Any real moral difference between a short term let for admission purposes or permanently moving

I hate this "it's stealing a place from another child" attitude. What you're basically saying, is that people who can afford to buy near a good school deserve a place there, and people who can't afford that have to put up with the rubbish school near their (cheaper) house.

Either nocitrus.

Both can involve money and an opportunity that someone else doesn't have. Both can be done without a view to living there long term and becoming part of the local community. Both can involve moving away when the child is in Y1 and then getting a younger sibling in even though they now live further away.

I just think that using money to get a school place over someone else is either morally wrong or morally ok, whichever way you chose to do it.

Whether it is legally wrong or right is different, because of admissions criteria, but that's not what the dissapearing OP asked.

I think what gets to me most is that those families with the 'nouse' are at an advantage to those who just get on with their lives assuming their child will get a decent education in their local school.

Those who have faith in the system are those that are let down by it the most. Those who work out the loopholes, win.

There should be no place in a democracy for this kind of inequality. That sounds like something a political leader would say - but so far, not one, right or left, has had the balls to do anything about it.

I shall be with you nickshick.

Do you mean actually moving to somewhere that is rented, or 'moving' a parent and child to a rented place near the school while keeping a house elsewhere?

The former I have no problem with; the latter is fraud.

Also if you aren't in a position to buy, it's remarkably difficult to get a long term let. SIL had to move recently so obviously looked for somewhere near a decent school as will have to apply this winter. Trying to get a landlord to agree to a 18 month lease so that she can guarantee dn will still be living there when school starts (as required by the LA in order for the place to be kept) was incredibly tricky given the standard is 6-month ASTs - luckily they finally accepted DH as a guarantor rather than requiring a year's rent up front!

Its just very sad that school has become such an issue.
When I was small you just went to the school nearest where you lived,it wasnt a choice but then schools were all on a par we didnt have value added scores and league results and ofsted.

Theres so much wrong with an education system that yet again allows the 'wealthier' to 'buy' places at state schools -cos thats what it is basically .

Where I live there is a secondary school so exclusive it attracts busloads of students from far away - local kids hardly stand a chance as it has a very very strict admissions policy.

Are families that do this 'buying their way in' any more than another family who is able to to buy a house close enough in the first place though?

What about the family that live in rented accomodation anyway, and decide to put up with higher rent for a few months until they secure their place and then move back to the street with cheaper rents round the corner?

There are perfectly legal ways to beat the system, all will involve one child getting a place over another. Is it immoral to do either of the things suggested about that will get your child a place above someone elses, or is that ok because strictly speaking, it's not against the rules?

It makes a big difference when siblings of successive families who have all moved away then take up places from out of catchment.
And every year a new family takes a lease on a flat, gets the first child in, move on having 'bagsed' sibling spaces, then a new family move into the leased flat and do exactly the same thing, and local families on the doorstep then find themselves locked out and travelling away from their own locality. So it isn't just lack of local engagement from the moved away families but the dislocation to a far flung school from those on the doorstep.

It's a loophole on the system, it's legal, but it's effect is to favour certain sections of the demography. Yet again. That's the experience in inner-city London, where expensive housing is cheek by jowl with council estates. I can't speak for other areas.

It's immorral because it involves dishonesty.

But there are degrees of immorality in this situation.

Is it worse to rent the home without moving in than it is to temporarily move in?

Is it worse to do it when the school you want is not a designated catchment school for where you live, than it is to do it just to get a place at your own local, closest school?

I'm not being clear now.

What I mean is people doing this are buying their way in. Most families can't afford to rent an extra house.

So saying that if you were 'forced' to because you weren't able to move house...I'm just not sure what this scenario is that you envisage in which your sense of morality would be allowed to fly out the window.

I see what you are saying but I don't think it's exactly like that.

There is a limit to the number of children who can go to a school.

Some families will have invested in the community, perhaps made sacrifices in order to move there. And someone comes along and rents a house for a few months, just to shove in in front of the child whose family lives there...firstly I don't think there are many people who could afford to keep up rent on a second home even for a few months, who could consider themselves too poor to move house, (this is crucial really - adversely to your argument I think it's mainly wealthier familes who could choose to do this) and secondly, it's cheating.

The system may well be very flawed and that's a different argument. But I think cheating is not on. You said yourself it's immoral. Why is it immoral?

If it's immoral then it's wrong.

There is a difference between doing the best for your child and doing something wrong.

Even when the thing you can do is to commit fraud?

Yes, I wouldn't do it because I wouldn't have to. I am lucky enough that I have options, I love my dc's primary school, and I'm aware that not everyone would be able to move.

