70 6th grade spots given to OOB at Hardy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess what, Latin has a uniform: http://latinpcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dress-Code-v2.pdf

You just want to find something wrong. It's an irrational obsession, one that's backed by science by the way: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases (check almost any under "Biases in probability and belief", e.g. try "clustering illusion" as a starter)

Immediate PP, yes I was saying Latin has uniforms and all these anti-Hardy posters try for Latin.

In urban public schools, uniforms say "ghetto." (They also say passé educational fad from the 80s.) Youre not gonna wow them in Palisades and Sprng Valley with school uniforms. But for some reason Hardy clings to them, perhaps because the school community is much more resistant to change wbike they pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess what, Latin has a uniform: http://latinpcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dress-Code-v2.pdf

You just want to find something wrong. It's an irrational obsession, one that's backed by science by the way: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases (check almost any under "Biases in probability and belief", e.g. try "clustering illusion" as a starter)

Immediate PP, yes I was saying Latin has uniforms and all these anti-Hardy posters try for Latin.

In urban public schools, uniforms say "ghetto." (They also say passé educational fad from the 80s.) Youre not gonna wow them in Palisades and Sprng Valley with school uniforms. But for some reason Hardy clings to them, perhaps because the school community is much more resistant to change wbike they pretend otherwise.

... while they pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

I live in Spring Valley (in a million plus home, in case that matters) and I prefer uniforms. Getting the daughter dressed is already a daily nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess what, Latin has a uniform: http://latinpcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dress-Code-v2.pdf

You just want to find something wrong. It's an irrational obsession, one that's backed by science by the way: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases (check almost any under "Biases in probability and belief", e.g. try "clustering illusion" as a starter)

Immediate PP, yes I was saying Latin has uniforms and all these anti-Hardy posters try for Latin.

In urban public schools, uniforms say "ghetto." (They also say passé educational fad from the 80s.) Youre not gonna wow them in Palisades and Sprng Valley with school uniforms. But for some reason Hardy clings to them, perhaps because the school community is much more resistant to change wbike they pretend otherwise.

... while they pretend otherwise.

Hardy parents aren't resistant to change. We've supported many, many changes over the last three years to make the academic environment better and improve student performance.

To my knowledge, we have not been asked about the uniforms, so I don't know if current parents are for or against change there. I can tell you one thing for darn certain: we are offended by you insisting that you think our kids are "ghetto" because they wear uniforms. We know what you are saying PP, and it is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess what, Latin has a uniform: http://latinpcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dress-Code-v2.pdf

You just want to find something wrong. It's an irrational obsession, one that's backed by science by the way: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases (check almost any under "Biases in probability and belief", e.g. try "clustering illusion" as a starter)

Immediate PP, yes I was saying Latin has uniforms and all these anti-Hardy posters try for Latin.

In urban public schools, uniforms say "ghetto." (They also say passé educational fad from the 80s.) Youre not gonna wow them in Palisades and Sprng Valley with school uniforms. But for some reason Hardy clings to them, perhaps because the school community is much more resistant to change wbike they pretend otherwise.

... while they pretend otherwise.

Hardy parents aren't resistant to change. We've supported many, many changes over the last three years to make the academic environment better and improve student performance.

To my knowledge, we have not been asked about the uniforms, so I don't know if current parents are for or against change there. I can tell you one thing for darn certain: we are offended by you insisting that you think our kids are "ghetto" because they wear uniforms. We know what you are saying PP, and it is disgusting.

"Inner city" if you prefer. Public school uniforms were all the rage 20-30 years ago to try to bring order to ,and instill discipline in, tough-to-control urban schools. Why in the world would present day Hardy continue to embrace that association ?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Spring Valley (in a million plus home, in case that matters) and I prefer uniforms. Getting the daughter dressed is already a daily nightmare.

Thanks for sharing the price of your home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess what, Latin has a uniform: http://latinpcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dress-Code-v2.pdf

You just want to find something wrong. It's an irrational obsession, one that's backed by science by the way: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases (check almost any under "Biases in probability and belief", e.g. try "clustering illusion" as a starter)

Immediate PP, yes I was saying Latin has uniforms and all these anti-Hardy posters try for Latin.

In urban public schools, uniforms say "ghetto." (They also say passé educational fad from the 80s.) Youre not gonna wow them in Palisades and Sprng Valley with school uniforms. But for some reason Hardy clings to them, perhaps because the school community is much more resistant to change wbike they pretend otherwise.

... while they pretend otherwise.

Hardy parents aren't resistant to change. We've supported many, many changes over the last three years to make the academic environment better and improve student performance.

