Time to join the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) Administration’s effort to plan for a 21st century education – 

Last August, the School District launched a process to develop a plan to upgrade our secondary school facilities. Our superintendent organized a number of meetings with parents, teachers, students, and the community at large, with the broad ambitious goal of looking far ahead asking two fundamental questions: How should we educate our students to best prepare them to function in our 21st century economy? What facilities do we need to support these evolving methods?

The process is on-going and the plan is in the early stage of formation. The superintendent put no boundary on the scope of the plan. Many needs have been identified some driven by the educational vision, some by the nuts and bolts issues of decaying mechanical and electrical equipment. The goal is to develop such a compelling plan that the community says: “This is the obvious thing to do for our children; let us find a way to finance it, and work out all the problems to make it happen”. Hopefully we can recreate the success that the new Havens School has been.

A number of documents are available on the District web site: a DRAFT Facility Site Assessment Report; a  DRAFT Educational Specifications Report; a Draft Master Plan put together by QKA, the architect hired by the District to help in the planning;  and a presentation by KNN, the District Financial Consultant. Most of the plan is focused on the High School and Middle School Magnolia campus.

Today, I am impressed by the ambitious scope and the work done to-date. I support the viewpoint expressed on this web site by the PiedmontMakers Board of Directors. The foundation of the Bay Area Economy is creativity. Creativity is rooted in the arts, in engineering, and in the laws of physics that underpin engineering. Our children needs to acquire the skills and knowledge that will enable them to thrive and contribute in that environment. Making things from an early age is a great enabler to achieve these goals.

I am also grateful to the teachers and parents who have made the arts alive and well in Piedmont. The self-confidence, debate and people skills acquired through the performing arts are key to effective leadership in every profession and to achieving a fulfilling life.

It is very significant that the most popular TED talk of all times is the one by Sir Ken Robinson making an entertaining and profoundly moving case for creating an education system that nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity. So the citizens of our country interested in new ideas have voted that nurturing creativity is the most important educational goal for our future.

As community, let us make a strong statement about our commitment to the Arts and Sciences through the construction of two new buildings one for the Arts and the other for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) on both side of a new entrance.

As a scorecard, the District should use the STEM Public High School Achievement Index published by U.S. News. The index is based on the percentage of all the Advanced Placement (AP) test-takers in a school’s graduating class who took and passed college-level AP STEM Math and AP STEM Science tests. The higher a high school scores on the STEM Achievement Index, the better it places in the Best High Schools for STEM rankings. In 2015, a dozen schools in the Bay Area place ahead of Piedmont High School. Let us set the goal to become the best STEM public high school in the country within the next six years.

Please get involved and let your opinion be known through this great forum.

Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those the author.

The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Unified School District Board on Feb 8, 2016.

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the authors.

Is the Piedmont School District Following the Law?

For the third consecutive year, the Alameda County Auditor has unlawfully exempted dozens of otherwise taxable parcels from paying the Piedmont School Support Tax (Measure A), resulting in a loss to date of over $400,000 in District revenue.  Over the eight-year life of Measure A, the District’s loss will be more than one million dollars at a time of costly pension obligations and the apparent need for major facility improvements.

This needless loss should not have been allowed to happen.

Measure A (mistakenly called “School Measure B” on tax bills) required that as of July 1, 2013, each assessor’s parcel wholly or partially within the boundaries of the District pay the annual school tax, now at $2,503 per parcel. The one and only exception was for owners of parcels receiving Social Security Income (SSI). The District’s own attorney has said all other exemptions are “forbidden”. 

Measure A is a special assessment not based on the assessed value of the property. Hence, the Auditor and not the Assessor made the exemptions, most as a continuation of past practices but seven have been made since the passage of Measure A. One tiny sliver of unimproved land on my street has been routinely exempted for over 25 years. Many are small parcels ancillary to a larger parcel that have been exempted by owners in order to avoid paying the tax twice. A few are church parcels, exempt from the ad valorem portion but not the special assessment portion of their tax bills. And, ten are Oakland lots partially in Piedmont (including Mount View Cemetery) that have never been taxed.

