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

[rooting4tooting]

We all know people that have moved closer to a school for a year to get their child in and get siblings rights even when they move back to their original home.
Is this abusing the system and should it be stopped?
Sibling rights caused a difficult 2010 intake at Ravenstone
I guess similar happened in the schools off of Northcote Road.

[Sagittarius]

Hello there,

This is a very difficult one but, in my personal opinion, I don't think sibling rights should be stopped. I have two children and cannot imagine having to drop them off in two different places at the same time. One of them would always be late, can you imagine the impact on the schools? The prospect of having to hire someone just for the school run is really not ideal/practical..

This subject was raised in another thread and someone pointed out how, very often, a move is also dictated by personal circumstances, such as having genuinely outgrown your current place. Also let's bear in mind that not everyone is a homeowner, some of us are tenants, people in rented accommodation tend to move more often. Should tenants be penalised for not being able to buy? How about a tenant who gets asked to leave because the landlord wants the property back or because the rent has gone up too much? Or how about more people buying closer to the school, shrinking the catchment area and leaving a genuine homeowner without a school place for a sibling simply because the catchment area suddenly got smaller?

Obviously this is just my opionion, I also disapprove of the system being abused, but I feel that penalising renters and families because a small number of people abuse the system is not a solution to the problem.

All the best.

[stayathomemuminsw11]

It is SUCH a difficult issue, and one which I don't think has any clear answers, or solutions really.

We know people abuse the system, but how do you define what's cheating and what's not? Also, there are just too many school-age kids for the amount of schools.

We bought our 2 bed flat in 2009, and we live here with our daughter, who is due to start Reception in September 2013, and where we are, we should get into either of 2 very good schools. However, when we have #2, our flat is going to be pretty cramped, and, eventually, we will have to move somewhere bigger (but this will be after our first daughter is at school). BUT there is no way we can afford a bigger place in the TINY 'catchment' area of these schools HOWEVER we will move as locally as possible, (i.e. still easy walking distance). Is that 'fair'? Personally I think so, but others may disagree!

What I think is categorically UNFAIR is people renting PURELY to get their child into a good state school while retaining a big house which they own somewhere else... but again, others may think that's fine.

I also think a big problem is this area's obsession with two particular schools BTC, they ARE amazing schools, but there are others-I went to look at Wix, for example, and was pretty impressed BUT the distance for places offered there last year was 1,764 meters for the English class on first offers.

BUT as parents (understandably) we want the best for our kids, so not many parents are willing to 'take a chance'.

Also, this may be slightly controversial, but I believe that many kids at Honeywell and Belleville would 'normally' speaking be at private schools, but because they are such good schools, parents who otherwise would not consider state schools do send their children there. Again, this is going to shrink a catchment area. I completely understand why people do it, after all, if you pay your taxes and live in the area, of course you are entitled to a free education for your child, but it does mean more children are applying for state schools.

Just my rambling thoughts!

[stayathomemuminsw11]

Incidentally, I've discovered Beatrix Potter school in Earlsfield has a slightly different set of rules for sibling admission...

Beatrix Potter has two 'priority' areas, and siblings have to still live in one of the 2 priority areas to qualify for priority over other children living in one of the priority areas if that makes sense?!

I.e, if your first child goes to Beatrix Potter school, and you then move OUTSIDE of priority area 1 or 2, siblings won't have priority over other children...

Interesting!

[Sagittarius]

Hello,

I had no idea that Beatrix Potter had a different admission policy. Last year, there was a proposal to implement a similar scheme at Belleville School. The school was totally against it, they felt that they could operate at full capacity because children from further away were able to accept in-year places (in particular in the later years) and were able to do so because of the current sibling policy (without a definite catchment area). They also felt that being able to accept children from further out, was a vital factor in maintaining the school's diversity.

I am not saying the school was right/wrong, I just thought to share their views as, I am embarassed to say, I had never considered the issue from their angle...

[supergirl]

I think something like beatrix potter is a way forward. The idea behind a local state school is for children to walk to school.
When i was growing up, when my parents decided to move my susters and myself changed school too. We survived (and it made us more adaptable). Dont understand why changing school is such s big deal here

[tgjmummy]

I agree that a priority area for siblings would be a good idea. There is obviously nothing wrong with choosing to rent near a good school and making that your home. However, what is an issue is people taking a short lease simply to gain a place at a school then moving away a few months later (if they ever moved there at all). If there was a priority area, this would become a much less attractive option and potentially would stop this perpetual cycle of short-term lets. This would also not discriminate against people who "genuinely" are renting in the area.

