'Renters Row' around Charter school

[uncleglen]

Yes and government has enabled even more segregation funded by the tax payer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37314149

I was appalled at the level of openly anti-gay comments from students and total absence of pastoral material on LGBT matters when addressing Equality issues in faith schools I have taught in. It was like stepping back to the 1970s.

I feel deep sympathy for any student who goes to a faith school and discovers that he/she is gay.....

[DulwichLondoner]

Do these families end up as despised social pariahs, or not really because so many do it? I mean the families who sell, rent close to a school for a little while, then buy elsewhere, therefore respecting the letter, although arguably not spirit, of the rules.

[Otta]

It has gone on for years. I think it's completely immoral. You have fee paying schools for the wealthier types. Then you get the best state schools taken by these people that have the money to pay inflated rents for short periods. You also have accademies skimming those kids they want. And your average kid gets the leftovers.

People that do this will justify it as doing the best for their kids (and fuck everyone elses'). I have no time for these people. Much like those that used to (probably still do) go to church for a while to get a school place.

Then other people start realising that their only hope is to try and somehow play the system, so the system breaks because of pure greed.

God I really don't like people very much. I should take my guitar and move to a field somewhere.

Long day.

[blackhole]

I'm reading this thread with interest because renting in a catchment area is something I've contemplated and I'd genuinely be interested to know what those who find it so immoral would do in my situation, as I'm finding it a tricky one to navigate ethically.

I've always lived in the area and 6 years ago after years of saving managed to scrape enough together to buy a place with my now husband. Our child won't be school aged for several years but recently we have realised that our home appears to be in a primary school blackhole - we have multiple local primaries all within half a mile to a mile of us but their catchments are all so small that we wouldn't get in. Instead it looks as though our child would either be offered a place at a school miles away, or more likely at a local catholic school which as quite a staunch atheist I would feel extremely uncomfortable with. We love our home but in any case, with house prices having gone up so much, couldn't afford the costs associated with selling and buying another place nearer to one of the schools(stamp duty etc). However when trying to figure out a solution we reckoned we could just about afford to rent our place out and in turn rent somewhere in the catchments of one of our local schools.

All of our options seem pretty grim when it comes to school a) have our child at a primary school miles away which would be very difficult to manage with our jobs and mean that they don't develop local friendships b) have them sent to a religious school we disagree with, c) have the expense of renting somewhere for a year and be universally hated or d) move out of the area entirely away from all our family and friends

If anyone can think of alternative options I'd love to hear them, or if not I'd be interested to hear which option other people would choose?

[Otta]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Then other people start realising that their only

> hope is to try and somehow play the system, so the

> system breaks because of pure greed.

Believe it or not, I genuinely feel for you. You've not created this problem, and now you're forced to find a way around it because you're not minted. It's all so wrong.

What especially annoys me is that parents don't know how lucky they are to have London schools. They all push everyone out of the way to get "the best" ones, without realising that they're all pretty bloody good.

Look at Newham, horrid place (I worked there the last 7 years), but genuinely great primary schools throughout.

[tomskip]

This discussion is about a secondary school, which is rather different, blackhole.

But, you do have a local primary which your child could get in to. It's just that you would prefer a different school. And that's the experience of many families, I would think the majority, all over London. The concept of choice with schools is utterly misleading. There are very few parents who genuinely have a choice of primary schools in this neighbourhood. Maybe there is some overlap in the catchments of St John's & St Clements and Goose Green, or St Anthony's and Heber or Goodrich although you can't opt to go to St Anthony's if you are not Catholic. The catchments of Heber and Goodrich no longer overlap. So your post suggests you think your child should get into a school of your choice rather than another child, and that is quite hard to justify other than "I just want the best for my child." But while schools aren't all equal (and I am talking about the state system here), then someone somewhere will always lose out under that system.

[Otta]

Absolutely right. Every child that gets in to a school because their parents have secured an address close to the school, get in at the cost of another child slightly further away.

