ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
how long do you need to live at an address to be able to use it to apply for school admission?(65 Posts)
Just that really. Thinking of primary schools and moving to be in the catchment area of a good one, but I'm wondering how long you need to live in that address for it to be ok to use it? I will probably not be able to live long term in the catchment area I am thinking of.
Yeah... Totally fine to bump a child who actually lives in catchment.Course it is.
If its your permanent address, for however short a time, then afaik it follows the rules.
Wiltshire, it's six months after moving to a purchased home, and twelve months after moving to rented. Rule is strictly enforced for popular schools.
I really don't get this whole 'deserving' business. Nobody has any right to say one child is more deserving than another
Well, you wouldn't would you?
It would, however, be interesting to see if your opinion changed if you moved into "catchment" and failed to get a place because someone had "cheated" further up the pecking order.
The real problem is that people will take such steps to get their kids into a 'good' school rather than a local one. If everyone stopped doing this then the exam results would even out and people wouldn't have this idea that their precious little darlings should go somewhere different!
Well of course you would feel that if it was your child.
But objectively, it's very hard to see that one child is more 'deserving' than another.
God, we have this where i live, everyone wants our village schools. Everyone thinks they deserve to be able to get these 'best schools'
What they fail to realise is they are high achieving, nice schools as they are in the most affulent area. The children generally come from high achieving parents, the schools are well funded as the parents are affluent. ( tough if you don't like it, that's how it is)
Really if you can't live here you should be at your local school. Where i live evryone knows everyone and last year a few places were removed from people just like you! They have also just changed the sibling rules.
You deserve a moral judgment as your cheating children who rightfully should have that place. Cutting them out of the community in which they live. Stopping them from walking to school.
I have to do a long school run (20-25 mins each way) and I find it utterly tedious and thankful that I don't have to do it every day (ds is at a non local school for a particular reason). I'd find it even harder to do a short school run knowing that I would have to move out of the area soon.
Actually the schools probably aren't better funded. More deprived schools will get more money from the government.
I've every sympathy with people playing the system however, smugly saying 'you can eff off back to your council estate, pleb', is not terribly endearing.
The system is very much unfair and, as you note, tending to entrench privilege among the already privileged.
So if people manage to beat it, good for them.
In London you need to provide copies of your council tax bill; I thought that was the norm?
yellowsub, of course people move for all kinds of reasons and Ive absolutely no problems with that provided the move is genuine and dare I say, permanent. Even that, I can accept that permanency is subjective and is dependent on many factors. As far as this thread is concerned, I suggest you take another look at the very title itself and the original post.
OP was quite forthright and didnt beat around the bush what his/her intended move was all about i.e. to be able to use it to apply for school admission . . . in the catchment of a good one . . . and probably not be able to live long term in the catchment . . etc. I must admit this frank admission struck me dumbfounded when I first read it.
But you have utterly refused to see or consider my reasons when I explained why I feel a local child is more deserving than another who has been ferried in just for the school. OK, maybe the word deserving is too strong a word and I give you that. I honestly believe EVERY child is deserving of a good education but I also believe for every winner who gets into a good school, there is a loser who doesnt get in.
The council in their wisdom have devised rules like permanent address and distance from the school, etc. I believe the rules are well intended and meant to be fair catered for the local residents around the schools in question. But as always, the wealthy and the affluent are able to play the rules to their advantage at the expense of the poor and worse still, nudging out the very people that these schools were built for in the first place.
Your moral question to me about the siblings rule and moving away once your first child has been admitted is well answered a few post up thread. Councils are quite rightly shutting down this nonsense.
And as for playing within the rules, is it OK then for example, for multinational companies who have sales income in the UK of £millions (if not £billions) and paid little or no UK tax? Again, this nonsense is soon going to be consigned to history now that central government is realising whats happening.
OP I suppose you want a good school for your child so that (s)he can be educated to differentiate between right from wrong. After all, this is what education is all about. I hope this goal is achieved. Personally, Ive no concerns about my child(ren)s moral standards. I've been living in this same address for the last 22 years and I can see me living here still for the next 22, all being well.
Peteneras I am simply being honest.
I'm not affluent but you choose to label me as such: I'm a single mum and an (underpaid) key worker. I just want the best for my child, and if that means making sacrifices to live in the catchmet area of a good school for a bit then I will. I would move permanently if I could afford to do so.
Your question about tax avoidance is completely irrelevant to me.
But you haven't told me what you morally think about playing the sibling situation peteranas.
I think it's fair to say that OP has confirmed that she isn't affluently floating around nudging the deserving poor from their local school
It not about sending people back to a council estate, its about community. Children should go to a local school so that they are within the community. ( if you think your community is not good enough for you...move). I have only pointed out the obvious, you might not like it.. the truth.
It is a more affluent school as the fundraising and gifting, time and goodies are very high.
