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
Neurodiversitydoctor · 15/10/2025 05:59

RingoJuice · 15/10/2025 05:33

I think this is backwards though. The instability of the family home is related to their lower IQ and impulse control. So children of these sorts of parents will experience a chaotic upbringing regardless and also probably inherit these tendencies from their parents.

To force these kinds of people to stay in a marriage is counterproductive. It’s like that study that said children’s educational attainment was related to books in the home, so education ‘experts’ tried to put books into the homes of all children—but it doesn’t work, because book ownership is more related to the higher IQ of the parents in the first place. Having books in the home is not going to compensate for that. (Mind, it wasn’t a bad initiative, some children will be outliers and enjoy the enriched environment. But it’s not going to move the needle on fixing any gaps).

Show quote history

Hmm I am sure some of that is true, but it is a factor in how well the children of immigrants do. South asians are much more likely to be married and stay married than other ethnic groups.

RingoJuice · 15/10/2025 05:33

twistyizzy · 14/10/2025 21:30

She's right. The #1 factor in wealth + social inequality is coming from a 2 parent + income family, or not.

Show quote history

I think this is backwards though. The instability of the family home is related to their lower IQ and impulse control. So children of these sorts of parents will experience a chaotic upbringing regardless and also probably inherit these tendencies from their parents.

To force these kinds of people to stay in a marriage is counterproductive. It’s like that study that said children’s educational attainment was related to books in the home, so education ‘experts’ tried to put books into the homes of all children—but it doesn’t work, because book ownership is more related to the higher IQ of the parents in the first place. Having books in the home is not going to compensate for that. (Mind, it wasn’t a bad initiative, some children will be outliers and enjoy the enriched environment. But it’s not going to move the needle on fixing any gaps).

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 14/10/2025 21:38

The fundamental error is implying that a decline in marriage means a decline in the stability of the families. A family can be loving and stable even if the parents are not married.

OP posts:
twistyizzy · 14/10/2025 21:30

ParentOfOne · 14/10/2025 21:27

It depends on what you mean by populist. Reform and UKIP probably don't say that , but many Tories, and many close to the Tories do. Ever heard a speech by Birbalsingh, the headteacher of Michaela in Wembley?
Just a few weeks ago the Spectator had an article on this very topic https://archive.is/boLx8
blaming family stability, the declining of marriage, etc. I was surprised the journalist didn't mention that the UK is becoming more godless as a reason for its decline.

She's right. The #1 factor in wealth + social inequality is coming from a 2 parent + income family, or not.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 14/10/2025 21:27

It depends on what you mean by populist. Reform and UKIP probably don't say that , but many Tories, and many close to the Tories do. Ever heard a speech by Birbalsingh, the headteacher of Michaela in Wembley?
Just a few weeks ago the Spectator had an article on this very topic https://archive.is/boLx8
blaming family stability, the declining of marriage, etc. I was surprised the journalist didn't mention that the UK is becoming more godless as a reason for its decline.

OP posts:
Araminta1003 · 14/10/2025 21:13

I do not think that reflects current populist ring wing politics whatsoever. That is more along the lines of “you guys deserve better’, blame all those experts/academics for telling you have to be academic etc. and like them.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 14/10/2025 20:59

@oviraptor21 Yes, quite a few comments already on how white working class kids (boys more than girls) are being failed by the system.

Simplifying, according to the right, it's all because the families are lazy, live on benefits, and don't care about education.
According to the left, it's all because society should support those families more.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

OP posts:
oviraptor21 · 14/10/2025 20:49

Probably been said already but non-white form the majority of students at the nearest grammar school to me and no doubt others near city centres.

Araminta1003 · 14/10/2025 20:43

“all the studies show that selective school children DO BETTER by a relatively small % but all research say that the negative effects on the remaining schools outweighs the benefits (according to them).
your argument would still imply that socioeconomic factors are the greatest determinant to school success.”

Is there a study that shows whether grammar school is more likely to lead to elite uni (Oxbridge) and why? Because the studies focussing on formulaic GCSE results I cannot take seriously, sorry, I do not mean to offend, but we know the truth from real life experience.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 14/10/2025 20:37

@BreakingBroken all the studies show that selective school children DO BETTER by a relatively small % but all research say that the negative effects on the remaining schools outweighs the benefits (according to them).

relatively small... so small that the review you quoted calls it negligible.

your argument would still imply that socioeconomic factors are the greatest determinant to school success.

