Do people REALLY move house to get into a good school?

[Ijustwanttoretire]

Apparently 'The average house value in England is £247,000 but parents face taking on loans of up to £180,000 more to live near a top-rated school.' Really? Does your average family move house to get into a better senior school? £180000 would buy a decent house where I live, let alone paying that much extra to get into a good catchment area. So how many MNers have ACTUALLY done this?

A really active PTA can make a difference to a failing/middling school (especially in the current climate of school budget cuts).

Round here, the grammars expect parents to ‘voluntarily contribute’ a couple of hundred a term per pupil (20 a week ish). Most of the parents do, because grammar pupils tend to be from better-off backgrounds (poorer families can’t afford the pre-entrance exam tutoring).

ALL schools would benefit from a bigger per pupil budget and a committed PTA can plug a lot of gaps and offer enrichment beyond the basics.

it's super common in London, though more often renting rather than buying to be close.

I did.

We were initially renting in the UK. As DS1 got to Y4 in a perfectly reasonable primary, I started researching secondary schools.

One was clearly better than the other four, so we moved into the catchment, moved DS1 into the very end of Y5 at the local, feeder primary, then after six months renting, we bought also in catchment.

In the wildly sloping playing field that is the English education system, I did what I could to give my DC the best chance.

It probably cost me £10-15k extra to achieve this, but the a) best performing, b) well-behaved and c) non radically 'streamed' comp in the county, it was money well spent.

But, for the record, I believe that there should be rules in place that you must stay within catchment otherwise your DC has to forfeit their place at the end of whichever key stage they're in.

No 'renting a one bedroom flat in catchment for sixth months' should be allowed.

Yes, we did this very thing. Relocated for work and to be nearer to my parents and rented until we sussed out the catchment and best schools, then over bid on a house very close get a place. No regrets. Will sell for profit and move somewhere cheaper once they are in secondary as it's a feeder school.

@milijah in my catchment area you have to reapply for your school place if you move outwith it. If there are kids on the waiting list then you lose your place.

The criteria for places also includes no of years in a feeder primary.

It's aimed at stopping parents renting in catchment for a year then moving once they have a place. Very sensible imho and more local authorities should do that.

Regarding the HT changing and the school suddenly becoming poor; I think this is a much greater risk if the school is in a poorer or rougher area, where maybe the charisma, drive and leadership of one individual improves a school dramatically, like if the area has many welfare dependent, unengaged, uneducated parents who that individual manages to 'get on board'- their departure would very likely cause that school to start failing again; whereas in more MC, 'leafy' areas, the parents will be onboard with any reasonably competent HT, and the SLT they would have built up around them.

I saw this with my DC's primary. We got what we were given, as we arrived in the UK 6 weeks before DS1 was due to start YR. The primary (not our catchment) was in a large council estate; but we got a new HT who was inspirational. Standards rose, year on year; even the most school-averse mums in the playground spoke highly of him; he ran a tight ship.

We moved to get DS1 (&2) into a more desirable comp ( privately, the HT agreed with our reasoning!) and into the end of Y5 of a feeder primary in a far more MC area. The leadership of this school was entirely 'beige', it was all rather pedestrian but it did what it said on the tin: take MC, motivated DC from aspirational families, get very good SAT scores, and send them all (58/60) to the highly sought after comp.

The HT of the first primary left a term after we did. It plummeted in the league tables and, 10 years later, has still not recovered.

graffiti I agree, I think that is entirely fair, and that all schools and local authorities should do that.

Yes, I did 'the catchment move' but I'm still here 10 years later, youngest now 18.

We have one DS and have made sacrifices to send him to a private school, but if this hadn't been an option I would certainly have considered moving to be closer to a good state school. Education is so important.

onefootinthegrave

I’m not saying “I’m alright, Jack” at all. But each individual has to do what’s best for their child, within their power and within reason.

It was never about whether its local or the postcode really. Not in and of itself. As I said, I moved barely ten minutes walk away, to get from a failing school to an outstanding school.

I did my research, for the sake of my NT children, and my child with SEN. The failing school was failing. What part of the word ‘failing’ is desirable to a parent? The SENCO at the failing school was not putting through referrals for children who desperately needed EHCPs. Children who already had EHCPs were not having them actually acted upon. The ofsted report, whilst not being the be all and end all, was particularly damning for SEN. I spoke to parents, and I spoke to parents at the outstanding school. I met with the SENCO, I visited both schools many times. I walked past both of them regularly, the failing school was always chaos, no supervision in the playground etc etc.

