Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

The 11+ was a eugenics test to weed out genetically "inferior" children, created by a classicist who falsified his research

408 replies

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 10:03

I had already made a post a few months ago about why I think the 11+ and similar tests are flawed.

Since many families have just gone or are going through the 11+ drama now, I just wanted post a short but timely reminder that the 11+ was born as a eugenics test at the beginning of last century, when eugenics was all the rage. That meant looking for pseudo-scientific ways to improve the genetic "quality" of human population, by identifying "inferior" races and individuals, and "improving" the other ones.

The father of the 11+ was Cyril Burt, a posh t*at gentleman who studied classics at Oxford and then took an interest in psychology, without any training in medicine, psychology, mathematics, statistics.

He became convinced that intelligence was innate and not affected by the environment, and therefore wanted to find ways to identify the innately gifted and intelligent children, with the not so subtle implication that everyone else could go f* themselves was better suited for other, less academic pursuits.

Before dying, he burnt all his records and notes, and the current academic consensus is that he was guilty of scientific misconduct (falsifying data).

A campaign group against the 11+ and selective schools summarises his story here

If that seems too partisan, you might want to read what the British Psychological Society has to say (spoiler: mostly the same things).

To recap:

  • the 11+ was created by a posh t* who had studied Classics and lacked any training in psychology, statistics, mathematics, the sciences in general
  • the ideology behind it was the (now debunked) idea that intelligence is innate and unaffected by the environment
  • the gentleman in question had fabricated a large part of his research
  • there is no scientific study on the reliability of these tests, on how better or not the kids who ace these tests do vs the kids who do not, on why answering those questions in 30 seconds makes you more intelligent than answering them in 45, etc
  • the very concept of IQ is controversial
  • when similar tests are used by psychologists, they cannot be administered too frequently, otherwise the results are biased. This alone proves that the notion that there can be no tutoring is utter bs, as proven by the huge industry that exists around tutoring for the 11+
  • it is well known that selective and partially selective state schools are hugely SOCIALLY selective; the % of kids on free school meals at those schools is always much lower than elsewhere (e.g. only 5.8% at Henrietta Barnett in London). Cyryl Burt would have said that richer kids are inherently more intelligent; I call bs and say those schools select the kids whose families can either tutor them themselves or pay for tutoring

So, if you are non-white and/or non-British and/or working class, remember that these tests were conceived with the explicit aim of weeding out undesirable and obviously genetically inferior people like you (if any artificial stupidity censor reads this, that was sarcasm ).

Cyril Burt - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
Travelmad777 · 09/10/2025 22:25

MigGirl · 09/10/2025 22:19

Luckily most of the UK has done away with the 11+ and despite living in a number of different locations in the UK I've never lived in an 11+ area. It would be good if all areas could see it removed.

I do believe in selection within schools, but definitely don't agree that it should happen in such a way that not going to the grammar school puts you at a disadvantage.

At lest with set selection within schools pupils can move up and down sets (which does happen) when thongs change.

What do you see the advantage of going to a grammar school to be?

KellySeveride · 09/10/2025 22:21

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 16:05

@Dandady If the real concern is fairness, maybe a better focus is when or how selection happens

Yes, absolutely. For example, I support the idea of sets in comprehensive schools, because it's more flexible, you can be in the top set for one subject and middle set for another, there can be some movement up and down, you are not judged only on a test taken when you were 10.

@GeneralPeter And in practice, removing testing can often remove the ladder. iirc, when elite US universities stopped using SAT scores a few years back, thinking they would get more socioeconomic diversity, they ended up getting, if anything, less.

You are talking about a test typically taken around the age of 17, and used for university admission. I was talking about a test taken at the age of 10. Big difference.

I am politically homeless because I have never voted for the right but I despise leftist extremists. Was it California where they cancelled advanced calculus classes because not enough black and Hispanic kids were taking them? Madness.

