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
twistyizzy · 09/10/2025 11:50

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 11:45

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel You seem very fraught. I’ll leave you to it.

Righ. So, to recap:

  • I say that the test favours richer kids
  • You said that some poor kids also get in
  • I pointed out the difference between few and zero
  • I then asked why you think that academically selective schools have so few kids on free school meals
  • You refuse to answer, but not because I have debunked your point, no, because I "seem fraught".

Sure. Goodbye

@twistyizzy You don't want debate at all, you just want to spread your personal vendetta. You do this on every single thread. You don't post with good intentions, you're just goady, aggressive and hysterical.

There are opinions, and there are facts.
That academically selective schools are also socially selective is a fact.
Pointing that out and asking people why they think that is is not a vendetta.
If anything, it's people who refuse to admit this point who get all nervous when I ask them and they cannot answer.

Also: "hysterical"?? Mumsnet is the last place where I would have expected to find such a loaded, old-fashioned and misogynistic word

Yeh whatever think of yourself as a beacon of light but you can't stand to be challenged or disagreed with. You are rude and aggressive etc.
Don't worry I won't be engaging again, you are tedious and boring.

Maybe bring up the real issues in schools but I suspect that goes against your real agenda here.

CatchingtheCat · 09/10/2025 11:46

Katiesaidthat · 09/10/2025 11:41

What piffle. My mum passed, my aunt didn´t, they share the same genetics. Some people are more academically inclined, some less. Big deal. My aunt went on to set up a very successful business, her talents were other.

They share 50% of the same genes.

childofthe607080s · 09/10/2025 11:46

The 11 plus lifted my mam from working to middle class giving her access to education that she would not otherwise have had way way back after the war

social mobility was at its highest when there were options for brighter children to advance and recieve a more academic education

the landscape has changed now with tutoring for example but back then it was a wonderful opportunity

CatchingtheCat · 09/10/2025 11:45

MotherofPufflings · 09/10/2025 10:47

Lots of people still think that intelligence is innate. Only last week I read someone arguing in BTL comments that the reason social mobility is lower nowadays is because rich people are more intelligent than poor people and pass on their superior genes to their children.

What is your basis for saying academic ability is not impacted by genetics?

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 11:45

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel You seem very fraught. I’ll leave you to it.

Righ. So, to recap:

  • I say that the test favours richer kids
  • You said that some poor kids also get in
  • I pointed out the difference between few and zero
  • I then asked why you think that academically selective schools have so few kids on free school meals
  • You refuse to answer, but not because I have debunked your point, no, because I "seem fraught".

Sure. Goodbye

@twistyizzy You don't want debate at all, you just want to spread your personal vendetta. You do this on every single thread. You don't post with good intentions, you're just goady, aggressive and hysterical.

There are opinions, and there are facts.
That academically selective schools are also socially selective is a fact.
Pointing that out and asking people why they think that is is not a vendetta.
If anything, it's people who refuse to admit this point who get all nervous when I ask them and they cannot answer.

Also: "hysterical"?? Mumsnet is the last place where I would have expected to find such a loaded, old-fashioned and misogynistic word

Hysteria: a historical mirror in the misogyny of medicine? | BPS

Dr Emily Alexander considers cultural influence and a gendered legacy.

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/hysteria-historical-mirror-misogyny-medicine

OP posts:
dicentra365 · 09/10/2025 11:41

I actually think the 11+ has become more problematic with time. Years ago there wasn’t all this over-tutoring. Now parents will tutor their kids for years. There’s also the fact that you have to have a reasonably together parent to enter you in to exam and take you there and they have to have the aspirations to think this is worth it. Not the case for a lot of pupils.
You are then left with a largely socially exclusive, better behaved, more motivated student body, who are then more attractive to quality teachers and have a generally better experience. I can’t get my head round why we accept that being bright entitles pupils to a better educational experience. Being bright is still a matter of luck and yet it’s treated like a moral victory that deserves special nurturing above what other pupils receive.

Katiesaidthat · 09/10/2025 11:41

What piffle. My mum passed, my aunt didn´t, they share the same genetics. Some people are more academically inclined, some less. Big deal. My aunt went on to set up a very successful business, her talents were other.

twistyizzy · 09/10/2025 11:39

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 11:37

@twistyizzy If you hate the UK education system so much (how many posts is this now??), then simply don't use it!
There are many things wrong with it, the 11+ ranks low.

Your whataboutery is pathetic.
Is your reply a combination of "don't use that service / go elsewhere / there are bigger problems" every time someone dares criticise something in this country???

