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 ).

@Neurodiversitydoctor 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.

Actually, the % of state-educated students at Oxford has been higher than 50% for a while, ranging between 66-68%
https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-type

I don't know what the % of grammar school students is, but I'm not sure I can rely on your number (source?) since the other was so off.

going to an ordinary comprehensive makes it much less likely you will attend the UKs best Universities.

No. You are comparing apples and oranges. The intake is different. It's not like they both take the same students, but one produces more Oxbridge graduates than the other. Selective schools get best results because their intake is more academic. But the same kids would have probably achieved similar results elsewhere, too.

Indeed, there are quite a few studies confirming this very point: grammar schools make no difference to exam grades. The academic publication is here.

To make an example: does going to Eaton increase your chances of learning to ski and having a second home? Or do most kids who go to Eaton come from wealthy families who have second homes and who all ski, and who would have done so regardless of the choice of school?

11+ test: I think it's unfair and elitist | Mumsnet
same op same poorly developed thoughts.
the current educational options with a mish mash of circa 1945 grammar schools, 9 elite public schools, independents, state primary and state secondary schools is like a badly put together patch work quilt (please feel free to expand on this list as there is loads I've missed).
you might be able to envision a better system for the future, but right now there are more challenges than money and what is needed is a whole system overhaul starting with SEN and MH provisions for children who are struggling with our current society and unable to function in the current educational system.

the problem isn't the 11+ or grammar schools. a child with totally untapped raw talent most likely will not be spotted until well into his teen years if ever. a poorly fed child, who had little stimulation or nurturing is unlikely to be a shining star until they leave home and are independent. their family history and environment holds them back not the exam. would you like a dystopian world where 3 year olds are removed entirely from parents and fully taken care of by the state with the state testing streaming and choosing their profession for them.

the number of young people who have athletic physical builds could be easily picked out of a crowd and with some biometric measurements streamed into the right sport for their body type but it won't mean much if the children are unhappy. there is no guarantee that the children will have the right mental drive or desire to medal at the olympics.

it all sounds a bit communist circa 1970's.

this statement is totally untrue @ParentOfOne But the same kids would have probably achieved similar results elsewhere, too.
teens are particularly influenced by their peers, that bright student placed in an environment with multiple challenges will not reach their full potential if for no other reason than the staff will not be able to nurture their talent all while managing low level disruption.

there's a certain amount of pull from an environment that is stimulating and bouncing ideas around vs and environment where the children are bouncing off the walls. even if the same material is covered there will be more depth and breadth in an accelerated environment.
not to mention the social contagion of leaving school early, sexual harassment and behaviors such as smoking/drinking/drugs and sex.

you might like this scholarly report. genetics

www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0019-8

This whole thread has been darkly fascinating and really gets to what is the purpose of education?

Some people think it should reduce inequality, but if you do it correctly, it will only accelerate inequality. You want your top performers to do very well, these will be the cohort forwarding your society. It isn’t hard to identify them. Any teacher knows the top performers. It will be exactly as the same as those who perform well on IQ tests.

I agree. This thread feels like another race to the the bottom type criticism of society, where people at the bottom (by whatever measure) would be doing much better if only the people at the top didn’t do so damn well.

But you’re right we do need outstanding people from our education system. They are the great minds who will go on to improve and change the world. I don’t care where they come from as long as we find them and their talents are used well. And if they’re not, our country is over because we will be competing with people from around the world who are encouraged to progress through the system… systems which are far more cut throat than the 11+.

I like the 11+.

Done well, it give kids a chance to start secondary path on a strong footing and identify areas of strength and weakness. Too many people don’t take their first exams until GCSE, which puts them at a disadvantage to those who have more test experience (including revision). The problem is the parents who have unrealistic expectations of their child. I think it should be complimented by wider choice in subjects and streaming. If done well I think it can be valuable, if done badly it’s not.

The answer is to do it better, not take the opportunity away from people who can do well just because others don’t.

Oh, he’s male. That makes sense.

I have seen no evidence he is up for a debate. Rather a dogmatic rant and white lipped rage at anyone who disagrees with him.

I just assumed from the posts this is a very angry/bitter person who either did not pass or whose kids did not pass and now wants to rant at the world about how the system (which is now a tiny part of the overall education system) is wrong.

if you think this is bad wait until you find out about some people paying for their kids to go to school with smaller class sizes and more resources.

