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
Re the claim "the 11+ is rooted in eugenics", if this means the test is now inherently eugenic in nature I think the claim is false, if it means one of the people who developed it many years ago advocated eugenics, then i think the claim is unimportant and irrelevant.

DARVO or what!

How many countries even use it? There are no state schools in Scotland using it? Bar Jordanhill, they are all comprehensives.

@Underthinker if it means one of the people who developed it many years ago advocated eugenics, then i think the claim is unimportant and irrelevant.

It's not just that.
Someone can be a racist bastard but still achieve scientific success. I made the example of Karl Pearson.
It's that the entire premise of the 11+ was predicated on the now discredited notion that intelligence is only innate and completely unaffected by the environment. When Burt failed to prove this hypothesis, he completely fabricated his research.

If there is more recent research showing:

• that the environment has zero effect
• that tutoring has no effect
• that all the families spending squillions on tutoring are frittering money away for nothing
• that the progress I and others have seen with tutoring is not real
• that the current consensus whereby psychologists shouldn't administer IQ tests too frequently otherwise the results become biased is wrong
• that 10 is an appropriate age for this kind of test
• that bright kids who don't get extra tutoring at home are not penalised

Well, I would love to see it. Could you please kindly point me towards such research? Thank you very much!

Note that I am not advocating no selection and no differentiation ever.
I have already explained why I feel that a comprehensive school with sets is a better balance between fairness and meritocracy

@Soontobe60 Ha ha ha ha!! A DARVO-er accusing me of DARVO! Mate, you crack me up. I asked what you found offensive and how you would have conveyed the same concept. I wasn't denying not reversing anything. Quite telling that you are unable or unwilling to answer.

Jordanhill is a comprehensive too, just funded directly due to historical reasons. It is selective based on ability to afford to live in catchment from birth - you put your baby on the waiting list on your way home from hospital (not joking).

Luckily most of the UK has done away with the 11+ and despite living in a number of different locations in the UK I've never lived in an 11+ area. It would be good if all areas could see it removed.

I do believe in selection within schools, but definitely don't agree that it should happen in such a way that not going to the grammar school puts you at a disadvantage.

At lest with set selection within schools pupils can move up and down sets (which does happen) when thongs change.

In my area the only alternative to grammar schools are actually schools where everyone is taught to the lowest common denominator of the class!

We need more grammar schools not less! If they weren’t so damn competitive to get into and every child who passed got a grammar school place education would be better suited for all children.

Spoken as a mother of 1 x grammar school kid and 3 x non grammar kids.

What do you see the advantage of going to a grammar school to be?

DH and I did the 11 plus in the 60s. Tutoring was an unknown concept to us and our school friends. It was just three tests, we did in school.

The children, where I lived, generally had a choice of a single sex grammar in the county town or two mixed sex grammars, in a village or a small town elsewhere. I can’t see what social selection there was?

DH was from a poor working class family, living in a very poor town in the NW. I imagine, most of the children in the grammar schools were mainly poor working class too. As far as DH is concerned, it gave poor working class children like him and his sisters, the chance of social mobility, which their modern equivalents don’t get!

Children could transfer to the grammar schools after doing the 13 plus or at 16, because it was recognised some were late developers.

I don’t recognise what OP is talking about at all.

I'm a "non-white" mother of a "non-white" child who took the 11+.
You're absolutely correct to argue the pros/cons of the 11+, bringing the Burts odd beliefs into adds nothing.
James Marion Sims lauded in America as "the father of modern gynaecology - used enslaved black women (or "non-white women if you will)as live studies & cruelly operated without anesthesia or sedation.
Monster. But his work laid the ground for many treatments used today world wide.
I'm still getting my smear test despite its wicked roots.

It's that the entire premise of the 11+ was predicated on the now discredited notion that intelligence is only innate and completely unaffected by the environment.

Whether or not that was the view of CB, that is surely irrelevant to the test's current use.

If wind turbines had been originally designed to decapitate pigeons, it wouldn't call their current use to generate electricity into question.

