Graveney - Renting in catchment for admissions purposes

[StockwellLiving]

I am thinking about renting for a 12 month period or so from this summer to cover up to beginning of Y7 for DD in Sept 2013. And then moving back out.

I know (most people think) renting is wrong (and often discussed here). I actually also think its wrong, but I also know others do it (and not sure why we should be the only one not "playing the game", and I do want to avoid my local catchment school (have no religion, no money (for indies), average DD with no chance of her passing selection tests).

I am not starting this thread to get into the rights and wrongs of it - I only want to ask the very specific question: Do "renters" get caught and are places actually withdrawn?

I am asking about Graveney, not in general. I know from threads on MN that some LAs do try and look into short-term renting. But somehow I think that this particular school and this particular LA don't really care (happy to have aspirational middle classes moving into catchment) ...... so do they look into whether the rental is permanent or not, whether the renters have an owned (proper) home (rented out for a year)

Just wondering as it seems its increasingly popular to do this ....

Not in many (most) schools. And certainly not in Graveney. Siblings in Timbuktu would take priority over local kids :)

Well Graveney has recently stopped the siblings of extension-entry pupils getting a rite of passage into the school - which is good....

I stand corrected, then.

Hampshire operates the catchment over siblings out of catchment rule, which makes sense. The dcs go to very oversubscribed schools, and it would be bedlam - not to mention carnage - if siblings out of catchment got a look in!

This is why Graveney has a catchment area of 800 metres (or so)! Since the siblings of extension-pupils have been excluded from automatic entry (unless of course they live in catchment) I think the catchment area has extended by 100 metres or so - no doubt it would extend significantly further if the school operated a no sibling policy....

twoterrors
The baseball bat could be caught under s1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 - carrying of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse where an offensive weapon is defined as
"?offensive weapon? means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him "

In the case of the baseball bat, it is your intention for carrying it that matters as it is not an article made or adapted for causing injury but it is something that could clearly be used to cause personal injury if you wanted.

There other similar offences like s25 Theft Act 1968 - Going equipped for stealing. Which is why the police could stop you and ask why you were walking down the road with a crowbar even if you were just going to a neighbours to help them unjam their shed door.

gazzalw, I think Graveney is re-introducing sibling policy regardless of catchment from 2013. They are also changing the way they measure distance so it is done as a straight line rather than walking route. All of which from my point of view is fabulous and perfect timing, as someone who was a few metres outside catchment area when ds1 got in last year and therefore dependent on younger siblings doing equally well in the test. (Actually we were well inside the distance this year so maybe we would have been lucky.)

I appreciate that this means the distance will probably shrink again so more local children will lose out but I'm at that point of just being happy that it looks as though we will be OK.

It is a real shame though that children come from so far around. My son's friends in his class all live miles away so there is no popping in and out of each other's houses in the way that his old primary school friends who are in upper or middle and got in on distance can.

OP, if your name gives the right clues, I would also be wary of your closest Academy.

However with a middle-performing child I would be asking whether Graveney is any better than any other school. It's results come from the selective streams. It has had it's fair share of bad behaviour reports including drug use.

Clapham Academy is well liked by many parents, it just hasn't developed the competitive buzz, Elm Green has excellent pastoral support, uses setting rather than streaming and has a great reputation, and have you looked at Dunraven and Chestnut Grove? Transport wise you could also have the option of entering the Kingsdale lottery.

All these options would have bigger catchments, involve cheaper temporary rental agreements and less chance of getting shopped.

Graveney isn't the holy grail!

"I don't think anyone minds the catchment area being small if the people getting places are those who are genuine applicants who happen to have met the admission criteria."

I think that is very true. In the past, before they changed the sibling rule and became so rigorous in chcking addresses, our local comprehensive had a large number of dissatisfied parents who felt that the system was unfair and favoured those 'abusing the system'.

This year, almost exactly the same children have got in as did in the past (all siblings in catchment, everyone else in catchment, siblings out of catchment who live in what used to be catchment until a couple of years ago (ie just outside the current catcment area)). However, because a very few children didn't get in who were very obviously 'playing the system' - siblings from a long way away, and those whose addresses didn't match up over the long term - and because the new system is so much more rigorous, pretty much every parent I have spoken to is happy with the system and perceive it as fair - even if they didn't get in.

