Graveney - Renting in catchment for admissions purposes

@AngelEyes46, even though hubby's an atheist, there are still bits he's keeping balanced at home emotionally and financially allowing you the time and the brain power to do the things you do at church. Often with the mental stress and the financial hardship involved in raising a child/ren single handily, there's only time to get to church weekly and collapse on your knees to pray for help before rushing back home to juggle life in preparation for the toxic hours of the Monday morning - single handily. PS: One way to get up the nose of a lone parent is to even think that because your husband or partner doesn't get involved with one aspect of family life, that your pressures, challenges and issues are comparable in some way.

There is always going to be people that will abuse the system but maybe we should be pleased that our schools have diversity. By the way, Coloma has changed their admission policy this year by missing out 'what you do for the church etc' although I don't think it is just for middle class mums - there is loads that can be done within the church community. I work full time but read at mass and also look after the little ones at liturgy. I'm not a single mum but my dh is an athiest so it's up to me to take dcs to mass etc. and get involved in the church community.

@ohdearconfused: Oh I see...yes of course, that's right.

I know of a parent wanting to get their delightful ds into a particularly great primary school, just three streets away from where she lived (the poorer part of a lush area). For her child to be deserving of a place there, would have taken three times the amount of her current property. For those with the financial clout however, they buy homes next door and get a place. Where is the morality in that?

Thanks for fixing link btw:)

I meant: if you starting renting short-term (OPs question) for the advantage conferred by all these activities, then the criticism comes ....

btw: your link didn't work. Fixed it here

@ohdearconfused. Couldn't agree with you more. My point entirely. And with all due respect, even the extensive church chores many of the the Middle Class mums embarked on in order to secure a place in some of the top faith schools, has also been deemed as elitist and banned as a criteria from many of these schools also (Coloma being the most recent www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2011/11/coloma-accused-of-unfair-admissions-rules/). It was deemed that all the extra involvement in the church can only be made by well off parents where wealthy dad is at work looking after the whole family, giving mummy plenty of time to do the church chores - something a single mother, for example, wouldn't have the time to do. Financial muscle at play once again. And literally, I had a friend who sold her house when her ds started in year 5 and bought a house a couple of streets away from Langley Boys. Low and behold, got offered a place, this year. There are some stained halo's I think.

Not sure what you meant by your last line though...'But, oh dear, OP, if you start renting for that .....'

StockwellLiving: "Agree that it?s morally equilavent ? in both cases someone else (perhaps someone long established in the community) is displaced - but buying seems not to be cheating ? there was a thread on this distinction before. Can?t find it right now."

Yep - I started a thread about that last year here. And it comes up a lot on these threads. (Some if not all) MNs seem less inclined to criticise others who start praying (or start praying more intensively), have their DCs learn an instrument, tutor, move, and so on, all (apart from the praying bit) using financial muscle to get an advantage for their DC (necessarily over and above someone elses). But, oh dear, OP, if you start renting for that .....

StockwellLiving, that's basically it but the different spats go back further than that (to 1999, I think, with a ruling in 2000 on proportion being selected) and I think there are more recent ones (although possibly with a different body, not the SA). But when I read them in the past (am not doing so again either, once was enough!), I was left with the impression that Graveney has always fought hard to maintain or increase the proportion of selective intake, despite a fair bit of local opposition, some political, some because of the effect it has on other schools and the difficulties faced by families living close to the school but too far for a distance place.

Likewise, my understanding - possibly wrong - is that it was forced to change the rules on siblings of children who got in via the selective route, and it sounds like it has taken the first opportunity to change them back (cleverness tending to run in families).

EdithW: The siblings policy has changed slightly:
Admission for 2012 criteria:

Category 2
187 places allocated in the following order:
(i) Children Looked After
(ii) Applicants not admitted under Category 1 who have a sibling attending the school on the date of admission, and whose sibling was:
(a) admitted under Category 1 or Category 2 before September 2008;
(b) admitted under Category 2 from September 2008;
(c) admitted under Category 1 from September 2008, but whose address was within the distance from Graveney School which would have qualified for a Category 2 place

Draft for 2013:
Category 2
187 places allocated in the following order:
(i) Children Looked After or children who were looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted (or became subject to a residence order or special guardianship order)
(ii) Applicants not admitted under Category 1 who have a sibling attending the school at the time of application.

So last year siblings of any Category 1 (selective) students would NOT have been admitted unless the category 1 sib had been in the school since before Sept 2008. Now, all siblings will be admitted.

@EdithWeston I just think that regardless of the impact on results and indeed traffic, easily resolvable by school buses - it's a fairer system and one not influenced by your bank balance. There would be no point moving, renting, praying (if it's not truly your faith), or otherwise as your name is simply pulled out of a hat making it too much of a long shot to make it worth your while cheating, or at least feeling desperate enough to consider it. When ones local school has pupils that look more like convicts, with police standing outside and lessons reminiscent to St, Trinians, who knows what people are tempted to do. I just think it's a fairer system.

