If you live in the Palisades and want pizza, go to "Hardy Pizza". That is where it is served.

JSteele wrote:What I opposed was Rhee meeting with a small group of parents and agreeing to fire the principal without any discussion with the parents of students who were already attending the school. I think it is sad that the families whose efforts destroyed a very good program now refuse to attend the school.

Hold on a second. You can't blame the parents for what Rhee did. It was Rhee who did the damage here, not the in-boundary parents. What should the parents have done? Said "We refuse to meet with you, because we know that in the next 18 months, between now and when you fire Pope, you're not going to meet with the Hardy Parents"? And they should have known this how, by being psychic?

It's like blaming the guy who ordered a pizza when the pizza delivery guy crashes on the way to deliver.

Anonymous wrote:

Further, the Palisades families who want another MS? You have one. Hardy. You made the noise and got your way...now make it work.

The people agitating for a new middle school are a very distinct group from those who agitated for Pope's removal. The anti-Pope movement hit its high point in the spring of 2006, when then-candidate Fenty promised people in the Hardy district that if elected he would get rid of Pope. That was 5+ years ago, the kids of the folks behind that are in high school now. The people pushing a new middle school are parents of kids in the early years of elementary school who saw the mess at Hardy and have given up hope on the situation there coming together in time for their kids. There is actually quite a rift between the younger families pushing a new middle school and the anti-Pope old guard, who feel that giving up on Hardy is a repudiation of what they worked for.

Blaming the current parents for what the previous generation did is like blaming the pizza driver's crash on the guy who now lives in the house where the guy who ordered the pizza used to live.

Anonymous wrote:PPs - KIPP and DCPREP are by law open to students from across the District. I don't have any reason to think they all draw from within a 10 block radius. Maybe there's a concentration. I know that before Stokes moved to Brookland, a good majority lived within about 1 1/2 miles of their previous location in NW. Now it has more Brooklanders.

Everyone knows that the schools are open to the city. KIPP prides itself in locating in very low SES areas. The first schools were located in ward 8. Um, how many people do you think loaded their kids in their cars and drove them to Howard Road, SE.

Prep is located near the Edgewood housing projects in Ward 5. How many people voluntarily enrolled their children where it was a matter of common sense that kids from the neighborhood with few options would attend. it does not take a genius or stats, only common sense, to know that the majority of both student bodies are in near walking distance to the facilities.

Both schools are majority Black with very high FARMS, and based on the many threads on DCUM, very few readers would place their kids in this educational peer group. Finally, both schools out tested just about every school lauded on DCuM, even my DC's school.

I've always supported inbounds students attending Hardy. As a previous poster said, they can attend as a matter of right. No special dispensation is necessary. What I opposed was Rhee meeting with a small group of parents and agreeing to fire the principal without any discussion with the parents of students who were already attending the school. I think it is sad that the families whose efforts destroyed a very good program now refuse to attend the school. I absolutely support those inbound families attending Hardy.

Exactly.

Further, the Palisades families who want another MS? You have one. Hardy. You made the noise and got your way...now make it work.

PPs - KIPP and DCPREP are by law open to students from across the District. I don't have any reason to think they all draw from within a 10 block radius. Maybe there's a concentration. I know that before Stokes moved to Brookland, a good majority lived within about 1 1/2 miles of their previous location in NW. Now it has more Brooklanders.

Agreed with the above and also that boundaries can be revisited. I think an inbounds school should be proximity based...we are inbounds for Hearst and can see Deal from the corner. Is there a large swath of Ward 3 to whom both Deal and Hardy are pretty distant? Perhaps that's the argument for a 3rd Middle School. It's nice when inbounds kids can walk to school.

Anonymous wrote:
Along the same lines, attracting more in-boundary kids to majority-black Hardy would increase the diversity of the school. But Jeff is dead set against that. He's not always in favor of diversity, just the "right" kind of diversity.

I've always supported inbounds students attending Hardy. As a previous poster said, they can attend as a matter of right. No special dispensation is necessary. What I opposed was Rhee meeting with a small group of parents and agreeing to fire the principal without any discussion with the parents of students who were already attending the school. I think it is sad that the families whose efforts destroyed a very good program now refuse to attend the school. I absolutely support those inbound families attending Hardy.

Anonymous wrote:

YES!!!! I am not anti-charter but this has to be acknowledged. Trying to straight up say that Charters have succeeded where DCPS has failed in disingenuous. But I do think DCPS should either adopt some of the charter methods ( magnet schools, longer school days, more freedom in funding/ staffing/programming, outside fundraising ) OR charters with those freedoms should be allowed to operate as neighborhood schools ( rather than pulling city-wide ).

If charters were allowed to be neighborhood-based every school in Ward 3 would go charter faster than fast.

DCPrep

Anonymous wrote:

Oh dear. I was with you until then. You see, the problem is that multiple charter schools have proven (and/or are in the process of doing so) that it is entirely possible to create a high-performing school east of the park.

There is not one, single charter school that has ever taken the first 250 children living closest to its front door and been successful at anything.

Charters receive the kids of at least nominally motivated families, and often hyper motivated -- both of which suggest enhanced learning environments and attention outside of 8 a.m. and 3:15 p.m.

You are comparing apples/oranges.

Now, I agree that it -would- be interesting to observe any charter that acts exactly as a DCPS with respect to enrolling the kids -- that is, it takes the surrounding 10 blocks so of kids, no more and no less.

KIPP

"What makes infinitely more sense is to give Deal's current southern territory over to Hardy, roughly south of Porter. Eaton and Hearst and Oyster. It's closer to Hardy than Deal, as a simple aerial glance at a map will tell you.'

No, Deal is somewhat closer to Eaton and certainly to Hearst.

Yup. I choose to send my kids to a school which is fairly well run and the kids are on grade level. How terrible of me!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really. Building fantastic middle schools in other wards that would allow kids to stay in their own neighborhoods would probably increase segregation. Should we avoid that action? Be honest in your terms. Racial segregation isn't the issue here. The big issue is segregated access to quality education seeing everything in terms of race and racism is holding dc back.

Along the same lines, attracting more in-boundary kids to majority-black Hardy would increase the diversity of the school. But Jeff is dead set against that. He's not always in favor of diversity, just the "right" kind of diversity.

the in-boundary kids are guaranteed entry to Hardy, so no special DCPS act should be needed to bring them in...the building is up to speed, there's a new principal (third in two years), so what's stopping them from enrolling? Just their CHOICE to do otherwise

Anonymous wrote:Not really. Building fantastic middle schools in other wards that would allow kids to stay in their own neighborhoods would probably increase segregation. Should we avoid that action? Be honest in your terms. Racial segregation isn't the issue here. The big issue is segregated access to quality education seeing everything in terms of race and racism is holding dc back.

Along the same lines, attracting more in-boundary kids to majority-black Hardy would increase the diversity of the school. But Jeff is dead set against that. He's not always in favor of diversity, just the "right" kind of diversity.

Anonymous wrote:Hardy has plenty of room to accommodate the enrollment increases from its feeder schools. Fillmore should be moved elsewhere, or removed altogether and 150 students can be added.

Until the Hardy 6th grade curriculum does not repeat what kids in the feeder schools learn in 4th grade, enlarging Hardy's NW boundries will just support the local private schools and drive more parents out of DC.