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 · 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.

anyolddinosaur · 10/10/2025 09:47

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

Yes grammar schools are socially selective but that is in part selecting those who place a high value on education from those who dont. I dont personally think tutoring matters that much, a little familiarity with the type of questions may do so. Most parents could manage that as virtually everyone has an internet connection and you can find practise papers online and sometimes in charity shops.

Did you start you child playing games where they count from an early age, things like snakes and ladders, dominoes, cribbage? Ever played scrabble or internet logic games like parking jam?

If you havent supported your child's education that's a shame. If they are a late developer some grammars have a second entry later.

twistyizzy · 10/10/2025 09:29

Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 09:27

Unfortunately men have throughout history done precisely that. Felt anxious about something affecting them or their own DC somehow, not dealt with that anxiety in a healthy way and then gone out to war! It is so bloody toxic and predictable.

Toxic masculinity. OP demonstrates it regularly through shutting down anyone who disagrees with them on these posts.

Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 09:27

Unfortunately men have throughout history done precisely that. Felt anxious about something affecting them or their own DC somehow, not dealt with that anxiety in a healthy way and then gone out to war! It is so bloody toxic and predictable.

twistyizzy · 10/10/2025 09:21

Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 09:18

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. Have you even bothered to look at how many of the DC there are achieving top grades in Maths, Further Maths and Sciences including Computer Science? And then bothered to look into the fact that the Government full well know that Tech is an important area and are throwing Oxford Cambridge corridor left right and centre and extra funding at Sixth Formers doing 4 A levels including Furher Maths?

Literally, nobody gives two shits about the collective white middle class male guilt. It is a bygone phenomenon. And funny how the white middle class male suddenly gives two shiny shits about the working class white male, and only once, he has been surpassed by the female and the ethnic minority. Yet still you are taking a swipe at the posh men above you? Give it a rest and actually tune in to what is going on.

Exactly. Yet again OP is honing in on something insignificant in the context of the current educational + social landscape and crisis. They never ever talk about the real issues.

Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 09:18

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. Have you even bothered to look at how many of the DC there are achieving top grades in Maths, Further Maths and Sciences including Computer Science? And then bothered to look into the fact that the Government full well know that Tech is an important area and are throwing Oxford Cambridge corridor left right and centre and extra funding at Sixth Formers doing 4 A levels including Furher Maths?

Literally, nobody gives two shits about the collective white middle class male guilt. It is a bygone phenomenon. And funny how the white middle class male suddenly gives two shiny shits about the working class white male, and only once, he has been surpassed by the female and the ethnic minority. Yet still you are taking a swipe at the posh men above you? Give it a rest and actually tune in to what is going on.

Threebeelee · 10/10/2025 08:43

ParentOfOne · 10/10/2025 01:04

Yes! Which is why I have said it multiple times in the thread!
Already on page 2 I said " I know that white working class boys are being failed by the system."

Show quote history

No good putting it on page 2 when your opening speech ends in some kind of divisive minority disadvantage speech telling them the grammar system is trying to ‘eugenic’ them.

I will be honest you lost me there OP so have a nice day.

Starwarsepisode3 · 10/10/2025 08:25

At the time my kids went to secondary, I was a single parent living on a rough council estate who had left school at 16.

I put them over some practice papers but I could not afford tutoring.

they got FSM the whole way through grammar (all 3 of them) and are now in their early-mid 20s with degrees in competitive disciplines.

They wouldn’t have done as well if they had gone to the local secondary and I hadn’t had the support in the form of a council house to give them stability.

Underthinker · 10/10/2025 08:18

@ParentOfOne I'm not burying my head in the sand. You seem to think the 11+ is unfair because it's not 100% meritocratic, I'm just pointing out no system will be.

It's completely reasonable to argue that you think a fully comprehensive is better than a grammar system, I dont have a strong opinion either way, but wanging on about eugenics makes your case less convincing.

