70 6th grade spots given to OOB at Hardy

[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.

Actually, no. No. You're misinterpreting the results--or did you even completely read the article you posted? Are you referring to this passage:

."..the current study shows a negative relationship between a mandatory uniform policy and the number of students’ problem behaviors in urban school settings."

This refers to an *inverse* relationship between uniforms and problem behaviors. In other words, the presence of uniforms was associated with *fewer* problem behaviors in elementary and middle school students.

If you're still in doubt, here's another direct quote:

"Elementary and middle schools with uniform policies tend to have fewer student problem behaviors than schools without uniform policies, whereas high schools adopting uniform policies are more likely to have frequent students’ problem behaviors (p < .01)."

So no, the study's findings say nothing about negative connotations of uniforms, as you suggest.

I agree with another poster that harping on the uniforms issue is pretty silly, but I get annoyed when I see lazy (or was it deliberately misleading to bolster your anti-uniform position?) posts like the above.

[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.

Actually, no. No. You're misinterpreting the results--or did you even completely read the article you posted? Are you referring to this passage:

."..the current study shows a negative relationship between a mandatory uniform policy and the number of students’ problem behaviors in urban school settings."

This refers to an *inverse* relationship between uniforms and problem behaviors. In other words, the presence of uniforms was associated with *fewer* problem behaviors in elementary and middle school students.

If you're still in doubt, here's another direct quote:

"Elementary and middle schools with uniform policies tend to have fewer student problem behaviors than schools without uniform policies, whereas high schools adopting uniform policies are more likely to have frequent students’ problem behaviors (p < .01)."

So no, the study's findings say nothing about negative connotations of uniforms, as you suggest.

I agree with another poster that harping on the uniforms issue is pretty silly, but I get annoyed when I see lazy (or was it deliberately misleading to bolster your anti-uniform position?) posts like the above.

Not PP, but you are missing PP's point. Article was cited to show that there is or was a school of thought that uniforms reduce behavioral problems. Hence, when you see uniforms at a public school, that means there is or was a behavior problem that the admins were trying to address. That was the point FWIW.

BTW, demographic info posted; Hardy is at 15 percent IB for this school year, across all grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, no. No. You're misinterpreting the results--or did you even completely read the article you posted? Are you referring to this passage:

."..the current study shows a negative relationship between a mandatory uniform policy and the number of students’ problem behaviors in urban school settings."

This refers to an *inverse* relationship between uniforms and problem behaviors. In other words, the presence of uniforms was associated with *fewer* problem behaviors in elementary and middle school students.

If you're still in doubt, here's another direct quote:

"Elementary and middle schools with uniform policies tend to have fewer student problem behaviors than schools without uniform policies, whereas high schools adopting uniform policies are more likely to have frequent students’ problem behaviors (p < .01)."

So no, the study's findings say nothing about negative connotations of uniforms, as you suggest.

I agree with another poster that harping on the uniforms issue is pretty silly, but I get annoyed when I see lazy (or was it deliberately misleading to bolster your anti-uniform position?) posts like the above.

Not PP, but you are missing PP's point. Article was cited to show that there is or was a school of thought that uniforms reduce behavioral problems. Hence, when you see uniforms at a public school, that means there is or was a behavior problem that the admins were trying to address. That was the point FWIW.

BTW, demographic info posted; Hardy is at 15 percent IB for this school year, across all grades.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if any Eaton families are going to Hardy?

Not by choice.....

Why does Eaton then remain so popular in the lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if any Eaton families are going to Hardy?

Not by choice.....

Why does Eaton then remain so popular in the lottery?

1. It's a lot better than the OOB students' 'home" elementary schools.
2. Bowser gerrymandered a feeder pattern to Deal which means that some of the EOTP neighborhoods that happen to send a lot of kids to Eaton retain indiependent feeder rights to Deal. So essentially they get the best of both worlds -- a path to a better elementary school through thr lottery and a guaranteed spot in DC's best public middle school. The Eaton populaton that seems most severely impacted by the switch to Hardy is Eaton's IB area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, no. No. You're misinterpreting the results--or did you even completely read the article you posted? Are you referring to this passage:

."..the current study shows a negative relationship between a mandatory uniform policy and the number of students’ problem behaviors in urban school settings."

