Undressing Policy: A Critical Analysis of North Carolina (USA) Public School Dress Codes
Saved in:
| Title: | Undressing Policy: A Critical Analysis of North Carolina (USA) Public School Dress Codes |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Edwards, Torrie K., Marshall, Catherine |
| Source: | Gender and Education. 2020 32(6):732-750. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2020 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Dress Codes, Public Schools, School Policy, Educational Policy, Gender Bias, Racial Bias, Discourse Analysis, Content Analysis |
| Geographic Terms: | North Carolina |
| DOI: | 10.1080/09540253.2018.1503234 |
| ISSN: | 0954-0253 |
| Abstract: | Student dress codes are controversial school policy in US schools. As dress codes were initially established with the intent to eliminate the appearance of differences among students and mitigate gang violence in schools, legal research has paid extensive attention to the value and constitutionality of these policies. Education research, however, is limited. What research does exist has focused largely on the benefits of policy implementation, rather than the construction of dress codes or implicit biases found in the discourse around student dress. Using feminist critical policy analysis as our guiding frameworks for analysis, we analyzed 122 student dress codes in North Carolina public schools. Our content analysis revealed these policies place especial restrictions on girl students' dress and reinforce traditional binary notions of gender identity. Our analysis also found race is an important factor in dress code language, and so we argue for further intersectional analysis of policy writing and implementation. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2020 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1262783 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFYFOwd1XRgSN_Yd2Y1JRpSAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLPRECQuSHA7LU-SxwIBEICBm8_aiE_bUO54M8NxXOmcN_2RoMMENcrtM2vYAiHOQoHNhOc_gH9BZA5KPdOHdFIlpgyIxKmQa-sv9G12nG5U2XCTpKN34i5l63c6qZQkfOhTIPpzDUPvZ3pbUGbw8Cry4g1JSEWj39MfSNDOsHik5Pz5SPbKTCQ2HG4ig7_jvPQS4-wql6Afyha6aNG_jmibksnD78AsxHo9QV3P Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0144746761;gae01aug.20;2020Jul27.02:12;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0144746761-1">Undressing policy: a critical analysis of North Carolina (USA) public school dress codes </title> <p>Student dress codes are controversial school policy in US schools. As dress codes were initially established with the intent to eliminate the appearance of differences among students and mitigate gang violence in schools, legal research has paid extensive attention to the value and constitutionality of these policies. Education research, however, is limited. What research does exist has focused largely on the benefits of policy implementation, rather than the construction of dress codes or implicit biases found in the discourse around student dress. Using feminist critical policy analysis as our guiding frameworks for analysis, we analyzed 122 student dress codes in North Carolina public schools. Our content analysis revealed these policies place especial restrictions on girl students' dress and reinforce traditional binary notions of gender identity. Our analysis also found race is an important factor in dress code language, and so we argue for further intersectional analysis of policy writing and implementation.</p> <p>Keywords: Education policy; discourse analysis; policy studies; girls; heteronormativity; boys; race and ethnicities; discipline</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-2">Introduction</hd> <p>American schools implement dress code policies for many reasons. Since the end of the twentieth century, there has been widespread adoption of dress codes to protect students from gang violence and theft, mitigate inequalities, and even instill discipline in students (Crockett and Wallendorf [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref1">21</reflink>]; Mahling [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref2">50</reflink>]). With these three justifications for using dress codes, schools have faced increasing concerns about the legality or constitutionality of policies. Much of this discussion has focused heavily on students' rights in the First Amendment and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cases in the American court system including landmark decisions in <emph>Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District</emph> (1969), <emph>Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986)</emph>, and <emph>Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier</emph> (1988), as well as lesser known cases including <emph>Bivens v. Albuquerque</emph> (1995) and <emph>Newsom v. Albemarle</emph> (2003), have addressed legal challenges to school policies based on students' rights to free expression, equal protection, and procedural and substantive due process.</p> <p>Because of the impact on schools and legal questions posed about constitutionality, dress codes are an important school policy challenge to explore. Researchers who are interested in the development, implementation, and effects of dress codes must consider whether school dress codes balance students' right to free expression and the administration's obligation to maintain a safe and constructive learning environment. School dress codes are justified as being a part of school discipline for the safety, health, and equality of students, so understanding how they work can provide valuable insight into the school climate and the lived school experiences of students. Laws, codes, and policies do not uncover the deeper and subtler nuances of experience based on membership in certain demographic subgroups. Gender and race are two integral identifiers in understanding student experiences. Female students, particularly female students of color, experience gross disciplinary inequities with dress code (Rudd [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref3">62</reflink>]). Taking apart, analyzing, and deconstructing the purpose and effect of the regulations on various student subgroups will therefore provide guidance for the eventual implementation of legal, intentional, and equitable school policy. This analysis demonstrates a method for deconstructing, or undressing such codes and policies. For this topic, undressing is a fitting word for deconstruction.</p> <p>Scholars have covered many topics in dress code research, focusing on school uniforms (a set list of specific clothing items that must be worn), hard dress codes (a list of specific types of clothing items that can be worn), soft dress codes (a general guideline of what kinds of clothes are or are not acceptable in schools), and the broader context of school discipline policy. For instance, Brunsma and Rockquemore ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]) examined the relationship between school uniform policies and student achievement, finding that uniform policies did not improve absenteeism or foster prosocial behaviors (with the exception of Catholic schools). More recent research includes Happel's ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref5">37</reflink>]) study of the performativity of gender encoded in uniform policies as well as studies of the intersectional impacts of dress code policies. For example, Ferguson ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref6">30</reflink>]) wrote largely about the criminalization of Black males in American public schools, showing that Black males must strictly adhere to school policy, 'to avoid humiliating encounters' and to 'be seen as purposeful, conservative, not threatening' (<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref7">109</reflink>). Morris ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref8">53</reflink>]) studied an urban middle school and found that faculty and staff reinforced stereotypes in their enforcement of dress code: they emphasized traditional femininity for girls, especially Black girls; Latino males were deemed most threatening and so received the strictest disciplinary actions; and that White and Asian males faced the fewest disciplinary measures.</p> <p>Considering the research on the disproportionality of school discipline policies (see Rudd [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref9">62</reflink>], for example), as well as the extensive troubled history of dress codes in the United States (as evidenced by the numerous legal cases initiated because of this aspect of school discipline), there is a need for an analysis of the policies that currently exist. Moreover, with increasing public demand for public school environments to be safe spaces for all students, it is critical that we address the inequities that may be written into our codes of conduct. This study works to achieve these ends. School dress codes are implemented at the district level in 110 of 115 North Carolina school districts. This content analysis of 122 North Carolina district level rules analyzes the ways in which dress code policies maintain traditional gendered, sexualized, and racialized discourses of behavioral norms.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>]</p> <p>Although gender is the central focus of our analysis throughout the paper, we cover much ground in our discussion of this concept, from heteronormativity and binarism to racialized experiences of gender. Further defined by characteristics like race and class, gender is a social tool by which identities are reinforced, changed, rewarded, and punished. Individuals, and society at large, can make meaning of relationality and interactivity through this marker. In this way, how a society perceives of gender is central to its operation and is embedded in its institutional practices. This paper is thus structured as follows. First, there is an extensive literature review on the topic, including the rationales for dress codes, the constitutionality of the policies, and the inequalities reinforced in implementation. This piece is situated in a US context and uses primarily American authors as resources; however, two authors included in the literature review because of the theoretical implications of their work (Raby and Pomerantz) are Canadian. After this review, we present the theoretical framework we use in the analysis. We then describe our research design and findings from the study. The paper concludes with a discussion of the findings and implications for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-3">Literature review</hd> <p>There are clear trends in the literature about American dress code policy. Note that demographic variables (race, gender, sexuality, and socioeconomic status) are covered separately, though such axes of identity are not so easy to disentangle. These intersections are explored later in our analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-4">Previous trends in dress code literature</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144746761-5">School safety and health rationale</hd> <p>Many schools have justified dress code implementation with the rationale that policies improve school safety and health outcomes, including preventing students from engaging in or becoming victims of gang-related activities (Campbell [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]; DaCosta [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref12">22</reflink>]; Gullatt [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref13">36</reflink>]; Workman and Freeburg [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref14">72</reflink>]), stemming other school crime like theft and bullying (Campbell [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]; Crockett and Wallendorf [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]; Gullatt [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref17">36</reflink>]; Workman and Freeburg [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref18">72</reflink>]), and using zero-tolerance policies (policies that call for suspension or expulsion upon the first offense of breaking any part of the school's code of conduct, regardless of the level of the violation) to enable students to learn in a safe and distraction-free environment (Raby [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref19">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Schools have also justified using dress codes to improve students' health outcomes by linking dress to sexual behavior, associated risks, and presumed morality (Freeburg, Workman, and Lentz-Hees [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref20">32</reflink>]; Gullatt [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref21">36</reflink>]; Workman and Freeburg [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref22">72</reflink>]). Dress codes are also said to protect students from sexual assault or harassment. Workman and Studak ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref23">73</reflink>]) evaluated the effectiveness of dress code policies at fulfilling these responsibilities, finding schools have successfully argued teaching community values is integral to student success, and a critical component is adherence to dress codes that 'reduce risks to morality' (<reflink idref="bib302" id="ref24">302</reflink>).</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-6">The question of constitutionality</hd> <p>Tracing the ways in which American courts have addressed the legality of dress code policy is key to understanding the implications of North Carolina public schools' policies. Law has a clear impact on student identity; in the case of dress codes, American courts have used constitutional mandates to define the ways student identity may or may not be protected. As such, a discussion about the impact of school dress code on students from diverse groups would be incomplete without a review of relevant law.</p> <p>Scholars have examined the tension between students who want to display their individuality, administrators who must prevent disruptions to the educational process, and the legal ramifications of this conflict (Crockett and Wallendorf [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]; Kuhn [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref26">43</reflink>]; Raby and Domitrek [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref27">58</reflink>]; Smith [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref28">67</reflink>]). The discussion of dress code legality has focused primarily on the First Amendment (freedom of speech and expression) and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (freedom from discriminatory practices and protection from unfair policy and policy processes). Drawing from <emph>Tinker v. Des Moines</emph> (1969), the courts established content-based student dress codes (regulates specific messages on clothing) are not protected if the dress does not threaten school security or function (Kuhn [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref29">43</reflink>]; Mahling [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref30">50</reflink>]; Smith [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref31">67</reflink>]). Should dress be content-neutral (clothing not symbolic of a political message), a dress code is valid under the First Amendment if it supports a government interest, does not suppress students' freedom of expression, and has benefits that outweigh its costs (Smith [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref32">67</reflink>], 254). Moreover, although schools need 'legitimate and important' reasons for gender-based restrictions to satisfy the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the courts also established schools may implement dress codes to prevent distractions, impart community standards, and enforce school discipline (Smith [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref33">67</reflink>], 255). Because <emph>Bethel v. Fraser</emph> (1986) granted schools the right to 'inculcate the habits and manners of civility' by banning lewd or offensive speech, content-neutral clothing is not protected (DeMitchell, Fossey, and Cobb [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>], 36).</p> <p>Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, some students have sued school districts for policies they felt forced gender and sexuality expectations upon them. In her study of dress code litigation in the work force, Levi ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref35">47</reflink>]) maintained challenges to sex-based dress codes are successful when they argue the policy sexualizes women, allows more flexibility in dress for men, or imposes strict sex and gender rules for transgender employees. It is important to note Levi uses the term sex-based dress codes synonymously with gender-based dress codes; in this study, we argue from a gender-based perspective, as focusing solely on sex excludes the experiences and identities of certain students. Newhall ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref36">54</reflink>]) took the opposite position in his review; after arguing for local school board control of policies, he contended there are too many 'frivolous' lawsuits aiming to eliminate sex-based dress codes and replace them with gender- and sex-neutral policies (<reflink idref="bib213" id="ref37">213</reflink>). Considering American education focuses partially on preparing students for careers, how both students and adults navigate these policies bears significance in education policy research.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-7">Inequalities in dress code</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144746761-8">Class</hd> <p>School districts and leaders have justified dress codes to reduce the appearance of class disparities among students. Rationales differ. One rationale suggests class disparities can encourage criminality, and so hard dress codes can reduce gang violence or other criminal behavior because students are not flaunting or envying expensive items (Caruso [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref38">17</reflink>]). Another rationale suggests student socialization relies heavily upon peer groups and peer pressure (Bodine [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]). Because economic disparity leads to 'social exclusion and social strife,' schools must intentionally seek to minimize these differences (Bodine [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref40">10</reflink>], 43). Caruso echoed Bodine's call for hard dress code policies, she maintained they reduce clothing costs for students. Similarly, Mahling ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref41">50</reflink>]) contended dress codes remove distractions by reducing peer pressure to buy expensive clothing.</p> <p>Although some scholars have focused on the positive effects of dress codes, other researchers have focused on the negative consequences of these policies. Crockett and Wallendorf ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]) rejected the idea dress codes discourage peer pressure to buy trendy clothing and alleviate status distinctions, arguing soft dress codes (guidelines for clothing choices, rather than specific uniforms) allow students to select items that inscribe class disparities into school policies, such as through brand selection. They argued further hard dress codes exacerbate class distinctions through opt-out provisions or charity programs. Policies thus become institutional mechanisms for reinforcing socioeconomic differences between students.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-9">Race</hd> <p>Dress codes are not only implemented inequitably, but are also conceived of and written in racially coded language (Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref43">4</reflink>]; Bodine [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref44">10</reflink>]; Mahling [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref45">50</reflink>]). Following the rhetoric of gang prevention, many policies have focused on clothing choices associated with these groups. Mahling asserted dress codes ban clothing associated with African-American gang activity rather than clothing associated with other criminal organizations like white supremacist groups. Crockett and Wallendorf ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>]) argued the use of 'gang violence' in schools almost entirely refers to violence perpetrated by groups of ethnic minorities rather than violence by White students. Similarly, Bodine asserted racial bias may be written into the '"gangs and violence" rhetoric' of dress code policy when it is used 'in situations where there is no such threat' and instead 'may be perceived as code for "ethnic minorities,"' particularly 'menacing minority males' (<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref47">50</reflink>).</p> <p>Past research has also considered how disciplinary measures have been tools for getting rid of students seen as 'troublemakers,' a disproportionately non-White group (Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref48">4</reflink>]; DaCosta [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]; Raby [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref50">56</reflink>], 72). Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein studied the impact of school conduct codes and policy implementation on academic outcomes and personal identities of high achieving African-American girls. They revealed schools find ways to monitor these students' behavior; often seen as too loud, socially backwards, and lacking values and taste, African-American girls are more frequently cited for dress code violations than their White peers. Rather than encourage academic growth, then, 'school personnel spend more time correcting their speech and dress patterns' (Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref51">4</reflink>], 200).</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-10">Gender</hd> <p>Dress code policy research also considers how school regulations impact gender inequalities in schools. Some literature has examined the ways dress codes asymmetrically target girls. For instance, Crockett and Wallendorf ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref52">21</reflink>]) highlighted many schools implement dress codes to prevent gang activity, more prevalent among males, but have greater restraints upon female dress, which is often a vehicle for young girls to build a sense of self-worth and identity. Behling ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]) found girls suffered most from clothing scrutiny, as the ideal style of professional dress was simply a blazer, conflating traditionally masculine clothing choices with professionalism.