Moving into rented accommodation in the catchment area-when can I safely move back?

The Scottish system is different from England's.
But either way, you would be best off starting your own thread as this is 6 years old.

Hi all, does anyone know if my son will be eligible for a catchment area in Scotland where we own a place, but renting it out?
We are thinking about buying another place slightly outside of our preferred catchment area but we will still keep the place we have now. so not sure when the time comes to apply if we will be able to apply for the catchment area we like if we are renting out our place there? Do we have to be physically living there ourselves?
Any thoughts?

2013 ZOMBIE THREAD

The thread is five years old.
I should think the OP has passed that stage.
(But would nonetheless be grateful for your thoughts).

OP - some of the responses were very rude and I feel sorry for you.

What you are doing is merely playing the system and you are only writing what others are thinking.

Anxious parents will lie, cheat and even change religions to get their little ones into the "right" school. The people responding with outrage can't tell say they've never been dishonest to gain some sort of advantage- because everyone does it!

Private schools are unaffordable for the majority. Cost of living is going up and up. Pressure for places in the best state schools is frenzied. What is a middle class person to do but cheat the system? Anyone would do the same to gain an unfair advantage and it's up to authorities to try to catch us out.

I respect your aspirations. Hope you got your foot in the educational door!

Now the councils are asking the question "is it your only address?" If you are answering yes and keeping your out of catchment house ( while living in rented accommodation in catchment area), this is a fraud.
If you have sold your house and then rented an accommodation in the catchment, that's your only address and you are entitled to a school place. I think it is works like this.

the pillars of society do it a hell of a lot more than your average Joe

No they don't. They may choose to live close to a good school but they don't use a false address. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of parents are caught doing this every year. Some will end up with the school they would have got had they used their genuine address. Some will end up with a worse school than they would have got, so they actually disadvantage their child by doing this.

very little they can do if you have a proper tenacncy agreement and council tax registerd

Rubbish, as people find out every year. Councils regularly catch people who have taken these precautions.

Some councils are better at catching fraudulent applications than others. In general the councils where there is a real problem with people using false addresses are best at catching fraud.

Anyone reading this is, of course, free to take James9669's advice. But you need to be aware that, even if you manage to get a place this way, your child could be thrown out of the school if the LA find out what you have done, and not only in the first term. Some people have had places withdrawn much later than this. You also need to be aware that, if you are found out, your child may end up at an even worse school than the one you would have got if you had been honest. Do you really want to take the risk?

It is dog eat dog - this is the world we live - get use to it - do what ever it takes for that school place

This is not new and the pillars of society do it a hell of a lot more than your average Joe, I say go for it but be aware you need to keep it until after the 1st school term has finished as moves in the 1st school term are investigated- every one on the high horse about how wrong it is - well I say it is wrong not to do everything in your power for kids future - most of them would do it if they had too trust me - not a sensible move calling the LEA thou you might be in there raydar - very little they can do if you have a proper tenacncy agreement and council tax registerd - it is sad another child losses a place but this time bomb had been caused by them not us we should not be held to ransom to a postcode lottery where schools can put 50k onto the price of a house in the area - good luck - be aware any siblings you want admitted under sibling rule often states if move you need to still remain within 2 miles - good luck

You only get to chose from the (limited) options given to you (max 3 these days, isn't it?) It's nothing like a free choice, and you could never be sure where any of those options would be. So not remotely plannable by the family themselves, not least because they have little to no input into what options they get. And there won't be funded moves unless the reasons for it are beyond the family's control.

And yes, you do have to move even if your DC is in exam run up. That's why CEA is paid so families have the option of boarding for any years where they think continuity is important.

The thing is meditrina, they do get to choose - they are given a number of choices, some of which are less attractive/suitable than others, and sometimes go for the less attractive/suitable option if it is in catchment of their preferred school. They do then move.

And they don't have to move every 2 to 3 years if one child is coming up to GCSE age. At that point, they ask the school to write a letter explaining that a move at this stage will be detrimental to the child's studies, and in that way, they can keep things stable.

"Or to accept military quarters which are smaller than your family needs in order to gain a place for one child in your preferred school, and then to move to a more suitable quarter, out of catchment, and thereafter use the sibling rule to get your other children in?"

