To rent in a good school catchment, knowing we'll buy next year out of the catchment?

[lill72]

We are renting at the moment, with our lease coming up in June. As I am pregnant, we'd like to get a bigger place.

We have to apply for reception in January, so I was thinking of moving into the catchment area of the best school I have seen by far. It is a more expensive area than where we are, but the school was so much better than any in this area.

Wherever we rent would be temporary, as we are looking at buying next year, folllowing an inheritance.

Thing is, we will most likely buy back in the area we are currently renting in, as we like it better anyway and it is not as expensive.

This would mean that our DD would not be super local to her school once we moved. We are not far - say 5-10 mins by car or 20 mins bus, but not a walk around the corner.

Am I doing the wrong thing? I never grew up living within a walk to the local school, so not sure how much importance I should place on this - ie ease of getting there, local friends etc.

I just feel like I should try and send DD to the best school and I can, and this seems a way to do it.

Appreciate your thoughts...

It's not the number of applicants nor the fight over particular schools which is the problem in my humble opinion, weasle, it's poor standards of teaching, poor funding, poor leadership and poor discipline which causes falling standards.

People fight over particular schools (to access or avoid) because of these factors.

You didn't answer my question. Would you still be saying that the OP is unreasonable if the school nearest to you and which you have to pass every day to get your DC to another further away was on special measures with half the kids destined for the PRU?

Of course YANBU, you have tomovr house anyway, why wouldn't you move somewhere where your prospects are better?! There are not many benefits to renting at all but this is one of them. You will be living there at least 18 months so hardly a short time just to get into the school.

Though make sure you have seen the schools before you make a decision. I moved into the catchment of an oversubscribed 'outstanding' school specifically for this school (we rent but have lived here 2.5yrs so far) but when we looked around I realised the ethos didn't fit exactly what we wanted from a school. DD is now thriving and happy at an undersubscribed school further away (admittedly still ofsted 'good' but much poorer results) and doing so so well, I'm so happy with the school choice we made and tbh have heard nothing but negative things about the outstanding school from friends whose children went there.

YABU- the reason the catchment is more expensive to buy is because of the cachet of the school. People who bought 400m from the school paid a premium on their house to (attempt to) guarantee their children places at a good school.

I think you know, and understand this tbh.

hooby people do not move to rent into the catchments of poorly-performing schools the year that their application to primary school is due IME.

The houses in the catchments of the best schools in our area carry a premium of around £400-500k (not London or SE). It's actually cheaper to send your children to fee-paying schools!

Be aware OP- lots of schools in our LA are changing their admissions policy to move siblings that no longer live in-catchment down the pecking order. Children living in the catchment get priority over those siblings.

I would find the next few years very hard not knowing if any future siblings would also get a place at the school.
I know there is no garuntee anywhere but at least if you live in the catchment area and you have a child at the school you have a very good chance of getting a place for future children.

Golden bear - "People refer to catchments but what they really mean is distance to school criteria" - this is not true of all local authorities -ours had catchment/designated areas where the catchment school is frequently not the nearest - in the school I work at, children living in the designated area 2 miles away get priority over those living 500 metres away on the other side of the main road, and in a different catchment area. Within the catchment area distance to school applies, but not otherwise.

As I said previously 'catchment' does not exist in England- that is not the system. If the OP is abiding by the rules of the actual system of 'open enrolment' rather than the non existent one of 'Catchment' then how can she/he be unreasonable?

And HanSolo I don't think any council stipulates a 'home ownership' criteria.

Same here Rusty our "distance" high school is great but it's not our "catchment" school, we would not get a place there as the council decided that a large housing development further away would get that school as catchment.

They based it on number of families in an area Vs size of school to set catchments not distance.

Hooby I disagree slightly in that a teacher can only do so much if there is no home support. If a school is "desired" it is more likely those parents will also care about the child's education so quality of results will increase.

No one knows what the future may bring, a good or outstanding school can have a change of Head and staff and standards can slip down, likewise a school in special measures can have a new Head and staff and turn itself around.
The Gov needs to invest in school buildings, extensions etc. so that all the children in the catchment can go there.
LAs decide admissions policy, no-one is ever asked how long they have lived somewhere so renting short term would not be a bar. However, even if a school says siblings can get in, they cannot guarantee it. Siblings are not at the top of the list of criteria used.
Parents who invest time and effort into their children have just as much influence on their academic abilities as good schools do.

Yes - take care over the sibling situation - where we live the order is

Ex LAC
Catchment
SEN
Siblings
Distance

With lower priority being used as a tie break for those who tie. (So catchment siblings come above catchment, catchment-next-door come above catchment-a-mile-away. This was changed quite recently in order to combat this type of thing and keep schools as communities.

