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
Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 08:31

The comprehensive system we have in this country right now is extremely capitalist as anyone can buy their way into a catchment. At least it is free to go to church or send your child to a grammar test. When the Government removes choice even more (as they have just done with private education) it simply leads to even more expensive catchments.

The reason we sent our 4 DC to grammar school is because it saved us money moving house and the hefty stamp duty fees. Believe it or not, some of us are perfectly capable of “tutoring” their own DC even into the most supposedly selective schools. And no we weren’t taken in by the tutoring industry as we like to DIY. Similarly, if there were no choice at all we just would homeschool, genuinely so, or move to a different country. If our local comprehensive had been very good I would have happily sent my DC there. It wasn’t and still isn’t. So grammar, church and music and language aptitude tests it is for people like us. Just like you then @ParentOfOne?

Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 08:05

Giving parents choice creates both more engagement with education and competition between schools. Reducing choice does the opposite.

CatchingtheCat · 11/10/2025 07:39

ElizaMulvil unions are still riddled with miisogyny and led by misogynists. My cousin left the BMA when their rep agreed with her original training provider that being pregnant was a good reason when choosing who to bump onto another area when they over recruited. And just look at all the recent court cases where employers have been found to have discriminated against women and those women’s unions have sided with the employer and refused to represent them. Or their recent motions destroying women’s rights…

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 07:37

@Araminta1003 Grammar schools should have created a lobby group?

Did you not know that the National Grammar Schools Association and the Grammar School Heads Association exist?

these people will not rest until they have imposed their ideologies on everyone else.

So, let me get this straight: opposing grammar schools is an ideology, while advocating them isn't? Do I need to remind you that the 11+ was created not from a sound scientific basis, but from the eugenics ideology? That its creator falsified his research because he couldn't prove his hypothesis? That, to this day, there continues to be NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for this kind of test?

There is sound scientific evidence against the 11+ (like the studies on how the test misclassifies 1/4 of the students, and how, normalising for socio-economic status, grammars make no difference). Where is the evidence in favour of grammars?

Advocating a position based on evidence and facts is not ideology, is simply sound policy.
Advocating a position which is not substantiated by any data IS ideology.

Remind me again, which was the ideology?

You talk about choice. But it's not free choice if your "choice" ends up messing everyone else and is financed by everyone else's taxes.

It's not choice if you want everyone's taxes to finance a school which discriminates based on your religion. We would never accept that with hospitals. But we have been trough that, and I appreciate you are too dogmatic to understand that.

It's not free choice if the "choice" of a grammar leaves non-grammars with a very reduced offering, which is all the more problematic since the 11+ misclassifies 1/4 of the kids.

It's not free choice if you impose a test like the 11+, which misclassifies ca. 1/4 of the kids (but you don't care about that, do you?)

OP posts:
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 07:20

@Araminta1003 Once again, when you cannot attack the data and the arguments, you attack the person. So predictable.

First of all, you should know that the test you mention is required, even for non-selective places, by schools which use it for banding. So not taking it is really not much of an option.

Then, yes, I also entered my child into another test for a partially selective school.

You play the hand you are dealt. There is nothing inconsistent about using a system while advocating certain changes to it.

The grammar system was certainly one of the (many) reasons we did not move to Kent - although it is much, much easier to get into a Kent grammar than in a partially super-selective in London.

It's a bit like when all those around you stand on their toes to get a better view: we'd all be better off if no one did it, but, once everyone else around you does, you don't have much of an option.

OP posts:
DenizenOfAisleOfShame · 11/10/2025 07:10

What a strange opening post.

There are plenty of good arguments for and against academic selection.

The life and times of Cyril Burt isn’t one of them.

I get a sense that the OP is reaching a bit here, in a zealous mission to oppose grammars, possibly for purely personal reasons.

Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 07:10

My feelings on Comprehensive Future are simple. I think the private school groups were asleep at the wheel and should have created a “private school charity lobby group” and it sounds increasingly likely like the grammar schools should do the same. Because these people will not rest until they have imposed their ideologies on everyone else.

As a parent I would like a choice, as broad a choice as possible. To choose between a comprehensive, school with or without faith, independent schools, grammar schools. I do not want to be dictated to on the educational choices I make for MY children. And increasingly I would like the option to opt out of the large data gathering exercise imposed on us via the state education system. There should be the option to opt out!

