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

[rooting4tooting]

OMG I didn't think there would be quite such fuss made when I asked the question.
I don't have a problem with people moving into an area to get a kid into school. I think most of us moved to this part of London from somewhere else and wouldn't have been so glad to move to Deptford for instance.
I have a problem with those who move to an area to get a school place and then move back to their original home.
I am so glad that it sounds like the rules are changing and would only be changing if a problem of abuse existed, which we agree it does.
As for the dirty unfed. Have any of you noticed "middle class" kids who fit that description, I do, and I am pretty sure there is a malnutrition problem (albeit within our healthy 1st world parameters). What do I say... "why don't you feed your kids properly?" That would go down well!

[Heavens to Betsy]

What about secondary schools? I met a Mother who's Son didn't get into Graveney although they live 10 minutes walk away, and have been in the same house for 9 years, and so her child goes to Rutlish which takes over an hour to get to!!!!

So many people rent in the catchment area to secure a place, and then move back to their 'real ' home there is a thriving rental market purely for that purpose!!

If you can live with yourself knowing that you have deprived a genuinely local child from attending their local school, your moral compass must be rather off balance. not a good example to set your children who will inevitably find out eventually.....

[Camille]

Well said "swimmeroo" and I have to say "tooposhtopush" that I and the friends who I know have read your comments could not disagree with you more.

[ellesmum]

To be honest, this subject DOES annoy me! We are "genuine" renters who have found ourselves unable to afford the rents close to the "good" schools in the area (in fact, we are now stuck in a no-mans-land for schools, with the closest being High View, 650m away), part of the reason being that parents are abusing the system in order to get their children into the desirable schools. Whilst it may be legal to play the system in this manner, what is the difference between a middle class parent who can afford to rent a second home in order to get their brood into Belleville or Honeywell doing so, & "dirty working class" parents popping out child after child in order to take advantage of the generous benefits system? In my mind, there is not much difference - both are exploiting loopholes in the system in order to benefit themselves, which aren't illegal but are immoral. I am not talking about the people who delay moving in order to win places, or who genuinely have to move out of the catchment area (unfortunately, unscrupulous landlords often raise the rents by astronomical amounts year on year because they think renters would rather pay the extra than uproot themselves), but the people who deliberately set out to work the system. The ones who rent a home for 6 months or a year in order to get the school place, never intending to stay there. By the sounds of it, Belleville & Honeywell are almost being turned into State run private schools - your children can only go there if you are privileged enough to be able to afford to buy or rent within a few hundred meters of the school. They are becoming elitist.
My own daughter is due to start school in September & I am terrified about the school issues. I want her to get a good education, as do all parents, but more importantly, I want her to have a good school experience. I want her to be happy with whatever school she is in - if she is happy, then the willingness to learn will come naturally, even if that means us having to work hard with her at home to further her knowledge. I would undoubtedly like her to go to Belleville or Honeywell, not so much because of the excellent results, but because we took her to them for the open days & she was immediately happy & relaxed in the environments & has talked about how excited she is to start big school ever since. However, I know that the likelihood of her getting into either is near zero. I am almost resigned to her being offered a place at High View. Despite knowing that it is a decent enough school which is improving all the time, I am worried because I feel that accepting a place at a school which is possibly going to be a very good school is taking a gamble over getting her into an already very good school. But, having read posts from parents on here stating that they see no problems with cheating their way into the good schools, or that they have no issues with someone else's child losing out so that their child can have something, I am starting to wonder whether a school like High View may be better for her moral education. I do not want her peers teaching her that the best way to get what she wants in life is to lie & cheat her way to them. It is certainly not what we teach her at home, & I don't want her learning that at school.

[MGMidget]

Ellesmum, I do agree with you that there is something somewhat unsavoury about a large number of parents in some schools having worked the system with temporary addresses to get into the school!

Rooting4tooting, I don't think the aspects of the system you are concerned about are about to change unless you and others of us who feel strongly about it do something - such as write to your local councillor.

