So, what is wrong with Hardy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hardy is good enough and we are coming in a few years.

The issue is that most IB parents would rather have an excellent school that a mediocre "good enough" one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hardy is good enough and we are coming in a few years.

The issue is that most IB parents would rather have an excellent school that a mediocre "good enough" one.

A fair point - but not one that explains why parents on this board at least seem more obsessed with trivialities like uniforms or what a teacher said five years ago.

I would also add that OOB parents feel the same way - they would also rather have an excellent school than a mediocre "good enough" one.

[Anonymous]

On uniforms "screaming inner city". What? The Hardy kids and close neighbors from British School all look pretty studious in their uniforms after school. what does that mean? I see kids in uniforms around the U East side of NY --a la "Gossip Girl".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On uniforms "screaming inner city". What? The Hardy kids and close neighbors from British School all look pretty studious in their uniforms after school. what does that mean? I see kids in uniforms around the U East side of NY --a la "Gossip Girl".

Public school uniforms weren't implemented so the school could imitate St Albans, they were part of a toolkit about 25 years ago to instill order and discipline in tough, ungovernable urban schools. That is the connotation that they have for prospective parents, especially in upper NW, not some connection to the British School. Uniforms are not the be-all-and-end-all in parent decisions, but they are a vestige of old Hardy. Nothing would so symbolically say that Hardy is a transforming school than getting rid of the uniforms. Maybe others retain attachment to the old Hardy, and the uniforms to them represent hanging on to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On uniforms "screaming inner city". What? The Hardy kids and close neighbors from British School all look pretty studious in their uniforms after school. what does that mean? I see kids in uniforms around the U East side of NY --a la "Gossip Girl".

Public school uniforms weren't implemented so the school could imitate St Albans, they were part of a toolkit about 25 years ago to instill order and discipline in tough, ungovernable urban schools. That is the connotation that they have for prospective parents, especially in upper NW, not some connection to the British School. Uniforms are not the be-all-and-end-all in parent decisions, but they are a vestige of old Hardy. Nothing would so symbolically say that Hardy is a transforming school than getting rid of the uniforms. Maybe others retain attachment to the old Hardy, and the uniforms to them represent hanging on to that.

I see. So it's not about the test scores....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On uniforms "screaming inner city". What? The Hardy kids and close neighbors from British School all look pretty studious in their uniforms after school. what does that mean? I see kids in uniforms around the U East side of NY --a la "Gossip Girl".

Public school uniforms weren't implemented so the school could imitate St Albans, they were part of a toolkit about 25 years ago to instill order and discipline in tough, ungovernable urban schools. That is the connotation that they have for prospective parents, especially in upper NW, not some connection to the British School. Uniforms are not the be-all-and-end-all in parent decisions, but they are a vestige of old Hardy. Nothing would so symbolically say that Hardy is a transforming school than getting rid of the uniforms. Maybe others retain attachment to the old Hardy, and the uniforms to them represent hanging on to that.

I see. So it's not about the test scores....

It's about how "good enough" is not good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On uniforms "screaming inner city". What? The Hardy kids and close neighbors from British School all look pretty studious in their uniforms after school. what does that mean? I see kids in uniforms around the U East side of NY --a la "Gossip Girl".

Public school uniforms weren't implemented so the school could imitate St Albans, they were part of a toolkit about 25 years ago to instill order and discipline in tough, ungovernable urban schools. That is the connotation that they have for prospective parents, especially in upper NW, not some connection to the British School. Uniforms are not the be-all-and-end-all in parent decisions, but they are a vestige of old Hardy. Nothing would so symbolically say that Hardy is a transforming school than getting rid of the uniforms. Maybe others retain attachment to the old Hardy, and the uniforms to them represent hanging on to that.

I see. So it's not about the test scores....

It's about how "good enough" is not good enough.

Some people say that...but it still all seems to come back to 1. Uniforms; 2. What a teacher said five years ago; 3. How many IB students at Hardy.

Those are all a proxy for "what will my neighbors think about me if I send my kid to Hardy", not "is it good enough"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On uniforms "screaming inner city". What? The Hardy kids and close neighbors from British School all look pretty studious in their uniforms after school. what does that mean? I see kids in uniforms around the U East side of NY --a la "Gossip Girl".

Public school uniforms weren't implemented so the school could imitate St Albans, they were part of a toolkit about 25 years ago to instill order and discipline in tough, ungovernable urban schools. That is the connotation that they have for prospective parents, especially in upper NW, not some connection to the British School. Uniforms are not the be-all-and-end-all in parent decisions, but they are a vestige of old Hardy. Nothing would so symbolically say that Hardy is a transforming school than getting rid of the uniforms. Maybe others retain attachment to the old Hardy, and the uniforms to them represent hanging on to that.

I see. So it's not about the test scores....

It's about how "good enough" is not good enough.

Some people say that...but it still all seems to come back to 1. Uniforms; 2. What a teacher said five years ago; 3. How many IB students at Hardy.

Those are all a proxy for "what will my neighbors think about me if I send my kid to Hardy", not "is it good enough"

One would have to be smoking a lot of now-legalized pot to ignore the fact that there is a wide gap in school performance between Hardy and Deal, which has nothing to do with uniforms, outdoor field space or some IB-hating teacher-commissar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On uniforms "screaming inner city". What? The Hardy kids and close neighbors from British School all look pretty studious in their uniforms after school. what does that mean? I see kids in uniforms around the U East side of NY --a la "Gossip Girl".

