I was involved professionally in working with experts in the topic of juvenile residential facilities. It’s typical to allow some freedom in the community but also typical to have things like sign-out sheets and consequences for violations of program rules. If one of the kids had previously been in trouble for violence at Whitman, I’m somewhat surprised he wasn’t “grounded.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they allowed to wander the area unsupervised?

They aren't parolees.

Do you hear yourself?

b

I am confused. nCCF and some posters said thiese kids were kept in the facility to be away from bad influence or environment. Does that mean these kids hade not made any trouble but adjacent to trouble makers?

yes that's what it means

To believe you they were not bad kids before they arrived, that means that the bad influences came from their new “good environment” at Greentree. If that’s the case, then the entire premise of this program is destroyed. If it is turning otherwise good kids into murders then woo boy they need to shut it down immediately.

That is actually a very good point.

No, it is like many points made on this thread by the extreme right-wing posters, dismissive without any actual facts, assuming without any knowledge and narrow, so narrow.

I wish someone would come here and let us know the success rates, the numbers of kids from Moco who take part in this program, just to shut up those horrible extremists. But you know what, it likely compromises private information. These are kids not garbage, not felons, just kids. Sometimes one bad apple can rot the whole barrel as happened recently, it doesn't mean you give up on the rest. God forbid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they allowed to wander the area unsupervised?

They aren't parolees.

Do you hear yourself?

b

I am confused. nCCF and some posters said thiese kids were kept in the facility to be away from bad influence or environment. Does that mean these kids hade not made any trouble but adjacent to trouble makers?

yes that's what it means

To believe you they were not bad kids before they arrived, that means that the bad influences came from their new “good environment” at Greentree. If that’s the case, then the entire premise of this program is destroyed. If it is turning otherwise good kids into murders then woo boy they need to shut it down immediately.

That is actually a very good point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they allowed to wander the area unsupervised?

They aren't parolees.

Do you hear yourself?

b

I am confused. nCCF and some posters said thiese kids were kept in the facility to be away from bad influence or environment. Does that mean these kids hade not made any trouble but adjacent to trouble makers?

yes that's what it means

To believe you they were not bad kids before they arrived, that means that the bad influences came from their new “good environment” at Greentree. If that’s the case, then the entire premise of this program is destroyed. If it is turning otherwise good kids into murders then woo boy they need to shut it down immediately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they allowed to wander the area unsupervised?

They aren't parolees.

Do you hear yourself?

b

I am confused. nCCF and some posters said thiese kids were kept in the facility to be away from bad influence or environment. Does that mean these kids hade not made any trouble but adjacent to trouble makers?

yes that's what it means

You are not really helping the children at the facility by sweeping the issues under the rug. We should all be holding them accountable so that the children in their care do not find themselves making life ruining self destructive decisions again. This is an instutional failure and should be treated as such. They broke the trust of the the community and failed in their most basic responisbities. The way to advocate for the children is to demand better of those reponsible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they allowed to wander the area unsupervised?

They aren't parolees.

Do you hear yourself?

b

I am confused. nCCF and some posters said thiese kids were kept in the facility to be away from bad influence or environment. Does that mean these kids hade not made any trouble but adjacent to trouble makers?

yes that's what it means

Are you sure? Please cite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all make is sound like Whitman never has a problem. It is just like all the other schools, stop denying it, stop trying to pin it all on the kids who are not as fortunate as your kids.

When it does involve a white Whitman kid or coach the parents and students try to justify it, The Smoothie King robbery was "blown out of proportion" The kids that blew themselves up was " a prank" or the parents who complained during the drug busts on the hill. It is the culture of the parents at that school who only push back when the kids causing trouble don't look like them.

You are talking about the kids building a bomb in a garage 1989? And the Smoothie King robbery in 2006? The first was an enormous tragedy and the second was a massive scandal, albeit one worth all the mockery in the world. What even is your point and how long have you been letting your issues fester?

Thanks for proving my point. Whitman never changes. The parents and community never accept responsibility

Please prove your point. Please cite violent behavioral events of the traditional Whitman students vs those from Greentree. Show your work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they allowed to wander the area unsupervised?

They aren't parolees.

Do you hear yourself?

No previous criminal involvement? Hmm? Are you certain?

That’s bull. To be in a facility like Greentree they have felonies.

You are FOS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they allowed to wander the area unsupervised?

They aren't parolees.

Do you hear yourself?

b

I am confused. nCCF and some posters said thiese kids were kept in the facility to be away from bad influence or environment. Does that mean these kids hade not made any trouble but adjacent to trouble makers?

yes that's what it means

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all make is sound like Whitman never has a problem. It is just like all the other schools, stop denying it, stop trying to pin it all on the kids who are not as fortunate as your kids.

When it does involve a white Whitman kid or coach the parents and students try to justify it, The Smoothie King robbery was "blown out of proportion" The kids that blew themselves up was " a prank" or the parents who complained during the drug busts on the hill. It is the culture of the parents at that school who only push back when the kids causing trouble don't look like them.

You are talking about the kids building a bomb in a garage 1989? And the Smoothie King robbery in 2006? The first was an enormous tragedy and the second was a massive scandal, albeit one worth all the mockery in the world. What even is your point and how long have you been letting your issues fester?

Thanks for proving my point. Whitman never changes. The parents and community never accept responsibility

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they allowed to wander the area unsupervised?

They aren't parolees.

Do you hear yourself?

No previous criminal involvement? Hmm? Are you certain?

That’s bull. To be in a facility like Greentree they have felonies.

Cite

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they allowed to wander the area unsupervised?

They aren't parolees.

Do you hear yourself?

No previous criminal involvement? Hmm? Are you certain?

That’s bull. To be in a facility like Greentree they have felonies.

Anonymous wrote:You all make is sound like Whitman never has a problem. It is just like all the other schools, stop denying it, stop trying to pin it all on the kids who are not as fortunate as your kids.

When it does involve a white Whitman kid or coach the parents and students try to justify it, The Smoothie King robbery was "blown out of proportion" The kids that blew themselves up was " a prank" or the parents who complained during the drug busts on the hill. It is the culture of the parents at that school who only push back when the kids causing trouble don't look like them.

You are talking about the kids building a bomb in a garage 1989? And the Smoothie King robbery in 2006? The first was an enormous tragedy and the second was a massive scandal, albeit one worth all the mockery in the world. What even is your point and how long have you been letting your issues fester?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live less than two blocks from Greentree and used to volunteer at this organization. They do a lot of good and I think the center has offered up some good suggestions of ways to help. Think about how much teens in MCPS in general are struggling, and the uptick in violence even among those students who have stable home lives and who aren't living in a new environment away from family where they likely feel like a fish out of water. There's a big divide between the background and advantages of a typical child who finds themselves needing to live at Greentree and the typical Whitman teen.

Sounds like you're suggesting they should be placed in another school district as being placed in the Whitman district is too much of an adjustment for them.

Why not have school at the facility. It seems that they would be better off having their particular educational needs met on-site alongside the therapeutic and clinical staff.

MCPS BOE closed the educational facility for the worst troublemakers years ago -- it was Twain school in Rockville. Now they just shuttle the problem around by transferring the problem student to another school in MCPS.

The main instigator in the Damascus rape case was on his second or third school when that happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they allowed to wander the area unsupervised?

They aren't parolees.

Do you hear yourself?

No previous criminal involvement? Hmm? Are you certain?