TheIncredibleGato · 10/10/2025 08:17

Interesting points OP. I wasn't actually aware of the origins of the test.

I have 3 children at grammar school. I'm a huge fan of the 11+ as it's given my children a chance to go to an incredible school with impressive results and very low levels of bad behavior/exclusions. We would not have been able to afford private education so for us this is the next best thing. It's great that academically minded children and parents have this option.

My husband and I are from poor working class backgrounds and went to local - terrible - comprehensives. We've put in some serious effort to support our children with their education.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 10/10/2025 08:09

@Underthinker Family involvement makes a huge difference at any age, but all the more so at 10, for the reasons I described.
But if you want to keep burying your head in the sand and denying it, you do you...

@MrPickles73 like I said .. put me off reading the rest of the text..
Oh, no, a random stranger found my choice of words offensive and decided not to continue reading the text... How will I cope? My life is over...

OP posts:
MrPickles73 · 10/10/2025 08:07

@ParentOfOne like I said .. put me off reading the rest of the text..

Underthinker · 10/10/2025 08:02

Not so if you are 10 years old. That's why family involvement makes so much of a difference at the 11+.
Family involvement makes a huge difference at any age and you can't escape that. Kids whose parents invest tons of money and/or effort into their education will obviously have a huge advantage, whatever kind of school they're at.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 10/10/2025 07:56

@Underthinker Irrelevant comparison.
Kids who take GCSE and A-levels should be mature enough to understand that revision is important, and should be able to revise even if their family doesn't care about education.

Not so if you are 10 years old. That's why family involvement makes so much of a difference at the 11+.

See the difference?

@MrPickles73 Describing someone as a posh tw*t doesn't make you look very balanced and put me off reading the rest of the text.

Maybe if I rephrase it as "a posh gentleman who felt he was entitled to study psychology even though he had only studied Classics and lacked any training in psychology and science, and who decided to falsify his research when he couldn't confirm his hypothesis", would that sound better?

If you don't like 11+ don't enter it.. simples

With all due respect, this is one of the most nonsensical replies.
I was commenting on why it's flawed and why it penalises kids from certain socio-economic backgrounds, and your reply is... don't enter it????

By the same logic, you shouldn't complain about a school or an employer which discriminates because, well, don't go there? I am speechless...

@MrPickles73 Our local grammar school provides online tutoring for kids on fsm and the majority of children are Asian. Whites are a minority..

I have already answered this point multiple times

OP posts:
MrPickles73 · 10/10/2025 07:53

Our local grammar school provides online tutoring for kids on fsm and the majority of children are Asian. Whites are a minority..

MrPickles73 · 10/10/2025 07:49

Describing someone as a posh tw*t doesn't make you look very balanced and put me off reading the rest of the text.

If you don't like 11+ don't enter it.. simples

Underthinker · 10/10/2025 07:43

For the billionth time, the current system penalises the child who scores 70% untutored vs those who score 65% untutored but 75% after a year of intense tutoring. See the difference?

Of course tutoring helps, that's the point of tutoring. Also, the A level system penalises kids who don't revise.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 10/10/2025 07:21

@Araminta1003 There are schools which are partially selective, use a test which they (not the council nor an external entity) administer, and which have already shared the results of these tests, so families know if they are in, or where they are on the waiting list, or if they didn't meet the pass grade.

The indication in these cases is more solid than with the Wandsworth test, because there you can get a sense of what the minimum score required to get in was in the past years, but it can move a little bit from year to year.

OP posts:
Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 07:16

Congratulations @ParentOfOne to your DC for passing the Wandsworth test. It is as intense as all the others though, so exactly how is partially selective even relevant, given your very strong feelings on the 11 plus?
Although I personally thought results come out mid October?

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 10/10/2025 07:06

@RingoJuice Nobody really wants to face the fact that intelligence is largely inherited and this has implications for so much of what we experience in life.
Just denial and cope all around. When will people just accept reality and work from there?

