bbc news tonight - parents lying to get into schools made me wonder...

[jollygumbear]

if you rent your house out and then rent yourself in catchment and live there for a year does that make the application for the school illegal?

i won't say "wrong" as that's another thread as its all about personal opinion!

thanks

I would say that is morally wrong because the whole reason for renting your original house out and renting in a catchment area is, is it not to gain a place at the school which you wouldn't otherwise be entitled to go to? Sorry

But surely not illegal as long as you actually live in the rented house and don't just use it as an accomodation address.

But if you filled out the form with the rented address on it knowing that it was a short term arrangement and not your permanent address but one simply in order to gain a place, might that not be interpreted as fraud and thereby illegal? I suppose it is all open to interpretation.

I've seen this with two people I know.

The first is a single parent living a rough area who got into debt to rent a flat for 6 month in the catchment area. She never lived there and her child got into the school of 'choice'.

The second are a professional couple, living in a very nice area but just outside the catchment area of their preferred school. They 'moved' in to a large detached house near to said school but after two years, once both of their dcs had got into the school, they 'moved' back again. It turned out that they had rented the house for two years and had been able to afford to leave their own house empty during that period.

Was it illegal? probably not.

Was it morally wrong? perhaps, but the idea of choice is promoted as being the way to create equality for all. But some are more equal than others and as in any marketplace the power of choice is only available to those who have the right kind of currency with which to buy the goods on offer.

What is really morally wrong is the fact that parents have so little faith in so many schools that this sort of behaviour is becoming so widespread.

If you are living within the catchment area when your child starts school, then surely you are entitled to a place. I don't see that what happens a year down the line is relevant, whether it was planned or not. It's not the same as renting somewhere and never living there, just to get a place.

Makes me crazy, the government publishes reports and league tables and then acts all suprised when parents take them on board. It shouldn't be this way, there should be a good local school for every child ffs.

I think you have to live there for 6 months so not ilegal just a bit questionable.

One simple way to solve this problem is surely to force parents to take their DC out of the school the minute they move away. The 'rent in the area' trick woudl then be meaningless.

In Oxford a lot of the best North Oxford school sfilled up wth parents movng for a few years into local houses and then moving out to larer contry properties but leaving teir DC in the school. The result was that parents who move into teh area later cannot get into the local schools.

Surely teh fairest way is to allocate schools to people who really live in the area and as soon as they move out they move their DCs. Would save on a lot of parents commuting kids for miles to schools.

One Oxford primary school that was oversubscribed did start forcing parents to take DCs out of the school if they moved out of the catchment area. The waiting list magically disappeared almost overnight.

Betadad, I think that's a bit too simplistic. If for eg. there's a marriage breakup and the parents have to find new accommodation, then the dc would be further punished by having to change schools as well.

Plus there isn't really a catchment as such, since the intake area changes from year to year according to no of siblings and applications, so it would be difficult to legislate for as well.

What they could do (and should do imo) is to change the sibling criterion so that sibling priority would no longer apply if the family had moved to a new area since the original sibling had started school. That would catch out the most obvious piss-takers.

To answer OP, it's not illegal so long as you genuinely move and are genuinely living at, paying counciltax at, and receiving child benefit at, the new address throughout the period considered by the applications process.

Agree with Frogs...stop the sibling priority if that family no longer lives in the area. It would help a bit I'm sure.

As going to school looms closer for us as a family I've got more sympathy with families wanting the best. When we bought our house it was in a nice enough school catchment. In 7 years we've been in the catchment for FOUR different schools. We are now in a catchment for one of the worst schools in the county (and country)and it's nowhere near where we live I physically will have to pass three schools on my way to the catchment school...due to the LEA trying to pump up numbers to keep this ailing school viable as no one has wanted to go

When the LEA don't play fair and parents find catchments moving about; being told that their alloted school is miles from home then you can't blame them for trying to get out of the situation. Is renting much worse than all the parents 'pretending' to be religious to get that precious slip of paper signed to get them into high performing faith schools?!

I am just grateful I don't have to do all this. We have friends who drive past 3 good schools to take their DCs to a less good primary. They can afford private but politically against it. I think they are facing up to having to pay for secondary.