The overall education system is good. Primary works well for many children and academically at least, plenty of children do make progress, settle at school, enable their parents to work, have friends and a community. And on a happiness index are fine. School lunches and exercise at school not ideal, but otherwise overall fine. The curriculum there is rather challenging too.

It is 11-16 that something seems to be going very wrong for a lot of children, including those with not the highest needs, but more minor needs which I reckon they are dealing with better in other countries - which comes as a surprise because traditionally England was seen as SEND understanding/friendly.
To then just blame it all on 11 plus (5% of kids overall left) is just another cheap shot, like the private school VAT was. We have to talk about and deal with the majority (the 90%) and within that the percentage who are struggling. That is SEND and primarily those for whom GCSEs are just too inaccessible. Having had several kids go through GCSEs and 10 or more with high achievers I can firmly say the new form GCSEs are extremely content heavy and really quite challenging for many kids. Hence the high failure rates and high rates of failure on retakes. This and SEND needs sorting. I am sure absolutely everyone in charge knows this as it is incredibly obvious to pretty much everyone. So all the diatribes against the privileged few in grammars (academic privilege I mean) and private schools (mostly economic privilege) are just a massive and pointless deflection of the underlying issues that need sorting out urgently. I mean would it be that difficult for lots of state secondaries to have hubs with tailored qualifications and timetables for those who cannot follow the full standard GCSE curriculum. If you gave most schools plenty of cash per pupil I reckon they could sort this quite quickly. They are used to working wonders.

Sixth Form again, if you make the basic grades demanded, is quite OK for many as well.

@BreakingBroken there's a certain amount of pull from an environment that is stimulating and bouncing ideas around vs and environment where the children are bouncing off the walls

Sure. But my point is that a comparable environment can be achieved in a good comprehensive which has a diverse intake, then divides kids by ability over time

@Barbadosgirl Oh, he’s male. That makes sense.

Imagine what would happen if a man said: "oh, that poster is a woman, that makes sense". Talk about double standards, right?

I have presented lots of evidence, data, and studies. As usual, those who cannot challenge them resort to attacking the person, including with stupid sexist comments which would get me banned (and rightly so) if I said that about a woman. You do you, I suppose.

@RingoJuice It will be exactly as the same as those who perform well on IQ tests.

For the millionth time, no. Yes, there is a correlation. But it's not strong enough to justify deciding the educational future of a child at 10.
Again, comparing 11+ results vs GCSEs shows ca 1/4 of the kids get misclassified.
The correlation between the Kent test and the Y6 SATs taken the same year is only in the 0.60ish
It's too crude and imperfect an instrument to decide the educational future of a child

Also, we would never accept exam boards with exams which are too different. Ofqual oversees them. No such oversight exists for the 11+. They are all over the place. Some tests are only verbal and non-verbal reasoning, some add English and maths, some have spatial reasoning while some don't, some give you 30 seconds per question while some give you more...

If the 11+ were so scientific, where is the scientific evidence justifying these tests?
Where is the scientific evidence which led one school to give 30 seconds? And where is that which led another school to give more time per question?

Burt falsified his research because he failed to prove his point. Where is the modern research which confirms the science underpinning the 11+?

@RingoJuice Some people think it should reduce inequality, but if you do it correctly, it will only accelerate inequality.

It is true that there are leftist extremists who want to level down and oppose any kind of selection and differentiation. That's not what I advocate. I have explicitly criticised the California nutters who cancelled advanced calculus classes in high schools because not enough black and Hispanic students were taking them.

@Lionfisher I agree. This thread feels like another race to the the bottom type criticism of society, where people at the bottom (by whatever measure) would be doing much better if only the people at the top didn’t do so damn well.

With the greatest respect, you either didn't read what I wrote, or failed to understand it - thus ironically showing a level of text comprehension skills far below what is expected of a child taking the 11+!!!

See above.
What a comprehensive system which divides by ability (but over time) has to do with a race to the bottom, I fail to understand. Maybe you can explain?

The answer is to do it better, not take the opportunity away from people who can do well just because others don’t.

What do you mean by doing it better?

Do you not find that the poor correlation with GCSE results and with Y6 SATs means it's too imperfect a tool to decide the educational future of a child?

