Intelligence Is 60% Genetic

Intelligence is inherited. So relax, parents. Professor Robert Plomin was interviewed on Radio 4 for 'The Life Scientific' and these are his views: Psychologists used not to like the idea because it undermined their research methods which were about child-development and learning. This assumed that parents' and teachers' caused 100% of the intellectual development of a child. Anti-racists didn't like the idea because there was a danger of thinking that intelligence was linked to race.

But: 1. Adoption studies (where a child is adopted and so does not share genes with parents) and twin studies (where twins have different parenting) showed that in GCSE exams 60% of the results are due to genetics. (Identical twins with identical genes prove this even more effectively than non-identical ones.) 2. Warning: Any one student can be anywhere on the results table because of natural variants. This means that there will always be exceptions from the 'norm'. So a 'clever' family may well have one much less 'clever' child and vice-versa. 3. We now need to find the genes. Proving the inherited nature of intelligence is a thing of the past. There may be thousands of genes each with a small effect.

Do education policies reflect the inherited nature of intelligence? Not totally. No necessary education policies follow because moral values are not scientific. Education policy depends on values. Science doesn't. The non-scientists must understand what science tells us. Then we can all use our values to work out education policies.

All this makes sense to me and my experience of getting to know children and their parents over forty years.

But what are the practical consequences: Here are my ideas, from a teacher's viewpoint. Please let me hear yours by clicking on the Contact Us link.

1. It is a lot harder for some children to learn than others. I need to remember this and discover the best way in which each child learns. 2. It is not all about potty-training and reading to your children, though the right environment helps. Parents can do a lot but should not worry unduly because their efforts are a small part of the intellectual development of their child. Enjoy whatever the genes have given you. Tiger Mums watch out!! 3. Qualifications like GCSE or A levels test a limited range of intellectual skills. Colleges and Universities need to have a way of measuring potential. Public exams -GCSE and A levels - are the least bad option at the moment for discovering this. 4. Questions in exams should not be of the kind for which learning how to answer the question plays a big part in what goes on in the classroom. It falsifies results. For example, a student of English Literature is often taught to write using paragraphs which follow this structure: Point + Evidence (a quotation) followed by an explanation of how the quotation proves the original point and links to other aspects of the text. This is an excellent thinking skill to learn and applies to other subjects very effectively. But a student not taught this method may have a much better grasp of the meaning of a text but achieve a lower grade in the exam because they don't know this way of answering questions.

5. Streaming by ability in schools: selection by intelligence tests can lead to more relevant classroom teaching geared to the ability of each student grouped with intellectual equals. So there is no need for boredom at one extreme or loss of confidence through not understanding the lesson at the other. Streaming is good for quality of intellectual learning. But what about social skills? We all need to learn to work with others recognising their contribution, which may not be intellectual. Is this an overriding consideration in the classroom? I don't think so.

6. Common Entrance: It is said that anyone can improve their mark in Verbal Reasoning Tests and Non Verbal reasoning by getting familiar with the kind of questions set. This is almost certainly true. But they still offer a good basic - if slightly unreliable - guide to a student's potential. Especially if you allow a 20% margin of error or know how far the student has been coached for the test. In my experience they are much less reliable on children under the age of about 11. I think this is because they are more the victim of moods, ability to concentrate, tiredness, distractions and general attitude to the process.