I wonder why they've decided to change the admissions criteria again?

No I don't mind at all if everyone's application is above board.

However, it's our closest school and we are still too far away by a matter of several hundred metres...It hasn't been an issue for DS as he ranked the grammars above Graveney on his CAF and happily got into one. However, we might be a lot more when it comes to applying for secondary schools for DD - by which time the baby boomers will be hitting secondary school big time and getting a place at any half-decent school will get a whole lot more difficult (as if it's not difficult enough already!).

Chasz, thanks for the detail on that.

But I assume that means the police/Crown would have to have reason to think, and then to prove, that I had intention, not the other way round? For example, if I had been heard to make threats about someone?

My question all along has been how can you prove what your intention is, ie what is in your head? But others have now said that that yes there is a grey area, albeit a smaller one than under other systems, so that answers the question.

I am also curious about whether there have been legal challenges to admissions criteria that are deliberately left vague to avoid parents' gaming the system, given the requirements of the Admissions Code. Or is the vagueness in what is defined as a permanent address kept out of the actual admissions criteria?

I think it is great that your new system is perceived as fair teacher, that makes it much less divisive and also allows parents to plan properly and legitimately for their family's future.

OP, you could also seek at specialist places at schools like Chestnut Grove. Distance will be a secondary consideration then.

I think some authorities are seeking to reverse the burden of proof so you have to prove that you didn't suddenly rent out your family home and rent within catchment to gain an advantage in the admissions process.

This is from West Berkshire Council's admissions booklet
"Please note:
if you own a house and are renting another property, your owned property is considered as your permanent address
if you own two or more houses we may ask for evidence of your previous and current Council Tax bills to determine which is the permanent address"

see page 8

Tiggytape

Actually, I really like the idea of a system that is fair and seen to be fair. Hence my curiosity about how it works in practice, and whether it has been challenged at all, legally, especially if the council are keeping the criteria deliberately vague.

As far as the baseball bat goes, your first quote said it either had to be a weapon OR there had to be intention. So I assumed that in the case of a non-weapon, intention would have to be proved, and that the onus would only be on the person carrying it to prove a reason if it was a weapon.

And my questions were about how intention is provable - or not - not whether I like the idea - as I say I like pretty well any idea that makes the system fairer and visibly so. Most councils seem to operate the utility bill etc system, presumably because it is clear cut (even if cheatable), so I don't think my curiosity is unreasonable. You have made assumptions about why I was asking these questions.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/index.html#a07

Explains exactly what I meant. If the intention line is used, it has to be proved. If it is a weapon or adapted for use as a weapon, intention does not have to be proved. That is what the CPS says.

Quick Question: When one purchases a home in the catchment area of a 'good school', a home they wouldn't have otherwise have purchased, is that not also a lie? People in social housing don't have the privilege of manipulating the system in the same way as those from the middle classes, which is equally unfair.

"When one purchases a home in the catchment area of a 'good school', a home they wouldn't have otherwise have purchased, is that not also a lie? "

Not if they buy it with the intention of living in it.

"A permanent home is where you live with the intention of either staying or moving if you do move oneday, moving to a new house altogether."

This was your definition tiggytape. I have questioned all along how intention can come into it.

I think neither of those things. As I have said several times. You said the definition of a permanent home involved intention. I asked how this could be proved, on either side. Instead of answering you have become rude and provided what in fact turned out to be incorrect information about a marginally analogous situation.

Good. Very glad when people get caught. I don't even want Graveney.

@Soupdragon but what we're talking about here is morals, and it is morally wrong that money is once again able to dictate the quality of a child's education. It's effectively a loophole that the middle classes can take advantage of, is it not?

@tiggytape atheists praying at church week in week out to guarantee a place at the 'good church school' is also effectively taking away opportunities from genuine, perhaps poor, kids. There is no rule preventing that from happening either. Nonetheless, it is legal yet morally wrong.

Personally I think there are lots of lies flying around, some more 'legal' than others. I just don't think many are in a position to judge when they too are using what resources they have to manipulate the system. Perhaps, and I stress perhaps, the issue lies with the schools, government, poor heads and not the parents in desperate situations trying to avoid tragic outcomes they're destined to based on where they so happen to live - that to me is terribly unfair. It's a postcode lottery.