Renting in the catchment area of a good school - would you do it?

[Thomasina76]

Very sensitive topic, I know, but curious to see who has or would do this. The school in question has an admissions policy that doesn't prohibit this (just says the address must be your permanent address and you need a child benefit letter with that address and letter from a professional confirming the same but no rules about having to live there for X number of years in advance). IF we did do this, we would rent for at least 2 years in the area and may move there eventually anyway but just seems massively risky to me that someone will query it. I know quite a few people who have done this or intend to do it though so clearly some people think it's ok!

[rollonthesummer]

Plus, DC2 is quite bright and may have a shot at selective/grammar schools

How old are your children now? I presume that if you are talking about school places for your eldest, you haven't actually filled the forms in? So is your eldest 3? 4? How old is your 'quite bright' younger DC2?!

[SloanePeterson]

As someone who has no choice but to rent, and probably will be for the rest of my life, this leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. You'd be taking away a house from someone who needs one to actually, you know, LIVE IN. I cannot believe the lengths people will go to to try and deceive school admissions.

[Thomasina76]

FloggingMolly, the school in question isn't selective, just goes on distance. Even the selective ones have a waiting list based on the usual admission criteria so you would have to qualify first but that's not relevant here.

Agree TiggyTape, think if you are prepared to wait then you are in which a chance.

RollonSummer, my eldest DC is 9 (year 4), youngest is 6 and, yes, is quite bright. Why?

SloanePeterson, given the price of houses in the catchment area to rent or buy, I will hardly be taking it away from someone in need! Arguably people renting are better off than homeowners as they can move wherever they want to get into schools which is not the case with home-owners. I'm also not apologising for working hard to save up, buy a property and pay the monthly mortgage.

[Foxyloxy1plus1]

If your eldest is just in Year 4 and he youngest 6, many things can happen between now and he time they move o secondary school. Head teachers can change, performance can change, Ofsted perception can change.

Have you considered or looked at the schools that are in your area? You may find that your opinion changes when you see what they have to offer. You love your house and would stay there other than the school situation, so why not wait a bit and see how things pan out. Open evenings are around this time of year, so a look at those might be useful too.

[SloanePeterson]

Don't kid yourself that just because the property is expensive people don't still need them to live in.

[Thomasina76]

Sloane, if it's a normal residential let (not council housing) then I am as entitled as anyone else to rent a property in the area. Renters who can afford those prices (and so who must be relatively wealthy) don't have greater rights than homeowners to rent another property for whatever reason, especially if they would be renting out their original property (which is also in a lovely area and in the catchment for a v sought after primary school) thereby making another property available. What a bizarre argument. If they use the rented property to apply for a school place then that is a different matter and the subject of this thread.

[Thomasina76]

Foxyloxy, yes, there is definitely time for things to change and I am hoping that the local school will improve in the next few years. It would have to improve a huge amount though for me to get comfortable. I was thinking of this now though as it we did decide to move I would start preparing in the next year or so, especially if we had decided to rent, as I would want to be in the area for a good few years. Have ruled this out now that I have seen it is not permitted under the LA rules. As I said, I know of people who have done it and who plan to do it so thought the rules were more ambiguous - they are not. Just a shame that all state schools are not all of the same good standard and we have this huge disparity with parents prepared to do anything to get their kids into the best schools. We are alll (well, most of us) taxpayers (in my case I pay nearly 50k a year in tax) and I would like to send my kids to a decent state school but seems it is not possible.

[namechangedtoday15]

This is probably too late if you've already made the decision but we moved specifically to get places at an outstanding school (but we did intend to move there permanently, and bought a house after 2 years later). The point is that we had to have at least a 12 month tenancy and when we got places, we were renting right in the middle of the catchment area, I think we were flagged as tenants. We had to jump through quite a lot of hoops to prove that our new address was permanent - tenancy agreement, completion statement from when we sold our previous house, electricity account for 2 quarters I think (to show that we were actually living at the house and using electricity), council tax statements for both houses (presumably to check council tax at old house was no longer in our names) and medical cards (or official documentation) showing the children's names and address at the rented house (presumably again to show that all important documentation had been switched to new address). I think other LAs are taking a similarly hard line for people who work the system. If you are genuinely renting with the intention of staying local, then there is nothing wrong with that. If you're renting to get an advantage that you wouldn't ordinarily get then thats when you're at risk.

[namechangedtoday15]

Yes, tiggy I know our situation was different because we'd sold, I was just making the point (to confirm what others had said) that as tenants, you have to jump through quite alot of hoops to prove "permanence" even if you only have one house! It must be much more involved if you have 2 and I imagine it would be very easy to come unstuck.

[Thomasina76]

Ok, thanks, that's helpful. I think if we did move we would sell this place then rent in the area in which case it should't be a problem to produce the necessary documents. As you say, if the move is for genuine reasons it's easy to provide evidence. Was just talking to a friend about this school and she said a lot of people who can't get into selective or private school moves (or used to move) to get into catchment area of this school so that you end up with lots of the less bright kids in the bottom sets of the school which she thinks is not a good place to be. In her view it would be better to be in the top set of the not so good secondary then the bottom set of an outstanding one. Food for thought at least.

