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and wrongs of it - I only want to ask the very specific question: Do "renters" get caught and are places actually withdrawn?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 ....

Tiggytape, you said this:"sorry to be blunt but you have a fixed idea of what you think is right and aren't accepting that this is not how it works." So, yes I did think you were being rude when in fact your assertions were incorrect (given what the CPS webpage says, and what you are now saying). Even if you had been right, I still think it is rude to answer questions in that tone.

Yes, I have seen these sorts of criteria, and am capable of reading and understanding them, thank you, without your help. It was you that said intention came into it, and I was questioning how that worked, in practise and legally.

I think it is a good idea to specify that an owned house will trump a rental one. There will be anomalies but no system is perfect, and at least that is very clear, provable and predictable.

As others have said in the particular case of Graveney, people do seem to get away with short term lets near the school when they own a house elsewhere. I have just checked the Wandsworth booklet and it does not define a permanent home in owned vs rental terms, merely saying: "The address you give must be your child?s permanent address on the closing date for applications. This must not be a business address, childminder?s or relative?s address, or any address which is not the child?s permanent home."

Graveney Admissions criteria for admission 2012 states: "Distance is measured by Wandsworth Borough Council on behalf of the school, using the GIS computerised system. The distance is measured from the applicant?s home to the gates of Lower School, Welham Road, using the shortest route along a recognised public highway. It does not take into account pedestrian short cuts. The child?s home will be deemed to be that of the principal carer. The school reserves the right to verify applicants? addresses with primary schools and electoral registers. "

However they are changing it slightly, thus: "(v) Distance is measured by Wandsworth Borough Council on behalf of the school, using the GIS computerised system. Measurements produced by alternative measuring systems will not be taken into account in any circumstances. The distance is measured from the applicant?s home to the geographical centre of the school, using a straight line measurement. The school reserves the right to verify applicants? addresses with primary schools and electoral registers. "

AND if the new draft is agreed will now be prioritising the children of staff at the school over proximity, making the geographical catchment even smaller

I've been on a lot of these threads on Mumsnet.

Getting rid of the sibling priority at secondary level would cut out so much of this temporary renting problem in over-subscribed school catchments (not all but a lot).

I don't understand why its not possible to lobby/push for it.

Yes, I said it was a good thing, tiggytape. I agree. And obviously some people get caught and some don't.

But the Wandsworth booklet is not as explicit as the one you quote, and I think perhaps it should be (if as you say all LAs apply the rule that an owned house always trumps a rented one, even if they don't mention this rule - do you have a source with evidence that all LAs work like this?).

I know people lose places and I know how the normal criteria work, what the pressures are on places, and how people get round the problem, and the sometimes desperate situation of those who cannot. What I did not understand was how intention came into it - and that turns out not to be true - so please don't feel you have to spell everything out for me.

I have a feeling that years ago teachers' children got priority in some LEAs (as they were). Does anyone else remember this?

@Tiggytape - I do hear your point, don't get me wrong. Paying figures like £2k a month to secure a place leaves me dumb struck - it's outrageous. Indeed, some of the good faith schools require baptism for up to 12 months, so still quite accessible to less genuine applicants. I think my problem is this, we were one of the lucky ones, as we were eligible for an incredibly over subscribed school and got allocated a place. A friend of mine wasn't as fortunate, didn't get any of the schools on her ds's lists and has been allocated a school with a Ofstead report that reads like a horror story. The teaching is poor on just about every count, classes disorderly and there's a resident police officer. He's a lovely bright kid like my own and just as deserving of the lovely school my son has been offered. If a similar school was your local school, I can't help wondering if it's a parents natural maternal instinct to effectively save the kids life and through desperation, resort to lying to have their child in an environment that's more conducive with learning? Personally I would struggle to live with it and can't begin to imagine the pressure one would be under on a daily basis for having to worry constantly of the place being withdrawn. A recipe for grey hair I'm sure.

I so favor lottery systems that at least goes some way into providing a more fairer system.

@twoterrors So the future holds a system where all the best teachers, who will also probably be aspirational, seeking jobs in the better schools whilst leaving even more of the less able ones in schools that are already performing poorly. If this did exist in the past, it would be interesting to know why they stopped it. I don't agree with it at all.

Lambeth only has 3 secondaries for which it is the Admissions Authority.
The criteria for one popular secondary says
"?Home address? is the address at which the child should live permanently and full time as the principal
residence. It does not include short term rental or lease and does not include the address of a relative or
carer, unless they have legal custody of the child"
and you have to supply a current Council Tax bill with the supplementary application form and the name - and Head's signature - of the current primary school.

Sorry, wrote a message and then lost it!

I think the variation is striking: most leave temporary/short term and permanent undefined. If you move somewhere for two/three years, and move all paperwork, everything, and say it is permanent (maybe it is?), you'd pass most of these tests. Even the owned trumps rented one: what about holiday home owners or people whose house sale and purchase fell through at the wrong moment?

