when the boy is standing. Hair must be kept clean, well-
groomed, and out of the eyes at all times." This policy was developed by a 20-member
committee consisting of students, parent, and administrative staff. After the implementation of
the policy all male students complied, except the 3 named plaintiffs. Don Layton, principal, was
not in favor of males with long hair because he stated that it “potentially the ability to disrupt
education within the school” (Blaine v. Board of Education). The Board of Education ruled in
favor of the stating that “the hair provision of the dress code to be an unconstitutional invasion of
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 4
the appellants' personal liberty and would order their reinstatement in school.” (Blaine v. Board
of Education).
Jacobs v. Clark County District
Again, Jacobs et al. v. Clark County District is a case involving several different
plaintiffs pressing the same issue, the unjust dress code policies. In 2003, Clark County School
District established a regulation that allowed the schools within the county implementing a
countywide uniform dress code. Clark county stated that the purpose of the dress code change
countywide was to “increasing student achievement, promoting safety, and enhancing a positive
school environment.” Kimberly Jacobs, the named plaintiff, attended Liberty High school where
the dress code was as follows: solid khaki bottoms and solid polos within the following colors,
red, blue, and white, with or without the school logo. Jacobs not agreeing with the dress code, on
several occasions wore a shirt expressing her religious beliefs. Jacobs was suspended from
school on each occasion she wore the shirt to school, totaling in 25 days suspended. Though
Jacobs was provided educational services while on suspension, she claimed “that she missed out
on classroom interactions, suffered reputational damage among her teachers and peers, had a
tarnished disciplinary record, and was unconstitutionally deprived of her First Amendment rights
to free expression and free exercise of religion because of Liberty's enforcement of its mandatory
school uniform policy.” (Jacobs, et al v. Clark County SD, et al, no. 05-16434 (9th cir. 2008)).
Jacobs and her parents brough a suit up against the school district declared that the dress code
regulation of Liberty High School were unconstitutional violating the students First
Amendment's Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment's
Due Process Clause. The district court granted Jacobs's motion for a preliminary injunction and
stopped Liberty from further disciplining or suspending Jacobs for failing to comply with the
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 5
policy. Following the decision made, the district amended the dress code policy and expunged a
Jacob’s uniformed related discipline.
Charter Day School v. Peltier
Bonnie Peltier (parent of a minor), Erika Booth (parent of a minor) and Keely Burks are
all named plaintiffs in this case. Charter Day School is a school in North Carolina with an
outrageous dress code policy that is only harmful to the female student body. According to the
North Carolina Charter School Act, any child eligible to attend a public school may choose to
attend a charter school, but no one is required to attend one (Peltier v. charter day school, inc.,
no. 20-1001 (4th cir. 2021)). Charter schools are operated by private nonprofit corporations and
are exempt from local educational statues. With this Charter Day School adopted a uniform dress
code that required female students to wear skirts, skorts, or a jumper to school, not allowing for
them to wear pants or shorts. The parent of three students sued Charter Day School challenging
the dress code. They stated that “the skirts requirement sends the message that girls should be
less active than boys and that they are more delicate than boys, with the result that boys “feel
empowered” and “in a position of power over girls.” (Peltier v. charter day school, inc., no.
20-1001 (4th cir. 2021)). The female students also complained of a change to the dress code
being necessary. The change would stop the restriction the girl’s movements during recess,
prevent their undergarments from showing during drills and allowed students to be warm
come the winter. In the suit, the parents cited sex discrimination under the Equal Protection
Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit agreed thatHCharter Day School cannot require girls to wear skirts. The latest regarding
this case is Charter Day School petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Fourth
Circuit’s decision that, as a public charter school, Charter Day School must respect its
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 6
students’ constitutional rights as other public schools do. A decision on that request is
expected in 2023 (Peltier v. charter day school, inc., no. 20-1001 (4th cir. 2021)).
Long v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, KY
The plaintiffs in this case are the parents and students from Atherton high school. The
named plaintiff, Sherry Long is a parent of one of the complaining scholars. The plaintiffs
decided to Board of Education in Jefferson County due to the dress code that was created by
and implemented by the school-based decision-making counsel. The counsel has created a
dress code that permitted scholars from wearing any logo in the shirt that isn’t school related
in helps to combat the recent gang related issues they had experienced in previous years. The
students and parent were alleged that the dress code “violated rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42. U.S.C
1983 (Long v. Board of Educ. of Jefferson County, Ky., 121 F. supp. 2d 621 (W.D. Ky. 2000)).