Failure of the District to collect the tax from Oakland parcels may be a simple matter of negligence.  But allowing the Piedmont exemptions to continue and even grow over three years is inexplicable.

To date, no one has taken responsibility. The Auditor’s office said the current exemptions are based on a list provided by NBS, the tax-consulting firm retained by the District. NBS has said it has taken no action, formal or informal, to exempt any parcel. The District has said it has taken no action to selectively exempt property from its parcel tax, except for the two parcels that qualified for the SSI exemption. 

Whoever is responsible, there has been an appalling breakdown of communication between the District, NBS, and Alameda County. The Auditor correctly applied the uniform tax rate of Measure A to every Piedmont parcel except for those on the list provided by NBS. Over a period of three years, he has evidently not been told these exemptions are illegal.

The Measure A Resolution “authorized members of the Board, the Superintendent and officers of the District to do all things necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the Resolution.” Although the District staff was apprised of the problem more than six months ago, it has yet to recommend the actions necessary to rescind the unlawful exemptions — and in the process enhance the school’s revenue.

Measure A is the law and every public official, appointed or elected, must obey the law, however onerous that may be.

William Blackwell, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Garrett Keating contends the City will have adequate revenue without the jump up in the Parcel Tax rate and funds are needed for school improvements.

In his last published column, Councilman Jeff Wieler challenged readers to propose changes to municipal services in lieu of supporting the proposed increase in the parcel tax.  To have that discussion, it would be nice if the Councilman stopped his harangue of others who don’t share his views.  The ink isn’t even dry on the proposal and Councilman Wieler already characterizes other views as “perverse” and negative.  

The basis of his column is the proposal from the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) that the annual parcel tax be raised by as much as 50%.  BAFPC analyzed the city’s facility maintenance needs and conservatively estimates that $0.5M is needed annually for deferred maintenance. Likewise, the city recently completed a review of its information technology and found that conservatively $0.5M is needed annually to upgrade its IT systems.  As an aside, these are “spreadsheet spending” analyses that need more work before they are used as the basis for a tax increase.  So a 50% increase in the annual $1.8M parcel tax brings in about the $1M needed to start facility maintenance and IT upgrades.    

The basis for the BAFPC recommendation is a projection showing that implementing this new spending will deplete the General Fund reserve by 2020. The BAFPC estimates that over this 5-year period, annual transfer tax revenues will be $2.8M, the average value for the transfer tax from the past 10 years.  Alternatively, using the 25-year trend in transfer tax increase, the tax has increased 10% annually to its present day value of $3.9M.  At that rate, the transfer tax will tax be $6.3M by 2020.  Even at 5%, the transfer tax will be $4.5M in 2020.  Transfer tax revenues for the past three years have been $3.2, $4.0 and $3.9M, respectively.

And there is no estimate in the BAFPC projection for the increase in revenue from property reassessment nor tax revenue from 8 new residences coming to Piedmont.  For example, there are 1000 properties in Piedmont assessed under $500,000 and if just 5% of those sold for $2M today (median 2015 Piedmont price), those sales alone would generate close to $1M in new revenue.  This property tax increase, coupled with the 25-year trend in the transfer tax growth, could likely exceed the revenue the BAFPC proposes to collect with the new tax.

As it happens, at its Monday meeting, the Council chose to go with only a 30% increase in the parcel tax, raising $500K annually with an increase of about $150 for the average Piedmont household.  The parcel tax increase will be on the June 2016 primary ballot and Piedmonters should review the BAFPC report and recommendations available on the city website:(http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2015-12-07/parceltaxreport.pdf). 

