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.

Interesting thread, though it has moved quite a long way from @PopcornPoppingInAPan OP about DCs taking 11+ from miles away and even abroad. I don't know how often the latter happens, if at all, but certainly you can sit the 11+ for, say, Surrey even if you live in Yorkshire. The right to do this is enshrined in law - it's known as The Greenwich Judgment (1990).

But the onus is on parents to ensure that they meet all the other criteria of any given school, and to be able to attend the school in practical terms. Every year posters on MN (and other fora) pop up saying 'my.child has got.a place at x school, can anyone advise me how to get them there? Is there a bus?'', Or something.similar.

Faster - yes, up to a certain point which again depends on physiological maturity and ability to focus intensely and for longer. But speed doesn't help much if you just don't "see" the pattern/solution to a matrix. The way it's being tutored is actually verbal reasoning "turn the matrix clockwise, look at the shapes" etc. This reasoning (=conversion of non-verbal stimuli into verbal algorithms) will always take longer compared to the natural ability of certain brain just to "see" it instantly, without mentally manipulating the matrix.

It is of course entirely different for English and maths tests.

@CurlewKate - the GL Kent test for Maths and English is in multiple choice format so the computer can easily mark thousands of papers accurately but the content is very much based on the KS2 curriculum. The issue is that they test in September of Year 6 rather than in May when KS2 SAT tests are taken.
But to pretend we do not already test our 11 year olds on a mandatory basis nationally anyway, is disingenuous.
They then go on to secondary school with their KS2 SAT results and many secondaries will then use those and a combination of CAT4 (including reasoning tests, not too dissimilar to a lot of 11 plus testing) in many state comprehensives.

All our kids are doing 11 plus anyway.

But to pretend we do not already test our 11 year olds on a mandatory basis nationally anyway, is disingenuous.

In this case, why you still want to do 11 plus? Why not just let the school do their jobs.

@Araminta1003I have no issue with testing. I do have a problem with a test taken at 10 which can have an irreversible impact on your educational future. And maybe you have a
different 11+ tests where you are but here there is no English test-there is V and non V reasoning and maths.

@Araminta1003I have no issue with testing. I do have a problem with a test taken at 10 which can have an irreversible impact on your educational future. And maybe you have a
different 11+ tests where you are but here there is no English test-there is V and non V reasoning and maths.

@Araminta1003I have no issue with testing. I do have a problem with a test taken at 10 which can have an irreversible impact on your educational future. And maybe you have a
different 11+ tests where you are but here there is no English test-there is V and non V reasoning and maths.

@Dtnews - DS wanted to do 11 plus and enjoyed it. We only started quite late in the Easter holidays of Year 5, very casually. We only did the GL books and one mock. It was enough for DS to pass all the tests.
The non verbal people keep mentioning, it was literally just one book of concepts we went through and one practice book. English we barely did any extra work as DS is really good at that anyway. Maths we had to do a bit on Algebra and ratios from memory as that had not yet been covered at state primary. DS has a good friend who is excellent at Maths and works online years ahead (own volition), he also got in and his parents did zero extra prep on the Maths. They did not need to.
That is it. It was not as big a deal for us as people make out. The hardest part was the actual tests as we sat 4 lots including stage 2s to maximise his chances of getting in to one grammar at least. The earlier ones were further practice. In the end, he passed all of them. And I am sure he will excel at KS2 SATS as well - although right now he is a little bored so is focusing on coding and learning another foreign language online. Some kids are just academic and keen and they enjoy it.

I am sure DS would have been fine in the local comprehensive too, but he will be far happier at the grammar with lots of boys just like him. There are a lot of clubs there that will suit him as well. It aligns with his interests.

It is simply not true that everyone who gets in tutors for years and years. Many do not need to. Some do and do get in, but for our school I really doubt it is any kid who was not at least greater depth in Maths all the way through primary.

@CurlewKate - in London there is never going to be an irreversible impact on your future based on what school you attend at 11. Lots of kids change at Sixth Form anyway.
11 plus is the start of the journey, definitely not the end.

for our school I really doubt it is any kid who was not at least greater depth in Maths all the way through primary.

Greater depth alone in Maths won't get into any grammar school in London.

I am sure DS would have been fine in the local comprehensive too, but he will be far happier at the grammar with lots of boys just like him. There are a lot of clubs there that will suit him as well. It aligns with his interests.

I think this justify for the government to start charging levy and fees to grammar schools.

Well, I guess it depends where you live. Where we live in Herts, there are 4 grammar schools but some catchment covers part of London and lots of kids come from Harrow where parents pay over 2500GBP for 1 year tutoring course. It's a big, big business. You have no choice - you have to tutor as in all of these 4 grammar schools there are 1000 kids taking the exam each, fighting for 65 places. It's hell.

As usual @CurlewKate is right (all 3 times 😄). What the 11+ mostly tests is the ability to pass the 11+. It doesn't really have any wider credence than that, and there is no direct correlation between 11+ scores and GCSE results 5 years later, let alone beyond that. Data on this are readily available, but grammar schools are somewhat loath to share it...