But you only have to watch SOME parents pushing their kids to the front (at the expense of other kids) at Hornimans to know there are plenty that couldn't give a shit about other people's kids.

[blackhole]

I'd agree with you tomskip if it wasn't for the fact that the local school that my child will end up being sent to is a faith school - and I struggle to feel that I should send my child to a school that has a strong emphasis on a religion that I disagree with - especially when it explicitly says that its mission is to pass that faith onto its pupils.

[Carbonara]

"What especially annoys me is that parents don't know how lucky they are to have London schools. They all push everyone out of the way to get "the best" ones, without realising that they're all pretty bloody good."

Me too. Competitive parent syndrome, causing the problem that everyone then gets hysterical about.

This new Rightmove SchoolsFinder (aka Estate Agents will rake it in) will only make the problem worse.

I feel for people who genuinely are in a difficult position. The government pretence of 'choice' is making things worse, as the only new schools now are Free schools and they are established with little relationship to actual need, geographical, and more often seem to answer the need of some parental bee in bonnet, and just create more segregation. Do you want to have to choose a bilingual school, a school where the kids have to walk everywhere in silence with their hands behind their backs, or where Toby Young's minions are forced to teach wearing fake University gowns? And schools that set their own admissions policies which are not in the best interests of the local community, by lottery, for example..... (Lottery could be an answer to all this if ALL schools admit by lottery, but not when it is just one school in a neighbourhood of distance admissions)

The new Charter has been a great initiative. As was Elmgreen (set up by parents, with the admissions policy in line with the LA).

I think it would help if secondary schools dropped the sibling priority. Families get the first child in and then move away and get another 2 kids in, thus taking places from families who live nearer. You could have 2 thirds of the school living far away simply because of the siblings policy. It isn't necessary at secondary. It's nice, families often like it, but it should be possible if people haven't 'played the system' and are accessing the school from beyond it's natural catchment.

[Otta]

The sibling thing is difficult though. Even if you're not having to physically take them, having 3 kids in 3 different schools is a proper pain.

Free schools was a horrible idea, that just serves entitled aspirational parents and religious groups.

[tomskip]

You'd be unlucky for it to have 3 in 3 different schools wouldn't you?

I have 2 in 2 different secondaries. The only time it affects us is when inset days don't coincide but really that's a very small issue.

[Otta]

I'm aware of families where it has happened. But to be fair, it's more likely if one of the kids has an SEN and is placed somewhere by the LA to meet needs.

[Carbonara]

3 siblings from one family is FINE if all the siblings are part of the usual area that would serve the school. I think for secondary siblings should only be allowed if they still live within a certain distance. It would help stop this rental scam, because people would have to rent for each admission, and it would be a pain, expensive, and obvious!

[Mrs TP]

Carbonara I was agreeing with your point about siblings being considered on distance but then I realised my second child wouldn't have got into her secondary on distance as its catchment area has shrunk, we haven't moved but did get a sibling place. So maybe it should be 'sibling if same original address or have moved but still within catchment'.

[Carbonara]

I'd vote for that, in a consultation, MrsTP!

Maybe if families are still in the same house, or still have the school as their nearest secondary, they should be allowed to take up a sibling place.

There is a much lauded and competed over primary school near where I used to live (my children did not go to it), and every year the flats in the same road were rented out to secure a place. Then the renters would move back home and the next year a new family of temporary renters would get their eldest in, and so on. One flat could end up monopolising 9 places, over 3 years, and successive families, and so-on down the years.

[Jules-and-Boo]

I suppose it all boils down to the lengths parents will go to.

The 'game' is known by authorities. Perhaps they actually want children of parents who can go the extra mile to get their child a place. If anything, it demonstrates commitment and proactive desire to be part of that school.

Renting is expensive and it's not a lighthearted decision. It's not against the rules.

