The Spotsylvania County School Board addressed concerns about consistency in how the school division enforces its dress code when it voted on a revised student code of conduct Monday night.
Public speakers and board members alike mentioned one pressing issue about dress codes in general — they seem to disproportionately impact the female student population.
“They get taken out of class for what they’re wearing, and they’re missing school time,” Chancellor District representative Belen Rodas said. “I think the whole thing can be very problematic, and I’m not sure what the best way forward is. I personally don’t care that much about what kids wear. Are you following the rules? Are you paying attention? Are you respectful to your teacher? I don’t care if you’re wearing pajama bottoms.”
The board voted 5-2 to remove the first line in the policy that included as examples of inappropriate attire “halters, tank or tube tops, bare midriffs/crop tops.” They kept the remainder of the code, continuing to ban clothing with “offensive or sexually suggestive wording or pictures, ski masks, etc.”
Lorita Daniels of the Salem District made a substitute motion to include the language that “students must wear clothing that covers their skin from chest to mid-thigh with opaque non-see-through fabric in front and back and on all sides.”
April Gillespie of the Berkeley District and Lisa Phelps of the Lee Hill District voted against the changes, with Gillespie characterizing the clothing she’s seen students wearing in county schools as “absolutely disgusting.”
“I walk into a school and all I see is midriffs, shoulders and butts,” Gillespie said. “I see it all. I personally don’t want to see more, unlike some of my colleagues up here … Some things are appropriate, and some things aren’t, especially in a school setting.”
Gillespie and Phelps — the two politically conservative members of the board — voted in tandem on multiple other issues Monday night, including a measure allowing all staff to confiscate a student’s cellphone if they violate the policy that requires the devices to be put away from the start of the day until the end.
The original policy only permitted administrators or a designee to take phones away. Courtland District board member Carol Medawar’s motion to allow all staff to do so passed 5-2.
The board also approved its 2025-30 strategic plan by a 5-2 vote.
Gillespie and Phelps were opposed to the plans because they believe it puts Spotsylvania on track to develop “community schools” in the future. They cited Harlem, New York, as an example, where the school division partners with local organizations and families to provide comprehensive support, such as healthcare, social services and enrichment activities.
Phelps and Gillespie did not approve of the mention in the strategic plan of preparing students to contribute to a “global society,” believing that means putting the taxpayer on the hook for additional resources.
“That’s what Spotsylvania County wants to turn to is community schools,” Phelps said. “That’s what it looks like here. It was told to me that’s what it is. We’re going to take care of mental health. We’re going to take care of everything our kids need inside the walls, and we’re the parent. And not only that, us taxpayers are paying for it.”
Phelps and Gillespie also shared a gripe that the strategic plan was poorly advertised since no one spoke at the public hearing.
Superintendent Clint Mitchell pushed back on the complaints. He noted the strategic plan committee was “a community-based project” that included a variety of stakeholders, including parents and students. He also said there is no mention anywhere in the plan about community schools.
“If we’re going to spend some time putting information out, let’s make sure we’re putting accurate information out,” Mitchell said … “The public needs to know the information you are sharing is inaccurate. There is not one thing in the strategic plan that says anything about community schools — zero, none. Nothing about community schools.”
Another 5-2 vote left Battlefield District representative Nicole Cole upset. The board passed a motion allowing division staff to apply for Title I and Title IV funding.
Title I, Part A funding would award $4 million to provide supplemental instructional support personnel and materials for nine elementary schools in the county that are eligible based on the percentage of students from low-income families.
Title IV, Part A funding is the nearly $300,000 Student Support and Academic Enrichment grant, which is intended to improve students’ academic achievement by increasing the capacity of state and local education agencies to provide safe and healthy schools and effective use of technology.
Gillespie and Phelps voted against applying for the funds, citing the need for the division to cover the expenses if federal funding goes away next year. Mitchell and other board members disagreed with basing the application on a hypothetical situation, noting that Title I has been around since 1965.
“I would like to apologize to our staff and our students who are serviced by Title I programs and to our parents whose children are serviced by Title I programs,” Cole said … “It’s just unbelievable to me that fellow board members would be so uncaring that they would support the potential for federal funds to be pulled from our students who need it most to eat, to be cared for, to have a quality education with staff who understand and support their needs.”