There is of course a small percentage of children who are achieve top grades throughout their academic education; a much, much larger percentage experience peaks and troughs, for myriad reasons.

From what people are saying about some children in grammar areas getting a place with a few months' practice and a bit of rudimentary familiarisation, I'd suggest that these schools probably have different entry standards to super selectives with no catchment.

In Sept 2024 QE in Barnet had 3,433 boys taking the test for 192 places. The waiting list usually seems to end up offering up to 30/40 beyond that by the time the term starts in Sept, as not every boy in the top 192 accepts his place.

As far as I can see (maths not my strongest suit), that means you have to be in the top 6-7% of applicants - some of whom are the cleverest boys from around the UK - to get a place. From what I know of boys who have either prepared for or secured places, the tutoring and parental input is intense and starts in Y4 at the latest. At pick up at my son's primary last week I heard two Y2 parents talking about how they had started working with their sons at home on CGP books (and they weren't British, fwiw). It's definitely not enough to be 'working at greater depth' across the piece and an avid reader.

Is the pressure for places as acute in counties such as Kent and Bucks that have retained their grammar schools in greater numbers?

Indians make up over 90% of QE!

GL (which Araminta was talking about) does test English but it’s on the VR paper. Most schools opt for 2 comprehensions then sometimes a separate SPAG section before the ‘normal’ VR questions start.

I am referring to the majority of the nation, not just the grammar school population. This highlights the fact that it is culture specific not a phenomenon experienced by all immigrants.

It is for the schools in Birmingham too.

@thing47 - is performance at KS2 SATs in any way linked to GCSE results then?… Because it tests the same material largely, for many of the 11 plus tests. You cannot have a system where you nationally test the same stuff, directly link school performance to it and CAT4 yet suddenly it has no bearance for the purpose of 11 plus results.
The vast majority of kids who pass 11 plus grammar will also get greater depth in their KS2 SATs. For the most selective London boys grammars, the GCSEs are then at 95% 7-9 at GCSE.

@smogsville - DS did get into a London superselective and looking at the figures yes about 6% chance, depending on how people rank the schools. And yes, not much prep. Perhaps we were just lucky and the very last on the list!
These tutoring myths are self propagated. Nobody is saying you don’t have to do some prep, but if the child is clever you do not need to go over the top in the ways described by many. There are thousands of people doing pointless amounts of work.

In fact, I have asked my older children and they cannot even remember sitting the 11 plus much. Nobody has to put copious amounts of pressure on a kid. It is what you make of it. Just like GCSEs.

And yes, not much prep. Perhaps we were just lucky and the very last on the list!

We have one poster claiming that little preparation is required, while numerous others argue the opposite. Either someone is lying, or it’s simply not the norm.

It would be if it was actually a big problem but it really isn’t. I dare say there might be a few here and there but, despite what some very ignorant posters on here will have you believe, the kids in grammars, especially super selective grammars, are very bright. Obviously it’s a spectrum- some are brighter than others there and some are better educated or further ahead than others there but the common denominator for all of them is that they are very academically able children.

@Araminta1003 well if it was recently I'd suggest you have an unusually capable DS if he was able to get himself into the top 6% of a London super selective with minimal prep. All the ones I know who've beaten the odds in the last five years have worked reasonably hard (not that pattern of all-day work during the hols with the odd meal break throughout the hols that I think @carcassonne1 mentioned but consistently over at least 2 yrs), with a one-to-one tutor and parents who are by and large professionals and prioritise education.

In my view, this is the level of commitment required for the majority of bright children who want to try for a super selective. Not enough to be in the top 3-5% of your primary class and know how to mark the answer sheet correctly. A friend's DS who is very capable across the curriculum and got a scholarship to an indie didn't make it, arguably because he didn't do enough prep towards the end. You have to be quick and accurate these days - it should be a test of aptitude but if the 'pass' mark is north of 90%, plenty of practice is the only way to get there - for most children. Your experience might be different of course.

@smogsville - it was for September 2025 entry, so this current year.
And I have done it successfully with 3 older DC too. I do feel I know what I am talking about.

It is a myth that you can tutor a more average child into this type of school. Parents would be better off first having their child’s cognitive ability assessed somehow. If they are in the top 10%, by all means, give it a go. If not, I would not bother for this type of school. Obviously if they are top 1% they won’t have to do much prep.
The “tutoring” to familiarise with the types of questions is very important. Whether a parent does that with a CGP book or a tutor should not matter. But I do not believe you can tutor beyond a certain point.
Nobody expects a more average child to get an A star in Further Maths A level either.
The children in these types of schools are largely intrinsically clever. If they are not, the schools are unlikely to serve their confidence well.

It is always surprising that kids are allowed to be excellent at sport, music what have you, but when they are just academic, then it is somehow a problem.

Obviously if they are top 1% they won’t have to do much prep.

I have serious doubts about this statement. It’s a matter of distribution: many students with intensive tutoring, likely in the top 25%-30% ability range, are far more likely to pass the exam than those in the natural 5%-10% range with minimal preparation. The top 25%-30% will have 3-4 times more numbers. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that a child in the natural top 1% could pass these kinds of exams without any preparation.