to report someone fiddling the admissions system

[notwithme]

A friend of mine sold their house and rented a house in our street.

They have sent in their admissions form, the deadline was last week.

They are moving out of their rental this week, into a much cheaper rental on the other side of town.

She says she is having her post redirected so she doesn't miss the schools offer.

It's an oversubscribed school and even some children who attend the pre-school don't get in if they are out of catchment.

I'm not normally the whistle blowing type but this has really annoyed me.

twinkle - I sympathise - we had to go through the appeals process too, once unsuccessfully and once successfully.

But I still struggle to see how, technically, this person is in breach of any rules. People are confusing not liking what she is doing/finding it immoral with it actually being "against the rules" and something which she could be "reported" for.

agree with Clam

In many areas you have to be living at your address on the first day of term.

There is a reason why there is such a scramble to move Oct - Dec and why people don't move between school application and starting.

Unless you have unforeseen circumstances, which hopefully an LA will take into account, you should plan accordingly and not move!

Friends of mine didn't think about this last year and their daughter ended up with a place in the only school in the borough with vacancies. She wasn't eligible for catchment at her old address because she moved, or her new address because she missed the deadline.

How utterly utterly crazy and not joined up thinking is that: people should not move except in Oct-Dec if they don't want their children to go to the worst school around (frutstick, I'm not directing this ire at you, but at the government). How can you get an economy restarted with these kind of daft social restrictions going on, move, get a better job (or any job) and risk spoiling your children's education. Madness.

It's true, but if the school is full, the school is full. All that happens if you miss the deadline and move into catchment, is that you go on the top of the waiting list.

The only other alternative is either to increase class sizes on an ad hoc basis, or withdraw the place from somebody who has already been allocated it and send them to the school with spare places.

Neither of those are ideal.

Going back to a point made earlier. I think there should be some rules on how far you can move from a school before younger siblings lose their "sibling" status as a new applicant. It should be different for different schools - as some schools have a tiny "catchment" area.

It would stop the temporary renting for 6-12 months to get the eldest in - they would at least have to rent for every sibling or remain living within x miles of their previous home. For example they can move any distance nearer the school as the crow flies but only move 1 mile further away....

As I posted early in the thread where I live there is only sibling priority if you live in the catchment area. If you live out of catchment it only matters about siblings attending the school once all the in catchment children are allocated places.

Our LEA doesn't work on catchment areas. For non-faith schools it is basically:

social care/statement of needs
siblings
distance from school as the crow flies

so once the eldest is in you can move 50 miles away and have your younger dc gain a place over those living next door.

If we just made all schools take everyone who applied, the problem would go away.

And what about when they ran out if room? Just build an extra classroom, hire a few extra teachers, buy a new site? Class sizes of 40?

You seem to have a very purist view coalition which doesn't necessarily apply in practice.

I agree with MrSpoc, you sound like you will do anything to preserve the exclusivity of your 'outstanding' school and will use any means to do this including playing the moral high ground card! What kind of 'friend' are you? In fact what kind of person are you?

You say your children are already at the school, so how do you decide what 'mummy friends' you will have. Did you ask on the first day at school at the school gates for details of their residence - 'so do you rent or own a property around here?, how long have you lived their, how many metres do you live from this school?'

The kind of self-righteousness, often backed up by great financial security stinks of 'Daily Mail reader' moral superiority, unaware of the real world around them that most people have to exist in!

Those advocating the rest of us using our children as a social experiment, have you already got yours firmly in place at an 'outstanding' school or is this an irrelevant detail?

Incidently, what do you do when all the closet schools to you are religious- catholic, co of e, c of e, and your partner is Jewish so you don't want them to go to one of these schools and you know you won't get in to any of the non secular schools as they are all good and oversubscribed and you live 870 metres from the nearest one but the furthest child they took the year before lived 804 metres from the school. Do you resign yourself to your child getting a place at an underachieving school 3 miles away or do you move within the 800 metres radius?

As I've said, I completely disagree with religious schools. It is this that feeds the ridiculous school places crisis, particularly in London. If all of these were general community schools you wouldn't have that problem would you. There would be space for you at one of the nearest schools.

I'm not saying that the system is perfect as it is, just that at the moment there isn't a better alternative.

Incidentally, what did you do/are you going to do?

I'd probably do the same as your 'friend' if I was desperate. It all depends on what the alternatives are.
There is def. a class issue in the midst of all this. Working class parents who don't have a lot of money at their disposal have to be creative to provide a decent eduction for their children. That does mean being hypocritical at times but school is such an important part of your child's life that sometimes your morals have to be compromised.

Fruitstick - If your child was in a class of 50 and the school down the road had a class of 10 I think that would be a powerful incentive to move them. Any kind of selection favours those who are able to play the system. That is always those with more resources.

"If you evade tax you are doing more harm than someone who does not. If you fiddle the admissions system you do exactly the same amount of harm as someone who doesn't" - TheCoalitionNeedsYou

I'd say it was pretty damn harmful to the child whos place was taken.

In 20 years time, when your successful kids take you shopping for a golden zimmerframe, spare a thought for the beggar at the school gates. You may have contributed to putting him there

I think at the very least we need to remove the parts of the system that make it easy to manipulate, and to apply it across the board.

So:-
i) No faith schools
ii) No Sibling entry
iii) Entry first come first served, like concert tickets.

No fruitstick, I wouldn't have that problem if all 3 schools nearest me were 'community' schools but the fact is we DO have that problem now! It is all very well pondering over the ideals but in the meantime do I let my DS endure, frankly, a 'shit' education in his foundation years to make a political stand on this issue?

I very much doubt that ccpccp, where I live that 'poor' little child who had their place taken as you see it, from the evil renters would take a place up at one of the local private schools, if it was a real struggle to pay the fees they might have to think about one less holiday abroad or borrowing some of the capital from the 700,000 pounds house around the block from the state school their poor child missed out on!

ccpccp - But if you get a place WITHIN the system you are doing EXACTLY the same amount of harm.

Our disconect is that you seem to think that because a system exists there is an inherent morality to that system. I think that an unfair arbitrary system does not have moral authority.

So for me, whether you get in by playing the system (moving to an area, renting and moving, thinking about what the schools are like in an area before you decide where to live before having kids) happening to fit the criteria, or have committed fraud are in the strict sense of the admissions system morally equivilant. They all do the same amount of harm.

There are other seperate moral issues with actual fraud however.

Tax evasion by contrast does harm. If you don't so it you don't do harm. So it's clearly immoral to evade tax.

You on the other hand, I think believe that eligibility under the system confers a moral eligibility. I don't think that is possible unless the system operates within a moral framework.

ccpccp - What do you think the purpose of the School admissions system is?

TBH I will cheat to get kids into a good school if I have to.

But I'll also be well aware that by doing so I am passing that 'shit' education hot potato on to someone else.

I wonder if I would do it if I had to meet the kids afterwards? Explain to them why they arent going to the same school as their friends in the street, because I pretended to rent the house on the corner for a couple of months.

"I think that an unfair arbitrary system does not have moral authority. "

Thing is TheCoalitionNeedsYou - you dont get to make that choice.

Otherwise I get to decide that tax evasion isnt wrong because the system is unfair. Wesley Snipes tried that shit and will soon be jailed (if he isnt already).

The systems are there and we all have to follow them, whether its tax or admissions. If you dont play fair and follow them, then you put those that do at a disavantage.

Or in the case of admissions, you steal a place from someone else.

ccpccp - If you bought that house and stayed there you would be doing exactly the same thing - stopping that kid going to school with his friends.

The only true explanation you could give is that we haven't yet some up with a fair admissions system.