Personally I think more could be done to investigate temporary rental situations. For example, why not ask a few more questions at the time of offering the place when proofs of address are required? E.g. how long has the applicant lived at the current address, do the applicant's parents/legal guardians own another home within a 10 mile radius for example? I'm not saying these things are wrong, just that they provide a starting point for further follow up, especially if the family subsequently moves within a few months to their 'second home' further away. The whole thing seems rather like MPs 'flipping' homes which caused such uproar a while ago.

[metoo]

Hello Hello,
I tell you mums and dads -this topic gets no easier when your child reaches secondary school! I have a child in year 5 and started thinking about this last year. Already 2 families have moved to within an inch of Graveney to improve their chances there, so they are now driving the kids to primary. There are an absolute dearth of secondaries in this area. Let me state that even if you had not one ounce of interest about schools in your bones your child still might not get a local secondary place. Lambeth used to have secondary places for 40% of those who needed them!! I realise this must have changed over the past 2 years with a few new schools opening, I'm not sure if Wandsworth is in such a dire situation. Consequently we've thought about moving nearer Kingston, for Tiffin School, which would result in us having to drive our second child to primary school (I wouldn't like to move him now). Perhaps that's why some of these parents are driving (or am I just being generous)It's totally our choice to move or not but it still feels so difficult - like an earlier poster - we don't want to have where we live dictated to by our kids schooling! I like zone 2, I like having a 45 min journey home from work. sigh! seems like I just can't have my can and eat it!!

[tooposhtopush]

Its not working the system.

Its legal and allowed.

Its only working the system in the same way that deliberately buying a house in a school catchment area to get your child in school is "working the system"

Seriously guys, you're focusing on the wrong issue.

You. Need. More. Decent. School. Places.

Why haven't the council replied to this?

Why haven't any of you ASKED the council to reply to this?

TPTP

[MGMidget]

Tooposhtopush: just how is it not 'working the system'? Wandsworth Council's website states that the child's PERMANENT address should be used in an application for a school place. If the family have no intention of living at the address permanently they are 'working the system' in my view. Some would say it's illegal, some like you would say it's legal - I think that is a question in itself and may depend on the individual circumstances. Its certainly immoral and it's 'working the system' or 'playing the system' or 'abusing the system' or whatever you want to call it.

[Mingg]

"Its only working the system in the same way that deliberately buying a house in a school catchment area to get your child in school is "working the system."

Of course.

One isn't any better than the other imo (except buying a house is a bigger commitment than a temporary rental and those families are more likely to stay in the area). Our closest school is 230 metres away. My husband has lived in our current address for 30 years (we bought his parent's house) and his younger brother went to that primary school. Our son is starting school this September and his chances of getting in are slim to none. Luckily we have a place in a private school.

[ellesmum]

Popping out 12 children & claiming tens of thousands of pounds of benefits is legal & allowed, but it doesn't make it acceptable or something to be applauded.
We rent because we have to. We can not afford to buy our own house. People renting 2nd homes purely to get their children into schools a) push up the already extortionate rents in the area, b) reduce the amount of properties available to those who actually need a home, not just an address, c) turn State schools into ones that can only be accessed by the richer element of society.
The issue I have is not people buying a home near a good school - we would all do it if we could - but people who own a home further away who take a short term rental near the school with the sole intention of working the system. And it IS working the system to do that. The system is that the school places should be for those who live closest, not those whose parents live further away but can afford to temporarily relocate to the school's doorstep for several months before moving back to the permanent home.
Yes, there need to be more decent school places, & the council need to address that. However, it seems as though the variations between OFSTED rated "Good" schools (for example, Honeywell, High View & Swaffield are all "Good") is down to the attitude of the parents of the children who go there. "Good" schools can either be Average or Good, from what I have seen, but there seemed to be more parental involvement in the Average ones than the Good ones.
A school is about more than the results. It is a community. If a large proportion of the parents simply throw their kids out of the 4x4 in the morning, & rush to shove them back into their car seats in the afternoon whilst dodging traffic wardens, where's the community? The more I read on here, the more I think my daughter would be better off at a school where we can work together as a community to make it better. It's not all down to the council, it's down to the parents, too.