Agree with everything @ParentOfOne- supposed IQ tests have been used for all kinds of awful reasons now when at the time they called it objective science.
As for rich vs poor kids who get in though, I’d be interested to see stats on rich vs poor kids who fail to score high enough - and split by nationality/parents heritage. As in, I think it’s not rich pass and poor fail, I think it’s rich pass and rich fail and lots of poor don’t take the test - either cos of the cost of tutoring or cos they’re not bothered about their child going to a grammar. The lack of parental engagement in their kids free, largely high quality (by global standards) education, is mind blowing. Hence all the international /2nd generation parents who see the transformational effects of a good/the best education available and they stop all family holidays/take second jobs driving taxis/ move house and open a newsagent in the right catchment area*/ etc etc in order to get their kids this amazing start in life.
That degree of parental involvement is seriously lacking in so many UK families - people have no idea how lucky we are in this country, don’t take advantage of these opportunities and then wonder why their kids can’t get jobs 😟
*all genuine examples I know of before anyone flames me!

@BlueandWhitePorcelain DH and I did the 11 plus in the 60s. Tutoring was an unknown concept to us and our school friends. [...]
I don’t recognise what OP is talking about at all.

I accept that in the 1960 it may well have been different. As you say, tutoring was not a thing back then.
But it's a different world now.
Now the selective and partially selective schools happen to accept far fewer students on free school meals - a proxy to show that poorer kids are under-represented in these schools.

You cannot use your experience from the 1960 to "not recognise" what is happening in 2025

@GirlsInGreen I'm still getting my smear test despite its wicked roots
@Underthinker If wind turbines had been originally designed to decapitate pigeons, it wouldn't call their current use to generate electricity into question.

I have already answered these points. There is scientific proof that the smear test works, regardless of its roots.

I am not aware of much scientific evidence confirming the hypothesis that Burt failed to prove (and which led him to falsify his research) on intelligence being completely unaffected by the environment, nor on much scientific evidence on whether / why 10 is an adequate age to test, nor on why a grammar system would be better than a comp with sets, which differentiates its offer over time.

Big differences vs your examples.

@KellySeveride In my area the only alternative to grammar schools are actually schools where everyone is taught to the lowest common denominator of the class!
We need more grammar schools not less!

No. We need more schools with a more diverse offer, so that kids are channelled to what is the best path for them, but gradually and over time, not based on an over-tutored test taken at 10.

If the non-grammars in your area don't push children enough it sucks, but it doesn't mean that grammars are the only way to push academic children

Whether or not intelligence is unaffected by environment (unlikely), ability to pass the 11+ clearly isn't otherwise the tutoring industry would not exist. Everyone knows the 11+ is an imperfect way of finding a group of the more academically able children. The fact that one of its creators had outdated and inaccurate views on human intelligence is irrelevant.

I think there are a huge number of people who would happily organise & lobby for policy change on grammar schools. Thats the way to go if the last 64 (is it?) are to be brought into a comprehensive system.
I think in grammar areas (such as mine West Mids) there would be uproar, but I think a government could do, I'm surprised the current Ed Sec hasn't mooted it, but I suspect she will before the end of this parliament.
But a cranks sticky fingers at the beggining? Like so fucking what?😂
Throw the stats & data - the research at people to change hearts & minds.
No-one & certainly not policy-wonks or spads who will need to be brought on board will give a shiny shite for boogie man tales.

Of course inherited intelligence is also affected by the environment but it is pretty set by 11, with the exception of dramatic events. (That is different from ability to do specific tasks).

Unfortunately the OP has a poor understanding of statistics, making the usual error of conflating coincidence with causation.

They are trying to claim that because of the lower % of children on free school meals at these schools, they come from more affluent families who can self tutor or employ tutors.

However, look at the available statistics of the Ethnic diversity of three of the schools you cite - Tiffin / Tiffin Girls & HB. Between 40 & 70% South and East Asian.

Then look at the statistics of what % of Indian and Chinese families get free school meals nationally (approx 7.5%)

The OP is actually running the argument that those immigrant families who want to send their children to academically selective schools should not be allowed to because they are perpetuating a racist ideology born from Eugenics.

Let me take a wild stab in the dark and guess that the OP is a middle class white liberal who would never dream of telling immigrants what is best for them right?

Why all this tall poppy syndrome? I don't understand why people are wanting to get rid of grammar schools. We have grammar schools in our area that are very academic and cater for those children. We have a range of great comprehensives that are academic together with some comprehensives that focus more on the vocational subjects. With school budget cuts it means schools can cater more for their intake and thus have happier children. Why do we want the same for everyone where no one is fully catered for and everything is just mediocre? There is no way budget-wise that these schools would be able to sufficiently cater for a broad range of children.