This is pretty self-evident. Realistically, a good school system can hope to limit these differences, but overcoming them completely doesn't seem very realistic

OP posts:
twistyizzy · 14/10/2025 20:34

BreakingBroken · 14/10/2025 20:33

and again none of this grade bs matters when one of the driving factors to grammar and independent schooling is simply a better school environment.

I agree

BreakingBroken · 14/10/2025 20:33

and again none of this grade bs matters when one of the driving factors to grammar and independent schooling is simply a better school environment.

BreakingBroken · 14/10/2025 20:31

@ParentOfOne all the studies show that selective school children DO BETTER by a relatively small % but all research say that the negative effects on the remaining schools outweighs the benefits (according to them).
your argument would still imply that socioeconomic factors are the greatest determinant to school success.

BreakingBroken · 14/10/2025 20:27

oh gosh @twistyizzy
prompted me to look at the school my dgd is attending (i'm not in the uk and wonder if i'm reading it right)
the school has published their cumulative %
9-4 98.3%
9-7 77.2
out of a total exams taken 843, there were 12 exams with a result of 3 and 1 with a 2

twistyizzy · 14/10/2025 20:15

ParentOfOne · 14/10/2025 20:13

@twistyizzy You do you, but Latin is not the hill I'd die on.
If anything, mentioning Latin as proof of the government defunding schools (rather than one of the many more pressing issues) is one of those peak mumsnet out-of-touch moments!

Now here are the average results for the independent schools in the same area:
95% of students achieving 9-4 grades
30% achieving 9-7 grades

You mean to tell me that the schools which admit the richer and more academic kids do better in their exams? Wow, who would have every imagined... This is a revolutionary discovery! Call the Secretary of Education right now!!

Again, read all the previous studies on how, once you normalise for socio-economic factors, there is no conclusive evidence that grammar school kids do any better.

How to miss the point 🙄 as usual

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 14/10/2025 20:13

@twistyizzy You do you, but Latin is not the hill I'd die on.
If anything, mentioning Latin as proof of the government defunding schools (rather than one of the many more pressing issues) is one of those peak mumsnet out-of-touch moments!

Now here are the average results for the independent schools in the same area:
95% of students achieving 9-4 grades
30% achieving 9-7 grades

You mean to tell me that the schools which admit the richer and more academic kids do better in their exams? Wow, who would have every imagined... This is a revolutionary discovery! Call the Secretary of Education right now!!

Again, read all the previous studies on how, once you normalise for socio-economic factors, there is no conclusive evidence that grammar school kids do any better.

OP posts:
coxesorangepippin · 14/10/2025 19:54

Apparently the boys had a lower pass rate than the girls for the 11+??

😲

Because girls are, well, considered cleverer??

Is this the case

twistyizzy · 14/10/2025 19:34

ParentOfOne · 14/10/2025 19:00

@Araminta1003 On admission by lottery: like I said, those who do not want a lottery system are not allowed to criticise buying into catchment. Are you OK with people buying a place at a good state school simply paying the premium for the houses closest to a school? What is your alternative? as ever, the answer is a deafening silence.

Your deflection is unbelievable. I could easily turn the question around: there is no proof that grammars promote social mobility, nor that kids do better at grammar, so why on Earth do you support that system?

Comprehensive means a lot of different things.
I have been adamant that I don't support the kind of comp that levels everyone down to the minimum common denominator.
That is not the only option.
There are many comps which do divide kids by ability, but over time, not based on an unscientific one-off stressful over-tutored test, and where kids flourish.

The dogmatic pro-grammar ideologues love to present a false dichotomy which is, well, just false. Levelling everyone down is not the only possible alternative to grammars.

No but it's where we end up every time eg Labour ending funding for IB , Latin programmes etc in state schools.

It always ends up in levelling down.

I live in a non-grammar area. Here are the GCSE results for the comprehensive state schools:

Grades 9-4 64.4%
9-7 17.1%

Vs National figures:
Grades 9-4 67.1%
9-7 21.7%

Now here are the average results for the independent schools in the same area:
95% of students achieving 9-4 grades
30% achieving 9-7 grades

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 14/10/2025 19:00

@Araminta1003 On admission by lottery: like I said, those who do not want a lottery system are not allowed to criticise buying into catchment. Are you OK with people buying a place at a good state school simply paying the premium for the houses closest to a school? What is your alternative? as ever, the answer is a deafening silence.

Your deflection is unbelievable. I could easily turn the question around: there is no proof that grammars promote social mobility, nor that kids do better at grammar, so why on Earth do you support that system?

Comprehensive means a lot of different things.
I have been adamant that I don't support the kind of comp that levels everyone down to the minimum common denominator.
That is not the only option.
There are many comps which do divide kids by ability, but over time, not based on an unscientific one-off stressful over-tutored test, and where kids flourish.

