'Renters Row' around Charter school

[tomskip]

I don't see how lying about having a religion is any lower than lying about where you live.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Really? One is pretending to support and live by the values and beliefs that uphold the school - and the other is about using your advantage.

Perhaps our moral compasses are pointing in different directions.

I didn't say it was morally right - I said it was within rules.

[tomskip]

Yes, reckon they are.

[Carbonara]

Temporary renting, whilst having a permanent home in the same area IS against the rules.

In primary schools, very close to east Dulwich, a few years ago, parents who pulled this stunt have had children REMOVED from the school - actually removed from the playground - and their places revoked.

[tomskip]

But it still happens Carbonara. So if it is "against the rules" why aren't schools (in this particular example, the Charter School) doing anything to stop it?

[Otta]

Carbonara Wrote:

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

> Temporary renting, whilst having a permanent home

> in the same area IS against the rules.

>

> In primary schools, very close to east Dulwich, a

> few years ago, parents who pulled this stunt have

> had children REMOVED from the school - actually

> removed from the playground - and their places

> revoked.

Bloody hell, that's pretty harsh on the kids. I agree they shouldnhave lostvthe places, but literally just calling them out must jave veen horrible for them.

Hopefully they'll grow up full of reaentment to their parents ;-)

[Renata Hamvas]

Charter School is an Academy and therefore responsible for its own admissions policy. If you have sold your permanent home and are renting near a school, that's not breaking the rules. Having a permanent home, then renting near the school and moving back to a permanent home a few months later is.

Renata

[tomskip]

With great respect, I don't think you have added much with your comment, Renata. When you talk about "breaking the rules" are you saying that the Charter School is subject to certain admissions rules even though, as an academy (along with every state secondary school in Southwark), they are responsible for their own admissions policy?

I should think all of us understand that renting near a school is not in itself against any sort of rule. But renting temporarily in catchment, whether in a primary residence or a secondary one, and then moving away from the catchment after the first child has been given their place would be discouraged if the sibling priority thing was not more or less automatic.

[hpsaucey]

Carbonara Wrote:

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

> 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.

Except that in my situation we've had to move through no fault of our own-Solomon's Passage Wandle demolition. I am relying on the sibling policy to get my youngest to the same secondary Charter ED. Should I be penalised for having to move further away? The same would go for those renting on a long-term stable basis forced further away by the hoiking up of rents near popular schools.

No easy answers.

HP

[Gromit]

*

[DulwichLondoner]

@Renata, I believe that much is clear - it's precisely what I had said, too.

I think most of the debate was on whether selling, renting for a year and then moving, while being compliant with the letter (although arguably not the spirit!) of the rules, is morally objectionable, and what, if anything, can be done to stop or limit this kind of behaviour.

I mentioned earlier that Wandsworth has changed its sibling policies for its primary schools: you now get sibling priority only if you have not moved, or if you have moved but still live within 800 metres. I don't honestly know what to think, because on one hand I understand the rationale for this: if so many parents have moved elsewhere that even those living within 200 metres from the school can't get in, something is clearly wrong. On the other hand, this would also penalise those families who are forced to move through no fault of their own, especially those who rent because they cannot afford to buy, and move because the landlord kicks them out for no reason, wants to sell the place, wants to double the rent, etc.

[mayo]

I don't think the issue is with people who sell, rent temporarily near a school and then buy a new house out of catchment although I agree that is still fairly morally objectionable.

What was being discussed are people who own a home out of catchment so rent somewhere for a specific short period with the sole purpose of getting their child into the nearby school and then move back to their original out of catchment home as soon as they've secured the school place. I would say this is certainly against the rules and in fact would term it as fraud. (as well as highly morally objectionable as stated above)

I do, however, sympathise with black hole and in fact have wondered about this before. Could you not ask for this school to be excluded from your options because it is a faith school and you are atheist? As people are able to select a school that they otherwise would not be in catchment for by proving they are Catholic and they want their children to go to a Catholic school, it really ought to be also possible to de select a school on the grounds that you are NOT Catholic and therefore don't want your children to go to a Catholic school.

[tomskip]

I am quite certain that schools admissions officers could (and should) make exceptions in cases such as yours HPSaucey. And for those who are forced to move because of termination of their Tenancy Agreement by the landlord. Although in that case, I would still slightly question why the sibling link has to hold sway in secondary admissions. Many children can't go to the same school as their sibling just by dint of their sex!

Interestingly, there was quite a kerfuffle when the new Charter School said it was placing sibling priority above SEN. That really does seem determindly retro.

[HannahSE23]

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

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

> Charter School is an Academy and therefore

> responsible for its own admissions policy. If you

> have sold your permanent home and are renting near

> a school, that's not breaking the rules. Having a

> permanent home, then renting near the school and

> moving back to a permanent home a few months later

> is.

> Renata

The trouble is Renata that that's what lots of families do - rent out their home, rent a flat in the catchment of Charter, then move back to their permanent home after they've secured a place. Charter knows this goes on and have known it for years - they're either powerless to stop it or they don't want to stop it. I suspect it's the latter. With the immense pressure on schools to get excellent GCSE results, what school wouldn't want the offspring of pushy middle class parents who go to extreme lengths to get their kid the best education?

[DulwichLondoner]

Is anyone familiar with how the lottery system in Brighton works? I'd be interested in learning more.

[Earl Aelfheah]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> Is anyone familiar with how the lottery system in

> Brighton works? I'd be interested in learning

> more.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/14/school-admissions-lottery-system-brighton