It has come to my attention that one of your admin morning duties includes monitoring student attire at the Opengate entry point. Earlier this month, my daughter was stopped by you while wearing a shirt celebrating her place of birth. She noted that you checked her wrist for a "wardrobe wristband" and indicated she was "out of dress code" because she lacked this identifier, which apparently denotes a "collar-free" status. Hearing that she is facing this level of administrative scrutiny at the school gate—compounded by targeted peer reporting over our wardrobe choices—is deeply concerning. To ensure we are all aligned with District policy and state legislation, I would like to better understand the exact dress code enforcement protocols currently being utilized at CLMS, and what measures are in place to better inform staff, parents, and students of the individual student and parental rights at hand here. Please provide clarification on the following details regarding the "wardrobe wristband" policy and practices in play at CLMS: •What official status or exemption does this wristband grant a student? •What is the precise procedure for a student to acquire one? •On which specific days or under what circumstances are these wristbands mandatory? •Are students required to display a wristband for ALL non-collared shirts, without exception? •What administrative or disciplinary pipeline is triggered if a student arrives without a collar or a wristband? •Which specific staff members are authorized to distribute these wristbands? Furthermore, a substantial portion of the student body appears to routinely wear non-collared shirts. Between school-sourced t-shirts and the 'collar-free day' privileges sold via fundraisers—as reflected in the attached flyer—it is difficult to discern the safety or educational initiative driving CLMS’s enforcement choices. Constitutional rights are neither a reward, nor are they for sale. While the introductory text of the posted CLMS dress policy borrows language from SDLC Board Policy 5511 and the Student Code of Conduct, the specific mandates from the "Standardized Dress" definition forward entirely deviate from established district frameworks. School administrations cannot unilaterally alter, expand upon, or manufacture mandatory uniform constraints outside of the formal adoption process. Under Florida law, localized deviations do not constitute a legally binding policy and remain unauthorized. For your reference, I have included a summary of the governing framework below: 10 Quick Facts on Florida Standardized Dress Policy: 1) The legal definition of a Standardized Dress Policy is housed in FS 1011.78 2) Districts have the option to adopt the policy Districtwide (ex: Miami-Dade). 3) All K-8 schools within a Standardized Dress District must implement the policy guidelines.4) Individual schools operating outside of a Standardized Dress District that desire such a policy must execute a rigorous, formal adoption process.5) School administrators are prohibited from unilaterally implementing and enforcing a Standardized Dress mandate. 6) Implementing Standardized Dress without proper adoption deprives the school’s administration of civil immunity and renders the staff vulnerable to civil liability and lawsuits for unauthorized enforcement.7) FLDOE’s related policy memorandum requires Standardized Dress policies to include a clearly communicated, easily accessible parental opt-out provision.8) SDLC has NOT adopted a districtwide policy under FS 1011.78 and is instead governed by FS 1006.07, as indicated in Board policy 5511, with the guidelines and enforcement spelled out in the Student Code of Conduct. 9) Neither FS 1011.78 nor FS 1006.07 allows administrators to impose disciplinary measures that result in the exclusion of a student from regular classroom instruction or create discriminatory barriers based on benign, non-disruptive wardrobe choices that merely deviate from school policy

Kevin Roberts makes nearly a million a year for a non profit? That’s Kevin? 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Rights Are Not Retail Items! @LeeSchools treats constitutional protections & Parental Rights as cheap, commodified inventory. Freedom of expression is an unalienable right—it cannot be bought for $2 on a Facebook flyer, bartered as a reward, or confiscated at the schoolhouse gate

The program is missing $270m and 30,000 kids. The people still promoting this believe that’s fine with your money.

Florida's choice program has room for improvement. We need full tuition tax vouchers (the per pupil spending of the public schools - not just $8K). Charters regulated by Tallahassee, not the local SD. For Privates taking vouchers it's all or nothing and academic standards.

🚨‼️Sad but true👇this school is SELLING students the right to civil expression!! DATE: August 10, 2026 1. PURPOSE & NOTICE This serves as formal, written notice that following the official filing of our comprehensive federal complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the undersigned parent will immediately seek local criminal charges, state administrative sanctions, and expand current federal investigations if Cypress Lake Middle School (CLMS) personnel engage in unlawful disciplinary practices regarding student dress code enforcement. As a 7th-grade student in the State of Florida, my child is entering her mandatory year of Civics education. This academic year will serve as an active, real-world application of the Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment, and the strict limits of administrative overreach. She has been fully instructed on her constitutional rights and the boundaries of local administrative authority. 2. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANT PROTECTED EXPRESSION The student will attend school wearing apparel containing constitutionally protected expression and/or attire compliant with Board-adopted policy 5511. This includes, but is not limited to Cultural & Ethnic Expression (reflecting birth origin and family heritage) Political Expression, (t-shirts displaying the American Flag and specific United States Constitutional text or quotes) Religious Expression (religious symbols and sacred scripture). All such attire will fully comply with the Board-adopted policies, Florida legislation and FLDOE state standard decency limitations for non-uniform schools. 3. CRIMINAL, STATE, AND CODIFIED LEGAL STANDARDS Any action by school administration to remove my student from core instruction and further confine my student (In-School Suspension/Student Services/Time Out Room), or compel the purchase/wearing of school-sourced apparel merchandise constitutes a severe violation of state and district mandates: •Florida Statute 787.02 (Criminal False Imprisonment): Confining or isolating a minor child without lawful authority, thereby weaponizing disciplinary detention as a coercive mechanism to steer parents into commercial financial transactions (extorting expenditures for school-branded apparel), meets the statutory definition of unlawful restraint. Individual staff members who participate in this confinement will be named personally in local police reports. •FLDOE Superintendent Memorandum Update (DPS-2011-93): The Florida Department of Education explicitly clarifies that statutory dress code penalties are strictly reserved for clothing that exposes underwear or body parts in an indecent or vulgar manner or that disrupts the orderly learning environment. Benign, non-vulgar, logo-less, or harmless message-bearing t-shirts meeting standard decency guidelines and the Board-adopted dress code fail to meet this DPS-2011-93 thresholds. •Florida Statute 1006.07 (2): When that threshold is met the legislature strictly limits dress code enforcement to a progressive disciplinary framework (verbal warning, parent contact, loss of extracurricular privileges). Confinement from the regular classroom environment or academic exclusion based on arbitrary administrative dress standards is illegal. •Systemic Administrative Non-Compliance (Case-in-point): This overreach spans both written and unwritten school-level practices across the District. While some administrators, such as at Diplomat Middle School, overtly publish text threatening In-School Suspension (ISS) confinement, other campuses like CLMS and LXMS rely on implied coercion and unwritten mandates to achieve the same illicit outcomes. Both methods—whether outwardly expressed or implicitly applied—constitute an identical, un-indemnified violation of F.S. § 1006.07(2).

Oh please. Heritage is a weirdo cult of grift. No one gives a crap.

The Double Standard: They expect parents to respect their authority, yet they refuse to respect the very Florida statutes that limit it. Forcing children into a "timeout room" for benign wardrobe choices while selling "collar-free passes" for cash isn't administration—it’s administrative extortion.

Pay-to-Play: If a student's attire is truly a "safety violation" or an "instructional disruption" at 8:00 AM, it does not magically become safe at 8:01 AM just because a parent paid a cash premium. Selling exemptions proves that the dress code isn't about education or security; it is about illegal commercial coercion