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 · 11/10/2025 20:41

@Araminta1003 I am always 100 per cent bought in on what is on the tin and what their schools have stood for

If you have always managed to find schools which align "100%" with your views it means you are very lucky. And, like most such people, you struggle to appreciate that life doesn't always work that way.

If a cycling advocate drives 2 miles to work instead of taking the cycle path, or the bus, or the train, they are a hypocrite.

But if a cycling advocate drives to work because there is no cycle path and no public transport, they are not hypocrites, they are simply playing the hand they are dealt. Same thing here.

OP posts:
Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 20:39

I do not think one can really generalise on all grammar schools either. For my DS who is in Year 7 I chose one where they do not set for Maths until GCSE years. They do not really need to because it is superselective. I find the whole idea of the threat of moving up and down sets depending on your hormones and constant assessment in the key growth years scarier than the 11 plus when my DC have been quite amenable to doing a bit of extra work at home because they were under challenged at state primary anyway. For example, a lot of kids we know at our local comprehensive have a science test in Year 9 and only if they do well enough, are they allowed to do triple science. So a lot of them then tutor for that. At DS’ grammar they all do triple science anyway. They actually get to relax and explore the curriculum very widely in Years 7, 8 and 9 before the whole GCSE saga of learn the material and practise past papers above all else kicks in.

I think these things are really down to an individual’s choice. I personally would dislike the idea of a school where there is a selective coveted stream separate from the rest of the school as well. I find that more divisive. We also have a very large primary school local to us and I chose a small church school where kids know each other really well across all year groups (which may well have been another person’s nightmare).

User37482 · 11/10/2025 20:33

ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 19:53

@Underthinker They were misclassified.
The whole point of the 11+ is that it should identify the most academic children. That 1/4 of the children perform differently from how the 11+ suggested is quite the biggie. It suggests the 11+ is a rather poor tool to identify the most academic children.

If you say that it's normal for a child to perform differently between the ages of 10 and 16, it means you shouldn't use a one-off test taken at 10 to determine their future education.

The low correlation with the Y6 SATs (taken only 8 months later) is even worse and even harder to explain. What do you make of that? Do you dismiss that as irrelevant, too?

And let's not forget the inconsistencies from one test to another and the lack of transparency.
Some schools consider you academic enough if you answer certain questions in 30 seconds, others give you more time.
Some include spatial reasoning, some exclude it.
Etc etc etc

I haven’t read the whole thread but does that mean 75% of children performed as you would expect? Thats pretty reasonable imo given kids aren’t robots.

Underthinker · 11/10/2025 20:23

@ParentOfOne
The 11+ classifies the children by how good they are at the 11+, that's it. It doesn't promise that the highest scores will correlate exactly with the top gcse performers.

Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 20:11

“The low correlation with the Y6 SATs (taken only 8 months later) is even worse and even harder to explain. What do you make of that? Do you dismiss that as irrelevant, too?”

What do you mean by that. Low correlation KS2 SATs and GCSE outcome or low correlation between 11 plus pass and KS2 SATs greater depth. The latter is very easily explained because those who study Maths and English for 11 plus tend to be at an advantage for KS2 SATs.
11 plus often does test VR and NVR and given the speed those are much harder to simply learn and prep for. Some prep is required, but it is very difficult to teach a brain to perform at the top level on those, in the speed required.

Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 20:08

“Remember that here the test is needed even for non-selective places, because some schools use it for banding. So not taking the test is really not an option.”

@ParentOfOne - if I felt really strongly about something like you clearly do, yes, absolutely I would not put any selective forms on my DCs’ form. Because I know I would struggle with the school and its ethos and generally I have joined the PTA and been a school governor etc so I am always 100 per cent bought in on what is on the tin and what their schools have stood for.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 19:53

@Underthinker They were misclassified.
The whole point of the 11+ is that it should identify the most academic children. That 1/4 of the children perform differently from how the 11+ suggested is quite the biggie. It suggests the 11+ is a rather poor tool to identify the most academic children.

If you say that it's normal for a child to perform differently between the ages of 10 and 16, it means you shouldn't use a one-off test taken at 10 to determine their future education.

