Graveney - Renting in catchment for admissions purposes

@Tiggytape - I do hear your point, don't get me wrong. Paying figures like £2k a month to secure a place leaves me dumb struck - it's outrageous. Indeed, some of the good faith schools require baptism for up to 12 months, so still quite accessible to less genuine applicants. I think my problem is this, we were one of the lucky ones, as we were eligible for an incredibly over subscribed school and got allocated a place. A friend of mine wasn't as fortunate, didn't get any of the schools on her ds's lists and has been allocated a school with a Ofstead report that reads like a horror story. The teaching is poor on just about every count, classes disorderly and there's a resident police officer. He's a lovely bright kid like my own and just as deserving of the lovely school my son has been offered. If a similar school was your local school, I can't help wondering if it's a parents natural maternal instinct to effectively save the kids life and through desperation, resort to lying to have their child in an environment that's more conducive with learning? Personally I would struggle to live with it and can't begin to imagine the pressure one would be under on a daily basis for having to worry constantly of the place being withdrawn. A recipe for grey hair I'm sure.

I so favor lottery systems that at least goes some way into providing a more fairer system.

Yes, I said it was a good thing, tiggytape. I agree. And obviously some people get caught and some don't.

But the Wandsworth booklet is not as explicit as the one you quote, and I think perhaps it should be (if as you say all LAs apply the rule that an owned house always trumps a rented one, even if they don't mention this rule - do you have a source with evidence that all LAs work like this?).

I know people lose places and I know how the normal criteria work, what the pressures are on places, and how people get round the problem, and the sometimes desperate situation of those who cannot. What I did not understand was how intention came into it - and that turns out not to be true - so please don't feel you have to spell everything out for me.

I have a feeling that years ago teachers' children got priority in some LEAs (as they were). Does anyone else remember this?

I've been on a lot of these threads on Mumsnet.

Getting rid of the sibling priority at secondary level would cut out so much of this temporary renting problem in over-subscribed school catchments (not all but a lot).

I don't understand why its not possible to lobby/push for it.

Graveney Admissions criteria for admission 2012 states: "Distance is measured by Wandsworth Borough Council on behalf of the school, using the GIS computerised system. The distance is measured from the applicant?s home to the gates of Lower School, Welham Road, using the shortest route along a recognised public highway. It does not take into account pedestrian short cuts. The child?s home will be deemed to be that of the principal carer. The school reserves the right to verify applicants? addresses with primary schools and electoral registers. "

However they are changing it slightly, thus: "(v) Distance is measured by Wandsworth Borough Council on behalf of the school, using the GIS computerised system. Measurements produced by alternative measuring systems will not be taken into account in any circumstances. The distance is measured from the applicant?s home to the geographical centre of the school, using a straight line measurement. The school reserves the right to verify applicants? addresses with primary schools and electoral registers. "

AND if the new draft is agreed will now be prioritising the children of staff at the school over proximity, making the geographical catchment even smaller

Tiggytape, you said this:"sorry to be blunt but you have a fixed idea of what you think is right and aren't accepting that this is not how it works." So, yes I did think you were being rude when in fact your assertions were incorrect (given what the CPS webpage says, and what you are now saying). Even if you had been right, I still think it is rude to answer questions in that tone.

Yes, I have seen these sorts of criteria, and am capable of reading and understanding them, thank you, without your help. It was you that said intention came into it, and I was questioning how that worked, in practise and legally.

I think it is a good idea to specify that an owned house will trump a rental one. There will be anomalies but no system is perfect, and at least that is very clear, provable and predictable.

As others have said in the particular case of Graveney, people do seem to get away with short term lets near the school when they own a house elsewhere. I have just checked the Wandsworth booklet and it does not define a permanent home in owned vs rental terms, merely saying: "The address you give must be your child?s permanent address on the closing date for applications. This must not be a business address, childminder?s or relative?s address, or any address which is not the child?s permanent home."

@Soupdragon but what we're talking about here is morals, and it is morally wrong that money is once again able to dictate the quality of a child's education. It's effectively a loophole that the middle classes can take advantage of, is it not?

@tiggytape atheists praying at church week in week out to guarantee a place at the 'good church school' is also effectively taking away opportunities from genuine, perhaps poor, kids. There is no rule preventing that from happening either. Nonetheless, it is legal yet morally wrong.

Personally I think there are lots of lies flying around, some more 'legal' than others. I just don't think many are in a position to judge when they too are using what resources they have to manipulate the system. Perhaps, and I stress perhaps, the issue lies with the schools, government, poor heads and not the parents in desperate situations trying to avoid tragic outcomes they're destined to based on where they so happen to live - that to me is terribly unfair. It's a postcode lottery.

Good. Very glad when people get caught. I don't even want Graveney.

"A permanent home is where you live with the intention of either staying or moving if you do move oneday, moving to a new house altogether."

This was your definition tiggytape. I have questioned all along how intention can come into it.

I think neither of those things. As I have said several times. You said the definition of a permanent home involved intention. I asked how this could be proved, on either side. Instead of answering you have become rude and provided what in fact turned out to be incorrect information about a marginally analogous situation.

