504 Policy: Student Dress and Appearance

I.    PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to enhance the education of students by establishing expectations of dress and grooming that are related to educational goals and appropriate school standards.

II.    GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY
A. The responsibility for the appearance of the student rests with the parent/guardian and student. They have the right to determine student dress providing that the articles of attire are not destructive to school property, comply with requirements for health and safety, do not violate school district policy or procedure or do not substantially and materially interfere with the school environment/educational process.

B. The building administration has the authority to determine whether student attire is destructive to school property, fails to comply with requirements for health and safety, or that which substantially and materially interferes with the school environment/educational process. 

C. District expectations regarding student dress should be implemented in a manner that is inclusive, responsive, and absent of othering in reference to race, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, cultural observance, household income, or body type/size.

III.    OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. Students taking certain classes may be required to wear specified clothing for health and/or safety reasons. 

B. Every student will wear eye protection devices when participating in, observing, or performing and function in connection with any course or activity taking place in the eye protection areas. 

Revised:  5/24/22
Revised: 11/22/16
Adopted: 12/7/99 (formerly Policy 5213) 
Revised: 6/4/91
Revised: 5/1/84 
Policy 5213 Adopted: 2/17/69

Legal Reference: 
United States Constitution, Amendment 1
Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist.,  393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969)
B.W.A. v. Farmington R-7 Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2009)
Lowry v. Watson Chapel Sch. Dist., 540 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2008)
Stephenson v. Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997)
D.B. ex rel. Brogdon v. Lafon, 217 Fed. App. 518 (6th Cir. 2007)
Madrid v. Anthony, 510 F.Supp.2d 425 (S.D. Tex. 2007)
Hicks v. Halifax County Bd. Of Educ. ,93 F.Supp.2d 649 (E.D.N.C. 1999)
McIntire v. Bethel School,  Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 3, 804 F .Supp. 1415 (W.D. Okla. 1992)
Olesen v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Sch. Dist. No. 228, 676 F. Supp. 820 (N.D. Ill. 1987)
M.S. 121A.32 – Eye Protection Devices