This is a reasonable post. I have long been on record (anonymously, of course) here as saying the big changes coming to Hardy arrive beginning next year. Nonetheless, don't take it from me. Mann's DCPS school night was last night. I was there. This year, there are 44 5th graders. Last year, there were 19. Within the next three years, there will be a third 5th grade class. Times are changing. They are changing rapidly. (I acknowledge, this may not be rapid enough for some parents.) I've long-thought Stoddert would lead the transition at Hardy. I still think they'll play the key role, but I think Mann will be right at their heels for demanding and being the change feeder parents want to see. Within the next five years, I don't think you'll be able to make your bold-faced statement above. (Yes, yes, I'm having a little fun at your expense. I know you meant magnet not magnate.) |
|
After reading yesterday's Washington Post article on School uniforms in many DCPS schools, I came away not reassured about Hardy's uniform requirement. Rather, it has convinced me that if Hardy is to change (and if the perception of Hardy is to change, especially to attract more IB families), the uniforms should be dropped. Why? Despite some benefits (strengthening school identity and not having to make choices about clothing in the morning), the negatives are higher, at least for Hardy.
--public school uniforms have become synonymous with "urban" public schools. Parents in higher SES population schools reject them. The article noted that no DC public schools in Upper NW, Ward 3, have uniforms. In fact, there is only one public school west of Rock Creek Park that does, and that's Hardy. --the article reported that, according to a study by a Va Tech professor, the prevalence of uniforms in high-poverty schools means that African American and Latino children are more likely to be viewed as a group, while white children are more likely to be viewed as individuals. --more troubling are the reasons why urban public school uniforms were embraced more than 20 years ago, which is an association that Hardy should want to avoid. According to the article, "Once synonymous with parochial or elite public schools, [/b]uniforms took hold in public schools largely as a strategy for improving those that were struggling. Early advocates of uniforms in public schools saw them as a way to reduce gang violence and crime in schools.[b] President Bill Clinton, in his State of the Union address in 1996, gave the movement a boost when he said, 'If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.'" |
| Hardy should drop the uniforms. |
Can parents, through the PTA or maybe the LSAT, ask for a parent vote on uniforms and find out once and for all what the consensus is? |
And be sure and tell them that anonymous posters who don't send their children to Hardy are insisting they drop the uniforms. |
Pp again. Sorry I should say that I'm not attacking the pp's suggestion to find out the current parents' view. That's not a bad idea. I was just expressing my usual sarcasm at the obsession with uniforms. |
Brent - an EOTP majority white, low FARMS (%13) school has uniforms and I love them (and think most parents are pretty happy with the situation)! So, not accurate that all high SES population schools reject them, and no worries on my part that the white kids are going to be viewed as a group and not as individuals. |
|
The parents and kids at Hardy decide whether they want to continue with uniforms or not, it's not a mandate handed down from DCPS. This is something that people recently (within the past 2 years) elected to continue, and could probably change if there were enough momentum do so. Contrary to perception, I think most of the kids prefer to have a dress code (it's not really a uniform, they don't all wear the same outfit sold by the school).
|
|
Can't we get back to the real issues facing Hardy, like the cell phone towers? Come one people, stay on-topic with the troll post de jure.
You uniform people crack me up. --another IB parent that couldn't care less. |
OOPS - don't mind being corrected. Thanks. |
But wouldn't a dress code make more sense in the interest of encouraging freedom of expression? Uniforms are so militaristic. With a dress code, parents could still force their kids to wear a uniform, or they would have the leeway to tweak it a bit if they wanted. |
|
Cell towers are high in the PTO list or priorities.
Uniforms are not even in the list. None of the new IB/feeder school parents has raised the issue of the school dress code to PTO as of today. |
Hardy does not have uniforms. Hardy has a dress code. The school dress code gives a range of options for tops (colors and styles: polos, T-shirts and shirts. No tanks) . Bottoms have to be khaki but freedom of shape, long, bermuda, skirt, anything as long as no higher than 1 inch from knee and no lower than the panty line. And no hoods inside the school. To me it sounds so reasonable and right! |
Well, the school website says it is a "uniform" policy. But, the way you're describing it, it's a very controlled dress code with uniform elements. If parents don't like it, I guess they could send their kids to private school instead...most of which also which have uniforms. |
This is what I think Patricia Pride and Ms. Whisnant should have said to Mann parents, in addition to the fact that Hardy still practices what I would call old school EOTP "tough love" in terms of their emphasis on behavior and discipline - obviously having staff scream at kids is on the brink of inappropriate, but at BASIS DC you can tell which teachers came from EOTP DC schools and which ones came from AZ - not because one group are clearer better teachers than the other, just because their entire approach to the kids and issues of classroom control are different. And to be honest, some times old school EOTP tough love works better because that is what the kids who are getting out of line are used to............. |