The dogmatic pro-grammar ideologues love to present a false dichotomy which is, well, just false. Levelling everyone down is not the only possible alternative to grammars.

OP posts:
twistyizzy · 14/10/2025 11:14

Araminta1003 · 14/10/2025 11:10

“The findings also indicate that there is negligible difference between the capacity of the two systems to promote intergenerational social mobility”

So the comp system has failed to promote social mobility @ParentOfOne and you want to hassle parents even more and send the DC off to lottery based schools?

Time to accept that Education Policy has a minimal effect on social control/social mobility perhaps? In fact, all the control exercised centrally is putting a lot of kids and families and teachers off!!!

Well said 👏

Schools need to be able to get back to educating pupils instead of being cut price social services.

Araminta1003 · 14/10/2025 11:10

“The findings also indicate that there is negligible difference between the capacity of the two systems to promote intergenerational social mobility”

So the comp system has failed to promote social mobility @ParentOfOne and you want to hassle parents even more and send the DC off to lottery based schools?

Time to accept that Education Policy has a minimal effect on social control/social mobility perhaps? In fact, all the control exercised centrally is putting a lot of kids and families and teachers off!!!

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 13/10/2025 22:37

@BreakingBroken Thank you for the link. I'll read the review when I have a chance. For the moment, I have skimmed through the abstract, and, well, I am not sure that a review which reaches these conclusions contradicts much of what I have been saying:

when relevant student and school characteristics are controlled for, academic selection has a negligible overall effect on academic achievement relative to all-ability comprehensive post-primary education. The findings also indicate that there is negligible difference between the capacity of the two systems to promote intergenerational social mobility, but that academic selection potentially reinforces and further entrenches socioeconomic disparities in educational outcomes

OP posts:
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 13/10/2025 22:35

@Bunnycat101 Sorry to hear about your experience. I have no doubt that there are plenty of state comps which level down to the minimum common denominator. Of course any parent who could choose between that and a grammar for a reasonably academic child would choose the grammar. That is not the point.

The point is that that's a false dichotomy. Those two are not the only possibilities. There are plenty of state comps which are NOT like that and which achieve good results by channelling every child towards the path that best works for them.

OP posts:
Bunnycat101 · 13/10/2025 13:41

I have moved my 9 year old from state to private recently. I have to laugh at any claims that the 11 plus is untutorable. She’s having regular reasoning lessons whereas in her state primary she wouldn’t have set eyes on any of the material. You can see loads of the questions assume a certain amount of general knowledge which in and of itself has a social bias. So I fully see that the 11 plus absolutely favours socio-economically advantaged kids.

However, I’m not sure GCSEs are necessarily the best measure to use in saying outcomes are no different. On paper, I was the classic ‘bright kid will do well anywhere’ in a rubbish comp getting a string of A*s. However, I hid my abilities and generally aimed for self-preservation. I had very low confidence as a result and I certainly wasn’t pushed but in hindsight can see I was clever enough to get away with it at gcse. An environment surrounded by like minded kids sounds like Disneyland in comparison to the day to day life in my comp. I would have got the same grades at a grammar as I did at the comp but I’d have had a much nicer time and probably been better prepared for a-levels.

Neurodiversitydoctor · 13/10/2025 00:46

Araminta1003 · 12/10/2025 20:42

DS is in Year 7 at a superselective grammar school. He has already been to Astronomy, Physics and all sorts of academic extension clubs and talks given by former pupils who return to discuss eg their PhD they are doing at Cambridge and specific research products they have been invited to. I never told DS to go, he really wants to! Most of his former primary school friends would have zero interest in this kind of thing.
The local comprehensive offers none of this, albeit much larger, the kids are more interested in sports there and other types of clubs like wood work. DD is also in a superselective grammar and going to a lecture at LSE and I think another talk at UCL just next week and a number of her year group are going along. It is open to everyone but the kids in these schools are interested in this stuff. It is not because they were overtutored or because the parents are “pushing” them. You do not push at Sixth Form, they do want they want! In fact, even in Year 7 you are not there to tell them which clubs to go to.

GCSE results are only part of the picture, a small one at that. The schools do not have extra funding to put much on. It is done by the students. They decide who to invite. When they eventually go along to their Oxbridge interviews they have lots to talk about, it is a natural consequence of years of this.

This was our experience. Lots of culturally enriching activities, nice kids, nice parents, good teachers, v. few behaviour problems, an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect- thats before we start on the academics.

Swipe left for the next trending thread