So how many IB are going to really be at Hardy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I am one of the current Hardy parents who has posted here and I have spoken to many of my Ward 3 colleagues about why they will or will not send their students to Hardy. Race - either directly stated or implied - is a huge issue.

odd -- whites are in the minority at Wilson and it doesn't seem to be an issue there.

It's really not all that complicated - there's a threshold - hard to define, but it exists - where if the population of white students falls below X, the school faces additional barriers to recruiting white students.

Wilson and Deal are above this threshold; the best example of a school below this threshold is Banneker, which has the best scores in the city yet can't attract a single white student most years. And Hardy is also below this threshold.

Hope that helps you understand this phenomenon. I assure you, it exists.

I wish more people would just be transparent about this issue, as PP has done. This threshold concept exists. For those who claim that it's not about race because Deal also has diversity, here are the numbers of white students at each public school under discussion, per DCPS:

Deal: 43%
Wilson: 25%
Hardy: 11%
Banneker: 0%

However, to say it is about race doesn't always mean that it is about racism. Schools cater to their populations, and different populations have different educational needs.

Consider the phenomenon of high-scoring charter schools in DC (and other cities) with mostly poor, mostly black student bodies that feature things like uniforms, a longer school day, aggressive follow up on absenteeism and discipline, teachers with social work qualifications, and other modifications driven by research on how best to reach at-risk urban kids.

These schools could be life-changing for a kid growing up in poverty, but they tend not to attract the affluent. There is no research that shows that an affluent kid benefits from a long school day at age 3. And the schools make no apologies and no attempt to recruit the affluent. They stay focused on their target demographic.

I think this may be what is going on with the uniform issue at Hardy. It is definitely part of what is going on at Banneker, with its high DC CAS scores (but below-average SATs) and 98% college acceptance rate (but which colleges?). There is probably also some simple racism, yes, but that's thankfully the minority of people. I think for most it is this conscious or unconscious questioning of who is the school trying to reach, and how, and why, and is this a good fit for my kids.

Thank you, above PPs - maybe we're getting somewhere. If this is correct, it still seems that the solution is for more neighborhood families to send their kids there. It will bring the scores up ( the most cited reason for not attending) and change the racial ratio at the same time. It's happened at other schools in DC -- on the hill for sure, and maybe at Deal, a few years ago, I don't know.

I realize Hardy's recent past history regarding race has been difficult (lots of past threads on that - will not revisit here) so perhaps that's what needs to diffuse for real change to happen -- with the passage of time or more directly.

You're responding to my post. Yes, this is absolutely the solution -- for more IB families to attend. This will solve it. But it's a prisoner's dilemma right now. If I had to bet my own money, I would bet that within 5 years Hardy will be majority IB. Not soon enough for some people, I know.

It's not healthy for a neighborhood school to be majority OOB for the long term anyway. In DC right now, people see this almost like an equality issue, that WOTP schools should have lots of OOB available so anyone has a shot at the best schools. But long term it's desirable for all schools to be mostly IB. I think even DCPS and DME want this too. Rhee used the OOB feeder rights as a way to boost Deal and so on, but the desired result was high-IB at Deal, and it's been achieved. The same thing is desirable at Hardy and at any neighborhood school.

And thank you to the other PP who was honest in stating an approx 20% threshold.

I'm grateful to pp as well and, giving others the benefit of the doubt, it could be that they simply had not perceived the importance of a threshold. And maybe now that they do (assuming that some do) they will see that they ARE the threshold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish there weren't such a focus on AP classes as a barometer of quality. APs are a load of work and then a test, and that's it. AP classes ARE a test. That sucks if you desire your kid to learn how to think.

This is the standard IB line - "AP teaches kids how to take tests; IB teaches kids how to think."

It's total BS. The key is good teachers.

ditto -- I know kids an parents who are thoroughly satisfied with AP classes and how well they prepared the kids for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eaton parents are not concerned about the racial profile of Hardy. Eaton itself is very diverse. We are concerned about academic weakness, a perceived harsh disciplinary structure, and the absence of sports. The uniforms add to the perception about the discipline. It is not racial.