The school they go to is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But they (the management and teachers) are highly skilled, they are on top of educational issues that arise, they send their teachers on lots of SEN courses, they have endless meetings with me about what’s best for my son and they take advice constantly from the LA/NHS and from me. The SENDCO is extremely knowledgeable and passionate about her role. Things from my son’s EHCP are not only put in place, but the very dynamic and knowledgeable teachers also make new suggestions about how best to support him. Kids with SEN at the failing school don’t even get small group work or speech therapy.

If you think I’m an idiot for not sending my child to a shit school then I can take that. I have every sympathy for people who don’t have the luxury of moving. I really do, and as I said above I am really appalled and disgusted that people even are in this situation. No schools should be inadequate. It should be unheard of, ridiculous, unacceptable on any level. BUT. I cannot fix the education system and I can’t turn around a school by myself. I don’t have the authority, the time, or the inclination. It’s quite literally not my fault that some schools are better than others, I wish I could change that but I can’t.

I totally accept that by moving and not joining the school, that I am part of the problem. I addressed that also upthread. Everyone who moves somewhere better for any reason, becomes part of the decline/gentrification situation. It’s a miserable ebb and flow for the people left behind. Again, though, I’m not going to experiment on my children and see if they can scrape out of a school with terrible management, zero SEN support, constantly changing staff and chaotic environment. I’m just not going to do that and I would argue my point forever and a day. I won’t sacrifice my kids so that I’m not looking like a snob.

I work with families of children with SEN and the horror stories of the way their children are treated by their schools let’s me know that I made the right decision.

If it’s so awful to move for school, perhaps everyone should look up the crime stats of their area, find the worst bit and move there. Go and become part of the solution, yeah?

I agree to an extent @miljah that some schools are more prone to becoming "failing" than others.

However in some middle class areas I do think there are schools that coast - for example schools got outstanding ofsted say 10 years ago and do OK by their children but things slip over time, behaviour gets less good, teaching is maybe variable in quality between individuals/departments, problems creep in slowly and never really get noticed/addressed.

Results never really crash because the school is OK and most children start from a high level and have supportive homes and parents who, if push comes to shove, will pay for a tutor or can help their kids to an extent themselves. Progress 8 figures are probably around average because some teaching is good and some parents are propping up the school.

The school trades a lot on it's reputation in the area for being middle class and getting the best results and being the only outstanding school- so house prices are high and people maybe do move to get into catchment. But the school probably isn't worth what they are paying.

In some cases when ofsted comes the school might be labeled requires improvement or maybe scrape a good rating. In some cases, ofsted will uncover an issue such as off rolling SEN children and the school actually does get labelled inadequate.

Obviously these schools don't change over night and most are fine for the majority of children who go to them. But I do think that when these schools start getting reinspected, some parents will be in for a shock.

kesstrel
It makes a difference on the extras. For example my school has a great PTA and engaged and supportive parents on the whole. That means that we can have a minibus, which means we can bus some ks4 students to alternative provision Vs keeping them in a classroom subject they're failing, we can take sports teams to fixtures, run Duke of Edinburgh and music events, get equipment and set to local theatres and venues etc.

At a school where 2/3 of you parents spend their time arguing that their child doesn't have to do a detention because you disrespected their child by telling them to stop talking during class and you spend half your time having to nurture aspirations in students who've been told "I didn't get no GCSEs and did fine" then there is usually a non existent PTA and people don't have that backing.

It's not always about wealth though. It's about attitudes.

Some affluent parents are very entitled and expect staff to give 1-1 free GCSE tuition because their child needs a 7 even if their child is a lazy PITA, if they don't understand it's because the teacher wasn't good and has nothing to do with their child's terrible attitude. Some poorer parents understand the importance of education and you call home about an issue and the parents are brilliant, back school, happy to collect to check they do the detention and go home to do more work.

Coming back to this thread, DH & I those who were moving anyway (further out into SE London) and schools were part of that, rather than moving specifically for a certain school.

We needed more space and as luck would have it, a friend of a friend was renting out their 2 bedroom terrace house which happened to be a short walk from a popular local primary school. So this made the move a no-brainer for us

When we finally come to buy (although will need some sort of financial miracle first!) schools will now be top of the list.

We will sadly have to move away from DC1's fantastic primary school but we cannot afford to buy anything (apart from a 1 bed flat) in the area we currently live in

So for now, renting has meant that we've got DC1 into a school that we otherwise wouldn't have as the housing market locally freezes us out so to speak. We could never have afforded to buy anywhere near this school

In some ways, we're happy renting (slightly under market rate to an acquaintance) for now as we live in a bigger home than we could afford and DC1 at a lovely school

Lola

I agree it can certainly make a difference on the extras.

