天资，教育和考试成绩

简介

教育是改变命运的唯一途径，成熟国家亦如是？

基因决定了孩子们在学校的表现？

这样的话，那么那些试图在那部分天生“不那么聪明”的孩子中间提高学习成绩的教师和政策制定者们不就是在浪费时间吗？

以上这些不那么令人愉快的争论性话题由前任皇家总学督 Chris Woodhead 在本周的评论所引发。

现任白金汉大学教授 Woodhead 先生可不是个会在那些涉及基本原则的话题面前踯躅不前的人，不管那些话题有多劲爆。

在一次报纸采访中， Woodhead 先生表示一个学生的家庭背景很大程度上确定了他是不是能把书念好。

他是这么说的：“要我说那些文法学校里的小孩大多都来自那些条件不太好的地区的话，这就不大像是真的。如果你的父母是教书的，弄学术的或者搞法律的，那你的基因就可能会更优秀。”

他也争辩道这样的话那些不那么聪明的学生就不该被强迫去走读书这么一条道，他们应该去接受实践和职业培训。

我怀疑我们中的很多人都会直觉的感到 Woodhead 先生关于读好书和投对胎的言论是对的。

周围似乎到处都是这样的证据。那些在教育战线岗位上工作出色的父母们的子女们的书念得也不坏。

但是这样子我们是不是就能说孩子是天资过人还是天性鲁钝就完全取决于他们父母是不是块读书的料呢？

并且这些相关的智能水平是否在我们成长过程中也保持着同样的差异还是根据双亲家里的殷实程度而有所变化呢？

这个天资还是教育的问题看起来难以解决。

不过托了一项了不起的研究项目的福，越来越多长期研究下的证据支持了某派的看法

模式

1970年的一项出生队列调查追踪了1970年4月某一周内诞生在英国的17，000名婴儿。

从那时起，每隔一段时间都会对他们的健康，教育以及社会发展进行调查。

伦敦大学教育学院的 Leon Feinstein 审核了调查所得的教育成绩，并给出了一些迷人的发现。它们展现了同龄人的儿童之间智能水平的差异随着时间的推移发生变化的情况。

如同惯例，他的研究所采用的计算方法非常简单，我强烈推荐那些有兴趣的朋友不妨去看看他自己的项目说明。

儿童们在22个月，42个月，5岁以及10岁时测试他们的智能开发程度。

接着他们在26岁的时候通过参加公开考试来评估他们的受教育程度。

（研究结果所得出的一个）惊人印象是在婴儿阶段所表现出的智能水平几乎就预示了将来的受教育程度。

即便是在那些22个月大的统计结果里，那些在最初的智能排名里以排倒数25%起步的儿童在长大成人后大多依旧排倒数。

就算以42个月大，或仅仅3岁半大这样同样属于学龄前时期的情况（来研究），（之前得到的）成功模式却是被愈发得以验证了。

这个年纪智能水平位居下游的那伙人里有超过25%的人在他们26岁的时候没有取得任何学历。

相对的，当时位于上游的那伙人里只有6%的人成人后没有取得学历。

由此可见，刚生下时的智能水平很好的预示了将来的受教育程度。

或者换句话说，那些在42月大时就属于拔尖的25%的小家伙们要比那些属于倒数25%的在接下来的人生中继续拿A的几率大3倍。

社会地位

这样看来基因决定论确实是得到证据支持的了。

早在儿童们开始校园生活之前，他们的受教育程度就已经是命中注定的了。

不过等等，这儿还有点别的。

调查证据显示，在总体的规律下，还有一定程度的变动。

有些从最差劲组起步的儿童还真就一路穷追猛赶最后挤进了最能干组。

比如说，42个月大时属于倒数25%的人中有10%在10岁时进入了拔尖的25%。

换句话说，如果他们在人之初就因为基因劣势而被取消了（受教育）资格的话，他们的长远人才潜力就被白白浪费了。

当政策制定者们注意观察社会地位在其中的影响时，Leon Feinstein 的研究就显得更有意思了。

他的发现指向这一点，如果一个小孩生出来时就属于表现拙劣的那一类，而他的家庭又属于社会经济地位比较低的那部分，那么迟早他都会发觉有种人叫做学无所成，而自己正不幸是其中一员。

所以，假如你搞砸了22月大时的测试，而你的父母又恰是低薪的劳动工人，那么你这辈子就很可能要与与你父母一样的人为伍。

而那些白领殷实家庭里出来的小孩就算也搞砸了22月大测试，却不一定和你一样也一直被囚禁在教育阶梯的底层。

真实的情况是，没准儿也是最要命的情况是，那些搞砸了22月大测试的殷实家庭出来的孩子在其后的岁月里逐步取代了那些出身贫困家庭的孩子原来在团体中顶端的位置。

他们的取代通常发生在6至7岁之间。

换句话说，天资禀赋决定了日后的学术造诣这话确实不错。

但是考虑到你父母的社会经济地位，我们也不能说你坠地时所获得的“恩赐”就只有单单遗传基因而已。

任何人都可能生下聪明小孩，并不只限于中产家庭。

但不管你刚开始干得如何漂亮，其后的学术成就往往伴随着那些白领殷实家庭出来的小孩。

所以要是 Chris Woodhead 说的是进入了中学的儿童的话，那他的观点真是千真万确。

在那之前的小学和学龄前阶段么，在这个阶段 Chris Woodhead 自己也鼓吹说我们应该教给所有的学生基础常识。那么这恐怕就可算得上是种强制的干涉，妨碍了社会地位影响机制产生效力，贫困家庭出身的聪明学生也就不会那么轻易地自行退出舞台了吧。

 

Nature,nurture and exam results

Do genes determine how well children will do at school?

