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
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 14:38

@PrizedPickledPopcorn , @InMyShowgirlEra
With all due respect, single cases are irrelevant.
A better question is not "did it happen to your parents?" but "how representative was that case then, and how often would it be now?"

Presumably your parents went to school a few decades ago?
Presumably tutoring wasn't such a big industry back then?
Would they have achieved the same results had they had to compete with rich kids whose parents had been paying for 2 years of intense tutoring at £90 per hour? (I have seen tutors charge anything from £50 to £110 an hour in London)

There is also a big difference between the grammar schools which require a minimum score for admission, and the "super-selective" or partially selective schools which do not have a minimum score but simply take the kids with the top scores. Some schools receive thousands of applications for 70 places only.

OP posts:
blinkblinkblinkblink · 09/10/2025 14:38

So are you bitter you didn't get into a grammar? Or bitter your DC didn't?

Ireallycantthinkofagoodone · 09/10/2025 14:32

@InMyShowgirlEra - heartfelt apologies. I’m not the full shilling today…….

YorkshireGoldDrinker · 09/10/2025 14:31

The 11+ weeds out slow kids from the gifted kids. That is true.

I don't think the 11+ should be abolished, though.

If a child fails the 11+, goes to a grammar school anyway, and then struggles, the child suffers. Why allow that?

My husband passed it and got offered a grammar school place, he decided to go to the local failing secondary school down the road because it was closer and he didn't fancy travelling long distances every day. He then went on to university and graduated with a 1:1 in Computer Science.

I failed the 11+ and cried so hard. I felt like a failure. And truthfully I absolutely was a failure by the standards of the 11+ and would have struggled massively if I went to a grammar school. The test showed I was not cut out for grammar school. It's nothing to be embarrassed about. You either have the intelligence, or you don't. My experience at the secondary school was terrible (when are they not?), but I turned out okay. And of course I met my now husband there.

I still get the same sort of feeling about failing the 11+ as I do now at work as I'm the only one at work who doesn't have a degree. I'm sure people have secretly judged me for it, but I pay no mind. The job I do requires a degree, but seeing as I only have a Diploma, I got into an entry-level job and trained to get the job I have now.

Everything works out for the best in the end.

InMyShowgirlEra · 09/10/2025 14:31

Araminta1003 · 09/10/2025 14:22

@ParentOfOne - social mobility means some betterment.
It can include eg a scholarship kid to a private school then making it big as banker and then sending their own kid to the most famous public school paying full fees. There was still social mobility.
It need not start at the free school meal level.
A child on FSM who has achieved 6-7 good GCSEs, that is social mobility. It may be more social mobility than above.

The kids in London superselective grammar schools from ethnic minority parents are taking several social mobility leaps, typically. A few rungs up actually. That is social mobility to me.

I'm a case study in social mobility- 2 parents from Council Estates, Dad went to Grammar and on to University, Mum did NVQs up to Degree level alongside work, sent my brother and I to private school.

Brother worked hard, became a dentist, married a dentist, and is very wealthy.

I got a degree, moved abroad for a bit, changed careers multiple times and now work in the Civil Service.

Husband grew up extremely poor, went to Grammar School, had some traumatic events, failed all his GCSEs, worked in a supermarket for 10 years, returned to education and now works in the Civil Service. He earns more than me.

We're all proof that your start point doesn't determine your end point.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 14:30

@Ponderingwindow That doesn’t change the fact that those children should not be forced to achieve less than their full potential to equalize society.

But the problem is that the current system favours those who have talent + external help and penalises those who have talent but little to no external help.

A comprehensive school which uses sets has the potential to strike a better balance between being egalitarian and meritocratic.
Egalitarian, because it doesn't close the doors to the kids who are talented but have no external help.
Meritocratic, because it can still place talented kids in the top sets and push them accordingly.

The difference is that the assessment to be in the top set can be more continuous, throughout the year, and less influenced by external factor like how much mummy and daddy can afford to pay in tuition.

OP posts:
PrizedPickledPopcorn · 09/10/2025 14:28

If it prevented the people you’ve listed from going then I’d agree. It doesn’t. It identifies children from less advantaged backgrounds and gets them an academic education. My mother went to grammar school after 11+. She was from a pretty rough family, DV and a dad often out of work.
My dad was from a modest family but they were small business owners, skilled, and his mum had been in service so knew her airs and graces. He didn’t pass it. Very bright man but not academic.

Dad did really well, despite his failing the 11+. I’d argue the secondary modern was the better choice for him. He became an apprentice, set up his own business, and died a moderately rich man.

Sofarsogood2 · 09/10/2025 14:26

How do they do selective education in your home country, @ParentOfOne? Did your child sit the 11+?

InMyShowgirlEra · 09/10/2025 14:25

Araminta1003 · 09/10/2025 14:19

“It's always been based on your 11+ scores- with a few very rare cases of a successful appeal for borderline cases if their Primary Heads provide a strong enough report.”

