to surprised that this sort of cheating for a secondary school place still goes on?

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

I thought the schools were generally supposed to be more on top of this sort of scam:

Family outside catchment of highly desirable school let out their house, move to a rented house within catchment for two years to go through admission process and get their first dd into the school, then move back to their original family home. Now their next three dd's will go to that school even though they all now live outside of the catchment!

A feel a certain sort of contempt for people who would do this, and am really surprised that schools still turn a blind eye.

[glintwithpersperation]

In Brighton the sibling rule only applies in catchment

[phillipp]

No, this school gives priority to siblings over everyone else except looked after children. Afaik, none of the schools in the area have catchment as the first priority.

some schools and councils are looking at changing this.

Besides which they lived there for 2 years including a whole year their Dd was at the school. That's not cheating. Many people move.

We moved from our house and rented it out. Then rented another for 3 years. Before moving back. Kids didn't move school in that time, but there were reasons we needed to do it.

You would find it hard to prove they did this only for a school place. What do you want the school to do?

[TeacupDrama]

The problem with any length of time requirements is that they discriminate against families which move frequently police armed forces etc etc it is already enough of a disadvantage to children moving schools regularly without excluding them from good schools on the basis that their parents moved for employment, someone who was in catchment for 2years is completely different to someone who rents for 6months without technically living there

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

phillipp - I would expect the school to have the sort of rules that minipie describes in her post at 15:17.

[unexpsoc]

"You would find it hard to prove they did this only for a school place. What do you want the school to do?"

So, because it is difficult to prove something doesn't make it morally wrong?

The point is that this drives the ghetto-isation of education and the continued reduction in social mobility and class equality.

Poorer parents can't afford to do this sort of thing, so only the more affluent can do it. Leading to further ingraining of class bias into the system.

[nocampinghere]

they really should scrap sibling priority once out of catchment (or within a slightly wider catchment maybe).
we have tons of this at our primary. family lives in small cottage near school, bursting at the seams but hold on until first child gets into outstanding nearby school. Once the first is in, they move out to big semi detached 3-4 miles away. usually by Christmas in reception. all the siblings get in over the next few years. common practice

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

This family weren't moving for work, they were moving for a school place. I'm not sure I understand your post Teacup and how the scenario I have described would particularly affect the police etc?

[nocampinghere]

if you move house it's not fair to make the child move school if the school is within reasonable commuting distance BUT the sibling priority should be lost.

[TheHuntingOfTheSarky]

Many schools in my area (Surrey) have recently changed or are about to change their sibling rules so that siblings only take priority over "new" families if the school is still the nearest at the point of admission. Otherwise they'd be sent to their nearest place and that would be that.

Makes much more sense to me.

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

Yes, nocampinghere, I agree. And if the sibling priority is lost then it goes a very long way to solving the problem!

[phillipp]

phillipp - I would expect the school to have the sort of rules that minipie describes in her post at 15:17.

those rules aren't practical and I can imagine a lot problems.

People don't always choose to move, my friend owned a house she didn't live in. Her husband beat her up. Several years later she moved back, when he finally fucked off.

She would be left having to get kids to different schools (we live rurally and getting to school on public transport is a no go) or taking her eldest out of a school she was settled in.

I agree some people take the piss. But there isn't loads anyone can do, unless they close the sibling priority. Which the school are choosing not to do.

Currently they haven't done anything wrong. So not cheating, so again how do you propose the school finds evidence they cheated. Perhaps the rules will change, which means they won't get their other kids in.

And it won't stop people moving into the area for schools or people will live there until the day their last one starts.

[Patsy99]

But it's not a "scam" or "cheating" it would usually be within the admissions rules. I'd reserve those words for people using fake addresses or never actually moving into a rented house.

FWIW my LA is closing this wheeze down. If you move 0.5 miles away from the school then the sibling rule will no longer apply. Think it's a good change.

[Careforadrink]

I disagree about scrapping the sibling rule. What's a single parent meant to do with young kids miles apart at different schools?

[unexpsoc]

The problem is with all of these rules is that somewhere, somebody who doesn't deserve it, falls foul of them for no good reason - due to lifestyle and living arrangement, changes they can't control etc.

The best way to fix it is to make all schools equally excellent. Then people wont feel the need to game to get into certain schools. Though obviously, there is no accounting for "people of faith" in that one.

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

I'm talking about secondary age here. And what does being a single parent have to do with it?

[MrsGuyOfGisbo]

It is not cheating though.
Only cheating if they lie on the form.
As another poster said, almost a badge of honour for a school if parents willing to go to extraordinary lengths and expense to get in.

[t4nut]

What did they do that was against the rules? There was no cheating involved. They moved for the requisite amount of time to be in catchment to get a place. There was no cheating involved. The admission criteria were applied correctly.

That you think it is morally wrong is an entirely different matter.

[Patsy99]

I think abandoning the sibling rule completely would be counterproductive, but modifying it is achievable. Keeping schools local is a worthwhile objective.

Having said that, most people I know who've moved outside the catchment and then rely on the sibling rule to get in have done so because they've divorced and have had to find cheaper housing. I feel sorry for those in my LA who have moved more that 0.5 miles away.

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

Phillipp if the sibling rule doesn't change at this school then this family's time at the school will span something like 15 years, so it is worth it to them to inconvenience themselves for 2 years.

I don't know why you have repeated your question about evidence of cheating. I explained that I think short-term renting while keeping hold of another house nearby that you then move back to should be seen as dishonest by the school and I'm surprised that it apparently hasn't.

[Careforadrink]

Being a single parent was merely an example. If a sibling rule was scrapped they could be left trying to get young children to schools miles apart. Possibly without the practical support or indeed financial that the other parent can bring.

[SantasLittleMonkeyButler]

I can see the argument for scrapping sibling priority - or only offering it for those still living in catchment. It would make life very difficult for parents with children at schools miles away from each other though wouldn't it? I assume that's why siblings do generally get priority now.

I have 3 DCs but DS1 has ASD, so went to the most suitable schools for him thanks to Statement priority and DS2 went to our catchment schools at the time.

DD is much younger, so no siblings at school when we were applying for a place for her anyway.

[Careforadrink]

Personally I can't see that they've done anything wrong. Lying about an address is one thing. Actually living somewhere for 2 years seems perfectly acceptable to me.

Where I am catchment isn't the primary criteria anyway. Continuity of education is - if you've been in a feeder school for 2 years you get a place. Regardless of catchment.

[minipie]

bibbity if the school's rules say they go by the family's current residence then the family have abided by the letter of the rules and there is nothing more the school can do. However much they may disapprove. The only thing they could do is change the rules for future years (like the schools near me).

To clarify - my area has not completely scrapped sibling priority. Siblings still get priority where the family has not moved. They also get priority if the family has moved, but the new residence is still not too far from the school catchment. In my area catchments are 200-300m from the school and the new rule is that you can move up to 800m from the school without losing sibling priority. This allows wiggle room for people who are forced to move. It does not however allow people to move several districts away and commute their kids in.