You may have not realised this, but no one is forcing you to read my posts. Just ignore them if you find them so offensive.

I'm really beginning to think you are a government researcher

Sure. Because a government researcher would benefit by writing this kind of posts... how, exactly?

What a surprise, you are aggressive to anyone who disagrees with you 🙄

Why the fuck do you start these threads? You don't want debate at all, you just want to spread your personal vendetta. You do this on every single thread. You don't post with good intentions, you're just goady, aggressive and hysterical.

AnneElliotfanclub · 09/10/2025 11:39

FairKoala · 09/10/2025 10:43

What ever this guy thought the 11+ was supposed to be about I know it didn’t have anything to do with intelligence or right answers

In the 60s in my area everyone knew that if you lived in a council house or had divorced / single parent household there was no way, even if you got 100% on the test you weren’t going to the grammar school. Where as if you lived in the nice new estate in the detached houses then even if you could barely read you were in. Don’t forget the head of the school had the final say in who they thought was suitable.
This was brought into focus when friend who was the top student scoring 90%+ in any exams we had (lived on the council estate and had planned to go to Oxford was told she failed the 11+ She was devastated. She knew she faced a battle because of where she lived. Her family asked if her test could be remarked but headmaster said there was no point. Where as another friend who could barely read but lived in the bought detached houses got into the grammar.

Go figure

I lived on a Council Estate in the 60s and got into grammar school as did quite a few from my year. The point now is undoubtedly that the one size fits all approach is failing thousands of children and leaving them feeling like failures. There should be a range of options that will allow as many students as possible to fulfill their potential.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 09/10/2025 11:38

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 11:33

@InMyShowgirlEra (And I tutored 11+ for years and can confirm it makes very little difference. For 80% of the children I tutored, I could have told you on the day they walked in whether they were going to pass the test.)

I disagree wholeheartedly. Tutoring may not get a child from scoring 40% to scoring 90%, but it does make a difference. Also, the same (that tutoring helps but won't double your score) is true of all tests and subjects. Even if you gave them 3 years to study only that and gave them daily one-on-one tutoring, not every kid would get a 9 in GCSE Further Maths. And not all those who get a 9 in GCSE Further Maths would get a 9 in Drama or Music.

I have seen it with my own child, and my friends have seen it with theirs. Tutoring makes a difference. Not from 40% to 90%, but from 70% to 80% absolutely. That's why tutoring exists. Again, that's why psychologists cannot administer IQ tests too frequently. But of course admitting these self-evident truths would pop the bubble of bs about the test testing pure talent etc etc

It's a bit like standing on your toes to get a better view: if everyone else around you does it and you don't, you are at a disadvantage.

Again: if what you said were true, how do you explain that the academically selective schools also happen to be socially selective? I am most interested in your opinion! Are poor kids statistically more likely to be thick as mince?

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel Yes, both my parents and MIL were some of the supposedly non existent kids from poor backgrounds who benefited from an excellent academic education as a result of the 11+.

Another flawed strawman argument.

Do you understand the difference between few and zero? Did you miss school when they explained the concept?

I have never said that not a single poor kid passes the 11+. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

I have said that academically selective schools are more socially selective, and I have given the official numbers of some such schools where the % of kids on free school meals is much lower than the local average.

Why do you think that is?

  • Are poor kids more likely to be thick as minche?
  • Does the test favour the wealthier kids whose parents are more likely to be able to tutor them themselves or to pay for tutoring?
  • is it just a most peculiar but completely random coincidence?

PS If anyone wants to roast me because my child took the test: where I live we virtually have no choice, because many non-selective schools require it for banding, so kids practically MUST take it

You seem very fraught. I’ll leave you to it.

dizzydizzydizzy · 09/10/2025 11:37

Interesting! I didn't know any of that but I have always thought it to be flawed - as demonstrated by DC1 who didn't even come close to passing two different 11 pluses and yet got all 8s and 9s in their GCSEs, 4xAstar and an EPQ at A-Level and a 1st for a degree (masters) in chemistry. Clearly DC1 should have sailed through the 11+!

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 11:37

@twistyizzy If you hate the UK education system so much (how many posts is this now??), then simply don't use it!
There are many things wrong with it, the 11+ ranks low.

Your whataboutery is pathetic.
Is your reply a combination of "don't use that service / go elsewhere / there are bigger problems" every time someone dares criticise something in this country???

You may have not realised this, but no one is forcing you to read my posts. Just ignore them if you find them so offensive.

I'm really beginning to think you are a government researcher

Sure. Because a government researcher would benefit by writing this kind of posts... how, exactly?

