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

one secondary which is in special measures, not ideal for my DS.

Doodle I'm intrigued, why is it not ideal for your DS, but absolutely fine for someone else's child? Because that's the implication.

Doodle I'm absolutely not happy with the way the system works here, as Ive illustrated through the case of my foster daughter.

I do however feel that she was robbed of a place at what would otherwise have been her catchment school if it wasnt for people like the OP cheating the system. I'm not saying it's fair, but if you live in the catchment of school a and don't want your kid to go there, then move. If you genuinely take my child's place because you live closer to school b than her, then I can't argue with that because that's how the system works. But if you rent and pretend to live closer than her with no intention of staying in that house, then you can't have it both ways, you're breaking the law and you're depriving my child. My foster daughter matters too thank you.

I am genuinely shocked at the amount of judgemental comments that the OP is getting. For what it is worth OP, I do not blame you in the slightest for wanting to do this. My DS is only a baby, but we will be moving house in order to hopefully get him in to our primary school of choice. For us this will be a permanent move, but only because we can't afford to rent another house in the area and keep the one we have got.

All of the people who are so opposed to this, is it because you all live in areas where the school system works for you? I am currently in the catchment area for one primary school which has a bad reputation, and one secondary school which is in special measures- not ideal for my DS.

I grew up in a ridiculous area which had multiple good secondary schools within walking distance of my house, yet two were faith schools and two were grammars, and I didn't get a place at any of them. My only other options were to go to a school which was in special measures, or a school which was an hour away on the bus. My parents were not happy about either, so they financially crippled themselves and sent me to a private school. Luckily for me, they were able to do this, but a lot of people can't, me included. No one should be forced to lie/cheat/pay/move to get their child into a suitable school, but the reality is that some people have to because the alternative doesn't work for their children.

Tiggytape I agree. I also think we need to be doing more to improve the schools no one wants- there's a reason no parents want to send their child there.

What irritates me is that the parents who cheat the system to get their child a place would be the first on here complaining if it was their child who lost out, and yet they are the ones causing other children to lose out. I don't understand how these people can sleep at night, I really don't.

I think a tie-break system of random allocation is the only way to effectively deal with the polarisation of schools.

Admission is correct, and there is no post-adoption time limit.

"Tethersend- does "looked after" apply to private fostering over the age of 16?"

Mrs.DeVere is correct in that the child must be subject to a section 20, full care order or, under the new code, have been in the care of the local authority and have subsequently been adopted or are subject to an SGO.

However, that is somewhat academic as Looked After Children do not automatically get priority for post-compulsory education.

Thanks MrsdeVere and admission, all hypothetical as DFD is year 11, I'm just interested, so thank you anyway.

It's not an SS arrangement so even if DFD was a year younger she wouldn't be covered under the new rules.

What really makes me angry is that according to the rules, my foster daughter lost out on a place at the "outstanding" school with good results and no "major problems" by a couple of metres. In all previous years, she would have been allocated a place. As it was, she lost out and ended up at the crappy school where she was influenced by certain characters and went majorly off the rails. I know that parents try to avoid the school she's at however they can, so there is no doubt in my mind that parents attempted what the OP proposes. I'm not saying my foster daughter lost out on a place at the good school to the child of someone like the OP, but it's a definite possibility.

Now, had she lived closer to the crappy school and further away from the 'good' school she'd been in catchment for all years previously, she would have gone to the crappy school according to the rules and there would never have been any question about it. I accept that. But the fact is that according to the rules, fair or not, any other year she would have been within catchment for the good school, and it's highly likely she lost out to someone renting to get into the good school, because of the contrast between the two schools which became dramatically worse in the couple of years leading up to her parents having to apply.

I'm not saying that the rules are fair, but I am saying that she could have been robbed of a place at the good school by a parent breaking the rules which are in place. If DFD hadn't gone to a school with a drug problem and with excellent pastoral care like the good school (her parents haven't been interested in her for a long time), she may well have not gone off the rails like she did. I'm not saying she wouldn't have done, but due to the environment she would have been in, it would have been less likely.

I accept that parents just want to do what's best for their kid and don't care about breaking the rules, but this is how it looks to the parents on the other side of the fence. It's equally crap here too.

AFAIK, Mrsdevere, it's open-ended, ie any child who had been adopted.

Marina, the answer is that until last year the definition was that you had to be a looked after child but it has now changed to looked after children who is in the care of the Local Authority and also children who have been looked after previously but are now adopted under the terms of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or become subject to a residence order or special guardianship order.
Don't know whether that helps or not but that is the official definition.

Tethersend- does "looked after" apply to private fostering over the age of 16? So does that mean that if my foster daughter was a year younger I could get her into the "outstanding" school she missed out on a place at by a couple of metres as a non-looked after year 6?

Serenity,

Well, the usual punishment here is that the child doesn't get into the (not particularly bad) school that they would have got into had fraud not been attempted - because there aren't any places left there once places have been allocated to the people who applied there properly and didn't attempt fraud.

Instead, they are allocated to the nearest school with an available plan once ALL other applications have been processed .. and that one really IS poor.

It's worse for children who get 'found out' later - there are very few in-0year places available anywhere, so they get shipped even further afield.

So there is a punishment, if you want to look at it like that - their children get to go to a significantly worse school than they would have done had fraud not been tried.

Devere I know exactly the primary you're talking about and it's bizarrely homogenous. I think it's better now they've made distance as crow flies (ie thus taking in the, literal, wrong side of the tracks.
However secondaries are bigger and given how socially crunchy (ie poor next to rich) London is, it's rare to get that exact situation. If catchments are legitimate, then whole estates shouldn't miss out. Somewhere like Camden girls is actually pretty mixed. However, as someone above says, the safe streets nearby tend to be the more expensive ones or the dodgily rented flats. So the ones who lose out are the poorer ones.
I know two families who decided to do their lofts, fancy extensions, big 500 k gut job on their houses in time for applications, moved out to catchment flats while work went on, and then moved back into fancy pad place. Both got their kids into the primary/secondary no prob and presumably the siblings will follow.
I'm sadly sceptical that this is being dealt with by authorities.

I am an advisory teacher for Looked After Children, and Ofsted have made it very clear that we should only choose schools rated as good or outstanding for children in care.

But teacherwith2kids- it doesn't really matter does it? It's a civil matter, they're not going to be charged for it, they won't be punished for attempting it. The consequence is their children don't get into schools they weren't supposed to get into anyway, which isn't a punishment, it's just putting them back in their original position.

Not making a moral judgement, just sayin'

Definition of fraud:

"- Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

• A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities."

I'd say wrongly claiming a rented property as your main residence, having moved into it temporarily for the sole purpose of gaining a 'better' school place than your permanent residence would give you, fits into the definition, wouldn't you?

"offenders"
"fraud"

those posters do realise this isnt a crime don't they?

I know someone who bought a house in a good school catchment area for the purpose to get their child into the school. They didn't actually move it. They then let it out to other families so they could get into the school. They were caught when they got an application from the same address three years in a row.
The address is blacklisted now.