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.

Maybe where you live ParkingLottie. Where I am, the vicar makes a personal recommendation - or not - to the school.

I believe that really would be against the admissions code.

You don't have to 'pretend to be religious ' to get into a faith school, you just have to attend church. If the admissions policy says 'regular attendance' that's what it means. You could attend every week , tell the vicar that you don't believe in God every week , sign the attendance book and get your school place.

You are doing nothing wrong with having your child baptised or attending church if that is the admissions policy of your chosen school. The equivalent to pretending to live in the catchment of a popular school would be to find a regular church goer and get them to sign the attendance book pretending to be you.

my two are in seperate primary schools, my eldest in a catholic school, we weren't catholic then and weren't when second child came to apply.
The demand for the school wasnt that high when eldest started but that changed so we realised that our second child may not get in. Luckily for us there is another non faith school half a mile or so away and the catholic school helped a lot with the eldest whilst i was picking youngest up, i used breakfast clubs too. I naturally appealed etc but accepted what would happen We waited until the second started, converted so she would understand what the eldest learnt at school and i wanted her to have an input so i did it myself.
I was horrifying though those who converted to get their kids in and then never went back once school started where as 2/3years down the line Im still doing it.
I appreciate there are loop holes and its not actually cheating how ever, exploiting loopholes and knowing exactly where to draw the line between exploiting the loopholes crossing the line to cheating is wrong on a moral note. imagine if someone was exploiting your good nature or a talent, skill of yours, to benefit themselves, they werent being mean, breaking the law etc but just taking advantage of you and squeezing uou for as much as they could get but with out being rude or horrible, would you tolerate it or would you think they were taking the P**s and taking a lend of you and dislike them for it?
There is no difference

"You are doing nothing wrong with having your child baptised or attending church if that is the admissions policy of your chosen school. "

Nothing wrong? Some would argue that teaching your child from a very young age that it is acceptable to lie about your faith and views in order to get what you want in life is perhaps wrong. Just a thought.

Sibling priority is fine at primary school where parents have to take their children to school; there really is no necessity at secondary.

But you are not really lying about faith - you are performing the action required. Perhaps if you are a very commited atheist and very vocal about the fact, I would see it as wrong. OTOH, there are many people who are nominally Christian, though not particularly religious, who have their children christened anyway. There are also plenty of people with Christian beliefs who would not normally attend church regularly, who might start for this purpose.

The poster that pointed out that a school is only as good as the children who go there is absolutely right. Does anyone disagree?

"The poster that pointed out that a school is only as good as the children who go there is absolutely right. Does anyone disagree?"

I do. A school is made up of pupils. Parents. Teachers. Leadership. Governors. The LA (in case of primaries). Funding and resources. The building itself. Ethos, aims and goals. And other things I probably haven't even considered.

Weaknesses in any of those can have an impact. Otherwise, OFSTED would be DEAD easy -

Q1. What are the kids like? No further questions.

"There are also plenty of people with Christian beliefs who would not normally attend church regularly, who might start for this purpose."

Message: "I don't want to go to church, but I am in order to get you into a school."

Doesn't matter how big the lie is or how little the lie is, children spot it a mile off.

My 5 year old (who goes to a catholic school) is just at the point of wondering why Daddy doesn't come to his church but mummy does.

Agree that they haven't actually cheated if they actually lived in the house near the school for 2 years. Cheating would be using a grandparents address, or renting a tiny flat near school and putting that as their address while actually living in their house. It may well be annoying and unfair that they can afford to keep two houses for two years, while others can't afford it but they are not cheating. It's perfectly legal to own a house while renting and living in a different one.

On the wider issue I do think the sibling rule is necessary at primary level where parents need to accompany children to school, however it is totally unnecessary at secondary level as the vast majority of kids are making their own way to school at that point anyway. In our area, the sibling rule applies even if you move house, as long as you don't move miles away (can't remember the exact distance)

I'm sorry but if the rules say you must be resident in catchment X years prior then what's wrong with resident in the catchment X years prior?

Your are equating this with drug cheats? Fuck right off OP.

It would be against admissions code in my LA. Here the hierarchy is:
a) LAC
b) SEN
c) Siblings in catchment
d) All other Catchment children
e) Siblings out of catchment
f) All other out of catchment.

If a family own a house in the area then this is the one that must be used for admissions, even if they have a rental property closer and even if the owned property is let out. This is specifically to weed out the type of admission fraud (or bending the rules) the OP talks about.

At the school I'm a governor of we have never had admissions from category E as it is always full before the end of category D.

We've had appeals from category E but they have always been refused.

When a child moves from a small primary to a big secondary school having an older sibling there will often give moral support. In any event many journeys are unrealistic for an unaccompanied 11 but safe with an older sibling. Nobody is going to abolish sibling priority.