Okay, so look beyond the perception. Current Hardy parents are telling us that discipline is not an issue so it would appear that your perception is inaccurate (if they are right). So then I have to ask -- Are you concerned about others' perceptions and how your kid will be perceived?

I think people just want to see the school taking tangible steps to pivot more in the direction of in boundary families. And the uniforms are a small thing but a symbolic thing that would signal a shift in approach and focus.

See previous posts - the school is doing that.

But in my experience, what happens is that IB families develop different reasons not to attend once their requests are met.

IB families raised concerns about the applications (ridiculous concerns by the way, because the applications were not keeping any IB families out). They went away. But IB families did not come.

Next, IB families asked for and got a gifted and talented program. The response was 1. Largely to continue ignoring Hardy; and 2. When they paid attention, to complain that it was not the right kind of G&T program.

Now, under Principal Pride, IB families are asking for and receiving additional differentiation....and the response among IB families is "But the uniforms!"

I have every reason to think that if the uniforms go away, there will be some other reason - the building is too hot or too cold, the teachers are too easy or too hard, the light is wrong...who knows what.

There are mysterious barriers keeping people from attending Hardy. Maybe its racial, maybe its something else. But it is a mystery to me how this turn occurs when they exist - especially when the charters are there to so easily pick off families before they even consider Hardy.

Signed,

Your Friend, IB Hardy Parent, who reiterates that their child is having a great experience at Hardy and thriving both academically and socially.

It is not race -- look at Deal and Wilson's demographic composition. It is a perception of mediocre quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, IB parents (if they come in greater numbers) will change the nature of the school. Some current parents like that idea and some don't.

Agreed. But there are people on this thread who want everything to change to their liking before they set foot in the door. Good luck with that.

What changes would bring IB parents in the door?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eaton parents are not concerned about the racial profile of Hardy. Eaton itself is very diverse. We are concerned about academic weakness, a perceived harsh disciplinary structure, and the absence of sports. The uniforms add to the perception about the discipline. It is not racial.

Okay, so look beyond the perception. Current Hardy parents are telling us that discipline is not an issue so it would appear that your perception is inaccurate (if they are right). So then I have to ask -- Are you concerned about others' perceptions and how your kid will be perceived?

I think people just want to see the school taking tangible steps to pivot more in the direction of in boundary families. And the uniforms are a small thing but a symbolic thing that would signal a shift in approach and focus.

See previous posts - the school is doing that.

But in my experience, what happens is that IB families develop different reasons not to attend once their requests are met.

IB families raised concerns about the applications (ridiculous concerns by the way, because the applications were not keeping any IB families out). They went away. But IB families did not come.

Next, IB families asked for and got a gifted and talented program. The response was 1. Largely to continue ignoring Hardy; and 2. When they paid attention, to complain that it was not the right kind of G&T program.

Now, under Principal Pride, IB families are asking for and receiving additional differentiation....and the response among IB families is "But the uniforms!"

I have every reason to think that if the uniforms go away, there will be some other reason - the building is too hot or too cold, the teachers are too easy or too hard, the light is wrong...who knows what.

There are mysterious barriers keeping people from attending Hardy. Maybe its racial, maybe its something else. But it is a mystery to me how this turn occurs when they exist - especially when the charters are there to so easily pick off families before they even consider Hardy.

Signed,

Your Friend, IB Hardy Parent, who reiterates that their child is having a great experience at Hardy and thriving both academically and socially.

It is not race -- look at Deal and Wilson's demographic composition. It is a perception of mediocre quality.

Actually at the end of the day, it's about class. It just so happens that many more brown children in this city come from homes that have household incomes at the poverty level. White folks are fine sending their kids to Deal because their African American classmates come from higher income families; their parents are educated. AND less than 50% of the school qualifies for free/reduced lunch. Hardy's poverty rate is what is holding some families back.

