The flier actually seemed to help the wife's worries about costs. Still, the Herald-Bulletin reports of protests about the policy at the school board meeting:
“We feel like it violated the First Amendment of free speech,” said parent Laura Bell.
Bell was holding a sign that read: “Public school uniforms unconstitutional.”
Bell’s husband, Scott, standing next to her, said that the school uniforms are too expensive, and that the school system is trying to push their views of decent dress on parents.
“It’s a Band-Aid,” said Scott Bell. Bell’s sign, mimicking the popular MasterCard advertising campaign, read: “Freedom to wear what we want: priceless.”
As I said above, we have our concerns about costs. It seems those are true of other parents but when I looked at the list and thought about costs, I got to thinking that these things are not really so much more expensive than the clothes banned by the school. So what is going on when others cannot afford to clothe their children to meet the school standards?
During public comment at the trustees’ meeting, parent Caroline McCloud voiced her opposition to the uniform policy, saying that she couldn’t afford to buy clothes for her four boys.
“What will be the consequence if all of my children don’t meet the policy?” said McCloud.
Superintendent Mikella Lowe told McCloud that the school system is in talks with Wal-Mart, Meijer, Elder-Beerman and other local retailers, in an attempt to get discounts for parents who have to buy new clothes to meet the policy. Lowe urged McCloud to meet with her to discuss the issue further.
Comments for this post
