new thread
http://www.austin.isd.tenet.edu/newsmedia/releases/index.phtml?more=0694
"Hair shall be clean, neatly trimmed and well-groomed.
"Beards and mustaches shall be allowed if they are neatly trimmed."
Of course, there is no definition of "neatly trimmed". Interestingly, regarding the rest of the code, unless I missed something, showing up to school stark raving naked would be acceptable according to the new dress code.
A nice blunt-cut waist length...
Turn up with my hair neatly trimmed and groomed and... bright pink oh, and don't forget the Iron Maiden t-shirt and a part of ragged jeans of course.
Sounds cool to me hehehe!
RM
The whole code sounds rather subjective to me...
In my book anything that is subjective is not a good ground for enforcement, you should be as explicit as possible about the boundaries of any regulation. It makes enforcement far easier.
This whole code is a waste of a page, because hardly anything is definite. There is too much room for interpretation, rendering the entire document pointless. Why bother with it in the first place?
Sorted
As ever wise words from Sorted.
Your fear is that 'they' will use this nonsense as an excuse to demand 'tapered cuts' (that hurt to even type it) so 'they' need to go away and learn that in the 21st century such rules are cr.....p
This reminds me, the "safe and prudent" rule for Montanna drivers was thrown out for this very reason. It was actually ruled unconstitutional for being vague. A pity, but if they had decided to continue without speed limits they probably would have had to come up with some very complex rules regarding what vehicles could go what speed under what conditions.
The answer in Montanna was a real speed limit. Hopefully the answer in Austin won't be a real length limit the first time somebody shows up with uneven dreds or something (oh my! it's the end of the world!).
I have a lot of Polo shirts that would be banned by the 'no symbols' policy.
Oddly they don't differentiate between males and females with this hair policy. Since they *DO* differentiate between males and females in other parts of the policy it must be their intention for the policy to apply equally to males and females! 'Neatly trimmed' must *not* mean short. There is also a potential conflict between 'well-groomed' and 'clean' since some people associate styling products with hair being greasy and dirty.
Basically, this document couldn't have been more poorly thought out... its a pile of trash.
The underlying message demonstrates a complete lack of thoughful process or objectivity, I'm left thinking this is a biggoted attempt to write policy by someone who is inherently stupid. Tragically they happen to be in-charge of the school board in Austin.
“We are a community of learners. We believe this new regulation will allow Austin School District employees to serve as positive role models for our students, by exemplifying a respect for learning; the appropriate standards of professional appearance; and conveying community values about proper grooming and hygiene,” Dr. Forgione said.
A Community of "learners????" Er... wake up you're a community of "Educators"! Start by setting a role model for your students by being objective and clear in what you mean, and showing a respect for learning by doing something that demonstrates a good education and intelligence. This document exemplifies "pointlessness" or "bigotry masked by fear of a lawsuit if we're too explcit!"
Honestly this whole document is such as waste of space.
Sorted
I'm out. My pants stay up without a belt, belt loops or no, so I don't own one.
I can imagine what their "mission statement" looks like.
Unfortunately, this is very similar to the hair rule of the RAF (the Royal Air Force), which says only "...the hair of the head shall be neat and well-groomed...". This has always been interpreted to mean short.
Hair rules have no place in state schools. Attendance is compulsory, but by the same token the children are not in the military, and cannot be made to comply as if they were airmen (or soldiers or sailors).
There was one well-publicised case, also in Texas, some years back, where a boy refused to cut his hair to comply with school rules. According to the media, he was taught in a class by himself and the windows (into the corridor) were covered up with newspapers so that other children couldn't see his long hair and be influenced by it!
This all starts with a vague idea about teaching children to look neat for future employers, and ends up with lunacy like covering up windows. Teachers should stick to teaching and not try to control people.
As for mission statements, I've never seen one that wasn't waste paper.
Zachariah Toungate of Bastrop, Texas
No, I think that's a different case. I'm so glad I don't live in Texas.
YIKES!
I doubt they'll be interested in me! I just moved to Austin and was considering applying at Austin ISD. I'm a high school teacher.
Hmmmmm.
I may need to examine this policy closely. I think I'll give them a call Monday and see if they can clarify!
I was considering applying myself, but I have no teaching credentials thus far. Since you do, I encourage you to go ahead. By the way, I know several teachers personally who are male and have long hair.
My prediction is that the dress code will be mostly ignored, just has it has been for the students in the past.
I agree with most who have written about this already that the up front statement is anything but upfront. It is basic code for: we will be in control of your attire and grooming, and "we" are the status quo.
I see several problems, especially around the hair and beard having to be "neatly trimmed".
I must also say that most of the "code" is common sense. Teachers (by the way, this employee dress code, not student dress code)should not be coming to school with their underwear showing or showing through, with clothing so short or badly fitting that it is distracting, etc.
The one huge civil rights issue that I see in the code that men with long hair might make if neat and clear doesn't allow for long hair (and it is not at all clear that it doesn't)is that exceptions will be made for religious purposes.
My own personal expression of religion has come to include nature/creation based spirituality and central to that is respect for the integrity of individual and his/her body. I could with full conscience report to my principal that my long hair is an issue of my religion and that I would not be cutting it. Beyond that, I would be consulting an attorney for violation of my civil rights. However, I think that if most principals were told, sincerely and in an adult fashion, that one's hair was off limits due to religious grounds, and that one maintained neat grooming practices, most would back off.
Robert