Note that I am not saying there should never be any testing.
I am saying that the 11+ taken aged 10 is flawed.

A comprehensive school using sets is a much better balance between egalitarian and meritocratic.
Meritocratic, because the more academic kids can go into the top sets and can choose more challenging subjects (not every kid has to do further maths, physics etc but many state comps offer the option, and rightly so).
Egalitarian, because it's a continuous assessment, less skewed by how much your parents paid for tutoring when you were 10.

@YorkshireGoldDrinker By keeping gifted children back, they are then forced into the same level as the other children. I think that's as cruel as forcing slow kids to learn faster and it breeds mediocrity, as in every child is the same and should have the same opportunities. Kind of like the theory that everyone is the same and something of a blank slate.

You present a false dichotomy. It's not like the only alternative to grammar schools are schools where everyone studies the same things and the more academic kids don't get challenged.

Like I said above, there are many comprehensive schools which use sets and offer a choice of more challenging subjects for the more academic kids.

In my area the only alternative to grammar schools are actually schools where everyone is taught to the lowest common denominator of the class!

We need more grammar schools not less! If they weren’t so damn competitive to get into and every child who passed got a grammar school place education would be better suited for all children.

Spoken as a mother of 1 x grammar school kid and 3 x non grammar kids.

MigGirl · 09/10/2025 22:19

Luckily most of the UK has done away with the 11+ and despite living in a number of different locations in the UK I've never lived in an 11+ area. It would be good if all areas could see it removed.

I do believe in selection within schools, but definitely don't agree that it should happen in such a way that not going to the grammar school puts you at a disadvantage.

At lest with set selection within schools pupils can move up and down sets (which does happen) when thongs change.

CatchingtheCat · 09/10/2025 22:18

stargirl1701 · 09/10/2025 22:05

How many countries even use it? There are no state schools in Scotland using it? Bar Jordanhill, they are all comprehensives.

Jordanhill is a comprehensive too, just funded directly due to historical reasons. It is selective based on ability to afford to live in catchment from birth - you put your baby on the waiting list on your way home from hospital (not joking).

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 22:06

@Underthinker if it means one of the people who developed it many years ago advocated eugenics, then i think the claim is unimportant and irrelevant.

It's not just that.
Someone can be a racist bastard but still achieve scientific success. I made the example of Karl Pearson.
It's that the entire premise of the 11+ was predicated on the now discredited notion that intelligence is only innate and completely unaffected by the environment. When Burt failed to prove this hypothesis, he completely fabricated his research.

If there is more recent research showing:

  • that the environment has zero effect
  • that tutoring has no effect
  • that all the families spending squillions on tutoring are frittering money away for nothing
  • that the progress I and others have seen with tutoring is not real
  • that the current consensus whereby psychologists shouldn't administer IQ tests too frequently otherwise the results become biased is wrong
  • that 10 is an appropriate age for this kind of test
  • that bright kids who don't get extra tutoring at home are not penalised
Well, I would love to see it. Could you please kindly point me towards such research? Thank you very much!

Note that I am not advocating no selection and no differentiation ever.
I have already explained why I feel that a comprehensive school with sets is a better balance between fairness and meritocracy

@Soontobe60 Ha ha ha ha!! A DARVO-er accusing me of DARVO! Mate, you crack me up. I asked what you found offensive and how you would have conveyed the same concept. I wasn't denying not reversing anything. Quite telling that you are unable or unwilling to answer.

OP posts:
stargirl1701 · 09/10/2025 22:05

How many countries even use it? There are no state schools in Scotland using it? Bar Jordanhill, they are all comprehensives.

Soontobe60 · 09/10/2025 21:49

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 20:13

@Soontobe60 Do you realise how offensive the phrase ‘non-whites’ is? Who are these ‘non-whites’?

So, even if I was criticising racists, I still get criticised because my language is offensive.
Please enlighten me on the appropriate choice of words to convey that the eugenicists who devised the 11+ thought that people with a different skin colour were genetically inferior.