And I think it has to be evidenced with actual school work done in school. The kind that also provides the basis of school reports as the kid has to produce the work in school, during the school day, not from eg homework. I would have thought that most state primary heads are inclined to appeal for children from poorer backgrounds that they know to be bright and not tutored, rather than the opposite.

Yes it does and even then it's really rare. The only time I've heard of it being successful is in extreme circumstances, like the child suddenly falling ill halfway through the test or something distressing happening in the exam hall.

Most appeals are fairly well off, paid for years of tuition and their child still missed the mark...of course they don't belong at Grammar.

Why so many parents would rather their child struggle at Grammar school than thrive at Comprehensive, I do not know!

Ponderingwindow · 09/10/2025 14:24

You can’t separate out the social factors influencing academic aptitude. That some children have an inherent advantage simply by luck of being born to parents with education, money, or both is undeniable. That doesn’t change the fact that those children should not be forced to achieve less than their full potential to equalize society.

Perhaps the 11+ isn’t the best measure, but that still doesn’t mean real differentiation should be scrapped.

Araminta1003 · 09/10/2025 14:24

If your focus is on children on FSM and improving their social mobility then you could do a whole lot better than hyperfocussing on the 5% of grammar schools left! That is literally all I am saying.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 14:23

twistyizzy · 09/10/2025 14:20

OP also called the person a "posh twat". Yet says they aren't aggressive and don't have an agenda 🙄

Show quote history

What would my agenda be? tell me, I'm curious.
Am I trying to sell something?
Am I trying to support my political movement?
Am I lobbying for a reform which would benefit my company?
Am I promoting a book, a youtube channel, a website?

Please do tell me what this agenda and what my sinister, ulterior motives would be.

OP posts:
Araminta1003 · 09/10/2025 14:22

@ParentOfOne - social mobility means some betterment.
It can include eg a scholarship kid to a private school then making it big as banker and then sending their own kid to the most famous public school paying full fees. There was still social mobility.
It need not start at the free school meal level.
A child on FSM who has achieved 6-7 good GCSEs, that is social mobility. It may be more social mobility than above.

The kids in London superselective grammar schools from ethnic minority parents are taking several social mobility leaps, typically. A few rungs up actually. That is social mobility to me.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 14:21

@Sofarsogood2 It is absolutely correct. Research on practice effects tends to suggest that the improvement plateaus after a while; this may mean that practising for 18 months years might not make much difference vs practising for 1 year. It does not suggest that practice makes no difference. And that's the whole point, that the system rewards a combination of talent + external help.

@CatchingtheCat Just to remind you that the title you gave this thread was:
The 11+ was a eugenics test to weed out genetically "inferior" children, created by a classicist who falsified his research

So what? I also explained why, regardless of who created it, the current system remains flawed. You conveniently ignored those other points.

OP posts:
InMyShowgirlEra · 09/10/2025 14:20

@ParentOfOne you might also be unaware but a lot of tuition centres take on children recommended by their schools who have potential to pass and are on FSM. Some just attend the regular sessions and neither the tutor nor the other children are aware they're not paying, others attend group sessions specifically for FSM children.

By that logic, it's not FSM who are the most disadvantaged, it's the children just above FSM who still aren't well off enough to pay for tuition.

In any case, you can pick up a set of books from a charity shop for 50p each and do the exercises at home to the same effect. If neither the parents nor the children are interested in doing it then that's up to them.

twistyizzy · 09/10/2025 14:20

CatchingtheCat · 09/10/2025 14:17

People berate me for being aggressive, but what is a polite, non-aggressive way to challenge a ludicrous strawman argument, which can show only bad faith or a complete lack of text comprehension skills?

Just to remind you that the title you gave this thread was:

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

OP also called the person a "posh twat". Yet says they aren't aggressive and don't have an agenda 🙄

Araminta1003 · 09/10/2025 14:19

“It's always been based on your 11+ scores- with a few very rare cases of a successful appeal for borderline cases if their Primary Heads provide a strong enough report.”

And I think it has to be evidenced with actual school work done in school. The kind that also provides the basis of school reports as the kid has to produce the work in school, during the school day, not from eg homework. I would have thought that most state primary heads are inclined to appeal for children from poorer backgrounds that they know to be bright and not tutored, rather than the opposite.

CatchingtheCat · 09/10/2025 14:17

People berate me for being aggressive, but what is a polite, non-aggressive way to challenge a ludicrous strawman argument, which can show only bad faith or a complete lack of text comprehension skills?

Just to remind you that the title you gave this thread was:

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

InMyShowgirlEra · 09/10/2025 14:15

Ireallycantthinkofagoodone · 09/10/2025 13:52

@InMyShowgirlEra - you quoted my post. Are you saying I am telling porkies? If so, why?

