Candidates flying from overseas to sit super-selective grammar 11+

[PopcornPoppingInAPan]

A friend told me for one of the super super selectives in London that some candidates who live overseas had flown in to sit the 11+ exam. If successful the whole family was relocating here. (This is foreign nationals, rather than “ex-pat” British families living overseas.) The school has no priority area.

I wondered if anyone had heard this and whether it was credible or if it’s one of those internet rumours?

I was also wondering if it’s even possible to do this. Obviously families do relocate to the UK and assuming they and the kids have a right to reside then the kids will be entitled to a school place. But can you do it before you’ve moved here?

I guess if you can put down a relative’s address as your address for the purpose of sitting the exam and then submitting the CAF maybe that’s all you need. I wasn’t sure if LAs did any more checks on candidates who aren’t already on their books at state primary, IYSWIM.

I have heard of a family moving from Yorkshire when their DC got a place at the same super selective school so perhaps this is just an extension of that.

Have you heard about how many grammar schools were converted to private schools 30 years ago? Ignorance truly is bliss

Hello @CurlewKate ? 🙂 Do the shopkeepers count for social mobility or are they privileged in your universe? 😁

Have you heard about how many grammar schools were converted to private schools 30 years ago? Ignorance truly is bliss

@Dtnews - do you mean the one the Prime Minister went to?

I get it. Welfare cuts, private school VAT about to fail, of course it’s time to attack the grammar schools and the kids in them. Nothing much else left to do really.

@Ubertomusic

FSM Data and Cultural Stigma
It’s true that FSM eligibility statistics may underrepresent the actual number of disadvantaged students, as some families choose not to apply due to stigma. However, this limitation applies equally across all school types, meaning it does not explain why FSM eligibility is consistently lower in grammar schools than in non-selective schools in the neighbouring areas.The fact remains that grammar schools enroll a disproportionately small percentage of FSM-eligible students compared to comprehensive schools, which indicates a systematic selection bias—not just issues with data collection.

Comparing IQ Tests and the 11+
You’re absolutely right that IQ tests and 11+ exams are not directly comparable. However, this actually strengthens the argument against grammar school selection.
IQ tests, despite their flaws, are standardized, rigorously tested for reliability and validity, and have undergone multiple revisions to reduce cultural and social bias.

Grammar school tests, in contrast, lack transparency. There is no universal test, methodologies are opaque, and there is no strong scientific validation of how well they measure "innate ability" rather than test preparation, coaching, and socio-economic background.

The lack of clear data on test construction and validity means we cannot assume they are a fair way to identify "natural ability."

If they are not reliably selecting for innate intelligence, then what justification exists for using them to divide children at age 11?

IQ Heritability and Twin Studies

Research into IQ heritability is not inconclusive; rather, it is extensive and complex, with many studies showing that IQ is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Twin and adoption studies have provided some of the most robust evidence for estimating the genetic component of intelligence. However, even these studies acknowledge that environment plays a significant role, especially in childhood. This underscores the point that intelligence is not fixed and that early educational advantages (such as tutoring and test preparation) can significantly impact outcomes.

What Do Grammar Schools Actually Select For?

The reality is that grammar school admissions favor those who are already advantaged, making the process a filter for economic advantage rather than cognitive potential.

Even if we accept that some children from lower-income backgrounds do gain access to grammar schools, the system as a whole still functions in a way that reinforces educational inequality.

Should taxpayer-funded education be structured in a way that exacerbates inequality, or should we be focusing on making high-quality education accessible to all children, regardless of background?

Describe a phenomenon with concrete evidence that you interpret as a problem. Oh, I need to report you for this.

@bluegoosie

FSM Data and Cultural Stigma
It’s true that FSM eligibility statistics may underrepresent the actual number of disadvantaged students, as some families choose not to apply due to stigma. However, this limitation applies equally across all school types, meaning it does not explain why FSM eligibility is consistently lower in grammar schools than in non-selective schools in the neighbouring areas.The fact remains that grammar schools enroll a disproportionately small percentage of FSM-eligible students compared to comprehensive schools, which indicates a systematic selection bias—not just issues with data collection.

Neighbouring areas often have entirely different demographics hence comprehensive schools intake is more diverse ethnically and culturally. HBS for example is predominantly S Asian whilst the neighbourhood is predominantly Jewish (both affluent and poor) and other white and mixed race British. The proportion of S Asian children in comp schools around the school is much much lower hence the data is skewed.

There are much more nuances to the stats.

Yes, one of them, who himself admits that grammar schools are not a good idea and advocates for comprehensive education.

HBS for example is predominantly S Asian whilst the neighbourhood is predominantly Jewish (both affluent and poor) and other white and mixed race British. The proportion of S Asian children in comp schools around the school is much much lower hence the data is skewed.

Why is that though? What is the problem here? Is it not a systematic selection bias?

@bluegoosie

Comparing IQ Tests and the 11+
You’re absolutely right that IQ tests and 11+ exams are not directly comparable. However, this actually strengthens the argument against grammar school selection.
IQ tests, despite their flaws, are standardized, rigorously tested for reliability and validity, and have undergone multiple revisions to reduce cultural and social bias.
Grammar school tests, in contrast, lack transparency. There is no universal test, methodologies are opaque, and there is no strong scientific validation of how well they measure "innate ability" rather than test preparation, coaching, and socio-economic background.
The lack of clear data on test construction and validity means we cannot assume they are a fair way to identify "natural ability."
If they are not reliably selecting for innate intelligence, then what justification exists for using them to divide children at age 11?

