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.

I agree it’s not remotely universal- it will be very location specific depending on the demographic and the local school offering. But in affluent areas in the SE at least it’s certainly not uncommon.

Someone could study it by for example, studying the change in applications in percentage terms following a change in Ofsted inspections. Just an idea. It is a thing in the South East, for sure and it has a large impact on house prices and people’s sentiments are linked to the notional value of their house price (even if it is a theoretical value). And it does impact voting patterns. Why else are all parties constantly propping up house prices? They know that is how the great British public vote.
So when the academic ideologies come along who have no concept of real world economics and the financial markets etc, I really think they need to inform themselves slightly better.

I can sense the attitude here. Regardless of the type of research or studies, if the outcome doesn’t align with someone beliefs, they willl be quick to dismiss it and fall back on citing 'everyone' they know and their anecdotes as the true. Everything they believe seems to contradict the evidence.

I think it’s time for someone to seriously reflect on where the real issue lies!

It is not even new news! House prices are linked to schools. Education policy needs to take account of that. Given we are reliant on the solvency of banks, mortgages etc stop being so obtuse. Given the stagflation, the issues with interest rates coming down you ideologies are very very risky for all of us @Dtnews

blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/school-house-prices-gibbons/#author

Basic fact, There are 600,000 students in England every year transfer to secondary school.

If "everyone" move and assuming 50% of them buying and selling house for the move. This will result in 300K housing transaction a year... The whole England residential property is merely 1 million per year, now someone is claiming 30% of them is due to attending secondary schools.....

Doesn't sound right at all.... People move house for all sorts of reasons..

House prices are linked to good schools - not the 5% of grammar schools, some of them not even good. The more good schools there are, the stronger the economy becomes.

Why do you not go look up the ratings by Ofsted of grammar schools and compare them to comprehensives and then report back to me.

Or do you know better than Ofsted now? Would you like to abolish them as well?

I clearly said everyone I know personally moves house and makes housing purchases (or enters into rental contracts) with a clear view on their children’s educational path. That is my demographic of middle class professional living in London. And I specifically linked that article for you because it talks about middle class dinner party chatter, I thought you might enjoy that. Clearly you do not.
Seems like others did take heed of the anecdotes - many years ago at that.

And all I am saying is that educational policy MUST follow the economics. It is not controversial.
Our children have experienced huge disruption during Covid and now some ideologues want even more disruption for them against a backdrop of a terribly challenging economic climate. No thanks, bad timing, too risky. Jog on.

82% of all state-funded secondary schools are rated 'Good' or 'Outstanding,' which amounts to approximately 3,500 schools. In comparison, there are only 163 grammar schools remaining in England, and some of them have even been rated 'Inadequate' by Ofsted.

Notably, 66% of 'Outstanding' grammar schools inspected in 2022 were downgraded.

all I am saying is that educational policy MUST follow the economics. It is not controversial.

True economics is, FORTUNATELY, rooted in evidence, models, and proper research - not the 'economics' you choose to believe in..

That is my demographic of middle class professional living in London

Perhaps your demographic is somewhat skewed towards certain beliefs and is not a typical representation of middle-class professionals in London at all.

80 per cent of grammars were outstanding in 2021 according to Schools Week, compared to under 20 per cent of non grammars - outstanding schools get inspected less frequently. The ones inspected under the new more stringent regime may have been downgraded just like other schools.
The percentage of outstanding is STILL far higher and you are stuck with that label now under yet another set of Ofsted reforms.

No my demographic is not skewed and I did not just dream that the Bank of England cannot lower interest rates either.

Percentage-wise, grammar schools account for only 5% of all schools. In the latest inspection, 66% of them were downgraded—clearly, clinging to the past is unhelpful.

In absolute numbers, only 25 grammar schools are currently rated 'Outstanding, by the latest inspection, a figure that pales in comparison to the 830 comprehensive schools with the same rating. From an economic perspective, it is evidently more beneficial to focus on increasing the number of good or outstanding comprehensive schools.

It also seems you lack confidence in the resources and management of your 'outstanding' grammar schools, believing they would inevitably be downgraded if grammar status were abolished. I wonder why that might be.

