Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

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

266 replies

OhDearConfused · 12/10/2011 17:43

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?

OP posts:
CamdenSchoolDilemma · 14/10/2011 16:38

well we're looking for a rental property in a desirable catchment area (will be living in it and probably for at least a year before buying in the area, but probably a bit further away) - and it is a nightmare. a flat came on the market this week (0.08 miles away from the school) and it went in hours. dd is in y6 in that school (so we won't have any sibling link for ds next year) and in her class she knows of one person in the class who rented a flat but didn't live in it and got a place. Another girl didn't get a place until y4 and her parents still in y6 blame the fake renter.

So many people do it in this school - it doesn't make it right of course - but the catchment is now 0.11 miles - and the only way people must get in year after year is to do the short term renting thing. there just aren't enough houses/flats nearby that could have enough children to fill a reception class year after year.

In my area (see nickname!) I do know people who for secondary school rent their houses out and rent a flat near desirable secondary schools. There has to be a better way than this.

TheWomanOnTheBus · 14/10/2011 17:31

The better way is to do random allocation for all over-subscribed schools.

The "local link" will be mainted, because realistically, you are only going to apply to schools that are local (or you will move after getting the place to be local).

The difference in school quality will iron itself out over time (perhaps immediately - Chicago did this a while ago - written about in Freakonomics) as sink schools disappear because the supportive / valuing-education families (not just middle class) are spread out evenly.

And something will then be done about disruptive behavious because the vocal middle classes will not put up with anything less. They can get themselves onto governing bodies, demand better head teachers, and so on.

(I'd ban private (and selective) schools too - and then politicians will take more of an interest.)

TheWomanOnTheBus · 14/10/2011 17:51

Re Lurkers "I mind of people say 'I know it's wrong but my child comes first.' I mind that greatly.

I also wouldn't shove someone else's kid out of a lifeboat. We'd just have to make room..."

Another solution of course is to take up this there-is-always-room-for-one-more suggestion and apply it to a school. The school could just let everyone in and "just have to make room". Sure, undersirables (kids who don't want to learn etc and don't move into catchment of a "good" school) will get in as well, and classes would get very much too full, but then it will all self-correct as the "popular" school becomes less so .... and the school down the road that everyone is trying to avoid gets very generous per-pupil resources (this can't work of the money follows the pupil; the budgets have to stay the same) and very small classes.

Might take a few years, but it may well even it all out.

spiderpig8 · 14/10/2011 17:58

'and classes would get very much too full, but then it will all self-correct'

what about health and safety and fire regulations ?

TheWomanOnTheBus · 14/10/2011 18:06
Smile
abendbrot · 14/10/2011 18:09

thewomaninthebus have you got a link to the Chicago experiment?

I have always believed that there should be a lottery system within a certain distance, particularly in cities where there are lots of schools. It's a no-brainer to me.

Our current system only exists because of the hangover of our class system and a fear of upsetting middle england voters. Let's hope the government change it soon.

nailak · 14/10/2011 18:16

slave tbh i dont think it is realistic that a family will just up and move from their rented family house in to another house for a few months, and then move away again a few months later, sounds too much stress and expense.

i dont think children should be made to leave school once they are in the school either.

i think that at admissions they should check things like drs address which health visitor the child attends etc to make sure that they live in the area.

i dont think it is feasible that those who have recently moved cant access local schools as many people who rent or are on lower incomes are moved often, due to landlords etc for example a parent at my dds school has had to move due to abusive situation, she is currently spending a lot of money she hasnt got on travel to the school as she has had to move.

Erebus · 14/10/2011 18:18

I don't want a lottery- I want a fair system. Because that can't exist as someone will always play it and others will always be disadvantaged: I want a system where I do at least have some options- like buying in catchment!

Erebus · 14/10/2011 18:24

nailak why? why shouldn't DCs be expected to leave a local, catchmented school when they've completed the Key Stage they're in if they move into another catchment? Because forcing that to happen doesn't enshrine the sharp-elbowed's DC and siblings 'right' to benefit ad infinitum?

This 'child's RIGHT to education' thing? (despite the dirty tricks and duplicitousness of parents etc)- but it's OK because they're only doing it because every parent wants the best for their DC, therefore it's OK, by definition... isn't it? I mean, imagine if those parents had to go to the trouble of playing the system every change of address! How unreasonable!