But the original claim was that middle-class parents should stay put in order to 'uplift' failing schools - presumably to the degree that it makes a significant difference to the life chances of the disadvantaged children there, because to be honest I can't see many thinking it would be worth risking their own child's education just to provide "extras".

What really makes a significant difference to failing schools is how they approach behaviour policies, teaching methods and the curriculum. And those are the things that parents have greatly differing opinions about.

Also, given that a lot of better-off parents are very against the strict behaviour policies and non-trendy teaching methods that have given eg the Michaela School its recent phenomenally successful results, I am quite sceptical that middle-class influence would really make an impact on failing and inadequate schools in deprived areas.

I missed that original claim about middle classes staying put.

I think you're right in that a school with a strong curriculum, strong behaviour policy, good pastoral support and consistency is probably more important than parents, but parents form part of it as when you get bodies of parents who repeatedly undermine schools (happens with entitled affluent people as well as school hating disengaged people) it significantly influencea the culture. Schools do well when parents back the school and are reasonable in the complaints. Parents who can't support schools tend to be the first to complain when they think the school isn't good enough

I think the idea of using your child (and their education) to "uplift" a failing school is pretty distasteful actually. I went to a very mixed comprehension with quite a few disengaged girls who were not keen on learning anything (or letting anyone else learn anything). Were they inspired by my studious example? Hell no. Did my education suffer as a result of their behaviour and ability to piss off any teacher in a 100m radius. Hell yes.

My kids go to a comp with a wide intake. Chosen exactly because it's very hot on discipline and there's no "uplift" to do. Most of our neighbours are happy with our coasting catchment school.

I live near Richmond and it's about 400,000 for an ok house. Schools are ok but I think people are quite stuck up with this sort of thing... please remember sometimes it's not the school it's your child.
Look on the daily mail that girl who went to a 13,000 a term private school ended having the schools Moto tattooed across her chest covered all over her body,
Most people who go to good schools end up depressed anxious or on drugs!
Chill out with the schools, I went to a catholic school,got drunk whilst doing my GCSE's had a bloody good laugh with my mates growing up and I ended up earning more money then my husband who earns 50k a year, it's not always about the school!

Yeah, I don't think I managed to uplift my shitty comprehensive. I kept my head down and hung on till college. It's amazing how easy it is to learn when you're not scanning the classroom for missiles.

I moved very close to a secondary school not because it was good as I know schools can get better/worse but so my DD would have a short and safe route to walk with no busy roads to cross.

Actually a good school is no guarantee of successful children. 2of mine went to a good state school and the eldest to private school. My eldest hated his school and had OK gcse results and switched to the state college for a levels. He failed his degree at year 2 and is currently unemployed. DD was brilliant at English but the teacher she had at gcse only put her in for the lower level exams (they didn't like each other) and this put her off school to an extent that she only has 4 gcses. She's currently a SAHM. My middle one has a degree in a rather niche area but is currently a supervisor in an insurance company.

I know of other children who went to less good schools and have been far more successful

@SansaSnark, to be fair, I don't take much notice of Ofsted reports, especially considering the degree to which they can be gamed, and considering some really quite questionable grading. I am thinking of one comp on the edge of our nearest big city that was awarded a 'Good' but not using any criteria I, or any other parent avoiding it- would use!

I know why they changed the goal posts, but really, if your VA score isn't great because DC arrive there already considerably above average, and leave with a string of 8s, you've taken smart, engaged DC and kept them at that level.

You might want me to 'gasp' at 'coasting', and I wouldn't be shocked if what was 'Outstanding' at least 7 years ago gets 'Good' now, but that's because I can spot the political chicanery going on.

@lilyj13 "Most people who go to good schools end up depressed anxious or on drugs!"

Evidence of that rather sweeping statement, please?

Actually a good school is no guarantee of successful children.

No one said it is. Everything in life is about probability. By sending your kids to a better school, you're increasing your kids' chance of better outcome. But even in the best grammar schools, there are still pupils who "fail". The better the school, the fewer the number who fail.

@goose1964 Absolutely.

Going to a good school is no guarantor of success in life. But I'd say going to a poor school significantly increases the risks of a less fulfilling life.

X posts with Kazzy!

Most people who go to good schools end up depressed anxious or on drugs!

Most?!

I went to a crap school. There are definitely loads of ex pupils on drugs! And in prison.