Brief ⁽¹⁾

SB 368 authorizes the board of education of each school district to adopt a dress code policy which requires all pupils in the district to wear uniforms or other standardized apparel at school and at school supervised activities. The policy may require district-wide uniforms or apparel or it may authorize adoption by individual schools within the district of uniforms or apparel unique to that school.

Within six months of the effective date of this law, and as soon as practicable after affording an opportunity for administrators, teachers, school site councils, parents, and pupils to offer suggestions and comments regarding adoption of a dress code policy, school district boards must call a special meeting for the purpose of holding a public hearing on adoption of such a policy. At least 45 days before holding the hearing, the board must publish a resolution which specifies the purpose, time, date, and place of the hearing. The board must publish the resolution once in a newspaper of general circulation in the district. After the hearing, and upon its consideration of all of the suggestions, comments, and testimony given regarding adoption of a dress code policy, the board makes a final determination of the matter.

A dress code policy must accommodate:

• pupils whose parents or guardians object on religious or philosophical grounds to the wearing of uniforms or certain other apparel and who present to the board a signed statement of objection detailing the grounds for the objection;



• pupils in the wearing of special clothing in observance of the religious beliefs of such pupils;



• pupils transferring into the district or transferring from one school to another school within the district during a period of time reasonably necessary to enable the pupils to acquire the appropriate uniform or other standardized apparel; and



• pupils who participate in nationally recognized youth organizations in the wearing of organization uniforms on days that the organization has a meeting or other scheduled activity.

The board of education must furnish uniforms or other standardized apparel or provide the parents or guardian with financial assistance to acquire the apparel for a pupil in instances when the parents or guardian of the pupil are economically disadvantaged and unable to purchase or otherwise acquire the apparel.

The adoption and enforcement of a dress code policy under this legislation is not to be construed as an abridgment of the right of pupils to freedom of speech.

Background

Senator Tim Emert, sponsor of SB 368, presented testimony in support of the bill. Senator Emert emphasized that the main purpose of the proposal is to improve the atmosphere and learning environment in the public school setting.

The Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) opposed SB 368, as introduced, contending that dress code or uniform policies should be determined by local school boards and not by legislation and that the bill creates a new unfunded state mandate as school districts would be required to provide school uniforms to pupils who are economically disadvantaged. KASB said it would support legislative assistance in helping school boards that choose to implement such policies, which could be done by making SB 368 permissive and by providing financial assistance to school districts that provide uniforms to low income students. The United School Administrators of Kansas explained that it believes dress code policies should not be a state mandate.

The Committee adopted an amendment proposed by Senator Emert to require school boards to conduct a public hearing on the matter of adoption of a dress code policy pursuant to SB 368 and to make school district adoption of such a policy optional (rather than mandatory).

The revised fiscal note on SB 368, as introduced, noted that no additional state appropriation would be required. However, the State Department of Education estimated that the cost to school districts of providing apparel to disadvantaged pupils could total $11.3 million. The Senate Education Committee amendments that made provisions of the bill optional instead of mandatory would be expected to reduce the fiscal consequences of the bill.

1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/bill_search.html