Commute from Hounslow to sutton grammar schools- need advise

[SunlampVexesEel]

I really want to pry into some of the lives of the house movers, but am far too polite.

Firstly, if you are not a home owner then moving rented properties is much easier. Moving to near a school for a year and then moving away again after 12m is commonplace; I can think of lots of examples.
Secondly, moving to a rented property near a school but keeping your old house seems much rarer... the costs are high, mitigated by renting out your own house in the interim. The LEAs seem to be trying to deter this behavior but realistically they would only act if tipped off as otherwise the paperwork would look bona-fida anyway. I know of at least one, historical, example.
In the past there was often a sibling rule so getting a first child in would guarantee places for subsequent off-spring; in some schools this has been abolished much to the dismay of those who obtained a place and then moved out of immediate catchment. If such a move only works for a single child the numbers might not make this add up; if it worked for a full-nest of children then it could easily make financial sense.
Buy-to-let around good schools with a catchment probably is a good investment idea! In the first year you could use it yourself!
Regards
SVE

[tiffinboys]

one_shot wrote

That is indeed very interesting. How does this reconcile to your post's data (which I presume is official data the school had released?) where you had stated that "The average intake from the extended catchment (Southhall, Ealing, Tooting etc) is between 0.4 to 2.8 per annum" to support your argument of excluding these areas as these were not representative of the TGS criteria?

posting.php?mode=quote&f=30&p=361759

If you read that thread completely, you will have the explanation. Those are figures post code wide e.g UB1 or W7 or W13 or CR4 or SW17 or post codes mentioned in that particular area under discussion at the time. If you read out of context, it will be difficult for you to understand.

[tiffinboys]

Ok... If I randomly select one of the five 2013 TGS class lists... Here are the places the 30 girls live (correct as at end of summer term; some may have moved):
London SE21
Hatfield
Kingston
Croydon
Hounslow
Harrow
Hounslow
Hounslow
Kingston
Carshalton
Kingston
Harrow
Pinner
Hounslow
Teddington
London W5
Hayes
Morden
London SE21
Hayes
Isleworth
Twickenham
Hayes
Twickenham
Maidstone
London W5
Morden
Watford
Twickenham
Teddington

It appears that significant numbers of parents are prepared to consider long journeys.

Looks like almost 50% in this class are out of catchment girls.
This list also put to rest the 'theory' of natural catchment.

[One_Shot]

If you read that thread completely, you will have the explanation. Those are figures post code wide e.g UB1 or W7 or W13 or CR4 or SW17 or post codes mentioned in that particular area under discussion at the time.

If the creation of the DA has meant that 30-50% of the candidates that were coming out of the area have been barred from appearing (It would be good if the school publishes official figures) and ""The average intake from the extended catchment (Southhall, Ealing, Tooting etc) is between 0.4 to 2.8 per annum"", what is the rationale from trying to remove these areas by a different catchment proposal that you are still pursuing? hasn't the problem you describe been effectively dealt with?

BTW, I believe your DS in in year 7 at TS? ( I might be mistaken though). Is his experience that a large part of his classmates are travelling over 1 hour and extra curriculars at TS are hampered because these kids run off and don't fully participate in the school?

[tiffinboys]

Again you are picking on one sentence out of context. The TGS logic of including certain areas was that a large number comes from that area. I argued that even the post codes from where large number does not come and travelling is at least over an hour, are included in the so called catchment.

The current DAA has even larger catchment than was originally proposed by TGS.

[One_Shot]

I am looking at it quite simplistically.

The objective seems to have been largely achieved. Some anomalies exist which means that the school has probably got it wrong for some locations giving 2-3% of the candidates a look in when they probably did not merit so.

Can't see why this would mean that an overhaul is needed going to a different method altogether but guess you are entitled to your 1000's of posts (and 1 vote) on the subject.

[tiffinboys]

I am looking at it quite simplistically.

Of course you are entitled to (and as well) take 'very simplistic' view. No one should have problem with it.