Lloyds put out this report claiming you pay a huge premium to live near good schools.
www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/globalassets/documents/media/press-releases/lloyds-bank/2014/140826-house-prices-near-schools-web.pdf
Dutifully lapped up by the meeja. www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/26/good-schools-add-21000-pounds-property-prices
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734932/Parents-want-send-children-best-state-schools-face-paying-500-000-extra-home.html
But it's worthless bollocks. Their methodology was as follows:
- take the top 30 (why?) state schools for GCSE results
- Find out which postcode (e.g., W1, GU3), etc. the schools are in
- Take the average (mean, not median) house price last year for the postcode, and compare it with the average for the county (again, why, if you live in Sevenoaks, you are quite likely to be earning ÂŁÂŁÂŁ in London, whereas if you live in Dover, you probably don't, and this is reflected in local house prices)
They used this to claim that you pay a big premium for a house near a good school. But it proves no such thing, given that:
all* the top state schools for GCSE results are selective, and catchments are less critical (although some grammar schools do have catchments), e.g., for Beaconsfield High, which supposedly has a ÂŁ483k premium, you could live in SL6 (no more expensive than Bucks on average), UB9 (cheaper than the average for Bucks), and many others
- the house prices are misleading anyway, because they can easily be distorted
The reason it's expensive to live in HP9 is because it's a naice town with a fast train into London. It's got fuck all to do with the school, because the whole of Bucks has grammar schools, and it doesn't make a huge difference where you live within Bucks if your child is grammar school material, so the (ridiculous) house prices are entirely due to proximity/rail to London and the quality of the area.
It must have taken half-an-hour to knock up this report, but why does it get reported on when it's so obviously nonsense?