Anonymous wrote:People should go into the school selection process with information, not hearsay (and by this I mean, PLEASE do not rely on DCUM gossip, including my own opinion). Go see for yourself, ask questions, and keep an open mind. There are upcoming open houses at the school.

Hardy is an urban school in an ethnically diverse city - this is both a blessing and a challenge. If you don't feel comfortable with people from different backgrounds and perspectives, it may not be the school for you. It has an obligation to be a school for everybody, not just your child. If you want special attention given to your child, it might not be for you. It is undergoing a lot of transformation, and if you are uncomfortable leading change, rather than benefiting from it, go elsewhere. It has strong and emerging academics, but it is certainly not a magnate school, and if you have a child who is exceptionally gifted, they will likely do better in a more consistently challenging environment.

As the previous poster noted, language about school enrollment is focused on feeder school enrollment, not in boundary. And this is good, because what we want for a public school is an emphasis on academics, and adequate preparation for rigor during the transition from elementary to middle school, right? Because given the demographics, if you care more about in boundary rather than feeder school patterns, the focus shifts to class and race, rather than education. If you want a school with rich, white kids, this is not the school for you.

I choose to live in DC because the diversity is so dynamic and interesting, and with this come some obvious challenges. Why would I want to deprive my children of being able to benefit from all the richness (culturally) that surrounds them? They need to learn to handle themselves around others that are richer, poorer, Blacker, whiter, more or less American, smarter, and less smart than they are. I think they will benefit from developing their own academic interests and challenges, rather than having it fed to them from the school, so having the time and independence to explore an interest on their own will develop a passion more readily than having 4 hours of homework a night.

I posit this: is it really the best for your child to go to the "best school"? What is the outcome we seek for our children?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't we get back to the real issues facing Hardy, like the cell phone towers? Come one people, stay on-topic with the troll post de jure.

You uniform people crack me up.

--another IB parent that couldn't care less.

But wouldn't a dress code make more sense in the interest of encouraging freedom of expression? Uniforms are so militaristic. With a dress code, parents could still force their kids to wear a uniform, or they would have the leeway to tweak it a bit if they wanted.

Hardy does not have uniforms. Hardy has a dress code. The school dress code gives a range of options for tops (colors and styles: polos, T-shirts and shirts. No tanks) . Bottoms have to be khaki but freedom of shape, long, bermuda, skirt, anything as long as no higher than 1 inch from knee and no lower than the panty line. And no hoods inside the school.

To me it sounds so reasonable and right!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't we get back to the real issues facing Hardy, like the cell phone towers? Come one people, stay on-topic with the troll post de jure.

You uniform people crack me up.

--another IB parent that couldn't care less.

But wouldn't a dress code make more sense in the interest of encouraging freedom of expression? Uniforms are so militaristic. With a dress code, parents could still force their kids to wear a uniform, or they would have the leeway to tweak it a bit if they wanted.

Anonymous wrote:Can't we get back to the real issues facing Hardy, like the cell phone towers? Come one people, stay on-topic with the troll post de jure.

You uniform people crack me up.

--another IB parent that couldn't care less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should go into the school selection process with information, not hearsay (and by this I mean, PLEASE do not rely on DCUM gossip, including my own opinion). Go see for yourself, ask questions, and keep an open mind. There are upcoming open houses at the school.

Hardy is an urban school in an ethnically diverse city - this is both a blessing and a challenge. If you don't feel comfortable with people from different backgrounds and perspectives, it may not be the school for you. It has an obligation to be a school for everybody, not just your child. If you want special attention given to your child, it might not be for you. It is undergoing a lot of transformation, and if you are uncomfortable leading change, rather than benefiting from it, go elsewhere. It has strong and emerging academics, but it is certainly not a magnate school, and if you have a child who is exceptionally gifted, they will likely do better in a more consistently challenging environment.

As the previous poster noted, language about school enrollment is focused on feeder school enrollment, not in boundary. And this is good, because what we want for a public school is an emphasis on academics, and adequate preparation for rigor during the transition from elementary to middle school, right? Because given the demographics, if you care more about in boundary rather than feeder school patterns, the focus shifts to class and race, rather than education. If you want a school with rich, white kids, this is not the school for you.

I choose to live in DC because the diversity is so dynamic and interesting, and with this come some obvious challenges. Why would I want to deprive my children of being able to benefit from all the richness (culturally) that surrounds them? They need to learn to handle themselves around others that are richer, poorer, Blacker, whiter, more or less American, smarter, and less smart than they are. I think they will benefit from developing their own academic interests and challenges, rather than having it fed to them from the school, so having the time and independence to explore an interest on their own will develop a passion more readily than having 4 hours of homework a night.

