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.

Around here alot of the schools are changing to:

1. looked after
2. medical/social needs
3. siblings in catchment
4. other children in catchment
5. siblings out of catchment
6. other children

Which makes doing something like that a lot harder.

The problem is it's really hard on families who didn't get a place at their catchment school for their eldest child. Through no fault of their own they are now faced with the likelihood of their children going to different schools. And that is happening all the time here at the moment as there is a significant shortage of school places.

The best way to fix it is to make all schools equally excellent

That won't happen though ...

"It's not enough to win. Others must lose" as Gore Vidal sagely noted, thus encapsulating the entire Tory philosophy in 8 words.

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

The school makes no judgement over dishonesty.

The local authority coordinates admissions in line with the admissions code, within which residence is a factor.

There is no wrongdoing here. That you don't like it is irrelevant.

I can't see how you can demand that noone moves house in the two years before their oldest child's secondary allocation day. It is very restrictive on normal life.

Similarly, how could anyone police the motivation for moving? I doubt anyone would declare it was for a better chance at a school place

Here the order is (after looked after children etc)

Sibling in catchment
Non sibling in catchment
Sibling out of catchment
Non sibling out of catchment

So this stops the problem of someone moving into catchment, getting a place and moving out again. At least until the last child has got their place.

When it comes down to it, paying school fees is a lot more honest than moving in and out of catchment, or paying premiums to be near good state schools and being priggish about private schools. Or sending your children to state schools and going on about how well they have done, without mentioning that they have had private tutors for years.

Or saying you're glad your child went to a state school because she's done so well and you don't approve of private schools when it was a grammar school and you appealed to get her in to avoid the comprehensive.

All of which I have come across in RL.

t4nut - there is no Local Authority.

the scenario I have described is against the rules in some schools and therefore I am surprised that more schools haven't caught on.

I don't like it, no. The only people who do like it are the pushy parents who are prepared to bend the rules!

I agree Abraid.

"I can't see how you can demand that noone moves house in the two years before their oldest child's secondary allocation day. It is very restrictive on normal life."

Not with you there, sorry!

Some local authorities did have rules on renting within the same local authority whilst retaining a house you owned. They would take the owned address. However, academies can do what they want.

There is an excellent episode of Crackanory based on these very scenarios... I believe it may be hosted by Catherine Tate. It's worth watching!

I'm in an area in a 'needs improvement' secondary school catchment, but send my kids to it anyway because the distance outweighs everything really.

DD (14) got support to take her GCSE maths early and got a B last year & is now doing her A Level maths and Further maths early at the same school. DD (11) is learning how to play the piano & is going to a school run/organised 'olympic' camp with former olympic coaches as he loves running - the teachers organised this themselves through their own contacts. They are both long term foster kids who arrived to me with severe behavioural problems, and I'm so proud of what they've achieved and love their school & believe it's the best in the city. I don't give a monkey's what OFSTED have rated it.

So I fundamentally disagree that you need to send your kids to a good catchment area. Most schools will do as long as you support them at home.

Ok bibbity, so what you mean is not that this particular family have cheated or that the school should stop them having a place, but rather that the school should change its rules to stop this happening in future?

If so I'm with you.

You know, it's easy to blame the parents, but not all of us have good, almost-good or even sort-of-good schools remotely near us and we feel pretty damn clueless as to what the 'naice', acceptable thing to do about it is.

Our nearest school just got rated Inadequate because the headmaster went on long-term sick and the position has been filled by a series of Acting-Heads. The staff began to leave and have been replaced with supply teachers, and after 15 months the attainment of the kids is really suffering and inspectors were appalled at the level of classroom disruption and the lack of marking or even checking work. I can't think who to blame, or who's 'fault' this is, it's just a mess. This was a good school. What are we to do? Take our chances?

The next two nearest schools are Catholic and won't take my heathen children. The next four are Jewish. The next one is Christian. The places will be taken by those who genuinely attend religious worship and those that just do so for as long as it takes to get the all-important sign-off.

The next school is 8 miles away. We don't stand a chance of getting in at that distance. It's rural and remote. We could move there if we fancied, like, not having jobs and stuff.

The next is a half-empty Academy whose exam results are so poor (no one child got 5 A-Cs) questions are being asked as to what the hell happened, and whether the school can survive.

The next is Catholic. And on it goes...

So, what do you suggest we do? Even if I could afford to fiddle about with houses - I can't - I can't even find a just-about-competent school within a distance I'd be happy to do so for.

The system's broken. It needs an overhaul. Until then, yes, some of us will be forced to cling to whatever little life-raft we can.

poster prh47bridge Sat 10-Oct-15 23:35:23
Mintyv it is only fraud if against the admission rules and these vary from place to place

That is not true. As I pointed out up thread, what is described (moving into catchment to get a place with the intention of moving out again as soon as possible) is always admission fraud. The rules set by the LA are irrelevant. It is, however, true that some LAs are hotter than others at detecting and taking action on fraud.

^^ found this post by a resident Mumsnet admissions expert on a thread from last year. I thought I remembered something like this.

There really isn't any legal requirement for families to live in a house they own when they prefer to live in a home they rent. Moving house to get your child into a better school is what sensible families do.

I'm sorry that the schools situation is so bad near you Kendus. So what are you going to do? I

I think if some one is willing to go to these measures to ensure their kids place in a good school good luck to them.

Morally wrong or not, you can't police people moving house / renting out their house etc. I am 40 and my mum did this to get me into a better school all those years ago.

At my DC school they have a sibling priority rule which is that only a sibling who is three years or less has a priority admission. This is causing quite a stir in our neighbourhood....

Do you Sylvie? So you approve of drugs cheats at the Olympics etc?

People are such lying gits. A friend of a relative and her whole family found Christianity to get their child info a very very high falutin' Catholic school. The whole nine yards - how they really really really were Catholics but the nasty regime where they were from would do all sorts of awfuls to them if they returned as There Is No Conversion, and to do so can get you executed.

Cunning but totally immortal. People do what they think best I suppose, but I couldn't take the stress of fibbing.

What is described is within the rules in my area.

Our DD1 only got into our first choice school because they were obliged to take an extra 30 children that year due to high birth rate.

Under the old sibling rule our DD2 joined her when her time came. Under the new rule we would have ended up with them at different schools. I still agree with the new rule though - most people at some point if they have more than one child will end up ferrying to two schools just because of the age gap.

Our local CofE has ridiculous criteria including the usual church attendance, form signed by the vicar etc. And yet even so, the first Family Service after the school places have been assigned each year is always deserted because everyone has got their school place and no longer feels the need to attend.

What does this situation have to do with drug cheats? I appreciate the annoyance but this type of claim is hyperbole.