Your argument kind of falls flat when you consider that the MAJORITY of pupils in both Tiffin and Tiffin Girls are non-white. Asian kids are vastly over-represented (per percentage of the population) at most super selective private and state schools.

Now no doubt you’ll bring it back to social class. And the majority of non-white pupils at super selective schools may well be firmly middle class, it’s true. But you did specifically single out ‘if you’re non-white’ as its own category. Silly really.

Sadly there are many white people (and tbh non-white people too) who don’t see cringing paternalism as the racism it is. Along with the bigotry of low expectations.

@Notamarxist The % on free school meals is used as a proxy for deprivation in official government statistics, and education researches like those at the Sutton Trust use it to study whether schools are socially selective, for the same reason.

You are clearly smarter than me if you have figured out that this approach is wrong. I shall be looking forward to your peer-reviewed publication on the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, where you explain why this is wrong, and what you propose to replace it with.

However, look at the available statistics of the Ethnic diversity of three of the schools you cite - Tiffin / Tiffin Girls & HB. Between 40 & 70% South and East Asian.

OK. And?

The OP is actually running the argument that those immigrant families who want to send their children to academically selective schools should not be allowed to because they are perpetuating a racist ideology born from Eugenics.

Congratulations - you have won the bad faith strawman bs of the year award! There was some tough competition from other contenders, but you wiped the floor with them!

I mean, a combination of primary school level text comprehension skills and basic honesty would have been sufficient to understand the points I had made, to understand that in this system a bright kid who scores 70% untutored is overtaken by a a kid who scores 65% untutored but can reach 75% with tutoring. To understand that a comprehensive which uses sets and offers a combination of vocational qualifications and more challenging subjects (further maths, physics, etc) can still push and challenge academic kids, but without writing off kids based on a test taken at age 10.

But of course debunking the points above is harder, so you chose to make it about race and portray me as some kind of racist who allegedly wants to deny minority groups their right to a better education.

@WomensRightsRenegade Sadly there are many white people (and tbh non-white people too) who don’t see cringing paternalism as the racism it is. Along with the bigotry of low expectations.

Could you be so kind as to explain what comprehensive schools which use sets and offer more challenging subjects for the more academic kids have to do with low expectations?

Surely you are not implying that the one and only alternative to grammars are schools with low expectations for their children?
Surely you are not implying that only the 6% of grammars in England have high expectations of their children, and the remaining 94% don't?

And where the "cringing paternalism" would be in advocating a system which tries to identify the best path for each child based on a continuous assessment, not on a one-off test taken at the age of 10?

@WomensRightsRenegade
Your argument kind of falls flat when you consider that the MAJORITY of pupils in both Tiffin and Tiffin Girls are non-white. Asian kids are vastly over-represented (per percentage of the population) at most super selective private and state schools.

[...] But you did specifically single out ‘if you’re non-white’ as its own category. Silly really.

Could you be so kind as to explain where I would have said that the current system penalises non-white students? Could you? Please? Pretty please?
I said, and this is factual, that the eugenicists who created the 11+ thought that white people were superior.

If you fail to appreciate the difference between these two concepts, it means that your text comprehension skills happen to be below the level typically expected of kids applying for grammar schools...

Now no doubt you’ll bring it back to social class.

Exactly. If you had read the thread, you would notice that I said multiple times that white working class kids (boys more than girls) are the most penalised group at the moment.

I have no experience of 11+ myself as my local authority was all comprehensive even in the 1970s. However both my mum and my uncle went to a grammar school from a council house.

The point about different educational settings at secondary school I would say is that a lot of young people would benefit more from practical subjects.

The smaller percentage of students receiving free school meals in Grammer schools is not a coincidence, it is widely known that successful parents are more likely to read, have more books at home, eat more healthily, children are more likely to be getting enough sleep, are more likely taking part in holiday camps, extra curricular activities, travel, all things which will lead to better academic outcomes.

These wealthier parents are also more likely to place higher value on education, and will seek out opportunities for extending their child, more likely to choose for them to sit the test in the first place, is more likely to be aware of opportunities such as this are available to them.

Poorer working class parents, typically place less importance on education, have less time to spend with their children helping with homework, and reading to them.

My FIL came from an extremely poor background and went to Grammer school, he was exceptionally bright, and loved learning, his 3 brothers not so much, they all went on to learn trades. He wouldn’t agree with your assumptions, and describes the Grammer schools back then as a created opportunity for people like him, who wouldn’t otherwise have the chance for a higher academic education.