ElizaMulvil · 11/10/2025 07:06

I think it was a Headmaster if a Junior School in the Midlands who was setting his children and realised that in reality what he was largely doing was putting them in age order. Not surprising really when the older September born children e.g. had had into a year longer in school than those born in August. E.g. I only had 2 weeks in Reception my friend September born had a whole year. This was compounded by a shortage of teachers ( historically women had been forced to retire of they married) so in some areas (particularly in poorer areas ) children were in classes of up to 60, 70, 80. I myself was in a class of 56. My cousin who taught uncertificated in Salford ( supposed to only teach a half class in reality taught 70 plus.) Worse again the Grammar system discriminated against girls. Girls who had passed higher than boys were forced into Secondary Modern schools, because there were often equal or even a lot more places in Grammars for boys than girls. E.g. in Manchester there were direct grant schools ("elite" single sex schools with considerably more places for boys than girls.)It was difficult to get graduate teachers for Secondary Moderns so often virtually no physics e.g. taught. (Compouned by the misogyny of some male teachers who actively campaigned against equal pay for women and ended up founding their own union, the National Association of School MASTERS (now NASUWT , the Union of women teachers being added when the Labour Government banned discrimination excluding women. (It staggers me that women still join an organisation with such a history.) Girls were
forced to leave school at 15 with no qualifications. Of course the Public Schools, Oxbridge etc catered largely for the male sex. Directly excluding girls from access to certain courses like Mathematics, indirectly by having approximately 10 times the places for boys than girls. Comprehensive education has been the route outlawing discrimination not just against girls but against poorer children en masse. Some enlightened LEAs even have managed to arrange feeder primaries so secondary schools have a true mix and therefore do not de facto discriminate against the poor.

Araminta1003 · 11/10/2025 07:01

@ParentOfOne - you entered your own DC for an 11 plus state school test in London, one of the most competitive ones. A “partially” selective school.

It is a bit like when Diane Abbott sent her DS to City of London (a competitive private school).

At least Jeremy Corbyn refused to engage with the 11 plus.

If you are going to preach anti 11 plus consistently on MN, which is a chat forum, we do expect you to follow through in real life.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 06:56

@Araminta1003 Anyways… we are in an AI tech arms race so nobody in their right mind will be closing any London superselective grammar schools, any time soon.

And yet the partially selective intake at certain schools, like Graveney in SW London, was reduced a few years ago. I.e., after a popular backlash, the school now admits fewer students based on a test result, and more by distance. Odd, no?

I do not quite understand what the "AI teach arms race" has to do with the 11+

Comprehensive Future has a summary of grammar school myths that need debunking: https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/grammar-school-myths/

Studies which compared 11+ results with GCSEs found that the 11+ misclassified ca. 1/4 of the students (you passed the 11+ but not the GCSE, or viceversa). Again, that's why a better system is a continuous assessment at secondary, to then divide kids into sets.

A 2028 study on the British Journal of Sociology of Education looked at differences in the socio-economic background of students, and found that

results from grammar schools are no better than expected, once these differences are accounted for

Now, let me guess: will you present contrasting evidence, data and studies to support the opposite points, or will you deflect and attack me like you have done until now? Is there any cliché you haven't resorted to yet? Have you used "champagne liberal"?

Grammar school myths – Comprehensive Future

There are many myths and preconceptions about the benefits of selective education. In this series of articles, we challenge some of the ... Read more

https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/grammar-school-myths/

OP posts:
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 06:37

@twistyizzy And now the NE consistently ranks as lowest performing region for GCSEs and A levels.
So it's safe to say the comprehensive system has totally failed the DC in the NE. Lowest outcomes plus least likely to go to the best universities etc.

What makes you think that grammar schools would have made a difference?

Why do you think the comprehensive system works in other parts of the country?

Couldn't it be that maybe there may be other factors at play?

Also, it's not like the whole of the NE performs poorly.
Ofqual has interesting interactive charts: https://analytics.ofqual.gov.uk/apps/GCSE/County/

If you search for "English" and "4 and above" (the GCSE pass grade), you'll see that North Yorkshire has a % comparable to Greater London. Same in maths: 59% vs 62%

The picture changes when you look at the top grades, 7 and above (which you can see at the previous link and https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infographic-gcse-results-2024/infographics-for-gcse-results-2024-accessible ), where indeed London tends to outperform the NE.

This could be due to a number of factors. It could well have to do with London having more families with that combination of higher income, higher education, and cultural attitude which values education.