The low correlation with the Y6 SATs (taken only 8 months later) is even worse and even harder to explain. What do you make of that? Do you dismiss that as irrelevant, too?

And let's not forget the inconsistencies from one test to another and the lack of transparency.
Some schools consider you academic enough if you answer certain questions in 30 seconds, others give you more time.
Some include spatial reasoning, some exclude it.
Etc etc etc

OP posts:
Underthinker · 11/10/2025 19:43

I said that a few posts above. Comprehensive Future quotes a Sutton trust studies showing that about 1/4 of the kids are misclassified, i.e. low scores at the 11+ get good scores at GCSE, or viceversa

I would dispute those children are "misclassified". They just performed differently between the ages of 10 and 16.

Travelmad777 · 11/10/2025 19:30

Arran2024 · 11/10/2025 17:51

Grammar schools vary of course. I know that in some parts of the country grammar schools are part of the way the system works. Here they are almost irrelevant to most local primary students. Most of them go to comprehensives or to private schools.

Show quote history

@Arran2024 I am so sorry this has been your experience. I believe grammar schools should benefit local children.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 19:26

@Araminta1003 Again, one can only play the hand they are dealt..

I see no inconsistency.

Based on distance, there are two schools where our child would probably get in, and one where they certainly would. There are 6 options to put down.

Should I limit the choice to 3 schools, leaving 3 blank, because I object to the 11+? Who would benefit?

Remember that here the test is needed even for non-selective places, because some schools use it for banding. So not taking the test is really not an option.

If I had had the option, I would have chosen a different borough without this system. I had no such option. Finding an area to live was already difficult enough, balancing budget area commuting and schools.

No, my partner feels the exact same way as me.

And please spare me the nonsense about mansplaining. I get it that it's consistent with your attitude of attacking the person when you cannot challenge the ideas and the data, but you don't exactly cover yourself in glory when you do that.

I have presented data. You have only attacked.
Can you deny that the origin of the 11+ is rooted in eugenics? No, you can't.
Can you deny that there is no scientific backing for the test? No, you can't.
Can you deny that the test is poorly correlated with Y6 SATs and GCSE results? No, you can''t.

So what do you do? You attack me. Because I am aggressive and I mansplain. Yawn...

OP posts:
Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 19:17

Or is it that your DC’s other parent has insisted on selective education and you are struggling with the concept? Come on, this obsession whilst still sending your own DC does not make any sense.
And like I said we think Jeremy Corbyn ended up with a divorce because of his disagreements over selective education. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2

This is a chat site for women mainly so most of us tend to be somewhat emotionally honest. Or at least we end up getting there. And it is intriguing when someone who appears to present as male comes on to mansplain over many posts, rather than just join the current 11 plus group to vent their anxiety/frustration over the process.

Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 19:03

@ParentOfOne - I am not attacking you. I am just intrigued! I do not understand how anyone can supposedly feel so strongly about something but do the opposite in real life.
So you would rather make a donation to ComprehensiveFuture than eg your own child’s school?

Travelmad777 · 11/10/2025 18:52

ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 17:44

@Travelmad777 Why do we not work on providing more options than a one size fits all?

Again, it is not a one size fits all.

I am not talking about abstract theory here - I have direct knowledge of quite a few comps which work exactly like I have described, and I have shared nationwide data on how many students are divided in sets or streams for maths and science nationwide. Sure, not every school will offer everything, but, still it's not a one size fits all, not even close.

Grammar schools are not "more options" for the gazillion reasons already mentioned: based on a flawed selection process, which penalises the untutored kids with no family support and those who excel in one area and not another, which misclassifies about 1/4 of the kids, and which sucks resources from the system because comps in grammar areas tend to have a worse and more reduced offering.

All of these points are biggies for me. If they are not for you, we speak different languages and there isn't much else to say, I'm afraid.

I think we have very different experiences @ParentOfOne ParentOfOne. In our area our comprehensives are not affected by the grammar schools. In fact they have amazing offerings and great teachers. What resources do you see being sucked by grammars out of the comprehensive system?

My concern is that if all the schools in our area were made into comprehensives, the grammar kids would start to make up a large portion of the vocationally minded schools. This would change the dynamics of what was offered at these schools and the children currently enjoying vocational options would have them removed and at least diminished. What is your solution for comprehensive schools being able to provide a wide range of options?