No.

PP said that in her area, the Head had final say over who went to the Grammar School and selected low-scoring children from wealthy backgrounds and refused high-scoring children from poor backgrounds.

I responded to PP saying it certainly wasn't true of the areas my family lived in in the 60s.

You responded to say that the same applied to your own relatives and their friends who went to Grammar despite being economically disadvantaged.

This cemented my opinion that the original PP was not telling the truth and Grammar Heads have never had the power to pick and choose children based on their economic background.

It's always been based on your 11+ scores- with a few very rare cases of a successful appeal for borderline cases if their Primary Heads provide a strong enough report.

CatchingtheCat · 09/10/2025 14:15

If you are a late bloomer or someone who struggles later you have the opportunity to move up or down sets in a comprehensive school

This is often suggested but very hard in reality. Moving down is fine as you just cover material again. But moving up is very hard as not only do you need to be working above your current set, the set above has covered material you have not.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 14:14

@Araminta1003 Citing schools such as HBS as socially selective shows you do not really understand what is going on. The superselective grammar schools in London are all full of majority South Asian kids now, with parents who value hard work and education and most of the kids are actually really bright as well aka gifted.

None of what you say contradicts my points.
The families you describe tend to be higher income families (which doesn't mean filthy rich, it simply means high enough not to have free school meals).
This is reflected in those schools having a much lower % of kids on free school meals.
Again: the crux of the argument is that bright kids born from parents who are poor or don't care are at a disadvantage, because the current system rewards a combination of innate talent + external help (like tutoring).

Like in the example I made: a bright poor kid might score 70% untutored. A bright but wealthier kid might score 65% untutored but 80% after a year of tutoring. The system doesn't reward raw talent but the combination of that + external help.

When I said socially selective I was thinking about income (see above), not race.

I don't follow what Indian CEOs have to do with anything. How are the professional outcomes of foreigners educated abroad relevant to the merits of the UK education system? Also, CEOs are presumably a tiny percentage of the population - hardly a valid sample to infer much.

@CatchingtheCat So OP the main gist of what I get you are saying is that we shouldn’t have selective secondary schools because a man associated with a test, which has been subject to assessment and change since his time, was racist?

People berate me for being aggressive, but what is a polite, non-aggressive way to challenge a ludicrous strawman argument, which can show only bad faith or a complete lack of text comprehension skills?

I said multiple times why I don't like this system. Did you even read it? Regardless of who created it:

  • it favours those who are well-rounders, and who are so aged 10. It ignores that kids may mature at different paces and may have different abilities in different areas. A comprehensive school using set takes all of this into account
  • results are a combination of talent + extra help (tutoring). So I may have a lower "untutored score than you, but, after a year of tutoring (which you cannot afford) I may score higher.
  • This is evident when you look at the stats and see that academically selective schools always have a much lower % of kids on free school meals
OP posts:
Sofarsogood2 · 09/10/2025 14:13

when similar tests are used by psychologists, they cannot be administered too frequently, otherwise the results are biased.

This is incorrect. Google practice effects.

CatchingtheCat · 09/10/2025 14:10

Araminta1003 · 09/10/2025 14:05

Social mobility as a concept is increasingly problematic because it presupposes a betterment towards your parents generation. Which with a country and continent in slow terminal decline is somewhat difficult.
So what exactly is social mobility now? A betterment of educational levels vis a vis your parents? A relative betterment of “social status”?

Crudely, more income.

AgeingDoc · 09/10/2025 14:06

EweCee · 09/10/2025 12:31

What's the difference between setting in a comp school vs 'setting' by doing an entrance exam for an academically selective school? Surely result is the same that those that are more academic in those subjects are stretched? Isn't the issue more with the comp schools not stretching the children in other ways if, at that time, straight academics aren't their individual forte? (I believe intelligence should be measured in lots of ways not just weather ypu can pass engligh or maths)

It's more flexible. If you are a late bloomer or someone who struggles later you have the opportunity to move up or down sets in a comprehensive school but if you are put in an actual different school at 11 that's a lot harder.
Also not everyone has equal abilities across all subjects, so you might get someone who fails the 11+ but has great ability in some areas. Or a pupil who passes but has one real area of weakness. They'd probably benefit from being in very different sets for different subjects and there will be a wider range in a comprehensive.
Of course not everyone is the same and most people will be better off being taught alongside others with similar interests and abilities. I just think that 10/11 is too young to make a judgement and set it in stone, thus potentially creating a self fulfilling prophecy.

Araminta1003 · 09/10/2025 14:05

Social mobility as a concept is increasingly problematic because it presupposes a betterment towards your parents generation. Which with a country and continent in slow terminal decline is somewhat difficult.
So what exactly is social mobility now? A betterment of educational levels vis a vis your parents? A relative betterment of “social status”?

Swipe left for the next trending thread