As the debate heats up, consider these points. First, disregard any statements that not voting for the tax increase will lead to a reduction in public safety.  City reserve funds are at their maximum and the current parcel tax carries on until June 2017, leaving ample time to renew the tax should it fail in June.  References to cuts in public safety are simple fear-mongering.  Second, the spending estimates that justify the tax have not been fully researched and may be overstated.   As an example, estimates that the Sewer Tax needed to be increased by 50% were subsequently found to be inaccurate.  

Finally, Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) is currently conducting a facilities assessment and will likely have a ballot initiative on the November 2016 ballot.   I hope the School Board brings forward a proposal to not only maintain school facilities but to modernize them.  Science and media laboratories, performance spaces and classrooms have all been identified as needing upgrades. 

Actually, maintaining the status quo with the city parcel tax and encouraging residents to support new school revenue might be the best strategy for the city.  Demand for Piedmont schools drives up housing prices leading to the historic increases in the city’s transfer tax receipts.

Councilman Wieler misses the point.  Opponents of the proposed tax increase don’t oppose better city services, they just don’t see why the tax need be increased when current and projected revenue will do the job.  Rather than argue about cuts, maybe we should be discussing revenues.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Councilmember

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Playground Hazards in Lower Dracena Park,  by Piedmont Resident Bernard Pech –

I took my 14 month old granddaughter to the playground in lower Dracena Park a while back and was dismayed by how poorly the playground is designed. The sand box is located in the middle of other play structures and at the same level as the ground around, resulting in sand being dragged all over. Apart from the poor look, it creates a dangerous situation, in particular on the concrete slope nearby surrounding the slide.

​

Dracena Park concrete slope

The sandbox needs to be deep and isolated on the side. Take a look for example at the  Presidio Heights Playground in San Francisco:

​

Presidio Heights Playground

​

​Given the push of dog lovers to expand the leash-free dog run area at Dracena, a redesigned park needs to relocate the playground out of the way of free running dogs and to surround the playground with a fence. The  Piedmont Director of Recreation (who I have contacted and was very responsive) should take a good look at the Presidio park, which was clearly very well thought out.

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author.

City revenues from Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) have far exceeded projections.

The following is a letter sent to the Piedmont City Council.

Jan 2, 2016

Piedmont City Council

Re: Jan 4 Agenda Item 5: Parcel Tax

Dear Mayor Fujioka and Council,

The 1990-1991 Real Property Transfer Tax (“RPTT”) was $384,494 (2007 MTRC Report attached). The 2014-15 RPTT is $3.9M (Eric Cheung 20151102 attached). This steady, inexorable 10.13% annual increase is omitted from the 2015 BAFPC Report and at this rate the RPTT will be over six million dollars in five years.

There are many more up years than down years for the RPTT and the increases include 43%, 50%, and 94%. From 1991 to 2007 the largest decrease is -16%. (2001-2011 City table and 2011-2015 Budget material attached).

While the 2015 Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) Report is admirable in some respects, the bias is a conservative approach from both a demand and supply perspective. The future may hold more financial demands on the City and the BAFPC is prudent here. However, the supply side of taxpayer funding is presented in an overly conservative approach by underestimating RPTT and real property tax revenue. Staff estimates support this approach; a recent example is the $2.8M estimated for 2014-15 RPTT in the proposed budget when the actual figure is $3.9M.

The BAFPC is overly conservative in estimating ever increasing revenues in other areas. The BAFPC uses a $1.6M estimate for average Real Property value in town which is inconsistent with recent sales data which reveals the average Piedmont home sold for $2.13M and the median sale was $2M. Coming online are eight new homes in Piedmont, the seven Piedmont Station units and the Lexford Road project. And as the aging-in-place Proposition 13 residents die off, their low value homes will be sold and represent a much higher tax revenue basis.

Even during the worst economic downturns, Piedmont property values do not plummet like so many other Cities and regions. There is a flattening out and slowdown of sales. And then the inexorable march upwards begins again. (The largest decrease in the RPTT from 1990 to present occurred from 2006-07 to 2007-08 at a negative 32%.)

