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and wrongs of it - I only want to ask the very specific question: Do "renters" get caught and are places actually withdrawn?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

@teacherwithtwokids My issue with those that think it's moral to purchase a home in order to get into a new school is that financial muscle was used to secure a place, something those living in social housing, for example, wouldn't be able to do. Therefore making it unfair and as such, morally wrong. For that reason only, I think that those who purchase homes within a year before entry, for the sole purpose for getting into a school, should be under scrutiny and levels of investigation of those who rent - simply because it's unfair, inflates property prices in the area and impacts diversity.

I would appreciate also if someone can help me out with all this talk about being involved in the 'COMMUNITY' which many feels constitutes the right for a place at a school over and above another child. There was a report earlier this year which stated that unlike the olden days, we no longer even know the names of our next door neighbors (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2127019/Love-thy-neighbour-We-dont-know-names-.html) and feel that this community that everyone's talking about doesn't actually exist. My son will be traveling out of the local community, so to speak, to get to school in September. A legitimate case I hasten to add. His community, I suspect, will be his school community. At weekends, he'll still be laden with his extra curricular sports activities and to see his mates, they'll pop on London transport. I'm quite pleased to know too that he'll realise as a result, that it's a big world out there. I suspect however, that I'm missing something in terms of what is commonly being referred to here as community and would love to be enlightened:)

EDU - I think my post was unclear, apologies.

My intention was to say that those who buy in catchment AND those who rent in catchment in the year or so before school applications are BOTH under scrutiny locally.

In both cases, having a newly rented / owned property (if of a suitable size for the family and if the family is actually living there) is fine AS LONG AS no other family house is owned at the same time within commuting distance of the school.

So family owns big house across town, buys tiny property in catchment for purposes of admissions - will be investigated as possibly fraudulent and child is likely to lose place if paper trail shows that big house remains liveable in by a family and owned by them.

Ditto family owns house and rents property in catchment.

However, family owns big house in Scotland, has to move to other end of country at short notice and ends up in a rented or bought property in catchment while not yet having sold old home- would be flagged up by address trail BUT the fact that the family could not possibly return to the old family homw and commute to that school will mean that the child keeps the place.

Yes, it remains unfair that some families can choose to move house (properly, ie selling one property and buying another) while others cannot (though private renting in fact makes moving easier and cheaper than a family selling and buying). Equally, it remains unfair that some schools are better than others and not everyone has a good local school to go to.

Stockwell Living - if you are prepared to look at moving permanently, maybe find out about that aspect - you would need an address by the end of October, but maybe it is doable?

Could you ask the LAs themselves what happens if you are in process of buying and selling, genuinely and can demonstrate this, but have rented short term in the meantime (if you are able to do so) so your child can apply for a place in your new area? I suspect the devil will be in the detail here, given the lack of definitions in Lambeth's and Wandsworth's stated policies, so there is no point in speculating here as common sense may not come into it.....

If you don't love where you live now (wherever that is ), it might be worth it.?.....you could pick a well endowed bit of South London and have a choice of one or two good comps, say, and the same random stab at Kingsdale/Graveney/selectives the others as anyone else.

The odd thing about S London is you can move a mile or two down the road, and the educational map seems completely different, as catchments are often so tiny.

funnily enough, Furzedown, where Graveney is situated, has a very strongly developed sense of community and so the issue of people parachuting in for a year purely to get a place at the school is probably more keenly felt here than in other more anonymous areas of London.

The area is very well defined geographically being bordered by Tooting common, the railway and Mitcham Lane and has two primary schools plus Graveney, lots of 3-5 bedroom houses which suit middle-income families with children, and because it's not on the underground there aren't many people passing through

Local children who don't get into Graveney on distance are in a bit of an educational black hole and several get sent to schools which are miles away on the other side of the borough, which intensifies the feeling that short-term 'school' renters are cheating local children out of a place.

EDUcrazy - Interesting about your comments and links on immigrant families. This definitely fits with my observations of children in DCs school. But it seems to me that the mc frenzy is partly to do with looking for schools with a demographic with a low ratio of EMA / ethnic minority / refugee families.

OP if you are looking for a school which is cynically determined to attract a certain demographic you could move to Herne Hill / N Dulwich and try for Charter, which has finally been caught out mis-applying it's travel route measurements in order to preclude a council estate. It claims to be demographically representative, but it's FSM % is roughly in line with Graveney's and way below the borough average.

