It looks like there will be no new dress code in the Nazareth Area School District this year.
The district school board voted 8-1 on Monday to reject the idea of forming a committee to study the district's current dress code and involve parents, members of the public and school board members in devising a new code.
Board member Chris Miller, who made the motion to form the committee, cast the lone vote in favor of the motion. Before the vote, Miller spoke for the second consecutive board meeting of the need to teach Nazareth students the importance of proper attire.
“I think we should have a [districtwide] uniform dress code,” Miller said, adding that he did not mean to compel students to wear actual uniforms.
“Our children are inappropriately attired,” he said, noting that young people in general today do not realize how important it is to dress properly to succeed in life. Eight of the 11 men at the meeting table wore ties Monday night, Miller noted.
Do you share Miller's concerns? Given the opportunity, what revisions would you propose?
As he did last month, Miller said he personally saw a female student who violated the district's dress code by wearing clothes that were too revealing -- in this case, extra short shorts.
“I think it's very important for children to be properly attired,” Miller said. “I can hardly believe there weren't any violations of the dress code today.” (Monday was the first day of classes for students.)
Miller's board colleagues did not share his sense of urgency over changing the district's dress code.
Board member Chris Audenried asked Superintendent Dennis Riker how many dress code infractions have been reported.
“It has not come to the attention of central administration," Riker replied.
At present, each of the six schools in the district has its own dress code. Policies are similar throughout the district, varying slightly by age and grade level, according to district administrators.
Miller's motion almost died for lack of a second.
Board member Maurice Heller seconded the motion but then voted against it. He said he felt the full board should have a chance to vote on the motion, for the record.