Friday, January 13, 2012

DRESS CODE VIOLATION

Yesterday I was called to the school to deliver an "appropriate outfit" for my 12 year old.  She would not be able to return to class until I delivered the clothing.  Outraged, I half expected to arrive at school to discover she had changed her clothes after leaving the house (something I did regularly in middle school), however, I arrived to discover she was in fact dressed as she departed.

Tell me, what is so offensive about this outfit?  I know "technically" why it's in violation, but I just don't "get it".  To me it looks age appropriate and WAY superior to some of the other nonsense I see running around on middle schoolers these days.




IF you're wondering, the answer is:  The dress is too short.  "not to her fingertips"

12 comments:

MCM Mama said...

That seems pretty ridiculous. She looks completely covered to me, especially compared to what I see at the middle school around here.

Shannon said...

Dress too short was my guess, but honestly it doesn't seem that bad. The black stockings/leggings for me negate the short skirt. How is it different from just wearing black leggings really?

(Just) Trying is for Little Girls said...

Showed your pic to A and she called the violation right away. A would have been "in trouble" at her private middle school last year.

At her school they had some old pants from the 80s they would have the girl wear to cover up. Also, if a boy's pants were too low, the teacher had an ugly belt they would have to wear. Just found out about all this this morning, thanks for the before school discussion topic.

BabyWeightMyFatAss said...

I definitely saw it as the skirt. Are those leggings or tights? I would imagine if it was leggings the "dress" could be considered a tunic but with tights it's a dress, kwim?

I am not looking forward to these arguments in the future!

Char said...

The dress is not too short. Her arms are just too long. It's actually quite a conservative outfit.

runningforthree said...

Wow that is ridiculous. She's covered. Now, if she had bare legs I could see them getting upset, but she is a dream when it comes to the crazy stuff girls wear these days.
I HATED that rule growing up because I had long arms. I was always getting in trouble and I bought the longest shorts I could find without purchasing board shorts.

Shellyrm ~ just a country runner said...

I'm sure the school made the rule because it had a real problem in the past BUT you'd think the common sense would be applied on a case by case situation. If I were the mom involved I would want to know what teacher took offense to the outfit to hold it to the "letter of the law."

shannon makes a good point. Do they have a tightness rule for pants because she could have just taken off the skirt and wore the leggings, would that have been okay (if it were possible)?

Pam said...

Oh come the eff on. That's absolutely ridiculous. This is no different than wearing black tights and a long shirt.

This is why I don't need to have kids. I'd have been thrown out of the principal's office if they had called my child "inappropriate" in that outfit.

Courtney said...

Ummmm she has pants on so who cares if the dress is "too short"? Schools are ridiculous

Alanna said...

The first thing I did was check her fingertips! Ha! Can you tell I went to a private school? I agree that the tights make it acceptable. What a total waste of everyone's time...

Marie from whysheruns said...

Gosh....it's one thing if she didn't have leggings....but she does! She's completely covered!

Yo Momma Runs said...

I would consider that a long shirt and tights. She looks completely modest to me. And super cute too!