OP posts:
FairKoala · 09/10/2025 11:37

ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 10:29

@FluffMagnet Why we force all children to do the same things, I will never know.

??? Why people think the current system forces children to do the same thing, I will never know. That is most certainly not the case. All kids must take GCSE English and Maths. But some kids take higher maths and some kids take foundation. There is a degree of choice in the other subjects. It's not like every kid is forced to study Latin, Further Maths, Physics and Mandarin

The grammar system is great for kids who are naturally academically minded

No. The grammar system can be good for those kids:

  • who are well-rounded and do well at both English and Maths, and
  • who are mature enough aged 10 (every child matures at a different pace, some just flourish later), and
  • who tend to come from families who can either tutor them directly or pay for tutoring

How do you explain that academically selective schools are also socially selective and have fewer kids on free school meals? Just an odd coincidence?

Also, does the fact that the 11+ was conceived as a eugenics test by a disgraced non-scientist who falsified his research not bother you at all?

Using sets is a much more balanced approach. A kid can be in the top set for one subject but the middle set for another. Kids can move up and down sets. Kids do not get labelled as a failure at 10 if they don't pass a test.

I don’t think this works in a real school day. The combination of lessons would be a logistical nightmare. In my I also don’t think this idea that you can take anything other than a GCSE without a huge effort is also false.

I tried and tried to get school to enter DS for foundation English but was told categorically no. Tried again at college and again a no. Result being DS cannot take the final course and qualify in a trade as he has no English qualification

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 11:33

@InMyShowgirlEra (And I tutored 11+ for years and can confirm it makes very little difference. For 80% of the children I tutored, I could have told you on the day they walked in whether they were going to pass the test.)

I disagree wholeheartedly. Tutoring may not get a child from scoring 40% to scoring 90%, but it does make a difference. Also, the same (that tutoring helps but won't double your score) is true of all tests and subjects. Even if you gave them 3 years to study only that and gave them daily one-on-one tutoring, not every kid would get a 9 in GCSE Further Maths. And not all those who get a 9 in GCSE Further Maths would get a 9 in Drama or Music.

I have seen it with my own child, and my friends have seen it with theirs. Tutoring makes a difference. Not from 40% to 90%, but from 70% to 80% absolutely. That's why tutoring exists. Again, that's why psychologists cannot administer IQ tests too frequently. But of course admitting these self-evident truths would pop the bubble of bs about the test testing pure talent etc etc

It's a bit like standing on your toes to get a better view: if everyone else around you does it and you don't, you are at a disadvantage.

Again: if what you said were true, how do you explain that the academically selective schools also happen to be socially selective? I am most interested in your opinion! Are poor kids statistically more likely to be thick as mince?

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel Yes, both my parents and MIL were some of the supposedly non existent kids from poor backgrounds who benefited from an excellent academic education as a result of the 11+.

Another flawed strawman argument.

Do you understand the difference between few and zero? Did you miss school when they explained the concept?

I have never said that not a single poor kid passes the 11+. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

I have said that academically selective schools are more socially selective, and I have given the official numbers of some such schools where the % of kids on free school meals is much lower than the local average.

Why do you think that is?

  • Are poor kids more likely to be thick as minche?
  • Does the test favour the wealthier kids whose parents are more likely to be able to tutor them themselves or to pay for tutoring?
  • is it just a most peculiar but completely random coincidence?

PS If anyone wants to roast me because my child took the test: where I live we virtually have no choice, because many non-selective schools require it for banding, so kids practically MUST take it

OP posts:
TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 09/10/2025 11:26

TonTonMacoute · 09/10/2025 11:06

Or, it was a useful way to identify bright children from poorer backgrounds who would benefit from a good academic education.

I took the 11+ in the early 1970s. There was no tutoring or excitement about it. I don't even think we knew we were doing it, I certainly didn't. I went to a grammar school with girls from a wide range of backgrounds.

The borough decided to go comprehensive a year later, so I was the last grammar year in a now comprehensive school and the difference in the level of education being offered was clear to see.

Yes, both my parents and MIL were some of the supposedly non existent kids from poor backgrounds who benefited from an excellent academic education as a result of the 11+.
(And then when I took it in the 80s there were very few from that background and large numbers from private preps, so it certainly wasn’t serving that purpose any more.)

twistyizzy · 09/10/2025 11:23

If you hate the UK education system so much (how many posts is this now??), then simply don't use it!
There are many things wrong with it, the 11+ ranks low.
Why do you never post about rising sexual and physical violence in our schools (from primary age ie 4 yrs upwards), or chronic underfunding?? You just hone in on peripherals and use hyperbolic language.

