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?

Well where I live, Bristol, the houses are on average £200k more than mine in the catchment for the two best schools. This is because the houses are pretty big, but even the ones my size are at least £80k and that's for one requiring work.

So where I live the nicest areas have the nicest and best, by far schools.

And for my DS1 who is not academic only a nice school will do, he already gets called a girl at his nice school. Some of the rougher, and they are rough with Police patrolling the playgrounds, schools would crucify him.

"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."

"Of course it is. Anything action you take that you would not otherwise do (or would do differently) were it not for the fact that school places are unlimited and a worry is cheating someone of a place."

This is a sweeping generalisation isn't it? We moved three miles or so from the catchment of a school that was not so good into catchment for three good schools. We would have moved anyway but DS1 was three so naturally school catchment was one of the factors in choosing an area. DS1 is now 12.5 and we are still here. I don't think making a genuine home move is "cheating" anyone out of a place when you plan on actually staying there. It's rather like saying that a football team who has the best players is cheating.

To "cheat" someone of a place you have to do something dishonest. Moving home permanently is not dishonest. Moving house for the specific period of time required to cover admissions is.

Severed, you quoted me, and then used the word "cheating" (with the quotes) (implying I did). I never did. In my quote I was very clear that I was referring to moving without cheating, ie within the rules. What you did is the same as someone doing a short term let - albeit you stayed quite some time. You used your purchasing power to jump over and deprive poorer children who could not do that.

I think nothing wrong with that, just making the point that I see no moral difference.

More questions.

If the Local Authority moves a fostered child into an area temporarily and that means a child who has lived in the catchment area all his/her life is bumped out of the local school,is that wrong?

If you are relocating, and take out a 6-9 month lease on a house in a 'good' catchment area because you are moving jobs and need to rent while you look for a new house near your work, is that wrong?

If you have a main family house out of catchment, but rent a pied a terre for the family courtesy of the insurers while you are carrying out major building works, for example after subsidence/fire/flood, and decide you might as well rent one in catchment to benefit from the good school nearby, is that wrong?

"What you did is the same as someone doing a short term let - albeit you stayed quite some time. You used your purchasing power to jump over and deprive poorer children who could not do that"

No, I bought a new family house in which I subsequently lived, raised and had a baby. We bought the house because it fitted our family needs and was in the area we wanted to live. If you can't see the difference between that and renting a house for 6 months purely to apply for a school place than you have a very odd idea of morality. By your definitions, "morally" everyone should just live in the same home forever or not move in case, god forbid, they move closer to a good school than another child.

I have skipped back through the thread a few times and I'm still not entirely sure where I have quoted you.
Regardless, I have implied nothing about you whatsoever.

The thing is though, renting, unless you have a Council or Housing Association tennancy is by it's nature short-term. You are unlikely to be offered more than 1 year lease by a landlord (and lucky if you can get that). Renters tend to move more often as their family grows because they don't have the option of loft extension etc.. and there is no point paying for space until you need it as it's not investment.

We rent and have moved on average every 4 years, so in our last move when DS1 was in year 5, proximity to secondary school was a major factor. We really live here, its not like we own another property somewhere else, but I can't claim it is in any way "permanent" - if we need more space, or if finances get tight, or if the landlord tells us to, or hikes the rent we will have to move.

I do think the sibling rule in secondary should go. There is no particular reason older sibs should go to the same school. It would reduce, but not eliminate the ability of people to play the system. Ultimately I think the distance rule should probably go too.

I am failing to see how it is morally wrong to do something that is perfectly legal in the hope of getting your child into a good school that will suit them.

Turn it the other way round. If by doing nothing, your only option is a crap school with crap outcomes and a good chance that your child wil be unhappy there, isn't it more morally wrong to do nothing?

I would consider myself to be a bad parent if I knew that there was some way that I could improve my childs chances in life, but instead I chose to sit back and do nothing. Even worse I then went on to claim some moral highground because I chose to not bother.

We owe it to our children to do the best we can for them. This is not a life or death situation for another child (as with the life boat situation), it is a situation where another child will end up having to do what is already expected of my child. I honestly don't see what is so bad about me making that happen. I do see that it is bad that it has to happen to any child, but that is out of my control, I can't do anything about the educational outcomes of every other child in my area, but I can do something about my own.

It is not immoral to do the best you can for your children. It is immoral to allow your child to have a second rate education when there is something you can to to prevent that.

Some people might not be capable of preventing that, but they are responsible for their own choices in life.

BTW, I have used 'I' and 'my children', but I'm not in this situation, I'm just talking generally.

What is a crap school?

In my opinion, a crap school is one that has a large proportion of disintersested parents, where police are regularly found outside the gates, where parents are often heard smoking or swearing at the gates and where outcomes and results are of a low standard.