Regionally Oakland has become a destination and is enjoying increasing home values as those wishing to live in San Francisco are priced out. This is fostered by tech companies moving to Oakland. Piedmont continues to be the premier sought after location, especially for the increasing number of affluent Techies flocking to Oakland.

No increase in the Parcel Tax is warranted or can be reasonably justified. Despite the City Hall and the Post attempting to take advantage of a tax compliant resident base, as with the ill-conceived Sewer tax of 2012, taxpayers saw through that scheme and taxpayers will view any increase in the parcel tax in the same manner. I find it odd that the asked for $11M increase of the 2012 Sewer Tax was never explained, given that the same sewer mainline completion and EPA compliance is now being accomplished for $1M.

With revenues as robust as they are today, I ask the Council to forgive the coming year’s Parcel Tax.

Respectfully,

Rick Schiller, Piedmont taxpayer

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2016-01-04/parceltax.pdf

Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Report on December 7th City Council Meeting

by Piedmont High School Student Olivia Arrabit

    On Monday December 7, 2015 I attended the Piedmont City Council meeting in the Piedmont Council Chambers at City Hall.  The Council meets the 1st and 3rd Mondays of every month to discuss their decisions on behalf of the city.  There were six major issues on the agenda, the first was consideration of a report from the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee regarding the Municipal Services Special Tax.

Bill Hosler, Chair of the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee, gave a summary of the report to start the discussion.  The Committee members went around Piedmont looking at facilities to assess how long they would last or how long before they needed repair.  After making observations, Mr. Hosler and the Committee concluded that in order to maintain the city facilities in Piedmont, the parcel tax should be kept and raised up to 50% of its current level to pay for the repairs and upgrades.

After he gave his speech a few of the Council members praised Mr. Hosler on the committee’s comprehensive findings.  Council Member Teddy G. King even said that Mr. Hosler’s paper should be entered into a masters program because it made something so dense easy to understand.

Mayor Margaret Fujioka remarked that the Council may need to consider a 50% increase as too much, but they also have to think about the fact that the tax only comes before the voters once every four years while the City depends on the tax for sidewalks, streets, etc.  Ms. Fujioka said that they should try to increase revenues while decreasing expenditures.

Vice Mayor Jeffrey Wieler used a metaphor about a boat hitting the rocks to describe the current situation.  He said that in order to steer the boat away from the rocks, the captain needs to slightly steer the boat away long before it hits the rocks for if he waited too long, the boat might not be able to avoid the rocks.  His opinion was that it was smart to start cutting back places where we can save money and to start out by only taking a little bit more money far in advance in order to avoid a huge financial problem.  Council Member Robert McBain agreed with this concept. 

The next speaker was Garrett Keating, a public speaker.  In his opinion the 50% increase was far too much, he used the words “arbitrary” and “unsustainable”.  The Council concluded that they will aim to have another discussion regarding the duration and rate of the parcel tax.

The next issue on the agenda was the consideration of the reconfiguration of parking at the intersection of Magnolia and Highland Avenues.  Council Member Paul Benoit proposed to make the area a safe loading zone during school pick-up and drop-off hours insuring that the police will be able to respond to emergencies quicker and safer.

The Superintendent of Piedmont Unified School District, Randall Booker, voiced that there was a lot of concern about this subject because many people had observed double parked cars and overly congested streets during the school day, making it impossible for police officers to pull out of and into their parking spaces.  Both Council Member Tim Rood and Robert McBain agreed with the concern, because both have had or have students attending Piedmont Schools.

The next speaker was Jennifer Cavenaugh, a mother of three children that currently attend Piedmont schools.  She attended the meeting in order to explain the trouble she has faced with that intersection and offer some insight on the topic.  She said that most parents who live in upper Piedmont use the intersection as a “turn-around.” She said she experiences the traffic everyday and feels it is a huge problem.  She also voiced her concern that even if the City prohibited the “turn-around” area, the parents picking up their children from school would just find somewhere else to turn around, causing the same congestion but in a different area.

