Is pupil performance down to genes?

Some children learn more quickly than others. Not everyone wants to talk about the role of genetics in education, but it’s a conversation we shouldn’t avoid, says Kathryn Asbury...

It’s very hard to talk about genetics, especially in the same breath as education. This has become particularly clear to me over the last three months while discussing G is for Genes on the radio, in newspapers, and with colleagues and critics. Reactions to the book, which I co-wrote with Professor Robert Plomin, have been very diverse. Some people are unsurprised by or open to our message, while others are hostile and unwilling to consider the role of genes in how a child learns. Some have even told us they know genes matter but that it is a Pandora’s Box which we should not have opened. More than anything else, we have met with misunderstanding of what it really means to say that learning is heritable. This misunderstanding, I think, lies at the heart of many people’s fears.

So I’ll start there and, more precisely, I’ll start by explaining what heritability does not mean. We know from many good studies that learning abilities are heritable, that is, genes influence more than half of the differences between children in how well they read, write, add up and pass tests. This does not, however, mean that children’s genes determine how well they will do in the phonics check or in their SATS, just that some children learn more quickly and easily than others, in large part for genetic reasons. Nor does heritability mean that some children have a particular reading or maths gene while others do not. Many genes, interacting with each other and with the school and home environments, are involved in children’s learning and development. Heritability estimates tell us nothing about individual children, but they do tell us how much of the differences between children can be explained by nature and how much by nurture. 

Teachers are the main group of people for whom we wrote our book. The evidence we describe has already been published in academic journals and is widely accepted in the scientific community. Academics do not, however, have to stand in front of classes of young children every day and take responsibility for their educational progress. We don’t deal with the real-world challenges that you do. Therefore, we hoped to bring you the evidence we have with a view to starting a constructive conversation about whether, and how, it might be useful. We believe that teachers are likely to be open-minded about genetics, even if uncomfortable discussing it, because only a few years ago we spoke to hundreds of primary school teachers and more than 90 per cent told us they believed that nature was at least as important an influence on children’s learning as nurture. G is for Genes was written to generate a discussion between teachers, parents, policy-makers and academics about what, if anything, this means for how we nurture every child’s natural potential.

Interpreting the evidence

So, what do we actually say in the book? In a nutshell, we describe evidence from around the world which demonstrates that learning is heritable, covering studies of literacy, maths, science and PE.  We explain concepts relating to how nature and nurture affect each other; explore cognitive ability, self-confidence, motivation and Special Educational Needs; and discuss how even identical twins – who share all of their genes – experience the same classroom differently. This presentation of evidence regarding the relationship between nature, nurture and education is the main part of G is for Genes. Towards the end, we consider what the evidence might imply in two ways. First, we make 11 very tentative policy suggestions reflecting our initial ideas. We do not advocate putting these suggestions into practice – they are far too tentative – but view them as conversation starters or research questions. Second, we describe what a school that was sensitive to both nature and nurture might look like. Spoiler alert – it’s big and offers unprecedented levels of choice and personalisation. What we offer is a sketch, not a blueprint, a starting point for discussion. We hope that it will trigger conversations about the assumptions on which our education system is based and whether it would be possible to do things better, in ways which are more in tune with the needs of individual children, needs rooted in their biology as well as their upbringing. 

Our vision has surprised some people who have described it as “a bit leftie” or “progressive”. This is because we focus on providing most resources to pupils who struggle; on equality of opportunity (particularly regarding extra-curricular activities); and on allowing children to make many choices for themselves. I think it is telling that people are surprised by this. A common misconception is that a belief that nature matters is a right-wing belief. This is one of the reasons it is so difficult to talk about genetics in an educational context. It is important to remember that behavioural genetic research is a scientific, not a political, endeavour. No policies necessarily follow from the evidence we present. You could take the fact of heritability in a right-wing direction or a left-wing direction, depending on your values; the tentative ideas we propose are based on our own. Or you could decide that genetic influence on school achievement isn’t actually relevant, that it doesn’t make a practical difference to teaching and learning and is unlikely ever to do so.  All that really matters is that we consider the evidence with an open mind and, if it is deemed useful, that we take steps to ensure it is used well and for the benefit of children, schools and society.

Developing children’s talents

Children differ – we all know that – and they differ for biological as well as social reasons. However, the simple fact that children differ, sometimes quite dramatically, is not sufficiently taken into account in the way our schools are organised. It is virtually impossible for teachers to truly personalise children’s learning environments while they are under pressure to get all pupils through the same hoops regardless of their individual backgrounds and needs. We argue that children have a better chance of thriving at school if their individual interests are taken into account. However, it has to be made possible for teachers to do this. In the current climate, teachers are fully occupied in guiding children towards targets such as a good Level 2 in KS1 SATs. It is simply not possible to spend a great deal of time nurturing pupils’ individual passions. If we could change the way that schools are organised in order to make room for a new focus on identifying and developing the diverse natural talents of our nation’s children we think we may see benefits throughout society. 

Have your say

In G is for Genes (Wiley Blackwell, 2014) we describe a large body of genetic research as a starting point for an evidence-based discussion about genetic influence and personalised learning in schools. I would be delighted to hear your thoughts and ideas about the book, or about personalised learning, and am happy to discuss ideas with you by email (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)) or on Twitter @KathrynAsbury1. If we can combine our knowledge of genetic research with your knowledge of educating children in the real world, then we may even succeed in finding a new way forward. 

About the author

Dr Kathryn Asbury is a lecturer in the Centre for Psychology in Education at the University of York. She has published widely on the influence of home and school environments on children’s achievement, behaviour and wellbeing.

Research shows…

1. Teaching increases heritability. Genes have more influence on children’s reading ability after they start school.
2. Only 2 per cent of Nobel Prizes for science have been awarded to women. And yet, twin studies find no difference between boys and girls in their scientific ability.
3. School achievement is more heritable than IQ.