I contributed a bit back at page 5 or so, I think, so have just re-entered this fray here! So sorry if my 'point' has already been made, but it is:

I'm sorry but I can't see how me buying the house I did in the catchment of a school which, having done my homework, I decided was the 'best fit' for my DSs (code for:Good) is in any way 'cheating' or even actually cheating another family who could have chosen to do exactly the same thing as I did.

You might argue but what if that other family couldn't afford to buy this house? To which I'd say, in a practical way, they might be able to afford smaller if they were prepared to downsize; they might decide to move out of their permanent renter into one in catchment; or, in the bigger picture, in the same way as I bought a 'lesser' house in catchment that I could have got for my money a street outside, or if I settle for the 3 bedroom as I can't afford the 4 bedroom- or I am 'going state' because I can't afford private- we all make our choices in life based on what we have, we move within those boundaries.

We can go all philosophical and ask whether the 'sins of the fathers should be visited upon the son' and we all cry 'No!' but then we need to ask how else does advantage and disadvantage get conveyed to our offspring? IF we, as 'society' agree that if we have worked hard/been lucky our DCs should be entitled to the fruits of our success, like being able to access a 'good' school or even going private, we must also accept that our fecklessness/lack of ambition/bad luck will have less advantageous effect on our DCs futures. However, this must be offset by the fact that at least in this country, all DCs are entitled to an education (along with free healthcare/benefits etc) AND that we, as caring parents can improve our DCs 'lot' even at a poorer school by what we do at home.

Right. There is a good chance that my ds will go to what mumsnetters would regard as a "crap" school in September.

The results are not brilliant.
There is q community police officer on site.
There is a high than average % of SEN.
There is a higher than average % of FSM
There are a lot of uninterested parents with chaotic lifestyles.
HOWEVER.

There are a lot of children who do well- it is impossible to see this from the results, because for many children getting GCSEs at all is a significant achievement.

The community police officer on site actually means that the behaviour is better than the alternative school!

And, crucially, my ds does not come from a family where the parents are uninterested and leading chaotic lifestyles. And, crucially again, he has not spent his primary years secluded in a tiny leafy village primary school, or a "lovely little prep school" . He has spent them in a normal, every day run of the mill primary, with good points and bad points, with a huge mix of children from every background imaginable. He has learned how to get on with everybody- or how to avoid the people he can't get on with- how to be a clever boy without antagonising the less academic and how blend in when necessary, but when to make a stand. He will be fine.

Look inside the "crap" schools. You will be amazed at what's going on in them.

I do completley understand what you are saying, and I know others have already disagreed with me on this. But I wouldn't be condeming another child to anything that my own child wouldn't be condemed to if I did nothing.

I think talk of 'victims' is a bit extreme. I disagree that I'm creating a victim, because if anyone is going to be a victim then I haven't created that, I've just changed who that person is going to be.

I don't see it as 'ruining the chances of other children for my own gain' at all. I shouldn't be put in a position where the only option of my child's chances not being ruined have to be at the expense of someone else's in the first place. But I don't have the power to change that.

My child is morally entitled to the same standard of education as anyone else. And if I use legal means to get my child into a particular school, then my child is legally entitled to that place.

Seeker, I am not 'Mumsnetters' and I'm sure others will have different opinions to me on what constitues a crap school. I didn't mention percentage of children with SEN or on FSM, because I wouldn't use that in my judgement of a school.

The school my dc were lucky enough to go to was also a run of the mill primary school. It is rated 'good with outstanding' but it is not significantly any better or any worse than any othe the other schools in the area. The standard of behaviour is fine, it doesn't need a police officer there to make that happen, it just happens! There are children from different backgrounds - children from different races, religions, backgrounds, and in any school where there are so many people there will always be the opportunity to get to know who you don't like and want to avoid, and how to get on with everybody when you have to anyway. That is not something that is only available in a 'crap' school, or is completely missing from a 'tiny leafy village school'.

It is wierd how people talk as if children are missing out on something major if they go to a 'nice' school. They are not.

I don't think there are many primary schools with police officers on site!

Sorry, I thought this thread was about secondary schools. My mistake.

But if it is about primary schools, then I feel even more strongly that dismissing a school as "crap" is snobbish and shortsighted.

Ok, so we disagree on that, that's fine

What would you say about something that is the reality of my situation then? I appealed to get my child into a grammar school. He passed, but wasn't high enough on the waiting list to have a chance of getting a place. I won our appeal because we had a very strong case. There is no point going into the detail of that, but it is a superselective school (so appeals aren't just part of teh system as they are in some areas) that is notoriously hard to get into, especially on appeal. But a panel of independent people decided that my child deserved a place and that our case was strong enough.

In appealing, and subsequently winning, a child who was on the waiting list and would have been offered a place if it weren't for us, missed out. Obviously I will never know if that child had parents who would either have to use a crap comp, or would decide to go private, but either way, my actions have meant that another child has been denied a place at an outstanding school.

Is that morally wrong too?

I think it's morally wrong to describe a school as "crap"