To my knowledge, we have not been asked about the uniforms, so I don't know if current parents are for or against change there. I can tell you one thing for darn certain: we are offended by you insisting that you think our kids are "ghetto" because they wear uniforms. We know what you are saying PP, and it is disgusting.

"Inner city" if you prefer. Public school uniforms were all the rage 20-30 years ago to try to bring order to ,and instill discipline in, tough-to-control urban schools. Why in the world would present day Hardy continue to embrace that association ?!

I have no real stake in this discussion (kid is years away from middle school, and at a Deal feeder), but I just have to interject, since I've seen this explanation multiple times. Where's the evidence to back up this assertion? How exactly would simply wearing uniforms bring "order" to "tough-to-control" urban schools?

I also attended mid/lower SES predominantly AA schools growing up (since that's what you mean by your code words). IMO (I have no data to back this up), the push for uniforms is an attempt to do away with the distraction of clothing, particularly designer brands, and especially for those families who couldn't afford the latest trends, designers, etc. So while you seem to be implying that schools with populations such as Hardy's 20-30 years ago were out of control, I think a more likely explanation is that uniforms were an attempt to increase the focus on academics. Although I personally don't love uniforms (for reasons of individuality, freedom of expression, etc.), you can appreciate the argument for them (i.e., removing distractions, making differences between the haves and have nots less discernible) during the middle school years irrespective of the demographics of the student body.

So please, be careful that you're not simply reinforcing negative stereotypes about aggressive or out of control poor black kids. This is precisely the sort of thing that will continue to keep away in-boundary Hardy families, and furthermore, you've provided no evidence to suggest that it's even true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess what, Latin has a uniform: http://latinpcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dress-Code-v2.pdf

You just want to find something wrong. It's an irrational obsession, one that's backed by science by the way: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases (check almost any under "Biases in probability and belief", e.g. try "clustering illusion" as a starter)

Immediate PP, yes I was saying Latin has uniforms and all these anti-Hardy posters try for Latin.

In urban public schools, uniforms say "ghetto." (They also say passé educational fad from the 80s.) Youre not gonna wow them in Palisades and Sprng Valley with school uniforms. But for some reason Hardy clings to them, perhaps because the school community is much more resistant to change wbike they pretend otherwise.

... while they pretend otherwise.

Hardy parents aren't resistant to change. We've supported many, many changes over the last three years to make the academic environment better and improve student performance.

To my knowledge, we have not been asked about the uniforms, so I don't know if current parents are for or against change there. I can tell you one thing for darn certain: we are offended by you insisting that you think our kids are "ghetto" because they wear uniforms. We know what you are saying PP, and it is disgusting.

"Inner city" if you prefer. Public school uniforms were all the rage 20-30 years ago to try to bring order to ,and instill discipline in, tough-to-control urban schools. Why in the world would present day Hardy continue to embrace that association ?!

I have no real stake in this discussion (kid is years away from middle school, and at a Deal feeder), but I just have to interject, since I've seen this explanation multiple times. Where's the evidence to back up this assertion? How exactly would simply wearing uniforms bring "order" to "tough-to-control" urban schools?

I also attended mid/lower SES predominantly AA schools growing up (since that's what you mean by your code words). IMO (I have no data to back this up), the push for uniforms is an attempt to do away with the distraction of clothing, particularly designer brands, and especially for those families who couldn't afford the latest trends, designers, etc. So while you seem to be implying that schools with populations such as Hardy's 20-30 years ago were out of control, I think a more likely explanation is that uniforms were an attempt to increase the focus on academics. Although I personally don't love uniforms (for reasons of individuality, freedom of expression, etc.), you can appreciate the argument for them (i.e., removing distractions, making differences between the haves and have nots less discernible) during the middle school years irrespective of the demographics of the student body.

So please, be careful that you're not simply reinforcing negative stereotypes about aggressive or out of control poor black kids. This is precisely the sort of thing that will continue to keep away in-boundary Hardy families, and furthermore, you've provided no evidence to suggest that it's even true.

See this education journal article:

http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/viewFile/253/96

The author notes (citing other commentators) that mandatory school uniform policies were instituted in many urban schools in the late 1980s to "reduce gang violence and enhance school security." The article abstract also summarizes the results of a study of over 400 schools with mandatory unifirm policies and concludes that schools with such policies area "negatively associated with a number of students' problem behaviors...."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Spring Valley (in a million plus home, in case that matters) and I prefer uniforms. Getting the daughter dressed is already a daily nightmare.

Thanks for sharing the price of your home.

I was trying to head off the response that I live in AU-dormish housing. Not that there is anything wrong with it.