People who are willing to get up every Sunday and sit through a church service in order to get their kids into a good school again are making an effort for their children. Perhaps if you are a staunch atheist this is morally wrong, but what is the issue if you are a non-practicing Christian, and normally wouldn't want to go to church every Sunday but do it to get a place for your child at a faith school, the only people who tend to get on their high horse about this are the ones didn't make an effort to do the same. Incidentally in my area the best school is slap bang in the middle of an ex-LA estate, which means those children get in first, and others in private housing are less likely to get in. That is the way it is. Life is unfair. Some are willing to go above and beyond what others will to make the most of the opportunities because that is their priority. They are not cheating the system, they are putting themselves out for 2 years in ops post and probably 3+ years for a church school. As I said good for them.

My 5 year old (who goes to a catholic school) is just at the point of wondering why Daddy doesn't come to his church but mummy does

Nothing wrong with that

Tbh OP the issues these days with OFSTED classing previously Outstanding schools as Failing or Inadequate coukd happen to this school just as quickly with any other. Perhaps sit back and pray that happens in this case. Then have a smug smile to yourself while you watch them screeching with outrage over their idiocy.

If the schools were not so shit then this wouldn't happen

They should either have a lotto system I think only sibling priority should be given to primary children when there to young to make there own way to school

But when school so wildy vary in outcomes yu wil get this I lived 1.4 miles away from my sons high school I was told it was 50/50 weather he would get a place we have since moved out of London eveyone attends there local school by in large however it means all schools are good and there are not many outstanding

2 years is a long time tbh, most would move whilst doing the application then leave after the place has been offered or the DC has started at school.

Think it happens as much for secondary as it does for primary.
I deplore it.
It is STEALING a place from a child who should have had it.

We went by the book for secondary and ended up with NOWHERE for our eldest DS. 3 weeks later he got a place at his 3rd choice (our first, he preferred 2 others).
That school was an inner city school,whose nearest neighbour is the one people do the 'x' shuffle for, was seen as undesirable by pretty well all our peer group. But we sniffed a winner, happy kids, happy teachers and a brilliant visionary head with an brilliant and talented team around her.
So off he went.
A year later that inner city school was given 'outstanding' OFSTED rating, and you could say the rest is history.
8 years later, 'desirable' school much less so, has run out of money, firing staff etc etc.
Oldest DS at Uni of Sussex and youngest about to start in 6th Form.

If you are a staunch atheist you might think that it is morally wrong for schools that funded by the taxpayer to be allowed to discriminate against children according to their parents' faith (or lack thereof). So you might be inclined to do whatever it takes to get your child in and think that you were completely justified in doing so.

DDs over subbed secondary has this rule now because of the situation:

1. looked after
2. medical/social needs
3. children in catchment
4. other children

It was changed BECAUSE of people fiddling the system. If I recall although there is no official sibling rule now you could appeal based on siblings if you missed out, they will only consider it if you are in catchment though.

The school tends to take from the exact same area every year but it's a smaller area than the official catchment area so I suspect that's why they changed the rules this way. When they publish the stats for the "furthest distance from school" it seems to be pretty much identical each year so usually if one got in the other will as well. However an appeal by a friend who got her DS on the edge of catchment in based on the fact that all his classmates got in including his best friend who lives 2 doors down I'm pretty sure if you had siblings and were on the edge you could get in.

I think more schools will move to abolish the siblings rule because of people taking the piss which will hurt more families. I think the siblings in catchment then other kids in catchment then siblings NOT in catchment rule is probably the fairest.

If the schools were not so shit then this wouldn't happen.

I disagree. Some schools are terrible because they are struggling to educate unruly children from families who despise education. Take those kids out and, magically, the school is lovely.

The schools end up polarised in this way (with some being really shit) because people who care about education do whatever they can to avoid the awful schools. It's a bit of a vicious circle...

If the schools were not so shit then this wouldn't happen

Ffs. Out of two schools one will always be better than the other - or perceived as better by parents - and parents will prefer that one. It does not mean the other is shit.

When a child moves from a small primary to a big secondary school having an older sibling there will often give moral support. In any event many journeys are unrealistic for an unaccompanied 11 but safe with an older sibling. Nobody is going to abolish sibling priority.

It is only what all eldest or only children have to cope with! Some schools/LAs already have abolished it.

There's quite a variety of understanding on this subject - I suspect it probably boils down to where you live and if you have actually been through the secondary admissions process.

To the pp who said "they will never abolish the automatic place for siblings rule" you are wrong about that, some schools already have (as witnessed on this thread).

My op expressed surprise that a severely over-subscribed London school had not followed suit.