--Hardy mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest opinion. I think it's true that most people do not want their children to be such a small minority in any school. I don't know how you correct that except to make the school more disirable to all families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that test scores for Wilson and Hardy differ is an exaggeration. For Hardy, white students scored 46% advanced and 46% proficient in math, and 29% advanced with 63% proficient for reading. For Wilson, the scores are 46% advanced and 45% proficient for reading, and 61% advanced and 30% proficient for reading. (note that Hardy's scores are more variable since the school is much smaller. Reading scores for the year before last were 41% and 41%. Math scores were unchanged.)

So, for the most part, if IB parents are willing to send their kids to Wilson, they should be willing to swnd their kids to Hardy.

--IB Hardy

That's an interesting point but here is why I would be fine with sending my kids to Wilson and not Hardy. More specifically, why we bought in bounds for Deal and not Hardy when we were recently moving to a new house:

1. The racial issue. My DD and DC are Caucasian and I do not want them to be in a very small minority. I'd want at least 20% of the kids to be white. Even if Hardy had better scores than Deal, I'd still hesitate to send them to a school where she is part of such a small group.
2. High school v middle school issue. I went to a rural-small town mix high school which was, if you looked at its overall classes and scores, not great. However, it had a lot of AP and advanced classes and I never had a class that was not AP/advanced except for PE. I got a great education and if you looked at the SAT scores of my classmates in those AP/advanced classes (this was before Common Core), you'd have seen they'd have rivaled any scores for kids in much better schools. High schools allow for a lot more educational self-selection (yes, everyone can sign up for an AP class but to do so requires motivation and a desire to learn, which is even more important than raw intelligence, IMO) than middle schools, at least as far as I am aware. Thus, I care less about a school's overall scores, provided they have a good selection of AP/advanced classes and kids in those classes do well.
3. First best versus second best. As someone discussed upthread, Wilson is the best public (non test-in) HS in the city and Deal is the best public MS. This would not apply to someone who wants/plans to send their kids to a private school, but for DH and I, it’s important to send our DD and DC to public school if possible (we both are very happy with our public school education). But we want it to be the best public school education we can get. We’d rather Wilson had higher scores (though less of a concern due to point 2 above) but taking into account the AP classes and the fact that it’s the best available, we are fine with it. The alternative would be to go private (or move out of DC), neither of which is an option to take lightly, though we’d do it if necessary. However, we have no desire to send them to Hardy when we can send them to the better school, i.e. Deal – and still stay public.

I confess the uniforms are not an issue at all - would probably make it easier to get picky dressers out of the house in the morning!

To the Deal parent above -- if Hardy had a 20%+ white ratio and comparable scores among whites as Deal, would it be attractive to you. I understand you're IB Deal now, but if the ratio/scores existed before you moved, would you have considered moving to the Hardy neighborhood if a house you really liked was there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eaton parents are not concerned about the racial profile of Hardy. Eaton itself is very diverse. We are concerned about academic weakness, a perceived harsh disciplinary structure, and the absence of sports. The uniforms add to the perception about the discipline. It is not racial.

Okay, so look beyond the perception. Current Hardy parents are telling us that discipline is not an issue so it would appear that your perception is inaccurate (if they are right). So then I have to ask -- Are you concerned about others' perceptions and how your kid will be perceived?

I think people just want to see the school taking tangible steps to pivot more in the direction of in boundary families. And the uniforms are a small thing but a symbolic thing that would signal a shift in approach and focus.

What if every other indicator showed that Hardy was moving in the direction desired by IB families? Are you saying that you'd not be worried about how your kid would be perceived in a Hardy uniform?

I think if we met face to face we'd have an easier time understanding each other. (BTW I am the poster who mentioned the pivot, but not the first poster above who wrote about perception.)