The plaintiffs specifically stated that the dress code violates their right to free speech, free
exercise of religion, substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection.
Now this case was vastly different than the last three I presented in the rulings. In this case,
the sixth circuit affirmed summary judgement in favor of the school officials because their
actions were not “manifestly unreasonable.”
Literature Review
According to Pavlakis (2018), school’s dress code criminalizes males of color and
females of color are sexualized. Both males and females receives some sort of discipline for
such minute offense as breaking the dress code policy, which results in disruptive discipline.
The disruptive discipline can include but is not limited to a five-minute hallway lecture, 20
minutes to search through a bin of "appropriate" clothes to wear, an hour-long trip home, or even
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 7
a full-day suspension. All which disruptive the learning environment for the individual scholar
being disciplined and their peers as well. Pavlakis (2018) suggests that school dress code plays
on racial and sexual inequalities. The example provided in the literature was on a school district
that started implementing policies that only affected African American female students and the
way they wore their hair. Schools also implement other policies that affected students that
identified on the LGBTQ+ spectrum. Pavlakis (2018) also presents a study and the data with it
on how disproportionately the enforcement from dress code was on different races.
According to Reddy-Best (2020), school’s dress code policy are not inclusive to
students that identify on the LGBTQ+ spectrum and this causes issues with students in their
sexual orientation, as well as disrupt their learning environment. LGBTQ+ students not being
included in the dress code especially during their adolescent years is pivotal. During
adolescent years students are their most transitional in who they want to be, what it will look
like for them to be, their sexual orientation, or if they have adapted to an image. Reddy-Best
(2020), states that if students aren’t feeling supported during these times that it can have a
negative impact on their education. These negative impacts can result in any of the following:
lack of safety, dropout, lowered academic performance or goals, verbal or physical assault,
disproportionate disciplinary action, homelessness, or even incarceration. Above all things,
students shouldn’t have to identify as anything other than they want to satisfy the dress code
requirements.
According to Pendharkar (2022), school’s dress codes specifically target students of
color, female students and students that identify on the LGBTQ+ spectrum. Pendharkar (2022)
found that a great amount of the time, the schools that have the most dress code violations are the
schools that have higher amounts of students of color. Implying that the dress code rules were
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 8
written against those specific students resulting in high violations. Female students are also a
target to specific dress code policies. In school dress codes example presentations, for some
policies there is a predominate focus on breast, cleavage and nipples being covered which only
apply to female students as male students don’t have busts. This is an issue to the female students
because the schools are body blaming the females for their “distractions” rather than teaching the
male students self-conductivity. This a legal issue waiting to happen.
According to Matin (2020), school’s dress code discriminate against certain students,
more specifically African American students. The discrimination against African American
students are provided with examples. For instance, there were many African American
students violating the dress code due their hairstyles, which are traditionally worn by people
of African descent. That policy would be specifically targeted toward students that are African
American. Matin (2020), also states that sexist issues are embedded within the school’s dress
code. There is a focal point in some of the policies of the dress code that focus primarily on
female students rather than male student. While the dress code may be sexist and racist, there
is a reason behind wanting the dress code, the policy makes are just going wrong about
making and implementing the dress code. Policy makers believe that dress code reduces
bullying, peer pressure, gang violence and promotes academic success. While these intentions
may be true, in the same process policy makers are not including all the students that will be
affected by the dress code, which results in violations.
Data Analysis
School dress code policies is one of the most pressing issues nationwide. The
focal point is the inequalities of the dress code policy within Pinellas County School Board.
Written within the current dress code policy are actions steps to be taken should the scholars not
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 9
be following the policy. Pinellas County School Board (PCSB) is one of the largest counties in
west central Florida. It is on the peninsula of Florida and is remarkably diverse. The school that
was used for this focus was Tyrone Middle School in Pinellas County, Florida. According to the
Florida Department of Education (2022), Tyrone Middle School is currently 40.9% white, 25.5%
African American/Black, 20.1% Hispanic, 7.8% Asian, 5.3 % two or more races, 0.2% Pacific
Islander and 0.1% American Indian/ Indigenous. The student body is composed of 48% males
and 52% female. As for staffing, the school consist of 1 female principal, 3 male assistant
principals, 1 male guidance counselor and school counselor, 2 female guidance counselors, 1
male school resource officer and several male and female instructional classroom teachers.