Do you not find that the huge differences in the test from school to school suggest that there is no scientific backing for what these tests should look like?

Also, where is the scientific evidence that 10 is an adequate age for this kind of test?

@BreakingBroken right now there are more challenges than money and what is needed is a whole system overhaul starting with SEN and MH provisions for children who are struggling with our current society and unable to function in the current educational system.

@Araminta1003 To then just blame it all on 11 plus (5% of kids overall left) is just another cheap shot, like the private school VAT was. We have to talk about and deal with the majority (the 90%) and within that the percentage who are struggling.

Ah, yes, the usual whataboutery.

Is one not allowed to have an opinion on the 11+, because there are more pressing matters? By that logic, nothing can ever be discussed or changed because there will always be something more pressing

I bow to your wisdom.
Please provide a list of issues in order of importance.
If someone then asks me for my thoughts on the 11+, I'll be sure to reply that I am not allowed to talk about it, because two random strangers think that more important issues exist.

@BreakingBroken
11+ test: I think it's unfair and elitist | Mumsnet
same op same poorly developed thoughts.

If my thoughts are so poorly developed, it should be incredibly easy for you to debunk them.

Can you deny that the 11+ test was created by an advocate of eugenics who falsified his research?

Can you deny that, regardless of the creator, there is still no scientific backing for the test?

Can you show the scientific evidence for why 10 is an appropriate age to test kids?

Can you deny that the huge difference from test to test makes the whole thing a bit of a lottery? Can you deny that, if there were scientific evidence for what a proper test should look like, then there wouldn't be such huge differences from test to test?

How do you explain that the 11+ misclassifies ca 1/4 of the kids and that the correlation between the Kent test and the Y6 SATs is so low?

Unless you can answer the questions above, I'll consider you yet another charlatan who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Hint: if you feel cornered and cannot answer, take some cheap shots with personal attacks. Attacking me because of my genitalia seems a favourite here.

Found this, awful lot of grammar schools in there for 5% of the opulation
https://thetab.com/2025/08/15/the-state-schools-that-get-the-most-students-into-oxbridge-including-four-that-beat-eton

I’m up in Scotland and I would love a grammar school. The local high school is lovely and very supportive which has been great for my eldest but the academic children are coasting. Obviously I’m encouraging them to put effort into extra learning outside of school coding, music, art, reading, language but they need to be challenged in school too.

Really? Mumsnet posters talk a lot about male entitlement and male rage, both of which are demonstrated on various occasions by your posts. It is one of the hallmarks of the site. Large numbers of women talking about their many experiences of men who seem to think, I would imagine as a result of their socialisation, that women who disagree with them are wrong, are not considering the facts and the data and should JUST LISTEN AND AGREE.

I have seen no evidence from any of your posts that you have any interest in the viewpoint of others; you spit out angry accusations of strawmanning, lacking comprehension skills and “not understanding the data” to anyone with the temerity to challenge you. A lot of your posts are the written equivalent of pounding your fists on the table over an issue that, as has been pointed out to you, is peripheral to the issues facing the vast majority of kids in UK state schools. As a lot of the posts on here show, it is often the women in relationships that bear the majority of the burden of the practical issues arising from their children’s’ education.

So drawing these various points together and expressing no surprise that the poster who is obsessed with a fairly minor issue in education which is not going to affect most children in the UK and has been aggressively ranting at (almost certainly) the women who disagree with him is male should hardly be a shocker. We recognise and call out male entitlement. Perhaps you might want to reflect on just why you are so angry. Is it because someone has told you no? That you or your kids do not meet a standard in one test that would get you into a certain school? Is it because we are not immediately blown away by the supreme logic of your powerful arguments? Either way, it sounds quite like male entitlement.

For the millionth time, no. Yes, there is a correlation. But it's not strong enough to justify deciding the educational future of a child at 10

If the state is spending money educating children, then they should put their money where it will have the best outcome, ie the highest performers. Some children may not be identified properly, but the majority will. It’s like, you want to throw out a whole system because of outliers?

Like, what’s the issue? You decry ‘eugenics’ because you are probably a blank slatist. In your OP you say IQ is controversial but it really is not—it is one of the most replicated findings in psychology. That you begin with this is problematic, to say the least.

You clutch your pearls because wealthier families are more likely to have higher achieving children, but is this not logical? IQ is linked with career achievement, which determines your income. IQ is also highly inheritable. None of this should surprise you.

