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.

This maybe is the case - like you say, and as I was saying largely wealthy middle class people are the ones who are doing this. The vast majority don't move.

I would also wonder how many of that 25% are moving for primary school - or moving for secondary? I too have lived in a few areas and I've only come across people moving for primary rather than secondary. As you say this is all anecdotal. It seems my friendship circles are not full of wealthy middle classes - even though I would properly be classed as middle class, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself wealthy middle class as a teacher.

Any other random thoughts without evidence...

These surveys were specifically for secondary - I haven’t seen any for primary. I also don’t consider myself to be wealthy, or many of the people I know who have done this. I don’t think they can all be wealthy if at least one in four parents are doing it. I would say they’re mostly middle class, though, and also people who highly value education. Unfortunately, it’s just sad that our education system is such a mess that people feel the need to do this! It also has a profound impact on house prices - just look at the best performing school areas (outside London) and then the prices around - it’s quite shocking and I say that as someone whose house will always maintain its value because of the schools it’s in catchment for!

That's interesting and yes you're right it is a sad reflection on the system - which from where I'm sitting very few seem to be happy with.

So, based on your early criteria, are most teachers' offspring naturally in the top 5–10% intelligence bracket? Or is it more likely that teachers, having their own advantages in tutoring, help their children gain a significant edge? But most likely, could it be that your personal circle of teachers is heavily biased, leading to confirmation bias on your part?

There is statistics to show that demographic of grammar school parents and the demographic of teachers itself is significantly different, that highlights part of the problem!!!

From my experience, many teachers I know choose private or comprehensive schools for their children, and a significant number of them are opposed to grammar schools.

Additionally, most schools, regardless of type, tend to give preferential treatment to their own teaching staff. What an odd and random point to throw in here again!

https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2019/01/10/grammar-schools-significantly-increase-chances-disadvantaged-pupils-reaching-highly-selective-universities-especially-oxbridge/

And having looked at the race statistics now, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01398/SN01398.pdf
there probably is a HR Act challenge against anyone trying to abolish grammar schools, especially if the private schools win their challenge in April.

36 per cent non-white vs 26 per cent otherwise is statistically significant. Given children in grammar schools are already a minority, you cannot abolish grammar schools. Would be likely racial discrimination on HR grounds and that paper shows that 45 per cent are not economically advantaged either. Many are also single sex, more potential discrimination.

The private school court case has nothing to do with racial discrimination or minority issues. Once again, you're throwing in your imaginary and random thoughts.

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/01/10/grammar-schools-and-access-to-universities-hepi-report-not-an-accurate-or-complete-picture/

"However, the HEPI report does not mention this severe drawback of the data, and makes no correction for it in the analysis. Rather this questionable finding is repeated numerous times throughout the report.

Our own published analysis of the background of pupils attending grammar schools clearly shows that these schools provide very limited opportunities for pupils from both disadvantaged and ‘ordinary working’ families.

Inappropriate statistical methods

The analysis on progression to higher education compares progression in areas with grammar schools (selective areas) to progression in all non-grammar areas (see Table 2, page 27).

This is a naïve comparison, given that we know that selective areas are not representative of the nation as a whole. The areas that chose to keep grammar schools have specific characteristics – they are, for example, generally more affluent and have a higher proportion of degree educated people. These are precisely the sorts of characteristics that support access to elite universities, and so we would naturally expect to see more pupils in those regions attending ‘highly selective higher education institutions’. As such, comparing grammar school areas with all other areas will upwardly bias the grammar school effect.

Other research has shown that even restricting analysis to grammar areas matched with similar looking non-grammar areas does not solve this bias problem, and so we should expect the naïve comparison in the report to contain a non-trivial upward selection bias. This inappropriate statistical approach means that the report’s conclusion is unlikely to be robust.

As with all policy analysis, it is very important to ensure that appropriate data and robust statistical methodologies are used before drawing conclusions and making policy recommendations. This is particularly the case when the actual aggregate impacts of a policy may in fact be the reverse of what is being claimed."

“This is a naïve comparison, given that we know that selective areas are not representative of the nation as a whole. The areas that chose to keep grammar schools have specific characteristics – they are, for example, generally more affluent and have a higher proportion of degree educated people. These are precisely the sorts of characteristics that support access to elite universities, and so we would naturally expect to see more pupils in those regions attending ‘highly selective higher education institutions’. As such, comparing grammar school areas with all other areas will upwardly bias the grammar school effect.”

So there is your evidence that if you were to abolish grammar schools areas those types of people are there for the grammar schools! So if you were to abolish it, you may negatively affect house prices in those areas.

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/01/15/selective-systems-are-precisely-what-harm-opportunities-for-other-peoples-children-a-further-comment-rejecting-the-hepi-report-on-selective-schooling/

"The point on the data is that the sample is far from representative – it is missing a lot of high earners. This is illustrated by 70% of the sample falling below the national median figure. Even though median income is defined within sample for the analysis, the fact that the dataset is missing a whole chunk of self-employment data makes any stat about the income profile misleading. "

So if you were to abolish it, you may negatively affect house prices in those areas.

Here’s another random thought: Do you assume that people wouldn’t move in or out of an area if the 5% of grammar schools disappeared?

The private school court case IS on human rights grounds including single sex education and religious education. It will absolutely be a precedence for governmental interference. It would have included RACE if they had the figures to prove that more non white children are in independent education than overall.

Oh, sure, good luck with that argument in court. It's weaker than ever. Even independent schools expensive KC won't bother try this point.

36 per cent versus 26 per cent is hugely statistically significant. And don’t forget you have at every juncture been highlighting race and culture yourself. In fact, another posted specifically objected to your comments in this regard?
Check mate

Hugely significant based on fake data that has been questioned by other academic above? I could also claim 96% versus 4% FSM, and at least that wouldn’t be fake data.

And don’t forget you have at every juncture been highlighting race and culture yourself. In fact, another posted specifically objected to your comments in this regard

Pointing out factual differences in demographics and culture makes you think there's discrimination in an HR court case? Your comments are a disgrace to the legal system.

https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2020/01/23/social-mobility-and-higher-education-new-report-shows-grammar-schools-are-not-the-answer/

The legal system is there to keep the executive in check from going power hungry crazy and breaching their own Human Rights Act, in the case of the Labour Party and any governmental agency aiming to introduce any policy which would constitute a breach. It’s there to protect us all. Children including non white children have human rights and cannot be used for political gain.
In this case, Labour loses against private school lobby, may try to appease electorate in a desperate attempt and go for grammar schools instead. It won’t be possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/nov/28/john-bercow-ive-changed-my-mind-grammar-schools-must-go

Now you're randomly starting to blame the legal system. I wonder where this culture of blame comes from.

But this response makes your attitude much clearer. You DO know it's the parents but it's those 'Typical British' parents who are the problem. If it's only 'typical British' kids being sold out, that's okay because they don't matter & they're not as worthy of the chance of a good education as your 'non-typical British' child.

I have to agree previous poster comment on your attitude.

Every time you lose the argument you pull the ad hominem. Very weak!

The most interesting aspect to me in the HR Act judicial review on the private school VAT is the SEND angle and any implications following from that and possible costly obligations. This is what you get as a result of reckless negligent policy making. Let it be a lesson to learnt if they win, once and for all.

You dismiss any sensible criticism as ad hominem. How insecure does that make you?