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 ).

How do they do selective education in your home country, @ParentOfOne? Did your child sit the 11+?

If it prevented the people you’ve listed from going then I’d agree. It doesn’t. It identifies children from less advantaged backgrounds and gets them an academic education. My mother went to grammar school after 11+. She was from a pretty rough family, DV and a dad often out of work.
My dad was from a modest family but they were small business owners, skilled, and his mum had been in service so knew her airs and graces. He didn’t pass it. Very bright man but not academic.

Dad did really well, despite his failing the 11+. I’d argue the secondary modern was the better choice for him. He became an apprentice, set up his own business, and died a moderately rich man.

@Ponderingwindow That doesn’t change the fact that those children should not be forced to achieve less than their full potential to equalize society.

But the problem is that the current system favours those who have talent + external help and penalises those who have talent but little to no external help.

A comprehensive school which uses sets has the potential to strike a better balance between being egalitarian and meritocratic.
Egalitarian, because it doesn't close the doors to the kids who are talented but have no external help.
Meritocratic, because it can still place talented kids in the top sets and push them accordingly.

The difference is that the assessment to be in the top set can be more continuous, throughout the year, and less influenced by external factor like how much mummy and daddy can afford to pay in tuition.

I'm a case study in social mobility- 2 parents from Council Estates, Dad went to Grammar and on to University, Mum did NVQs up to Degree level alongside work, sent my brother and I to private school.

Brother worked hard, became a dentist, married a dentist, and is very wealthy.

I got a degree, moved abroad for a bit, changed careers multiple times and now work in the Civil Service.

Husband grew up extremely poor, went to Grammar School, had some traumatic events, failed all his GCSEs, worked in a supermarket for 10 years, returned to education and now works in the Civil Service. He earns more than me.

We're all proof that your start point doesn't determine your end point.

The 11+ weeds out slow kids from the gifted kids. That is true.

I don't think the 11+ should be abolished, though.

If a child fails the 11+, goes to a grammar school anyway, and then struggles, the child suffers. Why allow that?

My husband passed it and got offered a grammar school place, he decided to go to the local failing secondary school down the road because it was closer and he didn't fancy travelling long distances every day. He then went on to university and graduated with a 1:1 in Computer Science.

I failed the 11+ and cried so hard. I felt like a failure. And truthfully I absolutely was a failure by the standards of the 11+ and would have struggled massively if I went to a grammar school. The test showed I was not cut out for grammar school. It's nothing to be embarrassed about. You either have the intelligence, or you don't. My experience at the secondary school was terrible (when are they not?), but I turned out okay. And of course I met my now husband there.

I still get the same sort of feeling about failing the 11+ as I do now at work as I'm the only one at work who doesn't have a degree. I'm sure people have secretly judged me for it, but I pay no mind. The job I do requires a degree, but seeing as I only have a Diploma, I got into an entry-level job and trained to get the job I have now.

Everything works out for the best in the end.

@InMyShowgirlEra - heartfelt apologies. I’m not the full shilling today…….

So are you bitter you didn't get into a grammar? Or bitter your DC didn't?

@PrizedPickledPopcorn , @InMyShowgirlEra
With all due respect, single cases are irrelevant.
A better question is not "did it happen to your parents?" but "how representative was that case then, and how often would it be now?"

Presumably your parents went to school a few decades ago?
Presumably tutoring wasn't such a big industry back then?
Would they have achieved the same results had they had to compete with rich kids whose parents had been paying for 2 years of intense tutoring at £90 per hour? (I have seen tutors charge anything from £50 to £110 an hour in London)

There is also a big difference between the grammar schools which require a minimum score for admission, and the "super-selective" or partially selective schools which do not have a minimum score but simply take the kids with the top scores. Some schools receive thousands of applications for 70 places only.

Not necessarily easy of course, but at least possible, and a lot more so than getting into a grammar school later if you failed the 11+.
All my children successfuly moved up sets in maths actually. Their primary school was excellent in many ways but maths teaching wasn't it's strongest suit. But the maths teaching at their secondary was superb and the best teachers taught the lower sets in KS3 so quite a lot of the children, mine included, made huge progress in years 7 and 8. My middle child went from next to bottom to top set in year 7 to top by year 10, did maths A level and has just graduated with a 1st in a STEM subject. If we lived somewhere where his attainment aged 10 had been considered a reliable indicator of his potential I think that wuuld have been much less likely to happen.