DARVO or what!

Underthinker · 09/10/2025 21:47

@ParentOfOne
Re the claim "the 11+ is rooted in eugenics", if this means the test is now inherently eugenic in nature I think the claim is false, if it means one of the people who developed it many years ago advocated eugenics, then i think the claim is unimportant and irrelevant.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 21:32

@Soontobe60 They are not selecting children because of their social status though. That - as you seem keen to keep saying - is a straw man.

I am not familiar with the North West. But it is evident that, in the selective and partially selective schools in London, poorer kids are under-represented.

There have been threads here on Graveney, a partially selective state school in SW London, where many people said that the difference between the selective set and the rest is evident: call it class, call it socio-economic background, I hope the gist is clear.

Queuing for a test for partially selective places, all the other parents in the queue were talking about were private school fees and second homes. It was unreal.

Free school meals is an imperfect metric, but is a decent proxy for socio-economic status, which is why the Sutton Trust uses it in its research (eg on "selective comps").

My point is that the 11+ system favours the smart kids who can get extra help (namely tutoring), and that this is reflected in the lower % of kids on free school meals you see in the selective and partially selective schools in London.

I fully agree that the value the parents place on education is key.
But isn't it odd that it tends to be so strongly correlated with income, as proven by the percentages on free school meals?

A teenager can be expected to go to the library even if their parents don't care about education. You cannot really expect a 9-10 year old to do the same.

So, again, this system won't favour the rich kids who score 10%, no.
But, between a bright poor kid who scores 70% untutored, and a bright non-poor kid who scores 65%, the latter will be favoured because the family has the means to tutor him from 65% to 75%.

How else do you explain the correlation between selection and lower free school meals %?
Is your point that the families on FSM are more likely not to care about education? And, even if that's the case, is it fair to penalise the bright but untutored kids of the example above?

Selective Comprehensives 2024 - The Sutton Trust

Our latest research highlighting the issues with school admissions.

https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/selective-comprehensives-2024/

OP posts:
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 21:04

@Travelmad777 One of the grammars wrote to all the local schools offering to tutor children who showed potential but did not have the means.

That's good to hear. I mean, I still have reservations on the fact that 10 is too young for this kind of selection, and that those who excel in one area only are penalised, but at least what you describe limits the impact of different incomes.

However, not all areas are like that.

OP posts:
Travelmad777 · 09/10/2025 20:45

I think the biggest factor involved is what value families place on education.

I don't think there is an excuse anymore to say you need to be well off to get into a grammar school, particularly in our area. Our grammars all allocate places to children on FSM. Many tutors offer free or hugely reduced rates to those who cannot afford it. There are so many free resources on the Internet. I know a lady who tutors every week for free online to support those who can't afford it. Our local grammars run mock tests. They are free to those on FSM. One of the grammars wrote to all the local schools offering to tutor children who showed potential but did not have the means. The uptake was abysmal. I know of a few families in our local area who having working class jobs, but whose children go to grammar. On the flip side I had a parent of a bright boy who was offered free tutoring say. " Why would I want to put him through that when he can go to the local comprehensive?" She does have a point, but then why not let those who do want to go, go?

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 20:13

@Soontobe60 Do you realise how offensive the phrase ‘non-whites’ is? Who are these ‘non-whites’?

So, even if I was criticising racists, I still get criticised because my language is offensive.
Please enlighten me on the appropriate choice of words to convey that the eugenicists who devised the 11+ thought that people with a different skin colour were genetically inferior.

OP posts:
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 20:11

@BusyExpert whats wrong? Did you fail the 11 plus? because a whole sale swallowing of Marxist claptrap does not indicate an exceptionally acute brain.

Ah, yes - personal insults and offenses: the last resort of those who know they have lost the argument. May I ask what would be "Marxist claptrap"?

