Grammar schools have no effect as genetics determines academic success

[jeanne16]

This is a new study by Kings College London. The research shows that academic success is primarily down to genetics and not the type of school a pupil attends.

So should we all calm down about grammar/independent/comprehensive schools and blame it all (or credit it all) on the genes we have passed on to our children?

Can you link to it?

There was something in R4 the other day about new research by the Nuffield Foundation saying Grammar is all down to tutoring and not a fair reflection of society, I think. Is it the same study?

Surely home environment must make a difference?

Will a child with high intelligence stand as much chance of success in a home where the Dad is in prison, Mum out til 4am, not up at breakfast or in after school, drugs, no food in fridge, slags teachers off as snobs and not to be trusted or respected do as well as the same ability child in an education-focussed home?

My high achiever had a truly, truly bad teacher in one GCSE subject: didn’t finish the curriculum, git his classes mixed up so left out lessons or did them twice, never looked at homework. My Dc did the whole thing from YouTube and the curriculum book and got an A*. (In a subject that DH and I are incompetent in and have no aptitude for...)

Here is the link:

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/23/grammar-schools-have-virtually-no-effect-genetics-determine/

That is poor journalism and a reflection of poor summarisation. Genes contribute to less than 1% of 'intelligence' and that has been discussed and peer reviewed etc.

Are you referring to the rubbish daily fascist article from yesterday?

That whole gene - eugenics debate is deeper than you think. It was the basis of nazi ideology and allowed for people with autism, Down's syndrome or even just plain dim people to be sterilised and annihilated. The ideology considers that any gene mixing with pure Scandinavian heritage is at a disadvantage to intellectual activity. Be very very very careful.

Ok, I’ll be interested to se the actual study as that is a typically garbled media report of a study. For example, is the unsubstantiated general comment about sport and debating from the study, or the journalist?

However it does say they took socio-economic factors into account.

I do agree that the frenzy for a Grammar place (in a non grammmar area) , the demonisation of comprehensive schools and systems like Kent are based on fantasy over fact or outdated ideas.

except that grammar schools require you to take a test to get in and tutored or not will have a bright cohort, with motivated parents.
so taking a dim child from a dreadful home/family situation wont make him the next all rounder award winner.

My understanding is that research generally shows that the best determinant of academic success is the academic achievement of parents, in particular of mothers. However this was particularly with reference of the value of education in the developing world where girls often leave education very early for a variety of reasons.

yes nooka i'm familiar with that study as well.

Genes contribute to less than 1% of 'intelligence' and that has been discussed and peer reviewed

References?

2014 peer review pub estimates 20-80% of intelligence depends on genes.
2010 peer review pub is more interesting, says about 50% of intelligence is due to genes (among 2yr olds) in high SES households but no impact in low SES HHs (all USA).

COI statement: I have minimal skin in this game, I went to school outside UK & grammar schools not available to anyone where DC live.

Studies on identical twins and adoptees suggest that there is a very large genetic component to intelligence. Very confused as to where that 1% figure came from!

"So should we all calm down about grammar/independent/comprehensive schools"

I still object to kids being shut out of types of opportunity due to a single exam moment when they were 10yo. This is still the system in Northern Ireland, too. I've spoken to people who were resentful they did or didn't get into the grammar; so typically they were wildly top of the class compared to peers in the non-grammar, or they were labeled stupid b/c they couldn't keep up when in the grammar. Bad fit both ways.

I would also like to know where the idea comes from that genes contribute less than 1% to intelligence.

Am on holiday away from regular access to WiFi, but here is a link to a BBC radio 4 programme that also discusses the low % of intelligence inherited.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042zsxv

Hopefully when I get back I can do a proper search and link.

that bbc series was very interesting thank you for posting it.