I am not worried how others perceive my kid. But the uniform thing is a turn off for me, I have to say. It also turns me off about private schools. It also turns me off about workplaces that have a stuffy dress code. To answer your question directly, I am not so superficial that I would avoid a school just because of uniforms. But to me it is one factor that signals a school that has a focus on some things that, at best, are not relevant to my children and their educational needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eaton parents are not concerned about the racial profile of Hardy. Eaton itself is very diverse. We are concerned about academic weakness, a perceived harsh disciplinary structure, and the absence of sports. The uniforms add to the perception about the discipline. It is not racial.

Okay, so look beyond the perception. Current Hardy parents are telling us that discipline is not an issue so it would appear that your perception is inaccurate (if they are right). So then I have to ask -- Are you concerned about others' perceptions and how your kid will be perceived?

I think people just want to see the school taking tangible steps to pivot more in the direction of in boundary families. And the uniforms are a small thing but a symbolic thing that would signal a shift in approach and focus.

What if every other indicator showed that Hardy was moving in the direction desired by IB families? Are you saying that you'd not be worried about how your kid would be perceived in a Hardy uniform?

I think if we met face to face we'd have an easier time understanding each other. (BTW I am the poster who mentioned the pivot, but not the first poster above who wrote about perception.)

I am not worried how others perceive my kid. But the uniform thing is a turn off for me, I have to say. It also turns me off about private schools. It also turns me off about workplaces that have a stuffy dress code. To answer your question directly, I am not so superficial that I would avoid a school just because of uniforms. But to me it is one factor that signals a school that has a focus on some things that, at best, are not relevant to my children and their educational needs.

Thanks for explaining that. I can respect your position on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eaton parents are not concerned about the racial profile of Hardy. Eaton itself is very diverse. We are concerned about academic weakness, a perceived harsh disciplinary structure, and the absence of sports. The uniforms add to the perception about the discipline. It is not racial.

Okay, so look beyond the perception. Current Hardy parents are telling us that discipline is not an issue so it would appear that your perception is inaccurate (if they are right). So then I have to ask -- Are you concerned about others' perceptions and how your kid will be perceived?

I think people just want to see the school taking tangible steps to pivot more in the direction of in boundary families. And the uniforms are a small thing but a symbolic thing that would signal a shift in approach and focus.

See previous posts - the school is doing that.

But in my experience, what happens is that IB families develop different reasons not to attend once their requests are met.

IB families raised concerns about the applications (ridiculous concerns by the way, because the applications were not keeping any IB families out). They went away. But IB families did not come.

Next, IB families asked for and got a gifted and talented program. The response was 1. Largely to continue ignoring Hardy; and 2. When they paid attention, to complain that it was not the right kind of G&T program.

Now, under Principal Pride, IB families are asking for and receiving additional differentiation....and the response among IB families is "But the uniforms!"

I have every reason to think that if the uniforms go away, there will be some other reason - the building is too hot or too cold, the teachers are too easy or too hard, the light is wrong...who knows what.

There are mysterious barriers keeping people from attending Hardy. Maybe its racial, maybe its something else. But it is a mystery to me how this turn occurs when they exist - especially when the charters are there to so easily pick off families before they even consider Hardy.

Signed,

Your Friend, IB Hardy Parent, who reiterates that their child is having a great experience at Hardy and thriving both academically and socially.

It is not race -- look at Deal and Wilson's demographic composition. It is a perception of mediocre quality.

Actually at the end of the day, it's about class. It just so happens that many more brown children in this city come from homes that have household incomes at the poverty level. White folks are fine sending their kids to Deal because their African American classmates come from higher income families; their parents are educated. AND less than 50% of the school qualifies for free/reduced lunch. Hardy's poverty rate is what is holding some families back.

--Hardy mom

Yes, this is another good observation, that class or similar is at play. But there is such a close correlation in DC, more than most other places.