As for 'admissions renting' and community - people may well find that their child makes relationships in extra curricular contexts, but as in areas of bedsits and fast rental turnover of itinerant young singles, it is far harder for long term residents to hold long term community driven aims if all the families in an area turn up for a bit and then scarper. How do you put a sustained critical mass of pressure on your local Cllr without a stable consistent local voice? How do your build and establish a street party if all the residents ? Build grassroots initiatives when the ratio of true stakeholders is diluted? If people were conducting signifiant levels of this kind of renting in my area and my LEA was not vigilant, I might well turn vigilante in their place. (not with guns at high noon, but with evidence sent straight to the LEA and the schools ajudicator, perhaps).

@teacherwithtwokids thanks so much for clarifying, I'm so pleased that is the case. Must admit, it also explains why someone I knew sold and purchased their property about a year and a half beforehand to secure a place a Langley boy's this year:). I couldn't agree you more re the unfairness of the whole good school/bad school bit. Locally for me the disparity between the two is huge. Lottery allocation is the only way forward which would resolve this, but like a previous poster rightly pointed out (think it was stockwellliving) it's unlikely to happen with most schools picking their own admissions criteria:(

@Downtheroad - Thank you for clarifying this 'community' bit. I just couldn't get my head around what everyone was up in arms about. I recently moved from a lush area where my ds and the next door neighbors dc, who primarily boarded, would speak over the fence!

All this talk about socially mixed schools is a bit of a fallacy too. I've heard that at Kingsdale, the MC mums from Dulwich stick together like superglue and there is little actual social mixing going on. I remember all the going on's with charter - was that the end result! Too funny they got caught out.

In our S London (in the general area under discussion) there is plenty of 'socially mixed' community, PTA and children's friendship activity. But then we're not Dulwich, and it isn't a school that has a Graveney level of frenzy (despite delivering an excellent education across the full range of ability).

Oh really, that is lovely. I guess everyone's experiences is different. TBH, I went to a school far away from home myself, so I guess I'm not looking out for it. I guess too any sense of community I achieved so far was from from the schools he's attended (as long as you fit in that is. The first one was great and in the current one I don't so much). Yet for all I know, where I live now, being still S London, it may well exist and I just need to keep my eyes open a bit. But then where would one look to find it if not at his current school, which is definitely local? Done the PTA bit for a while and I definitely wasn't one of the gang. We still just go to our old church too, which is a million miles away. Yet I don't feel that we're missing out on anything, either. Nonetheless, I can at least appreciate why it's important for some:). My priority for picking schools was faith first then results driven. Locality was the least important, but now appreciate, thanks to your explanation why it's important for many. Having said that, I would have been over the moon if the school we got was down the road!

Agree with what basidonbond said.

I'd add that there is quite a community bond amongs the children at Graveney. Most are Furzedonians, and they socialise locally, often in each other's houses. It's rather nice.

And I've noticed that, because most of the parents really are genuine Furzedonians, they are also friends - so there is an informal information and support network established - very useful at secondary school age.

These are real advantages of a real local secondary school, and you (and your offspring) will lose out on these if you just parachute in and out.

I think that's what we'd all like for our children (and us) - to have a community feeling and a sense of belonging. Unfortunately we can't all afford to move to middle-class enclaves of London to achieve this.

I'm sure that the Bolingbroke Academy will develop a similar feel in time, particularly with most of the children coming from local feeder schools...but strangely that's situated in a very middle-class area too...

Just an observation....

gazzalw - I take your point and it's a fair one. Though to be fair, the Graveney catchment/Furzedonia is nothing like as middle-class-enclave as the Bolingbroke catchment is set to be. Bolingbroke is going to be ... interesting, imo. I think slightly dark thoughts when I think about that ....

There is also the fact that there will always be areas that fall outside any direct connection with any secondary school, just because of the size of secondaries, the enormous concentration of housing in London, and the fact that schools are often located in places due to historical reasons, and the councils having access to land in some places and not others.

But I mentioned the "community" thing because I wanted to point out its not an entire myth about Graveney being a local school; to reinforce basildonbond's observations; and to remind people of why a local school (rather than a randomly assigned one) is an ideal. When it works, it works admirably. Obviously, as you point out, that can be simply annoying if you're somewhere where if just isn't working.

@animula and @gazzalw Quick question guys; This whole community thing, although I now understand why people find it important in terms of lobbying local government, street parties, etc., is it not also simply just a lifestyle choice to want to be part of the 'community', bearing in mind some people are less sociable than others? At the end of it all, even if schools are socially mixed is it not inevitable that pockets of social classes will be formed, as part of the 'birds of a feather flock together', sort of thing? I cited the situation earlier at say Kingsdale where all the MC mums stick together like glue despite there being quite a diverse population.