There seems to be a contingent of anti Hardy people who pull out all the stops to undercut any expressed support on the part of the community. Either the feeder school kids are all out of boundary, or the IB kids all come from homes that cannot afford to avoid Hardy. It is all nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Spring Valley (in a million plus home, in case that matters) and I prefer uniforms. Getting the daughter dressed is already a daily nightmare.

Thanks for sharing the price of your home.

I was trying to head off the response that I live in AU-dormish housing. Not that there is anything wrong with it.

There seems to be a contingent of anti Hardy people who pull out all the stops to undercut any expressed support on the part of the community. Either the feeder school kids are all out of boundary, or the IB kids all come from homes that cannot afford to avoid Hardy. It is all nonsense.

Are you a Hardy parent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess what, Latin has a uniform: http://latinpcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dress-Code-v2.pdf

You just want to find something wrong. It's an irrational obsession, one that's backed by science by the way: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases (check almost any under "Biases in probability and belief", e.g. try "clustering illusion" as a starter)

Immediate PP, yes I was saying Latin has uniforms and all these anti-Hardy posters try for Latin.

In urban public schools, uniforms say "ghetto." (They also say passé educational fad from the 80s.) Youre not gonna wow them in Palisades and Sprng Valley with school uniforms. But for some reason Hardy clings to them, perhaps because the school community is much more resistant to change wbike they pretend otherwise.

... while they pretend otherwise.

Hardy parents aren't resistant to change. We've supported many, many changes over the last three years to make the academic environment better and improve student performance.

To my knowledge, we have not been asked about the uniforms, so I don't know if current parents are for or against change there. I can tell you one thing for darn certain: we are offended by you insisting that you think our kids are "ghetto" because they wear uniforms. We know what you are saying PP, and it is disgusting.

"Inner city" if you prefer. Public school uniforms were all the rage 20-30 years ago to try to bring order to ,and instill discipline in, tough-to-control urban schools. Why in the world would present day Hardy continue to embrace that association ?!

I have no real stake in this discussion (kid is years away from middle school, and at a Deal feeder), but I just have to interject, since I've seen this explanation multiple times. Where's the evidence to back up this assertion? How exactly would simply wearing uniforms bring "order" to "tough-to-control" urban schools?

I also attended mid/lower SES predominantly AA schools growing up (since that's what you mean by your code words). IMO (I have no data to back this up), the push for uniforms is an attempt to do away with the distraction of clothing, particularly designer brands, and especially for those families who couldn't afford the latest trends, designers, etc. So while you seem to be implying that schools with populations such as Hardy's 20-30 years ago were out of control, I think a more likely explanation is that uniforms were an attempt to increase the focus on academics. Although I personally don't love uniforms (for reasons of individuality, freedom of expression, etc.), you can appreciate the argument for them (i.e., removing distractions, making differences between the haves and have nots less discernible) during the middle school years irrespective of the demographics of the student body.

So please, be careful that you're not simply reinforcing negative stereotypes about aggressive or out of control poor black kids. This is precisely the sort of thing that will continue to keep away in-boundary Hardy families, and furthermore, you've provided no evidence to suggest that it's even true.

See this education journal article:

http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/viewFile/253/96

The author notes (citing other commentators) that mandatory school uniform policies were instituted in many urban schools in the late 1980s to "reduce gang violence and enhance school security." The article abstract also summarizes the results of a study of over 400 schools with mandatory unifirm policies and concludes that schools with such policies area "negatively associated with a number of students' problem behaviors...."

This article quite nails the issue. In light of the conclusions above, one wonders why Hardy stubbornly clings to a mandatory uniform policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And guess what, Latin has a uniform: http://latinpcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dress-Code-v2.pdf

You just want to find something wrong. It's an irrational obsession, one that's backed by science by the way: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases (check almost any under "Biases in probability and belief", e.g. try "clustering illusion" as a starter)

Immediate PP, yes I was saying Latin has uniforms and all these anti-Hardy posters try for Latin.

In urban public schools, uniforms say "ghetto." (They also say passé educational fad from the 80s.) Youre not gonna wow them in Palisades and Sprng Valley with school uniforms. But for some reason Hardy clings to them, perhaps because the school community is much more resistant to change wbike they pretend otherwise.

... while they pretend otherwise.

Hardy parents aren't resistant to change. We've supported many, many changes over the last three years to make the academic environment better and improve student performance.

To my knowledge, we have not been asked about the uniforms, so I don't know if current parents are for or against change there. I can tell you one thing for darn certain: we are offended by you insisting that you think our kids are "ghetto" because they wear uniforms. We know what you are saying PP, and it is disgusting.

