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 ).

What a surprise, you are aggressive to anyone who disagrees with you 🙄

Why the fuck do you start these threads? You don't want debate at all, you just want to spread your personal vendetta. You do this on every single thread. You don't post with good intentions, you're just goady, aggressive and hysterical.

What piffle. My mum passed, my aunt didn´t, they share the same genetics. Some people are more academically inclined, some less. Big deal. My aunt went on to set up a very successful business, her talents were other.

I actually think the 11+ has become more problematic with time. Years ago there wasn’t all this over-tutoring. Now parents will tutor their kids for years. There’s also the fact that you have to have a reasonably together parent to enter you in to exam and take you there and they have to have the aspirations to think this is worth it. Not the case for a lot of pupils.
You are then left with a largely socially exclusive, better behaved, more motivated student body, who are then more attractive to quality teachers and have a generally better experience. I can’t get my head round why we accept that being bright entitles pupils to a better educational experience. Being bright is still a matter of luck and yet it’s treated like a moral victory that deserves special nurturing above what other pupils receive.

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel You seem very fraught. I’ll leave you to it.

Righ. So, to recap:

• I say that the test favours richer kids
• You said that some poor kids also get in
• I pointed out the difference between few and zero
• I then asked why you think that academically selective schools have so few kids on free school meals
• You refuse to answer, but not because I have debunked your point, no, because I "seem fraught".

Sure. Goodbye

@twistyizzy You don't want debate at all, you just want to spread your personal vendetta. You do this on every single thread. You don't post with good intentions, you're just goady, aggressive and hysterical.

There are opinions, and there are facts.
That academically selective schools are also socially selective is a fact.
Pointing that out and asking people why they think that is is not a vendetta.
If anything, it's people who refuse to admit this point who get all nervous when I ask them and they cannot answer.

Also: "hysterical"?? Mumsnet is the last place where I would have expected to find such a loaded, old-fashioned and misogynistic word

What is your basis for saying academic ability is not impacted by genetics?

The 11 plus lifted my mam from working to middle class giving her access to education that she would not otherwise have had way way back after the war

social mobility was at its highest when there were options for brighter children to advance and recieve a more academic education

the landscape has changed now with tutoring for example but back then it was a wonderful opportunity

They share 50% of the same genes.

Yeh whatever think of yourself as a beacon of light but you can't stand to be challenged or disagreed with. You are rude and aggressive etc.
Don't worry I won't be engaging again, you are tedious and boring.

Maybe bring up the real issues in schools but I suspect that goes against your real agenda here.

Large component of intelligence IS genetics. What one inherits is determined by parents genetics plus a bit of luck. It is like drawing card combinations from the deck of cards. So siblings can get very different combinations having the same parents. There is also an element of bad luck with genetics conditions.

Nurture element affects intelligence to an extent. Every person has only a range of achievable intelligence, the range is determined by genetics. There is a long list of negative influences that can move this range to the bottom - like chaotic, unstable family life, drugs, you name it. And pretty much nothing that can move intelligence up outside of the range, no matter how much resources one put.

When the Grammer system was introduced there was no tutoring or competitive over parenting. It was just a test that everyone did, and many, many, children from poor working class backgrounds benefited. It provided social mobility for generations of kids.

The issue is not in the history or background of the 11 plus, it worked. The issue is how it is administered now, and the game playing.

I think we should have a traditional Grammer school system, I think we should have good options for those who are not academic, technical schools, like in Germany.

You are wrong about it being an issue for non whites or immigrants, they make up a very large percentage of Grammer school intake. The ones that are being failed are white working class boys. What is your solution for them OP??

I went to a grammar school, and I think in theory they sound like a good idea - more intelligent children are able to shine and learn and their pace and not have their capabilities held back. Also, that regardless of your background, you can have what is essentially a private education for free.
However, in practice it doesn’t work that way. The good schools in the area make people move there, increase house prices, and make it an affluent area. Therefore the state is paying for children from predominantly middle class backgrounds to have a better education. Therefore are much better ways to use our taxes.
I was one of the poorest kids in the year and came from a local council estate, and I wasn’t even on free school meals. Everyone lived in mansions I swear it was mental!

Edit to apologise for all the typing and grammar errors - those paragraphs certainly wouldn’t have passed the 11+! I’m on my lunch break and was typing one handed and cba to correct them 😅

Click bait shite OP.