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 18:35

@Araminta1003 You continue down your well-trodden path of attacking the person, when you cannot challenge the ideas and the data presented. I have already answered your points. So predictable. Yawn...

I shiver at the thought of what you might do if you knew my real name. Would you contact my employer to complain about me? Would you stalk me online to see if 15 years ago I wrote something which might possibly be construed as offensive or inconsistent? And, again, all because you cannot challenge the ideas and data presented.

Emailing the governor achieves nothing.
But I am consistent and do financially support associations which are in line with the values I have described (not that I have to justify myself to you).

OP posts:
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 18:30

@Underthinker What does "misclassify" mean in the context of the 11+?

I said that a few posts above. Comprehensive Future quotes a Sutton trust studies showing that about 1/4 of the kids are misclassified, i.e. low scores at the 11+ get good scores at GCSE, or viceversa
https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/grammar-school-myths-the-11-plus-exam-is-based-on-sound-scientific-research-and-is-an-effective-way-of-identifying-the-most-intelligent-children/

Then there are quirks in each test, meaning part of the result ends up being down to pot luck. Some partially selective schools use verbal and non-verbal reasoning, others only one of the two; some tests give about 30 seconds for each question, other tests give 50 seconds or so for the same type of question. Why? Where is the science behind any of this? Spoiler alert: there isn't any!!!

I could understand that maybe answering certain questions in 1 minute vs in 3 vs not answering at all might be correlated with academic results; but is there sound scientific evidence on what the appropriate time should be? On whether a kid who answers in 30 seconds is truly destined for greater academic success than one who answers in 50? No! So why are different tests structured so differently? The huge variation in this kind of tests suggests it's all bs that they make up along the way, without any sound scientific backing.

Another study looked at the correlation between the Kent Test and the Y6 SATs taken about 8 months later, and found correlations between 0.60 and 0.68 - strong, but not strong enough to base the entire educational future of a child just on that.

Do you not find it disturbing that the correlation between 11+ and i) Y6 SATs as well as ii)GCSE results is so low?

Another study concluded that

the issue of who passes is incredibly sensitive to slight variation in candidate performance because of the design of the test. Short papers, of 25-30 minutes, coupled with the need to meet a minimum mark on each of the three papers, means that 8% of those who pass are just one mark away from failing.”

Also, there tends to be little to no transparency on these 11+ tests.
For GCSE and A-levels, grade boundaries are published.
Not so for the 11+.

Last year, campaigners asked the Linconlshire Consortium of Grammar School, were refused, took the consortium to court and won. A judge ruled that the refusal was not in accordance with the law.

OP posts:
InMyShowgirlEra · 11/10/2025 18:27

ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 17:44

@Travelmad777 Why do we not work on providing more options than a one size fits all?

Again, it is not a one size fits all.

I am not talking about abstract theory here - I have direct knowledge of quite a few comps which work exactly like I have described, and I have shared nationwide data on how many students are divided in sets or streams for maths and science nationwide. Sure, not every school will offer everything, but, still it's not a one size fits all, not even close.

Grammar schools are not "more options" for the gazillion reasons already mentioned: based on a flawed selection process, which penalises the untutored kids with no family support and those who excel in one area and not another, which misclassifies about 1/4 of the kids, and which sucks resources from the system because comps in grammar areas tend to have a worse and more reduced offering.

All of these points are biggies for me. If they are not for you, we speak different languages and there isn't much else to say, I'm afraid.

Wow, imagine if you channeled all this energy into...well... anything else. Maybe you should print all your comments off and sell a book. Whether anyone reads it is another matter.

Did your DD get in to Grammar or not?

DiscoBeat · 11/10/2025 18:21

Well it's not used as that now, obviously. But I do think it should change. Sure, assess the children and stream the classes but don't have totally separate schools. Our children passed their 11+, purely because the grammar schools around here are the best schools. But their schools are still a 40 minute drive away and I would much rather they'd been able to go a nearer school.

Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 18:18

And are you going to start making the suggested donations to Graveney? Or is that just for the “second homeowners”
to do so your child benefits indirectly? Where do you stand on all these things that reduce state head teachers to have to beg to provide basics for their students in a developed country?

Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 18:14

So @ParentOfOne if you DC gets to Graveney, are you going to start emailing the head teacher and governors telling them to amend the admissions policy and get rid of selective places? And send them all your links? And “data”? I am intrigued to know. Or are you going to try and get yourself on the governing board?

Underthinker · 11/10/2025 18:03

@ParentOfOne
...which misclassifies about 1/4 of the kids

What does "misclassify" mean in the context of the 11+?

Arran2024 · 11/10/2025 17:51

Travelmad777 · 11/10/2025 14:36

My DC grammar is the antithesis of what you describe. They are flourishing where they are. They love their teachers. Children are very much involved in music and art and they have amazing departments with great opportunities. Alot take music and art for GCSE as well as drama and PE. They have an amazing production each year as well as a variety of music concerts. They have art and photography competitions.

Show quote history

Grammar schools vary of course. I know that in some parts of the country grammar schools are part of the way the system works. Here they are almost irrelevant to most local primary students. Most of them go to comprehensives or to private schools.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 17:44

@Travelmad777 Why do we not work on providing more options than a one size fits all?

Again, it is not a one size fits all.

I am not talking about abstract theory here - I have direct knowledge of quite a few comps which work exactly like I have described, and I have shared nationwide data on how many students are divided in sets or streams for maths and science nationwide. Sure, not every school will offer everything, but, still it's not a one size fits all, not even close.

Grammar schools are not "more options" for the gazillion reasons already mentioned: based on a flawed selection process, which penalises the untutored kids with no family support and those who excel in one area and not another, which misclassifies about 1/4 of the kids, and which sucks resources from the system because comps in grammar areas tend to have a worse and more reduced offering.

All of these points are biggies for me. If they are not for you, we speak different languages and there isn't much else to say, I'm afraid.

OP posts:
Travelmad777 · 11/10/2025 17:24

Your comprehensive model sounds lovely and works in theory, but I don't think it works practically especially where you have a wide range of intake. There just is not budget to cater for everyone.

We are lucky to have some amazing comps in our area. All different in some respect. I have seen parents move children who are not coping in the 'academic' ones to those with more vocational focus. Their children are transformed from school refusers to loving school. Likewise I have seen parents of academic children who were in the more vocational schools move their children to a more academic setting as their children were getting frustrated at not being sufficiently challenged or restriction of options.

Why do we not work on providing more options than a one size fits all?

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 17:08

@Travelmad777 I actually work in one. Children are only set for maths, not for any other subjects. One of our local comps actually makes a point of not setting as they say there is no evidence to support it.

If one comprehensive uses sets only for maths, the problem is with the school, not with the comprehensive model

The comprehensive model is perfectly compatible with differentiating kids over time based on ability. E.g. in your school do some kids take combined science while others triple science? The undersubscribed comps in my area (which no one wants) all give this option, as well as the option of taking further maths at GCSE.

Comprehensive Future claims that, by Y10, 96% of pupils are placed in sets or stream for maths, and 76% for science

Just to add I do not see higher vs foundation as setting as each category contains a wide range of ability

Call it what you will, it still means that it's not true that it's a one-size solution where all the kids to the same things, as the grammar school advocates love to repeat.

Attainment setting, complex timetables and most importantly, pens! - Teacher Tapp

1. Game, set and match During the pandemic, many of secondary teachers told us their school had removed some Key Stage 3 attainment grouping to … Continued

https://teachertapp.com/articles/attainment-setting-complex-timetables-and-most-importantly-pens/

OP posts:
deeahgwitch · 11/10/2025 16:41

FluffMagnet · 09/10/2025 10:15

Frankly I think we need more division of secondary education, akin to the Dutch and German systems. Some children are academic, others more practical/engineer minded. Why we force all children to do the same things, I will never know. Encourage children to pursue their natural talents, rather than chase unattainable ideals, and choose the child's schooling on that basis.

The grammar system is great for kids who are naturally academically minded. It is a shame we as a country to little to cater for children gifted in other areas.

I agree with you @FluffMagnet

Swipe left for the next trending thread