[Anonymous]

It is just difficult when parents are redistributed from a higher performing school to a lower performing one. That would be difficult for parents of any race or class. That is what happened to Eaton

[Anonymous]

Is it worthwhile discussing why the IB percent at Hardy is only 13%, when within a day or two we will know the new IB percent, which will likely be higher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest opinion. I think it's true that most people do not want their children to be such a small minority in any school. I don't know how you correct that except to make the school more disirable to all families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument that test scores for Wilson and Hardy differ is an exaggeration. For Hardy, white students scored 46% advanced and 46% proficient in math, and 29% advanced with 63% proficient for reading. For Wilson, the scores are 46% advanced and 45% proficient for reading, and 61% advanced and 30% proficient for reading. (note that Hardy's scores are more variable since the school is much smaller. Reading scores for the year before last were 41% and 41%. Math scores were unchanged.)

So, for the most part, if IB parents are willing to send their kids to Wilson, they should be willing to swnd their kids to Hardy.

--IB Hardy

That's an interesting point but here is why I would be fine with sending my kids to Wilson and not Hardy. More specifically, why we bought in bounds for Deal and not Hardy when we were recently moving to a new house:

1. The racial issue. My DD and DC are Caucasian and I do not want them to be in a very small minority. I'd want at least 20% of the kids to be white. Even if Hardy had better scores than Deal, I'd still hesitate to send them to a school where she is part of such a small group.
2. High school v middle school issue. I went to a rural-small town mix high school which was, if you looked at its overall classes and scores, not great. However, it had a lot of AP and advanced classes and I never had a class that was not AP/advanced except for PE. I got a great education and if you looked at the SAT scores of my classmates in those AP/advanced classes (this was before Common Core), you'd have seen they'd have rivaled any scores for kids in much better schools. High schools allow for a lot more educational self-selection (yes, everyone can sign up for an AP class but to do so requires motivation and a desire to learn, which is even more important than raw intelligence, IMO) than middle schools, at least as far as I am aware. Thus, I care less about a school's overall scores, provided they have a good selection of AP/advanced classes and kids in those classes do well.
3. First best versus second best. As someone discussed upthread, Wilson is the best public (non test-in) HS in the city and Deal is the best public MS. This would not apply to someone who wants/plans to send their kids to a private school, but for DH and I, it’s important to send our DD and DC to public school if possible (we both are very happy with our public school education). But we want it to be the best public school education we can get. We’d rather Wilson had higher scores (though less of a concern due to point 2 above) but taking into account the AP classes and the fact that it’s the best available, we are fine with it. The alternative would be to go private (or move out of DC), neither of which is an option to take lightly, though we’d do it if necessary. However, we have no desire to send them to Hardy when we can send them to the better school, i.e. Deal – and still stay public.

I confess the uniforms are not an issue at all - would probably make it easier to get picky dressers out of the house in the morning!

To the Deal parent above -- if Hardy had a 20%+ white ratio and comparable scores among whites as Deal, would it be attractive to you. I understand you're IB Deal now, but if the ratio/scores existed before you moved, would you have considered moving to the Hardy neighborhood if a house you really liked was there?

I am the PP who posted about the 20% threshold and absolutely. We'd then look at both areas equally and the decision would be based solely on house/prettiness of area/easiness of commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it worthwhile discussing why the IB percent at Hardy is only 13%, when within a day or two we will know the new IB percent, which will likely be higher?

Whether its 13 percent or 16 percent the lingering question about Hardy is why it is so shockingly low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it worthwhile discussing why the IB percent at Hardy is only 13%, when within a day or two we will know the new IB percent, which will likely be higher?

If they published more than 20% IB for the whole school and higher for grade 6, that would be a psychological game changer I believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it worthwhile discussing why the IB percent at Hardy is only 13%, when within a day or two we will know the new IB percent, which will likely be higher?

Whether its 13 percent or 16 percent the lingering question about Hardy is why it is so shockingly low.

If you think Hardy is shockingly low then you must have just moved your kid here from Andover. We use different comparables to arrive at "shock value" -- such that Hardy is considered to be pretty OK, not shocking whatsoever.