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 ).

@ParentOfOne
Of course richer kids on average would have advantage. This is a reward for life choices that parents (and grandparents, and great grandparents) made. This is how evolution works.

@EweCee 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?

Great question. Details will vary, but, at a high level:

• non-selective schools tend to select based on distance. So using sets means dividing the most academic kids among those who were admitted by distance
• selective schools tend to ignore distance or to give less weight to it.
• doing well at the 11+ requires being well-rounded. A kid who aces the maths section but not the English one, or viceversa, can be in the top set for one subject and in the middle set for another at a comp school, but may not pass the 11+
• There are a lots of peaks and troughs during pre-teen and teenage yeas. Sets allow pupils to move up and down. A grammar system doesn't.

@Araminta1003 Others just created comprehensives where house prices translated to a privileged cohort.

Yes, and that's why a lottery within a certain radius might help, because it would limit house price inflation (you could no longer buy a place at a school by buying or renting 100 metres away) while still serving the local community. I appreciate it would not work everywhere but it can work in densely populated cities.

That is the naïve, or outright bad faith argument, of those who think that they are rich because they deserve it, and that if you are poor it's your fault. No! it's a tad more nuanced than that!

Some of the families who did well in life did so because of their intelligence and hard work. And some just because of dumb luck.

OP reminds me of our neighbours years ago who moved right next to a leading girls’ grammar school for convenience. Except their dd failed the 11+. Then the parents went on a crusade against grammar schools. Standing for the council, anti-grammar posters in their windows and even a letter in the (well read in those days) local paper ranting that all the girls passing their house on the way to school were arrogant prigs.

Yep, it would be interesting to know the circumstances of OP and what she thinks is the problem with her personal situation.

I've been saying similar for ages. Not all kids are academic. Bring in the trades for those who aren't and won't get their GCSEs. Every person has a talent that a lot don't know about yet, or may never know. Its just a case of finding it.

I completely believe this, I wasn’t tutored and got in fine, I’ve known kids tutored for years and didn’t get in. A lot of stuff isn’t within our control and this is just one of them. I think it’s more that neglect and abuse can make someone appear less able than they are but I think we all have a ceiling.

I really think none of this should have any moral connotations attached to it. It just is. Some people are tall some are short and we don’t tie ourselves in knots about that. I do think children should be able to stream into practical vocations earlier to reflect differences but honestly the amount of hand wringing over grammar schools is a bit much. If you don’t like them don’t sign up.

He. OP is male.
I believe the OP has a lot of genuine deeply felt issues with the way a lot of education is set up in the UK, or England, not sure. His points are less about issues he’s encountered, and more broadly on how problems with the system should be challenged. I think he’s genuinely up for a debate on these topics, but does tend to harangue rather than listen.

Nobody is going to be paying for a lottery system any time soon in this country. It is not financially feasible, nor even logistically possible.

The public exams in this country right now are challenging. They are too hard for some kids at both KS2 and at GCSEs (especially if they are having to do loads of GCSEs and schools are on tight timetables so cannot tailor more hours in some subjects easily for some kids). It is demotivating for them and we have a mental health crisis and SEND crisis. Those are the urgent things in education. Having a bee in your bonnet about insert grammar or private schools or whatever is a pointless waste of time.

He deals only with peripheral issues though, never the really serious ones. He is patronising, aggressive and not up for discussion or debate.

I failed the maths section of the 11plus. I have an IQ of 142. Make of that what you will x

My my mum went to grammar school from her v WC background in the 60s. She lived in a northern town, in a traditional 2 up, 2 down with an outside loo and no bathroom , just a metal tub for your weekly bath. Her mum had left school at 11/12 and her dad at 14. She was able to do A levels and was the first in her family to go to university. It fulfilled its original ambition- to give bright kids from poor backgrounds a decent chance based on ability.

My older kids go/went to the grammar school. It was what was best for them and suited their learning style, so I played the game (I tutored DC1 myself, DC2 had external help as I was back at work).

