Clearly any views on the issue depend on whether you believe there should be rules governing school admissions in the first place. The rules in Bucks use catchment areas designed to ensure that children living locally to a school have a greater right to attend that school than those who do not live locally to it. This is a basic example of the impact of a fraudulent application within our system.
Child A was born and bred in the catchment area for a very popular Bucks grammar school. Unfortunately he lives towards the boundary of the school’s catchment area. Places are allocated by distance so he may not receive a place if the school is over-subscribed with applicants who live nearer to the school.
Child B lives outside catchment but near enough to travel to the same oversubscribed school. The parents rent out their house and move temporarily to a flat within a stone's throw of the popular grammar school and make a fraudulent declaration of their home address.
Both children qualify in the 11+. Child B receives a place at the very popular school, but Child A does not. Child A may not even receive a place at his 2nd or 3rd preference catchment grammar schools because they are also oversubscribed, possibly because people are playing the same game as Child B’s parents.
Parents who enter their children for the 11+ do not know whether they will pass or not.
Of course not, but do you really think that they haven’t lined up the fallback option? These are the sort of parents who leave nothing to chance and, although the alternative is often private school, failure to qualify in Bucks does not rule out state school options elsewhere. (I am not going to post details of that for what I hope are obvious reasons.)
If they pass then these so called fraudulent parents probably will move permanently to the area.
No matter that Child A has been denied their rightful place because of the fraudulent application? Why does moving to the area permanently make it all OK?
Even those who do move into catchment may still be benefiting from their original fraudulent application further down the line. If both Child A & Child B have younger brothers, when Child B2’s turn comes he will get sibling priority for the oversubscribed school, even if he lives further away from the school than Child A2.
If the child does not pass then they will probably stay where they are and send them to a comp rather than a secondary modern.
Oh, no they won’t! These parents are not the sort to risk their child ending up at a Bucks Upper school, the quality of which can vary considerably. (See my comments above on what happens if the child doesn’t qualify.)
The parents are probably all uk taxpayers and as such are paying for all uk schools anyway.
As are the parents of Child A!
What a deeply unpleasant thought that people will inform on each other anyway.
What do you perceive to be the moral difference between informing on someone who is attempting to gain a school place fraudulently and someone cheating the benefits system? Or someone who gains a council house place fraudulently? Or someone who drives while drunk? Admission rules are legally enforceable in the same way as every other aspect of the law of the land.