The Council Members heartily agreed with Ms. Cavenaugh, and responded by passing two motions unanimously that made all of the parking from 400 to 800 Magnolia 30-minute parking and loading zones during pickup and drop-off times.

In my opinion, I don’t think this will end up working.  Of course, in the beginning it will because there will be officers there to enforce it, but once it dies down people will begin to ignore the parking signs because it is more convenient and there will not be as strict enforcement of the rule.  Also, I think that because it is such a specific parking rule, the actual sign will be very confusing, causing most people to honestly just ignore it.

The next issue that was discussed was the Moraga Avenue Pavement Project.  The project aims to repave and repair sections of both Highland and Moraga Avenues.  There were no speakers and the motion passed unanimously.

The fourth issue on the agenda was rental rates of the Community Hall, the Tea House, the Exedra, and the Veteran’s Hall.  Sarah Lillevand, Piedmont’s Recreation Director, told the Council Members that she had looked at other East Bay wedding facilities and looked at what the prices were to rent them compared to Piedmont’s facilities.  She observed that the rental rates for the Community Hall could be much higher for what the clients are receiving.

Currently, the Community Hall is booked a year in advance without any advertising. Lillevand stated that the venue was very desirable and the price should be raised.  Council Member Teddy G. King agreed completely with Ms. Lillevand.  She said that twelve years ago when she got married she paid almost triple the price for her venue, which is why she concluded that the price should be raised as well.  The motion for price increases for the various venues passed unanimously.

The second to last topic that was discussed was the replacement of the Community Hall floors.  City Administrator Paul Benoit explained that there is veneer on the floor now and that it should be replaced with pure oak.  The only concern is that the pre-schools that take place in the basement of the Community Hall will not be able to operate while the floor is being replaced.  There was an idea of using portables, but the Council Members agreed that option was too expensive.  Mayor Margaret Fujioka stated she was concerned it would be too much of a financial investment for something that is only going to last 30 years.  But the other Council members managed to convince her that the value of the building would go up, and would increase cash flow from the rentals once the floor was replaced.  The motion to take the bid of HY Floor Company of $90,000 to replace the floor passed unanimously.

The last topic on the agenda was the proposal for an agreement with Terri Black for recruitment for the position of Finance Director.  There were no speakers on the subject and the motion passed unanimously for the agreement with Terri Black for $27,000 for the recruitment of the new Finance Director.

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author. 

Report on the Board of Education Meeting of November 10, 2015 followed by opinion discussing Piedmont’s Dress Code presentations. Written by Piedmont High School student Chloe Combes.

    The Board of Education for the Piedmont Unified School District meets on the second and fourth Wednesday of every month. The board met on the 10th of November, 2015, a Tuesday, as City Hall was closed the following day for Veterans’ Day. The purpose of these meetings is to make announcements to the community, hear from various school staff associations, receive comment from the public, and review and approve action items such as calendars, donations, and budget.

At this particular meeting, the Board of Education first heard the public speak to items not included on the Agenda. Every person who came before the Board at this time was a member of Mr. Keller’s senior civics class. First, Louis Teitelbaum discussed the importance of including the Bible in the English curriculum at Piedmont High School in order to further students’ understanding of the literature already part of the English curriculum. Then, I presented my speech on the issue of dress code presentations at the Middle School and High School and how such presentations lead to self-objectification and victim blaming, as well as serious mental and physical health issues for both girls and boys. Following, Connor Addiego spoke on the necessity of parking near the football field for handicap accessibility. Finally, Reece James expressed his opinion on the school calendar for next year concerning the testing schedule, explaining that finals being after the break was beneficial for seniors, who are under increased pressure applying to colleges in December.

