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.

[GiddyOnZackHunt]

Comparisons with people who rent homes normally or people who have to move are pointless here if I read the op right.
The family owned house A as their residence.
They still owned house A but rented in catchment house B for just long enough to secure a school place.
They moved back to house A.

If they'd sold house A, rented house B and then moved to house C it would have been less iffy. But the move back to house A makes it look bad. It's possible the school know and are happy.
Yes it is morally 'off' but are you going to tell the school?

[DameDiazepamTheDramaQueen]

No.
Would you rather they sold instead of rented then moved back after their kids were into the school?

[Floggingmolly]

It's hardly a question of preference, Dame, they're the rules most councils follow. realise question wasn't directed at me

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

Well yes actually (DDTDQ) because then they would have had to pay stamp duty x 2 and it might have given them pause for thought. The other schools their girls would have gone to are not failing or in special measures. They are just not THE destination schools in the area.

[DameDiazepamTheDramaQueen]

Oh well, it isn't illegal to rent your house out and isn't illegal to move closer to your preferred school so not a lot you can do about it. The school would have a hard time proving the family didn't need to rent out and downsize for financial reasons.

Tbh I mind my own beeswax wrt people's school choices.

[totalrecall1]

They are obviously parents who care considerably about their children's education. It's a big uplift to do that. Good for them. Anyone else can also do this if they want to, but many people wouldn't be prepared to put up with that level of upheaval. Nothing wrong with this in my book, in fact I think it's admirable that they are prepared to do that for their children.

[t4nut]

All just seems like sour grapes.....

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

I am sorry, totalrecall2, but that is absolute fucking bullshit if I may say so, and why have you not got the imagination to see that it is not "admirable"?

Not everyone can let their house just outside of catchment and rent inside of catchment for a couple of years! What about if the person who lives just outside of catchment is in a council or HA flat? And all the houses inside of catchment attract rents of £2500 per month plus?

Are you saying everyone in LA housing, or living on the breadline in a small mortgaged property doesn't care about their children's education? I can hardly stand the ignorance.

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

t4nut ... only if you lack the intelligence to see the bigger picture.

[DameDiazepamTheDramaQueen]

It is sour grapes.

[LBOCS2]

Everyone is talking about catchment like it's a set thing. In most London schools, it really really isn't - the figure you're given is the 'last admitted student distance'. Year on year it can and does change drastically depending on birth rates, bulge classes there and elsewhere, all sorts - the school we're hoping on for DD1 it has varied between 559m and 878m in the last 3 years, for example.

If sibling priority is removed, as some posters have suggested, where does that leave us if (for example) DD1 gets a place there but in four years time DD2 doesn't - even if we haven't moved?

[Floggingmolly]

Catchment has always meant you're at the top of the list; not that you're guaranteed entry. Taking all those factors into account; it's also entirely possible that the first child wouldn't get a place but the sibling would.

[t4nut]

Sour grapes

[Floggingmolly]

Do you know any other words, t4nut?

[Dixiechickonhols]

I don't see how they can stop it as people move out of primary residence into rented and back for all sorts of reasons - primary residence being renovated, family home flood and fire damaged, financial reasons - living in cheaper house for a year due to parent losing job, moving near sick relative to care for them, nearer hospital while child has treatments etc

Abolishing the priority for out of catchment siblings would stop the get one in and move.

[LikeDylanInTheMovies]

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.

Let me correct that for you:

"Moving house to get your child into a better school is what sensible wealthy sharp elbowed families do."

It is yet another example how the rich can game the state sector, often at the expense of the children of the poor who will be left with the third-rate, third-choice schools.

[EssentialHummus]

They are obviously parents who care considerably about their children's education. It's a big uplift to do that.

Everything bibbity said in reply to you. Lots of parents care, not all have the means to shift themselves 100m into the catchment of a leafy comp. The current system privileges parents with financial resources.

BTW, if I were the relevant school head (?) seeing all this happening, I'm not sure how closely I'd care to investigate. The sort of people who'd use their resources and time to best position their kids for success at school, are (IMO) likely to be the involved, PTA-supporting, extra-curricular funding types who can support the school with their money, networks and time. It's rather hard to turn them away.

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

It isn't sour fucking grapes. It really isn't.

[t4nut]

Well its either sour grapes or a massive rant about how a perfectly legal activity entirely compliant with the admissions code is considered unfair by one individual.

[Narnia72]

We have this in our school all the time. One vile family who have always lived approx 5 miles from our town, but work here. Rented a place for the 6 months needed to apply for child 1. Told lots of people that's what they were doing. Lots of complaints to the council. Place was withdrawn. They got a good lawyer and somehow got the place back. Moved back to big house in country. Now have 4 kids at the school. Drive up in their massive car spewing -feral- kids and entitlement. Really wish they'd bring the no siblings out of catchment rule here. It would stop this nonsense whereby families 250 m away from the school don't get in because of all the people who have ( more legitimately than the family above) stayed in a flat until child 1 has a place then quickly moved out of catchment.

I do think, in general, equalising school standards is an ideal, but unlikely to happen. I agree with an earlier poster about the schools not necessarily being great per se, it's the catchment. Our school has a majority of kids whose families value education and instil respect for teachers. This means there's support for the school from the parents. I have family members who work in sink schools and they're far more concerned (rightly so) if the kids in their care have been fed, are clean and appropriately dressed (not sandals when it's snowing) and then have to deal with a myriad of social and behavioural issues before they can consider teaching. I don't think the teachers in our very naice school would cope with these challenging classes. They walk in to clean, fed, uniformed children who are ready to learn. It's a vast difference.

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

t4nut - I take issue with massive rant. I'd say its a run-of-the-mill Mumsnet aibu question.

I am interested in your assertion that this is perfectly legal activity entirely compliant with "the admissions code". Where do you get that from?

And I am not just "one individual" who finds it a little bit repugnant - there are several who agree with me on the thread alone.

[CecilyP]

The admissions code applies to what oversubscription criteria schools are allowed to apply, so it does not apply to parents. However owning a house out of catchment, though not far away, and renting within for the specific purpose of securing a school place is fraud. Local authorities do investigate where this is brought to there attention, and if people have good reason to tent while owning all will be fine. I can't see any reason for sibling priority at secondary, so that would ease the problem somewhat.

[HeddaLettuce]

Meh. If they are that bothered that they moved for TWO YEARS, I say fair fucks to them, thats some commitment. I wouldn't do it.

[HarveySchlumpfenburger]

Why do I get the feeling that if you'd posted this in primary ed you'd have got a totally different response?

Mind you it does go some way to showing the number of people who don't quite understand what is legal when it comes to school place fraud and what isn't.

[t4nut]

The admissions code sets out what admission criteria are legal and defines terms. All school admissions have to comply with the code, and then usually local authorities administer this centrally. Local authorities will look into residence.

Just smacks of sour grapes and sulking.