I simply ask this as there does seem to be a sense that a child should have a given right to attend a local school because of community. Whereas I've always thought a child should have a given right to attend whatever school they want, in any part of the country, that's conducive with their parents values. I then feel that those places should be allocated in a way that financial clout is unable to influence their chances. Am I missing something?

@EduCrazy .... why the hassle of going there? Why not just tutor your kid to within an inch of his life (probably necessary to get the 100% needed to secure a place) and get a legit place that way.

Because the selection test is a lottery. Even if tutoring ? you only need a bad day, a silly mistake, and so on, and then DD is out. :(

I'm the one not passing judgement either way, more asking to save yourself the headache and the worry of getting the place whipped from under your feet appreciate it thanks

TwoTerrors If you don't love where you live now ... it might be worth it?.....you could pick a well endowed bit of South London and have a choice of one or two good comps, say, and the same random stab at Kingsdale/Graveney/selectives the others as anyone else.

But actually, we do live where we live here, vibrant, near the centre of London and so on. Its just that we don?t like the local comps here (since they have largely been abandoned by the MCs ? and there are is not the ?immigrant? community aspirational parents that is discussed also in this thread ? but absent from these parts of Lambeth, more or less.

DownTheRoad But it seems to me that the mc frenzy is partly to do with looking for schools with a demographic with a low ratio of EMA / ethnic minority / refugee families.

Yep that is it. Funny how our (pre-school) friends who live near nice cosey MC primaries have no problem with state education, but if there is a big FSM/EMA and so on, then (other friends) really prefer the better ?education? offered at a prep. I know this sounds crass: we don?t mind the mix (DCs are really in a minority of white, relatively wealthy), but the ratio is going to reduce even more dramatically as most (if not us) want to escape to Kent or the suburbs or whatever. Don?t want my DCS to be in a school where the number of kids with aspirational parents can be counted on one hand. I know also its a vicious circle, and for the last five years I had been hoping that that circle would break (turn into a virtuous circle) and the ?flight? out what cease. Sadly it hasn?t....

Re Charter ? thanks for that suggestion, we know people who have bought/rented there too. But I don?t really want to move ?permanently? that way either.

You mention in later post the social mix in your S London school (could you share name?). There was a study a few years ago (could have been Sutton Trust ? can?t find it now) about how in some comprehensives where the MCs were a minority (largely abandoned by the MNers of this world, but attended by people who ? unlike me of course ? stuck to their principles) but all the kids just remained friends together amongst their ?kind?: white MC kids mixing with white MC kids and so on. (Actually, I notice that at our primary - our group of friends are almost all MC). Its just that at secondary I don?t ? repeating myself here ? want my DC to be in (such a small) minority both for academic reasons but also social reasons (the only one in a class who goes on ski holidays, theatre trips, and so on). My DS (2 years below DD) is the only white MC boy in his primary class!

animula you (and your offspring) will lose out on these if you just parachute in and out. Yes we will lose out on that sense of community. We will also lose out of course if we get in by Graveney selective lottery or Kingsdale lottery or (if we could afford it) go private and travel far.

EDUCrazy 10:04 Agree ? wish I could find that Sutton trust study I just mentioned ? that there is not that much social mix between the different groups even if the school has a wide variety of group...

Fair enough, SP, it's just lower down you mentioned possibility of moving permanently, and depending where you are now, you might not have to move far, and it would solve a lot of problems because the good school places are not evenly distributed.

If you don't want to, and you really don't want your local options, then I would also start combing the admissions booklets for specialist places and so on, where distance is not an issue. But it will be a white-knuckle ride.

Completely agree about Graveney and tutoring - absolutely no guarantee there.

Very good luck to you, your dilemma is one that many share I am sure but are often less open about, so thank you.

StokwellLiving - I think you're in for a bit of a shock as to the intake at Graveney. Trust me, you may well find there aren't that many children that your little one can find to swap skiing anecdotes with ...

OK. I know this is going to be deleted, and I don't care.

Stockwell - those attitudes you express are exactly why people should be banned from renting-and-parachuting.

Local schools in Furzedown are much like what you describe, disparagingly. Those are our children you're talking about. And most of those will go to Graveney - except for the ones who don't get a place because someone like you has used their money to parachute in.