This refers to an *inverse* relationship between uniforms and problem behaviors. In other words, the presence of uniforms was associated with *fewer* problem behaviors in elementary and middle school students.

If you're still in doubt, here's another direct quote:

"Elementary and middle schools with uniform policies tend to have fewer student problem behaviors than schools without uniform policies, whereas high schools adopting uniform policies are more likely to have frequent students’ problem behaviors (p < .01)."

So no, the study's findings say nothing about negative connotations of uniforms, as you suggest.

I agree with another poster that harping on the uniforms issue is pretty silly, but I get annoyed when I see lazy (or was it deliberately misleading to bolster your anti-uniform position?) posts like the above.

Not PP, but you are missing PP's point. Article was cited to show that there is or was a school of thought that uniforms reduce behavioral problems. Hence, when you see uniforms at a public school, that means there is or was a behavior problem that the admins were trying to address. That was the point FWIW.

BTW, demographic info posted; Hardy is at 15 percent IB for this school year, across all grades.

Are all feeder school students considered "IB" for these purposes or does it reflect only those students who reside within defined boundaries ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, no. No. You're misinterpreting the results--or did you even completely read the article you posted? Are you referring to this passage:

."..the current study shows a negative relationship between a mandatory uniform policy and the number of students’ problem behaviors in urban school settings."

This refers to an *inverse* relationship between uniforms and problem behaviors. In other words, the presence of uniforms was associated with *fewer* problem behaviors in elementary and middle school students.

If you're still in doubt, here's another direct quote:

"Elementary and middle schools with uniform policies tend to have fewer student problem behaviors than schools without uniform policies, whereas high schools adopting uniform policies are more likely to have frequent students’ problem behaviors (p < .01)."

So no, the study's findings say nothing about negative connotations of uniforms, as you suggest.

I agree with another poster that harping on the uniforms issue is pretty silly, but I get annoyed when I see lazy (or was it deliberately misleading to bolster your anti-uniform position?) posts like the above.

Not PP, but you are missing PP's point. Article was cited to show that there is or was a school of thought that uniforms reduce behavioral problems. Hence, when you see uniforms at a public school, that means there is or was a behavior problem that the admins were trying to address. That was the point FWIW.

BTW, demographic info posted; Hardy is at 15 percent IB for this school year, across all grades.

+1

15% is incremental progress over 13% but unfortunately well short of Mrs. Pride's projections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, no. No. You're misinterpreting the results--or did you even completely read the article you posted? Are you referring to this passage:

."..the current study shows a negative relationship between a mandatory uniform policy and the number of students’ problem behaviors in urban school settings."

This refers to an *inverse* relationship between uniforms and problem behaviors. In other words, the presence of uniforms was associated with *fewer* problem behaviors in elementary and middle school students.

If you're still in doubt, here's another direct quote:

"Elementary and middle schools with uniform policies tend to have fewer student problem behaviors than schools without uniform policies, whereas high schools adopting uniform policies are more likely to have frequent students’ problem behaviors (p < .01)."

So no, the study's findings say nothing about negative connotations of uniforms, as you suggest.

I agree with another poster that harping on the uniforms issue is pretty silly, but I get annoyed when I see lazy (or was it deliberately misleading to bolster your anti-uniform position?) posts like the above.

Not PP, but you are missing PP's point. Article was cited to show that there is or was a school of thought that uniforms reduce behavioral problems. Hence, when you see uniforms at a public school, that means there is or was a behavior problem that the admins were trying to address. That was the point FWIW.

BTW, demographic info posted; Hardy is at 15 percent IB for this school year, across all grades.

Are all feeder school students considered "IB" for these purposes or does it reflect only those students who reside within defined boundaries ?

just like at every other school, IB for Hardy means kids who live within the boundaries. It has nothing to to with feeder. If that was the case then Deal would be 100%.