Dozer · 14/10/2011 18:30

Buying in catchment or moving or staying in an area with a good school is using money to buy a school place.

Lottery is a fairer system, although would be very stressful for families.

slavetofilofax · 14/10/2011 18:36

nailak, it does happen. I agree it's a huge amount of hassle and stress. But renting can be unpedictable anyway, and if it's the only chance of getting your child into a good school, plenty of people would do it.

The lottery idea sounds interesting. I think it would work in the long run, but I can't honestly say I'd choose to take the chance with my children.

abendbrot · 14/10/2011 18:36

Erebus it would take a genius to invent a system that would be fair - a lottery is the easiest way round it (in cities only).

The only other 'fair' way is that oversubscribed schools charge fees to the sharp-elbowed parents to get a place and then that money is given to the undersubscribed schools. At least that way the cash doesn't stay in the pockets of the sharp-elbowed and gives the other schools a chance.

slavetofilofax · 14/10/2011 18:41

abendbrot, on what planet would that be fair!?

Charging people money to go to a state school that they already pay for in taxes so that money can go to schools that quite often get extra funding anyway because of children on FSM?

Really? Shock

abendbrot · 14/10/2011 18:42

I'm just brainstorming ideas here... can you think of an alternative to a lottery?

abendbrot · 14/10/2011 18:47

Schools get extra funding for children on FSM but it just isn't enough to make a difference. They get penalised for empty places which is common in schools that have a high rate of exclusion so those schools do actually need a lot more money.

Charging parents for a place in oversubscribed state schools and putting that cash where it is needed would be shocking but essentially what happens at the moments is that people buy themselves into an area, yet pocket that money in their house price increase. They invest in children and property so a benefit on all fronts.

That's what gets me the most. Many of these parents would send their kids to private schools but this is a cheaper option for them.

slavetofilofax · 14/10/2011 18:48

No, but I do think that bad parenting should be punished and that that would help get rid of some schools being so bad that people will go to extreme lengths to avoid them.

abendbrot · 14/10/2011 19:09

'bad parenting should be punished' - what kind of bad parenting - failure to get your dc's A*s? Where would that end?

GetDerridaThePeskyLurkers · 14/10/2011 20:48

I don't understand what you mean by that either slave

WEcheated · 14/10/2011 22:16

Name changed of course.
We did it.

We let out our family home which is on borderline catchment of very good school to rent for a year and a half in the dead cert catchment area. We did not tell any lies (unlike many others who did lie outright about living with grandparents or believing in God etc). We did actually 'relocate' lock, stock and barrel all furniture etc for more than a year but we always had the intention of one day returning to the family home. So we cheated.

Yes, I feel incredibly guilty, pretty ashamed and have found it almost impossible to face those who we queue jumped. What we did was not fair.

No, I don't know if our dcs are any happier or more successful now than they would have been if we had stayed put and they'd gone to the less successful alternative comp. No way of knowing.

Would I do it again? Yes.

abendbrot · 15/10/2011 01:46

A thousand lashes for you Wecheated. I hope you are wearing your hairshirt tonight and suffering for your sins. But top marks for your honesty. What you did was perfectly legal and definitely not unusual.

GetDerridaThePeskyLurkers · 15/10/2011 07:50

What do you want us to say?

Oh jolly good, well done for feeling so terrible about it, that's all ok then?

yikes.

I don't understand you guys.

seeker · 15/10/2011 07:52

"Yes, I feel incredibly guilty, pretty ashamed and have found it almost impossible to face those who we queue jumped. What we did was not fair.

No, I don't know if our dcs are any happier or more successful now than they would have been if we had stayed put and they'd gone to the less successful alternative comp. No way of knowing.

Would I do it again? Yes."

I find this incredibly sad and baffling. You live with daily guilt and shame and can't face your neighbours. And you think that you feeling like this and your children knowing that you cheated is a good basis for your lives in the future? And you would do it again?

PosieIsSaggySacForLemaAndPigS · 15/10/2011 08:43

Good for you WEcheated.

The lies and cheating comes from the idea of a 'fair' state system.

TheWomanOnTheBus · 15/10/2011 10:07

But top marks for your honesty.
[Hhmm]
Not sure anonymous posting on a forum like this can really be described as honest!

abendbrot · 15/10/2011 11:04

Good point woman. Namechanging could be seen as a kind of fraud!