The 11+ was a eugenics test to weed out genetically "inferior" children, created by a classicist who falsified his research

[ParentOfOne]

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 ).

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.

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!

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 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.

@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?)

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…

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

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 The comprehensive system we have in this country right now is extremely capitalist as anyone can buy their way into a catchment.

Which is why I support a system of random lottery within a certain radius. E.g. first a lottery within 2 km, then, if places remain, within 4km, etc. It might not work rurally but it would work in densely populated cities, where buying into catchment is more of an issue.

Yet you attacked me very strongly for this.

You said it would never be accepted, yet I had shown you a list of London schools which do use a lottery.
This system would be a good compromise between serving the local community while avoiding buying into catchment.

Like I said, those who oppose a lottery system should not be allowed to complain about buying into catchment.

Do you not see how inconsistent it is of you to oppose lottery while still criticising buying into catchment?

At least it is free to go to church

What a great logic. Yes, showing up at church so that a service funded by everyone's taxes can discriminate based on religion is "free".
Would you accept someone donating land to the NHS to create an hospital, as long as said hospital discriminated against those with your religion / worldview? Even if your taxes still paid for that hospital?
Tell me, why would a state-funded hospital discriminating not be choice, but a state-funded school discriminating would be?

@Araminta1003 So grammar, church and music and language aptitude tests it is for people like us. Just like you then?

We all play the hand we are dealt. Including you and me.
The not negligible difference is that I advocate change to the system, and recognise the flaws in the system, even when these flaws favour my family. That's the very definition of being consistent. Goodbye.

So bored by this thread. Have you nothing else to do?

The 11+ and the accompanying selection system was based entirely on the fictitious work of Burt, so it’s actually difficult to see how he can be casually disregarded.

If we had a referendum on whether everyone supports a lottery system and travelling up to 4km to school (and I suspect people without kids would demand a say given the traffic implications), then we MAY get some clarity on how the majority feels about this.

You are just going to have to accept that many people want the local and simplest option. Not everyone wants to engage with pushing their kids academically. It is just not their thing and perfectly fine!

@Araminta1003 If we had a referendum on whether everyone supports a lottery system and travelling up to 4km to school (and I suspect people without kids would demand a say given the traffic implications), then we MAY get some clarity on how the majority feels about this.

I am not sure a referendum is the best way to decide these things.
Maybe we should also have a referendum on funding faith schools? Especially after the last England census showed that less than half the population (46%) identified as Christian, and 37% as no religion

Also, it is bad faith to mention "up to 4km". The first ring / catchment wouldn't be 4km, I think 2km would make much more sense. The most coveted schools already have a maximum distance < 2kms. So my proposal wouldn't suddenly cause people from 4kms away to have priority over those living next door. It would, however, mean that those who bought next to a good school would have the same odds of those who bought 2kms away where house prices were lower.

Were you not complaining about the unfairness of buying into catchment? My proposal addresses that. How would you address the problem?

It could even reduce distances travelled, limiting the barbell effect of oversubscribed schools with tiny admission distances and undersubscribed schools which take students from miles away.

In a city like London, 2 kms can be a 15-20 minute bus journey, or one train stop, or a couple of stops on the tube. Most London kids already travel these distances for secondary. And there is a scheme for discounted public transport: free buses and trams, discounted trains and tube.

A big part of the school run is caused by parents taking their kids to private schools miles and miles away, not by kids travelling 2kms to their secondary.
I think the official stats were something like 20% of secondary school kids in London being driven to work, but a lot of that is private school kids or parents in outer London dropping off their kids on their way to work. Driving a kid to secondary school in inner London tends not to make much sense.

You are just going to have to accept that many people want the local and simplest option.

2 kms is still local for a secondary school

Not everyone wants to engage with pushing their kids academically. It is just not their thing and perfectly fine!

Of course. I never said the opposite.

I reckon if we had a referendum on whether to abolish KS2 SATS and GCSEs right now, they may well be abolished. Replace it with a simple Maths and English qualification.

I think they actually have something like this in Brighton ( with pretty good results). However it is a geographically compact City with excellent public transport, I am not sure how reproducible it is.

We don't all live in London ( or Brighton as refferenced above). These dense well educated areas ( I would probably include Oxford, Cambridge and Bristol) are not where the biggest problems lie. Take a look at Nigel Farage's constituency or Blackpool.

Is the 4 miles as the crow flies or by road What happens if you don’t live within 4 miles of a school.

How many of these kids are in that position because they have been pushed by their parents from an early age, tutored like crazy, then sent to schools which prioritise these subjects, where all their friends are in the same boat?

I live near 2 of the top London grammar schools. The kids are hot housed to a ridiculous degree. Meanwhile the kids who gov to the local comprehensive can do very well too.

I still fail to see how making all schools comprehensives will cater for the broad range of intake. With current school budgets it is impossible. It will just lead to more children not being catered for and more behaviour issues.

In my DC primary school who set they were one of top set. They were bored and frustrated. Hated school and disaffected with education. They were bullied for their love of learning. They got the opportunity to go to grammar school and they are thriving. They are with like minded children all talking geeky things. Similarly have a friend with DC who was not academic, but an amazing sportsperson. Grammar would have been their worst nightmare - they admit that themselves. They were also disaffected at primary school (provision for all) They are now at a Sports College and again absolutely thriving - can't wait to get to school. I just think a one size fits all is disastrous for everyone.

My DS is one of these children , tutored through yr 5, 11+ SS West Kent Grammar 4A*s at A- levels in STEM subjects including futher maths. 1st in a pure science degree from Oxbridge. Do I regret " pushing" him ? Not at all. Does he resent it ? No he thinks he has had amazing opportunities, yes he will likely end up working on the Oxford- Cambridge gate way. What is your point ? The world needs people like my DS we can only hope he stays in the UK.

and if you tell me he would have done just as well at the local sink school or even in a bog standard comp I simply don't believe you. Also FWIW I think a lot of his potential was genetically coded.

The tutoring industry exists because people will buy snake oil. Parents want to think they have done everything they can to help their child. Free tests are available for practise e.g https://www.cgpbooks.co.uk/resources/free-11-plus-10-minute-tests?srsltid=AfmBOoqKm8xJS0DjhsV0fFf3vnDAsnP9Zo3v1VdXUeSQOJrmlRC4jRBT

Sometimes schools have not covered enough of the maths curriculum and that can put children in state run schools at a disadvantage. Again plenty of resources online for parents interested in their child's education or children who are very keen to attend a grammar school. Examples include www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize and https://www.khanacademy.org/

Agree with this, it takes investment either time or money. Ideally both.

I would disagree with that.

The tutoring industry is no more snake oil than the restaurant or mechanic industries.

You can cook your own food, or you can go out and pay for someone else to do it, you can learn to fix your own car or pay for someone else to do it, and you can tutor your own kids for a test or pay someone else to do it. People can choose to spend their time and money differently.

I have one who went through a group tutoring class 2 years ago and one just started. They have/are both enjoyed it and learned a lot.

There is more to life than a top degree.