</p> <p>One reason for the dress code consistently cited in the literature is the need to cover female bodies and female sexuality. For example, some dress codes specify 'unisex' clothing as acceptable; unisex clothing is usually made to fit both men and women, and therefore are not made with the shape of girls' and women's bodies, thus intentionally deemphasizing and masculinizing girls' bodies (Behling [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]; Crockett and Wallendorf [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref55">21</reflink>], 124). Ewing ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>]) similarly addressed the moralizing of girls' bodies through dress code in her discussion of athletic wear (boys can wear shorts but girls cannot), arguing schools use dress codes as ways to institutionalize and reinforce dominant narratives of traditional gender conformity and sexual morality. Some researchers have thus discussed how dress codes are one way in which schools can create a 'docile citizenry' through 'moral regulation' of clothing choices based on social conventions (Raby [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref57">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref58">57</reflink>]; Raby and Domitrek [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref59">58</reflink>]). Drawing from Raby ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref60">56</reflink>]), Pomerantz ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref61">55</reflink>]) examined how dress codes articulate dominant social mores, in which girls are responsible for the moral climate of schools. Boys and male teachers are thus positioned as innocent victims of female sexuality, girls must be controlled for their own good and for the welfare of those around them.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-11">Sexuality and gender identity</hd> <p>The literature examining the impact of dress code policies on LGBTQ students is sparse. Legal scholarship is divided on the issue of gender identity and sexuality in dress code policy. Levi ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref62">47</reflink>]) asserted sex-based dress codes exacerbate the visual distinctions between men and women and 'the dress codes themselves become the vehicle for the exercise of prejudice' (<reflink idref="bib254" id="ref63">254</reflink>). Levi's statement underscores Brower ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref64">11</reflink>]) and the argument sex-based dress codes institutionalize, reinforce, and reproduce traditional gender norms at the expense of non-conforming individuals. Newhall ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref65">54</reflink>]) disagreed and argued teachers and administrators waste time developing sex-neutral dress codes 'instead of preparing boys and girls to dress and groom themselves in the manner expected of young men and women in their community' (<reflink idref="bib210" id="ref66">210</reflink>). Though there is a clear diversity of beliefs in the literature, the paucity of research into the relationship between sexuality, gender identity, and school dress code policy is a gap we consider in this research. Moreover, the limitation in language around the issue of dress codes (sex-based as synonymous with gender-based) as well as the continued representation of male and female students as occupying binary identity spaces, is why we focus on how dress codes reproduce heteronormative expectations of gender and behavior. As such, impacts on the LGBTQ student community should be explored in its own study; because these students occupy further axes of marginalization, research into specific impacts of gendered, raced, and classed dress codes upon LGBTQ students is important. Finally, as the US Supreme Court addresses transgender student and as states individually face legal challenges to discriminatory bathroom bills, research examining how transgender and gender non-conforming students are protected in public institutions should be conducted.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-12">Theoretical framework</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144746761-13">Feminist critical policy analysis</hd> <p>Feminist critical policy analysis (FCPA) questions the inherent biases in public policies and how they have a notable impact on women's and girls' lives. Both theoretical and methodological in that it applies tenets of feminist theory to disrupt patriarchal organizational behaviors, FCPA focuses on hidden prejudices of policy-makers and institutional structure, rather than simply examining whether there are openly disparate policies (Bensimon and Marshall [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>]). It recognizes the discursive practice of policy-making and analysis, questions how embedded assumptions of power inform policy-making, and considers how policies must be deconstructed to analyze the varying effects they have by gender (Allan [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>]; Allan, Iverson, and Ropers-Huilman [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>]). Feminist critical policy analysts challenge the notion policies are gender neutral, and instead emphasize gender not as an 'environmental variable' with minimal effect on identity construction and social fluency, but as a 'fundamental category' that creates different experiences, knowledges, and realities (Bensimon and Marshall [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref70">6</reflink>], 9, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref71">7</reflink>], 345; Glazer-Raymo [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref72">34</reflink>]; Marshall [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref73">51</reflink>]). Gender thus contributes greatly to how people know their worlds; that is, gender and gender identity influence behaviors, languages, and interactions within social organizations like educational institutions. To address the disparity between what policy-makers have called gender-neutral policies and the actual effects of policies on women and girls, FCPA calls for transformative practices in educational research. Claiming neutrality both ignores critical components of identity and is a dangerous method by which cultural institutions historically have exercised power (Foucault [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref74">31</reflink>]). In this way, using FCPA to understand dress code policies' impacts students is important: it provides a framework through which to view the systematic, discursive reinforcement of gendered behavioral norms.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-14">Critical race feminism</hd> <p>Our analysis will also incorporate Critical Race Feminism (CRF). CRF addresses feminist issues of power, oppression, and conflict with special focus on the needs of women of color (Berry [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref75">8</reflink>]; Evans-Winters and Esposito [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref76">28</reflink>]). A branch of Critical Race Theory, CRF is a reaction to traditional and feminist legal theories, which rely on essentialist notions of gender that a single woman's identity 'can be isolated and described independently of race, class, sexual orientation, and other realities of experience' (Harris [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref77">38</reflink>], 585). As Crenshaw ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref78">20</reflink>]) argued, CRF incorporates the 'concept of political intersectionality' to emphasize how 'women of color are situated within at least two subordinated groups that frequently pursue conflicting political agendas' (<reflink idref="bib360" id="ref79">360</reflink>). Crenshaw ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref80">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref81">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref82">20</reflink>]) further explained the idea of intersectionality in her discussion of erasure, noting how feminist theory and antiracist movements have so far erased Black women's experience by hiding the 'multidimensionality of Black women's experience' in focusing on only one element of their identity ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref83">19</reflink>], 139). In an analysis of school policy, considering the ways girl students of color encounter doubly oppressive or restrictive regulations is essential (Evans-Winters and Esposito [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref84">28</reflink>]). Thus, the intersection of raced and gendered terms in North Carolina dress code policies were especially interesting in this analysis.</p> <p>Another element of CRF central to our analysis is the concept of White behavioral heteronormativity. Because of the historical perception of White masculinity as cultural practices of property and power, CRF considers the ways in which White, male norms are held as a standard of acceptability against which other behaviors and practices are undervalued, stigmatized, or criminalized (Harris [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref85">39</reflink>]; Ladson-Billings and Tate [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref86">44</reflink>]; Wiggins [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref87">71</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-15">Sample and data</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144746761-16">North Carolina dress code policies</hd> <p>The data we collected are from North Carolina. We selected North Carolina for two reasons: first, one of the authors is a former secondary school teacher in the state and has a personal interest in dress code policy; and second, North Carolina is currently the site of multiple race, sex, and gender dress code controversies. To create the sample, we searched all 115 North Carolina school district websites for district-level policies. 110 of North Carolina's districts have published dress codes; we could not locate 5 (Alleghany, Caswell, Edgecombe, Graham, and Martin counties). We first searched for Board of Education Policy manuals and if those were not available or did not include a dress code, we searched for a parent or student handbook. The third option in the process was cross-district elementary, middle, and high school policies. Finally, we searched for districts that published a separate dress code. The search yielded 122 policies from the various document types: 96 Board of Education policy manuals, 16 parent or student handbooks; 9 cross-district elementary, middle, and high school policies; and 1 separate dress code. Public schools with uniform policies were included in this study, and these dress codes were generally identified by their inclusion of a 'Standard Mode of Dress' (SMOD). In the search, some documents were called 'Code of Conduct.' If the code was prefaced with a letter to parents or students, it was classified as a handbook. If the code did not have a letter, it was classified as a Board of Education policy manual.