What testing does is find outlier children in poorer families, they will be randomly distributed (although more will be found among poor East Asian and white populations due to higher general IQ). Testing is the only way to find them.

If you think the test itself is faulty and cannot properly identify academically promising children? That’s an important distinction, there may be better ways to test for sure. And you’ve noted this in criticism of the test, but if you don’t believe in IQ, then what are we testing for exactly?

@Travelmad777 What resources do you see being sucked by grammars out of the comprehensive system?

Non-selective schools in selective areas can have even more difficulties attracting teachers. One hypothesis is that it is less appealing to teach children deemed less academic, than teaching a diverse intake where some will be in the top set and some won't

Another risk is that non-selective schools in selective areas may ignore how inaccurate the 11+ is, and not offer enough challenging options, eg triple science.

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.

What is a "vocationally minded school"? Let's not forget that ALL kids must take GCSE English and Maths. We do NOT have a system where some kids take their GCSE at 16 and some others learn a trade

There are specialist schools, like the Brit School in Croydon for the performing arts (where the singer Adele went), with admission in Y10, but they are very specialised and competitive schools. They are an exception. And they still have to do their Maths and English GCSEs. Being admitted there is probably much harder than getting into a grammar (of course they test different things).

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.

Not sure I follow why that needs to be the case.
If you have a grammar and a non-grammar in the same area, and the grammar becomes a comprehensive, why would vocational options be removed?

What is your solution for comprehensive schools being able to provide a wide range of options?

Quite banally, I see many state comps which already do exactly that.
They are not selective, yet divide kids by ability - yet gradually over time. Some offer a combination of BTEC, T-levels and A-levels, for example. Some of their students go to Russell Group Universities, some do apprenticeships. Etc

@RingoJuice Some children may not be identified properly, but the majority will. It’s like, you want to throw out a whole system because of outliers?

If only 1% of the kids were misclassified, I'd be saying that the 11+ is a brilliant test. That's not the case at all. Not even close.

When ca. 1/4 of the kids are misclassified (comparing 11+ vs GCSE) you cannot talk about outliers.

When the correlation between the Kent test and the Y6 SATs is only in the 0.60 ish, you cannot talk about outliers.

Do you not see the difference?

In your OP you say IQ is controversial but it really is not

The notion that it is unaffected by the environment (the bs that Burt failed to prove, leading him to falsify his research) has been debunked.

I made the point that professional psychologists cannot administer IQ tests too frequently, because familiarity biases the results. This flies in the face of the "untutorable tests".

I have also repeatedly made the example of a brilliant child who might score 70 untutored, penalised vs the one who might score 65 untutored but 75 after a year of intense tutoring.

I then made numerous evidence-backed observations on how imprecise the test is, and how it varies a lot from area to area, suggesting it's all a bit of a lottery

Bollocks the “comprehensive system” still has 30% of failure at KS2 and 30% roughly failure of Maths & English GCSEs.

It has FAILED to reach the bottom 30%. Because you have continued with the 11 plus via KS2 Sats pretty much and with O Levels just called it GCSEs.

If you do not sort out and help the 30% then nothing else matters because society is not productive writing off and damaging 30% of youngsters.
Within that there are loads of kids who could do well if the state was only willing to pay for the adjustments and help they need! Instead the state priorities older and disfunctioing adults. You have to invest in the next generation. This is not what aboutery. It goes to the crux of the matter.

@Barbadosgirl over an issue that, as has been pointed out to you, is peripheral to the issues facing the vast majority of kids in UK state schools.

So what? If you do not want to discuss an issue because you don't consider it important enough, don't discuss, don't engage - who's forcing you? But you cannot shut down debate and say I am not allowed to discuss it just because you think more pressing matters exist.

By the same logic, nothing should ever be discussed, because there will always be a more pressing matter

I would imagine as a result of their socialisation, that women who disagree with them are wrong, are not considering the facts and the data and should JUST LISTEN AND AGREE.

I get it that, when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but not everything boils down to sex and sexism.

I have presented data and facts. Facts have this beautiful feature: they do not care about your feelings.
You challenge a fact with other facts. Your feelings are utterly irrelevant, they do not make any argument any more true or false.

