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.

So the question remains: Why should the state fund a system that does not achieve its stated goal of selecting based on "natural ability" and does not improve national educational outcomes?

Well it does when you look at Oxbridge statistics. It has massively raised the social mobility of state school kids into Oxbridge from grammar schools if you compare it to private schools.

@Mydogisamassivetwat
You have my hear felt sympathies for what you and your family had to go through. My posts are not personal in anyway. I hope that things go well for your family and your DD enjoys her time at school.

I am a scientist and an academic. I tend to approach questions from this point of view.

@CurlewKate ? No social mobility, eh? 😉
Still not convincing until we see payslips, I guess 🙄

And then the real life starts talking...

To put Grammar School Funding into Perspective:

Having reviewed the extensive research on grammar schools, I am struck by the sheer volume of evidence showing they do not fulfil their stated purposes (see my previous posts). Despite this, they continue to receive nearly £968 million annually in state funding (~180,000 pupils at ~£5,000 per student).

If I were applying for just £1 million in government research funding, I would need to:

• Demonstrate a robust scientific methodology (this will be externally reviewed by a panel of experts)
• Provide clear, evidence-based estimates of benefits and outputs.
• Undergo rigorous annual reviews by both my university and the funding body.
• Show that my work delivers the expected impact

Otherwise my funding is removed.

I work with cells, not children, yet my research is held to a higher standard of accountability than the funding of an entire school system.

Given the overwhelming evidence that grammar schools do not improve educational outcomes or social mobility, why does the government continue to fund them—without any serious re-evaluation of their purpose and cost-effectiveness?

And also if you look at the league tables comparing top state schools vs private schools, well it is only the grammar schools in there. These are state funded schools with very low funding per pupil, they are absolutely raising the social mobility of the children attending them.
Where they are superselective they have no impact on local comprehensives either.
Where they are in grammar areas, it is not really for the State to decide how to restructure the entire education system in one county. As happened many years ago, it is for those Counties to decide. It would be undemocratic and the breach of human rights of those children already there to close their state schools.
If they were to change future admissions to a non selective basis, impact assessments and consultations would be required. Note that Cranbrook Grammar tried to increase Year 7 Admissions and not Year 9 places but were recently shown to have not given enough notice.

To change the selection of the remaining existing grammar schools would require a long process and I doubt Labour will still be in charge by the time it would end. So go ask Bucks and Kent etc.

We really need to get away from these notions that the Nanny State knows better and should dictate to parents what school is best for their own child. It is counterproductive and anti social mobility. People can make their own decisions, including on a county level.

Given the overwhelming evidence that grammar schools do not improve educational outcomes or social mobility, why does the government continue to fund them—without any serious re-evaluation of their purpose and cost-effectiveness?

And then, the 'academic-focused' grammar school parents will dismiss your scientific evidence as fake news from the left, instead pointing to parental satisfaction surveys or neighbors who attended grammar schools and ended up career as a successful academic researcher as supporting anecdotes.

I also have real life experience of grammar schools myself, having been to one.

Friends from primary school who got into the grammar schools in town did do better in school, and in life than the ones who failed and went to the comprehensive schools. So that’s my real world anecdote.

Also, when people tell me of their experiences of school - fights, kids being rude to teachers, it’s completely alien to me. At my grammar, that didn’t happen. The children wanted to be there and were engaged.

£5000 per pupil @bluegoosie - is incredibly cheap for the State? And to produce those kids then going into well paid employment and very high uni participation rates? No significant attendance issues?
This is not a sector where the Government would choose to spend money on to essentially costs themselves and society more in the long run. It does not make economic sense.

Also for anyone in academia, the participation rates from grammar schools into university are really high? Why would you argue against them? It does not make sense. The uni sector is in crisis already. Numbers are dropping significantly. Those kids who still want to go, you need them.

the participation rates from grammar schools into university are really high? Why would you argue against them?

Another random thought from you—what makes you think that these students, who are mostly socially selective and have family support, wouldn’t go to university in a comprehensive school setting? Do you have any academic evidence to support that claim?

@Ubertomusic @Mydogisamassivetwat @Araminta1003

I am not invalidating personal experience. However state educational policy should be determined by an evidence-based approach looking at benefit to society overall.

I have combined my previous posts here to help. I believe they answer your questions.

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.

Are Grammar Schools Improving Education for Society as a Whole?

A major issue with grammar schools is that they do not operate in isolation. Their existence directly impacts non-selective schools in their areas.

Research from Durham University (2018) found that regions with grammar schools did not perform better overall than fully comprehensive regions. Areas with selective education systems tend to have worse overall GCSE outcomes than areas with fully comprehensive systems.

This challenges the claim that grammar schools raise standards across the education system. Instead, they may simply redistribute high-achieving students without adding significant value.

Democracy and Education Policy

The idea that grammar school policy should be left to individual counties ignores the fact that state education is a national policy issue—funded by all taxpayers, not just those in selective areas.

