Any real moral difference between a short term let for admission purposes or permanently moving

[OhDearConfused]

Question says it all really.

A short term let or a more permanent move, in either case to get you into catchment for admissions at a popular school, still has the effect of reducing the catchment area, increasing housing prices, disadvantaging the poor, and so on.

Is there a real difference?

Struggling with this at the moment, as in catchment for a not-particularly-attractive school, when many others are doing one or the other to get into another school a little further away.

Just wondering what other's views are?

"if a large number of the parents have a bad attitude, there is nothing any of us can do to stop that rubbing off on the school"

Well this is the crux of the matter isn't it. This is why schools in the leafy middle-class areas are generally desirable, and ones in the cheaper areas are not. And it is self-perpetuating, as those who can both afford it, and care about education, move near the good schools. I think the quality of teaching staff, facilities etc. have a much smaller effect than the intake.

I'd love to know what to do about this, but if it was simple someone would have done it already. It's not just about improving the poor schools so that parents who care will be happy sending their kids there - what about the kids of parents who don't care? What chance do they have in life?

Maryz, my house is a five minute walk from the actual catchment, we share the same shops.

Maryz, your SIL sounds horrible. I very much doubt that she is typical of parents that feel they are doing what they can to give their children a good education.

If I were in a situation, I don't think I would feel I had to justify it. I would just explain to anyone who was interested that I wanted to give my children the best chance I could. That's because I would want my opinion to be understood, not justified.

I can see how you feel it's selfish, it is selfish, but in my opinion, it's ok to be selfish about things like this when you are forced to work within an unfair system. If the allocations process was fair, and all schools were the same, it would be very very selfish, and unjustifiable, to fight for a place in a school just because it had a better adventure playground and you wanted you child to have that over someone elses. But when it comes down to just getting a good education for your child, in an environment that they are going to be happy in, I just can't think badly of people who use loopholes.

Blatantly lying on forms is a different matter, and that is just wrong because lying is wrong.

Custard - what you are doing is great. It is a heroic thing to do, to campaign for children who can't. I'm probably being very negative and cynical though, but I think there is only so much that the government, or LA's can do. Unless they try to contol the way parents bring up their children, which is something most of us are opposed to, there is no way to fix all of teh problems.

Well done, CustardCake. I must admit I am rather defeatist on this and have done nothing. I guess I should - our council is rather smug and consider themselves doing well as they get few out-of-catchment requests. I consider this is because the catchment system is so entrenched here that parents feel they have no real chance of an out-of-catchment place, and have to stump up money to get any kind of choice, either by moving or by going private.

just for clarification purposes, custardcake isn;t me.

regards

Ha! this reminds me of when DD1 got her letter with named school. Another parent said hers had got into that one as well and I said 'that's great!' assuming other parent would be pleased. Other parent wasn't pleased at all. The look on her face has stuck with me and she never spoke to me again. They got her in to her prefered school on the second round and that was the end of the friendship.

This school thing is so divisive. You can't change the system, but you can accept that most schools are quite good - just because they don't get top results doesn't mean all children fail. Nothing terrible will happen to them in one school that wouldn't happen in another. Sending children to a diverse school can be a brilliant social education that they won't get anywhere else. Giving them a wide choice of paths to follow sets them free to be who they are, not who we think they ought to be.

And now I really sound like a hippy.

'Nothing terrible will happen to them in one school that wouldn't happen in another. Sending children to a diverse school can be a brilliant social education that they won't get anywhere else. Giving them a wide choice of paths to follow sets them free to be who they are, not who we think they ought to be.'

Sorry Abendbrot but I wildly disagree. Some schools are places it is far more likely your child will be made a victim in some way.

Mine has been picked on in a so called outstanding school, but it was sorted out. In some places it wouldn't be. They have no rep to protect, no offsted grade worth upholding.

It sounds trite but it made a difference. I won't send him to a crappy school full of bitchy children because they will rip him to pieces and he doesn't deserve that. If your child is strong, not the sort to get ribbed, if they have a very supportive home life and you're willing to do the sorting out yourself if anything goes wrong, then go for it.

