Anonymous wrote:The preoccupation over uniforms at Hardy is the height of silly.

Seriously, people, this is what gets you all worked up and taking your IB selves to privates? If that's it, if that is really it, then I think Hardy must be doing well because that is the most foolish reason ever to turn your nose up at a school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting is the defensiveness in questioning the patently outdated, ludicrous uniform policy at Hardy. It's like you've gotta drink the kool-aid once you send your kid there, because the truth is too annoying to accept. You might as well just goose-step your kid over to Hardy every morning if you're Ward 3, 'cos its too frustrating to deal with the brick wall protecting the kids from free expression.

Ha ha "goose-step"! Nice try, pp!

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting is the defensiveness in questioning the patently outdated, ludicrous uniform policy at Hardy. It's like you've gotta drink the kool-aid once you send your kid there, because the truth is too annoying to accept. You might as well just goose-step your kid over to Hardy every morning if you're Ward 3, 'cos its too frustrating to deal with the brick wall protecting the kids from free expression.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it's interpreted as a "dress code" -- which, according to the school itself, it's not -- it's a horribly authoritarian, restrictive variety of dress code. Kids can't wear different colored pants, including jeans? Where did Hardy's leadership go to school, North Korea?

We have friends with kids at a private school. They have uniforms. They can't wear jeans. No one at that school has the slightest connection to North Korea.

Right, those elitist private schools have UNIFORMS. Of course, a school with a uniform policy would not have a jeans-only uniform; it wouldn't make sense. But, one of the prior posters here seems to believe that Hardy does not have a uniform policy, but a dress code policy. If it's merely a dress code policy, then why not allow the kids to wear jeans, for cryin' out loud? It's not like there's a UNIFORM or something militaristic like that. Sure, draw the line at flip-flops and T-shirts, I suppose, but if a school's going to have a dress code, let's not treat them like it's a prison with a head warden smacking around a riding crop in their faces all the time.

First: please note that you are offending me and my kid.

Second: dress code helps unifying such a diverse community, where some kids could come to school with a $300 outfit, some others come from families where this figure amount to a sizeable portion of their monthly rent.

IB mom (whose kid is one of those who could come to school with a $300 outfit)

Offended? What it the heavens is offensive about questioning the relative (if that) benefits of a school uniform? The number of public schools in DC with a "uniform" or "very restrictive dress code" number in the single digits, and none of them seem to have any problem whatsoever "unifying a diverse community" without a uniform. What's offensive is the way your mind works if you think your own pablum makes any logical sense.

Probably she/he did not like you comparing her kid's school to "a prison with a head warden smacking around a riding crop in their faces all the time".

I probably would get offended too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it's interpreted as a "dress code" -- which, according to the school itself, it's not -- it's a horribly authoritarian, restrictive variety of dress code. Kids can't wear different colored pants, including jeans? Where did Hardy's leadership go to school, North Korea?

We have friends with kids at a private school. They have uniforms. They can't wear jeans. No one at that school has the slightest connection to North Korea.

Right, those elitist private schools have UNIFORMS. Of course, a school with a uniform policy would not have a jeans-only uniform; it wouldn't make sense. But, one of the prior posters here seems to believe that Hardy does not have a uniform policy, but a dress code policy. If it's merely a dress code policy, then why not allow the kids to wear jeans, for cryin' out loud? It's not like there's a UNIFORM or something militaristic like that. Sure, draw the line at flip-flops and T-shirts, I suppose, but if a school's going to have a dress code, let's not treat them like it's a prison with a head warden smacking around a riding crop in their faces all the time.

First: please note that you are offending me and my kid.

Second: dress code helps unifying such a diverse community, where some kids could come to school with a $300 outfit, some others come from families where this figure amount to a sizeable portion of their monthly rent.

IB mom (whose kid is one of those who could come to school with a $300 outfit)

Offended? What it the heavens is offensive about questioning the relative (if that) benefits of a school uniform? The number of public schools in DC with a "uniform" or "very restrictive dress code" number in the single digits, and none of them seem to have any problem whatsoever "unifying a diverse community" without a uniform. What's offensive is the way your mind works if you think your own pablum makes any logical sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it's interpreted as a "dress code" -- which, according to the school itself, it's not -- it's a horribly authoritarian, restrictive variety of dress code. Kids can't wear different colored pants, including jeans? Where did Hardy's leadership go to school, North Korea?

We have friends with kids at a private school. They have uniforms. They can't wear jeans. No one at that school has the slightest connection to North Korea.