The more you think about it, the harder it gets.

Tiggytape, all that makes sense. But it is not what the owned-trumps-rented criterion you posted says - that left no room for special cases eg holiday homes - is there more that you did not post? Otherwise, this is all sensible speculation and interpretation, but may not be what actually happens.

I suspect this is why it is difficult. It is like code breaking. You come up with what seems like a common sense fair system, people find ways round it, you add in stuff, people find ways round that, and you are off towards the opaque, inconsistent and often unfair system that we would all like to improve (apart from the current government, which seems to want to remove oversight and allow even more variation).

@irisjohnson (Sun 10-Jun-12 12:04:54) gazzalw, I think Graveney is re-introducing sibling policy regardless of catchment from 2013.

If this is correct, it?s just the sort of thing which leads me to believe that the school really doesn?t care too much about inclusiveness of local community and is quite happy to be a magnet for the middle classes. And by extension more or less to turn a blind eye (perhaps except in some cases) to renting short tem. I don?t read this change the way tiggy does as something done in order to make it more difficult for cheaters. The change has come about (I think) because of the ConDem relaxation of admissions rules (Labour had banned siblings for selective places).

@DownTheRoad Sun 10-Jun-12 12:31:09 I would also be wary of your closest Academy.

Yes, my name does somewhat give it away.

Clapham Academy is well liked by many parents, it just hasn't developed the competitive buzz..

I?d be interested to know more about Lambeth Academy, but I got the impression its completely shunned by the aspirational classes and don?t perform too well (although do great for middling and lower achieving kids). I did have a look around, and there wasn?t the same buzz as you get in Graveney. I know nothing about Elm Green and Chestnut grove, and was also considering moving (renting) for Dunraven ? but as that?s Lambeth not Wandsworth ? I got the impression they were hotter on looking into it ? so hit upon Graveney as more likely to be ok (as I say, am reconsidering anyway). Curious that you say less chance of getting shopped.

Kingsdale lottery is just that ? a lottery (as is Graveney selection test!).

@EDUcrazy Sun 10-Jun-12 16:00:48 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?

Agree that it?s morally equilavent ? in both cases someone else (perhaps someone long established in the community) is displaced - but buying seems not to be cheating ? there was a thread on this distinction before. Can?t find it right now.

@tiggytape Sun 10-Jun-12 17:03:27 by clamping down on people who rent short term and cheat, it keeps the catchment areas bigger and helps poorer people.

But if I rent to get into Graveney, I am freeing up a place at my local school and allowing the catchment of that to get bigger ? hence also helping someone else who might otherwise be in a blackhole and have to travel across a borough. :)

@bibbitybobbityhat Sun 10-Jun-12 18:43:13 Getting rid of the sibling priority at secondary level would cut out so much of this temporary renting problem in over-subscribed school catchments (not all but a lot). I don't understand why its not possible to lobby/push for it.

ConDems will never do it (Labour never did it) its too useful for the middle classes. Schools themselves could do it ? but as I?ve made the point before ? Graveney is very very happy for the middle classes to congregate there ?. And they set their own policy since they are now an academy* (even if Wandsworth wanted to change it, they can?t)

@EDUcrazy Sun 10-Jun-12 19:44:44 I so favor lottery systems that at least goes some way into providing a more fairer system.

Agreed! I read in Freaknomics that Chicago moved to a City-wide lottery system, and results went up through the roof ? as there were no sink schools anymore, all had a fair share of DCs with aspirational parents (and troublesome DCs), so behavior got sorted to the benefit of all ? a truly comprehensive system. Sadly, will never happen in London ? with the free for all of all boroughs (and now pretty much all schools) setting their own admissions policies.

So consensus seems to be that although I thought not Graveney do check up on this (I think there was only one poster who had direct knowledge of someone they knew). I know many others who have got away with it though. Makes me wonder therefore whether they seem that they have to "catch" one or two every now and again but turn a blind eye the rest of the time.

StockwellLiving

I think you are probably onto something there. Try googling Graveney and Schools Adjudicator!

I think the siblings policy does cause problems but can also benefit schools and communities. Dunraven, for example, seems to have lots of families who feel very linked to the school. It's not about transport but a sense of belonging, schools being a wider family, continuity, organisational memory and so on. I don't know where the balance should lie, but I do think those things are important in inner London with its mobile and diverse population.

Could you actually, really move (sorry, you may have answered this)? If so, a couple of miles from where I guess you are now, you'd probably be in line for both Dunraven and ElmGreen, and could still try for Kingsdale, Graveney and any other selective/random places you wanted.

