Should schools have dress codes?

Strict codes spend teaching time on enforcement rather than education

Question: Should schools have dress codes?
Position‹2 of 3›: no, schools shouldnt have strict dress codes. the boys should learn to keep it in their pants, its not the girls faults
Argument‹2 of 2: Strict codes spend teaching time on enforcement rather than education

The argument

A second argument for this position is practical rather than principled, and concerns what enforcing a detailed code actually costs. Proponents point out that every restriction on fit, length or coverage has to be measured by somebody. A rule stated in a handbook becomes, in a corridor, an adult assessing a student's body against a standard, often in front of others, and then removing that student from a lesson to change, to cover up or to be sent home. The time lost is lesson time, and it is lost by the students least able to afford it, since those pulled up repeatedly tend to be the same ones each time. Proponents argue that the relational cost is larger than the lost minutes. Staff who would otherwise be teaching become inspectors of appearance, a role that no teacher chooses and few perform comfortably. Students learn that an adult may comment on how their body appears in clothing and that the comment carries institutional authority. A school that wants students to report uncomfortable attention from adults has, on this account, undermined itself by requiring adults to give exactly that kind of attention as part of their duties. The position concludes that the detailed code consumes the resource schools are shortest of, which is goodwill between students and staff. A simple standard that can be judged at a glance, or no standard beyond safety and offensive content, costs almost nothing to administer and generates few confrontations. Proponents hold that the burden of proof therefore sits with the defenders of strict codes, who must show a benefit large enough to be worth daily conflict, lost lessons and a supervisory role nobody wanted, and that no such benefit has been made out.

Premises

[P1]Every restriction on fit, length or coverage must be assessed by an adult against a student's body, often publicly, and often by removing the student from a lesson. [P2] The students assessed repeatedly tend to be the same ones each time, so the lost lesson time is concentrated rather than spread. [P3] Requiring staff to comment on how students' bodies appear in clothing conflicts with the trust a school needs if students are to report unwanted attention. [C] The administrative and relational costs of strict dress codes exceed any benefit they have been shown to produce.

Counter-arguments

Opponents answer that the costs described are the costs of enforcing a code badly. A clearly written standard that can be judged at a glance, applied consistently from the first week, generates very few confrontations precisely because students know where the line is; the daily conflict appears where rules are vague, selectively applied or introduced late. They add that the argument would tell equally against every school rule requiring an adult to notice a breach, including rules about phones, attendance and language, and that the conclusion drawn would leave a school unable to maintain any standard at all.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Opponents hold that a standard which can be judged at a glance requires no assessment of a student's body and generates no such encounter. [Rejecting P2] Repeated breaches by the same students reflect a failure to apply the rule consistently from the outset rather than a property of codes themselves. [Rejecting P3] The same reasoning would tell against every rule an adult must notice a breach of, including those on phones, attendance and language. [Rejecting C] A cost that arises from enforcing a rule badly is not a reason to abandon the rule, so the conclusion is not supported.