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

[Anonymous]

Oh, oh . . . Instant replay of last year's chatter!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 110 pages later and nearly a year after the 2014-15 school year began, do we finally know last year's official figures for students who live in boundaries and attend Hardy. Or is that still DCPS classified information?

http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Hardy+Middle+School

IB (but not including OOB who attended IB elementaries) was up to 15%

FWIW, white+asian/pacific+Multiracial = 27%

FARMs percent, unknown (for all DCPS, not just Hardy)

Two years earlier white+asian/pacific+Multiracial was equal to 14% http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/2013_Equity_Report_DCPS_External_Hardy%20Middle%20School.pdf

It seems clear that some of the increase in white, multitracial and asian is actually OOB students. not IB. So some of the use of IB as a proxy for race (and likely for SES) is not factually correct (whatever else may be wrong with it)

I find it quite offensive that you keep posting the non brown stats.

As my radical friends keep reminding me, we do not live in a post-racial society. Whether Hardy MS becomes racially integrated or not is a legitimate question. Though I agree that race is a very poor proxy for SES, esp for this school. But DCPS has not released FARMs data yet. And as has been noted, IB status is also an imperfect proxy.

FARMS is down 30% from last year. It was 55% last year and is 40% this year.

Source: called DCPS Office of Data and asked.

If true, that's a big deal. Title I threshold is 40%. So on that trend Hardy would surely drop below Title I threshold the following year (which is this coming year).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 110 pages later and nearly a year after the 2014-15 school year began, do we finally know last year's official figures for students who live in boundaries and attend Hardy. Or is that still DCPS classified information?

http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Hardy+Middle+School

IB (but not including OOB who attended IB elementaries) was up to 15%

FWIW, white+asian/pacific+Multiracial = 27%

FARMs percent, unknown (for all DCPS, not just Hardy)

Two years earlier white+asian/pacific+Multiracial was equal to 14% http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/pdf/2013_Equity_Report_DCPS_External_Hardy%20Middle%20School.pdf

It seems clear that some of the increase in white, multitracial and asian is actually OOB students. not IB. So some of the use of IB as a proxy for race (and likely for SES) is not factually correct (whatever else may be wrong with it)

I find it quite offensive that you keep posting the non brown stats.

As my radical friends keep reminding me, we do not live in a post-racial society. Whether Hardy MS becomes racially integrated or not is a legitimate question. Though I agree that race is a very poor proxy for SES, esp for this school. But DCPS has not released FARMs data yet. And as has been noted, IB status is also an imperfect proxy.

FARMS is down 30% from last year. It was 55% last year and is 40% this year.

Source: called DCPS Office of Data and asked.

If true, that's a big deal. Title I threshold is 40%. So on that trend Hardy would surely drop below Title I threshold the following year (which is this coming year).

It's true. My guess is that the data for next year (not this year) will show FARMS below 25%. (All of the big demographic changes show not this coming year but the following year. That's when the Hardy Boom (or Hardy Bulge for you Europeans) happens.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have heard rumors that a few kids from Key will finally attend this fall.

I thought the most recent newsletter said it was 10 expected? Or was that last year?

That's what I heard for this year. A few are still waiting to hear from private. Last year was less than 10 -I think 4.

[Anonymous]

It's fine to have more in-bounds students at Hardy, who will be welcomed into the community. But DCPS should not lose sight of Hardy's traditional mission as the good alternative for those who would otherwise attend a low performing middle school. DCPS should keep the number of out of boundary slots for Hardy at least at the present level., not reduce them. There is room for Hardy to grow as in boundary families discover this hidden jewel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's fine to have more in-bounds students at Hardy, who will be welcomed into the community. But DCPS should not lose sight of Hardy's traditional mission as the good alternative for those who would otherwise attend a low performing middle school. DCPS should keep the number of out of boundary slots for Hardy at least at the present level., not reduce them. There is room for Hardy to grow as in boundary families discover this hidden jewel.

Nah. They should just open up more OOB slots to Janney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's fine to have more in-bounds students at Hardy, who will be welcomed into the community. But DCPS should not lose sight of Hardy's traditional mission as the good alternative for those who would otherwise attend a low performing middle school. DCPS should keep the number of out of boundary slots for Hardy at least at the present level., not reduce them. There is room for Hardy to grow as in boundary families discover this hidden jewel.