Also - as a mum of a pre-school child it is important to remember how easy it is to manipulate friendships at this age. The child who lives 20 minutes by bus away is not one I will be encouraging dd to be friendly with - not when there is a lovely lad who she also likes who lives in the next road.

Rustybear, that is the 'criteria' they use I.e they do not use distance to school but in theory there is still 'parental choice', parents of children that live 500 metres away could still apply for that school but if there are no places their children won't get that school. Nobody can stop parents from doing this as the system of 'open enrolment' prevails.

I bought house for catchment reasons only, with that I know people will try to do what they can for their children to get to the school they want. TBH we are all unreasonable just because I could afford the £ 50,000 plus increase because of the catchment on house price makes me no better than someone who rents for catchment. As long as there is no fraud ( two houses etc) I see no problem. We thought we would move when children where out of school but we love the area now and will probably stay.

Yes, that's fine in theory- of course people can apply for any school, but in practice catchment areas do have a significant bearing on who actually gets in to a school - much more so than actual distance. So in fact the system is not really 'open enrolment', it's 'open application'.

"hooby people do not move to rent into the catchments of poorly-performing schools the year that their application to primary school is due IME."

HanSolo, that's not always true (think those renting on very low incomes who can't afford to be choosy, those in social housing who are limited by what's available to swap), and it wasn't the question I was putting to weasle anyway. :) I was asking her if she would still adhere to her view that DC should attend their nearest school if her own nearest was the polar opposite of a good one and if her own children were obliged to go there even if it was on SM.

It's easy to say that DC should attend their local schools if you're (understandably) annoyed by the fact that there's a good one on your doorstep which is too over-subscribed to accept your child. It's easy to say it when you've an alternative/additional set of middle-class friends for your child to socialise with outside of school hours and you can afford a full range of out of school activities. Call me a cynic if you like but I'm just not convinced that it would be quite so much of a straightforward decision if you were stuck with a local school on special measures and no means to offer your child much outside of that environment.

I was reading one London School admissions policy. Their catchment area was so tight that they would prioritise a child living on the ground floor flat over a child living in the same block but an upper level.
How close is that ?

Think about siblings. Family at school did this and first 2 DC got into outstanding school. They then bought out of catchment and DC3 was not offered a place. They then ended up renting again in catchment to get to top of waiting list and eventually got in.

It might be OK now but you can't guarantee that in future years. It could be a dangerous game.

YAB outrageously U.

This kind of behaviour drives up standards in some schools and down in others.

IMO, people should not even have a choice about where their children go to school. Then everyone would work to make their local school better and standards in schools would improve.

I also think private schools should be abolished.

I think if you are not set up for that school when you apply, then you have no choice than to 'settle' for what you are given.

Our tiny village school has been stretched because it used to want to accept from neighbouring villages.

Now, instead of the locals walking to school, the children from much further afield are being driven!. I don't think that is right.

In op's situation , it is very much up in the air, so I'd consider her plan not unreasonable.

I lived in the US for ages. It is possible to stay in a school if you change districts. Not many wanted to, it was very rural and would have meant the parents driving them in...the school but couldn't have gone that far!

Oh, and my youngest son went to a school on a sink estate when he was tiny.

He couldn't have wished for a better education.

If more people used the schools in the most obvious catchment most schools would even out.

So , I see I agree with jelly x -posted! :)

But what if the Op moved to the new area, loved the school so much she decided to stay local? Lots of people move purely for school catchment.
YANBU.

Glad I am not alone in my thinking Feminine!

Yes, truely I see that might happen.

That is okay I suppose.

I'm thinking more long term, what happens if we don't start using the schools on our doorstep (or kind of )

If we hadn't have moved, I'd have left my son on the sink estate school. I think he would have done quite nicely!

You see Feminine I'm the opposite. My DSs went to the local catchment primary school, whilst all their friends went to another one about 3 miles away. It was the totally wrong thing to do; the school went into Special Measures, few of the other children were local and they did not thrive.
We moved areas when they were in Year 5 to get them into a good Secondary.

What about when there aren't enough places for everyone to go their closest school?

I've known quite a few families that haven't been able to get a place at three or four of their nearest schools, and have ended up being given places at a school miles away that does have space because no one else wants to go there.

There really isn't much point talking about how the system would be better if everyone went to their closest school when there just aren't enough places at some schools for that to happen.

And there are not enough places because some parents lie. Vicious circle. truelyI suppose you would haven't have had that experience if more honesty prevailed. Glad to hear it worked out in the end. :-)