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-17">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144746761-18">Thematic coding</hd> <p>The 122 dress code policies were coded twice, using a combination of inductive and deductive coding. The code structure was developed using terms from previous literature (e.g. professionalism, student safety) and from common words and phrases that emerged from the dress codes themselves. Whether inductive or deductive, all codes were in vivo; that is, they were named and defined using the exact words and definitions used by the authors or districts in the literature and the dress codes (Saldana [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref88">65</reflink>]). Using this approach follows the spirit of in vivo coding, as it maintains a literal connection to the initial text. The codes are presented in the Findings section as well as in Appendix. Following coding, individual and combination queries for frequent words, common phrases, and themes provided information to frame the analysis. Codes were developed into themes by considering frequency of usage and relevance to the literature and our theoretical orientation.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>]</p> <p>We used QSR NVivo for Mac, Version 10.2.2, because this software allows for frequency searches, hand coding, the development of detailed, nested codes, and checks for inter-rater reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-19">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144746761-20">Frequently used terms and phrases</hd> <p>A large portion of North Carolina public school dress codes is nearly identical (the 96 Board of Education policy manuals are drawn from a template provided by the State Board of Education and the Department of Public Instruction). As such, the entire body of district-level policies does not display much diversity in its rules for student dress and appearance. One might wonder, then, the value of including all 96 policies in this analysis. The reason is three-fold. First, the documents are not all perfectly identical, and even the minutest of changes are valuable to recognize. Second, that 96 school districts pulled from a template rather than create a policy that was relevant to their student populations and reflective of its specific needs is also of significance. Third, all 96 policies are included because each district should be represented; if we are to call it a study of North Carolina dress codes, all policies must be included in the analysis.</p> <p>There are frequently used terms in the documents. The 20 most common words and phrases in the dress codes are presented in Table 1. The 5 most common codes in the analysis are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 1. Most frequent regulations.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Word or phrase&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Number of districts and uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Appropriate dress&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;17 districts, 21 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Clean&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;8 districts, 10 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cleavage&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;26 districts, 28 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Drugs/drugs and alcohol&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;19 districts, 23 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Gang symbols/gang-related activity&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;12 districts, 15 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hair&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;13 districts, 29 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hats&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;56 districts, 82 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hoods&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;20 districts, 23 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Midriff&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;36 districts, 41 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Neat&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;11 districts, 13 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Profanity&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;9 districts 13 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Revealing&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;25 districts, 33 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Sagging pants&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;30 districts, 30 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Shoulders&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;15 districts, 16 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Spaghetti straps&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;20 districts, 22 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Leggings/spandex&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;22 districts, 37 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Standard dress/standard mode of dress&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7 districts, 33 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tank tops&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;27 districts, 33 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Thigh&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;17 districts, 28 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Undergarments&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;49 districts, 89 uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Most frequent codes.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Code&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Number of uses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Health and safety&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;170&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Morality&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;314&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Professionalism&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;143&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Unacceptable boys' clothing&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;142&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Unacceptable girls' clothing&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="."&gt;291&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>The codes we developed are rooted in the findings of our literature review. For our analysis, the Health and Safety code was defined by the use of the term 'health and safety,' and any behaviors related to gang activity, drug use, or violence, since previous research and the laws of the 1990s focused heavily on how dress codes could be used to curb such behaviors and improve student safety (Campbell [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref90">15</reflink>]; Crockett and Wallendorf 1999; DaCosta [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref91">22</reflink>]; Gullatt [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref92">36</reflink>]; Workman and Freeburg [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref93">72</reflink>]). The Morality code was defined by use of vulgarity, profanity, lewdness, obscenity, or sexual content. This code was defined in this way for two reasons: First, <emph>Bethel v. Fraser</emph> (1986) identified a school's right to inculcate community values and morals in students, including limiting sexually explicit and obscene speech. Second, recent research has shown dress codes focusing on girls' dress and penalize clothing considered revealing and leading to promiscuity, viewed promiscuity as an issue of student morality (Pomerantz [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref94">55</reflink>]; Raby [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref95">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref96">57</reflink>]). Appropriate dress, standard clothing, clean and fitted appearances, and neat hair characterized Professionalism, an ideal explored in literature on race, gender, and class (i.e. Crockett and Wallendorf [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref97">21</reflink>]; Ewing [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref98">29</reflink>]), as well as in literature informing our theoretical framework (Crenshaw [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref99">20</reflink>]; López [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref100">48</reflink>]). Unacceptable Boys' Clothing included headgear, sagging pants, and exposed undergarments; please note 40% of coding for Unacceptable Boys' Clothing came from 'Hats,' and more than 20% came from 'Sagging Pants.' Hats and headwear have been included as boys' clothing because the codes generally regulate headwear worn by boy students (e.g. baseball hats). Finally, Unacceptable Girls' Clothing was defined by prohibited shirt types, exposed body parts, regulated skirt or dress length, and clothing considered revealing. Although an argument may be made that some regulations affect students of all genders, and therefore this coding schema may overreach, these policies have been written to prohibit specific kinds of clothing predominantly worn by one set of students; for instance, 'spaghetti straps' are often identified in these codes, yet tank tops often worn by male students (e.g. 'wife beaters') are not.</p> <p>The Morality code and the Unacceptable Girls' Clothes code rely heavily on regulations of girls' bodies and sexuality. Because the Morality code speaks generally about 'lewd' (Alamance-Burlington School System [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>]) clothes or images 'sexual in nature' (Brunswick County Schools [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref102">13</reflink>]), sexually explicit clothing worn by a student of any gender would prohibited. Nevertheless, the policies exhibit a sharpened focus on clothes usually worn by girl students, as the Unacceptable Girls' Clothing code names at least 14 different regulations for girls' clothing and appearance, specifically restricting clothes that are too 'revealing,' (Durham Public Schools [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref103">26</reflink>]), 'provocative,' (Bertie County Schools [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref104">9</reflink>]), or show certain body parts like stomach, cleavage, thigh, or even 'backside' (Edenton-Chowan Schools [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref105">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-21">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144746761-22">Neutrality in white, male, heteronormativity</hd> <p>Dress codes appear to use neutral language. Although the policies do not name 'race' or ethnicity, or related categories in their language and very rarely name gender or sex (less than 10% of districts specify male and female rules), these policies depend on assumptions about identity and acceptable behaviors. Identities signifying sexual orientation are simply denied or ignored, relying on assumptions of heteronormativity and centering White, heterosexual males in policy discussions and implementation.