Renting in secondary school catchment area

[maxine3]

We have decided to move in april when our child is in year 5, to be in intake area of scondary school. we will rent our house out and rent another. We have another child following on 3 years later. Am I right in thinking that as long as we move in april and sort of council tax bills etc , apply in october and wait until first child is settled in his school that we can then move back to our old house out of intake area, and that our other child will get into the school as sibling. I am having sleepless nights as have bad personal history of education, failed 11 plus etc. Please help

Where we live, this is the reason why some many kids that live in catchment don't get the local school, probably we will be one of them. Because a lot of people sell the houses and move to cheaper eareas once the eldest is in school. They should change that sibiling out of catchment are after catchment kids with no sibling. Unfortunately our LA doesn't have this rule.

The school I work in are changing the sibling rule out of attachment area this year.Looks like you may be in renteda bit langer than you thought .

Schools around here already have a policy of catchment children before non-catchment siblings.

I knew the risk when DS got a place at his out of catchment secondary. Luckily DD also got one - but I knew the risk and was prepared to accept it.

where we live all catchment children come before non-catchment siblings.

But because so many are renting in catchment, there aren't many spaces left for non-catchment siblings. You need to find out the allocation from last year to be sure. Or you'll need to rent long term.

Basically where I live it's like Unofficialpeacekeeper says. I thought it'd be a common rule?

I am lobbying for no automatic places for siblings at secondary school for this very reason .

The schools here, primary and secondary have the rules of:

1. Looked after children
2. Catchment and sibling
3. Catchment
4. Sibling
5. Everyone else

But what you are proposing to do for the first DC is so unfair to all the children genuinely living in the catchment. You would be depriving one of them off a place by cheating the system.

You really shouldn't do it.

Moving permanently is one thing; moving temporarily just for the admission period is patently unfair even if within the rules (others would use other, stronger words)

What you are considering isn't illegal but it is morally wrong and totally agree with OhDearConfused's viewpoint.

Can totally understand that you want the best school for your DCs but if you are prepared to rent to get the best possible school for your children why not move there permanently? In your heart you must know that it does totally disadvantage local children whose parents can't necessarily afford to do what you are proposing...

And don't forget the Govt and Local Councils have not yet started to address the whole baby boom issue - the children for whom so many extra primary school places have had to be made are approaching secondary school age (they will be Year 4s and below) and that will undoubtedly cause huge issues with allocation of places at all secondary schools, so the writing could be on the wall for the whole sibling rule for secondary schools anyway....

It isn't really appropriate or necessary to have a sibling rule for secondary schools in urban areas anyway....

It really depends on the specific school and how strict they are about admissions. For very "desirable" schools where people are known to rent to get in, they sometimes go to extreme lengths to determine whether families are playing the system. As an example, look at the admissions procedures (or proposals) for dame alice owen school in hertfordshire. I recall hearing that you have to prove you are not renting out your former address and can't apply from anaddress that has been used for an application in a previous year (by another family)....or some other draconian measures.

People round here do that. Its why there's a good chance that DD won't get into the school that she wants to, that 5+ years ago all the kids from this village got into.

Sorry, but I think its a twatty thing to do.

There are a lot of renters in our local primary and secondary catchment too. That's why its catchment over siblings. I'm just surprised this is not universal across the board. There are so many kids in catchment that there are very few places left for non catchment siblings. You don't stand a chance if you aren't in catchment or is a sibling!

I think it's always catchment over siblings TBH, but by adopting this route the OP is bumping her second child up from category 5 (out of catchment, no sibling) to category 4 (out of catchment, sibling).

OP - it's a risky strategy because (a) your second child may not get in as anyone living or renting in catchment will come first; (b) the school may have proceedures in place to check whether your move is long term or not.

Bramshott, like I say it's a very risky strategy for the 2nd child. I just looked up the secondary school in question. Only 10 non catchment siblings get in out of 280 places offered.

And like others have said, the baby boomers are starting to appear in year 4. So a few years down the line, I wouldn't know how many of these category 4 places will be left.

What you are proposing to do is fundamentally dishonest.

Round here catchment + sibling is higher priority than out of catchment + sibling. (Catchment + no sibling is in between those 2 categories) If I were you I would check what it currently is and check every year so that you're not caught our with #2.
I'd also check with your local lea what happens if you move between deadline and offer day. It might be safer to rent the cheap house for 12 months.

I would also check historical data of how many children get in under each category and be prepared to rent again when #2 is applying for secondary.

You're proposing something morally wrong and probably against admission rules. Don't do it