Given that military families move on every 2-3 years, this is unlikely to be a major issue as most won't still be there by the time next sibling needs a a place.

Also, they don't get to choose where they are allocated their accommodation.

I am actually the admissions officer in a large state secondary school. Is it any less ethical to rent a house in the catchment of your preferred secondary school than it is to rent a house in the catchment of a particular primary school because it is a 'feeder' into the preferred secondary, and then to move back to your original home which is perhaps some 4 or 5 miles from said secondary, thus depriving someone who actually lives an awful lot closer to the secondary, but cannot get in because they do not attend a 'feeder'?

Is it any less ethical than it is to get a signature from your head of religion, be it priest, pastor, imam or otherwise, when you do not believe yourself, in order to gain a place for your child in your preferred school?

Or to accept military quarters which are smaller than your family needs in order to gain a place for one child in your preferred school, and then to move to a more suitable quarter, out of catchment, and thereafter use the sibling rule to get your other children in?

These things happen all the time. There are myriad ways to circumvent the system, and often the admissions team have no real way of checking. We cannot work on rumour and hearsay and even if other parents subtly try to grass up the offending parents, there is no real way to prove that someone has moved into catchment specifically for the purpose of gaining a place at a school, even when they telephone a month or so after offer date to say that they have moved house, oh and interestingly, it's quite some way out of catchment! It's a done deal by then.

I have thought and thought how to make it 'fair', but aside from dropping the 'feeder' school system, we'd be back to distance from school as the crow flies, and you'd still get people moving as close as possible just for the application process and then moving back out again. It would be discriminatory to specify a minimum residency in catchment of, say, two years, because then how to deal with children moving in and out of care, or military families, or refugees. So we are stuck as we are.

Of course, none of this would be quite as emotive if school places were not so over-subscribed in certain areas. If everyone who wanted a place stood a good chance, then people wouldn't resort to the trickery described above!

"In too many cases, the schools offering a poorer standard of education and support to our youngsters are situated in the financially poorer areas of the country - as a former teacher myself, I simply don't believe that one should follow the other. "

I'm not sure I agree. It's a cultural thing.

Go to, oh, I don't know, a poor part of Mumbai, or Soweto, and set up a free school as well resourced as even the least successful UK state primary, and the children would THRIVE. That's because in other cultures all most children need to succeed educationally is properly trained teachers, well equipped schools, and access to decent learning materials. The other part of the equation: burning ambition, a belief in the importance of hard work, and parents who are desperate for their child to succeed academically are already in place.

Not so in the UK. We have a culture of low aspiration among some sectors in the UK where there is a fundamental disrespect for education and widespread lack of engagement, regardless of how hard the teachers work or how good they are at their job.

Indiatherene: "ourhomein so you've just joined MN to revive a 3 yo Zombie thread. Why?"
My first answer is why does it matter? I've spotted something that I feel very strongly about and wish to comment.
The matter is still just as relevant today as it was 3 years back.
It is particularly relevant to me at the moment as I'm in the same position, confronted by a very uneven and fragmented system whilst trying to find my child a school place. It wasn't relevant to me 3 years ago. It is now.
Also, I'd heard Mumsnet was a place where people share ideas openly and support each other and was quite surprised at the anger and negativity directed towards the Original Poster.

Minifingerz: "Would add that anyone can fake religious commitment, but only m/c parents can easily rent or buy houses temporarily in catchments. I belief in equal opportunity cheating!" I take your point and it's well made, and I think this backs mine up, actually: the state education system is meant to be for the benefit of all, but as clarinsgirl points out, it is only the wealthier who tend to stand up to the system, even if this is by cheating their way through it. So it follows that the wealthy are ultimately favoured. All of this said, I still feel 'fraud' and 'arrogance' are very strong terms to use for the actions of parents desperate to give their kids the same chance as people living elsewhere. The original post might have been clumsily worded, but as swingofthings points out, the one brave or foolish enough to stand up and be counted is the one at the receiving end of the rotten tomatoes, where many thousands get on with it quietly and behind the scenes.

Drinkstoomuchcoffee: I very much like the banding idea too: it does seem to return some justice to the selection process.

