Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

because we've done so well by children

my god this is rich!

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to guess Bowser could not find a way to line the pockets of her developer benefactors -- you know, the companies that are robbing DC blind to build the homeless shelters -- so she came out against it.

Maybe.

It always seems to be about the money.

I'm going to guess Bowser could not find a way to line the pockets of her developer benefactors -- you know, the companies that are robbing DC blind to build the homeless shelters -- so she came out against it.

City officials have said don't want a large shelter because that's not an appropriate way to house children. It's basically warehousing them. If they have to be detained at all, they should be in smaller shelters/group homes. Plus, although DC might have some authority in terms of licensing the shelter, it's not clear how much authority they have to oversee operations of a facility that's running a federal program. DC said that they rejected the contractor's application because it was inadequate, but didn't explain how. Certainly, that site lacks appropriate outdoor and play facilities for children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

So they build a shelter in Idaho instead...and then the same kids are united with local family anyways .

Not if they're fostering

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are various rec centers in north Arlington that could also fit the bill.

LOL Arlington would never! Take a look at the recent uproar when they were just forced to integrate their schools with poor kids who speak limited English.

It's weird. It's almost as if ultra liberals dont want to actually live by and with the principles they want to force on others.

Drawing a blank here. Link or it didn’t happen.

For such an uber liberal county, you'd think they wouldn't have to be legally forced to integrate poor immigrants . Tsk tsk

https://www.wtop.com/arlington/2019/06/arlington-public-schools-agrees-bolster-education-esl-students/amp/

Go on over to the Virginia schools board to see the reaction of redistricting in Arlington. So much uber liberal love on display when their own precious children actually have to interact with the others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

Spare me. It's a few hundred kids. I think we can handle it. If not, you can just sit down while the people who care figure it out.

Our suburban high school in MD took 40 kids in 2014. It wasn't easy at all, as schools reallocated funding by moving money into ESOL classes. lots of fights after that . . .

A "few hundred kids" isn't a drop in the bucket, especially since many will attend high-poverty, overcrowded schools.

+1 clearly some posters want to fire off with out really knowing what they're talking about as evidenced in several posts over the last few pages.

Unless you live in DC SIT DOWN. DC would be able to handle this.

Oh I lived in DC and am well aware of its capabilities or lack thereof. Look at the state of the current schools where these kids would be going. It ain't upper northwest. DC cannot handle the poor children in need that they have now let alone dumping more in. I'll stick my nose in on this topic no matter where in the immediate area the shelter ends up because these kids would be going to schools in the surrounding suburbs as well.
What's your deal with trying to control the topic?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

Spare me. It's a few hundred kids. I think we can handle it. If not, you can just sit down while the people who care figure it out.

Our suburban high school in MD took 40 kids in 2014. It wasn't easy at all, as schools reallocated funding by moving money into ESOL classes. lots of fights after that . . .

A "few hundred kids" isn't a drop in the bucket, especially since many will attend high-poverty, overcrowded schools.

+1 clearly some posters want to fire off with out really knowing what they're talking about as evidenced in several posts over the last few pages.

Unless you live in DC SIT DOWN. DC would be able to handle this.

Tell that to DC elected officials. They came out immediately and very vocally said that DC cannot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are various rec centers in north Arlington that could also fit the bill.

LOL Arlington would never! Take a look at the recent uproar when they were just forced to integrate their schools with poor kids who speak limited English.

It's weird. It's almost as if ultra liberals dont want to actually live by and with the principles they want to force on others.

Drawing a blank here. Link or it didn’t happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

So they build a shelter in Idaho instead...and then the same kids are united with local family anyways .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

Spare me. It's a few hundred kids. I think we can handle it. If not, you can just sit down while the people who care figure it out.

Our suburban high school in MD took 40 kids in 2014. It wasn't easy at all, as schools reallocated funding by moving money into ESOL classes. lots of fights after that . . .

A "few hundred kids" isn't a drop in the bucket, especially since many will attend high-poverty, overcrowded schools.

+1 clearly some posters want to fire off with out really knowing what they're talking about as evidenced in several posts over the last few pages.

Unless you live in DC SIT DOWN. DC would be able to handle this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

Spare me. It's a few hundred kids. I think we can handle it. If not, you can just sit down while the people who care figure it out.

Our suburban high school in MD took 40 kids in 2014. It wasn't easy at all, as schools reallocated funding by moving money into ESOL classes. lots of fights after that . . .

A "few hundred kids" isn't a drop in the bucket, especially since many will attend high-poverty, overcrowded schools.

+1 clearly some posters want to fire off with out really knowing what they're talking about as evidenced in several posts over the last few pages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

Spare me. It's a few hundred kids. I think we can handle it. If not, you can just sit down while the people who care figure it out.

Our suburban high school in MD took 40 kids in 2014. It wasn't easy at all, as schools reallocated funding by moving money into ESOL classes. lots of fights after that . . .

A "few hundred kids" isn't a drop in the bucket, especially since many will attend high-poverty, overcrowded schools.

Anonymous wrote:There are various rec centers in north Arlington that could also fit the bill.

LOL Arlington would never! Take a look at the recent uproar when they were just forced to integrate their schools with poor kids who speak limited English.

It's weird. It's almost as if ultra liberals dont want to actually live by and with the principles they want to force on others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

Spare me. It's a few hundred kids. I think we can handle it. If not, you can just sit down while the people who care figure it out.

A few hundred kids at any given time for the foreseeable future, concentrated in certain neighborhoods. This will be devastating. Nope, I won't sit down because I care about the quality of schools in our neighborhood. By figure it out, I'm sure you mean raise taxes to pay for additional services these kids will need. Again, nope.