The point is people walk around schools, read the ofsted report and see a glowing report commenting on the lovely children. They want that for their child, however these schools can be filled by the community. If your not in that community you do not deserve a place. ( at another childs expense)
Invest in your local school, get involved.
You should look at your own council website because they have different rules.
We are currently moving from one county to another, our new one just needs to see a signed rental contract/council tax bill. And they say they'd withdraw a place for fraud, but quote the DES guidance:
"A school must not withdraw a place once a child has started at the school, except where that place was fraudulently obtained.
In deciding whether to withdraw the place, the length of time that the child had been at the school must be taken into account, for example, it might be considered appropriate to withdraw the place if the child has been at the school for less than one term "
So you're advocating keeping your head down for as long as possible in the hope you'll get away with it, Boulevard?
They're guidelines, anyway. I'm sure not all cases are dealt with identically.
It's easier to assume that position, violet if you're one of the ones who can afford to live in a nice village or desirable catchment.
Call the relevant council and ask them. The rules may vary from council borough to council borough, so the only relevant rules are those applied by the council where the school you are referring to is. Our council has a dedicated education line and the education officer was able to tell me the exact rules.
Yellow, but that is life is it not? We worked hard to buy a house in a good catchment. We spent tens of thousands more for our home knowing it is in catchment.
Why do you think it is a desirable school?
Nothing i have said is untrue, it how our society works.
Yes people feel it's unfair that they can't go round choosing the best schools, why are they the best schools?
The op can't afford to buy in this area but she would like her child to benefit from the school. Do you think that it is fair to cheat a child out of a place.
If you do obtain a place in this way all if the parents will know, do you want this? Would you like your child to be different?
All children should go to a fabulous school, of course they should. Fundamently though children shoud go to school within their community.
I have a good job but can't afford to live in the catchment area of the good local school. I can afford to pay private school fees so that is what I do. I think it is rather smug to tell people not to go to a certain school.
Fwiw when I was growing up I lived in a nice house in a middle class area. However, ours was a large year and there weren't enough places at the village school. Instead I had to go to a school in the middle of a large council estate as that was the next nearest school. I didn't go to school with dcs from my community but it didn't affect my schooling nor mean I didn't have local friends.
Ds has loads of local friends although he gets a bit fed up as they aren't always around to play with him (his has different term dates).
It is not smug to tell her not to steal a place from a local child.
Would you like to live in a forty room mansion with a pool and a gym...yes? Can we all live in a forty room mansion. No. It is not how life is.
If i wanted a very expensive car, would it be ok to steal one? Well you see i'm worth it, i deserve it, because my child deserves the best? these are not valid reasons.
We deal with what we have. cheating the system, lying is wrong. Its not a victimless crime.
I spent more on my house to avoid school fees.
If you move somewhere and it is your permanent home - i.e. you're not just renting until admissions are over then moving back to a 'real' home that you've hung on to all along - then that is allowed.
Whether it is 'right' or not doesn't come into it. As long as you are not doing anything decptive (like renting a second home just to get into a good school) then you are acting within the rules.
Thankfully a lot of schools and councils are acting to stamp out all the nonsense about renting a second home just for a school place. It has a very negative impact on all areas (both the ones people fight to get into and the ones they fight to get out of).
But what OP intends to do is perfectly fine. She is genuinely moving home to a new permanent residence and applying from there. The fact she doesn't intend to live there very long is neither here nor there. Nothing in admissions rules says you can't continually move house - just that you mustn't have 2 at a time and use the most favourable address for schools.
Once school is started, they cannot remove place.
Yes they can. They probably won't if the cheating isn't discovered in the first term but they can still do it later on as well. They can also refuse an application form and either ammend it to show the correct address (the family home instead of the one being cynically rented for a school place) and they can also leave an application until last treating it as a late applicant and allocating a school from whatever is left after everyone else gets one of their choices.
Lots of people are caught every year. Most are quietly dealt with by getting a telling off and their form ammended to show their real address but children can and do get kicked out of schools when their parents have cheated.
Again - not refering to the OP here because the OP has no second home and is therefore not cheating.
I can't speak for the whole of the country but in London "a local school" is more likely to mean "a ghetto": whether a bankers/high rank lawyers or parents mostly on benefits or Irish Catholic or white creative middle classes ghetto or any other combination. I just don't get this hysteria about local schools and more deserving children. Parents shouldn't be in this position full stop. Poor schools with weak leadership shouldn't be tolerated because as a parent you can do a lot but you can't run the school if the head teacher is a poor manager and the local education authority prefers to game the system instead of genuinely improving schools.
Oh sound that's why i'm not in london! I left london long before i wanted children.
My local school is lovely, so are a lot of the schools around. Even the less desirable ones are ok.
The system is flawed, it encourages us to believe that we are entitled to the best school. You are of course correct but good governerns can transform a school.
violet, stealing a car is theft.
Moving into the catchment of a good school is what the OP is asking about and, er, what you did.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.