It strikes me that a succession of British governments have caused the schools system to fragment into a bewildering array of different types of school leading to a far less accessible set-up for the majority. In too many cases, the schools offering a poorer standard of education and support to our youngsters are situated in the financially poorer areas of the country - as a former teacher myself, I simply don't believe that one should follow the other. It is perfectly possible to inspire disadvantaged youngsters to find the greatness in themselves, not necessarily by putting all your focus on historical literature or academia like the previous education secretary was particularly keen to do at the expense of practical, field or vocational studies that can electrify young people of all backgrounds. Anyway, this is digressing a little.

Education should be open to, and inspire, all. Until it does this, it is failing.

Thanks for all your comments.

Counting clouds you really think that parents are not responsible for education as well. Of course they are. They are responsible for socialising their child so that they are able to learn and allow others to learn in the class. You have them under your wings way before schools do. Surely!!!!

What OP is doing is happening in most areas in this country. The difference is that OP is opened about it when most others keep it quiet, or make up a story to justify their intentions.

In my previous area, the difference between the local secondary school and the two religiously affiliated ones were massive. It wasn't a case of the local comprehensive being ok and the others fantastic, but a case of the local being under remedial measures and in total disarray. Considering the fact that local primary schools were achieving quite well, it is no surprise that so many parents got very anxious at the prospect of their kids seeing their ability/enthusiasm to study go down the pants.

So yes, it's amazing how many re-discovered faith in year 4/5. It was laughable really how they tried to justify it when everybody (especially those doing the same) knew it was only for the purpose of gaining a place at the other schools. However, I could understand their desperation.

I personally get more annoyed with parents who will do anything so that their perfect, worthier child can get into a selective top school when the local one is absolutely fine just because they are persuaded that little Johnny deserves it more than anyone else.

"Hypocrisy at its best."

No.

Hypocrisy at its best is when people say they support equality of opportunity, and then send their child to a private school which takes NO poor low ability children at all. Which is basically 100% of all private schools.

Given that 99.9% of non-selective state schools take children from the most disadvantaged groups (ie low ability children from unsupportive and dysfunctional families) where as 100% of mainstream private schools exclude this type of student I don't think they in any way comparable when it comes to fairness.

"who get their DCs into the most sought after state schools in London -( Blair, Clegg - London Oratory, Cameron - Greycoats) - because they would not "go private". Wonder why you never see any politicians DCs at the less sought after London schools. I have far more respect for Diane Abbott!"

Absolutely NONE of those politicians you mention has made an open commitment to only use state schools!

@schools madness: It's a bit like our politicians - of all parties- who get their DCs into the most sought after state schools in London -( Blair, Clegg - London Oratory, Cameron - Greycoats) - because they would not "go private". Wonder why you never see any politicians DCs at the less sought after London schools. I have far more respect for Diane Abbott!

This thread reminds me of a very "liberal" family we were acquainted with - very wealthy but "morally opposed to private education" because they wanted their daughter to have friends from various socio-economic backgrounds - you know - to give her the "right perspective in life". So while fixing up their very lovely spacious new home in a more central but less than stellar catchment, they rented a small flat on the same street as the most oversubscribed school in the area. Worked out perfectly for them in the end - their kiddo is happy as a clam at the lovely school and they feel good about supporting their socialist beliefs and not succumbing to private education - lest the elitism rub off on their offspring.
Hypocrisy at its best.

ourhomein so you've just joined MN to revive a 3 yo Zombie thread. Why?

Be careful. If you own another property most councils will count the property you own as your actual address, no matter where you are renting.

In my opinion the whole schools admissions process is unfair. Admission on the basis of religion is just wrong, it's discrimination and is tolerated in no other walk of life. The rest of the system favours the wealthy and those educated and confident enough to tackle the system. What we need is an education system where the resources are distributed fairly and all schools are good (if only)

In the meantime however, it's what we've got and committing fraud to secure your preferred place is just wrong. The kind of arrogance shown by the OP is astounding. If you don't meet the admission criteria then you need to choose another school or move permanently to the catchment. You shouldn't need a bunch of strangers on the Internet to point this out.

Would add that anyone can fake religious commitment, but only m/c parents can easily rent or buy houses temporarily in catchments.

I belief in equal opportunity cheating!