The school board’s Student Behavior and Accountability Committee (SBAC) has recently proposed revisions to Policy 8270 of the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, the county’s dress code. These revisions were unprompted and unfair towards girls.

Last reviewed five years ago, the SBAC reviewed LCPS’s Policy 8270, the county-wide dress code, during a meeting on April 27, 2026. The proposed revised policy was then posted for public feedback and advisory committee feedback from May 1, 2026, to May 14, 2026. Then, during the SBAC meeting on Monday, May 18 at 4:00 PM, public feedback of the revised policy was discussed among committee members Kari LaBell (Chair), Anne Donohue, and Ross Svenson, and presented by Dana Scanlan, Director of the Office of School Administration.

These meetings were supposedly meant to “improve clarity and comprehensiveness” of Policy 8270. However, as an LCPS student, I find the proposed revisions made to this policy are unnecessary and discriminatory towards teenage girls.

In the meeting on May 18, public concern over the use of the term “cleavage” in the revisions was discussed. Many members of the public found the use of this term and the prohibition of revealing cleavage discriminatory toward girls.

“This is problematic because it is inherently body-shaming,” one parent stated in response to lines 82-83 of the redlined revised policy. “‘Cleavage’ is not a garment, it is a body characteristic. Its visibility depends entirely on a student’s anatomy, not their clothing choices.”

Another parent stated, “Any enforcement of a “cleavage” standard requires a staff member to visually assess a student’s chest which the exact kind of body scrutiny that lines 262-272 explicitly forbid, including measuring, inspecting fit, and calling attention to a student’s body.”

“The review process is a very delicate issue as children are beginning to grow and build confidence,” The Minority Student Achievement Advisory Committee, a group that reviews LCPS policies to improve equality, commented on the revisions. “Thinking about children facing a violation review, this can be humiliating even under the best circumstances.”

Committee member Scanlan attempted to dispute this by stating that, biologically, both males and females have cleavage, thus attempting to prove that the revised policy is neither biased nor discriminatory. However, in our modern society, the word “cleavage” is primarily associated with a female person’s body, and is not often used to describe a male’s. Therefore, the use of this heavily gendered term appears to be inconsistent with the rest of the policy’s gender-neutral terms.

Because of this, the solution of dropping the term “cleavage” and replacing it with an “armpit rule” was proposed. This rule would prevent students from wearing any shirt with a neckline that extends below the armpits. In this way, one committee member stated that the policy would equally affect both boys and girls. However, this proposition avoids the underlying problem that a student’s body, a child’s body, is never inherently distracting and should never be implied to appear that way.

Not only would these revisions mostly affect girls, they would disproportionately affect girls with larger chests. For example, two girls could be wearing the same tops, but since people’s body shapes vary, one could have exposed cleavage while the other could not.

Throughout these meetings, a real answer for why these revisions were made was never discussed. The guise of “improved clarity” paraded around the committee member’s tongues; I believe that these committee members are too afraid to give their honest answer, that they want to restrict girls’ freedoms. I understand that LCPS’s current dress code is considerably lenient in comparison to other counties— but that is the way it should be. There are no major issues with the current dress code, and these new revisions would take away students’ freedom of expression.

Another notable proposed change to Policy 8270 is the addition of a more definite description to what is defined as a “top” and “bottom.” According to the revised policy, “a top must cover the sides, mid-back, and lower back; extend to the waist; and must not expose cleavage,” and “a bottom must be worn in a manner that provides full coverage of the lower torso and buttocks.” How will this be enforced? Would the enforcement of this policy by an adult not bring unwanted attention to a minor’s body and embarrassment to a child? Why is the revised policy so focused on the student’s body and not the clothes themselves?

With this revised policy, when the dress code is violated, administrators would be required to discreetly assign disciplinary action in accordance with the LCPS Guide to Leveled Responses. Since this decision can be seemingly left with one person, it can lead to more subjective interpretations of the dress code, allowing personal bias to cloud one’s judgement.

SBAC, what is so wrong with the current dress code that prompted the need for these unnecessary and discriminatory changes that increase the chance of body shaming and humiliation for students, specifically young girls? Might I remind you, that a minor’s body is not inherently indecent, and if a teacher were to find a student’s body “distracting,” that teacher should not be working with children.

Though not explicitly stated, these revisions target teenage girls and attempts to regulate their bodies rather than their clothing. Teenage girls who already overwhelmingly face insecurity and body image issues, and teenage girls who enjoy experimenting with different clothing styles.

The committee has agreed to move forward with plans for action during its meeting on June 9. There is no need for the SBAC to revise Policy 8270, and the members of the SBAC need to vote against it.