[swingofthings]

How bad is the local school then? DD was top of her class in Year 6 but there were a number of kids consider very clever. My DD ended up going to the local comp whose results are just above average. We liked the school though, liked the ethos (encourages independence and responsibility), liked that pupils came from all walk of life, and liked that it offered opportunities. One of her friends who was also very clever went to the very exclusive school (without going into detail, took on a particular religion in Year 4 to gain access in Year 7!).

Both have just got their GCSEs. Her school friend got 11 As which is quite an achievement. DD got 8A and 2As. Do I think DD would have done better if she'd gone to that school? Yes, most likely. Does it matter in the scheme of things? Not at all. DD got into a good 6th form and I feel that she got some very valuable life skills going to the local comp.

All this to say that I know how anxious we can feel wanting our kids to go to the best school thinking that taking this away will compromise their future, but it is true that most clever and dedicated pupils will do well wherever they go and yes, some parents are on a mission to ensure that their kids get all A* rather than A, but sometimes you have to wonder whether moving house and all that goes with it is actually worth it.

[Blu]

"this school got excellent results again this year, 5% off what most private schools get. 2
Given what you have said about the mass temporary renting that has gone on, and the expense of the area, it s possible that this statistic is not very meaningful, and simply reflects the intake, rather than the quality of teaching / education on offer. Schools with a lower overall statistic can in actual fact be better schools and do better by individual students, according to their respective abilit6y.

Have you checked your other local schools for the Value Added score for each ability level? Checked how many higher attainers reach their targets etc? Compared to the favoured school? Certain schools become THE school to attend amongst certain groups of parents, when actually, if they paid attention, other schools offer a very good education.

[Bobochic]

I have been thinking about this thread. In our family, we have consistently chosen where to live based on optimizing our DC's education and logistics. Every other consideration has come a distant second, once we have factored in the competing needs of the three DC. Now that the DSSs have moved on to university we have moved, and moved DD to another school. We have chosen to live 3' walk from her school and only a few minutes further away from her EC activities.

Surely moving to optimize one's DC's education is a pretty standard reason for choosing where to live? A pretty basic human imperative? Bureaucratic rules about who is a legitimate resident of catchment exist but there is nothing morally wrong about optimizing your DC's chances of a good education, within the confines of whatever the law is at the time.

[Blu]

BoboChic: so the confines of the law specify that what the OP proposes, keeping a house they own, and moving to a rented address within catchment in order to get the school place is not allowed.

It's that simple.

[swingofthings]

How do you decide how good a particular school is though? SATs/GCSE results? OFSTED reports? I found all these not reliable at all in my experience. So far DD and DS have gone to 4 different school and the one I would rate the highest was DS primary school which was rated inadequate by OFSTED at the time. It wasn't our local school but we found out when we moved that our local one was oversubscribed so had no choice but the place there.

The school was lovely DS made great friends they got a new HT who was fantastic. DS finished year 6 with a level 6 in both Maths (predicted) and English (not predicted at all when he started there in Year 4). Since then, 3 years later, the school got a 'Good' OFSTED report whilst the local school went down. So glad he went there against all our wishes and concerns!

[Bobochic]

Blu - how on earth can the law disallow people from living in a rented home for the purposes of securing a school place while simultaneously owning a property elsewhere?

My family owns several properties. There is no law that forces me to live in any one of them and I am quite free to live in another, rented, property, should I so choose. I know people who rent while owning property. It's hardly unusual.

[Bobochic]

Indeed, you seem to be suggesting that being an owner-occupier should give priority access to public services. That is a pretty slippery slope.

[prh47bridge]

how on earth can the law disallow people from living in a rented home for the purposes of securing a school place while simultaneously owning a property elsewhere

People can live anywhere they want. There is nothing to stop them living in one property while living in another rented property. However, the law allows admission authorities to make the rules for admission (within certain limitations). They are perfectly entitled to say that they will use the address of the property the family own and ignore any rented address. This is becoming increasingly common as a direct result of the number of parents trying to fiddle the system.

Indeed, you seem to be suggesting that being an owner-occupier should give priority access to public services

No-one is suggesting that. Someone who rents and does not own a property in the area will not have any problems. And the worst that will happen to a family who rent one property while owning another is that they won't get a place at their preferred school. They will still get a place somewhere.

[Bobochic]

If the law allows admissions authorities to discriminate on that basis, the law should be challenged.

[prh47bridge]

On what basis? It is not a breach of anyone's human rights. The (very few) people who genuinely rent whilst owning a home in the same vicinity are not being denied access to education. This is a perfectly legitimate response to deal with parents who rent in an attempt to cheat the system. It is reasonable and proportionate. There is no basis on which any challenge could succeed.

[Bobochic]

Where is the line between being a good parent, and getting the best possible education for your DC, and cheating?

The rules seem fantastically convoluted and designed to favour owner-occupiers who have stable, sedentary lives. Is that really what public services should do?

[intrusivethoughts]

I wouldn't know, no option but to stay where I am. Luckily my daughter got in to the heavily over subscribed school we wanted despite the hoards of new neighbours!