What? There is no 'traditional mission' -- unwritten rule, perhaps.

DCPS needs to figure out how to create more high performing middle schools, period all over the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine to have more in-bounds students at Hardy, who will be welcomed into the community. But DCPS should not lose sight of Hardy's traditional mission as the good alternative for those who would otherwise attend a low performing middle school. DCPS should keep the number of out of boundary slots for Hardy at least at the present level., not reduce them. There is room for Hardy to grow as in boundary families discover this hidden jewel.

What? There is no 'traditional mission' -- unwritten rule, perhaps.

DCPS needs to figure out how to create more high performing middle schools, period all over the city.

No way, they need to focus on building community in the neighborhoods that need better schools.

The mission of Hardy is to serve the neighborhood, not maintain OOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's fine to have more in-bounds students at Hardy, who will be welcomed into the community. But DCPS should not lose sight of Hardy's traditional mission as the good alternative for those who would otherwise attend a low performing middle school. DCPS should keep the number of out of boundary slots for Hardy at least at the present level., not reduce them. There is room for Hardy to grow as in boundary families discover this hidden jewel.

Shouldn't DCPS use the new middle schools they are building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, oh . . . Instant replay of last year's chatter!

Well sure, but from a slightly higher base this time on IB. And apparently a good bit higher on other indicators of "flipping"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine to have more in-bounds students at Hardy, who will be welcomed into the community. But DCPS should not lose sight of Hardy's traditional mission as the good alternative for those who would otherwise attend a low performing middle school. DCPS should keep the number of out of boundary slots for Hardy at least at the present level., not reduce them. There is room for Hardy to grow as in boundary families discover this hidden jewel.

Shouldn't DCPS use the new middle schools they are building?

Indeed. Folks fleeing bad middle schools should head to Brookland and McFarland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine to have more in-bounds students at Hardy, who will be welcomed into the community. But DCPS should not lose sight of Hardy's traditional mission as the good alternative for those who would otherwise attend a low performing middle school. DCPS should keep the number of out of boundary slots for Hardy at least at the present level., not reduce them. There is room for Hardy to grow as in boundary families discover this hidden jewel.

Nah. They should just open up more OOB slots to Janney.

Oh, so THAT's what Hardy's motto is. Quite a mouthful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine to have more in-bounds students at Hardy, who will be welcomed into the community. But DCPS should not lose sight of Hardy's traditional mission as the good alternative for those who would otherwise attend a low performing middle school. DCPS should keep the number of out of boundary slots for Hardy at least at the present level., not reduce them. There is room for Hardy to grow as in boundary families discover this hidden jewel.

Nah. They should just open up more OOB slots to Janney.

Oh, so THAT's what Hardy's motto is. Quite a mouthful.

Hardy should serve the neighborhood, because DCPS is neighborhood-based system. If families want to play the charter lottery they are welcome to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine to have more in-bounds students at Hardy, who will be welcomed into the community. But DCPS should not lose sight of Hardy's traditional mission as the good alternative for those who would otherwise attend a low performing middle school. DCPS should keep the number of out of boundary slots for Hardy at least at the present level., not reduce them. There is room for Hardy to grow as in boundary families discover this hidden jewel.

Nah. They should just open up more OOB slots to Janney.

Oh, so THAT's what Hardy's motto is. Quite a mouthful.

Hardy should serve the neighborhood, because DCPS is neighborhood-based system. If families want to play the charter lottery they are welcome to.

But in a democracy, no one should be excluded from the best public services. Therefore, OOB students should not be prevented from going to the best public schools. Let the wealthy pay for private school if they don't like it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's fine to have more in-bounds students at Hardy, who will be welcomed into the community. But DCPS should not lose sight of Hardy's traditional mission as the good alternative for those who would otherwise attend a low performing middle school. DCPS should keep the number of out of boundary slots for Hardy at least at the present level., not reduce them. There is room for Hardy to grow as in boundary families discover this hidden jewel.

Nah. They should just open up more OOB slots to Janney.

Oh, so THAT's what Hardy's motto is. Quite a mouthful.

Yup, get those bumper stickers printed! Alternatives include: "Hardy, better than the worst the city has to offer" and "Don't ask 'why Hardy' ask 'why not your under-performing in boundary school?"

The point is to not make this a zero-sum game. As Hardy increases its in-boundary numbers, there may actually be more resources available to offer to other schools.