Grammar schools are cheaper for the Government, less funding per pupil.

The one size all has been a horrendous failure. In fact we should have 3 types of school. Grammar, normal school and SEND/additional help. The last should get the most funding and smallest classes.
Grammars are an efficient and cost effective way of educating children.
They could easily do away with the 11 plus at the start of Year 6 and just use the KS2 SATS.

@HHHMMM I don't think many people disagree with what you say (even if I'd phrase it slightly differently).

Sure, intelligence and academic ability are a combination of genetics and environment.

External factors like tutoring affect the result to an extent. This extent is not infinite, but is not negligible, either.

A poor kid with no tutoring might score, say, 60%
A rich kid might score 55% with no tutoring but 70% with tutoring.
So richer kids always have an advantage.
Again, that's why academically selective schools have so few kids on free school meals. Unless people want to think it's a coincidence?

@HostaCentral You are wrong about it being an issue for non whites or immigrants, they make up a very large percentage of Grammar school intake. The ones that are being failed are white working class boys. What is your solution for them OP??

Apologies, I suppose I was unclear. I didn't mean that non-whites or immigrants are being failed now. I meant that the eugenicists who devised the 11+ test thought that these categories of people were genetically inferior.

Yes, I know that white working class boys are being failed by the system.
I don't have a silver bullet solution, nor do I think it would be fair to attack me for not having one (but to each their own).

But I suppose that a system which doesn't select academically and which applies a lottery by distance might benefit these kids, to the extent it doesn't relegate them to a ghetto like now. By lottery I mean something like a lottery, within the first 2 kms from the school, then another lottery 2 to 4kms from the school, etc. The lottery system would be a compromise between serving the local community and not having kids who travel from 10 kms away, while at the same time not creating the good school -> higher house price effect which prices out the poor kids, because you would no longer be able to buy a place at the school by buying or renting 200 metres away. I appreciate it would not work in rural places but could absolutely work in densely populated urban areas like London.

@Araminta1003 Click bait shite OP.

Then can you please explain how come academically selective schools also happen to be socially selective, with so few kids on free school meals? Just a coincidence? it is a very simple question, backed by documented facts and asked in the most innocent and polite way possible, yet I am always accused of being aggressive. Go figure...

I believe a lot if his research was falsified e.g. his studies of twins. He also wrote comments and articles praising his work, pretending to be other people. Professor Brian Simon (son of the famous Simons of Manchester who donated land to build Wythenshawe etc.), did extensive examination of Burt's false research that intelligence was inborn and immutable and could be tested st 10 or 11. Simon's work was largely responsible for the introduction of Comprehensive Schools, stopping the labelling of young children and reducing their life chances.

You're being disingenuous.

Of course a child whose parents work in professional occupations and themselves have high IQs is more likely to have a high IQ from a genetic perspective. They are also likely to grow up surrounded by books, higher level vocabulary and more activities which develop their brains- most of which happens in the first 1000 days of life, so well before the age of 10. This is going to benefit them significantly wherever they go to school but it makes sense that children who are able to keep up with a faster pace of learning have access to an environment where that is embraced.

Yes, some kids don't show academic promise until a later age but they're hardly going to benefit from Grammar school for GCSEs if they don't suddenly blossom until 16. Unless you're arguing that children shouldn't sit exams until we're absolutely sure they won't mature any further, some time in their mid 20s, I don't know what point you're making. The 11+ is to determine what secondary school children would be happiest in.

As others have said, I'd favour more specialist schools for all children. Grammar schools are great for children who are academically gifted. There is a specialist sport school quite close to me. Children that go there are more likely to get opportunities to become professional sports people in some capacity. I think that's excellent and those children deserve that. No amount of tutoring, help and support would have made me anything close to a professional sports person, the innate aptitude is not there. Me being there would not have benefitted anyone, including myself. I doubt a child who has a real chance of being a professional footballer but hates maths would want to go to a Grammar school either.

There are private schools like Tring Park and Chethams which take children with special talents, focus on them and give them the opportunity to hone their craft, but not many state options.

It's just a way for rich kids to stick together when their parents would rather pay for holidays, fancy homes and cars than their education.

You cannot tutor a child to pass an 11+ exam whose progress throughout primary has been minimal.
Do you believe every child is born with the same potential to reach a specific level academically?