Why do you never post about the real issues in education? I'm really beginning to think you are a government researcher

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

@InMyShowgirlEra Pretending that we're all born with equal intelligence and equal academic potential is silly

That is a bad faith strawman argument. I have never said that.

If you want to rail against IQ tests then go ahead but it's not as if the 11+ is the only test which uses it

So what? Also, using these tests with older students or on graduates in their 20s can make more sense. No one makes the argument that someone may mature at 20 while others at 18. But that not everyone is mature aged 10 is very real.

You mention IQ. Are you therefore familiar with how psychologists administer IQ tests? Like I said, do you know that psychologists cannot administer them too frequently, otherwise the results become biased and unreliable?

@TonTonMacoute Or, it was a useful way to identify bright children from poorer backgrounds who would benefit from a good academic education.

If this were true, how do you explain that academically selective schools are also socially selective? Just a coincidence?
Henrietta Barnett: 5.8% free school meals
Graveney : 17% (and only 1/4 of the places are selective)
Tiffin Kingston: 3.4%
Tiffin Girls: 6.8%

OP posts:
pickywatermelon · 09/10/2025 11:17

There are a multitude of ways different education systems work with more options and routes than the UK which is quite narrowly constrained

I agree more technical / other specialist routes would be great, more modular options, ability to jump to more advanced / more 101 courses etc and in some countries it’s setup to repeat years so lots of variation or move back into more academic track at different points

11+ vs comp is not the only options on the table if we wanted to think more broadly

OutsideLookingOut · 09/10/2025 11:12

TonTonMacoute · 09/10/2025 11:06

Or, it was a useful way to identify bright children from poorer backgrounds who would benefit from a good academic education.

I took the 11+ in the early 1970s. There was no tutoring or excitement about it. I don't even think we knew we were doing it, I certainly didn't. I went to a grammar school with girls from a wide range of backgrounds.

The borough decided to go comprehensive a year later, so I was the last grammar year in a now comprehensive school and the difference in the level of education being offered was clear to see.

This was good but I think it can miss other bright children who develop later or who would pass with more help and do well. Not everyone can be classified at 11.

TonTonMacoute · 09/10/2025 11:06

Or, it was a useful way to identify bright children from poorer backgrounds who would benefit from a good academic education.

I took the 11+ in the early 1970s. There was no tutoring or excitement about it. I don't even think we knew we were doing it, I certainly didn't. I went to a grammar school with girls from a wide range of backgrounds.

The borough decided to go comprehensive a year later, so I was the last grammar year in a now comprehensive school and the difference in the level of education being offered was clear to see.

OutsideLookingOut · 09/10/2025 11:05

From the replies here there are people who do believe this. Pretty sure the evidence so far is that intelligence is a mix of nature and nurture.

Not all children develop at the same rate either so I don’t think we can dismiss all 11 year olds who wouldn’t pass the exam as not academic or intelligent. And the standard IQ is not a perfect measure anyway - great for catching disabilities and certain types of genius though.

HRchatter · 09/10/2025 11:05

I find that incredibly easy to believe And was highly condoned amongst the parents at our Primary School

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 09/10/2025 11:04

@minipie yes, eugenics. Have you read the links? Do you know much about eugenics at all?
The 11+ was created at the beginning of last century, when eugenics was all the rage.
At the time, many people thought that intelligence was innate, unaffected by the environment, and many people tried to study pseudo-scientific ways to improve the "quality" of the human race.
These were the years when Karl Pearson founded the first department of Statistics at University College London. Pearson was a bastard who advocated eugenics and social Darwinism, but, unlike Burt, at least Pearson was a brilliant scientist and mathematician and one of the founders of modern statistics.

The 11+ was created in those times, by a non-scientist charlatan who had faked his research (Burt).

@angelcake20 I think we need far more setting/different pathways in education and I’m a secondary teacher of a core subject
May I ask what you teach and where? Many schools divide kids into sets. A difference between higher and foundation exists for Maths and other subjects. So I don't recognise your point about little to no differentiation. I mean, sure, I have no doubt that it's like that in some schools, but not in all.

Eugenics - Wikipedia

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

OP posts:
Seeline · 09/10/2025 10:52

I took the 11+ nearly 50 years ago - everyone did where I lived. It was a great opportunity for poorer, bright kids to get an academic education. I got free school meals and went to the grammar. Loads of the girls came from Council houses.

minipie · 09/10/2025 10:51

Eugenics? Did I miss the rule that says if you don’t pass the 11+ you aren’t allowed to breed??

Swipe left for the next trending thread