</p> <p>The theme of Professionalism relies heavily on presupposed notions of what is appropriate in public places, work environments, and other formal spaces like schools. As men have historically taken up leadership and policy-making positions in schools and education, men's views are often advantaged through implicit and explicit policy supports (Kelly and Duerst-Lahti [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref106">42</reflink>]). Further, scholars (Marshall, Andre-Bechley, and Midkiff [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref107">52</reflink>]) point out throughout history, school policies have been 'constructed with no or minimal discussion of gender. Controversies around gender issues were there, but were often played out as if everything were <emph>gender neutral</emph>' (emphasis added, 236); that is, intentional conversations about gender and the impact of a policy on particular groups of students have been absent. Policies either neglect nuance around gender, or, like dress codes, reduce different populations to specific body parts to be regulated, covered, or hidden. We can see this in the notion of professionalism, which is defined reflecting assumptions that fit within the behavioral paradigm of White, male heteronormativity. As Crenshaw ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref108">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref109">20</reflink>]) argued, this broadly centers the values of White, heterosexual, male culture at the expense of other intersectional identities. These hegemonic norms are the assumed position, the neutral, of any policy arena; thus, dress codes, default to traditional ideas of professionalism as defined by White, middle class, heterosexual men.</p> <p>These intentionally neutral policies regulate clothing and appearance to ensure they cause no disruptions or harm to other students are expressed; for example, as students must adhere to 'reasonable' appearance (Cabarrus County Schools [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref110">14</reflink>]) or they must be 'appropriate' (Duplin County Schools [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref111">25</reflink>]) and follow a 'standard mode of dress' (Guilford County Board of Education [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref112">35</reflink>]). This wording suppresses opportunities for cultural, racial, or ethnic expression. There is no recognition, for instance, of non-religious cultural headwear, and therefore these items are prohibited. For example, girl students in Durham Public Schools were threatened with suspension for wearing traditional African hair wraps, <emph>geles</emph>, because they were nonreligious and therefore not protected (Harris [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref113">40</reflink>]). Similar arguments may be made for nonreligious, but culturally significant hairstyles like locs or braids, both of which have been restricted in school districts outside of North Carolina (Lazar [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref114">45</reflink>]). Race is not mentioned explicitly in North Carolina regulations on headgear, but the policies were undeniably raced: 'doo-rags' (Edenton-Chowan Schools [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref115">27</reflink>]), 'bandanas' (Randolph County School System [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref116">59</reflink>]), 'kerchiefs' (Lenoir County Public Schools [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref117">46</reflink>]), 'hair rollers' (Kannapolis City Schools [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref118">41</reflink>]), and 'hair picks' (Gaston County Schools [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref119">33</reflink>]) were prohibited, but no similar rule was established for banana clips, barrettes, butterfly clips, beanies, or other head and hair accessories often worn by White youth. Relatedly, muted colors and limited graphics (Stanly County Schools [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref120">68</reflink>]) are named to discourage the display of gang symbols or colors, limitations often rooted in biases against racial and ethnic minorities. Under the guise of maintaining school safety, this rule sets a behavioral standard by perceptions of White middle-class professionalism and assumptions of criminality of students of color (Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref121">4</reflink>]; Crockett and Wallendorf [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref122">21</reflink>]; Harris [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref123">39</reflink>]; Ladson-Billings and Tate [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref124">44</reflink>]; Mahling [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref125">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, although 10 districts use 'male' and 'female' clothing restrictions, there is no acknowledgment of non-conforming gender identity and expression. A simple statement in the dress code allowing students of any gender to wear any kind of clothing would encourage a different inclusive environment than the binary school policies presented thus far. Lugg ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref126">49</reflink>]) calls this lack of recognition the 'prickly' issue of gender and sexual orientation in high school (<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref127">96</reflink>). The Professionalism discourse in North Carolina dress codes were based on assumptions of the desirability that all students be acceptable and unthreatening to White, male, heteronormativity. As this foundation crosses all race, gender, and sexuality identities, students are affected in varying ways, dependent upon the intersectional details of their lives. Girl students of color experience the restrictions of the dress codes in multiple but unstated ways; since North Carolina district policies are written without identifying racialized or gendered elements of their identity, they are doubly marginalized. The language of North Carolina dress code policies never expresses overt bans based on their gender, race, and cultural realities, but rather ban items that do not fit within normative assumptions of White professionalism. Similarly, boys with neighborhood, cultural, or family backgrounds where a 'doo rag' is de rigeur learn they do not belong in schooling's mainstream. Unstated assumptions embedded in professionalism have a chilling effect; a girl may back off wearing a certain shirt and a student may pull pants higher before entering the schoolhouse door. Moreover, gender non-conforming students may learn dress codes set boundaries based on binary heteronormativity that preclude their expressions of identity if they want to avoid penalty.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-23">Neutrality in erasure</hd> <p>Because the dress code policies clearly establish behavioral expectations rooted in heteronormativity and Whiteness, an analysis of these regulations must attend to the unique ways girls of color experience the rules. Race and gender are regulated as distinct elements in dress codes; therefore, policies, and subsequent practices, 'expound identity as "woman" <emph>or</emph> "person of color" as an either/or proposition' and 'relegate the identity of women of color to a location that resists telling' (Crenshaw [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref128">20</reflink>], 357). Essentially, girl students who are racial or ethnic minorities live the politics of intersectionality; occupying multiples sites of subordination, these girls experience a split political identity that can cause a 'dimension of intersectional <emph>disempowerment</emph> which men of color, and white women seldom confront' (Crenshaw [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref129">20</reflink>], 360; emphasis added). This conflicting identity leads to the subjugation of voices and perspectives of girls and women of color to more dominant discourses in policy creation. Girls of color making choices must quietly negotiate codes that regulate anything that would seem unprofessional, threatening to health, or displaying gang colors, or they risk disciplinary consequences for being disruptive. For example, certain districts have banned jewelry that may be large, have chains, or deemed 'distracting' (Alamance-Burlington School System [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref130">1</reflink>]), jewelry sometimes associated with communities of color. Interestingly, hoop earrings may fit within this category, and, having significant cultural meaning for girls of color (Carrera [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref131">16</reflink>]), this policy thus has an unbalanced impact on these specific young women. School policies that regulate hair also have a disproportionate impact on students of color. One school district emphasizes that hair cannot 'impede vision' (Rowan-Salisbury County Schools [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref132">60</reflink>]) and that any form of appearance that brings 'undue attention' to the wearer is a violation of the dress code (Rowan-Salisbury County Schools [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref133">61</reflink>]). This policy is strikingly similar to the one at a charter school in Malden, Massachusetts. Despite the acknowledgment that braided hair extensions were 'important expressions of culture' (Lazar [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref134">45</reflink>]), district officials penalized girls who wore this style for being disruptive and violating the dress code. Because of the various policies and the cumulative consequences for violation, erasing these markers of identity as a person of color or as a woman would seem the easiest way to navigate getting to school and passing through the grades.</p> <p>Stringent regulation of girls' bodies seems to be done without consideration of historical context. It is as if dress codes have been written without consideration of history of enslavement and the historically embedded restrictions of women's rights Empowered girls and the 'sexual revolution' are only recent and incomplete developments, progress notably undermined by policies that align girlhood with heteronormative ideals of morality and professionalism. Girls are still encumbered with antiquated expectations of submissiveness and propriety as what it means to be female, as dress codes that heavily focus on girls' behavior indicate these ideas still exist among many school stakeholders. Though White girls undoubtedly have experienced the restraints of sexism through body regulation, girls of color carry with them the ancestral reality of enslavement, rape as a production mechanism, and Whiteness as property-owner (Harris [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref135">39</reflink>], 193). Dress code policies that penalize cultural wear or appearance, highlight Whiteness as normative, and center the boy in educational endeavors simply reinforce these biases.</p> <p>Race is not named, though is certainly indirectly referenced in dress codes, and these policies are on the surface apparently neutral, but these regulations reinforce historically institutionalized tight control of the body of the female of color and the systematic, legal silencing of her voice. Similarly, sexual identity and orientation are denied, seemingly unworthy of policy attention in dress codes.