Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello;


The prospect of school selection has now been thrust upon us for our 3 1/2 year old cherub for 2012 admission. Having fully expected to have long flown London by now, jobs have contrived for us to be staying firmly put in south dulwich.


We rent and need to move house soon, since a recent addition of a second child means we need more space. I am therefore thinking it might make good sense to move to a house right bang outside the school of our choice.


I would have thought though there may be some criteria relating to how long a family must have lived somewhere in order to meet catchent area criteria, but I have not found anything about this on school websites. Would anyone have had experience of this before?


The school we are currently thinking of is rosendale, but we are flexible to move next to a number of good schools in the area, or even completley different parts of London or surrounding counties.


Many thanks in advance.


J+M

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/19197-school-catchment-area-criteria/
Share on other sites

as far as I know, you just need to be in your new address upon application to schools in January. If you were in a rental, they apparently can ask for evidence of a contract that would take you into the start of the school year. The Southwark admissions policy brochure is a good place to start - a new version should be out soon but the existing one on the council web site explains residence criteria.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Or increase tax.  The freezing of personal allowances is one way, not what I would choose.  On principle I don't care if the rich immigrate.  The main parties could have been more honest before the election.  Reform is deluded.
    • I edited my post because I couldn't be sure we were talking about politicians and I couldn't be bothered to read it all back. But it was off the back of a thread discussing labour councillors, so it went without saying really and I should have left it.  What I said was 'There's something very aggressive about language like that - it's not big and it's not clever. Some of the angry energy that comes from the far left is pretty self-defeating.' (In relation to a labour councillor rather immaturely, in my view, wearing a jumper that read 'fuck the Tories').  But I don't recall saying that "violent rhetoric" is exclusively the domain of the left wing. So I do think you're taking a bit of a bit of leap here. 
    • You literally just edited your earlier reply to remove the point you made about it being “politicians”.  Then you call me pathetic.    I’m  not trying to say you approve any of the ugly right wing nonsense.  But I AM Saying your earlier post suggesting  violent rhetoric being “left wing” was one-sided and incorrect 
    • I never said that. Saying I don’t like some of the rhetoric coming from the left doesn’t mean I approve of Farage et al saying that Afghans being brought here to protect their lives and thank them for their service means there is an incalculable threat to women.    Anything to score a cheap point. It’s pretty pathetic. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...