search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
“DRESS CODES ARE ABOUT MORE THAN JUST PHYSICAL DRESS; THEY ARE AN EQUITY ISSUE THAT UNFAIRLY TARGETS EQUITY-SEEKING GROUPS ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO GENDER AND RACE. DRESS CODES ARE PART OF THE HIDDEN CURRICULUM WE TEACH STUDENTS – THE VALUES AND PERSPECTIVES WE INADVERTENTLY PASS ON TO THEM AS PART OF SCHOOL CULTURE.”


28 ETFO VOICE | SUMMER 2021


foster that type of environment if my job re- volves around policing my students’ clothing choices. Dress codes are about more than just physical dress; they are an equity issue that unfairly targets equity-seeking groups espe- cially in relation to gender and race. Dress codes are part of the hidden curriculum we teach students – the values and perspectives we inadvertently pass on to them as part of school culture. They explain to students what is expected of them while creating education- al norms. But what are dress codes actually saying about our values?


1. Female bodies are inherently sexual and need protection. In referring to appropri- ate dress, clothing deemed too revealing like spaghetti-strap tank tops have been labelled distracting. Distracting for whom? We are teaching our young girls and non-binary and gender non-conforming students that they have no right to bodily autonomy and that the gaze of peers is more important than their own self-worth. I have an 8-year-old daughter who often wears spaghetti-strap


dresses; there is nothing sexual about her appearance and the fact that it could be la- belled as such troubles me. We are putting value judgements on articles of clothing that are rooted in historical narratives of women’s roles in society where modesty is the only form of femininity acceptable. In regulating the “right type of skin” to show, we are en- forcing a type of girlhood that is solely rooted in purity, innocence and naivety, which in turn vilifies a girlhood rooted in strength, in- dependence and free thought. To be clear, I’m simply articulating that we need to give our students the ability to choose what is right for them without forcing them to believe that their clothing choices create labels they have to adhere to for a lifetime.


2. Racialized bodies are dangerous. Let’s chalk this one up to a policy I never quite understood. Removing your hat indoors is a sign of etiquette, a colonial concept that began in French courts in the 1600s, and yet something we’ve carried well into the 21st century. The argument for hats off in build-


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52