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-24">Implications for future research and policy</hd> <p>The primary conclusion to be drawn from this study is that current dress code policies in North Carolina public schools enact and reproduce White patriarchal and heteronormative behaviors and values. Under the guise of protecting health and safety and promoting professionalism, current dress codes consistently feature language lacking specificity in certain expectations. 96 of 122 dress code policies are Board of Education policy manuals that open with a justification for dress codes prohibiting clothing considered disruptive, provocative, obscene, symbolic of gang-affiliation, or dangerous to the health and safety of other students. These are vague phrases that fail to acknowledge or address embedded gender and race memories. Does unprofessional mean sexually provocative? Does unhealthy mean promiscuous? Does doo-rag mean unprofessional in all social environments, or just in White educators'? Vague terms allow educators to judge.</p> <p>Vagueness is disguised as neutrality, but it is not neutral. Rather than overt racism, this vagueness is racism 'manifest in [a] different [form],' as it sets Whiteness, White expectations, and White cultural practices as the standard by which all people are judged (López [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref136">48</reflink>], 69). By erasing the lives and experiences of students of color, it forces non-White students to abandon their 'authentic' voices and identities to comply, or face disciplinary action (Ladson-Billings and Tate [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref137">44</reflink>], 58). Rather than overt sexism, the policy is cloaked in ambiguous notions of protecting the health, wellness, safety, and morality of all students. In each case, the supposed neutrality of the dress code's language forces compliance to traditional views of raced and gendered behavioral expectations. Tightening this language by providing greater specificity when necessary will foster a more open and inclusive school environment. Further, when dress codes acknowledge identities of gender non-conforming students, their presence will have status to be protected, not just invisible, and vulnerable to the whims of untrained educators' biases.</p> <p>The vague language of dress code policies also poses problems for implementation. Although a comprehensive study of disproportionality in North Carolina dress code policy violations has not been conducted, racial disproportionality in school discipline is already widely documented (see Rudd [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref138">62</reflink>], for example). Moreover, girls who are racial and ethnic minorities are severely overrepresented in dress code violations (Skiba et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref139">66</reflink>]). Thus, imprecise language and standards for student behaviors in clothing and appearance create greater chances for discriminatory implementation of dress codes. With intentional specificity and clearer implementation guidelines, schools are further able to identify true disciplinary concerns like sexual assault, harassment, or racial violence.</p> <p>What can be done? Critically examining the language of dress code policies can assist in shrinking the discipline gap, and enable ethical and justifiable implementation of specific, equitable, and reasonable rules. School boards, administrators, teachers, and people involved in educator preparation have first responsibility for action. Truly productive improvement will come only with educational leaders prepared with deeper understanding of the ways histories still affect gender and race-based judgments in dress code decisions. Further, wider communities must have input as students lose opportunities, are suspended, and headlines and the ACLU highlight controversies that arise. Leaders could, instead, construct highly structured community fora, with brief training modules. After activities structured around our analysis of dress codes, participants could take on the task of delineating generic overarching codes and establishing an advisory board for assisting school site administrators in interpreting these district-specific codes.</p> <p>Such an approach would move beyond knowing and studying. Leaders and educators must be prepared to be social justice advocates, with activist intentions. School administrators need to make their reputations because of courageous stands and not merely for judicious adherence to policy and procedure. More important, though, districts could reformulate dress codes from dialogue with parents, students, and educators. There is a robust literature that addresses the value and pitfalls of including student voice in policy-making (Rudduck and Fielding [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref140">63</reflink>]; Rudduck and Flutter [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref141">64</reflink>]; Whitty and Wisby [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref142">70</reflink>]), and so this move is not unprecedented or unsupported by research. Future researchers and policy-makers must rewrite these policies to be sensitive to the intersectional lives of all students, attuned to the power and implications of policies that perpetuate histories of racism and sexism.</p> <p>The courts have responsibility too. Courts continue to support school districts' dress codes policies when the cases are about free expression, when enforcement seems to maintain safety, and when districts show their enforcement procedures have been impartial. Courts could do more, using research on disproportionality of disciplinary action between White students and students of color but combined with analyses such as the one in this paper. Use of Title IX-based lawsuits alleging gender inequities and repression in dress codes are more likely to gain traction in court by highlighting histories of repression and gendered hierarchies with analyses like the one in this paper.</p> <p>Policies such as dress codes maintain boundaries wherein students must cast their behavior as fitting in the category that draws rewards or escapes penalty. But, as Stone ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref143">69</reflink>]) says, 'Rule enforcers interpret rules according to their own sense of the bounds or normality or justice' (<reflink idref="bib384" id="ref144">384</reflink>). Using critical perspectives, education policies such as dress codes, can be deconstructed, undressed, and then redressed to allow for students to practice their expressions of identity free of undue penalties. As public education has historically been conceptualized as a mechanism American can 'survive as a democracy' by 'arm[ing] people with an intelligence capable of free and independent thought' that 'helps build people to build common ground across diverse experiences and ideas' (Darling-Hammond [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref145">23</reflink>], 5), our policies like dress codes must be amended to value the intersectional realities of all students and to assist in reducing disproportionality in all public school disciplinary measures.</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-25">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <p>Notes on contributors</p> <p> <emph> <bold>Torrie K. Edwards</bold> </emph> is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Education at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Her program focuses on policy, leadership, and school improvement. Her research interests are broadly in the intersection of politics, law, and education, and more specifically in issues of gender and racial equity in education policy.</p> <p> <emph> <bold>Dr. Catherine Marshall</bold> </emph> is Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of North Carolina. Her scholarly agendas have often combined gender issues and politics. Her books include Designing Qualitative Research, Reframing Educational Politics for Social Justice, Feminist Critical Policy Analysis, Leadership for Social Justice, and Activist Educator. She was elected to head the American Educational Research Association Politics of Education Association and of Division L, Politics and Policy. Awards include the Willystine Goodsell Award for Research on Women, Politics of Education Association Bailey Award for 'Shaping the Intellectual and Research Agendas of the Field,' and the University Council for Educational Administration's Campbell Award for 'Lifetime Contributions that Changed the Leadership Field.'</p> <hd id="AN0144746761-26">Appendix. Coding definitions</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Code&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Definition&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Health and safety&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dress code contains: &lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use of the term 'health and safety'&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reference to gang activity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reference to alcohol or drug use&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Inclusion of violent content or intent&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Morality&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dress code contains: &lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use of vulgarity or profanity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Use of lewdness or obscenity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Inclusion of sexual content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reference to student cultural, religious, or gender identity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Professionalism&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dress code contains: &lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mention of appropriate dress or standard clothing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Emphasis on clean and well-fitted clothing&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Emphasis on neat hair and clean appearance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Restrictions on students' bodies, including hair styles and body piercings&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Unacceptable girls' clothing&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dress code contains: &lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Restrictions on skirt or dress length&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Emphasis on revealing clothing or exposed undergarments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Regulations on shirt styles&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Unacceptable boys' clothing&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dress code contains: &lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Restrictions on hats or headgear&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reference to sagging pants&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Requirement to wear a belt&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;Emphasis on exposed undergarments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0144746761-27"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref10" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> 110 of 115 districts in North Carolina have published dress codes. Some of these 110 districts have published more than one dress code; as such, 122 policies are included in this content analysis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref68" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> For instance, regulations for 'professionalism' occurred 143 times in the context of dress codes that predominately regulate girls' dress; within the context of FCPA and CRF, which consider how patriarchy and Whiteness define normativity and acceptability, these codes thus contribute to the theme of White, male heteronormativity</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0144746761-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Alamance-Burlington School System. 