DCs prep school peers are already doing a really wide range of post-school things. Same school, same opportunities, affluent parents, but a stunning mix (drama school, aspiring models, indi bands, fashion start ups, drug dealer....as well as the more conventional RG and Oxbridge). My observation is that the big correlation is not with intelligence (if that might be measured by which of the four sets kids were in), but parental attitiudes to education. So professionals: accountants, lawyers, whose own careers were based on academic sucess appeared to place more emphasis on academic sucess for their children.

Interestingly the very brightest children often had sucessful creative, rather than professional, parents.

If you look at the lists of famous old boys/girls at academic private schools there are often as many actors and musicians as Professors. (Shane McGowan?!)

I dont know it this breadth of accomplishment will be true of modern grammar schools like Tiffin, where the focus seems to be on results that lead to RG and medical school. And whether this narrow focus reflects an effective selection of parents. (Both mine ended up at very academic private schools but failed to achieve Tiffin places, almost certainly in DS' case because we prioritised sport etc over entry exam preparation.) But if it does, it is a pity. Eduation is the aim, not simply grades.

Affluence obviously helps. Richer kids can afford to explore other avenues. Though having said that, kids on bursaries seem to be following the same diverse paths (Ivy scholarship, indi band, student politician) as their peers.

drama school, aspiring models, indi bands, fashion start ups

That just speaks of having parents that can fund children to do these careers. I’m sure many state grammar young adults would love to try these careers, but don’t have the parental financial safety net.

(see majority of British actors etc that are privately educated )

@Needmoresleep is right.

Arty careers - music, drama, art - need funding beyond school days and is just not accessible to most who need to go out and fend for themselves with a career.

That's before you talk about the COST of the same pursuits.

Cross posted but I agree with @Taffeta too.

To some extent, though I would ague that Tiffin/St Olaves parents were not always less well off than private school parents. Indeed it can be the reverse.

My point was that parental attitudes seemed to be the bigger driver even within a single prep school. We saw the full range. Parents who had decided from the outset that their DC would study medicine, to those who were not sufficiently interested to attend parents evening, and DC to a large extent picked up the cues from them. It may sound weird but mothers who had married well, or parents whose creative careers needed good networks often appeared more relaxed about homework. Perhaps in the same way as a child who is destined to join the family plumbing firm.

There is no way genes only contribute 1% to intelligence l believe. I am interested in this as l come from a big family scattered across the world now. My relatives in the generation before me were extremely bright intelligent people wide reader interested in politics etc but got very little opportunity due to poverty big families rural upbringing.
The grandchildren of that cohort are now popping up in different school systems across the world as the brightest kids in classes and very high achievers. I can see a direct correlation between them and their ancestors as the strengths are in the same areas although most of these never even met and obviously inlaws of all description have entered the gene pool. Its fasinating.
Of course on top of that gene comes opportunity but these kids are in public and private schools in different places but the gene is still coming out.
I often see as a teacher that its those with the highest intelligence from an early age who get the best results in the end no matter what school they attend. Tbis is especially true in our system in lreland as the only criteria for college is exam results not volunteering or sports achievement etc. The intelligent at 8 score the highest even in a pretty mediocre school but private education gives them great networking opportunities from then on. And great sporting facilities etc during school which some people like to pay for.

If you listen to the bbc series (3 podcasts) genetics and learning ability are closely linked 50-80% is what I understood. In the podcast they discussed the ethics of knowing the high coorelation between family genetics and education.

My personal experience of this with several children is that it’s simply not true. We have experienced state, gdst, international super selective. There was a big step up from our pretty rural local state to the Gdst school and from there to the super selective international. The outcomes of each are superior. The equivalent grades of dd1 are very much superior to her equally bright friends in the local school. Likewise their university opportunities are limited due to their subjects and grades.
This survey might represent the truth in the cash-rich affluence of the South but in the Uk hinter regions no.
Incidentally intelligence can not be judged at a young age by teachers. I absolutely hate the fact that teachers can write off children at 4 or 5. Amenability and vocal skills can be judged and correlated with intelligence at this age but not infallibly.

That's called a fixed Mindset and completely wrong.