I don't feel my child is that strong and he would be trampled on and I'm not strong enough to make him confident enough not to allow that to happen.

Not defending my own failings. Just saying...he needs to go somewhere that isn't vicious or a question of survival of the fittest.

I agree with you Jane. I feel that with ds2, he could be very easily led, and easily influenced by others.

If he's in a school where working hard is not seen as the 'cool' thing to do, pupils drink when they are still well underage, and there are drugs available, I fear he could be tempted. Yes he has a supportive family and good ethics, but there is only so much that that will count for when he is out of the house and surrounded by bad influences all day. I don't think he is strong enough of confident enough to say no.

On the other hand, if he went to a school where there was a strong work ethic, achievement was encouraged and celebrated in all pupils, and there was very low tolerance to things like bullying, drugs and alcohol, he stands a much better chance of achieveing his academic potential.

It's a no brainer really.

"a crappy school full of bitchy children" - my dd went to an outstanding school full of white middle class intellectuals children and they were very bitchy. They are just more subtle about it than in her other school, where conflict was loud and obvious. Girls would blame others when something happened, boys would get weaker children to hit others.

"survival of the fittest" comes in many shapes and forms.

Children always "survive" in a school where behaviour is dealt with properly and children "survive" when their parents help them to learn how to.

But wouldn't it be nice to have a world where schools didn't end up getting stigmatised because parents are prejudiced against the children.

abdendbrot, I went to one of the schools you describe, full of white middle class girls, who could all easily have had degrees in how to be a manipulative bitch.

It was not nice.

I still think I came out of that school better off, because certain things just weren't tolerated. We were bitchy and had regular fall outs where it seemed that we took it in turns to be the one that was left out each week, but serious bullying just didn't happen. Even very low level bullying was picked up on and dealt with instantly. Punishments were harsh, so it just wasn't worth it. Same with not doing homework, turning up in incorrect uniform and the like, it just wasn't worth it. As we got older, a few of the more rebellious ones would smoke and drink and smoke the occasional spliff, but again, it was drummed in to you that these things were serious and you just don't end up doing them long term if the school and your parents are so heavily against it.

Compare that to a school where you are left to fail if you consistently don't do homework, bullying goes unnoticed, smoking is something that isn't severly punished and left up to parents to deal with. It's going to be easier to go off the rails a bit. That's just obvious.

Children always "survive" in a school where behaviour is dealt with properly and children "survive" when their parents help them to learn how to

So what about the schools that don't deal with behaviour properly and a large number of parents don't help?

There are schools and parents like this. By saying that I would prefer my children to be in a school that does deal with behaviour properly and be surrounded by children whose parents do help them, I am not being prejudiced against children, I'm saying I would rather not have to deal with the struggles that will come from that if I can avoid it by choosing a different school.

I don't think it's as clear cut as that nowadays slave, I hear what you're saying but some schools have a challenging intake and brilliant behaviour management, other schools have an easy intake and no behaviour management.

So I think there is a lot of prejudging going on here, of schools and of children and of families. It's natural to generalise though, and most parents can't go through the deep analysis of a school that may be necessary to ensure that its behaviour management is effective. And the perceived 'struggle' that you talk about is only natural to want to avoid, but it is perception and not based on fact.

Things are changing very fast in Inner London - the 'tough' schools are being very hard on discipline. Suddenly schools that were outstanding are losing their grade because they are having to prove their effectiveness in being inclusive - which has scuppered them completely as quite frequently, being inclusive - educationally and socially - does NOT go hand in hand with having a slightly easy, privileged intake.

The one thing that private schools do that I believe makes them successful, has nothing to do with the teachers or the class sizes, it has to do with the way that they deal with behaviour - they root out bad behaviour or they get to the root of why the bad behaviour starts. They worked out a long time ago that education can't happen if behaviour isn't dealt with well.

Anyway I'm going off on a bit of a tangent... but I think we agree that the system is shite, and people just want a quiet life and a decent chance for their kids and unless the system changes drastically, our society, particularly in the Cities, will become more and more divided.

Hi Abendbrot, sorry ,we had to go out.