2011. Student Code of Conduct. Alamance-Burlington School System. <ulink href="http://www.abss.schoolwires.net">http://www.abss.schoolwires.net</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Allan, E. J. 2010. " Feminist Poststructuralism Meets Policy Analysis." In Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, edited by E. J. Allan, S. V. D. Iverson, and R. Ropers-Huilman, 11 – 36. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref69" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allan, E. J., S. V. Iverson, and R. Ropers-Huilman. 2010. " Introduction." In Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, edited by E. J. Allan, S. V. D. Iverson, and R. Ropers-Huilman, 1 – 10. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref43" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Archer-Banks, D. A. M., and L. S. Behar-Horenstein. 2012. " Ogbu Revisited: Unpacking High-achieving African American Girls' High School Experiences." Urban Education 41 (1): 198 – 223. doi: 10.1177/0042085911427739.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref53" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Behling, D. 1994. " School Uniforms and Person Perception." Perceptual and Motor Skills 79 (2): 723 – 729. doi: 10.2466/pms.1994.79.2.723.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref70" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bensimon, E. M., and C. Marshall. 1997. " Policy Analysis for Postsecondary Education: Feminist and Critical Perspectives." In Feminist Critical Policy Analysis: A Perspective from Post-secondary Education (Vol. 2), edited by C. Marshall, 1 – 22. London : Routledge Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref67" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bensimon, E., and C. Marshall. 2003. " Like It or Not: Feminist Critical Policy Analysis Matters." The Journal of Higher Education 74 (3): 337 – 349. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2003.0021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref75" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Berry, T. R. 2010. " Critical Race Feminism." In Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies, edited by C. Kridel, 152 – 153. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref104" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bertie County Schools. 2015. Policy Code: 4316 Student Dress Codes. Bertie County Schools. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.bertie.k12.nc.us">http://www.bertie.k12.nc.us</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bodine, A. 2003. " School Uniforms and Discourses on Childhood." Childhood 10 (1): 43 – 63. doi: 10.1177/0907568203010001003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brower, T. 2013. " What's in the Closet: Dress and Appearance Codes and Lessons from Sexual Orientation." Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 32 (5): 491 – 502. doi: 10.1108/EDI-02-2013-0006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brunsma, D. L., and K. A. Rockquemore. 1998. " Effects of Student Uniforms on Attendance, Behavior Problems, Substance Use, and Academic Achievement." The Journal of Educational Research 92 (1): 53 – 62. doi: 10.1080/00220679809597575.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brunswick County Schools. 2015. Policy Code: 4316 Student Dress and Appearance. Brunswick County Schools. <ulink href="http://www.bcswan.net">http://www.bcswan.net</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cabarrus County Schools. 2015. Policy Code: 4316 Student Dress Code. Cabarrus County Schools. <ulink href="http://www.cabarrus.k12.nc.us/domain/2348">http://www.cabarrus.k12.nc.us/domain/2348</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, S. E. 2006. " Improving School Security Through Dress Codes: A Unique Opportunity for FCS." Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 98 (2): 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carrera, G. 2017. "'White Girls, Take off Your Hoops': How This Latina Chose a College." HuffPost. <ulink href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-girls-take-off-your-hoops-how-this-latina%5fus%5f59837e73e4b0bd8232029637">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-girls-take-off-your-hoops-how-this-latina%5fus%5f59837e73e4b0bd8232029637</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caruso, P. 1996. " Individuality vs. Conformity: The Issue Behind School Uniforms." National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin 80 (581): 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw, K. 1988. " Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law." Harvard Law Review 101 (7): 1331 – 1387. doi: 10.2307/1341398.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw, K. 1989. " Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics." University of Chicago Legal Forum 1 (8): 139 – 167.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw, K. 1991. " Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color." Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241 – 1299. doi: 10.2307/1229039.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crockett, D., and M. Wallendorf. 1998. " Sociological Perspectives on Imposed School Dress Codes: Consumption as Attempted Suppression of Class and Group Symbolism." Journal of Macromarketing 18 (2): 115 – 131. doi: 10.1177/027614679801800204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DaCosta, K. 2006. " Dress Code Blues: An Exploration of Urban Students' Reactions to a Public High School Uniform Policy." The Journal of Negro Education 75 (1): 49 – 59. doi: 10.2307/40026503.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L. 1996. " The Right to Learn and the Advancement of Teaching: Research, Policy, and Practice of Democratic Education." Educational Researcher 25 (6): 5 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeMitchell, T. A., R. Fossey, and C. Cobb. 2000. " Dress Codes in the Public Schools: Principals, Policies, and Precepts." Journal of Law &amp; Education 29 (1): 31 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duplin County Schools. 2013. Duplin County Schools Handbook 2013-14: A Guide for DCS Parents, Students, and Staff Members. Duplin County Schools. <ulink href="http://www.duplinschools.net">http://www.duplinschools.net</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durham Public Schools. 2015. 4301: Code of Student Conduct. Durham Public Schools. <ulink href="http://www.dpsnc.net">http://www.dpsnc.net</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edenton-Chowan School Board. 2015. Edenton-Chowan School Board Policies. Edenton-Chowan School Board. <ulink href="http://ecps.schoolfusion.us">http://ecps.schoolfusion.us</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans-Winters, V. E., and J. Esposito. 2010. " Other People's Daughters: Critical Race Feminism and Black Girls' Education." Educational Foundations 24 (1–2): 11 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ewing, Laura Anne Drewicz. 2014. "(De)constructing the Student Body: A Post-structural Analysis of Dress Codes in Secondary Schools." PhD diss., The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. <ulink href="http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url;">http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url;</ulink><ulink href="http://search.proquest.com/docview/1616662094?accountid=14244">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1616662094?accountid=14244</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson, A. A. 2001. Bad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black Masculinity. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault, M. 1994. Power. New York : The New Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeburg, E. W., J. E. Workman, and E. S. Lentz-Hees. 2004. " Rationale for Student Dress Codes: A Review of School Handbooks." Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 96 (1): 77 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaston County Schools. 2015. Policy Code: 4381 Student Code of Conduct. Gaston County Schools. <ulink href="http://www.gaston.k12.nc.us">http://www.gaston.k12.nc.us</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glazer-Raymo, J. 2010. " Forward." In Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, edited by E. J. Allan, S. V. D. Iverson, and R. Ropers-Huilman, xi – xvii. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilford County Board of Education. 2009. Guilford County Board of Education Policy: Student Dress Code. Guilford County Board of Education. <ulink href="http://www1.gcsnc.com/policies/administrative.htm">http://www1.gcsnc.com/policies/administrative.htm</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gullatt, D. E. 1999. " Rationales and Strategies for Amending the School Dress Code to Accommodate Student Uniforms." American Secondary Education 27 (4): 39 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Happel, A. 2013. " Ritualized Girling: School Uniforms and the Compulsory Performance of Gender." Journal of Gender Studies 22 (1): 92 – 96. doi: 10.1080/09589236.2012.745680.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, A. P. 1990. " Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory." Stanford Law Review 42 (3): 581 – 616.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, C. I. 1993. " Whiteness as Property." Harvard Law Review 106 (8): 1707 – 1791.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, J. 2016. "Black Girls in Durham, NC, School Denied Right to Honor African Heritage." The Root. https://<ulink href="http://www.theroot.com/black-girls-in-durham-nc-school-denied-right-to-honor-1790854186">www.theroot.com/black-girls-in-durham-nc-school-denied-right-to-honor-1790854186</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kannapolis City Schools. 2015. School Uniform Dress Code. Kannapolis City Schools. <ulink href="http://www.kannapolis.k12.nc.us">http://www.kannapolis.k12.nc.us</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, R. M., and G. Duerst-Lahti. 1995. " Toward Gender Awareness and Gender Balance in Leadership and Governance." In Gender, Power, Leadership and Governance, edited by G. Duerst-Lahti and R. M. Kelly, 260 – 271. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhn, M. J. 1996. " Student Dress Codes in the Public Schools: Multiple Perspectives in the Courts and Schools on the Same Issues." Journal of Law and Education 25 (1): 83 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson-Billings, G., and W. Tate. 1995. " Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education." Teachers College Record 97 (1): 47 – 69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazar, K. 2017. "Black Malden Charter Students Punished for Braided Hair Extensions." The Boston Globe. https://<ulink href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/05/11/black-students-malden-school-who-wear-braids-face-punishment-parents-say/stWDlBSCJhw1zocUWR1QMP/story.html">www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/05/11/black-students-malden-school-who-wear-braids-face-punishment-parents-say/stWDlBSCJhw1zocUWR1QMP/story.