Is this admission fraud? AIBU to report it?

[grammarmom]

Here's the situation.

We live in a grammar school catchment area that gets smaller every year. When we bought our house several years ago, it was very comfortably within the catchment for an excellent local grammar (very high in the league tables), and oh boy was it reflected in the price. Now we're right on the boundary. Among the thirty or so houses around us, some children got in last year and some didn't, literally a difference of a few yards.

Another child on our street, who is in the same class as my DC, only just passed the 11+ (a few points above the pass threshold). We live on the same road, but they are about 50 yards further from the school gate. Based on last year's distances, my child would likely get a place while theirs wouldn't.

Over the weekend, during a sleepover, the child mentioned that her mother has now rented a house much closer to the school to secure a higher priority for admission. The tenancy was apparently signed one day before the cut-off date, making it "legal" for admission purposes. She still owns their original home, but the story being presented is that relatives who were previously "homeless" will now live there free of charge, and all bills and utilities have been transferred into those relatives' names (I strongly suspect that the mother will in fact pay these bills as those relatives are penniless).

She's even moved the children's belongings to the rented property and makes them spend nights there (they hate it). There's no doubt that once the school place is obtained, they will move right back.

This effectively pushes my child down the priority list and means they may now miss out.

Would this constitute admissions fraud? It feels incredibly unfair that someone with £40k to spare for rent can effectively buy their way into a top grammar school, especially when their child didn't perform particularly well in the exam (despite being tutored for hours every day).

Should I report this? I have no more detail apart from what this child told me (and they obviously weren't too sure about some aspects of it due to age).

Sounds like they’ve done their homework to make sure they are legally covered.

I’ve no idea how you’d prove this

probably completely pointless

No - it is binary.

What does that mean? Your kid can fail and they ger a place?

I don't want to go into politics here but it is obvious to most people who follow the news.

I don’t think the two are comparable. Buying a home and paying attention to what’s around it (school, train station, countryside etc.) and whether you want to live there is normal behaviour. Moving into a flat for one year to get your child into a particular school and then moving out again isn’t.

Nobody’s commented that you live on the same street , so by rights if you have the same postcode do they really drill down into house numbers to see who’s the closest ?
You want the best for your child (ren) , she does too . Basic human nature .
As someone said , she’s played the game better than you , and you’ve got the hump about it .
you also sound like a right bitch to be saying about her child only scraping a pass for 11+ , that’s nothing to do with you , a pass is a pass!

It means that all kids who scored above the pass threshold do not get any further priority based on their exact score.

So catchment is more important than a great score?

Did you miss the part about her family coming over and needing somewhere to stay so they get the bigger property and she rents a smaller place as it’s lower cost obvs?

you do realise that when sibling priority has not been removed completely, more often than not it's sibling priority WITHIN CATCHEMENT, so if yours is shrinking you have no guarantee of a sibling spot.

And fair enough.

You can't be real and genuinely disgruntled that someone is doing exactly what you did, just better than you. You should have bought a house closer to the school, why didn't you?

Thank you! I am flabbergasted that people here don't see the difference. Or maybe pretend not to see.

You’re moaning about how you bought a very expensive house in a particular area to secure a particular school. Now someone else who is also suffering with the catchment area reducing has also bought, one way or another, a property location to secure their child a place at this particular school. You can’t see how it’s the same? You’re both using money to secure a place somewhere that those with less money could not.

I for one can’t buy my way into select schools by gaining property in very highly sought after neighbourhoods. Why shouldn’t I be equally pissed off at you for an essentially buying a better education for your child?

I for one say good for them for finding a way around the system. Why should it just be the privileged few with the big bucks who get the reward. Presumably when they bought their original house they did so with the intention of that school. They didn’t decide to reduce the catchment area. They likely aren’t in a position to sell up and buy a few streets closer. So what’s the harm, exactly?

We have this issue locally, and the school now say that if you still own a house which was the child’s main residence at any point within the last 3 years, it is that one they count. Because some flats opposite the school were being bought and sold on an annual basis - back on the market every May and as soon as the eldest child was safely on the roll, they would exchange. And the rest of the family would get in on sibling grounds.

I’ve never heard of a grammar that lets you in irrelevant if scores.

That seems weird, I just assume grammars prioritised the top scores regardless.

Money talks. To me there’s no difference between what she’s done and what you’ve done. You have both used money to leverage a better chance at getting your child into
a good school. Education can never be a level playing field no matter how much people want it to be.

Which is fine as either way she’s in catchment,

Double check the small print on the admissions criteria. My local grammar school got wise to people who own big houses a little further away renting tiny flats next to the school and the whole family apparently ‘relocating’ to the tiny flats next just before admissions. They have now added that if you own a house within 20 miles of your named rented address then the owned house will be taken as permanent address for application purposes.

Keep your beak out it has nothing to do with you.

Wow, that’s really unusual. Which school is it exactly?

I guess different parts of the country have very different systems.

A loss they will have to learn to bear with fortitude

morally dodgy, legally fine.

But it does make me wander if this is why the grammar schools in our area have a sort of "circular" admissions policy. It's a bit conplicated but as I udnerstand it from when we were previosuly thinking of sending DD to grammar, if the school takes 180 children, the top 60 are highest marks within the circle closest tot he School. Then the next 30 are the top 30 in area a, next 30 are in the top 30 in area B, then next are top 30 in area C. with each area (which I think are circular) clearly defined. So there's an element of chance -if your area is filled with kids who got a higher mark than yours, tough cheese. Or if your area is filled with kids who got a lower score than yours, great for you.

you need to rent a place, for you or your relatives, or whoever. You have the choice in one in the right catchment, and one where the location is not convenient at all.

Who on earth would NOT pick the catchment house?

And expecting your "friend" to give up on the best possible education for their own child to suits you? Seriously? 😂

😂😂