Had a meeting with DN last night, during which he never could definitively outline what pants were okay and what weren't. Finally he just said "If you buy them as pajamas, they're pajama pants." That's when I countered with, "But see, I don't buy them as pajamas, I buy them as school clothes. I actually prefer that my daughter wear the most shapeless and baggy pants possible." And he said that if they're not her pajamas, she can wear them. So today, at my insistence, she is wearing the doggy pants to school.
Oh, DN also threw out an, "Unless you want to be on the Handbook Committee this spring yourself?" I told him to just email me the when and where because I would love that. I happen to have non-douche-related issues with this part of the dress code. In my opinion, the "dress for success" mentality is a little outdated. (Go ask the Detroit auto execs what they wore to work as their companies went under, and then go tour Google and see what they wear there.) But also, the definition of acceptable school attire has always been evolving. My mother couldn't wear pants to school; it had to be a skirt or a dress. And forget about jeans or athletic shoes. Way too casual for school in the 60s.
But it seems so arbitrary! That's what really bugs me. They're legislating taste, and without cause. I understand dress code rules regarding revealing clothing, and the rules against cigarettes and alcohol branding, but other than just not liking it in a vague way, what is the specific issue surrounding pajama pants. When pinned down, I want to know why they ban them. They don't show too much skin- far from it. They aren't disruptive; it's not like pajama pants of even the loudest print are going to cause a commotion for more than the first few seconds of class; the presence of a substitute teacher causes more murmurs than that. It is simply that it's not what they're used to and no one has challenged the policy. But now I am challenging it. So I hope they can defend it.