Nonsense. No one is saying that there is zero innate ability, but that it's a combination of nature and nurture.

For the billionth time, the current system penalises the child who scores 70% untutored vs those who score 65% untutored but 75% after a year of intense tutoring. See the difference?

Not to mention all the other points that there is no scientific basis for testing at 10, that it penalises those who excel in one area but not another, and that it doesn't account for the peaks and troughs which are normal in pre-teens and teens.

@Araminta1003 FWIW my child has already been admitted into a partially selective school. To be precise, they cannot legally guarantee the place, but the only way they wouldn't get in is if the school received 200 applications from children with a care plan (or whatever the bureaucratic term is). We are awaiting another result. These two schools are our top 2 choices.

Make of this what you will - you are welcome to notice that my post is consistent with other posts I wrote in the past, or to think I am lying and it's all anxiety or sour grapes. I genuinely do not care.

OP posts:
Araminta1003 · 10/10/2025 06:58

Pseudo intelligence aside, this thread takes the biscuit in illustrating parental anxiety around waiting for a DC’s result, following an 11 plus style tests, and where their mind may go!

Relax OP, I am 99% certain your DC will get into Latymer. I can generally tell. Do not ask why! And if not, rest assured they have a massive 6th form intake so you get a second chance later and none of it makes any difference long term.

spoonbillstretford · 10/10/2025 03:41

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

My parents both passed in the 1950s and went to grammar schools. My dad's dad was a turner, my mum's dad worked in a ahop and her mum was a packer in a factory. They both lived in two up two down terraces in Manchester. It was certainly a deeply flawed system but the local grammars had plenty of working class kids.

BreakingBroken · 10/10/2025 03:33

this discussion is so strange, i'm not yet certain what the op is trying to discuss.
the history of the exam and the school and workplace options at the time means that in 1944 and (most likely for a short time following) the system "worked" regardless if it was based on race. young people entered a workforce clamoring for manual laborer's, a small number of middle managers and an even smaller number of university educated individuals.
as the op keeps saying she questions the validity of testing at 10, well historically with the education system at the time and the concept that by age 15 they were for the most part finished with education (the school leaving age was increased from 15-16 in 1972) and were ready for work at 15-16.
but the workforce, workplaces and workplace options have drastically changed since the end of ww2.
move onto the current educational system as a whole; it's very unequal, the same provision is not available in all regions of the uk, and the population of the uk is equally unbalanced not every school has the same representation of socioeconomic background, race or family level of education.
right now some schools are big and oversubscribed and some are at risk of closing one thing for sure though is the proportion of children with special needs either educational or emotional who in 1944 would not be in the class.
as much as the grammar process is unfair i'm of the impression the entire secondary system is flawed and malfunctioning at this point (needing strict military type discipline shows something is not working well).
grammar schools do work at separating some of the students who do well within the academic model and for the most part the exam pick out children who are biddable.
at this point; why are children on fsm under represented; that would be a good topic on it's own. location need to take a bus or added fuel for the car, uniform cost, time again location might mean a student gets home to late to take care of other responsibilities, family dynamics and family friends unsupportive (getting ahead of yourself), fear of not having friends at the school/feeling out of place (remember that people generally like to socialize with people of similar income) zero desire for attending university and various other additional costs real or perceived like tutoring. then there are deeper issues related to poverty (not all people on fsm are living in poverty) such as drug and alcohol use, mental illness, and poor nutrition.

RingoJuice · 10/10/2025 02:14

Nobody really wants to face the fact that intelligence is largely inherited and this has implications for so much of what we experience in life.

Just denial and cope all around. When will people just accept reality and work from there?

unsurewhattodoaboutit · 10/10/2025 01:07

I failed the 11 plus. Got segregated to the ‘thickly’ school. I’m a senior lecturer now in a RG university. It’s a divisive measure weighted against children from lower socioeconomic economic backgrounds. Oh and also weighted against girls!

Swipe left for the next trending thread