Yes, I am a terrible person who is acting sour grapes and everything I have said is false. I have fabricated the history of the 11+ and the links to the official stats on free school meals are all fake. The posts I made about a year ago on similar topics are also all false. Happy now? Do you feel better? Do you feel superior?

In these kinds of discussions, people can choose to look at the arguments and data, or look at and attack the poster. It is very telling that you chose to ignore the former and do the latter. Very telling indeed.

I think ultimately there is a low-level hatred for grammar schools and a desire to force all children into bog standard secondaries for 'equality'. By keeping gifted children back, they are then forced into the same level as the other children. I think that's as cruel as forcing slow kids to learn faster and it breeds mediocrity, as in every child is the same and should have the same opportunities. Kind of like the theory that everyone is the same and something of a blank slate.

Regarding " Again: the crux of the argument is that bright kids born from parents who are poor or don't care are at a disadvantage, because the current system rewards a combination of innate talent + external help (like tutoring)", I get your point, but honestly I don’t see much need to argue about that “core issue.” Any kind of competition — whether in school or in sports — is basically a mix of talent and training. And training always costs something, either money or time. Even when parents do the tutoring themselves, that’s still a kind of investment.

So yes, kids from families with fewer resources are at a disadvantage, but that doesn’t automatically mean the whole system is broken. It’s a bit like the Olympics — most top athletes have access to coaches and facilities that others don’t. We don’t call for cancelling the Olympics because not everyone can afford elite training.

In short, every competitive system inevitably involves unequal access to training resources. Such systems can take those inequalities into account, but they are never designed — nor suitable — to solve them. If the real concern is fairness, maybe a better focus is when or how selection happens — for example, moving the 11+ to a later age or having a two-stage process (like 11+ for junior high and 14+ for senior high). That could be a more balanced way to support all types of students, instead of focusing only on tutoring gaps, which are really just a symptom of a bigger issue.

@ParentOfOne

The problem is that these tests penalise the poor kids who have a high potential [compared to those with] the money to afford the tutoring

I think the key question here is "compared to what other system?".

I'm strongly in favour of streaming and tentatively in favour of grammar schools. One reason I favour grammar schools (or at least, having highly selective streams within the state system) is that it provides a path for bright-but-poor children into 'elite' institutions and occupations, and I'm not convinced that having streams in comprehensive schools do to the same extent.

If the only way to receive a highly selective education is to pay for it then we shouldn't be surprised if the rich dominate our academically-elite institutions and occupations, with bad effects down the line.

And in practice, removing testing can often remove the ladder. iirc, when elite US universities stopped using SAT scores a few years back, thinking they would get more socioeconomic diversity, they ended up getting, if anything, less. Applications from low-socioeconomic groups rose, but admittance from those groups didn't. Because although test scores can be to an extent bought, they are harder to buy than impressive extracurriculars, buzzword essays, polished interview performances that replaced the SAT. So the universities became even harder to get into, and poorer students were deprived of one of the measures that came closest to an even playing field when competing for those even-scarcer places.

When my DC did SAT, they were extremely easy and could not really differentiate for the elite universities.

Do people honestly not think the system has been completely gamed by tutoring though? I know lots of very mediocre students that spent 2 years and lots of money getting a place. Outside of maybe NVR, with enough time and money you could get most students in. I do think some secondary schools don’t help themselves by having limited sets/streams which is a massive negative for the genuinely brighter students and makes grammar school even more appealing.

Yes, I think that's another problem. There's a Mitchell and Webb sketch about grade inflation. I can't find it now, but the punchline is the university tutor saying: "they've all got As these days, but the rich children were expecting to go to university, so we decided we'd just give the places to them -- it seemed kinder that way".