It’s fairly obvious that it’s not as egalitarian as it used to be. When my mum did it, like PP said above, it was not seen as a big deal, no fuss, certainly no tutoring, and parents not involved. Now you are putting your child at a huge disadvantage if you don’t do some familiarisation at least with them, in the form of practice papers etc. You need to know how to tackle the question, and then be able to do it very quickly. You can’t do that realistically if you’ve never seen that type of question before, you’d need a minute to work out exactly what it wants from you and work out how to go about it. But the test needs extreme speed as well as accuracy to score well.

This means you need parents who are invested and interested in your education, who value it. Who take the time to find out the info re how/when to enter you, the sort of questions that will come up, and either the money to buy in help or ability to help you themselves. It therefore disadvantages the bright kid with disinterested parents, and favours those with parents that can and want to help.

As another poster mentioned I don’t think it disadvantages ethnic groups in the way it was maybe intended by the person mentioned in the OP. My kids school is 63% white, there are a lot of different ethnicities and nationalities. The two local towns are 82% and 79% white according to a quick google search.

This means you need parents who are invested and interested in your education, who value it. Who take the time to find out the info re how/when to enter you, the sort of questions that will come up, and either the money to buy in help or ability to help you themselves. It therefore disadvantages the bright kid with disinterested parents, and favours those with parents that can and want to help.

Or for primary schools to do this.

As another poster mentioned I don’t think it disadvantages ethnic groups in the way it was maybe intended by the person mentioned in the OP. My kids school is 63% white, there are a lot of different ethnicities and nationalities. The two local towns are 82% and 79% white according to a quick google search.

White working class boys are currently the lowest achieving group in society.

On balance I tend to agree with @frizzynfrazzled that the selection process worked pretty well to sort out the children who would benefit from an academic education, but less well for people who matured intellectually a bit later. And it was limiting to restrict the later developers to CSEs instead of O levels. I passed the 11+ with (apparently) one of the highest scores in the county, despite being an August birth. The year before I had passed the 10+ at an equally high % mark. It was the 1960s and in an agricultural village, there was no tutoring.

@ParentOfOne

Why do you think that is?

• Are poor kids more likely to be thick as minche?
• Does the test favour the wealthier kids whose parents are more likely to be able to tutor them themselves or to pay for tutoring?

This is a false dichotomy. It’s both, surely.

You’ve phrased the first option in an intentionally inflammatory manner, but whether it’s true or false depends on whether it’s true or false, not whether it’s written politely or rudely.

Your question, reworded, is: “are we likely to find an under-representation of affluent families at the far left tail of the childhood intelligence distribution?”

Why would your intuition be that that is false?

Tested IQ has been shown to correlate well with income, again and again. It’s one of the most robust effects in social science research. So unless you think income does not correlate with wealth, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that IQ will correlate with wealth. Tested IQ is also hereditary (through both nature and environmental factors).

I grew up in an area without Grammar schools but I am a total convert. My son’s grammar school has been amazing for him. He has ASD and the support has been incredible. He always struggled to fit in at primary but at his grammar he is appreciated for who he is and it doesn’t matter if he is rubbish at sport. All popularity at primary seemed to hinge on if you could kick a football. It was seen as embarrassing to be clever and work hard. Now he is with other kids who value the same things he does. Sometimes it is good to separate children based on their interests/motivations.

@MaturingCheeseball , @HHHMMM
I like your way of thinking!
I present some historical facts about the origin of the 11+, and some official statistics on how academically selective schools are more socially selective.

And your reply? You don't challenge the facts and the data (you can't), but attack me, insinuating I must have some kind of ulterior motive or must be acting sour grapes.

@Araminta1003
Nobody is going to be paying for a lottery system any time soon in this country.

Anyone who opposes a lottery system should not be allowed to complain about how certain schools drive house price inflation in the immediate vicinity.

Maybe those who oppose a lottery system are those who like that the current system lets them buy a place at a school by buying next to the school, or by renting them for a year then moving out.

It is not financially feasible, nor even logistically possible.

Why? What would be the additional financial or logistical challenges?