As has been said on the thread, the system is failing white working class kids (boys more than girls). And there's more of them in the NE than in London.

OP posts:
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 06:18

@twistyizzy I don't "shut down", I respond to nonsense with data and facts. Those who cannot reply then attack me. It's a tad different.

You, @Araminta1003 and others have the textbook behaviour of a toxic internet troll: you attack me personally, eg comparing me to a racist charlatan of the past who had falsified his research, then try to deflect away from the issue, eg talking about white guilt, or saying that other problems are more pressing. That's one of the oldest dirty tricks on the book: when you are cornered and cannot disprove an argument, attack the person and shift the focus away. By this logic, nothing should ever be discussed, because there will always be a more pressing matter.

Talking about "white guilt" is laughable. You don't even know my race, and, frankly, what relevance would that have?
The white guilt you mention is what caused leftist extremists in California to cancel advanced calculus classes in secondary schools, because not enough black and latino students were taking them (mostly white and Asian). That's madness, and I have already criticised it harshly. So, no, my attitude is the exact opposite.

I don't want to "level down". I advocate a system where comprehensive schools, based on continuous assessment (not a one-off overtutored test), channel kids towards what is best for them, which will be vocational qualifications for some, and more advanced academic subjects for others.

@Araminta1003 How on Earth would Cyril Burt "represent me"? He thought that having studied Classics at Oxford gave him the right to study areas he knew nothing about, wanted to prove his racist hypotheses, and, when he failed to do so, he falsified his research.

And no, I don't want to "cancel" anyone. On the contrary: I want Cyril Burt and the story behind the 11+ to be studied, acknowledged, remembered. That's the exact opposite of "cancelling".

Just like we don't cancel the dictators and monsters of the past: we study them, to learn from past mistakes, and try to avoid them in the future.

Again: if Burt's hypotheses had been proven eventually, it would be different. they were not.
The 11+ was rooted in eugenics, it was born to distinguish the genetically "superior" children, its author falsified his research because he was unable to prove his hypotheses, and, to this day, there continues to be no scientific backing for that approach.

You seem to have completely ignored everything I said, and gone for the lazy cheap flawed approach of assuming that whoever opposes the 11+ must be some kind of cancel culture extremist. Ironically, in so doing you have shown a level of text comprehension skills far below what is typically expected at the 11+ !!!

OP posts:
Garamousalata · 11/10/2025 06:10

Thanks for raising this @ParentOfOne . The discredited Cyril Burt is a stain on our educational system and his lying and subsequent legacy should be be better known about.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/10/2025 06:06

@Araminta1003 You compare criticism of the 11+, backed by historical facts and well-documented current research, with... men going to war? Some previous nonsense was even funny. This is just sad. You need help. Seriously.

@Araminta1003 I fail to see any big difference between an 11 plus test and the KS2 SATs.
They are either too young to be tested and stressed out at 10/11 or they are not.

You really cannot see any difference between the 11+, which determines the next 5 years of their education, based on a one-off test, and the KS2 SATs, which are part of a continuous assessment?
In many secondaries, sets are determined based on a combination of SATs, other tests, and how the child performs at the beginning of Y7. Some schools only put kids into sets at Y8.

Also, unlike the 11+, SATs are a useful way to assess schools, not just students, and to identify if there are primary schools or areas where the kids not reaching the expected standard are much more than the national average.

See the difference?

@anyolddinosaur I dont personally think tutoring matters that much, a little familiarity with the type of questions may do so.
I disagree. If you were right, this gigantic tutoring industry would not exist.
If you were right, psychologists wouldn't be forbidden from administering IQ tests too often (because familiarity with the test biases the results)

OP posts:
GirlsInGreen · 10/10/2025 18:30

Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 09:48

It is so deeply ironic though, trying to cancel some bygone dude who pretty much represents yourself. It is fascinating really. Seems to be the rich white man has realised his chums in the white working class man and vice versa, yet the white middle class male is boxing into thin air trying to work out his identity, completely lost in colonial and historic guilt, and utterly confused. Unfortunately these persons and their thinking still dictate our daily lives so it is important to call it out when obvious even on a pointless social media waffle post.