Oh, but I think your view is heavily skewed, as it significantly differs from that of many of my acquaintances who happen also to be middle-class professionals in London. Therefore, whatever you or I say on anecdotes is not particularly useful. We need to return to the fundamentals—scientific evidence, research, and data—which you clearly choose to ignore.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/grammar-schools-ratings-topple-as-new-ofsted-regime-bites/

“Grammar schools have been significantly more successful than previously ‘outstanding’ schools in general in retaining the highest inspection grading.”
According to the latest Ofsted data, of 390 previously outstanding schools inspected since September, 109, or 28 per cent, retained their full outstanding grade. This compares with 36 per cent of grammars.

So, they still “won” on relative terms @Dtnews
That was the hardest inspection regime you were referring to. Would you like to comment on the downgrades of other schools, relatively speaking or is that yet another “fact” you conveniently left out?

Last time I checked, parents are still desperate to get into eg Latymer regardless of the Good and not Outstanding. People are not stupid you know, anecdotes on the ground are far more helpful in the real world than your pseudo science and data.

I do not lack any confidence in the school my youngest child will attend in September. I simply said I do not wish for disruption for him during his secondary years based on ideological grounds, that is it. Most people want positive changes in economics and cost of living addressed, not some massive school reforms that achieve nothing positive economically speaking and cause more disruption for children. Again, nothing I am saying is controversial.

"So, they still “won” on relative terms @Dtnews
That was the hardest inspection regime you were referring to. Would you like to comment on the downgrades of other schools, relatively speaking or is that yet another “fact” you conveniently left out?"

Relative terms are barely useful, if at all, as you mentioned that fundamental economics matter. It makes far more sense to focus on improving good comprehensive schools, which are vastly greater in absolute numbers.

I would like to comment on the fact that matter more on economis - the upgrade of other schools too:

"In 2023/24, 78% of comprehensive schools previously judged to require improvement have improved to good or outstanding, "

The whole Ofsted conversation is yet another your random thought that is irrelevant then?

I do not wish for disruption for him during his secondary years based on ideological grounds

First of all, this is not an ideological stance—it benefits the economy as a whole by making government funding more efficient.

You seem to have a tendency to cling to the past and resist embracing positive changes, even when those changes have been proven successful and hold potential for further improvement.

Current PMs grammar school were abolished and he turned out OK.

“First of all, this is not an ideological stance—it benefits the economy as a whole by making government funding more efficient.”

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that middle class rich people go to grammar schools etc and then want to disrupt them and annoy that demographic. Because if you do that, you are going to get less money out of them.

Look they have already disrupted 7% of private school demographic massively and now you want to disrupt another 5%? And on your own admission, those are all largely net tax contributors. They are your golden goose laying your golden eggs for the economy to avoid stagflation.

So which one is it going to be? If they are all rich why would you possibly go and mess with their children because whatever savings you believe you may possibly make will be dwarfed by their unpredictable behaviour as a result of a vindictive policy against them and their children.

And yes I agree Starmer is no idiot or hopefully he is not, so I doubt he is going to do anything about grammar schools right now. He cannot afford to! There is no money for yet another vanity project.

And @Dtnews - if you had any feel for the financial markets and UK businesses right now you would not be talking the way you do. The focus has to be on survival right now and the status quo and propping it up/keeping it alive, it is basic survival. No room for ideology or big ideas. Sorry to disappoint you.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that middle class rich people go to grammar schools etc and then want to disrupt them and annoy that demographic. Because if you do that, you are going to get less money out of them.

So now you admit that most people attending grammar schools are predominantly well off middle class? It does little to promote social mobility.

But where is your evidence and assumption and data that abolishing the 5% of grammar schools would result in less funding?

One could argue that creating more good and outstanding schools would attract additional funding from both the middle and working classes. Alternatively, some selective individuals, who were previously unwilling to pay, might choose private schools instead, which would also contribute to the economy.

What you said is merely your personal belief, which has been repeatedly proven to be skewed, incorrect, and not evidence-based. So why should I feel disappointed in your ignorance?