I posit this: is it really the best for your child to go to the "best school"? What is the outcome we seek for our children?

This is a reasonable post. I have long been on record (anonymously, of course) here as saying the big changes coming to Hardy arrive beginning next year. Nonetheless, don't take it from me.

Mann's DCPS school night was last night. I was there. This year, there are 44 5th graders. Last year, there were 19. Within the next three years, there will be a third 5th grade class. Times are changing. They are changing rapidly. (I acknowledge, this may not be rapid enough for some parents.)

I've long-thought Stoddert would lead the transition at Hardy. I still think they'll play the key role, but I think Mann will be right at their heels for demanding and being the change feeder parents want to see.

Within the next five years, I don't think you'll be able to make your bold-faced statement above. (Yes, yes, I'm having a little fun at your expense. I know you meant magnet not magnate.)

Anonymous wrote:After reading yesterday's Washington Post article on School uniforms in many DCPS schools, I came away not reassured about Hardy's uniform requirement. Rather, it has convinced me that if Hardy is to change (and if the perception of Hardy is to change, especially to attract more IB families), the uniforms should be dropped. Why? Despite some benefits (strengthening school identity and not having to make choices about clothing in the morning), the negatives are higher, at least for Hardy.

--public school uniforms have become synonymous with "urban" public schools. Parents in higher SES population schools reject them. The article noted that no DC public schools in Upper NW, Ward 3, have uniforms. In fact, there is only one public school west of Rock Creek Park that does, and that's Hardy.

--the article reported that, according to a study by a Va Tech professor, the prevalence of uniforms in high-poverty schools means that African American and Latino children are more likely to be viewed as a group, while white children are more likely to be viewed as individuals.

--more troubling are the reasons why urban public school uniforms were embraced more than 20 years ago, which is an association that Hardy should want to avoid. According to the article,

"Once synonymous with parochial or elite public schools, [/b]uniforms took hold in public schools largely as a strategy for improving those that were struggling. Early advocates of uniforms in public schools saw them as a way to reduce gang violence and crime in schools.[b] President Bill Clinton, in his State of the Union address in 1996, gave the movement a boost when he said, 'If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.'"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hardy should drop the uniforms.

Can parents, through the PTA or maybe the LSAT, ask for a parent vote on uniforms and find out once and for all what the consensus is?

And be sure and tell them that anonymous posters who don't send their children to Hardy are insisting they drop the uniforms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hardy should drop the uniforms.

Can parents, through the PTA or maybe the LSAT, ask for a parent vote on uniforms and find out once and for all what the consensus is?

Anonymous wrote:Hardy should drop the uniforms.

Anonymous wrote:People should go into the school selection process with information, not hearsay (and by this I mean, PLEASE do not rely on DCUM gossip, including my own opinion). Go see for yourself, ask questions, and keep an open mind. There are upcoming open houses at the school.

Hardy is an urban school in an ethnically diverse city - this is both a blessing and a challenge. If you don't feel comfortable with people from different backgrounds and perspectives, it may not be the school for you. It has an obligation to be a school for everybody, not just your child. If you want special attention given to your child, it might not be for you. It is undergoing a lot of transformation, and if you are uncomfortable leading change, rather than benefiting from it, go elsewhere. It has strong and emerging academics, but it is certainly not a magnate school, and if you have a child who is exceptionally gifted, they will likely do better in a more consistently challenging environment.

As the previous poster noted, language about school enrollment is focused on feeder school enrollment, not in boundary. And this is good, because what we want for a public school is an emphasis on academics, and adequate preparation for rigor during the transition from elementary to middle school, right? Because given the demographics, if you care more about in boundary rather than feeder school patterns, the focus shifts to class and race, rather than education. If you want a school with rich, white kids, this is not the school for you.

I choose to live in DC because the diversity is so dynamic and interesting, and with this come some obvious challenges. Why would I want to deprive my children of being able to benefit from all the richness (culturally) that surrounds them? They need to learn to handle themselves around others that are richer, poorer, Blacker, whiter, more or less American, smarter, and less smart than they are. I think they will benefit from developing their own academic interests and challenges, rather than having it fed to them from the school, so having the time and independence to explore an interest on their own will develop a passion more readily than having 4 hours of homework a night.

I posit this: is it really the best for your child to go to the "best school"? What is the outcome we seek for our children?