Will post follow up later with latest but although it's still a hot mess with regard to district and residence I think there's info to share and discuss like process and media. Also some extreme moves on par of SD and superintendent IMO.

I'm pondering starting a separate topic in Off Topic because there's already enough talk about the kids involved.

Yeah, we had 4 schools for DS1 by the time he was 5 if you include special ed classroom and preschool so I can vouch that it happens but that's hardly the norm at least in comparison with most of the kids in his social group. Whatever the case I hope it gets some clarity soon. Whether or not it gets support from a group it's already up in the media.

By the time my kids were 8 & 5, they had been to 5 schools between them.  DD & DS went to different preschools when we lived in Phoenix, and DD went to K-2 there.  So that is 3 schools.  Then we moved, and because of the age difference they were in 2 different schools (K-2, and 3-6).  So with one move, we had 5 schools.

By the time my DS was 9 he had been at three schools. 

Two of them were not good about keeping the classrooms peanut free.

Yep.

While I certainly can understand the impulse that might motivate trying to get around barriers-- particularly if the family has been rebuffed by other local educational entities-- that doesn't justify ignoring the rules when it suits your purposes.

This is what I like to call the Caesar's wife clause.  When you need "special" anything from a bureaucratic agency of any kind, you HAVE to be within the letter of the law as well as the spirit; really, you have to be completely unimpeachable.  It's also sometimes called the Jackie Robinson condition.  You have to be BETTER than expected so that there is nothing for anyone to find fault with.

This certainly doesn't sound like that kind of situation. 

Bold added by me.

Quote from: twinturbo on October 21, 2012, 11:32:27 AM

There's certainly some puzzling circumstances that I would hope are addressed quickly if this is to amount to more than an argumentum ad misericordiam. An effort this large and strong by a public school to engage in disability harassment one would hope be punished appropriately, but if this is a house of cards bolstered by fraud and/or USPS manipulation it could be horrible for FA families credibility in the public eye.

And I'll add, it will be especially horrible for FA families if one of the fa groups that tend to jump into issues with both eyes closed jumps on this band wagon without reading even what details are there.

In a telephone interview the superintendent states that they received a tip that the family did not reside where they claim. An investigation followed the tip the school stating the allegations proved true the address was fraudulently used to get a district slot. Would there be additional FA motivation to expose that fraud? Sure, but that's not illegal just petty.

I'm a little curious about the statement that in "every school" they've been to no one wants them. For a 7 and 9 year old how many schools does that constitute assuming the girls live at the same residence together? I get moving around since I've done a little of that myself but it seems to imply more than two schools.

It may also be of interest that an individual claiming the same name as the one that went straight to the media has a published blog advertising an allergen free bakery with personal details of family food allergies in the same state. A yelp review of that bakery claims that all efforts to contact this bakery in order to purchase were not returned.

There's certainly some puzzling circumstances that I would hope are addressed quickly if this is to amount to more than an argumentum ad misericordiam. An effort this large and strong by a public school to engage in disability harassment one would hope be punished appropriately, but if this is a house of cards bolstered by fraud and/or USPS manipulation it could be horrible for FA families credibility in the public eye.

Yeah if they violated residance restrictions than they have no standing. On the other hand were they singled out for investion because they rocked the boat.

The superintendent alleges that the family has fraudulently used an address that is not their actual family residence to be assigned a district slot to Van Meter elementary. In response the parents submitted a couple of bills sent to an address within the Los Gatos district. Why not bring the reporter to their Los Gatos residence assuming it is current? That would completely dispel the school's allegations compounding the school's liability.

If the family is either providing dated mail of a former true address of permanent residence or receiving mail at a residence that is not theirs, I support the school's decision. You must come to the table with clean hands.