Hardy IB Population

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A highly symbolic fresh start for Hardy woukd be to tear out the parking and expand the field. Then they should hold a celebratory bonfire to kick the season off and burn all the old and discontinued school uniforms!

I don't agree with that particular proposal but I agree that Hardy would benefit from a symbolic fresh start. However, a lot of the controversy around Hardy stems from the fact that it holds an important place in the history of desegregation in DC, and it holds symbolic value for a lot of people who don't have a direct stake. So you have to be careful about your symbolism backfiring.

For example: I was at a Hardy PTA meeting back in the dark days of 2011, and Yvette Alexander, the ward 7 councilmember, was there. Why on earth was the ward 7 councilmember there? Jack Evans, whose ward it's in, wasn't there, and Mary Cheh, whose ward contains most of the boundary, wasn't there, but Alexander was there. And her reason was to score political points. She gave a very divisive speech, with the predicable race-baiting code words. I'm sure it played great in her home ward.

Thanks a lot, councilmember.

[Anonymous]

I think people get suspicious when you tell them to go to the (new) neighborhood school to improve its academic quality. Middle school is only three years, so parents want to send their kids to a school of good quality, not necessarily have their kids be the ones to work through the problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people get suspicious when you tell them to go to the (new) neighborhood school to improve its academic quality. Middle school is only three years, so parents want to send their kids to a school of good quality, not necessarily have their kids be the ones to work through the problems.

I am not telling them to do that. Nonetheless it will become more attractive IB families when more IB kids attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If even half of folks in-boundary for Hardy sent their kids to Hardy, that scholastic year would be better quality than Deal, overnight. With a few exceptions, like sports and (ahem) uniforms, that is. Just send your kids there, all of you, and you'll never lose any sleep over it.

Was this intended to be hyperbole? Is there something about the 5th graders living in a bungalow IB for Key that are better quality than the fifth graders living in an identical Sears kit house bungalow IB for Lafayette?

If so, please tell! We are looking to buy just such a home (1920s era wood Sears kit house bungalow with porch) and are open to location w/in DC. I would love to hear how the kids at Stoddert bring "better quality" to a middle school than the kids at Murch or Janney do.

Ward 3 kids are basically interchangeable in terms of competence. Hardy has better scale than Deal's college campus. Main difference, that.

The main difference is that Hardy has a 40 year history of being a racial flashpoint. Everything else pales in comparison.

Ex. A being the way the Hardy old guard is so attached to the school uniforms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If even half of folks in-boundary for Hardy sent their kids to Hardy, that scholastic year would be better quality than Deal, overnight. With a few exceptions, like sports and (ahem) uniforms, that is. Just send your kids there, all of you, and you'll never lose any sleep over it.

Was this intended to be hyperbole? Is there something about the 5th graders living in a bungalow IB for Key that are better quality than the fifth graders living in an identical Sears kit house bungalow IB for Lafayette?

If so, please tell! We are looking to buy just such a home (1920s era wood Sears kit house bungalow with porch) and are open to location w/in DC. I would love to hear how the kids at Stoddert bring "better quality" to a middle school than the kids at Murch or Janney do.

Ward 3 kids are basically interchangeable in terms of competence. Hardy has better scale than Deal's college campus. Main difference, that.

Two obsservations here:
The main difference is that Hardy has a 40 year history of being a racial flashpoint. Everything else pales in comparison.

Ex. A being the way the Hardy old guard is so attached to the school uniforms.

1. This thread - like most Hardy threads - has quickly run off the rails.

2. For the umpteenth time, there is no mysterious Hardy old guard. There are parents - IB and OOB - that send their kids to Hardy. Their kids are there for three years, during which some parents are active in the school PTO. Then those parents move on to high school and other opportunities. They - rightfully - end their involvement with Hardy when their kids move on. Stop acting like there is some organized group acting like they want thes school to be like it was in 1975 [or 1985, or 1995, or 2005...]. There is only parents who want a good education for their children. When you refer to currents parents as some kind of "old guard" all it says is that you are too lazy to bother visiting the school and talking to current parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: For the umpteenth time, there is no mysterious Hardy old guard. There are parents - IB and OOB - that send their kids to Hardy. Their kids are there for three years, during which some parents are active in the school PTO. Then those parents move on to high school and other opportunities. They - rightfully - end their involvement with Hardy when their kids move on. Stop acting like there is some organized group acting like they want thes school to be like it was in 1975 [or 1985, or 1995, or 2005...]. There is only parents who want a good education for their children. When you refer to currents parents as some kind of "old guard" all it says is that you are too lazy to bother visiting the school and talking to current parents.

