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?

Bonsoir Fri 14-Oct-11 10:32:39
I misunderstand nothing. The driver to be a better human is the same driver that pushes people to be better than the human next door.

_

Really? Do you really think that? I don't agree at all.

slavetofilofax Fri 14-Oct-11 10:34:45
If private schools disappeared, the system would be even worse. The battles to get into the good state schools would become monumental, and the system simply woudn't be able to cope with all the extra children.

Same with healthcare. I'm glad that those who can pay do, because without them, waiting lists would be even longer.
__

Oh God I don't know where to start. This is exactly where the tories have been coming from for years and years.

Can you not see beyond those very simplistic statements?

Of course I can, but it is the horrible reality.

If private heathcare and private schooling were to vanish, the simple fact it that we would end up paying more in tax to fund the extra people in the system, and the service would be worse than it is already.

I would love us to have a system where the healthcare and the education was so good that there was no need for anyone to prefer private, and in an ideal world, that's what we would have. Everyone should have equal access to high quality services, but they don't. That's the sad truth of the situation, ideals don't come into it.

I do, on this occasion agree with Bonsoir- Greed, effectively, in all its forms in a massive driver of 'progress' whether we like it or not. We say 'We want good schools for all' but a) we don't define 'good', and b) actually, our 'good' looks less attractive when next door gets 'better'. Much research has been shown to prove that if we earn £12,000 we're happier than if we earn £50,000 IF our neighbours earn £10,000 and £60,000 respectively. It's all relative.

It would, in my opinion, run counter to the British psyche to actually have 'equality'.

On the subject of 'good' and 'bad' schools and people asking why 'in this day and age' we still have 'bad' schools' it's simply because in the UK we have had a welfare system that supported- and perhaps does, to a lesser extent- the endless begetting of children to people who have little interest in them. There is no incentive to need to be able to afford your children before having them thus we do end up with dangerous schools in welfare dependent areas. Tackle one and the other would eventually follow.

By the way, renting is not always short-term and renters do not always fail to become part of the local community, I have been a renter for more than twenty years (nothing whatsoever to do with school catchment areas) and have always made plenty of efforts to be part of the communities I have lived in.

Oh cheers Erebus...so all children whose parents receive welfare are 'dangerous'? I'm sure that's not what you can have meant. It's so ridiculous...

Can you show me, Lurkers, where I've said that in my post exactly?

'There is no incentive to need to be able to afford your children before having them thus we do end up with dangerous schools in welfare dependent areas.'

This implies that children on welfare are causing schools to be dangerous places.

It';s a bit of a dangerous generalisation if I can say so

though no one much equates prejudice against kids from poor families as something that really matters...so feel free to fling it out there

I wanted to come on and say that theDudesmummy - we rent where we are as we will never be able to buy and the house we rent now is near enough to the best school of the borough (puposefully so as its the only upside of renting as a family).

We hope to stay - have been 2 years already and hope for more but the landlord may choose to throw us all out and sell it at any time and at that point, having got our dc in, we would cease to be living near it - not our fault but distinction needs to be made between our scenario and people renting for 6 months on purpose or renting and not moving in at all.

I didn't read Erebus's comment as implying that children on welfare are causing schools to be dangerous places.

I read it as an area with high levels of people on welfare is more likley to have an udesireable school, and that's what creates these battles.

It's true that a country like ours that has a generous welfare system is going to create parents that don't care much about providing themselves for their children, because they know the state will do it for them. This creates a bad attitude to education, because there is less incentive for people to be well educated. Then that bad attitude from parents is what creates bad schools. Which in turn creates other people that are desparate to keep their children out of those schools.

Thank you filofax.

You put it well.

You're just phrasing the same thing differently.

What about people on welfare who do care about education. What about the ones who are non violent, who are nice to their children, who send them to school when they should, are not late, help with their homework?

You're putting everyone into one big group and saying they are the cause of these problems.

It's not about welfare. It's about how nice, and how responsible, you are as a parent, whether or not you can manage without welfare assistance for whatever reason.

Where have I said that 'people on welfare don't care about their children's education'? Where have I made that sweeping generalisation?

I think, as a generalisation, it is true that the worst schools are in the poorer areas. But which came first? Is the area poorer because the school is crap and more well off parents there ore don't buy into catchment or is the school crap because of "Shameless" style parents?

No, I don't think that all "welfare" parents are like those on Shameless, of course I don't.

Of course there are good parents that use the welfare system. I never said there aren't. I'm not generalising and putting that opinion onto an entire group of people, but what I said does happen and I stand by it.

Not all high earning highly educated parents are good parents either.

There are good and bad in every group of people.

i rented short term for 6 months to get into a grammar school catchment area we really moved in there though.Changed GPs and everything. Since then though we have bought and settled down in the catchment.No problem with it at all.You do what you have to for your DC

that's rather different from renting to get into the school and then moving back to the family home.

A family at my ds's grammar school did the same thing spider. The catchment area is huge, it covers four counties, but they lived just outside the boundary. They rented short term so they would be offered a place if he passed, and then moved properly when the place was offered.

Can't say I blame them. The school is worth it imo.

A solution is to insist that applicants can prove they've lived in the stated house for a proper length of time. Proof might be quite onerous, not just a council tax demand- it might include proof of GP registration, proof of electoral roll enrollment, official dated letters addressed to that house over the length of time. You could also make a rule that IF you move outside what the catchment was on the date of your DCs enrollment you can only keep your DC in that school for the current KS so that the people who move into your in-catchment now vacated house can send their DCs to that local school.

There would of course be uproar. Many would cite 'the rights of the child' to its continuing education (regardless of how its 'right' negates the 'right' of the incoming child to a place at the school) etc etc, others might argue that it 'wasn't fair' on newcomers to the area- but if those were the rules, I bet we'd find ways of ensuring we were in catchment for the required time and would stay in the required length of time.

By 'proper' length of time, I mean 7 months+ prior (overcomes the 6th month rental thing!).

Where does that leave families who have had to relocate just prior to school applications?

No system will work for every eventuality, will it?- those families would have to apply for the next round of offers. But at least there won't be DCs in the desired school whose families no longer live in catchment or indeed, never did.

Also, a thought- if this were 'the system', wouldn't it come to pass that work relocations would factor in the 'proof of residence' needs of the employee they were relocating? And isn't it more likely that places would come up at the school if DCs were also leaving because their families were moving away and the DCs had to follow?

It is morally wrong, and cheating the system. And yet again it's the wealthier families who can do it; most families can't afford to rent a second property, even for a matter of months.

Some parents, will do it, sure, but don't pretend it's moral.

I expect there are times that renters would have an advantage over homeowners too though. People often wouldn't be able to afford to pay a mortgage and rent, but if they rent anyway they might be able to pay a more expensive rent for a few months to secure a place.

No system will ever be fair to all. Schools need to get better and all parents need to engage with their child's education to help make that happen.