We are friends with another couple who are struggling with this and currently send DS and DD to a popular Cathlic primary school. They played the religious option. The father is very against paying for schooling from a political point of view but swallowed is pride to allow his wife to take he kids to church to get into the Catholic school. His wife is OK about payng for schooling as she went to a state subsidised convent school where parents paid low fees.

The father is now slowly dumping his principles as his son gets closer to secondary school age and is beginning to think about allowing his parents to pay for private school. He went to grammar school but the secondary schools in their area are just to awful to contemplate and sacrifice his son to protect his principles.

The fairest system is a lottery. Why are so many people so anti the idea of a lottery? It's wrong that people can buy advantage in state provided education.

I think lying about where you live in order to gain a better state school place should be punished by a hefty fine.

I think lying about being a family of faith in order to gain a better state school place should be punished by being sent to Africa and shot by AA Gill.

Why have Labour been so reluctant to make access to state education fair to all? No wonder social mobility is at its lowest since the 50s.

There was something in the Evening Standard last night about a lottery system, identical twins got into secondary schools 18 miles apart (must live middle of nowhere![hmm))where told it wouldn't be fair to allocate 2 places to the same family!!

As for moving, each to their own, its easy to judge and say its morally wrong etc but when it's "your" child's education in question it all becomes a bit more serious and personal imho!

People who advocate a lottery system just haven't thought through the practicalities of implementing it on a big-city-wide basis. (Or very conveniently don't have to think about it for their own children.)

Places should be available for local children at the local school.

Have to say that when the 'system' has been against you then a lottery does seem the best option although I doubt I'd say that if my options were good! Not sure about being shot by AA Gill though

Yep, I used to have very staunch principles - but having two DDs, one with emerging SN, I'm watching those principles eroding by the week.

That's rubbish about local schools for local children, UQD. You mean you have paid for a particular school through your house price and your damned if you are going to give way to a fairer system.

I used to travel an 18 mile round trip to my grammar school on a public bus, with a mile walk at both ends. Nobody complained about 11 year olds having to travel a long way to to school.

A lottery would be fairer. ANd if you don't want your child travelling across town/city then you will have to put down your three nearest schools.

Apparently in Brighton 95% of people got one of their first three choices. I think that sounds very successful.

What is the education equivalent of a nimby?

Agree with Swedes. In our area no-one balks at having to travel miles to get to the grammar school (if they pass the test and get the place), but if they then don't achieve the required standard in the test and get given a school they don't want, then suddenly its too far to travel to it. Ditto with the private schools.

To answer the OP: there are rules, and there are ethics. They do not always coincide! And parents who would normally think of themselves as law-abiding will go to great lengths to secure a decent education for their children.

But Swedes, I thought that the Brighton Lottery was done within a local area: everyone within a certain area could go in the lottery for places in schools within that area - so not incompatible with Betadad's point?

I may be wrong about how it is done in Brighton, though.

Since , IMO, faith schools should have exactly the same admission procedures as community schools (if paid fo by the LEA), then I am less convinced that fake faith should carry a penalty. How would you know, anyway? It is usually decided on the vicar's or priest's letter, based on attendance. How on earth would they monitor the actual level of belief??? A Jeremy Kyle Lie Detector Test?

It's me, not ABetaDad. People are always confusing us!!

A lottery system is an admission of failure. It concedes that some schools are those where people may not want to go. Instead of this, and instead of advocating spurious "choice", governments should work on making all schools of decent calibre. Then people would actually want their children to go to their local schools.

(And I used to do a 30-mile round trip to my grammar school. That was because there was a grammar school system. There isn't one where I live.)

I'd be in favour of losing the place if you move out of the area, though.

I'll say it again. Anyone who thinks a lottery is workable obviously hasn't thought it through or is in the convenient position of having bought themselves out of it. It would cause traffic nightmares, the splitting up of friendship groups and of families.

I agree that a lottery system is a traffic and logistical nightmare. It is much better for all concerned if children can walk to school on their own, which lottery systems render unthinkable.

Part of the reasons some schools are deemed 'good' and some are deemed 'bad' is to do with the areas they are in though.

Unless schools start having a genuinely mixed intake, there is always going to be the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that the 'good' schools are in the more affluent areas.