Tyrone Middle School is diverse and is part of the reflection of the county, state, and nation
when analyzing diversity within the educational system, which is a good thing. According to
Hughes (2020), Scholars find greater racial diversity to be associated with positive outcomes,
including increases in student earnings potential, the likelihood of attending college, and
academic achievement.
“The dress and grooming of Pinellas County Public Schools’ students shall contribute to
the health and safety of the individual, promote a positive educational environment, and not
disrupt the educational activities and processes of the school (code of conduct).” For the dress
code to be all inclusive or equal to all it must be first understood. Once it is “understood,” there
are several minor changes/ additions that need to be made in for the policy to be better
understood and applicable for the scholars, parents, and staff. As previously stated, the PCSB
dress code explains the purpose and desired outcomes of the dress code regarding scholars in an
educational setting.
Recommendations
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 10
There is a need for the state of Florida, Pinellas County School District and Tyrone
Middle School to implement sound policies within the dress code that will mitigate student
blaming and be more inclusive to all. Should the following fail to make the following
recommendation to the policy, there could be a result in legal issues. The first recommendation
would be to have a gender-neutral dress code. The dress code should include all aspects of sexual
orientation. While male and female are the targets, the amended policy should include students
that identify on the LGBTQ+ spectrum. The amended dress code should also not put emphasis
on females when creating the policies. The next recommendation would be to be religion and
culturally inclusive. While the current policy states that head gear can be worn for religious
reason, it is stated at the discretion of the principal. Creating limitation to a student’s religious
freedom.HThe amended policy should make it more feasible for students to exercise their freedom
to religion. Also, there are certain hair styles such as locs that are culturally appropriate and
should not be discriminated upon, especially in reference to grooming. The last recommendation
would be to eliminate blaming in dress code. A “non-disruptive” learning environment should
not be the reason behind certain limitations and policies of a dress code. There should be no
blame to a female on their body that they have no control over. Nor should they be blamed for
the clothes they are wearing. Also, in cases where students have no control of their grooming
habit should not receive blame as well.
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 11
References
Blaine v. Board of Education. Justia Law. (n.d.-a). https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-
court/1972/46-782-1.html
Code of conduct / v. dress code. / V. Dress Code. (n.d.). https://www.pcsb.org/dresscode
Florida Department of Education. (2022). Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org
Hughes, C., Bailey, C. M., Warren, P.Y., & Stewart, E. A. (2020). “Value in Diversity”: School
Racial and Ethnic Composition, Teacher Diversity, and School Punishment. Social
Science Research, 92,102481-102481.
Jacobs, et al v. Clark County SD, et al, no. 05-16434 (9th cir. 2008). Justia Law. (n.d.).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/05-16434/0516434-2011-02-
25.html
Long v. Board of Educ. of Jefferson County, Ky., 121 F. supp. 2d 621 (W.D. Ky. 2000). Justia
Law. (n.d.-b).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/121/621/2505232/
Matin, J. L., & Brooks, J. N. (2020). Loc’d and faded, yoga pants and spaghetti straps:
Discrimination in dress codes and school pushout. International Journal of Education
Policy and Leadership, 16(19) http://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2020v16n19a1047
Pavlakis, A., & Roegman, R., (2018). How Dress Code Criminalize Males and Sexualize females
of color: Too often, schools dress code are enforced in ways that disproportionately
impact students of color-both male and female. (sex, gender, and schooling). Phi Delta
Kappan, 100(2), 54-54
Pendharkar, E. (2022). School dress codes aren’t fair to everyone, federal study finds; girls’
Black students, and LGBTQ students are disproportionately impacted by school dress
codes, say the GAO’s report. Education Week, 42 (14).
LEP: PART 5- PAPER ASSIGNMENT 12
Peltier v. charter day school, inc., no. 20-1001 (4th cir. 2021). Justia Law. (n.d.-b).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/20-1001/20-1001-2021-08-
09.html
Reddy-Best, K. L., & Chio, E. (2020). “Male hair cannot extend below plane of the shoulder”
and “no cross dressing”: Critical queer analysis of high school dress code in the united
stated. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(9), 1290-1340.
http://doi.org/10/1080/00918369.2019.158730