A system such as grammar schools where money can buy you the best tutors 2/3 times a week, or prep schools that prepare extensively for the test is by no means meritocratic. The sheer small number of kids on FSM is evident of that fact. I'm a huge fan of the concept of grammar schools, the problem is however, like purchasing homes and renting additional homes, money can secure you a place. I think we all need to accept that we are simply living in a world where pound notes can get you just about anything you want and the majority are using whatever resources they have to get the outcome that provides the best environment for their kids. For some, that is allocating the time too, which in itself is money. Time is something for example, that say a single parent wouldn't have. It all comes down to money. It's outrageous, unfair but true.

Graveney has its draft admissions code on its website. Rules for siblings are unchanged, and the school does not have a catchment.

I expect Bolingbroke will rapidly become THE middle class magnet in that area (120 places per year group?) and that should widen Graveney's admissions footprint quite a bit.

BTW - does anyone know if results in Brighton have shot up (like in the US example cited above)? I seem to recall that there hadn't been any real impact at all. In which case, there really is no argument for introducing it London-wide (or even borough-wide in London) where rush hour journeys are already hell.

"I got the impression its completely shunned by the aspirational classes and don?t perform too well (although do great for middling and lower achieving kids)." I believe that the occasional aspirational mc class has a middle achieving kid - even some MNers! It hasn't got the buzz because the aspirational classes are very competitive about getting into the school that is the one to be seen at, regardless of actual performance in relation to entry level ability.

Arguably a school like Dunraven which has no selective stream, and a mostly genuinely community intake does better: it has very good results especially set against context: Dunraven has twice the % of pupils on FSM, and 40% against 56% 'high attainers' in the intake. But the very fact that Graveney has a competive intake defines the attraction for competitive aspirational parents.

Elm Green's first results are out this year, I think - but in the way of things may not reflect the potential of the school since the first year's intake will not have included families chasing the hallowed places in Dunraven, Charter, Graveney etc. It is now an over-subscribed school with a shrinking catchment. As is Chestnut Grove, recently dubbed Outstanding.

I know a barrister with a high achieving child at Lambeth Academy, and a family with 2 G&T children doing very well at Elm Green.

I would think that those schools would hold a lesser chance of getting 'shopped' precisely because there is less middle class frenzy around them, and no long term history of entry via a rental loop hole.

Yes, Kingsdale is a lottery, and a reasonable back-up chance as such. Especially if there is a possibility of a scholarship to increase the chances.

I am sure Graveney is a good school, but it's partial selective status brings the worst of all worlds, really. Increasing the reputation for all and thus pushing out local families who would otherwise be in catchment. At least the grammars are more defensible as a genuine meritocracy (judged on one day).

StockwellLiving

I think you are probably onto something there. Try googling Graveney and Schools Adjudicator!

I think the siblings policy does cause problems but can also benefit schools and communities. Dunraven, for example, seems to have lots of families who feel very linked to the school. It's not about transport but a sense of belonging, schools being a wider family, continuity, organisational memory and so on. I don't know where the balance should lie, but I do think those things are important in inner London with its mobile and diverse population.

Could you actually, really move (sorry, you may have answered this)? If so, a couple of miles from where I guess you are now, you'd probably be in line for both Dunraven and ElmGreen, and could still try for Kingsdale, Graveney and any other selective/random places you wanted.

Tiggytape, all that makes sense. But it is not what the owned-trumps-rented criterion you posted says - that left no room for special cases eg holiday homes - is there more that you did not post? Otherwise, this is all sensible speculation and interpretation, but may not be what actually happens.

I suspect this is why it is difficult. It is like code breaking. You come up with what seems like a common sense fair system, people find ways round it, you add in stuff, people find ways round that, and you are off towards the opaque, inconsistent and often unfair system that we would all like to improve (apart from the current government, which seems to want to remove oversight and allow even more variation).

Sorry, wrote a message and then lost it!

I think the variation is striking: most leave temporary/short term and permanent undefined. If you move somewhere for two/three years, and move all paperwork, everything, and say it is permanent (maybe it is?), you'd pass most of these tests. Even the owned trumps rented one: what about holiday home owners or people whose house sale and purchase fell through at the wrong moment?

The more you think about it, the harder it gets.

Lambeth only has 3 secondaries for which it is the Admissions Authority.
The criteria for one popular secondary says
"?Home address? is the address at which the child should live permanently and full time as the principal
residence. It does not include short term rental or lease and does not include the address of a relative or
carer, unless they have legal custody of the child"
and you have to supply a current Council Tax bill with the supplementary application form and the name - and Head's signature - of the current primary school.

@twoterrors So the future holds a system where all the best teachers, who will also probably be aspirational, seeking jobs in the better schools whilst leaving even more of the less able ones in schools that are already performing poorly. If this did exist in the past, it would be interesting to know why they stopped it. I don't agree with it at all.