This I can totally agree with, but as I said before the justification of the whole system is the selection of what used to be "colonial administration", now with the absence of the empire being used for domestic purposes. They're reasonably bright but what is much more important they (and their parents) are willing and able to fight for their way up.
It's a very typical "survival of the fittest" selection.

The comprehensive education system in this country is catchment based. It is not open to all or fair, by any means. Many people with some money either buy or rent in the catchment of the best schools or decide to move an affluent area with a generally privileged demographic. Educational attainment as argued above is linked to socio economic privilege.

Comparing superselective grammar schools to the directly neighbouring comprehensives does not work either. The whole point of the superselective grammar schools is that there is no catchment, they tend to be on train lines, kids travel in from all sorts of areas. There is no way of directly comparing their exact local secondary and the FSM rate there either. You would have to collect the data for each child depending on their home address. Most grammar school parents with academically able kids are not there to avoid FSM rates in local schools. They are there for a peer group for their child and teaching at their pace and subject choices for that type of kid e.g Latin, Further Maths, Robotics club

It's a very typical "survival of the fittest" selection

In short, the rat race, this is very different from the ideology the country aims to pivot its public resources towards, which has led to significant criticism.

@Ubertomusic

As most grammar schools (excluding QE boys) have a specific catchment area, the fact that their pupil demographics do not reflect the overall population in that catchment area is itself a real cause for concern.

This means that the selection process is producing adverse results i.e. it is not longer selecting "natural ability" and instead selecting for a specific ethno-socio-economic segement of the population.

This has deterimental social effects for the pupils selected, because they have to be educated and socially mature in an environment that is not reflective of their local community. They are essentially artifically segregated from the local (and much more diverse) community in which they live in.

I report you on this too

Don't be ridiculous, the country aims to pivot its public resources towards war which will syphon all resources not just from state schools and disabled people but pretty much everything else too, don't you worry.

As usual, going off-topic randomly when running out of arguments

Ofsted has published raving reviews about all the London superselective grammar schools. So now suddenly it is a problem for the kids in them? Have heard it all now!
Some of the best results in the country, excellent Ofsteds, none of what you two are saying @Dtnews or @bluegoosie makes any sense. Go look at the parent questionnaire maybe? They are happy with these schools. The kids are thriving mainly. They are getting into top universities as well.

One thing I can absolutely guarantee is that this flavour of Labour will not be getting rid of grammar schools. Nor academies, nor free schools. They are not even getting rid of KS2 SATS, so the 11 plus stays anyway.

The point of this thread was that supposedly some kid flew in for a grammar test. If that is true, then I do not care. Some academically really able kid and their likely tax contributing parents who will get a work visa flew in to contribute to our flailing economy. That kid will likely end up at a top university and contribute to the economy. It is exactly what we want and what we are encouraging anyway. The whole university sector is propped up by rich students flying in to keep us all afloat. So what. Many stay and take jobs and contribute. We need these young hardworking and talented people. They add to the economy, not the opposite.

The discussions around types of schooling private state grammar comprehensive etc - they are no longer urgent. We have a huge group of children being let down by their parents by toxic levels of exposure to the internet and all the safeguarding issues there. Go focus on that instead. That is what is coming out of Harvard, Eton and all the elite educational institutions.

Of course they will @Ubertomusic including with their personal adhominems directed at us.

66% grammar schools were downgraded by Ofsted lately when it evaluated elements beyond exam results. Including some superselective grammar in London

Go look at the parent questionnaire maybe? They are happy with these schools.

Self-selection fallacy and confirmation bias once again prove my point: you truly want to believe that sending your kids to a special school caters to their unique needs, which I understand.

I think in the grammar school debate it is very important keep sight of the most important principles

The grammar school system exists on the assumption that

1. Their tests only select for the most able students in terms of "natural ability" in academics
2. Grouping these students together in one school improves their educational outcomes
3. Grammars schools have a positive impact on social mobility and education across society

Grammar school tests:

There is no external oversight of grammar school tests. There is no rigorous scientific process by which tests are examined and compared. There are no scientific publications demonstarting these tests actually fulfil the their intended purposes.

So why are grammar school tests a valid method of selection for 11-year olds?
And why should we be funding this opaque, possibly scientifically unsound selection process with the state education budget?

Grammer school progress scores:

If grammar schools truly added more value than non-selective schools, we would expect them to significantly outperform comprehensives when prior attainment is controlled for.

Education Policy Institute (EPI) Report (2018):
Found that once prior attainment was accounted for, grammar schools provided only a very small progress advantage over non-selective schools.

In fact, pupils with similar academic ability in high-performing comprehensives made nearly identical progress as their grammar school counterparts.

The report concluded that “grammar schools do not provide a better boost to progress compared to similar pupils in comprehensive schools.”

Grammar schools and social mobility:

Multiple large-scale studies have found no significant evidence that grammar schools have a meaningful positive impact on social mobility.

Sutton Trust (2017):
Found that grammar school students were less likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds ( this is independent of FSM)

Disadvantaged pupils who did attend grammar schools still had similar GCSE outcomes to comparable students in good comprehensive schools.

The report concluded that grammar schools do not offer a unique social mobility advantage.

Education Policy Institute (2016):

Found that disadvantaged pupils in grammar schools were still less likely to enter elite universities than their wealthier peers, even when they had similar grades.

This suggests that socioeconomic background continues to play a role in educational outcomes, even for those who pass the 11+.

Given this body of evidence, I think it is correct that we question whether the state should continue to fund grammar schools.