If I was faced with a choice between sending my child to a crap school in the next town, or taking a short term let, I would do the latter.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

If putting my children first means another child suffers then I don't think it's particularly justified.

But it's ok for my child to suffer when I can do something about it

The 'another child' wouldn't have to suffer any more than my child is already expected to. If this were a real situation for us.

Morally there is no difference. If you feel guilty, put your dcs down for the local school and enjoy being part of the school community and let you dcs enjoy local friends and being kept an eye on by your neighbours.

'The other difference is that you seem to think there is something outrageous about putting the welfare of your own child first, but I'm not at all ashamed to say that I would put my own child first. You call it an 'I'm all right Jack' attitude, I call it being a parent. Who else is going to consider what's best for my children if I don't?'

Don't you think we all want the best for our children?

If putting my children first means another child suffers then I don't think it's particularly justified.

You're not being clear, Slave.

You say you wouldn't do it, personally, because you wouldn't have to?

But you also say 'But, I would do the short term let thing if I had to. The whole admission system is just a lottery, and you have to play along. Morally wrong maybe, but my child is my priority, and everyone else is free to play teh game and take their chances if they want to.'

So you wouldn't do it unless you felt you had to?

What would constitute having to?

I still don't think it's acceptable. Even if you can't afford to move.

We agree because we both think that people shouldn't do it.

The difference is that I can understand why parents who have been forced into the position where short term renting is the best option they have to get their children a good education at their own local school, would decide to do it.

The other difference is that you seem to think there is something outrageous about putting the welfare of your own child first, but I'm not at all ashamed to say that I would put my own child first. You call it an 'I'm all right Jack' attitude, I call it being a parent. Who else is going to consider what's best for my children if I don't?

Personally, this is not something I would do. I would move permenantly. So maybe that makes it ok. I can afford to take the moral high ground if I was faced with this situation. Some people can't afford to do that, and I don't think anyone should be blamed and held up as some unfeeling selfish liar because they want the best they can get for their children.

Slave, I am not sure why you think we agree. You stated that it is morally wrong, but you would 'do it if I had to'.

My position is that it is morally wrong and thus I wouldn't do it.

I think that a short-term let when you have no intention of permanently settling within the catchment of the school is not really on. But moving permanently into the catchment of a good school is absolutely fine.

Short term let is fine if it is properly drawn up and legal, and you actually move in and live there properly. There are all sorts of reasons that families move around like this.

However doing it in name only without actually moving in is well dodgy IMO.

Personally I don't think it's any worse than craftily getting one sibling into a school, then immediately moving miles away so the subsequent 2 or 3 siblings can benefit from being there for the next decade or so. I have seen very many incidences of that in a number of schools, and nobody ever seems to question the fairness of such a setup in terms of depriving other more local families and children of places in the nearest school (a particular problem in my village, where some kids end up being taxied miles away and never really knowing their local neighbours as a consequence).

Ultimately I would like to see the Victorian "closest school" policy ditched, and catchments opened up quite a bit more and linked with sensible school transport policies so it was less of a nightmare for parents wherever they sent their children. But I can't see that happening in my lifetime.

"children who live near the school getting priority"

Unless, of course, your local school operates a Feeder School system whereby children further away than yours actually get priority.

Lurkers, I don't disagree with you, and it sounds like you feel more strongly about this than I do.

What I'm saying is that I can understand why people do it. People want to do the best they can for their children, and the school they go to is an important thing.

When someone is renting somewhere extra from their house that is out of catchment, then that is much worse than when someone who is in catchment, and is very local, does something to guarantee a place because they live 100 meters to far away to get into their own local school.

I agree with Prh that children have a right to places based on the school's admission criteria, I hadn't thought about it quite like that. Sometime people are justified in feeling that the admissions criteria is unfair though, like when you have the situation where children that live far away get a place above someone who lives close because of the sibling rule. Personally, I agree with the sibling rule, but it's understandable that people don't.

I think there is a significant difference - moving permanently means you are making full use of the actual rules for entry and the principle behind them (children who live near the school getting priority). A short-term let means you are lying about where the child lives in order to get what you want, which is against both the letter and the principle of the rules.

People make their own decisions about whether the rules are "fair", and also about whether, fair or not, their own child's benefit is more important than the rules, and more important than the competing interests of other children.

But abiding by the rules vs lying to break the rules are not morally the same, whatever decision you reach about what you/they are going to do about it.

Yes there is a moral difference. Buying and moving to a catchment area is moral. You join the community and your children have a life and friends there.

Short term renting to get a place is immoral.

There is no justification for it. Would you like a politician to be caught out doing something like that? Probably not. If you were poor and missed out on a place in a decent local school because someone with more money rented a place that much closer would you like it? No, you'd say it's immoral.

I'd add disgusting.