Right, those elitist private schools have UNIFORMS. Of course, a school with a uniform policy would not have a jeans-only uniform; it wouldn't make sense. But, one of the prior posters here seems to believe that Hardy does not have a uniform policy, but a dress code policy. If it's merely a dress code policy, then why not allow the kids to wear jeans, for cryin' out loud? It's not like there's a UNIFORM or something militaristic like that. Sure, draw the line at flip-flops and T-shirts, I suppose, but if a school's going to have a dress code, let's not treat them like it's a prison with a head warden smacking around a riding crop in their faces all the time.

First: please note that you are offending me and my kid.

Second: dress code helps unifying such a diverse community, where some kids could come to school with a $300 outfit, some others come from families where this figure amount to a sizeable portion of their monthly rent.

IB mom (whose kid is one of those who could come to school with a $300 outfit)

Offended? What it the heavens is offensive about questioning the relative (if that) benefits of a school uniform? The number of public schools in DC with a "uniform" or "very restrictive dress code" number in the single digits, and none of them seem to have any problem whatsoever "unifying a diverse community" without a uniform. What's offensive is the way your mind works if you think your own pablum makes any logical sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it's interpreted as a "dress code" -- which, according to the school itself, it's not -- it's a horribly authoritarian, restrictive variety of dress code. Kids can't wear different colored pants, including jeans? Where did Hardy's leadership go to school, North Korea?

We have friends with kids at a private school. They have uniforms. They can't wear jeans. No one at that school has the slightest connection to North Korea.

Right, those elitist private schools have UNIFORMS. Of course, a school with a uniform policy would not have a jeans-only uniform; it wouldn't make sense. But, one of the prior posters here seems to believe that Hardy does not have a uniform policy, but a dress code policy. If it's merely a dress code policy, then why not allow the kids to wear jeans, for cryin' out loud? It's not like there's a UNIFORM or something militaristic like that. Sure, draw the line at flip-flops and T-shirts, I suppose, but if a school's going to have a dress code, let's not treat them like it's a prison with a head warden smacking around a riding crop in their faces all the time.

First: please note that you are offending me and my kid.

Second: dress code helps unifying such a diverse community, where some kids could come to school with a $300 outfit, some others come from families where this figure amount to a sizeable portion of their monthly rent.

IB mom (whose kid is one of those who could come to school with a $300 outfit)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it's interpreted as a "dress code" -- which, according to the school itself, it's not -- it's a horribly authoritarian, restrictive variety of dress code. Kids can't wear different colored pants, including jeans? Where did Hardy's leadership go to school, North Korea?

Inorite? first they make kids not wear jeans, next thing they will have them listening in for parental signs of disloyalty, and will send you off to detention camps. I mean what do you think is planned for RFK after the new soccer arena is done?

Nothing that harsh. Violators will have to serve detention with the militant English teacher who lead the revolt against Michelle Rhee's rheeforms at Hardy!

Anonymous wrote:Even if it's interpreted as a "dress code" -- which, according to the school itself, it's not -- it's a horribly authoritarian, restrictive variety of dress code. Kids can't wear different colored pants, including jeans? Where did Hardy's leadership go to school, North Korea?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it's interpreted as a "dress code" -- which, according to the school itself, it's not -- it's a horribly authoritarian, restrictive variety of dress code. Kids can't wear different colored pants, including jeans? Where did Hardy's leadership go to school, North Korea?

We have friends with kids at a private school. They have uniforms. They can't wear jeans. No one at that school has the slightest connection to North Korea.

Right, those elitist private schools have UNIFORMS. Of course, a school with a uniform policy would not have a jeans-only uniform; it wouldn't make sense. But, one of the prior posters here seems to believe that Hardy does not have a uniform policy, but a dress code policy. If it's merely a dress code policy, then why not allow the kids to wear jeans, for cryin' out loud? It's not like there's a UNIFORM or something militaristic like that. Sure, draw the line at flip-flops and T-shirts, I suppose, but if a school's going to have a dress code, let's not treat them like it's a prison with a head warden smacking around a riding crop in their faces all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it's interpreted as a "dress code" -- which, according to the school itself, it's not -- it's a horribly authoritarian, restrictive variety of dress code. Kids can't wear different colored pants, including jeans? Where did Hardy's leadership go to school, North Korea?

We have friends with kids at a private school. They have uniforms. They can't wear jeans. No one at that school has the slightest connection to North Korea.

Right, those elitist private schools have UNIFORMS. Of course, a school with a uniform policy would not have a jeans-only uniform; it wouldn't make sense. But, one of the prior posters here seems to believe that Hardy does not have a uniform policy, but a dress code policy. If it's merely a dress code policy, then why not allow the kids to wear jeans, for cryin' out loud? It's not like there's a UNIFORM or something militaristic like that. Sure, draw the line at flip-flops and T-shirts, I suppose, but if a school's going to have a dress code, let's not treat them like it's a prison with a head warden smacking around a riding crop in their faces all the time.