  • That the 11+ is rooted in eugenics is a historical fact.
  • That Ceryl Burt was a eugenicist is a historical fact. He was a member of the British Eugenics Society and wrote on the Eugenics Review
  • There is complete consensus among academics that he falsified his research.

Tell me, which of these proven historical facts would be "Marxist claptrap"?

Oh, wait, maybe you are referring to the part where I said I despise leftist extremists, and I called out the leftists who, in California, cancelled high school classes in advanced calculus because not enough black and Latino students were taking them?

@blinkblinkblinkblink His research was based around the heredity of intelligence. A worthwhile hypothesis. His research was flawed (and possibly faked) but has been replicated with similar results so not unnoteworthy.

Ehm, no. Just no. His hypothesis was that intelligence was only innate and unaffected by the environment. Tell me, which modern research would have "replicated" his and confirmed that the environment has zero effect? Note that this doesn't mean we all have the same intelligence.

When his research wasn't confirming his prejudice, he fabricated it all. There is academic consensus on this.
Oh, and let's not forget that he was a classicist who for some reason decided he could study psychology with no formal training in psychology nor science in general.

Karl Pearson was a bastard racist and eugenicist , but he was also a brilliant mathematician, one of the founders of modern statistics, whose contributions remain crucial to modern science. One can despise the person while still recognising the scientific achievements.

Burt deserves to be despised both as a person and as a scientist, because he was a fraud.

Whether you directly said 11+ = eugenics or not is irrelevant. You've clearly implied it with your thread title, pulling the tin-foil-hat firmly in place.

Mate, you are not exactly covering yourself in glory here.

I said that the origin of the 11+ is rooted in eugenics, and I stand by that statement.
I have explained and documented why.

If you want to deny historical facts, what can I say, you do you.

OP posts:
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 19:57

Fatcatsinspats · 09/10/2025 17:22

The church schools in central London, i.e St Marylebone, Cardinal Vaughan, Greycoats, Oratory etc are also socially selective. Do you think schools should stop selecting on the basis of (parents) religion too?

Yes, but that is a completely separate topic.

The British Humanists lobby on the topic; they were instrumental in defeating in court the London Oratory's policy of prioritising families which "contributed to the church" - which meant financial donation, a criterion which was ruled discriminatory and illegal.

State-funded schools which discriminate based on faith are an abomination, which would be unconstitutional in many other countries.
We would never accept hospitals which discriminate based on faith - why we accept schools which do so remains beyond my comprehension.
That sometimes the land belongs to a church is irrelevant: we would never accept an arrangement whereby a church lets the NHS use its land for a hospital, as long as the hospital priorities patients of that faith.

Now of course the usual lot will attack me because I am aggressive, don't respect religion, and because there are bigger problems. Yawn...

State-funded faith schools

Around a third of all state-funded schools in England and Wales are schools ‘with a religious character’ – the legal term for ‘faith schools’, as they are known in England and Wales, or denominational schools, as they are known in Scotland and Northern...

https://humanists.uk/campaigns/schools-and-education/faith-schools/

OP posts:
Papyrophile · 09/10/2025 19:48

Anecdata from 1966. My small village primary school was located in extreme west Cornwall with a catchment about eight miles in diameter. There were four classes of 30-40 for all the children between 5 and 11, in some years only three. The work available locally was day fishing, farming and quarrying, with flower-picking and tourism work (for women mostly) seasonally. No one was wealthy, hardly anyone was even middle class, and only the local doctor and clergy would have passed for professional. Even my headteacher was not degree educated. It was 100% white. Even so, a handful of children passed the 11+ each year and everyone took it. It was as close to a peasant society as the UK still had post-ww2.

Meadowfinch · 09/10/2025 18:23

InMyShowgirlEra · 09/10/2025 10:49

Idk where you grew up but my Dad went to Grammar school from a council estate and he is still friends today with the other old boys from the same estate. That was in the early 60s. My husband went to Grammar school from a B & B after his family had been evicted from their house back in the early 90s.

