Hardy vs. Deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School uniforms

https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/DCPS%20School%20Uniform%20Donation%20Guideline.pdf

Im guessing that “contact the school” means no uniform? I’m obviously way behind on all things DC and not perfectly up on my geography either, but glancing at this list...it looks like most of the schools in the tony parts of town don’t have uniforms, not do the application schools, but that the other schools do. Is that essentially the controversy?

Yes.

Of course, some tony private schools like Saint Albans have uniforms, so there's seemingly a paradox. But the public school uniform has a different meaning, given that in the Eighties/Nineties urban schools that were considered ungovernable adopted uniforms to instill a sense of discipline (and so that the kids wouldn't be robbing each other (or worse) over some trendy article of clothing). Either way, the uniform has a troubled connotation, which is why Hardy should join Deal in not having a uniform requirement.

A dress code of a sport jacket and tie is not the same as a logo polo unnifoem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those with kids at Hardy, what are you hearing about making more room there for growth by evicting Fillmore? (again).

Even as DCPS wants to grow IB enrollment, they are loathe to decrease OOB enrollment by much because of long-settled expectations by those who have looked to Hardy as an option. In short, it would be bad politics on the part of the chancellor and the mayor. The result is that Hardy will grow, and Fillmore is prime expansion space. Wilson, already overcrowded, will become more so.

Based on being part of discussions about the school and growth prospects - you are WAY overestimating the strategic planning, coordination, and thought on the part of DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School uniforms

https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/DCPS%20School%20Uniform%20Donation%20Guideline.pdf

Im guessing that “contact the school” means no uniform? I’m obviously way behind on all things DC and not perfectly up on my geography either, but glancing at this list...it looks like most of the schools in the tony parts of town don’t have uniforms, not do the application schools, but that the other schools do. Is that essentially the controversy?

Yes.

Of course, some tony private schools like Saint Albans have uniforms, so there's seemingly a paradox. But the public school uniform has a different meaning, given that in the Eighties/Nineties urban schools that were considered ungovernable adopted uniforms to instill a sense of discipline (and so that the kids wouldn't be robbing each other (or worse) over some trendy article of clothing). Either way, the uniform has a troubled connotation, which is why Hardy should join Deal in not having a uniform requirement.

A dress code of a sport jacket and tie is not the same as a logo polo unnifoem.

True on one level, but the defenders of Hardy uniforms like to equate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School uniforms

https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/DCPS%20School%20Uniform%20Donation%20Guideline.pdf

Im guessing that “contact the school” means no uniform? I’m obviously way behind on all things DC and not perfectly up on my geography either, but glancing at this list...it looks like most of the schools in the tony parts of town don’t have uniforms, not do the application schools, but that the other schools do. Is that essentially the controversy?

Yes.

Of course, some tony private schools like Saint Albans have uniforms, so there's seemingly a paradox. But the public school uniform has a different meaning, given that in the Eighties/Nineties urban schools that were considered ungovernable adopted uniforms to instill a sense of discipline (and so that the kids wouldn't be robbing each other (or worse) over some trendy article of clothing). Either way, the uniform has a troubled connotation, which is why Hardy should join Deal in not having a uniform requirement.

A dress code of a sport jacket and tie is not the same as a logo polo unnifoem.

True on one level, but the defenders of Hardy uniforms like to equate them.

Please move on from the uniform diversion issue. It seems like it's only people who are not familiar with the school - and/or are familiar with the current decade -- who are commenting about them. It's just another 'veiled' racist attack on wanting to keep the perception that it is an 'urban' school, where people who are not ok with having a large percentage of minority children will not attend...

