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

No, but I do think that bad parenting should be punished and that that would help get rid of some schools being so bad that people will go to extreme lengths to avoid them.

Schools get extra funding for children on FSM but it just isn't enough to make a difference. They get penalised for empty places which is common in schools that have a high rate of exclusion so those schools do actually need a lot more money.

Charging parents for a place in oversubscribed state schools and putting that cash where it is needed would be shocking but essentially what happens at the moments is that people buy themselves into an area, yet pocket that money in their house price increase. They invest in children and property so a benefit on all fronts.

That's what gets me the most. Many of these parents would send their kids to private schools but this is a cheaper option for them.

I'm just brainstorming ideas here... can you think of an alternative to a lottery?

abendbrot, on what planet would that be fair!?

Charging people money to go to a state school that they already pay for in taxes so that money can go to schools that quite often get extra funding anyway because of children on FSM?

Really?

Erebus it would take a genius to invent a system that would be fair - a lottery is the easiest way round it (in cities only).

The only other 'fair' way is that oversubscribed schools charge fees to the sharp-elbowed parents to get a place and then that money is given to the undersubscribed schools. At least that way the cash doesn't stay in the pockets of the sharp-elbowed and gives the other schools a chance.

nailak, it does happen. I agree it's a huge amount of hassle and stress. But renting can be unpedictable anyway, and if it's the only chance of getting your child into a good school, plenty of people would do it.

The lottery idea sounds interesting. I think it would work in the long run, but I can't honestly say I'd choose to take the chance with my children.

Buying in catchment or moving or staying in an area with a good school is using money to buy a school place.

Lottery is a fairer system, although would be very stressful for families.

nailak why? why shouldn't DCs be expected to leave a local, catchmented school when they've completed the Key Stage they're in if they move into another catchment? Because forcing that to happen doesn't enshrine the sharp-elbowed's DC and siblings 'right' to benefit ad infinitum?

This 'child's RIGHT to education' thing? (despite the dirty tricks and duplicitousness of parents etc)- but it's OK because they're only doing it because every parent wants the best for their DC, therefore it's OK, by definition... isn't it? I mean, imagine if those parents had to go to the trouble of playing the system every change of address! How unreasonable!

I don't want a lottery- I want a fair system. Because that can't exist as someone will always play it and others will always be disadvantaged: I want a system where I do at least have some options- like buying in catchment!

slave tbh i dont think it is realistic that a family will just up and move from their rented family house in to another house for a few months, and then move away again a few months later, sounds too much stress and expense.

i dont think children should be made to leave school once they are in the school either.

i think that at admissions they should check things like drs address which health visitor the child attends etc to make sure that they live in the area.

i dont think it is feasible that those who have recently moved cant access local schools as many people who rent or are on lower incomes are moved often, due to landlords etc for example a parent at my dds school has had to move due to abusive situation, she is currently spending a lot of money she hasnt got on travel to the school as she has had to move.

thewomaninthebus have you got a link to the Chicago experiment?

I have always believed that there should be a lottery system within a certain distance, particularly in cities where there are lots of schools. It's a no-brainer to me.

Our current system only exists because of the hangover of our class system and a fear of upsetting middle england voters. Let's hope the government change it soon.

'and classes would get very much too full, but then it will all self-correct'

what about health and safety and fire regulations ?

Re Lurkers "I mind of people say 'I know it's wrong but my child comes first.' I mind that greatly.

I also wouldn't shove someone else's kid out of a lifeboat. We'd just have to make room..."

Another solution of course is to take up this there-is-always-room-for-one-more suggestion and apply it to a school. The school could just let everyone in and "just have to make room". Sure, undersirables (kids who don't want to learn etc and don't move into catchment of a "good" school) will get in as well, and classes would get very much too full, but then it will all self-correct as the "popular" school becomes less so .... and the school down the road that everyone is trying to avoid gets very generous per-pupil resources (this can't work of the money follows the pupil; the budgets have to stay the same) and very small classes.

Might take a few years, but it may well even it all out.

The better way is to do random allocation for all over-subscribed schools.

The "local link" will be mainted, because realistically, you are only going to apply to schools that are local (or you will move after getting the place to be local).

The difference in school quality will iron itself out over time (perhaps immediately - Chicago did this a while ago - written about in Freakonomics) as sink schools disappear because the supportive / valuing-education families (not just middle class) are spread out evenly.

And something will then be done about disruptive behavious because the vocal middle classes will not put up with anything less. They can get themselves onto governing bodies, demand better head teachers, and so on.

(I'd ban private (and selective) schools too - and then politicians will take more of an interest.)

well we're looking for a rental property in a desirable catchment area (will be living in it and probably for at least a year before buying in the area, but probably a bit further away) - and it is a nightmare. a flat came on the market this week (0.08 miles away from the school) and it went in hours. dd is in y6 in that school (so we won't have any sibling link for ds next year) and in her class she knows of one person in the class who rented a flat but didn't live in it and got a place. Another girl didn't get a place until y4 and her parents still in y6 blame the fake renter.

So many people do it in this school - it doesn't make it right of course - but the catchment is now 0.11 miles - and the only way people must get in year after year is to do the short term renting thing. there just aren't enough houses/flats nearby that could have enough children to fill a reception class year after year.

In my area (see nickname!) I do know people who for secondary school rent their houses out and rent a flat near desirable secondary schools. There has to be a better way than this.

I expect there are times that renters would have an advantage over homeowners too though. People often wouldn't be able to afford to pay a mortgage and rent, but if they rent anyway they might be able to pay a more expensive rent for a few months to secure a place.

No system will ever be fair to all. Schools need to get better and all parents need to engage with their child's education to help make that happen.

It is morally wrong, and cheating the system. And yet again it's the wealthier families who can do it; most families can't afford to rent a second property, even for a matter of months.

Some parents, will do it, sure, but don't pretend it's moral.

Also, a thought- if this were 'the system', wouldn't it come to pass that work relocations would factor in the 'proof of residence' needs of the employee they were relocating? And isn't it more likely that places would come up at the school if DCs were also leaving because their families were moving away and the DCs had to follow?

No system will work for every eventuality, will it?- those families would have to apply for the next round of offers. But at least there won't be DCs in the desired school whose families no longer live in catchment or indeed, never did.

Where does that leave families who have had to relocate just prior to school applications?

A solution is to insist that applicants can prove they've lived in the stated house for a proper length of time. Proof might be quite onerous, not just a council tax demand- it might include proof of GP registration, proof of electoral roll enrollment, official dated letters addressed to that house over the length of time. You could also make a rule that IF you move outside what the catchment was on the date of your DCs enrollment you can only keep your DC in that school for the current KS so that the people who move into your in-catchment now vacated house can send their DCs to that local school.

There would of course be uproar. Many would cite 'the rights of the child' to its continuing education (regardless of how its 'right' negates the 'right' of the incoming child to a place at the school) etc etc, others might argue that it 'wasn't fair' on newcomers to the area- but if those were the rules, I bet we'd find ways of ensuring we were in catchment for the required time and would stay in the required length of time.

By 'proper' length of time, I mean 7 months+ prior (overcomes the 6th month rental thing!).

A family at my ds's grammar school did the same thing spider. The catchment area is huge, it covers four counties, but they lived just outside the boundary. They rented short term so they would be offered a place if he passed, and then moved properly when the place was offered.

Can't say I blame them. The school is worth it imo.

that's rather different from renting to get into the school and then moving back to the family home.

i rented short term for 6 months to get into a grammar school catchment area we really moved in there though.Changed GPs and everything. Since then though we have bought and settled down in the catchment.No problem with it at all.You do what you have to for your DC