Schools with a lottery system do exist in London (again, I was very clear that I see this working in densely populated cities, not in rural areas).

• the controversial Michaela school in Wembley applies a lottery in a 5-mile radius
• Fulham Boys applies a lottery in a 2-mile radius
• The London Oratory (Fulham), Cardinal Vaughan, St Richard Reynolds (Twickenham) are state faith schools who use a lottery (regardless of distance, I think)
• Kingsdale (Dulwich) use a random lottery (regardless of distance)
• The West London Free School uses a lottery for some of the places
• Bentley Wood in Stanmore uses a lottery for some places

There may well be others I don't know.

FWIW, I think that a lottery regardless of distance is a terrible system, but a lottery based on 2-km area would be a good compromise:

• 2 kms tends to be a reasonable distance for a city kid to go to secondary school
• it is narrow enough that the school still serves the local community, but wide enough that a good school won't drive house price inflation in the whole 2 km radius

'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 have one at grammar school. Given the diversity of the area non-whites are vastly over represented as are those families where at least one parent speaks very little English. There is no bias against these populations, quite the opposite.

There are dcs in my dc class where the families have moved from overseas immediately before the 11+ exam and taken up rental accommodation within catchment purely to get a grammar place.

To add, in allocating places looked after children and those on free school meals are ranked at the top and are guaranteed places over local children from more comfortable backgrounds. I have no problem with this, it feels fair.

I find your statement interesting because it is not the reality in the school I have experience of.

I also went to a Grammar school in the early 60’s, as did my sister before me. We did have our own (mortgaged) standard 3 bed semi, but certainly weren’t rich! No tutoring was done - actually I don’t think anyone did, in those days. I did the 45 minute walk to school with 2 other girls; one from a similar home to mine, and one from a council estate. I saw no evidence of ‘favouritism’ towards any particular pupils’ home circumstances. The 11+ selected children more likely to benefit from an academic education.

I am guessing you are not from Slough op if you think non white children don’t do well at 11+

Are poor kids more likely to be thick as minche?

That statement is clearly designed to be offensive. But of course poor kids are more likely to have a lower IQ. Both for inherited and environmental reasons.

But at the moment primary schools don’t, and I believe that’s because they’re not allowed to conduct any 11+ prep?

And quite possibly even if they did, how on earth would they fit it in? … and what about those children who are struggling and have no intention of heading to a GS for secondary? It would be a complete waste of their time to focus on VR and NVR when they’re behind in say maths and English already, and it could be argued they should have extra time to focus on bringing them up to speed there.

There isn’t an easy answer or fix. But the genie is out of the bag, and most invested parents will go to great lengths to try and ensure their child gets in to a ‘good’ school. I don’t see how we can go back to the 11+ of old, where it was a fairer test for all.

I strongly suspect that PP is telling porkies. I do not have in depth knowledge of the Grammar School system circa 1960 but I don't believe that Heads have ever been able to randomly pluck children with low scores out because they live in a big house, or that they've been able to refuse entry to high scorers from poor backgrounds.

@GeneralPeter Your question, reworded, is: “are we likely to find an under-representation of affluent families at the far left tail of the childhood intelligence distribution?”
Why would your intuition be that that is false?

That's not the whole story.

Like I said in a previous reply:

A poor kid with no tutoring might score, say, 70%
A rich kid might score 65% with no tutoring but 80% with tutoring (I, and many of my friends have seen it):
So richer kids always have an advantage.

That is the problem. The problem is that these tests penalise the poor kids who have a high potential (70% in the example), higher than other kids (65%), but those other kids have the money to afford the tutoring which gets them from 65% to 80%.

It may be true (sounds plausible, don't know for sure) that the kids with the highest "raw" potential are to be found disproportionately among the wealthier and more educated families, because those environments can provide more stimuli and opportunities.

But the final result is a combination of raw potential + extra tutoring.
No tutoring can move a child from 40% to 90%.
But tutoring can move a child from 65% to 80%, thus penalising the kids whose "raw", untutored results were higher, but who couldn't afford any tutoring to increase it.

See the difference?