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenoir County Public Schools. 2015. 2015–2016 Student/Parent Handbook. Lenoir County Public Schools. <ulink href="http://www.lenoir.k12.nc.us">http://www.lenoir.k12.nc.us</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levi, J. L. 2007. " Some Modest Proposals for Challenging Established Dress Code Jurisprudence." Duke Journal of Gender Law &amp; Policy 14 : 243 – 255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> López, G. R. 2003. " The (Racially Neutral) Politics of Education: A Critical Race Theory Perspective." Educational Administration Quarterly 39 (1): 68 – 94. doi: 10.1177/0013161×02239761.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lugg, C. A. 2003. " Sissies, Faggots, Lezzies, and Dykes: Gender, Sexual Orientation, and a New Politics of Education? " Educational Administration Quarterly 39 (1): 95 – 134. doi: 10.1177/0013161X02239762.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahling, W. 1996. " Secondhand Codes: An Analysis of the Constitutionality of Dress Codes in the Public Schools." Minnesota Law Review 80 (715): 715 – 742.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall, C. 1997. " Dismantling and Reconstructing Policy Analysis." In Feminist Critical Policy Analysis: A Perspective from Primary and Secondary Schooling (Vol. 1), edited by C. Marshall, 1 – 39. London : The Falmer Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall, C., L. Andre-Bechley, and B. Midkiff. 2014. " Binders of Women and the Blinders of Men: Feminism and the Politics of Education." In Handbook of Education Politics and Policy. 2nd ed., edited by B. Cooper, L. Fusarelli, and J. Cibulka, 231 – 236. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, E. W. 2005. " 'Tuck in That Shirt!' Race, Class, Gender, and Discipline in an Urban School." Sociological Perspectives 48 (1): 25 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newhall, J. R. 2013. " Sex-based Dress Codes and Equal Protection in Public Schools." Appalachian Journal of Law 12 (2): 209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pomerantz, S. 2007. " Cleavage in a Tank Top: Bodily Prohibition and the Discourses of School Dress Codes." Alberta Journal of Educational Research 53 (4): 373 – 386.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raby, R. 2005. " Polite, Well-dressed and on Time: Secondary School Conduct Codes and the Production of Docile Citizens." The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 42 (1): 71 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raby, R. 2010. " 'Tank Tops are Ok but I Don't Want to See Her Thong': Girls' Engagements with Secondary School Dress Codes." Youth &amp; Society 41 (3): 333 – 356. doi: 10.1177/0044118×09333663.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raby, R., and J. Domitrek. 2007. " Slippery as Fish ... but Already Caught? Secondary Students' Engagement with School Rules." Canadian Journal of Education 30 (3): 931 – 958.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randolph County School System. 2015. 2015–2016 Parent/Student Handbook. Randolph County School System. <ulink href="http://www.randolph.k12.nc.us">http://www.randolph.k12.nc.us</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowan-Salisbury County Schools. 2017a. Rowan County Schools Discipline and Policies Handbook. Rowan-Salisbury County Schools. <ulink href="http://www.rowan.k12.ky.us/userfiles/926/section%20i-middle%20school.pdf">http://www.rowan.k12.ky.us/userfiles/926/section%20i-middle%20school.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowan-Salisbury County Schools. 2017b. Rowan County Schools Discipline and Policies Handbook. Rowan-Salisbury County Schools. <ulink href="http://www.rowan.k12.ky.us/userfiles/926/section%20i-high%20school.pdf">http://www.rowan.k12.ky.us/userfiles/926/section%20i-high%20school.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rudd, T. 2014. Racial Disproportionality in School Discipline: Implicit Bias is Heavily Implicated. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at the Ohio State University. <ulink href="http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/racial-disproportionality-schools-02.pdf">http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/racial-disproportionality-schools-02.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rudduck, J., and M. Fielding. 2006. " Student Voice and the Perils of Popularity." Educational Review 58 (2): 219 – 231. doi: 10.1080/00131910600584207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rudduck, J., and J. Flutter. 2010. " Pupil Participation and Pupil Perspective: 'Carving a new Order of Experience'." Cambridge Journal of Education 30 (1): 75 – 89. doi: 10.1080/030576400500005780.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldana, J. 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skiba, R. J., R. H. Horner, C.-G. Chung, M. K. Rausch, S. L. May, and T. Tobin. 2011. " Race is not Neutral: A National Investigation of African American and Latino Disproportionality in School Discipline." School Psychology Review 40 (1): 85 – 107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, N. 2012. " CHALK TALKS – Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in Public School Dress Codes: The Necessity of Respecting Personal Reference." Journal of Law and Education 41 (1): 251 – 259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanly County Schools. 2015. Code of Student Conduct: Substance Abuse Policy and Policies Pertaining to Student Conduct. Stanly County Schools. <ulink href="http://www.stanlycountyschools.org">http://www.stanlycountyschools.org</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, D. A. 2002. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York : Norton.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitty, G., and E. Wisby. 2007. " Whose Voice? An Exploration of the Current Policy Interest in Pupil Involvement in School Decision-making." International Studies in Sociology of Education 17 (3): 303 – 319. doi: 10.1080/09620210701543957.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiggins, M. J. 2001. " The Future of Intersectionality and Critical Race Feminism." Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 11 : 677 – 689.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Workman, J. E., and B. W. Freeburg. 2006. " Safety and Security in a School Environment: The Role of Dress Code Policies." Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 98 (2): 192 – 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Workman, J. E., and C. M. Studak. 2008. " Use of the Means/Ends Test to Evaluate Public School Dress-code Policies." Educational Policy 22 (2): 295 – 326. doi: 10.1177/0895904806289208.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Torrie K. Edwards and Catherine Marshall</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib302" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib213" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib254" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib210" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib360" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib384" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref145"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1262783 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Undressing Policy: A Critical Analysis of North Carolina (USA) Public School Dress Codes – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Edwards%2C+Torrie+K%2E%22">Edwards, Torrie K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marshall%2C+Catherine%22">Marshall, Catherine</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Gender+and+Education%22"><i>Gender and Education</i></searchLink>. 2020 32(6):732-750. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 19 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2020 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dress+Codes%22">Dress Codes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Schools%22">Public Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Policy%22">School Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Bias%22">Gender Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Bias%22">Racial Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discourse+Analysis%22">Discourse Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22North+Carolina%22">North Carolina</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/09540253.2018.1503234 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0954-0253 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Student dress codes are controversial school policy in US schools. As dress codes were initially established with the intent to eliminate the appearance of differences among students and mitigate gang violence in schools, legal research has paid extensive attention to the value and constitutionality of these policies. Education research, however, is limited. What research does exist has focused largely on the benefits of policy implementation, rather than the construction of dress codes or implicit biases found in the discourse around student dress. Using feminist critical policy analysis as our guiding frameworks for analysis, we analyzed 122 student dress codes in North Carolina public schools. Our content analysis revealed these policies place especial restrictions on girl students' dress and reinforce traditional binary notions of gender identity. Our analysis also found race is an important factor in dress code language, and so we argue for further intersectional analysis of policy writing and implementation. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2020 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1262783 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1262783 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/09540253.2018.1503234 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 19 StartPage: 732 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Dress Codes Type: general – SubjectFull: Public Schools Type: general – SubjectFull: School Policy Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Policy Type: general – SubjectFull: Gender Bias Type: general – SubjectFull: Racial Bias Type: general – SubjectFull: Discourse Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Content Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: North Carolina Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Undressing Policy: A Critical Analysis of North Carolina (USA) Public School Dress Codes Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Edwards, Torrie K. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Marshall, Catherine IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2020 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0954-0253 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 32 – Type: issue Value: 6 Titles: – TitleFull: Gender and Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