The papers are marked by machine nowadays and if you score the right number you get in.

Show quote history

This. I scored highly in the 11+ and went to the local grammar in the 1970s despite being one of 6 in a FSM family, with a f who didn't believe in the education of women.

I had no coaching. I was shown a couple of previous papers the week before, by my primary teacher so I knew roughly what to expect but that was all. Questions were reasoning, understanding of written paragraphs, patterns and logic, against the clock. It tested the ability to focus and to respond quickly.

Our school certainly wasn't socially selective, or I and my siblings wouldn't have got in.

Araminta1003 · 09/10/2025 18:05

@mamagogo1 - well done to your DD! How did she do in her KS2 SATS out of interest?

Ownedbykitties · 09/10/2025 18:03

InMyShowgirlEra · 09/10/2025 10:49

Idk where you grew up but my Dad went to Grammar school from a council estate and he is still friends today with the other old boys from the same estate. That was in the early 60s. My husband went to Grammar school from a B & B after his family had been evicted from their house back in the early 90s.

The papers are marked by machine nowadays and if you score the right number you get in.

Show quote history

Absolutely @FairKoala. Me and my friend lived on the same street. Her dad was a business man and owned some bakeries. Her grandparents lived across the street and had money. My mum was a widow and ran a small holiday guest house. I passed the 11 plus and my friend didn't. My cousin passed and her next door neighbour failed. Both their mothers ran holiday guest houses and both their fathers went out to work. There were plenty of children in my year who passed and lived in council houses.

Araminta1003 · 09/10/2025 18:01

The percentage of 11-16 year olds in grammar schools is negligible in the greater scheme of things.
When you start looking at elite unis and where the kids come from then the selective grammar schools may look more significant. But let’s not forget one very important fact which is that a lot of them close to double their intake in Sixth Form and actually cream off a lot of higher achiever from lots of different types of schools. And this is where the confusion I think is coming in.

mamagogo1 · 09/10/2025 17:58

Unfortunately selection at 11 means throwing the rest on a heap, my dd was barely reading chapter books at 11, seriously behind but something clicked and she got A’s at a level, thank goodness we lived in a comp area!

Soontobe60 · 09/10/2025 17:56

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 17:13

@CatchingtheCat
Those who don't have the grades (or the willingness) for A-levels can do B-TEC, T-levels and other courses. In theory also apprenticeships, in practice I'm not sure how many apprenticeships there are.

@Fatcatsinspats Sorry to hear about your child's experience at Holland Park School. Those academies like Holland Park School and Mossbourne represent everything that's wrong with the current system, where unaccountable headteachers focus too much on academic results. I posted about it last year.

As for race, I have already answered more than twice: I am not saying that non-white kids are all penalised today, but that the eugenicists who created the 11+ considered non-whites inferior.

Do you realise how offensive the phrase ‘non-whites’ is? Who are these ‘non-whites’? What is their heritage? Are they all the same? Is a ‘non white’ child born into a wealthy Nigerian family on a par with a ‘non white’ child born to a single mum fleeing Syria living in an HMO whilst awaiting a decision whether to grant asylum?

Soontobe60 · 09/10/2025 17:50

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 12:11

@HHHMMM I don't think many people disagree with what you say (even if I'd phrase it slightly differently).

Sure, intelligence and academic ability are a combination of genetics and environment.

External factors like tutoring affect the result to an extent. This extent is not infinite, but is not negligible, either.

A poor kid with no tutoring might score, say, 60%
A rich kid might score 55% with no tutoring but 70% with tutoring.
So richer kids always have an advantage.
Again, that's why academically selective schools have so few kids on free school meals. Unless people want to think it's a coincidence?

@HostaCentral You are wrong about it being an issue for non whites or immigrants, they make up a very large percentage of Grammar school intake. The ones that are being failed are white working class boys. What is your solution for them OP??