[livegreen]

Is everyone sure that there is really a large problem here.
All of the evidence is anecdotal and schools do checks to ensure address is a permanent address.
From memory when I was looking for schools for my oldest 7 years ago the catchment for Honeywell and Belleville was the same as it is now, however there are a lot more younger families in the area now.
My children went private as we were just out of catchment area for these schools, however (and here comes my anecdotal evidence), all the parents I know who do go to Belleville and Honeywell still live in same houses and walk to school.

In fact this is also true for the private schools which are also over subscribed, however most of the parents in my experience do stay in the area.

@ellesmum. you will find that there is a lot of parental involvement at all the local schools, especially the schools rated outstanding. At my school the idea that parents have no interest in their child's schooling is both insulting and incorrect. We all live in a great community, hence the reason why the schools are all oversubscribed.

Is there any evidence that the rent then move out of the immediate area is a real problem? If so what percentage of children does it affect?

[CitySlicker]

I am saying this from the point of view of something who lives on Hillier Road (literally 321 metres from Honeywell) and still won't make it into Honeywell School due to not being in catchment primarily due to sibling policy:
I wouldn't move into a rental flat to get a school place, but on reflection, perhaps the joke is on me given I'm now going to have to fork out £15k per child for Broomwood Hall.
It really is a tough one, and all I can say I am lucky that I can afford private education, so either way my children will get a top notch education. But it's those that can't I feel sorry for - what they do if they don't have the luxury of choice?

[tgjmummy]

I couldn't agree more with you ellesmum. If temporarily renting is not playing the system I do not know what is. My little girl is not even one but I already know of people through nct & play group who are planning to rent when the time comes. Obviously sorting out this issue will not mean everyone who wants a place at Honeywell or Belleville will get one but at least it will mean more of us do. We are less than a five minute walk from Honeywell (440m) and a few more mins from Belleville. Our next two nearest schools are a good 25 mins walk away. Is there anything we can do to get the council at least to look into the issue and assess how much this is restricting access to the schools in Wandsworth? I appreciate we may only be talking about a handful of places each year but as these same properties are rented to new families every year and the siblings of renters of years gone by also gain access I suspect the impact is compounded year on year and is significant.

[tooposhtopush]

What do you mean "more of us" will get them?

The well deserving rich who can afford million pounds houses?

The Audi driving masses?

Sheesh, I read this thread with its whiff of smug entitledness and I want to rent to put my kids in belleville and they're currently privately educated.

You can't "play" or "game" or "cheat" a system if you play by the rules.


They be "winning" but that's not cheating.

[MGMidget]

Tooposhtopush - you've revealed the true reasons for your previous comments! Supposing you were to rent somewhere but not make it your permanent home then that would not be playing by the rules. The rules require it to be your permanent home so if you were keeping another home to go back to later your rental address wouldn't be your permanent home.

Livegreen, I think statistics may be hard to come by because noone is monitoring it. However, ...and this is pretty anecdotal too...you only have to take a look at school drop off and pick up times at the local school where my son is at the nursery to see that there are quite a few cars pulling in and dropping off/picking up as well as a long queue at the bus stop (the official catchment area probably doesn't even reach to the next stop). If siblings take up over half the places in the more popular schools and then there's a proportion of newcomers playing the system with short term rentals (and subsequently getting places later for all their siblings) I can see how the problem could escalate.

We don't really know how widespread the problem is - many of us know anecdotally it is going on (e.g. a friend reporting they know a friend doing it or in some cases knowing someone directly), the sibling numbers seem to be rising, some people on this forum have said they are going to do it). I'd like to think that closer attention was paid to any applicant who has taken a 6 month rental close to a school very shortly before applying rather than simply asking for the proofs of address. Perhaps if more thought was given on how to scrutinise such applications closely that would be a step in the right direction.