Oof 👏

twistyizzy · 10/10/2025 18:23

Xenia · 10/10/2025 18:20

Where I am originally from in NE England they abolished hgrammar schools entirely in about 1970 just before I might have done the 11+ (although I went to private school from age 4 anyway). 93% of people are white in NE England. I do think that removing the grammar schools there did make it harder for the brightest of 11 year olds to move class and come out of poverty - sometimes it meant the child was taken into a different kind of world and caught between new friends and the old life at home but it opened opportunities which I am not so sure are available in the comprehensives there today eg my father's old grammar school used to send some boys to good university including my father and his brother to do medicine but that does not seem to be the case today.

And now the NE consistently ranks as lowest performing region for GCSEs and A levels.
So it's safe to say the comprehensive system has totally failed the DC in the NE. Lowest outcomes plus least likely to go to the best universities etc.

Xenia · 10/10/2025 18:20

Where I am originally from in NE England they abolished hgrammar schools entirely in about 1970 just before I might have done the 11+ (although I went to private school from age 4 anyway). 93% of people are white in NE England. I do think that removing the grammar schools there did make it harder for the brightest of 11 year olds to move class and come out of poverty - sometimes it meant the child was taken into a different kind of world and caught between new friends and the old life at home but it opened opportunities which I am not so sure are available in the comprehensives there today eg my father's old grammar school used to send some boys to good university including my father and his brother to do medicine but that does not seem to be the case today.

Livpool · 10/10/2025 18:00

Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 09:48

It is so deeply ironic though, trying to cancel some bygone dude who pretty much represents yourself. It is fascinating really. Seems to be the rich white man has realised his chums in the white working class man and vice versa, yet the white middle class male is boxing into thin air trying to work out his identity, completely lost in colonial and historic guilt, and utterly confused. Unfortunately these persons and their thinking still dictate our daily lives so it is important to call it out when obvious even on a pointless social media waffle post.

Well exactly…

CatchingtheCat · 10/10/2025 14:09

Not having any data also means lack of understanding of the impact of educational initiatives and lack of accountability by teachers, schools and government. Which might go part way to explaining why Scottish education has been deteriorating so badly.

Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 12:57

The flipside of “progress” is a massive data gathering exercise on your child since almost infancy though with the DFE keeping the data until 25 (I think) and a whole industry of supposed experts studying the data in an abstract sense. The amount of data the State has on my DC via NHS and state education is mind boggling and now with all these ID cards coming in (which I was pro, originally at least, if used for work purposes) - well I can increasingly understand why disengagement with the entire machine/apparatus at the FSM level may be far more than meets the eye at first. It is a system invented by the educated middle classes for the educated middle classes primarily. Call it what you like, a spade is still a spade.

CatchingtheCat · 10/10/2025 12:50

Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 12:05

OK but they then introduced KS2 SATS and a compulsory national curriculum and compulsory GCSEs for all. I still fail to see how at a real common sense level this is any different? The kids are being prodded and tested from an early age all in the spirit of progress etc. but really as a parent, I fail to see any big difference between an 11 plus test and the KS2 SATs.

They are either too young to be tested and stressed out at 10/11 or they are not.

In Scotland they aren’t tested so you have no idea of progress until they hit their secondary exams.

Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 12:05

OK but they then introduced KS2 SATS and a compulsory national curriculum and compulsory GCSEs for all. I still fail to see how at a real common sense level this is any different? The kids are being prodded and tested from an early age all in the spirit of progress etc. but really as a parent, I fail to see any big difference between an 11 plus test and the KS2 SATs.

They are either too young to be tested and stressed out at 10/11 or they are not.

CatchingtheCat · 10/10/2025 11:49

Papyrophile · 10/10/2025 10:06

In practical terms, I think the 11+ age was purely expedient because it was administered before children moved on to their secondary schools. Why we decided on 11 as the starting point for secondary, I don't know.

I suspect it wasn’t so much decided as a starting age as a school leaving age.

Papyrophile · 10/10/2025 10:06

In practical terms, I think the 11+ age was purely expedient because it was administered before children moved on to their secondary schools. Why we decided on 11 as the starting point for secondary, I don't know.

twistyizzy · 10/10/2025 09:49

Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 09:48

It is so deeply ironic though, trying to cancel some bygone dude who pretty much represents yourself. It is fascinating really. Seems to be the rich white man has realised his chums in the white working class man and vice versa, yet the white middle class male is boxing into thin air trying to work out his identity, completely lost in colonial and historic guilt, and utterly confused. Unfortunately these persons and their thinking still dictate our daily lives so it is important to call it out when obvious even on a pointless social media waffle post.

🎯