"I got the impression its completely shunned by the aspirational classes and don?t perform too well (although do great for middling and lower achieving kids)." I believe that the occasional aspirational mc class has a middle achieving kid - even some MNers! It hasn't got the buzz because the aspirational classes are very competitive about getting into the school that is the one to be seen at, regardless of actual performance in relation to entry level ability.

Arguably a school like Dunraven which has no selective stream, and a mostly genuinely community intake does better: it has very good results especially set against context: Dunraven has twice the % of pupils on FSM, and 40% against 56% 'high attainers' in the intake. But the very fact that Graveney has a competive intake defines the attraction for competitive aspirational parents.

Elm Green's first results are out this year, I think - but in the way of things may not reflect the potential of the school since the first year's intake will not have included families chasing the hallowed places in Dunraven, Charter, Graveney etc. It is now an over-subscribed school with a shrinking catchment. As is Chestnut Grove, recently dubbed Outstanding.

I know a barrister with a high achieving child at Lambeth Academy, and a family with 2 G&T children doing very well at Elm Green.

I would think that those schools would hold a lesser chance of getting 'shopped' precisely because there is less middle class frenzy around them, and no long term history of entry via a rental loop hole.

Yes, Kingsdale is a lottery, and a reasonable back-up chance as such. Especially if there is a possibility of a scholarship to increase the chances.

I am sure Graveney is a good school, but it's partial selective status brings the worst of all worlds, really. Increasing the reputation for all and thus pushing out local families who would otherwise be in catchment. At least the grammars are more defensible as a genuine meritocracy (judged on one day).

Graveney has its draft admissions code on its website. Rules for siblings are unchanged, and the school does not have a catchment.

I expect Bolingbroke will rapidly become THE middle class magnet in that area (120 places per year group?) and that should widen Graveney's admissions footprint quite a bit.

BTW - does anyone know if results in Brighton have shot up (like in the US example cited above)? I seem to recall that there hadn't been any real impact at all. In which case, there really is no argument for introducing it London-wide (or even borough-wide in London) where rush hour journeys are already hell.

A system such as grammar schools where money can buy you the best tutors 2/3 times a week, or prep schools that prepare extensively for the test is by no means meritocratic. The sheer small number of kids on FSM is evident of that fact. I'm a huge fan of the concept of grammar schools, the problem is however, like purchasing homes and renting additional homes, money can secure you a place. I think we all need to accept that we are simply living in a world where pound notes can get you just about anything you want and the majority are using whatever resources they have to get the outcome that provides the best environment for their kids. For some, that is allocating the time too, which in itself is money. Time is something for example, that say a single parent wouldn't have. It all comes down to money. It's outrageous, unfair but true.

@EdithWeston I just think that regardless of the impact on results and indeed traffic, easily resolvable by school buses - it's a fairer system and one not influenced by your bank balance. There would be no point moving, renting, praying (if it's not truly your faith), or otherwise as your name is simply pulled out of a hat making it too much of a long shot to make it worth your while cheating, or at least feeling desperate enough to consider it. When ones local school has pupils that look more like convicts, with police standing outside and lessons reminiscent to St, Trinians, who knows what people are tempted to do. I just think it's a fairer system.

@twoterrors I think you are probably onto something there. Try googling Graveney and Schools Adjudicator!

I did, but only found the stuff from 2002/2004 when there were arguments about levels of selective entry (not read it!). Did you have something else in mind - or was that it?

EdithW: The siblings policy has changed slightly:
Admission for 2012 criteria:

Category 2
187 places allocated in the following order:
(i) Children Looked After
(ii) Applicants not admitted under Category 1 who have a sibling attending the school on the date of admission, and whose sibling was:
(a) admitted under Category 1 or Category 2 before September 2008;
(b) admitted under Category 2 from September 2008;
(c) admitted under Category 1 from September 2008, but whose address was within the distance from Graveney School which would have qualified for a Category 2 place

Draft for 2013:
Category 2
187 places allocated in the following order:
(i) Children Looked After or children who were looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted (or became subject to a residence order or special guardianship order)
(ii) Applicants not admitted under Category 1 who have a sibling attending the school at the time of application.

So last year siblings of any Category 1 (selective) students would NOT have been admitted unless the category 1 sib had been in the school since before Sept 2008. Now, all siblings will be admitted.

StockwellLiving, that's basically it but the different spats go back further than that (to 1999, I think, with a ruling in 2000 on proportion being selected) and I think there are more recent ones (although possibly with a different body, not the SA). But when I read them in the past (am not doing so again either, once was enough!), I was left with the impression that Graveney has always fought hard to maintain or increase the proportion of selective intake, despite a fair bit of local opposition, some political, some because of the effect it has on other schools and the difficulties faced by families living close to the school but too far for a distance place.

Likewise, my understanding - possibly wrong - is that it was forced to change the rules on siblings of children who got in via the selective route, and it sounds like it has taken the first opportunity to change them back (cleverness tending to run in families).