I would have thought that parents would choose where to live based on the school they want their children to go to.

Fact is, if you are a renter, you can move more freely.

If you own a house, then you're lucky anyway - perhaps location should be more of a fore-thought.

[Scruffy Mummy]

You're right - some schools completely collude in this game. Look at how Charter complete excluded children from the Champion Hill estate for years, children who more likely to be from deprived backgrounds in fabour of children from sharp elbowed middle class parents who can afford to purchase a place at a state school by being able to afford to buy or rent. It's pretty disgraceful all round and a sad state of affairs when schools & well off parents muscle out poorer children from good schools. It's also what drove schools in Brighton to go down the lottery route. It's what more schools in London will do I think frankly.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Rather optimistic.

Why do you think 'those who can' will change the rules?

The wider system is not governed by fairness at all.

Schools are getting shafted by the government - they are probably just trying to survive the cuts rather than worry about Mummy A taking advantage of resources that Mummy B does not have access to.

So, ruling fairness out of the question = what would you do to get into the school of your choice?

And I will testify that life is not fair and that you are up against people who don't play by the rules.

In the specific school place manipulation, no one is breaking any rules. So it's just fact that some people have an advantage because they are more resourceful - or imaginative.

I know a single mum on benefits in Herne Hill (Brixton side of the railway) who got her daughter into Charter North. Perhaps the Renters Row is really not that necessary and is a case of hedging bets and improving odds.

[Otta]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Renting is expensive and it's not a lighthearted

> decision. It's not against the rules.

> I would have thought that parents would choose

> where to live based on the school they want their

> children to go to.

>

Bit you're talkimg as though everyone has the same options. A lot of us just live where we can afford.

[tomskip]

I find it actually sickening that people don't think fairness should apply to children. Ok, so life isn't fair and we grow up and get cynical and find our ways of living with that. But to parrot it as your mantra when talking about young school children is just not good enough, in my opinion.

[Jules-and-Boo]

I think that's quite offensive.

The school applications are fair. The criteria are very clear and published well in advance and rarely change year to year.

What isn't 'fair' is that lives are not the same and that people's circumstances are different. However, that is life. It's a fact, whether you personally think it's cynical or not.

[Gromit]

Most of the homes around charter are well over a million and those families would have moved there with the school very much in mind. They have used their resources to give their child the best start. A lottery for each individual child would be fairer but would probably not please the people who started this post as they sound like they live near a desirable school but not quite near enough for comfort. It would also be incredibly stressful for everybody.

I know some families who have moved for schools over the the last couple of years and they have tended to be families in black holes or those with a child with significant SEN who just don't trust the system to give a monkeys about their child. The reality is that we are living under a Tory government which means every man for themselves, don't think that will change anytime soon.

[Otta]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think that's quite offensive.

>

> The school applications are fair. The criteria are

> very clear and published well in advance and

> rarely change year to year.

>

> What isn't 'fair' is that lives are not the same

> and that people's circumstances are different.

> However, that is life. It's a fact, whether you

> personally think it's cynical or not.

Have you by any chance played the system to seal a school place? I'm sure the kids that lose out on the places they should have had, and their families will take solace from the fact "that is life".

[Jules-and-Boo]

I have not played the system.

I got into both primary and secondary schools on honest applications.

I didn't apply for Charter North as I didn't live close enough.

And I certainly had no bitterness towards those who can afford to live closer.

I have met parents who lied. Lying about having a religion - when they don't - is pretty much the lowest of the low.

[Otta]

Agreed (on pretending about religion).

And apologies for asking if you'd played the system, my bad.

And of course there is no point in feeling bitter towards those that can afford to LIVE closer, everyone has to live somewhere.

This is about those that have a home, yet rent somewhere purely for a school place, and with NO intention of staying and being part of that community. You're probably right that it will always happen and "it's life". But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still call it what it is. And that is people treading over other people (children!).