E.g. I have presented data and studies on how the 11+ misclassifies ca. 1/4 of the students (vs their GCSE results) and how the correlation between the Kent test and the Y6 SATs (taken the same academic year!) is only in the 0.60 ish.

These are facts.

Anyone who wants to challenge them could, I don't know, identify flaws in the studies, present other studies which show the opposite, or explain why my conclusions are wrong and why we should consider a test reliable even despite such low correlation.

You cannot say: "Oh, I disagree, and since you are a man and I am a woman I am entitled to do so and you cannot criticise me".

You are welcome to think what you want, but if what you think is not backed by any evidence I will call you out for it, regardless of your sex and gender.

Perhaps you might want to reflect on just why you are so angry. Is it because someone has told you no? That you or your kids do not meet a standard in one test that would get you into a certain school? Is it because we are not immediately blown away by the supreme logic of your powerful arguments? Either way, it sounds quite like male entitlement.

Ah, yes, the well-trodden path of attacking the person when you cannot challenge their ideas and facts, all the way to implying there must be some hidden agenda, ulterior motives, sour grapes, etc. Is it male entitlement if I dare say that it's pathetic but boringly predictable? Yawn...

Unsubstantiated bullshit angers me.
Especially when it drives important policy.

“E.g. I have presented data and studies on how the 11+ misclassifies ca. 1/4 of the students (vs their GCSE results) and how the correlation between the Kent test and the Y6 SATs (taken the same academic year!) is only in the 0.60 ish.”

What correlation? KS2 passes 70 per cent of kids across the two key measures. The Kent test passes 30 per cent. The Kent test is different multiple choice and reasoning included as well. You aren’t even comparing like for like.

I don’t think we need to reach the bottom 30%. If they can read and do basic math, then they should just do productive work and get paid the same wages as any adult. No need to waste everyone’s time.

Can you link the research you think shows this? Because all the evidence I have seen shows that it is pretty consistent once age has been taken into account.

You are allowed to say twat here you know.

So communism? Everyone gets the same wage regardless of personal investment, skill or risk?

@Araminta1003 What correlation? KS2 passes 70 per cent of kids across the two key measures. The Kent test passes 30 per cent. The Kent test is different multiple choice and reasoning included as well. You aren’t even comparing like for like.

@CatchingtheCat , this possibly answers your question, too:

Again: ca. 1/4 of the kids are misclassified if you look at 11+ vs GCSE

That's quite a lot of kids who, according to the 11+, were academic and should have done well, but didn't, or viceversa. 1/4 is quite the biggie.

There is no oversight on classification accuracy.

A study on North Yorkshire highlighted the random nature of the test:

one-sitting selection processes will be highly sensitive to chance variation in pupil results.
Sometimes less academically capable students will pass the 11-plus and more academic capable students will fail. Society needs to decide how much of this misallocation it can tolerate.

On the Kent Test vs SATs

the English element of Kent Test shows a correlation of 0.62 with reading and 0.60 with grammar, punctuation and spelling (GPS) at KS2; both the maths and the reasoning elements of the Kent Test are correlated at 0.68 with the maths KS2.
So, we can say that the Kent Test has low predictive validity for an academic test taken shortly afterwards.
To be clear, we are not suggesting that SATs tests are any more reliable – simply that we have two tests that claim to measure performance in similar domains (i.e. how good is a child at maths and English), and yet they frequently disagree.

@CatchingtheCat So communism? Everyone gets the same wage regardless of personal investment, skill or risk?

Textbook strawman. Yes, I know that the usual suspects will vomit the usual, tired accusation of male entitlement and male aggressiveness etc etc etc
But bullshit remains bullshit regardless of the genitalia of the bullshitter.

Advocating a comprehensive system, which doesn't get rid of selection but carries out a gradual selection over time, still differentiating between more and less academic pupils, is communism? Yawn...

The problem with comparing the results of the Kent test and the year 6 SATs is you presume the same effort is put in for each. As my dd had passed the Kent test in September, by the time the SATs came round, I told her not to bother worrying about them. I said if she got a low score, her secondary school (a grammar, we already knew by then) would prefer it as it would make their progress 8 scores look better. I know I’m not the only mum in Kent who told their very bright child to not worry or try particularly hard in the SATs, but did make big effort to do practice papers for 11+ /Kent test, cancelled all social plans the weekend before so she was rested etc.