"When one purchases a home in the catchment area of a 'good school', a home they wouldn't have otherwise have purchased, is that not also a lie? "

Not if they buy it with the intention of living in it.

Quick Question: When one purchases a home in the catchment area of a 'good school', a home they wouldn't have otherwise have purchased, is that not also a lie? People in social housing don't have the privilege of manipulating the system in the same way as those from the middle classes, which is equally unfair.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/index.html#a07

Explains exactly what I meant. If the intention line is used, it has to be proved. If it is a weapon or adapted for use as a weapon, intention does not have to be proved. That is what the CPS says.

Tiggytape

Actually, I really like the idea of a system that is fair and seen to be fair. Hence my curiosity about how it works in practice, and whether it has been challenged at all, legally, especially if the council are keeping the criteria deliberately vague.

As far as the baseball bat goes, your first quote said it either had to be a weapon OR there had to be intention. So I assumed that in the case of a non-weapon, intention would have to be proved, and that the onus would only be on the person carrying it to prove a reason if it was a weapon.

And my questions were about how intention is provable - or not - not whether I like the idea - as I say I like pretty well any idea that makes the system fairer and visibly so. Most councils seem to operate the utility bill etc system, presumably because it is clear cut (even if cheatable), so I don't think my curiosity is unreasonable. You have made assumptions about why I was asking these questions.

I think some authorities are seeking to reverse the burden of proof so you have to prove that you didn't suddenly rent out your family home and rent within catchment to gain an advantage in the admissions process.

This is from West Berkshire Council's admissions booklet
"Please note:
if you own a house and are renting another property, your owned property is considered as your permanent address
if you own two or more houses we may ask for evidence of your previous and current Council Tax bills to determine which is the permanent address"

see page 8

Chasz, thanks for the detail on that.

But I assume that means the police/Crown would have to have reason to think, and then to prove, that I had intention, not the other way round? For example, if I had been heard to make threats about someone?

My question all along has been how can you prove what your intention is, ie what is in your head? But others have now said that that yes there is a grey area, albeit a smaller one than under other systems, so that answers the question.

I am also curious about whether there have been legal challenges to admissions criteria that are deliberately left vague to avoid parents' gaming the system, given the requirements of the Admissions Code. Or is the vagueness in what is defined as a permanent address kept out of the actual admissions criteria?

I think it is great that your new system is perceived as fair teacher, that makes it much less divisive and also allows parents to plan properly and legitimately for their family's future.

OP, you could also seek at specialist places at schools like Chestnut Grove. Distance will be a secondary consideration then.

I wonder why they've decided to change the admissions criteria again?

No I don't mind at all if everyone's application is above board.

However, it's our closest school and we are still too far away by a matter of several hundred metres...It hasn't been an issue for DS as he ranked the grammars above Graveney on his CAF and happily got into one. However, we might be a lot more when it comes to applying for secondary schools for DD - by which time the baby boomers will be hitting secondary school big time and getting a place at any half-decent school will get a whole lot more difficult (as if it's not difficult enough already!).

"I don't think anyone minds the catchment area being small if the people getting places are those who are genuine applicants who happen to have met the admission criteria."

I think that is very true. In the past, before they changed the sibling rule and became so rigorous in chcking addresses, our local comprehensive had a large number of dissatisfied parents who felt that the system was unfair and favoured those 'abusing the system'.

This year, almost exactly the same children have got in as did in the past (all siblings in catchment, everyone else in catchment, siblings out of catchment who live in what used to be catchment until a couple of years ago (ie just outside the current catcment area)). However, because a very few children didn't get in who were very obviously 'playing the system' - siblings from a long way away, and those whose addresses didn't match up over the long term - and because the new system is so much more rigorous, pretty much every parent I have spoken to is happy with the system and perceive it as fair - even if they didn't get in.

OP, if your name gives the right clues, I would also be wary of your closest Academy.

However with a middle-performing child I would be asking whether Graveney is any better than any other school. It's results come from the selective streams. It has had it's fair share of bad behaviour reports including drug use.

Clapham Academy is well liked by many parents, it just hasn't developed the competitive buzz, Elm Green has excellent pastoral support, uses setting rather than streaming and has a great reputation, and have you looked at Dunraven and Chestnut Grove? Transport wise you could also have the option of entering the Kingsdale lottery.

All these options would have bigger catchments, involve cheaper temporary rental agreements and less chance of getting shopped.

Graveney isn't the holy grail!

gazzalw, I think Graveney is re-introducing sibling policy regardless of catchment from 2013. They are also changing the way they measure distance so it is done as a straight line rather than walking route. All of which from my point of view is fabulous and perfect timing, as someone who was a few metres outside catchment area when ds1 got in last year and therefore dependent on younger siblings doing equally well in the test. (Actually we were well inside the distance this year so maybe we would have been lucky.)

I appreciate that this means the distance will probably shrink again so more local children will lose out but I'm at that point of just being happy that it looks as though we will be OK.

It is a real shame though that children come from so far around. My son's friends in his class all live miles away so there is no popping in and out of each other's houses in the way that his old primary school friends who are in upper or middle and got in on distance can.