I think the 'rich' isn't precisely correct there. But if you remove meaningful academic tests then you advantage candidates who understand the system and what's really being tested for. e.g. that an admissions essay for Harvard needs to be very different from one for Oxford. And that's a question of cultural capital not brainpower, so disadvantaged students remain disadvantaged. (Or you end up selecting the privileged members of underprivileged groups, which looks good on paper but isn't really helping)

It was the case in the era of the man whose system you are describing as eugenics.
My post disagrees with your first posts. If your first posts aren’t what you want to talk about, that’s on you.

If you consider today’s education system to have areas which are flawed, then I won’t disagree. It isn’t flawed because of the 11+ though. It’s flawed because it’s crap, because we aren’t investing in more tailored opportunities for children. It isn’t flawed because some areas offer a highly academic opportunity to children who can perform brilliantly at academic tests aged 11.

What makes grammar schools appealing is the behavioral issues often mentioned on mn disruptive students.
disruptive disengaged students deserve prompt psychiatric assessment and support not a 3 yr wait or ineffective mh system.

Calling it eugenics loses you all credibility and puts you firmly in tin-foil-hat territory.

If you actually wanted to debate the cons of the 11+ with sensible claims, people are generally more receptive. The hyperbole in rants like these is almost always because the person feels 'wronged' somehow.

This is the real issue. Behaviour in schools.

Completely agree.

Everyone is talking of the impact of selection at the 11+ as if that is the only point of selection and that selection only applies in a few council areas. Selection is much broader than that and takes place in nearly every school across the country - at sixth form. If you don’t have the grades to study A levels, how many school offer much by way of a range of alternatives? How many are forced into college.

Colleges are not schools; they expect a higher degree of independence and maturity. They are a new environment to have to become familiar with and a broader mix of ages to negotiate with. And yet it is the children who struggle the most who are the ones most expected to leave school for college at 16.

@Dandady If the real concern is fairness, maybe a better focus is when or how selection happens

Yes, absolutely. For example, I support the idea of sets in comprehensive schools, because it's more flexible, you can be in the top set for one subject and middle set for another, there can be some movement up and down, you are not judged only on a test taken when you were 10.

@GeneralPeter And in practice, removing testing can often remove the ladder. iirc, when elite US universities stopped using SAT scores a few years back, thinking they would get more socioeconomic diversity, they ended up getting, if anything, less.

You are talking about a test typically taken around the age of 17, and used for university admission. I was talking about a test taken at the age of 10. Big difference.

I am politically homeless because I have never voted for the right but I despise leftist extremists. Was it California where they cancelled advanced calculus classes because not enough black and Hispanic kids were taking them? Madness.

Note that I am not saying there should never be any testing.
I am saying that the 11+ taken aged 10 is flawed.

A comprehensive school using sets is a much better balance between egalitarian and meritocratic.
Meritocratic, because the more academic kids can go into the top sets and can choose more challenging subjects (not every kid has to do further maths, physics etc but many state comps offer the option, and rightly so).
Egalitarian, because it's a continuous assessment, less skewed by how much your parents paid for tutoring when you were 10.

@YorkshireGoldDrinker By keeping gifted children back, they are then forced into the same level as the other children. I think that's as cruel as forcing slow kids to learn faster and it breeds mediocrity, as in every child is the same and should have the same opportunities. Kind of like the theory that everyone is the same and something of a blank slate.

You present a false dichotomy. It's not like the only alternative to grammar schools are schools where everyone studies the same things and the more academic kids don't get challenged.

Like I said above, there are many comprehensive schools which use sets and offer a choice of more challenging subjects for the more academic kids.

@blinkblinkblinkblink Calling it eugenics loses you all credibility and puts you firmly in tin-foil-hat territory.

I didn't say that those who support grammar schools in 2025 support eugenics.

I said that the origin of the 11+ test is rooted in eugenics.

If you are unable to comprehend the difference between these two concepts, it's not my fault.

Cyril Burt was a supporter of eugenics, and his views on eugenics guided his flawed research, including in the 11+.

Burt was a member of the British Eugenics Society

He wrote on the Eugenics Review (see this link to pubmed )

Are you still convinced that talking about eugenics loses me credibility and puts me in tin-foil-hat territory? Or maybe you should retract and apologise?

Yay my kid passed the eugenics test!