Should sibling's rights be reduced for renters that move awa Post Reply

[rooting4tooting]

to Toposhtopush. It may be legal, but it certainly is immoral. I
f that is what you teach your kids, I for one pity you and them

[supergirl]

In order to see if it legal or not Toposhtopush, why dont you call the admissions at the council and tell them what you are planning to do?
As others have said, at the moment there are no penalties so yes in theory you can do it. But as other have said, you are saying to your children that this is good behaviour... I hope my children will never work with yours in the future tbh...
The council said they will have to find a solution for the 2013 and after intake because these are the children born in the boom znd so they will also get tougher in the admission applications. I am so glad we are not fighting to go to any of these schools.

[kiwimummy]

yes it is cheating!!! taking a short term let just for the purposes of getting into a school, LYING that it's your primary address and then move back to your real address?

sounds like cheating to me.

[tooposhtopush]

Ok, lets try one more time.

The law is clear.

If you rent a flat in the catchment area of a school and move into it, and I mean PROPERLY move into it, so that you sleep there, your names are on the utility bills, its where someone would find you if they knocked on the door at 3am on a Monday morning, then when the school award primary school places you should receive places for WHERE. YOU. LIVE.

If you then choose to move out then if the school doesn't have a policy re attendees moving out THEN THE LAW IS CLEAR.

You have a choice.

A choice which is legal.

You can choose to put your children into a new school or IF THE SCHOOL ALLOWS IT keep your children in the existing school.

The school may even be short-sighted enough to have a sibling policy so that all your future children also get in.

Then you can choose where to send your future children as well.

You could actually walk into the council's schools department, explain the situation and ask for advice on your choice ITS ALLOWED!

Now if you can afford to buy a house in the catchment area and you lost out on a school a place to this renter you may feel, because you could afford to buy a house, that you have been "cheated" by the renter. But you haven't. You're just unlucky, in the same way that all those people who were unlucky enough not to be able to afford to buy the house also missed out.

I don't understand why you're all getting worked up over the selection criteria, you should be angry at the lack of places in decent schools.

There is a rumour that class places in Wandsworth will eventually move to a lottery system. So everyone who lives within X miles of a school will have their names put into a "hat" and drawn out at random.

Then what are you going to do?

At that stage you may all have wished you directed your energy at the council/government to lobby for better schools as opposed to try and justify why you are ahead in the queue over some poor renters.

TPTP

btw, all my children are in private schools, I did the best for them that I could

[tgjmummy]

I do think the blame lies with the council for not providing enough places however the attitude of some people does amaze me. It makes me more determined that something needs to be done to stop this blatant playing of the system. Is this a problem that the schools themselves are concerned about / have any inclination to address?

[tooposhtopush]

Its not the school's problem, they have a duty to run the best possible school, not to provide a county-wide education.

The councils should mind but they have their hands tied by the government. Its a sad fact that one of the reasons schools like Ravenstone are so popular is that they have a pretty big slug of middle class parents in them. As a result the teachers get lots of respect, the kids are clean and well fed and the PTA raises money like a banker at bonus time. In that atmosphere you can actually teach.

The "working class" schools have huge problems with dirty unfed kids, children whose parents don't support the school (teachers getting beaten up for telling off a kids are not urban myths) and roles models who are mysognistic and aggressive. Education then becomes more about crowd control than teaching.

Its an awful generalisation but if you watched the BRITS last night you have kids like Plan B and Tiny Tempah rolling up and giving "attitude" and you have the middle class bands like ColdPlay and Blur saying thank you to everyone and acting grateful. Imagine a school full of Plan B's!

This could be fixed but the only way is to allow schools in working class areas to have strict rules on exclusion and admissions. But the downside of that is you have some kids who are effectively thrown on the rubbish heap at the age of four or five because of their parents, not them. And that absolutely isn't fair.