I haven't been in Hardy this year, but I followed the school closely 2010-2013 trying to decide if my own kids should attend. At that time, there definitely was an old guard, consisting of teachers who were dead-set opposed to changes in the school, and alumni and long-time washingtonians -- almost entirely not current parents -- who saw Hardy as a milestone victory in the fight against segregation that they weren't giving back. There's a reason the replacement of the principal became a city-wide issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: For the umpteenth time, there is no mysterious Hardy old guard. There are parents - IB and OOB - that send their kids to Hardy. Their kids are there for three years, during which some parents are active in the school PTO. Then those parents move on to high school and other opportunities. They - rightfully - end their involvement with Hardy when their kids move on. Stop acting like there is some organized group acting like they want thes school to be like it was in 1975 [or 1985, or 1995, or 2005...]. There is only parents who want a good education for their children. When you refer to currents parents as some kind of "old guard" all it says is that you are too lazy to bother visiting the school and talking to current parents.

I haven't been in Hardy this year, but I followed the school closely 2010-2013 trying to decide if my own kids should attend. At that time, there definitely was an old guard, consisting of teachers who were dead-set opposed to changes in the school, and alumni and long-time washingtonians -- almost entirely not current parents -- who saw Hardy as a milestone victory in the fight against segregation that they weren't giving back. There's a reason the replacement of the principal became a city-wide issue.

You "followed the school closely"? Can you clarify if you did or did not actually cross the threshold and enter the building?

You are right about the teachers circa-2010. But wrong about the teachers now. Some may be set in their ways, but that's cause they are old school teachers - not because of some big Hardy thing. At any rate, they are now on board with Principal Pride.

You are lying - flat out lying - about the alumni and long-time Washingtonians. I was a Hardy parents, was very active on the PTA, and was very close to the teachers and Princiapl at the time. No such outside group of alumni and long-time Washingtonians that had any interest or influence on the school.

Please stop this "old Hardy guard" canard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: For the umpteenth time, there is no mysterious Hardy old guard. There are parents - IB and OOB - that send their kids to Hardy. Their kids are there for three years, during which some parents are active in the school PTO. Then those parents move on to high school and other opportunities. They - rightfully - end their involvement with Hardy when their kids move on. Stop acting like there is some organized group acting like they want thes school to be like it was in 1975 [or 1985, or 1995, or 2005...]. There is only parents who want a good education for their children. When you refer to currents parents as some kind of "old guard" all it says is that you are too lazy to bother visiting the school and talking to current parents.

I haven't been in Hardy this year, but I followed the school closely 2010-2013 trying to decide if my own kids should attend. At that time, there definitely was an old guard, consisting of teachers who were dead-set opposed to changes in the school, and alumni and long-time washingtonians -- almost entirely not current parents -- who saw Hardy as a milestone victory in the fight against segregation that they weren't giving back. There's a reason the replacement of the principal became a city-wide issue.

Yes, removing a competent principal and keeping him out of any school for a whole year on the pretense of having him create a new magnet school that never came into existence. I'd say that that is bad management that should have concerned everyone in the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people get suspicious when you tell them to go to the (new) neighborhood school to improve its academic quality. Middle school is only three years, so parents want to send their kids to a school of good quality, not necessarily have their kids be the ones to work through the problems.

Yes, and I want the middle school to improve my child's "academic quality." That is the job of the faculty and administrative leadership. The school should not depend on my child and other heretofore well-prepared kids for superficial paper gains (standardized test score increases) which are no substitute for real and tangible improvements in academic quality.

[Anonymous]

I don't see a race issue at Hardy whatsoever. Any parent is free to buy or rent a home in-boundary, to be assured a spot at the school. Just like any other neighborhood school, there are no race barriers to admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If even half of folks in-boundary for Hardy sent their kids to Hardy, that scholastic year would be better quality than Deal, overnight. With a few exceptions, like sports and (ahem) uniforms, that is. Just send your kids there, all of you, and you'll never lose any sleep over it.

Was this intended to be hyperbole? Is there something about the 5th graders living in a bungalow IB for Key that are better quality than the fifth graders living in an identical Sears kit house bungalow IB for Lafayette?

If so, please tell! We are looking to buy just such a home (1920s era wood Sears kit house bungalow with porch) and are open to location w/in DC. I would love to hear how the kids at Stoddert bring "better quality" to a middle school than the kids at Murch or Janney do.

Ward 3 kids are basically interchangeable in terms of competence. Hardy has better scale than Deal's college campus. Main difference, that.

The main difference is that Hardy has a 40 year history of being a racial flashpoint. Everything else pales in comparison.

Ex. A being the way the Hardy old guard is so attached to the school uniforms.

Oh puh-lease the vote on the uniforms had nothing to do with race. If you don't like them, fine, I encourage you to try to get the policy changed but stop making up stories about things that didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You "followed the school closely"? Can you clarify if you did or did not actually cross the threshold and enter the building?