I really hope that someone prints off this thread, works out who you are, and sends it to the Admissions Secretary at Graveney. Who is actually a rather nice, sensible woman. Not some social-engineering loon who dreams of a school stuffed with children-whose-parents-only-want-them-to-associate-with-children-who-are-white-middle-class.

Astonishing, really.

I hope it isn't deleted, Animula. I see no reason for it to be.

For me, the community aspect is about stable communities where families live. So an area of constant short term rents will have less community cohesion than one where families put down roots. The school may have a community within and attached to it it, no matter where the children come from, but in terms of the locality, short term renters will affect that.

I live in the Elmgreen / Dunraven catchment. I would say there is a really good social mix in lots of ways, a friendly feel, the leaders of various community events are certainiy not Cath Kidston Inc, the street party I attend is very racially and socio-economically mixed, so are school events. DS's friends are a cross section in every way. DS is a complete minority in his class, but then lots of the children are - it has a diversity of diversity!

I recognise many the older children walking to the secondary schools (and so do all the other parents in the area) because we have seen them at primary school for years. We recognise or know their parents, because they live near and were at the school gate. This has a huge impact on community safety. Teenagers smile at and say hello to DS in the local shop and park because they went to the same primary.

It isn't perfect, there are phone muggings, occasional 'bad acts' but as a place with a looked-down-on reputation and a lower housing cost than comparable areas close to transport and schools it has a great community feel and a wonderful choice of schools. IME and IMO.

Thanks EDUcrazy. I find the MN need to knock middle class mums a bit odd. It is about aspiration, and suspect the presence or absence of aspiration whether teachers, student or parents is a big factor in success or failure.

I am also not sure what class is. I am happy to tell my bus stop friend that I am lucky to be able to pay for school fees as she tells me her concerns about the secondary allocation process, knowing full well that if she could afford to pay she would. I would also hope/expect that her kids will go to similar universities to mine. The fact that she lives in a Council flat and I don't does not have much to do with it. She is as concerned for her children as I am for mine. I would not see myself as any "better", in the same way as I would not automatically see someone richer or with a title as better than me. I would hope she feels the same.

In terms of moving/renting we had always assumed that had DS got a place at Tiffin (he did not) we would have rented our house and rented somewhere in Kingston, at least for the first few years. We would not have wanted to move permanently, and this approach would have avoided us paying stamp duty and other costs. No one would have questioned this, and we would have been part of the school community. What would be wrong with a similar approach with Graveney?

I suspect the admissions secretary has seen everything already. Overall the thread has been civil and interesting. School provision in Central London, certainly in Stockwell, is really patchy and Lambeth traditionally have not had enough places and have had to "export" students. As OP said, she wanted to discuss practicals not morals.

I think all the OP said is that she didn't want her child to be in a minority of one, animula. You may think that this concern is unfounded, either because her dd won't be in such a small minority, or because you don't think it matters if she is; but this concern is not that of a "loon". And I am not sure the OP has talked about anyone's children disparagingly.

People's concerns and experiences about these sorts of issues are worth discussing seriously and openly, I think.

To be clear, I really wanted to avoid a knocking middle class mums things too but OP's last post went into class/race territory. Read it back. And I was a bit shocked to find my children in the group of undesirables. And I answered impetuously.

I am, believe or not, actually quite sympathetic to those who rent-for-a-bit. If you find you are out of range of a school that you know would suit your child and either in range of another that really won't, or no school at all, it is beyond frustrating.

I remember living near a secondary that specialised in ping pong. Ping pong was compulsory. My son would have hated that. We would have argued constantly about why he should attend. I'm not exaggerating: he's like that. I was delighted when we moved to a school with a clearly-stated academic focus, and with grammar schools. He's academic - those schools suit him.

London has a lot of children and a lot of schools. They are all pretty different: like little countries, really, with different customs, feels - almost a national character. There is something a little crazy-inducing when you realise entry to schools is allocated by geography not elective affinity.

Renting-for-a-bit is on the same moral continuum, really, as purchasing in an area for a school place. We kind of did the buying-for-a-school, and a. I'm not sure school places should only go to those who can afford to buy or b. the moral high-ground magically disappears after people like me.

As this thread has examined, there are differences. It's murky.

"except for the ones who don't get a place because someone like you has used their money to parachute in"

I'd consider doing what the OP has done.

My dd went to the local school,which just happens to be bloody hideously rough, because the area we live in is bloody hideously rough.

She's out now - it was a total disaster and I don't know what we're going to do next.

