How has Hardy drawn inbound families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would it be possible for hardy kids to get access to deal programs not offered by hardy? Not only for sports like crew and lacrosse, but other after school enrichment programs.

I have in mind Hardy kids joining deal teams and after school activities.

[Anonymous]

I know that some parents like school uniforms, but they smack of one of those gimmicks used by inner city schools. Is that the image that Hardy wants to project as it is trying to win more upper NW families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know that some parents like school uniforms, but they smack of one of those gimmicks used by inner city schools. Is that the image that Hardy wants to project as it is trying to win more upper NW families?

It IS a gimmick, or at least an anachronism of days gone by. But on the list of things to improve and/or add value to the school, the uniforms should be at the bottom. It's not quite "who cares" -- because if I were a kid, I wouldn't want to be forced to wear the same outfit every day -- but it's the way they've been doing things, and it's not like kids are hurt by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's put some facts in here on the parking and outside space. There are presently 33 cars in the parking lot. Another 20 cars are parked behind the hardy building. The British School sends their kids to the massive Maret/Jelle field. The question about space prospective Hardy parents need to focus on is whether they want the 100 car parking lot adjacent to the south edge of Hardy to become townhouses. GW plans to sell it. It was school property until sold in late 90s by Barry administration.

While it's true that the British School uses Jelleff during the day, it's only because Hardy doesn't want to. Maret paid for the field, and in exchange they get it for ten years 3:30-5:30 on weekdays and on Saturdays. The rest of the time it's given out through normal DPR permitting. Under DPR rules a public school has priority, so if Hardy wanted to use it the British School would have to find somewhere else.

So what's holding Hardy back from using it? Would they have to pay DPR? Where do Hardy's teams play, then?

They wouldn't have to pay DPR. If they're not using the field it's because they don't want to use it.

So what does Hardy use for athletic fields? This question has been asked before on this forum and the response is usually to attack the questioner, but I don't think that the question has been answered.

???

[Anonymous]

Let's stop the uniforms discussion, ok? This is a non-issue. The British School which is just in front of Hardy has uniforms; Holy Trinity which is just next door has uniforms. IB parents are reasonable and smart and know what to look at, and are increasingly choosing Hardy for reasons that have nothing to do with uniforms.
Talk to the kids, 80-90% , including girls, will tell you that "they do not care".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's stop the uniforms discussion, ok? This is a non-issue. The British School which is just in front of Hardy has uniforms; Holy Trinity which is just next door has uniforms. IB parents are reasonable and smart and know what to look at, and are increasingly choosing Hardy for reasons that have nothing to do with uniforms.
Talk to the kids, 80-90% , including girls, will tell you that "they do not care".

To be sure, lot's of private schools have uniforms, although many do not. But most public schools don't have them and the ones that do, tend to be located in the inner city and use uniforms to instill a sense of discipline. Is this the image that Hardy still wants/needs to send??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's stop the uniforms discussion, ok? This is a non-issue. The British School which is just in front of Hardy has uniforms; Holy Trinity which is just next door has uniforms. IB parents are reasonable and smart and know what to look at, and are increasingly choosing Hardy for reasons that have nothing to do with uniforms.
Talk to the kids, 80-90% , including girls, will tell you that "they do not care".

To be sure, lot's of private schools have uniforms, although many do not. But most public schools don't have them and the ones that do, tend to be located in the inner city and use uniforms to instill a sense of discipline. Is this the image that Hardy still wants/needs to send??

Yes, sure, why not?

[Anonymous]

Let the kids vote on it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let the kids vote on it!

No, the kids should not vote. I am against this increasing empowerment of kids in areas which do not pertain to them. I do not let my 11-year-old kid choose his diet (otherwise it would be all muffins, chicken nuggets& mayonnaise and coke -- despite the fact he's fully aware of what junk food is) .

Uniforms are desirable for aspects that kids do not fully understand: school is a place for learning and not for showing-off, school is an environment where you do not want kids clothing to reflect SES status, kids should not be the target of cunning marketing strategies by clothing firms, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's stop the uniforms discussion, ok? This is a non-issue. The British School which is just in front of Hardy has uniforms; Holy Trinity which is just next door has uniforms. IB parents are reasonable and smart and know what to look at, and are increasingly choosing Hardy for reasons that have nothing to do with uniforms.
Talk to the kids, 80-90% , including girls, will tell you that "they do not care".

To be sure, lot's of private schools have uniforms, although many do not. But most public schools don't have them and the ones that do, tend to be located in the inner city and use uniforms to instill a sense of discipline. Is this the image that Hardy still wants/needs to send??

+1

Uniforms are a turn-off at any school, but especially public schools, and especially collared shirts and whatnot. It reminds me of the 19th century or something, dressing up kids like little adults. I have less of an issue with an ES that issues a T-shirt and makes it optional but encourages it, as seems to happen at some DC ESs.

[Anonymous]

Jeez, it's not like DC is 90120, Manhattan, or Boca. Kids are not going to be wearing gucci slippers or diamond necklaces to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the kids vote on it!

No, the kids should not vote. I am against this increasing empowerment of kids in areas which do not pertain to them. I do not let my 11-year-old kid choose his diet (otherwise it would be all muffins, chicken nuggets& mayonnaise and coke -- despite the fact he's fully aware of what junk food is) .

Uniforms are desirable for aspects that kids do not fully understand: school is a place for learning and not for showing-off, school is an environment where you do not want kids clothing to reflect SES status, kids should not be the target of cunning marketing strategies by clothing firms, etc.

Completely agree with you. I wish my school had had a uniform policy growing up.

[Anonymous]

I think uniforms are also useful because if a kid does act up outside of school, it will be clear what school he/she goes to.

FWIW when my kid was at Hardy I voted in favor of having uniforms. Sorry to you folks who don't like them. It seemed to me to be a good idea all things considered. But as a pp noted, it's hardly the most important issue facing Hardy right now.

[Anonymous]

Re: school uniforms. Not all are created equal. Just like not all "schools" are the same thing or "jobs" or "sisters."

The khaki pants and polyester dark polo shirt is an inner city, urban, low-income look of choice. This is just how it is, in DC, Baltimore, New Orleans and Newark.

This is not really the uniform as interpreted by St Albans, NCS, holy trinity, st anselms, blessed sacrament, and all the $45,000 a year NYC schools that have uniforms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: school uniforms. Not all are created equal. Just like not all "schools" are the same thing or "jobs" or "sisters."

The khaki pants and polyester dark polo shirt is an inner city, urban, low-income look of choice. This is just how it is, in DC, Baltimore, New Orleans and Newark.

This is not really the uniform as interpreted by St Albans, NCS, holy trinity, st anselms, blessed sacrament, and all the $45,000 a year NYC schools that have uniforms.

This whole discussion of uniforms has set a new low in the "senseless bashing of Hardy" division.

Signed,

Hardy Parent who for several years has been disgusted by the nonsense I read about Hardy from uniformed parents on this board daily, and by the continuing double standard to which Hardy and its students are held.

The above post epitomizes that double standard as well as anything I have read here for some time.