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 ).

@Travelmad777
I still fail to see how making all schools comprehensives will cater for the broad range of intake. [...] I just think a one size fits all is disastrous for everyone.

How much do you even know about state comps?
Your mistake is assuming that, at state comps, everyone does the same. That's absolutely NOT the case.

At most comps, kids will be divided into sets.
The more academic kids take the higher paper of certain subjects, and are offered more challenging and academic subjects (further maths, triple science, etc).
The less academic kids take the foundation papers and have other options.

It's not an idealistic utopia - that's exactly what happens now all over England (I have no idea about the other parts of the UK).

So, you see, there is still selection and differentiation.
What's the difference vs the 11+ and grammars, you might ask?
It's that:

• this selection is a continuous process
• it is not based on a one-off overtutored test taken when kids are 10
• it caters much better to those who excel in one area but not in another
• it gives more opportunities to the bright kids who don't have family support at home
• the 11+ is a highly imperfect selection tool, which misclassifies about 1/4 of the kids. That's quite the biggie

@Neurodiversitydoctor 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.

I care more about what research finds, than about what a random stranger thinks, based on a sample size of 1.

Eg research by Durham suggests that grammar schools do NOT boost grades (more info here)

Let's not forget that only ca. 5ish % of English secondary school students attend a grammar. How do you think the remaining 95% cope? How do you think the remaining 95% progress at university and in the workplace? Grammars do not have a monopoly on Oxbridge and Russel Group admissions.

@Neurodiversitydoctor 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.

Indeed, the first thing I said is that this can work in densely populated cities (with decent public transport), not in rural areas. But, equally, I presume that rural areas do not have the same problems of large cities, of people buying into catchment, or renting into catchment for 1 year then moving out and still sending all the siblings there, or of creating admission 'black holes' because you need to live 600 metres from a school but houses that close cost more, etc. You mention Blackpool. I am not familiar with the area. Does it have this kind of problems?

AFAIK Brighton divides the city into areas, and there's a lottery within your area. This is worse than what I proposed, because you cannot apply to schools in the neighbouring area, even if maybe those are closer to you.

@FairKoala Is the 4 miles as the crow flies or by road
As the crow flies. 4 miles is a lot (6.4 kms). You could do it in steps of 2kms

What happens if you don’t live within 4 miles of a school.
If there are more applications from people living closer, the same thing which happens now: you don't get in. I don't see how that's a difference.

A system which admits someone living 5 miles away but not someone living next door would be unfair and might create all kinds of problem with the increased commuting.

A system which gives the same chance to someone living next door and to someone living 2kms away is a better compromise. It means that local residents can still apply even if they cannot afford the house price premium of living next to a good school (premium which would disappear).

@anyolddinosaur The tutoring industry exists because people will buy snake oil.

Not exactly. There is probably a point beyond which the benefit of more tutoring plateaus. And it is probably true that a family with the willingness and time but not the money can support their children with many free resources available online and at local libraries.

But none of this means that tutoring has zero impact, nor does it change the fact that the 11+ penalises the bright kids who don't get extra help at home.

@Neurodiversitydoctor
My DS is one of these children , tutored through yr 5, [...] What is your point ?

I cannot speak for @Arran2024 . My points are:

• if you have managed to find the right balance between pushing your child to achieve his full potential, without causing him to get stressed and burn out, then congratulations, they are a very lucky child indeed
• I have seen many kids being pushed too much by tiger parents, ending in burnout, or feeling like a failure if they failed to get into a specific school (again, selection is necessary, but not such a stressful selection at 10)
• The problem with hothousing and intense tutoring is that it penalises the bright kids who don't get enough help at home. Maybe your child scored (I'm pulling numbers out of thin air) 80% without tutoring but 90% with tutoring. The hypothetical child of parents who didn't care / had no time / had no money maybe scored 85% with no tutoring but lacked the extra support needed to achieve their full potential.

My point is that it is parents who are pushing their children into highly selective schooling, where the focus is on extreme academic achievement and everyone is on the same page. And I'm just querying how much some of these children want it.

I know several local parents who won't let their children sit for the grammar schools, or who deeply regret sending their children there. The teaching is considered dull because the children are all so brilliant, there is no need to be creative. Subjects like music and art are tolerated but not taken seriously.

I knew several young people who went there for the sixth form and promptly left - they were horrified by how dull it was, compared to their comprehensive.

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.

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.

Our comps that are more vocationally minded do not offer further maths, computer science, economics instead they offer hospitality, hairdressing, child development, media studies etc. Our more academic comp offers further maths, classics, computer science etc.but no vocational subjects. Both are having to cut subjects as they don't have budget for a broad range. Both are desperately needed to cater for different children's needs.

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

I agree with you @FluffMagnet

@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.

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?

@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.

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.

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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?

@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.

@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).

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?

@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?

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 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...

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