    After the time for non-agenda related items was closed, the Board made announcements concerning site planning at all the schools in the district as well as the upcoming book drive. Then, Superintendent Randall Booker gave a history on the Reorganization of the Board, emphasizing that this was the first year that the the board would be reorganized in December.  After President Andrea Swenson and Vice President Sarah Pearson had both put their hats in the ring for re-election, Mr. Raushenbush commented that he enjoys that the presidency rotates every year (as California’s education code requires that the Board of Education votes every year).

   Next, the Board of Education discussed the Tri-School Plan, a series of goals being created by the principals at Havens, Beach, and Wildwood which adhere to more general LCAP (Local Control and Accountability Plan) goals in terms of instructional excellence, social and emotional growth, and parent involvement and leadership. They then outlined what their next steps would be, such as integrating health standards and celebration of student work.

    After the Board approved the Tri-School Plan for Student Achievement, it discussed temporary borrowing from the Alameda County Treasury. The reason for this temporary borrowing is that the State does not give any apportionments to K-12 schools until December. The borrowing would allow the schools to meet cash flow needs and  would be returned within the fiscal year (by April). This was quickly approved and Ms. Kashani was called to discuss the Instructional Calendar that was voted for by the teachers, as she was the representative of the Association of Piedmont Teachers. She explained the statistics of the survey that was taken by parents and teachers concerning the calendar. The survey demonstrated that parents and students often find winter break to be stressful rather than relaxing due to finals being placed afterwards.

   Superintendent Booker showed a powerpoint of the new calendar explaining all the changes from the old one to the board, such as the Thanksgiving week schedule as well as the weeks preceding winter break.  He also explained the new “Flexible Professional Development” which designates certain days of the year for teachers to have teacher development with their fellow department members. Eighteen hours in total are required for this development, which can be done outside of the designated days if teachers wish. On this particular issue, I had mixed opinions.

   Reece James expressed that it is difficult for seniors to have both finals and college applications due in this time frame, and Winter Break is an excellent time to review and catch up on school work. However, I understand that it is important for students to have Winter Break as an actual break from school rather than just additional time to study and stress over upcoming finals. The new calendar was approved by the board

    Afterwards, a few announcements were made such as the Middle School Site Plan, the LCAP meeting, which Board Member Amal Smith attended, and the Millennium High School potluck, which Vice President Pearson attended. Ms. Pearson announced the upcoming play “Servant of Two Masters,” as well as the upcoming sexual assault prevention and non-suicidal self injury meetings.

   The Consent Calendar including a $3,000 donation to Piedmont High School was quickly approved as a “Perfect Consent Calendar.”  The meeting was then adjourned.

   I sought out board member Mr. Richard Raushenbush to ask him a few questions about the meeting. When asked what the next step would be in an area of concern to him, he said that another way to alleviate student stress would be to create a master testing schedule, which has been on the board’s agenda for discussion in the future. This would ensure that multiple tests would not fall on the same day. He then expressed the issue that it can be difficult to create a testing schedule for the entire year but to have a physical calendar would be a quicker and a much easier solution.