Public school uniforms weren't implemented so the school could imitate St Albans, they were part of a toolkit about 25 years ago to instill order and discipline in tough, ungovernable urban schools. That is the connotation that they have for prospective parents, especially in upper NW, not some connection to the British School. Uniforms are not the be-all-and-end-all in parent decisions, but they are a vestige of old Hardy. Nothing would so symbolically say that Hardy is a transforming school than getting rid of the uniforms. Maybe others retain attachment to the old Hardy, and the uniforms to them represent hanging on to that.

Kind of weird to hear people associate uniforms with the "old" Hardy since my kid attended in the middle 2000s and that was before the uniforms came in. The true "old" Hardy had no uniforms but still had lots of OOB students.

[Anonymous]

Hardy's problem is that there are WAY too many OOB kids who bring poverty, dysfunction, and generally pull down test scores. That's why IB families don't want to go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On uniforms "screaming inner city". What? The Hardy kids and close neighbors from British School all look pretty studious in their uniforms after school. what does that mean? I see kids in uniforms around the U East side of NY --a la "Gossip Girl".

Public school uniforms weren't implemented so the school could imitate St Albans, they were part of a toolkit about 25 years ago to instill order and discipline in tough, ungovernable urban schools. That is the connotation that they have for prospective parents, especially in upper NW, not some connection to the British School. Uniforms are not the be-all-and-end-all in parent decisions, but they are a vestige of old Hardy. Nothing would so symbolically say that Hardy is a transforming school than getting rid of the uniforms. Maybe others retain attachment to the old Hardy, and the uniforms to them represent hanging on to that.

Kind of weird to hear people associate uniforms with the "old" Hardy since my kid attended in the middle 2000s and that was before the uniforms came in. The true "old" Hardy had no uniforms but still had lots of OOB students.

Ha! This shows how long it used to take DCPS to adopt new practices -- Hardy adopting School uniforms 15-20 years after they became the fad in reforming urban schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On uniforms "screaming inner city". What? The Hardy kids and close neighbors from British School all look pretty studious in their uniforms after school. what does that mean? I see kids in uniforms around the U East side of NY --a la "Gossip Girl".

Public school uniforms weren't implemented so the school could imitate St Albans, they were part of a toolkit about 25 years ago to instill order and discipline in tough, ungovernable urban schools. That is the connotation that they have for prospective parents, especially in upper NW, not some connection to the British School. Uniforms are not the be-all-and-end-all in parent decisions, but they are a vestige of old Hardy. Nothing would so symbolically say that Hardy is a transforming school than getting rid of the uniforms. Maybe others retain attachment to the old Hardy, and the uniforms to them represent hanging on to that.

Kind of weird to hear people associate uniforms with the "old" Hardy since my kid attended in the middle 2000s and that was before the uniforms came in. The true "old" Hardy had no uniforms but still had lots of OOB students.

Ha! This shows how long it used to take DCPS to adopt new practices -- Hardy adopting School uniforms 15-20 years after they became the fad in reforming urban schools.

Pp here. Nah, the impression I had was that lots of schools already had school uniforms by then. It seemed to me that Hardy was moving to uniforms later than other DCPS schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On uniforms "screaming inner city". What? The Hardy kids and close neighbors from British School all look pretty studious in their uniforms after school. what does that mean? I see kids in uniforms around the U East side of NY --a la "Gossip Girl".

Public school uniforms weren't implemented so the school could imitate St Albans, they were part of a toolkit about 25 years ago to instill order and discipline in tough, ungovernable urban schools. That is the connotation that they have for prospective parents, especially in upper NW, not some connection to the British School. Uniforms are not the be-all-and-end-all in parent decisions, but they are a vestige of old Hardy. Nothing would so symbolically say that Hardy is a transforming school than getting rid of the uniforms. Maybe others retain attachment to the old Hardy, and the uniforms to them represent hanging on to that.

I see. So it's not about the test scores....

It's about how "good enough" is not good enough.

Some people say that...but it still all seems to come back to 1. Uniforms; 2. What a teacher said five years ago; 3. How many IB students at Hardy.

Those are all a proxy for "what will my neighbors think about me if I send my kid to Hardy", not "is it good enough"

One would have to be smoking a lot of now-legalized pot to ignore the fact that there is a wide gap in school performance between Hardy and Deal, which has nothing to do with uniforms, outdoor field space or some IB-hating teacher-commissar.

This is a valid point. Which begs the question of why so many IB families on this board seem to be obsessed with triviality.

[Anonymous]

I suspect there is one poster looking to derail the discussion by repeatedly bringing up uniforms.

I didn't send my child to Hardy and she is at a plaid-wearing private. So while I agree Hardy's uniforms are a turnoff, they are not a deal breaker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect there is one poster looking to derail the discussion by repeatedly bringing up uniforms.

I didn't send my child to Hardy and she is at a plaid-wearing private. So while I agree Hardy's uniforms are a turnoff, they are not a deal breaker.

Agree that they are not a deal-breaker (except maybe to a sixth grader). But the uniforms definitely aRe a turnoff and convey a negative impression about the school.