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 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.

@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

“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.

“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.

@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.

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.

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).

@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.

Yeah but we need people like this to actually push progress and innovation forward.

“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.”

Not for me @ParentOfOne - I would wear a high vis vest and still cycle!

@User37482 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.

Misclassifying 1/4 of the kids is still too high an error rate.
And the correlation with the Y6 SATs is even lower.

Also remember that there is little consistency and transparency, and no scientific backing, on how the 11+ is structured.
If there were scientific evidence on how the 11+ should be structured, and the 11+ tests were all the same, I'd be more supportive. That's not the case.

The time available for each question varies from test to test. As does the content. As does the score required in each part of the test. A kid who fails the test in one region might have passed that of another, and viceversa.
It's just too random.

One school requires you to do a spatial reasoning test to consider you academic enough, another doesn't, one gives you 30 seconds per question, another 50.... Come on!

For GCSE and A-levels, the Ofqual ensures (or tries to...) that the various exam boards are comparable. There is no comparable oversight on the 11+.
Again: it's just too random.

We would all be up in arms if these differences applied to the various exam boards. But when it comes to the 11+ people just accept it. I don't get it.

@Araminta1003
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

I hear you.
But there are really only two ways: either we assess continuously, or we assess once when the kids are aged 10, and then no more. Given all the issues with the latter approach (eg see above), I don't find it convincing.

As for cycling anywhere, I don't cycle on narrow, poorly lit country roads, where the limit is 40mph but everyone drives at 60, because my self-preservation instinct trumps my love for cycling, but horses for courses :)

Yes, but our experience was not as per the title of your thread - that the 11 plus was a eugenics test. As I said, working class children did get to grammar schools and benefited enormously from it, in terms of social mobility.

It wouldn’t be my experience today, because my LA is all comprehensives. What I did see, as a pp has said, was that Year 6 SATS and even more so, cognitive ability tests in Year 7 were used to inform the setting. So, I can’t really see the difference between cognitive ability testing and the 11 plus?

How is being put in the bottom sets materially different to children’s self confidence from failing the 11 plus? Or, even in a mixed ability set, surely the lowest achievers could see other academically more able children getting everything right, where they struggled?

I had a DD1 with complex SEN, who felt a failure at 4, because she was way behind the mainstream children - and she ended up with psychotherapy under CAMHS.

Oh, and DD2 did psychology AS level. The first thing the teacher did was to ask every student to tell the class their GCSE grades. DD2 got 6 A*s and 7 As (because she did the triple sciences as separate subjects). That can’t have done the confidence of some students much good?

@BlueandWhitePorcelain our experience was not as per the title of your thread - that the 11 plus was a eugenics test.

That the origin of the test is rooted in eugenics, and that the creator of the test was a classicist (not a psychologist, not a scientist) who advocated eugenics and falsified his "research" are historical facts.

working class children did get to grammar schools and benefited enormously from it, in terms of social mobility

At a time when tutoring wasn't the big industry it is today, and the only alternative where schools which levelled everyone to the lowest common denominator, possibly. Now it's very different.

And, even then, the reality was much more nuanced than you imply.
The 1960s and 70s were times of huge change, with a general shift away from lower paid factory work and towards better paid service jobs.
There is an argument to be made that the improvement you mention may have well been caused more by these societal changes than by grammar schools, and that a different schooling system may well have achieved the same.

Indeed, there are studies concluding that the shift from grammar schools to comps had little effect on social mobility, like this on: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537123000118?via%3Dihub

I failed the 11+ and went to an awful secondary modern. I left school believing I wasn’t clever.

I was fortunate to go back into education as an adult. I thought I would try and study my GCSEs. I felt like an imposter but I persevered. I was utterly astonished to achieve As in every subject. I went on to do two A levels in a year. Again I achieved As. I now have a diploma, a degree and a post grad in education.

The 11+ is not a reliable test. It’s flawed in every respect.

@Garamousalata I suspect that grammar school advocates probably consider you and the 25ish% of kids who get misclassified as acceptable collateral damage... The same people who attack me for "mansplaining" why the test is flawed

Research clearly shows that intelligence is not fixed and so cannot be judged at a set age.

Grammar school enthusiasts can believe what ever they want but hard evidence is available for anyone to access.

No one was "misclassified". The PP didn't get a high enough mark on a test so didn't go to grammar school. The fact that they went on to get good grades is great, but doesn't show the test was wrong.

I agree. I'm simply querying whether kids at these super selective schools really want it- Andre Agassi and Stephi Graf were both highly successful tennis players but never wanted it, but were pushed into it by their parents, and I just wonder how it pans out with highly academic schools.

Surely brilliant mathematical minds will rise to the top anyway? Aren't these schools better at uplifting more middling students?

@Underthinker If that doesn't show that the test is wrong, what would?

What criteria would you use to assess whether the test is working or not?
You seem to imply you think the test works reasonably well; is that right? If so, why do you think that?

And how do you explain the huge discrepancies in test structure from school to school?

Itr is a complx issue. My parents did well because they were bright so passed the 11+ in areas where just about no one going to state school was rich like Sunderland (North Yorkshire mentioned above where my siblings lives where someone said results can be good is not NE England of course and it has pretty smart places like York and Harrogate in it). I suppose to an extent they were moved into a different world of things like latin, classical music and a chance at uhniversity which those who didn't pass had less chance of getting (although poor working class adults working through night school to get educated and learn about opera etc etc definitely also existed then, post WWII).

In other area it may have been different.

The non selective schools schools which stream I think the Sutton Trust found did as well as areas of the country with grammars in A levels over all.

What annoys me is that some parts of the same nation of the UK have grammar schools and others do not and yet half UK households pay income tax so I don't see why some areas have something different - it woudl be like saying London or Newcastle won't get an NHS and others places will. In a state system having differences based on where you live is a bit much. I also object that those in Wales does not pay prescription charges and those in Scotland no university fees. These things divide the UK rather than bringing us together.

@xenia The best part about "free" university in Scotland is that it's paid for by England, since Scotland is not fiscally self-sufficient, but needs to be subsidised by England.

Solidarity and fiscal transfers from richer to poorer regions are fair and sensible.
What doesn't make sense is when a poorer region has "autonomy" and devolved powers, so decides to provide certain benefits, which end up being paid for by the residents of other regions who do not have those benefits! We literally have English builders paying for free university for the children of Scottish doctors.

Also, since Scotland does not pay its universities enough, Scottish Universities have a cap on Scottish students. AFAIK, English universities cannot discriminate between Scottish and English students. Scottish universities must, otherwise they'd all go bankrupt!!!!

I suppose I would question whether an entrance test can be right or wrong.
The schools want a cohort of bright a academic kids, and the 11+ gives them that, so in that sense it works for the schools.

I have 2 bright girls, one who I would say was very suited to the 11+ style test (and just passed it) the other less so (a deep thinker rather than a quick thinker). If my youngest doesn't go to a grammar it's the school's loss frankly. But that wouldn't make me think the test was wrong, its doing what it aims to do and selects a certain type of kid.

Well at Oxford 50% of students are state educated of those most attended grammar school going to an ordinary comprehensive makes it much less likely you will attend the UKs best Universities.

@ParentOfOne I think my post got lost in the mix. Any thoughts?