"Inner city" if you prefer. Public school uniforms were all the rage 20-30 years ago to try to bring order to ,and instill discipline in, tough-to-control urban schools. Why in the world would present day Hardy continue to embrace that association ?!

I have no real stake in this discussion (kid is years away from middle school, and at a Deal feeder), but I just have to interject, since I've seen this explanation multiple times. Where's the evidence to back up this assertion? How exactly would simply wearing uniforms bring "order" to "tough-to-control" urban schools?

I also attended mid/lower SES predominantly AA schools growing up (since that's what you mean by your code words). IMO (I have no data to back this up), the push for uniforms is an attempt to do away with the distraction of clothing, particularly designer brands, and especially for those families who couldn't afford the latest trends, designers, etc. So while you seem to be implying that schools with populations such as Hardy's 20-30 years ago were out of control, I think a more likely explanation is that uniforms were an attempt to increase the focus on academics. Although I personally don't love uniforms (for reasons of individuality, freedom of expression, etc.), you can appreciate the argument for them (i.e., removing distractions, making differences between the haves and have nots less discernible) during the middle school years irrespective of the demographics of the student body.

So please, be careful that you're not simply reinforcing negative stereotypes about aggressive or out of control poor black kids. This is precisely the sort of thing that will continue to keep away in-boundary Hardy families, and furthermore, you've provided no evidence to suggest that it's even true.

See this education journal article:

http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/viewFile/253/96

The author notes (citing other commentators) that mandatory school uniform policies were instituted in many urban schools in the late 1980s to "reduce gang violence and enhance school security." The article abstract also summarizes the results of a study of over 400 schools with mandatory unifirm policies and concludes that schools with such policies area "negatively associated with a number of students' problem behaviors...."

Fair enough, you found one article in which an association was found between uniforms and decreased problem behaviors. However, this doesn't tell us what the initial rationale for uniforms was at Hardy. It could have been gang violence (seems unlikely in middle school kids?), it could've been reducing a focus on fashion trends/designer clothing, or it may've been some other reason(s). While decreasing gang violence is invoked as one possible rationale for uniforms, the article also mentions increased self esteem, school pride, sense of belonging, and improved overall learning environment as possible goals of uniform policies. (It is a bit strange that the authors of this study cite only one reference for the statement that uniforms were instituted to reduce gang violence. That particular reference is not even an empirical paper, but a NYT article about uniforms on the West Coast.)

So we're left with not knowing definitively why uniforms were first implemented at Hardy, nor why they were maintained over the years. I'm fine with people citing possible reasons, but it seems misleading to make statements like yours as if it's a fact when no one seems to know for sure.

[Anonymous]

In some ways, Hardy's original rationale for mandatory uniforms (to the extent that it differed at all from the principal conventional reason) is irrelevant. What matters is that, as the article concludes, a public school unifirm policy carries negative associations with student behavior problems. You would think, since no one can point to a compelling reason why Hardy adopted uniforms in the first place, that the school would see that the negative connotations are hampering its stated goal of having a more diverse, higher performing school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In some ways, Hardy's original rationale for mandatory uniforms (to the extent that it differed at all from the principal conventional reason) is irrelevant. What matters is that, as the article concludes, a public school unifirm policy carries negative associations with student behavior problems. You would think, since no one can point to a compelling reason why Hardy adopted uniforms in the first place, that the school would see that the negative connotations are hampering its stated goal of having a more diverse, higher performing school.

If you are so stupid and intellectually lazy that you assume the worst of Hardy because its kids wear uniforms - without taking the time to ask why that is the case - I hope you don't send your kid to Hardy. I'd rather my kid attend school with children from families that look beyond the superficial and take the time to understand the context of what people say and do.

Signed -

An IB Parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some ways, Hardy's original rationale for mandatory uniforms (to the extent that it differed at all from the principal conventional reason) is irrelevant. What matters is that, as the article concludes, a public school unifirm policy carries negative associations with student behavior problems. You would think, since no one can point to a compelling reason why Hardy adopted uniforms in the first place, that the school would see that the negative connotations are hampering its stated goal of having a more diverse, higher performing school.

If you are so stupid and intellectually lazy that you assume the worst of Hardy because its kids wear uniforms - without taking the time to ask why that is the case - I hope you don't send your kid to Hardy. I'd rather my kid attend school with children from families that look beyond the superficial and take the time to understand the context of what people say and do.

Signed -

An IB Parent

The IB parents I know (who uniformly -- no pun intended -- will not send their kids to Hardy) see the uniforms as symbolic of a tired urban school culture that is slow to change and suspicious of new approaches. It's like they view any effort to reform Hardy to provide what the surrounding community wants in a middke school as the educational equivalent of gentrification.