You are right about the teachers circa-2010. But wrong about the teachers now. Some may be set in their ways, but that's cause they are old school teachers - not because of some big Hardy thing. At any rate, they are now on board with Principal Pride.

You are lying - flat out lying - about the alumni and long-time Washingtonians. I was a Hardy parents, was very active on the PTA, and was very close to the teachers and Princiapl at the time. No such outside group of alumni and long-time Washingtonians that had any interest or influence on the school.

Please stop this "old Hardy guard" canard.

Please don't call me a liar. Tell me, then, why was Yvette Alexander at the PTA meeting in 2009, spewing racial rhetoric? Why did Vincent Gray -- a long-time Washingtonian if there ever was one -- make Hardy an issue when he beat Fenty? In Richard Whitmire's book "The Bee Eater," which is generally effusive in its praise of Rhee, he makes the claim that the handling of Hardy cost Fenty the 2010 election. How could one school with a few hundred students tip an election in a city of over a half-million residents? Because it stands for something bigger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people get suspicious when you tell them to go to the (new) neighborhood school to improve its academic quality. Middle school is only three years, so parents want to send their kids to a school of good quality, not necessarily have their kids be the ones to work through the problems.

Yes, and I want the middle school to improve my child's "academic quality." That is the job of the faculty and administrative leadership. The school should not depend on my child and other heretofore well-prepared kids for superficial paper gains (standardized test score increases) which are no substitute for real and tangible improvements in academic quality.

You're right. You shouldn't send your child there. My well-prepared child did fine there but it obviously wouldn't work for your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You "followed the school closely"? Can you clarify if you did or did not actually cross the threshold and enter the building?

You are right about the teachers circa-2010. But wrong about the teachers now. Some may be set in their ways, but that's cause they are old school teachers - not because of some big Hardy thing. At any rate, they are now on board with Principal Pride.

You are lying - flat out lying - about the alumni and long-time Washingtonians. I was a Hardy parents, was very active on the PTA, and was very close to the teachers and Princiapl at the time. No such outside group of alumni and long-time Washingtonians that had any interest or influence on the school.

Please stop this "old Hardy guard" canard.

Please don't call me a liar. Tell me, then, why was Yvette Alexander at the PTA meeting in 2009, spewing racial rhetoric? Why did Vincent Gray -- a long-time Washingtonian if there ever was one -- make Hardy an issue when he beat Fenty? In Richard Whitmire's book "The Bee Eater," which is generally effusive in its praise of Rhee, he makes the claim that the handling of Hardy cost Fenty the 2010 election. How could one school with a few hundred students tip an election in a city of over a half-million residents? Because it stands for something bigger.

You are talking about incidents that happened in 2009 and 2010. The point is there no old guard now - and you are lying when you said there was such an old guard that was somehow active in 2013. And i take it from your non-answer that no, you never actually entered the building to talk to anyone (except maybe in 2010).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You "followed the school closely"? Can you clarify if you did or did not actually cross the threshold and enter the building?

You are right about the teachers circa-2010. But wrong about the teachers now. Some may be set in their ways, but that's cause they are old school teachers - not because of some big Hardy thing. At any rate, they are now on board with Principal Pride.

You are lying - flat out lying - about the alumni and long-time Washingtonians. I was a Hardy parents, was very active on the PTA, and was very close to the teachers and Princiapl at the time. No such outside group of alumni and long-time Washingtonians that had any interest or influence on the school.

Please stop this "old Hardy guard" canard.

Please don't call me a liar. Tell me, then, why was Yvette Alexander at the PTA meeting in 2009, spewing racial rhetoric? Why did Vincent Gray -- a long-time Washingtonian if there ever was one -- make Hardy an issue when he beat Fenty? In Richard Whitmire's book "The Bee Eater," which is generally effusive in its praise of Rhee, he makes the claim that the handling of Hardy cost Fenty the 2010 election. How could one school with a few hundred students tip an election in a city of over a half-million residents? Because it stands for something bigger.

Of course it was a seminal event in Fenty's downfall. When Pope was removed, I wrote Vince Gray and asked him to run for mayor. Not saying my email was the reason he chose to run, but there were lots of educated, politically engaged parents at Hardy. I'm sure they were contacting their reps as well about this.

And you know why it happened? Because Michelle Rhee mismanaged the situation. Oh yes, I know that's the unpopular view. It's easier to say that some old guard was determined to keep IB families out but the truth is that Rhee was a neophyte when it came to managing large bureaucracies and made quite a few mistakes that she will never, ever acknowledge.

So choose your interpretation -- educated, politically active parents who were furious their principal was removed and sidelined for a year with no warning? Or resentful old guard who were hostile to IB families? As I have noted elsewhere, I would have loved to have more IB families. We were fine with having y'all there but not with Rhee's hamhanded management move. Sorry if you have a hard time distinguishing between those two things but I understand that it makes it too complicated for your narrative.