[Anonymous]

I am so sick of the derailing uniform bullshit. Please move on Hardy hater and devote your energies elsewhere. Our educated, double income, white, home owning family is very happy with Hardy, including the uniform which, by the way, does not include logo'd clothing, unless you want it. Khakis and a navy top is about as low key as you can go and my son looks handsome every single day. But thanks for the 100th history lesson about what uniforms REALLY mean in an urban setting, PP. You suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so sick of the derailing uniform bullshit. Please move on Hardy hater and devote your energies elsewhere. Our educated, double income, white, home owning family is very happy with Hardy, including the uniform which, by the way, does not include logo'd clothing, unless you want it. Khakis and a navy top is about as low key as you can go and my son looks handsome every single day. But thanks for the 100th history lesson about what uniforms REALLY mean in an urban setting, PP. You suck.

+1. I've been following this thread a bit and live IB for Deal (parent of a much younger kid). These PPs who perseverate on the uniforms issue are tiresome. Who cares about any supposed association with an "urban" setting decades ago, when many of us were in elementary school ourselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so sick of the derailing uniform bullshit. Please move on Hardy hater and devote your energies elsewhere. Our educated, double income, white, home owning family is very happy with Hardy, including the uniform which, by the way, does not include logo'd clothing, unless you want it. Khakis and a navy top is about as low key as you can go and my son looks handsome every single day. But thanks for the 100th history lesson about what uniforms REALLY mean in an urban setting, PP. You suck.

+1
And to add, it is super easy to get dressed every day and the kids look really nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so sick of the derailing uniform bullshit. Please move on Hardy hater and devote your energies elsewhere. Our educated, double income, white, home owning family is very happy with Hardy, including the uniform which, by the way, does not include logo'd clothing, unless you want it. Khakis and a navy top is about as low key as you can go and my son looks handsome every single day. But thanks for the 100th history lesson about what uniforms REALLY mean in an urban setting, PP. You suck.

+1
And to add, it is super easy to get dressed every day and the kids look really nice.

As a Deal parent, I would love the simplicity of a uniform.

[Anonymous]

Maybe there should be uniforms at Deal and Wilson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe there should be uniforms at Deal and Wilson?

It is inequitable for Hardy to have uniforms while Deal and Wilson don't have the same benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe there should be uniforms at Deal and Wilson?

Ew, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so sick of the derailing uniform bullshit. Please move on Hardy hater and devote your energies elsewhere. Our educated, double income, white, home owning family is very happy with Hardy, including the uniform which, by the way, does not include logo'd clothing, unless you want it. Khakis and a navy top is about as low key as you can go and my son looks handsome every single day. But thanks for the 100th history lesson about what uniforms REALLY mean in an urban setting, PP. You suck.

+1
And to add, it is super easy to get dressed every day and the kids look really nice.

As a Deal parent, I would love the simplicity of a uniform.

Me too. I'm already shopping around at Land's End since we are heading to Hardy. Me foreigner and me really doesn't connect a uniform to whatever the historian is trying to convey. Quite the opposite. Back at home, only the privates and richer schools could afford uniforms. Those kids were always nicely dressed - shirts and skirts pressed, and caps!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe there should be uniforms at Deal and Wilson?

Ew, no.

My kids would never like a school uniform. One of the reasons why we're glad not to have been down-zoned out of the Deal district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe there should be uniforms at Deal and Wilson?

Ew, no.

My kids would never like a school uniform. One of the reasons why we're glad not to have been down-zoned out of the Deal district.

I like a dress code, especially one that bans athletic wear during regular class periods, but I don’t think uniforms are anything to aspire to. I remember the struggle to find polos that weren’t too boxy/long/short during my couple of years in parochial school. The total ban on any logo made it much, much harder. Anyhow, I have no fond memories of unis and wouldn’t want them for my kids.

[Anonymous]

As someone who lives next to Hardy and walks by it every day when the kids are arriving, I can say that the school appears to be extremely diverse by this region's standards. Lots of white, black and Asian kids. A smattering of Hispanics. The Asian cohort is actually outsized relative to their population in DC, IMHO.

It reminds me of my own extremely diverse public high school experience in Southern California (a good thing, imho).