Its tough, but shouting at renters isn't the solution

[MGMidget]

Tooposhtopush - just to be clear. By 'cheating the system' I didn't mean it was illegal. I think a few other posters on here think the same as me - cheating the system is broader than that. Let's call it 'playing the system' if that sounds better. The current system has a flaw in it and some people are taking advantage of that. The sibling policy was meant to help out the occasional family that moved house but wanted to keep their kids in the same school. That was fine when the policy was first created as it would only apply to a few families. It has been exploited now to the extent it is becoming ridiculous which is what this discussion was about in the first place. And I don't agree with you that it is the 'right thing' for families to do what you were suggesting whether it is legal or not. And not all us parents would do the same thing - I'm not and I know others that aren't or didn't either and won't or didn't get a place in their first or second choice school for reception. I do hope the council can find ways to improve this policy and I hope the current government takes a good look at it too to give councils the support they need to take action.

One thing I wondered is whether the council checks whether applicants are still living within the required distance at the time their child starts reception? Anyone know the answer? I think they should if they aren't doing this already as it would at least mean that applicants can't just take a six month rental at the time of applying in December/January. They would still need to be living at an appropriate address in September.

[Firefly]

It is not the 'council' that makes a good school it's the parents. I think blaming the council for everything is ridiculous. If ALL the parents of children who attend poor performing schools got involved those schools would likely not be poor any more.

[AbbevilleMummy]

This is such a difficult one as it really gets everyone's emotions up. This isn't the first thread on this subject and certainly wont be the last.

I agree that the sibling policy may seem unfair in a normal situation, however, as the catchment areas are so tiny and shrinking every year I think it should remain. You would only have to move one street down the road, still within walking distance of the school and it could still be your closest school, but you wouldn't be able to get your second into it?! That would be a stupid situation. You would definitely have 2 children at different schools as you wouldn't then move your first out of that school would you?!

And, yes I agree, if more middle class parents sent their kids to these weaker schools then they would get stronger. All very well and good in theory, but do you want your child to be the guinea pig?! Mine certainly wont be!

Therefore, I will be one of the morally corrupt people who put off buying a house until I have rented one close to a fantastic school, get my children into it and then buy a house I can afford 800m down the road.

[MGMidget]

Abbeyvillemummy - a further '800m down the road' is a long way in this part of London. You will be robbing someone who lives much closer than you to the school of a place for their first child in reception. Further confirmation for me of why the sibling rule is getting ridiculous when so many people are actively planning to work the system in this way!

[AbbevilleMummy]

And if the sibling policy changed, I would simply rent until my second got in, so for about 1 more year. I will not pay £1.2m for a 3 bedroom 1,200 square foot house.

[tooposhtopush]

Ok, I am happy to agree to disagree.

I feel that playing the system is buying a house because you have the money in a catchment area of a good school or renting a house in that area.

I do accept that some people will discriminate between buyers and renters, even though their motivations are the same, i.e. to get great education for their children.

Not sure why people want to discriminate against renters with less money but I accept we live in a world where I don't understand everyones motivations

[kiwimummy]

umm - so actually living near the local school is gaming the system? that's some very twisted logic.

i would like to add that i don't dispute renters are entitled to a place at the school. what annoys me is people short term letting when they have another property, just to get the place, and moving back to the property they always intended to be in.

also, as i said, not all the people that live locally and want a place live in £1+m homes! we certainly don't and we are likely to miss out on the place we desperately wanted due to the change in admission policies and short term renters. we got leafleted the other day by a family trying to do just that...

tooposhtopush. the post generalising about working class kids and their parents was pretty

wow.

[hjm]

Tooposhtopush, I am pretty incensed by your assertion that working class children are drity and unfed. What an outrageous view! Just because someone may not have as much money as you does not make them dirty or mean that their parents care less about them.

I am also irritated by your view that anyone who doesn't send their children to private school is not doing the best by them. My personal opinion is that what is best for my child is for her to go to school with a cross section of society, not just children whose parents have a lot of money.

And before you accuse me of being one of those dreadful smelly working class people, I can easily afford the school fees, but I choose not to pay them as I want my child to live in the real world.

Are you a Tory voter by any chance??

[Firefly]

hjm

Whilst I agree tooposh's statement was outrageous to say that all working class kids are unclean. A really horrid thing to say and untrue.

However, you are just as bad with your judgement of all children at private school. You are both equally offensive in your own ways.

Children at private school are not ALL rich and are not from one section of society. Also to say that you want your child to live in "the real world" so you send them to a top of the table state school rather than a private school is ridiculous.

You would be better to rise above the nasty generalisations than add to them with your reverse snobbery.