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?

Those of have done/would do this- how do you deal with having to get your children to lie?

Children wouldn't have to lie if their parents took a short term let. It's legal!

'and have found it almost impossible to face those who we queue jumped. '

How do you know who they are?

And presuming you do...do they know what you did? And to reverse it - how would YOU feel if one of them had done this to YOUR child?

This is what I feel is the crux of the matter. Would you be oK with that? I don't think so. Which means it's a shitty thing to do to someone else.

So how do you explain to the children why you're moving house for 6 months?

Indeed, not illegal to move home if the criteria is based on proximity to "home".

And I suppose that's really what I was getting to in the question. In either case (short term let or permanent move) you are within the rules, but one "smells" (to me) a little worst (to others a lot worst) than the permanent move.

Not sure I buy the "contributing to the local community" argument as that is so personal in so many ways. In many families, both parents work away from the locality and have very few friends indeed in the locality of the school (having moved or not). Some faimilies just dont' want anything to do with others anyway. there are so many variables. The point has also been made above that in London and other citires being out of catchment does not mean you are "not local"; its just catchments of good (a.k.a desirable to the middle classes) schools are so small.

Still confused, mind you. Need to move. Can't decide if its short term or pemanent though (either way, as I have the money, someone else who doesn't have the money will lose out). I can't seen the moral difference either way. (Remember: no "cheating" and no fraud - the rules allow you to move home and admissions policies are from your "home". I know - having just checked - that some schools (but not all) say "permanent home" rather than "home" in their admissions criteria; and certainly in those cases a six month let may well be cheating. Those that I am interested in do not.)

Now of course I could have avoided all this 10 years ago (pre children) by thinking ahead. But - and the point has been made above already - WHO KNEW! If you don't have children, you just have no idea that you should look at secondary school when setting up house with your new DH and beginning to think about starting a family. But, the thought occurs to me (leaving aside the fact that schools may well change beyond recognition in that timeframe) even if we had planned that far ahead, would we still not be "buying our way into our catchment" to the disadvantage of the poor.

How about the old ILEA system of banding for comps? All children tested at yr 6 and put in one of three bands - 25% above average, 50% average, 25% below average. Then every school has places for children in the same proportions, and then uses SEN, sibling rule, distance etc..to allocate. It means every school should end up with a spread of abilities.

And/or a lottery like they have in Brighton?

Something must be fairer than the current system.

Being in the catchment for a good school usually means being well off, so why not try and get in any which way you can?

There are a few disastrous schools. But most are not. Moat schools get some As and A*s at GCSE. And what people forget is that the kids who get those grades are kids like theirs- the children of interested, supportive, informed parents who care about their education.

There is much hysteria about schools.

ILEA - yep, that's the tories for you. They abolished that, and now its a complete free for all with no City-wide planning. Labour added to all that with academies (which had at least a laudable aim) and now with second generation "academnies" and free schools - there won't even be borough-wide planning. I fear for the way the system is going.

Posie lots of reasons if you read some of the posts above.

Posie - no it doesn't! All the best state schools where I live have loads of high density council housing round them. It is the children from those homes who are often pushed out by the temporary renters who then retreat to a leafier area while still taking places for siblings.

And why is it OK for someone to be passed over for a place which would be theris if the game was played more fairly just because their parents are a bit better off? Cheating is still cheating regardless of who gets cheated.

But I agree with Seeker that there is unwarranted hysteria. And perhaps a sort of competitive dynamic - parents who must get the very best at whatever cost, even when second best would be more than good and the results indiscernible..

To answer some of the queries:
What do you expect you us to say?
Well, whatever you want really. I am not posting because I want approval or a pasting. I thought it may be relevant and interesting in this discussion to talk from the perspective of someone who has done it.

Name changing could be seen as a kind of fraud.

Well I post anonymously under a nickname about all sorts of things. I assume Abendbrot is not your real name? But seeing as I am admitting a kind of fraud anyway, your point is...?

How do you explain to your children you are moving for six months/ how do you get your children to lie?
Both very good questions and truly the most difficult part for me. First - we did not have to lie (or get the children to). We moved house genuinely and did not hide the reason we were doing it. We moved back after ds had been at his new school for a term and we were by no means the only family 'coincidentally' moving just after we got the school we wanted . However it was difficult for our dcs as of course they were conscious of what we'd done and why. I just made it plain to them that they had not made the choice and they were not responsible. We, their parents, had made the choice, would take the flack and they had no choice in the matter, so were not to either feel guilty or to lie.

MaryZ: we would have stayed for 5 years if necessary to get dc2 in as well, I guess. From a purely financial angle we broke even on the rent we received from letting out our house and paid to rent a smaller house in the catchment. It was more than a year we were there anyway.
Can I ask a question too? Would it still have been fraud if we'd stayed for five years if we still had the intention of going back when dc2 was 'in'? Xeven? Ten?

WE Cheated "Can I ask a question too? Would it still have been fraud if we'd stayed for five years if we still had the intention of going back when dc2 was 'in'? Xeven? Ten?"

Yes that's the question I started this of with. Is there really any difference? And the answer in the end is I think "no".

Anyone that moves permantently to get into a school is no different IME from someone doing it temporarily. They are both buying their way into a school at the expense of someone else.

A question.

If you swap council flats with someone childless to get your child into a particular school, is that cheating someone else of a place?