   Mr. Raushenbush said he chose to be on the School Board in order to “serve people other than himself, “I always wanted to do some form of public service and the school board is local,” he said, and it fits in with the amount of work that he otherwise has. He concluded, “This is my opportunity to do something that benefits others.”

~~~~~~~~~

My own speech to the board was as follows.

Hello, my name is Chloë Combes and I would like to discuss the way that dress codes are presented to students in Piedmont’s schools, specifically at Piedmont Middle School and Piedmont High School.

    I have previously read through the Dress Code in the Student Handbook for Piedmont High School and there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about it. It requires that students wear shoes, as is mandated by state law; it prohibits students from wearing t-shirts affiliated with unsanctioned social clubs, as well as clothing which reveals undergarments or draws inappropriate attention to the wearer; it prohibits clothing or jewelry which promotes illegal behavior, contains sexually suggestive pictures, slogans, or graphics demeaning to any sex; and prohibits clothing demeaning to any individuals or groups of people. These regulations are in place to prevent disruptive or inappropriate behavior. I firmly believe that our dress code is completely sensible and it should be in place in order to ensure that no teacher or student feels uncomfortable due to another person’s choice in clothing. Our school dress code promotes a safe environment at our schools.

    However, I take issue with the way that these dress codes are presented to us. Whenever my classmates and I have had an assembly or had administrators come to our classrooms to discuss the dress code with students, there has certainly been a disproportionate focus on female students. They often tell us we need to cover all the “b’s”: our behinds, our breasts, our bellies, and our bare shoulders. In middle school, we had quarterly assemblies, 12 total, where 10 minutes were dedicated to explaining this to me. That is a total of two hours over my three years at Piedmont Middle School. I agree that wearing clothing that is too revealing can make students, teachers, and administrators uncomfortable, both boys and girls. However, “uncomfortable” is not the word that administrators or teachers use to describe the effects of such clothing choices. Instead, they use the word “distracting.”

    Such assemblies or discussions, in my experience, begin at the age of 10. Since I was 10, I have been told my body is distracting and therefore, sexual. I have been made a sexual object that my fellow male classmates are inherently distracted by, and that the blame is on myself. This is called “slut shaming” and objectification. There is no doubt that this promotes a “boys will be boys” mentality. Females learn to view themselves in the eyes of men who supposedly cannot control themselves rather than the female’s own wants and needs. This is called self-objectification and has been proven by the APA to be linked to depression, mental health issues, and eating disorders.

    This also has a negative effect on boys, many of whom are still children when these discussions begin. They learn that a female body is a sexual object regardless of context. It teaches them that it is acceptable to disrespect girls and that they are not responsible for their misbehavior. They can blame the female because she is showing too much skin. This is the cause for predatory behavior such as harassment, sexual assault, and victim blaming.

   Fortunately, on a day to day basis, I do not see a double standard concerning the dress code at our school. However, there have been some situations which have been unsettling. For example, three weeks ago at our school-mandated pep rally, two men from the water polo team participated in the rally in only their speedos. Almost every member of our school administration was present and yet, to my knowledge, absolutely no punitive action took place. This is not an isolated event. In past years, this same situation has taken place with no administrative response. I was not uncomfortable with the event, but there is no doubt that this was in violation of the school dress code. This tells me that our administration is willing to make excuses for certain members of the student body who, as mentioned before, are men.

    Last year, an administrator, who was a woman, came to each class, including my history class and told me the way I dress is the way I present myself to the world and tell people who I am. This, she said, will dictate how people think of me and treat me. What this told me was that if I dress in a certain way, I am no longer entitled to respect from others, neither for myself nor for my body. The way that I, along with my male and female classmates, have been taught about the school dress code has perpetuated rape culture in our schools.

   The faculty in our schools need to look at how our dress code is being presented to students, the vast majority of whom are children who are experiencing major changes both mentally and physically. We are impressionable. Both girls and boys need to be taught about our school dress code in a way that does not sexualize the female student body or promote the objectification of women as a whole.

Thank you, Chloe Combes

Editors’ Note:  Opinions expressed are those of the author. 

PCA readers can return to issues long after initial publication to read continuing discussions, new opinions and comments. 

If you are following a particular issue or item, you can always return to it by using the Search function on the left side of the PCA home page.  When the articles appear, click on the title to see the comments at the end. Once an article is published, it remains on our site where readers often make comments on the article for days, or even weeks.

For example, see the continuing discussions of: Dogs and Dracena Park, Water Use, Parcel Taxes, etc.

Readers are encouraged to provide us with updates, corrections, comments, opinions, or articles.  PCA news, published on the internet, allows corrections to be made after publication.

Comments, updates, and corrections> Submit at the end of each article.

Articles and opinions>Submit to editors@piedmontcivic.org