Just looking at my dc, all who got good gcse grades etc, I would only be confident of one actually passing the test on the day if they'd have taken the 11+

I agree

I used to be very much in favour of the grammar system as my older siblings had part of their secondary education in grammar school but mine was entirely comprehensive. Our borough went comprehensive whilst my siblings were at school and things did go downhill for them. They noticed a big difference within a fairly short time. By the time I got there the school was pretty terrible and as a bright kid I did not have a good experience at all. I used to long to be able to go to school in an area not far away which still had grammars as I was sure that would have been better for me. And in all honesty, it probably would. Not academically- I got the best grades possible in my exams and couldn't have achieved higher anywhere else - but socially I think it would have been a lot easier to have been in an environment where academic ability was seen as a positive thing rather than an excuse to tie you to the school railings. So for a long time I thought very simplistically about it.
A few things changed my mind, including my own children's very different experience of a comprehensive school but it was a Facebook post that really shook me and made me face my own prejudices. Someone I work with shared a photo of her school days. We now live in an area that was relatively late to go comprehensive so the picture was of her Secondary Modern class. People started tagging others they knew and I was surprised how many names I recognised - other people I know from work, parents of my DC's friends, people in the same sports club as me and so on. In my mind they were not the kind of people who would have failed the 11+. Then I read the comments. So many about how they had been refused opportunities, such as not being able to sit O levels even though they were getting virtually full marks on the CSE papers, girls being made to do typing and home economics when they wanted to do physics etc. And lots of comments about teachers telling them they would never do anything other than work on a farm or in a local factory so didn't need more than a basic education. I got a real sense that they had been marked out as stupid or inferior at an early age and that it was made obvious to them. Quite a lot of these friends and colleagues now have degrees and work in professional roles so you could say it did them no harm in the long run I suppose but I think it probably did. It certainly made their paths harder and if nothing else, demonstrates that a test administered at 10/11 maybe isn't that great a predictor of overall ability. It certainly made me realise that whilst the grammar system does benefit some people it is clearly unfair to others and potentially disadvantages perfectly able people who for whatever reason don't shine at an early age.
My DH has just reminded me that he failed the 11+ too actually. Fortunately for him his parents were able to pay for a decent private education, though he says he still feels some stigma from being labelled a failure at 11 and guilt that his parents had to make financial sacrifices for his education because he wasn't "good enough" for the state grammar. He's now an internationally recognised expert in his very technical field of work so not quite the thick kid he was told he was aged 11 after all.
The 11+ is great if you fall on the right side of an arbitrary line at an arbitrary age. It would have benefited me to have that opportunity for sure. But there are lots of kids on the wrong side of the line that it harms and it is clearly not an infallible predictor of ability by any means. I do believe in setting by ability within a comprehensive setting - I don't think you can teach a child aiming for a 9 in their GCSE maths alongside someone who is struggling with basic concepts and give either of them what they need - but I think the 11+ is a blunt tool that makes too big a decision at too young an age.

A significant portion of academic intelligence is genetic. Of course it can also be impacted by environment including nutrition. Children also benefit from parents invested in their education. But none of that stops genetics having a strong impact.

What's the difference between setting in a comp school vs 'setting' by doing an entrance exam for an academically selective school? Surely result is the same that those that are more academic in those subjects are stretched? Isn't the issue more with the comp schools not stretching the children in other ways if, at that time, straight academics aren't their individual forte? (I believe intelligence should be measured in lots of ways not just weather ypu can pass engligh or maths)

In the UK doing away with the 11 plus basically led to a boom in private education? That was my understanding of it.
Others just created comprehensives where house prices translated to a privileged cohort.
There is no such thing here as the comprehensive dream that was sold.

@Soontobe60
You cannot tutor a child to pass an 11+ exam whose progress throughout primary has been minimal.

Sure. I never said the opposite. But I did say:

A poor kid with no tutoring might score, say, 60%
A rich kid might score 55% with no tutoring but 70% after a year of tutoring (I have seen it)
So richer kids always have an advantage.
Again, that's why academically selective schools have so few kids on free school meals. Unless you think it's a coincidence?

The issue is even greater in partially selective schools. There are schools where 3 thousand kids may apply for 70 places. Even the slightest improvement in your score makes a difference in those cases.

Do you believe every child is born with the same potential to reach a specific level academically?

?? That's a strawman argument. I have never said that. I did say the points above.

This is really interesting!