At the moment she's having one to one tutoring for 10 hours a week at a tutorial centre in exchange for me teaching 10 hours of one to one with some other children there. That stops at the end of term and we have no idea what will happen in September.

I just want my dd to go to a school which isn't disproportionately full of very disadvantaged teenagers. The ONLY way we can manage this is to try to get her into a school which isn't close to where we live. And the only way to do this would be to move (temporarily) into the catchment area and apply. Unfortunately we couldn't afford to buy in the catchment area of any of the more popular and socially mixed London schools, or even rent a home big enough to accommodate all five of us. We would not get a church school place as are not church goers, can't afford private, and dd is not clever enough to get a scholarship or bursary or a selective place at a state school.

Those of you who have come down so hard on the OP - what would YOU do in my position? If you were determined not to play the system for the sake of those children living in the catchment area of popular schools?

Should add, that my children's primary is only half a mile from dd's secondary but has a different intake. Not in terms of race (both schools are about 80% non-white intake), but in terms of social class.

I have no problem with my children going to school with disadvantaged kids, or to schools which have a high proportion of children with SEN. I just want them to be in schools where they ALSO have very bright and ambitious children from families who hugely value education.

"Don?t want my DCS to be in a school where the number of kids with aspirational parents can be counted on one hand. [. . .] Its just that at secondary I don?t ? repeating myself here ? want my DC to be in (such a small) minority both for academic reasons but also social reasons (the only one in a class who goes on ski holidays, theatre trips, and so on). My DS (2 years below DD) is the only white MC boy in his primary class!"

You'll notice that OP has revealed that "aspirational", for her, actually means ski holidays and theatre trips. You lot have read Bourdieu, yes? We are none of us naïve about the social communication and reproduction embedded in "leisure" activities? I don't have to produce statistics at this point to suggest that these two activities are pursued largely by higher-income families, with enough surplus income to pursue these?

Please don't go saying that your friends in council houses like nothing better than copious theatre trips and ski holidays. These things tend to get coded as middle-class pursuits precisely because it requires a certain level of disposable income to enjoy and pursue them on a regular basis. I would argue against any interpretation of them as a. inherently containing some level of pleasure that attracts those of a middle-class persuasion and b. that there is anything of "moral uplift" or "aesthetic value" in them in greater degree than other, cheaper, pursuits.

Nor is there is anything, per se, linking aspiration, academic or otherwise, to ski trips and theatre - that, frankly, is about income.

Are you all on this thread, taking your children to the theatre and on ski trips all the time? I somehow doubt it. That means that you (and your children) also fall into the class of undesirables. Just bear that in mind.

A higher income is not a sign of aspiration other than that of income-based exceptionalism.

Being poor is not necessarily linked to anything other than being a major inconvenience and hobbler in a capitalist society. It is not an indicator of low aspirations or moral inadequacy, in and of itself.

As you point out, needmoresleep, your council-house living bus-stop friend is not low on aspirations (even to having a higher disposable income) just because she lives in a council house. She might be a little hurt, however, if you were to tell her that you don't want your child in a minority at school surrounded by children who don't go on ski trips and to the theatre regularly.

I'm guessing you would never actually say something like that, though, because it would be crass, hurtful and rude. Probably even untrue.

Why is it OK to write something like that here? What on earth is the OP frightened of?

I thought this thread was going to avoid nastiness - but the nastiness was embedded deep in that post, if you read it carefully. I think it slipped out, underneath all the abstract talk about very abstract, poorly defined "aspiration".

I have so much sympathy with people who find the state system a bit constrictive. I am so in favour of it, but it is a system that necessarily is not going to give an individual fit. It can drive you bonkers. It can, at its worst, give children a completely crap experience of life/education.

I agree that having your child be a minority, of any kind, is usually horrible and can be pretty destructive. Not always, but often.

I find it tragic that there are many children in schools with problems of disadvantage/lack of care that schools necessarily have to deal with but are not given the resources to deal with.

So I guess I was angry when it became clear that OP's supposed views are actually masking a lot of same old, same old. Why do well-off people have such a hatred and fear of poorer people? Has anyone read "The Grapes of Wrath"? There's a bit where Steinbeck describes the eyes of those who have managed to scrabble a house together, eyeing the incomers with hatred, seeing in their eyes the hungry look that they initially arrived with. And they clutch their guns more prominently to them as the y look at the newcomers. Is that it?

I hoped this thread would avoid the class/race nastiness. I'm cross it didn't.

But don't get huffy just because I actually do the OP the compliment and the justice of reading what she writes rather than what I wish she would write.