[MGMidget]

I have noticed quite a few parents arriving with kids by car at my son's school which has a catchment area the size of a postage stamp - so no car should be needed. Personally I wouldn't be against removing the sibling rights - but not just for renters but everyone. School start times could easily be staggered to overcome the problem of getting different children to different schools at the same time. I too can't see what the problem is with children moving schools if the family moves house. How many families would keep their child at a mediocre school if they subsequently moved into the catchment area for a good school. I'm sure they would have no worries about moving their children to the nearest school then!
A priority area might be a good compromise but it got rejected last year in the case of the Belleville proposals.

[kiwimummy]

I would be in favour of an enhanced catchment area for siblings like the Beatrix Potter model. I've never understood the obsession with not changing schools if you move - in NZ you'd expect to move to the local school when you move. I moved schools pretty frequently, and it was fine.

Someone posted the other day on the admissions link that people who undertake short term rentals to get their kids into school are just doing everything they can for their kids. I'd like to reply to that in this thread.

Yes, the problem is Wandsworth don't offer enough primary places. But I feel strongly that if you short term rent a property additional to your primary residence just for the purposes of getting your kids into a school, then you're gaming the system, pushing out local kids and adding to the problems of traffic congestion as you'll need to get the kids to school somehow.

I don't think people who genuinely are renters fall into this category, although I concede there might be a grey area in some cases, and they should get the benefit of the doubt.

[Tealover]

This is always going to be a controversial issue, but when the consultation details came out for Belleville a year or so ago something like 25 out of the 60 siblings that got into Belleville for that entry year were no longer living in the proposed priority area (broomwood road/battersea rise rectangle). I've heard of two families alone in the past 3 weeks who rented close to Belleville for 2012 intake.

Perhaps one proposal would be more scrutiny on the sibling applications - families who have to move out to go from renting to buying or renting a bigger place should not be penalised. But perhaps anyone now living outside a priority area should have to provide some sort of evidence of why they are not living in the area anymore ( eg. Went from renting a 2 bed for 2 years to renting or buying a larger place). This would surely flush out thoses people who just rented a place for 6 months and moved back to their own plane (they will providing evidence of a six month tenancy to move into a house they already owned or were renting).

As I said - it's a controversial issue and to be honest, anyone who can afford to rent a place just to apply for a school could probably and would probably just rent again within the catchment area for a sibling if the current policy changed.

[tooposhtopush]

This makes me SO mad!

The real criminals here are the council/government who are unable to create enough decent primary school places.

Don't lets blame other parents for doing exactly what any one of us would do to get our children into a great school i.e. anything!

Renting to get a school place? "Well done" I say!

Why should it be that only those that pay a million quid a house get the best TAXPAYER FUNDED education?

I accept that this is the way of the world, its a cruel world and all a bit **** but if a parent uses a bit of brain power to navigate around this cruelty then well done them!

The school lottery is one of the real emotional and financial scandals in our little world so lets point our anger at the failure of the councils and the government and not the parents who are just doing the right thing.

[Minnie]

I completely agree with toposhtopush!

Some of you are going on about not needing to drive your kids to school if you live in the catchment area then what about the increased amount of traffic and 4x4's which have arrived on my street, Forthbridge Road, the road with an amazing school which I am unable to get into because of the bollocks catchment area from the original site!

I for one will be renting closer to the catchment area so I can get into the school that is right on my doorstep. This is not something we want to do but frankly like most of you say, your local school should be on your doorstep and walking distance and Belleville is.

It's not our fault but the councils fault for providing such shite schools in our area.

[MGMidget]

Tooposhtopush - I can't agree that cheating the system is the 'right thing'!

[kiwimummy]

well, tooposhtoush, you can game the system if you want to, because there's no penalty at the moment for doing so. it's a great lesson for your kids - how to cheat your way through life and push people out of the way because you want something and you will do anything to get it.

from what i've heard i don't think most people living locally think a lot of this attitude, and other parents are at some point going to realise how you got a place at the school. you don't sound like you'll care though.

finally, people with these concerns don't all live in £1m houses nor are we all trying to get into belleville or honeywell. we don't fall into either of these categories.

i still think what happened with the forthbridge site not being available to local children was an absolute disgrace and undermined the whole system in the borough so i could see how the poster after you (sorry, forgot the poster's name) would be justifiably angry about it, particularly given you get all the increased traffic and none of the benefits.

[tooposhtopush]

ITS NOT CHEATING THE SYSTEM!!!

How can it be cheating the system when its legal???

Sheesh