Apologies, I suppose I was unclear. I didn't mean that non-whites or immigrants are being failed now. I meant that the eugenicists who devised the 11+ test thought that these categories of people were genetically inferior.

Yes, I know that white working class boys are being failed by the system.
I don't have a silver bullet solution, nor do I think it would be fair to attack me for not having one (but to each their own).

But I suppose that a system which doesn't select academically and which applies a lottery by distance might benefit these kids, to the extent it doesn't relegate them to a ghetto like now. By lottery I mean something like a lottery, within the first 2 kms from the school, then another lottery 2 to 4kms from the school, etc. The lottery system would be a compromise between serving the local community and not having kids who travel from 10 kms away, while at the same time not creating the good school -> higher house price effect which prices out the poor kids, because you would no longer be able to buy a place at the school by buying or renting 200 metres away. I appreciate it would not work in rural places but could absolutely work in densely populated urban areas like London.

@Araminta1003 Click bait shite OP.

Then can you please explain how come academically selective schools also happen to be socially selective, with so few kids on free school meals? Just a coincidence? it is a very simple question, backed by documented facts and asked in the most innocent and polite way possible, yet I am always accused of being aggressive. Go figure...

They are not selecting children because of their social status though. That - as you seem keen to keep saying - is a straw man.
The children are selected because of their academic achievements and a % of those children are from more affluent families in certain areas. Certainly in my area where I have taught for over 30 years, which is one of the poorest areas in the North West, the most academically successful students are from Asian backgrounds, closely followed by Black African backgrounds, the vast majority of whom are from less affluent families. The biggest influence seems to be the value the parents of those children place on education. If we did have 11+ exams, these would be the children who would ‘pass’.

blinkblinkblinkblink · 09/10/2025 17:38

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 16:12

@blinkblinkblinkblink Calling it eugenics loses you all credibility and puts you firmly in tin-foil-hat territory.

I didn't say that those who support grammar schools in 2025 support eugenics.

I said that the origin of the 11+ test is rooted in eugenics.

If you are unable to comprehend the difference between these two concepts, it's not my fault.

Cyril Burt was a supporter of eugenics, and his views on eugenics guided his flawed research, including in the 11+.

Burt was a member of the British Eugenics Society

He wrote on the Eugenics Review (see this link to pubmed )

Are you still convinced that talking about eugenics loses me credibility and puts me in tin-foil-hat territory? Or maybe you should retract and apologise?

Having read your links, it puts you firmly in tin-foil-hat territory.

His research was based around the heredity of intelligence. A worthwhile hypothesis. His research was flawed (and possibly faked) but has been replicated with similar results so not unnoteworthy.

Whether you directly said 11+ = eugenics or not is irrelevant. You've clearly implied it with your thread title, pulling the tin-foil-hat firmly in place.

BusyExpert · 09/10/2025 17:29

the 11 plus was a good way for clever working class children from poor families to be given opportunities that were only available to children who could pay for education.
whats wrong? Did you fail the 11 plus? because a whole sale swallowing of Marxist claptrap does not indicate an exceptionally acute brain.

CatchingtheCat · 09/10/2025 17:24

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 17:13

@CatchingtheCat
Those who don't have the grades (or the willingness) for A-levels can do B-TEC, T-levels and other courses. In theory also apprenticeships, in practice I'm not sure how many apprenticeships there are.

@Fatcatsinspats Sorry to hear about your child's experience at Holland Park School. Those academies like Holland Park School and Mossbourne represent everything that's wrong with the current system, where unaccountable headteachers focus too much on academic results. I posted about it last year.

As for race, I have already answered more than twice: I am not saying that non-white kids are all penalised today, but that the eugenicists who created the 11+ considered non-whites inferior.

Below is a fairly typical range of options for a state sixth form. What about pupils with less than five GCSEs of the required grade? There is also considerably less choice for pupils not able to study A levels.

The 11+ was a eugenics test to weed out genetically "inferior" children, created by a classicist who falsified his research