The government regularly intervenes in education policy at a national level—for example, because education is a public good, not just an individual consumer choice.

The Human Rights argument is misplaced. Restructuring a state-funded selective school to a non-selective school does not violate children's rights as it does not remove the provision of public education.

Of course a lot of kids from grammar schools go to university!

The implicit assumption is that if grammar schools did not exist these children would not go to university.

The Education Policy Institute (2018) found that pupils of similar ability in comprehensives are just as likely to attend university as their grammar school counterparts. There is no difference in the university entry rate in areas with and with grammar school once socio-economic factors have been adjusted for.

The Sutton Trust (2017) showed that while grammar school students are more likely to go to university, they are disproportionately from higher-income backgrounds. They also 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.

“The idea that grammar school policy should be left to individual counties ignores the fact that state education is a national policy issue—funded by all taxpayers, not just those in selective areas.
The government regularly intervenes in education policy at a national level—for example, because education is a public good, not just an individual consumer choice.
The Human Rights argument is misplaced. Restructuring a state-funded selective school to a non-selective school does not violate children's rights as it does not remove the provision of public education.”

We have to wait for the outcome of the private school VAT case in April to see what the High Court says in regards of children’s rights to non interference by politicians with no regard to proportionality, and the individual effects on children.

That case will dictate what they can and cannot do in the future. I certainly think there may be some lessons learnt from that.

It would be political suicide to mandate what Bucks/Kent etc need to do in their own counties without long term consultations, likely to outlive this current period. Are they all Tory MPs there largely? Really do not think they could get away with this.

The political landscape has changed because what some Academics have to say on educational policy is less significant now. There are huge powerful parental groups if you start looking at what is going on. They are demanding a seat at the table and the politicians cannot just ignore what they have to say and they will use their legal rights. See the private school VAT.
It is the same with the anti screen movement - this started with parents. The Government will have to take action.

We have to wait for the outcome of the private school VAT case in April to see what the High Court says in regards of children’s rights to non interference by politicians with no regard to proportionality, and the individual effects on children.

These are fundamentally different—parents pay to send their children to private schools without government funding, whereas grammar schools are funded by the government. What scientific evidence do you have to suggest that shutting down grammar schools would have an individual effects on students? Are you implying it would affect their chances of becoming a prime minister?

I have just looked at the OP post and I have to conclude this thread is well and truly off topic. I take responsibility for this and I apologise to OP.

I would open a new thread about grammar schools but I think that might blow up this forum.

Thank you all for the great discussion 🤗 I have certainly enjoyed doing the research on grammar schools and learning about the various studies that have already been done.

I wish you and your families all the best.

@bluegoosie - it does not really matter. Most MN posts go completely off topic. Thanks for the discussion.

I can only speak for myself but as a parent who went through Covid with 4 DC and had to work and homeschool, I am no longer willing to submit to any ideology imposed on me or my DCs by anyone else. I know best for my own DC, regardless of what anyone else would like to tell me. And I believe many other parents feel that way these days. We simply are not interested in what politicians would like to use for their own gain or what studies anyone would like to throw at us. We have all been to university ourselves, we know the limitations of data and bias.

We simply are not interested in what politicians would like to use for their own gain or what studies anyone would like to throw at us. We have all been to university ourselves, we know the limitations of data and bias.

Here you go..

@Dtnews - why would I possibly be interested in studies you throw at me from the ComprehensiveFuture playbook - a lobby group going for many years with a tunnel vision and no regard for my own DCs needs or no clue about them whatsoever.
We parents have our own lobby groups now, thank you very much.

I didn’t present any studies to you in the thread. However, the poster above has shown you evidence-based, accredited, peer-reviewed research, which you dismiss as coming from a lobby group. Why not show us what your parent lobby groups have to offer, other than anecdotes or parent satisfaction surveys? Good luck using those for government policies.

@Dtnews - well the 7% of private school parent lobby group have certainly caused a stir. I am pretty confident the 5 % of grammar parents will be at least as vocal if we need to be. We all have votes and most of us contribute taxes. That all matters a lot more than peer reviewed studies. We are the parents of the actual children.
The Government needs to focus on the silent poverty struck families who are protesting by not sending their children to school in the first place.
And definitely not by engaging in fights with private school parent lobby groups or possibly grammar school ones in the future. That would lead to a dead end and not serve the former more urgent group. I have explained this to you many times now.

I am pretty confident the 5 % of grammar parents will be at least as vocal if we need to be. We all have votes and most of us contribute taxes. That all matters a lot more than peer reviewed studies. We are the parents of the actual children.

While they may be vocal, their actions are probably not as strong as those in the private sector. Most of them, despite being able to afford private schools, choose not to pay and instead opt to use public state resources, believing they are getting a 'good' deal. Just consider how a much larger proportion of grammar schools disappeared 30 years ago.

Using AI does not equate to doing the research 😉