I know what you are saying about divisiveness. I think you're saying that I'm (or others are) prejudiced against the children in what are seen as worse schools, because of reputation and so on - not based on fact.

I understand and know that bitchiness happen in all schools. I went to one of the most well thought of state grammars in the county, (not boasting! I dropped out in the end) and yes, people found a way to bully and to be unpleasant. The ethic was fairly good though overall, few drugs, no weapons, there were a LOT of very nice kids among the nasty ones. It was a positive place.

I know some failing, or not very good schools are full of positivity and I'm not saying all of it is bad. I think management of the problems can be fantastic - but this doesn't take away the fact these problems are rampant among the kids.

I'm not being prejudiced. I've lived here all my life and the crappy school I was referring to has excellent facilities, good policies, that sort of thing. the kids I see daily on their way home from this school seem to be divided intotwo groups.
There are the shouting ones, who have a queen bee or male equivalent, cross the road in front of you while flipping their finger at you, laughing as they balance on narrow walls by the traffic, being as utterly stupid as you can imagine.

They shout for no reason, laugh and mock constantly as they go [past the other sort - the bullied ones.

These look poor, badly dressed, unwashed, quiet. Their shoes don't fit.
They are mocked horribly. They say nothing.

I see these behaviours daily and there's no way in the world that my child is going there. Yes it happened in a similar format in my old school, but the incidents were minimal - the bullies were the minority. It was frowned upon, you could always find a nice person to be your pal.

I hope this makes sense. I'm not judging the kids on stuff I haven't seen. I see it all the time and it makes me feel sick.

"I'm not being prejudiced. I've lived here all my life and the crappy school I was referring to has excellent facilities, good policies, that sort of thing. the kids I see daily on their way home from this school seem to be divided intotwo groups."

Have you actually been into the school in question, Janebirkin, or are you basing your assessment on your observations of testosterone fuelled teens on thi way home? Because I live very near a famous public school, and if I was to judge that establishment on the behaviour of it's pupils on exeat, it would come out similarly badly!

If you witness abuse you should report it to the school and perhaps they can do something about it.

I very much doubt it Abendbrot. They can hardly follow the kids home.

Seeker, I haven't been inside it. I've had no reason to yet. I know plenty of people who went there, some nice, some not so nice. The nice ones got the sharp end of the stick. It's NOT a nice school to go to.

I seriously, seriously doubt your public school kids are anything near as bad as this lot, I certainly NEVER see other schoolchildren behaving in this way out of school...yes, rowdy occasionally but NEVER like this. It's horrible - and always the ones in this uniform.

I suppose it's the difference between the mum in the street whose kid is naughty, and she calls him to her, has a word, gives him a hug and tells him off a bit, and the other mum whose kid is naughty and she yells 'get here you little git' and wallops him in front of everyone.

There's no shame with these kids. It's as public and loud as possible. The humiliation is blatant.

Really, I'm not exaggerating. It's really awful.
Seeker I think we live nearish to one another, you would not send your children to this school...honestly. No one wants to.

Janebirkin- i'm curious now! I'll give you the initials of my public school if you give the initials of your "Waterloo Road"!

used to be FH...then CH...then SA I think it's called now! Dreadful...facilities are wonderful, but OMG

you might need to look east a bit (clue)

we're not that near

and think ladies of the night in terms of the original name

sorry scratch the bit about SA

getting mixed up

still CH

Jane there are an awful lot of sentences in your posts that are pure assumption based on fear of a few things you see outside a school. Did you see this mother wallop her kid or was that an example of what you think 'these' childrens parents are like?

Perhaps the abuse wasn't so bad it was worth reporting. Whichever way, you clearly don't care enough about your local community to want to do anything about it. Apart from keep your child well away from all these thousands of terrible children.

What's she supposed to do though? Phone the school, the police, SS, and say 'there is a kid in X school uniform with brown hair swearing at someone'?

I thought the bit about the Mum telling off the child was just an example, not something real.

Well - yes if it's outside the school they can do something about it.

The bit about the Mum was an example of making assumptions about people before you have any idea who they are.