If so, are teachers and policy-makers wasting their time trying to raise academic standards amongst children who are born "not very bright?"

These controversial, indeed uncomfortable, questions are raised by comments this week from the former Chief Inspector of Schools in England, Chris Woodhead.

Now a Professor at Buckingham University, Mr Woodhead has never been one to tiptoe around fundamental issues, however explosive they may be.

In a newspaper interview, Mr Woodhead said a child's family background largely dictated educational success.

"I think it would be unlikely that large numbers of grammar school kids would come from disadvantaged areas - the genes are likely to be better if your parents are teachers, academics, lawyers," he said.

Therefore, he argued, less bright children should not be forced down the academic route but should be given practical and vocational training.

I suspect many of us would instinctively agree with Mr Woodhead's view that academic success is linked to genes.

The anecdotal evidence seems to be all around us. The children of parents who have done well in the academic education system seem, mostly, to do well themselves.

But is it really true that our chances of being born bright or not so bright depend entirely on the academic success of our parents?

And do these relative levels of mental ability remain the same as we grow up or do they vary according to the affluence of parental homes?

This nature versus nurture question might seem insoluble.

But thanks to a remarkable research project there is growing long-term evidence to suggest some insights.

Pattern

The 1970 Birth Cohort Survey has followed over 17,000 babies who were born in the UK during a particular week in April 1970.

It has measured their medical, educational and social development at intervals since then.

Leon Feinstein, from the Institute of Education at the University of London, has interrogated the educational results of the survey and produced some fascinating findings about how children's ability levels vary relative to their peers over time.

Inevitably, the account of his research that follows is highly simplified, and I would certainly recommend anyone who is interested to go to his own description of the project.

The children were tested for their educational development at 22 months, 42 months, and at age five and 10.

Later they were assessed at age 26 to see what educational success they had achieved in public examinations.

 

Is it nature or nurture that makes for academic success?

The striking picture that emerges is one where ability levels at the earliest age are a strong indicator of later educational success.

Even when measured at just 22 months, children who started out in the lowest 25% of the ability range mostly remained stuck amongst the lowest achievers as adults.

The pattern of future success is even more starkly determined at 42 months, or just three and half years old, still well before the start of formal schooling.

Over 25% of those who were in the bottom quartile of ability at this age failed to achieve any educational qualifications by the age of 26.

By contrast, only 6% of the highest scoring 42 month olds failed to get qualifications by the time they were adults.

So ability levels soon after birth are a very strong predictor of future educational success.

Or, to give another example, those who were in the top 25% at 42 months were more than three times more likely to go on to get A- levels than those in the bottom 25%.

Social class

So the deterministic view about genes appears to be borne out by the evidence so far.

Educational achievement would appear to be set in stone well before children even start school.

But wait, there is more.

The evidence also shows that within this overall picture, there is a fair degree of movement.

Children who start out in the least able group can, and do, progress all the way up to the most able group.

For example, 10% of those children who were in the bottom 25% at 42 months had reached the top 25% by the age of 10.

In other words, if they had been written off as starting out in life without the genetic advantages of high ability, their longer-term academic potential would have been wasted.

Leon Feinstein's research gets even more interesting for policy-makers when he starts to look at the impact of social class on all of this.

His findings suggest that it is the combination of starting out in the lowest ability group, whilst also being in the lowest socio-economic group at birth, which more or less condemns a child to educational failure later in life.

So, if you do badly in the developmental tests at 22 months, and your parents are in low-paid manual jobs, you are likely to remain on the bottom rungs of the educational ladder.

However, children in the lowest ability groups at 22 months who are born into affluent and white-collar families do not remain stuck on the bottom levels of educational success.

Indeed - and this is perhaps the most striking finding - the children from affluent families who started out in the bottom ability group overtake those from the poorest backgrounds who started out in the top ability group.

They overtake them around about the age of 6 or 7.

In other words, it is true to say that the mental abilities you are born with do tend to shape your future academic success.

However, it is also true to say that innate ability is not determined simply by your genetic inheritance, in terms of the socio-economic background of your parents.

Bright children come from all backgrounds, not just middle-class families.

But whatever the starting point, subsequent educational success is more likely to go to those with affluent, middle-class parents.

So Chris Woodhead may well be right if he is talking about children who have already reached secondary school.

Yet early intervention, in the pre-school and early primary years - where he himself advocates teaching all children the basics - could make a real difference by militating against social class factors which have held back bright children from poorer homes.