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

Short term renting is not playing the game is it cheating/lying/fraud.

'I don't think one child has more right to a space in a particular school than another,'

Yet you're willing, Slave, to buy your way in, jump the queue...so your child apparently has more of a right to the place than some other kid, in your estimation.

I think it's a dreadful thing to do. It's the ultimate in 'I'm alright, Jack' and you ought to be ashamed.

'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.'

No, they're not. Some can't afford to, and most will have a better moral stance than you do.

Can't believe you're trying to justify this

Well, one is lying and the other is moving house.

Yes, in London, you can still do this and remain local. Take SW London for eg, and Graveney. Catchment of 500-700 yards! (and school has itself weakened the "local" link by having selective admissions for 25% of entrants.

As far as I am concerned the children who have a right to go to a particular school are those who qualify under that school's admission criteria. Renting somewhere short term so that you can pretend to live somewhere you don't is subverting that process. Every year I come across parents on here and in real life who have missed out on a place at their local secondary school (or primary school in some cases) because others have lied about their address, in some cases using short term lets to do so. I regard that as unfair.

The information given out by LAs is clear that you must apply using the address where the child genuinely permanently lives. Anything else is not "playing the system". It is cheating. I understand that some people manage to convince themselves that it is ok to lie on the application form but I disagree. Thankfully, as Admission says, LAs are getting increasingly smart about this so that fewer parents get away with it but it still happens.

I have a lot of sympathy for the child who ends up travelling a long way to a school in special measures regardless of whether that is because the local schools were full or because the parents were unrealistic in their preferences. Unfortunately that is likely to happen unless we get a lot of spare capacity in the education system.

Hmmm have seen parent 'split' cough to rent a flat within catchment. So long as the council tax is paid, the school is satisfied. Come 3 march, when places are allocated and signed and sealed, parents reconcile and the rental flat is let go.

Much cheaper to do that than actually move house.

to give an example - what is happening in the area we live in is that people are taking a short term let and not selling their old house (therefore not freeing up housing). Then moving back to their old house and busing/driving their children in. One school near us felt so strongly about it that they took two families to court.

The problem is that it could be OP's local school too, it's just that some school require you to almost live on their doorstep.

I really do hate to disagree with Prh47, as I have a huge amount of respect for his opinions, but disagree I do! I don't think one child has more right to a space in a particular school than another, and I don't see this as someone taking a space away from another child at all. All children should have equal right to a place at the school of their parent's choosing, but unfortunatly, that makes no difference to the fact that schools only have a limited amount of space.

But why should one child be given a place when another has to travel across town to the school in special measures? Lets face it, that's what it often comes down to, and it is equally unfair whichever child it happens to.

The argument can easily be made that short-term renting is morally better than purchasing. Both approaches are using money to play the system. But renting is less costly and frees up property annually, making it an option open to more families than could afford to buy. If the presumption is that money should not buy access to state schools, then it follows that renting is the more ethical option, simply because it requires less money.

With regard to the argument that people who short-term rent are depriving someone else of the place "that is rightfully theirs", what is the basis of any child's right?

Yes there is a real difference - morally not good at all to take a short term let to get into a catchment area. It may (and does) deprive children who live permanently of a place at their local school.

Where this situation is rife the admission authorities are getting quite cute at knowing what is going on and doing something about it. I know of at least 1 LA that has lists of houses that are known rental houses within catchment for sought after schools. Any admission applications from these addresses cause lots of red flags to appear and will be investigated, to ascertain exactly what the situation is.
Also some LAs now have conditions attached around the need to stay at the address for a set period of time. Personally I am not sure how legal that is but the very fact that they are wanting to apply it, says that they wil take action.
Whether it is morally right to rent shortterm is really for you to decide, but if you abuse the system sometimes it is going to come back and bite you.

My daughter cannot get into the village school because there are no places. It is the kind of school that people rent temporarily to get into. I just want my dd to go to the village school regardless of its results or oftsed rating, to have friends in her village, cycle to school etc but she can't because the school us full, no doubt with children whose parents played the catchement game.

In my view there is a huge moral difference. By engaging in this kind of behaviour you are depriving children of school places that are rightfully theirs.

There is also a practical difference. If the LA find out that you have done this they can withdraw the offer of a place even after your child has started at the school. Indeed, if you let somewhere whilst continuing to own or let your current home, there is a decent chance the LA will find out about it before offers are made in which case it will have done you no good at all.

I am all for doing the best you can for your child but not in ways that disadvantage other children.

I don't think it matters

Here the distances to get into the sought after schools are so small that most people will still be in the area and part of the community even if they move "away"

Morally, there is a big difference.

Getting a temporary address just for the forms does not compare to moving into an area and becoming part of a community. I don't believe it is morally right to lie on official forms.

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.

Ds 2 goes to a school in a different village, he would never get in nowadays, but living in another villiage has never been a problem. You only get one chance at educating your child, do what you have to do.

Personally, I think there is quite a difference.

If you rent you have no intention of getting involved with the area and as many school have a sibling policy, you can rent for one year then get all of your children in. Where I live there are several houses very close to our school, that every year has another family with a 11 year old, who then move out for the next lot, this has been going on for years and many children at the local primary can not get in to the school, yet the siblings of theses children who live well out of catchment keep on getting in to the school.

I don't think it's the same if you actually buy in the area as your children are then really local, the benefit of that being local friends, walking to school and a real engagement with what is going on in the area.

Of course it isn't fair that house prices are pushed up as a result of small catchments, but I do think local children should be able to get into their local schools.

I live in London where the situation re schools is really pressured, and personally I would get rid of the sibling policy at our school, but that's just my view and I do think it is different if you live in a more rural area.