Winning students are often dressed in better genes

What determines educational success and failure? Why do some students and schools outperform others as measured by national and international literacy and numeracy tests, Year 12 results and tertiary entry?

Read the 2011 Gonski school funding report and research commissioned by the Australian Education Union and it’s clear what leads to some students outperforming others and why Catholic and independent schools, on the whole, achieve stronger academic results compared with government schools.

The argument is that a student’s socio-economic status (SES) as measured by parental qualifications, occupation and income determines educational success and failure. Students whose parents are professionals earning a high income achieve success whereas students from poor households with less educated parents suffer disadvantage.

If true, it’s understandable why non-government school critics like the Australian Education Union, the Save Our Schools convener Trevor Cobbold, and Monash University’s David Zyngier argue that state schools serving disadvantaged communities, compared with non-government schools, deserve priority funding.

Reality check: while the belief that educational outcomes are ­decided by socio-economic status fits the cultural-left narrative of privilege and victimhood, it is a myth.

Evidence-based research proves that while home background is influential, its impact is only moderate. It’s wrong for Gonski and the AEU to argue postcode is destiny and, as a result, Catholic and independent schools should lose funding as government schools are more deserving.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development research has found only “14 per cent of the differences in student reading performance within each country is associated with differences in ­students’ socio-economic background”.

The Australian Council for Educational Research’s analysis of the 2009 PISA results reaches a similar conclusion when stating that “13 per cent of the explained variance in student performance in Australia was found to be ­attributable to students’ socio-economic background”.

A 2017 recent research paper by the Australian Catholic University’s Gary Marks also questions the belief championed by Australia’s cultural-left education establishment that socio-economic status determines educational outcomes.

Marks writes: “The emphasis on SES in research and policy in Australia is unwarranted. SES does not have strong relationship with student outcomes and the ­relationship is particularly weak when taking into account much stronger influences.”

If a student’s socio-economic status does not determine educational outcomes, the question arises: what does? And here the research is also clear. The consensus based on studies both here and overseas is that a student’s cognitive ability and genetic make-up are far more influential than SES.

Australian researchers analysing the relative impact of genes and environment on students’ performance in the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy tests conclude “genes substantially and significantly influence both reading and maths ability”.

The authors go on to note: “With very few exceptions, genes explain more of the variation in academic achievement in Australia than the environment.” The ­observation is also made that the Australian results reflect similar results from studies in the UK.

The American academic Douglas K. Detterman also argues that educational outcomes are largely determined by cognitive ability. While acknowledging that schools and teachers have some influence, Detterman argues: “Human intelligence or general cognitive ability, accounts for at least half and probably more of academic achievement attributable to student characteristics.”

While critics refuse to accept the role genetics plays in education, the reality based on the concept of a bell curve is that not all students have the same cognitive ability or intellectual aptitude — a reality both parents and students have always understood.

The OECD report PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background provides further evidence that socio-economic status is hardly as influential as argued.

When analysing the results of students from less affluent backgrounds the report notes that some education systems are more successful than others as measured by the percentage of disadvantaged students achieving at the highest level. The report concludes “equity in educational opportunities can be achieved even when the socio-economic background of students varies widely”.

As reported in the OECD’s PISA In Focus No 36, education systems in Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea, compared with Australia, are able to ensure that the vast majority of students, ­regardless of parental occupation, achieve at the highest level.

The report concludes that while students’ background is influential “it is possible to provide children of factory workers the same high-quality education opportunities that children of lawyers and doctors enjoy”.

A third study, detailed in PISA In Focus No 5, identifies resilience as one of the key factors in overcoming disadvantage. The authors note that resilient students from less-affluent backgrounds reach “high levels of academic achievement despite that fact that they come from disadvantaged backgrounds”.

In addition to resilience, research suggests that those ­students who are confident and motivated — who demonstrate what is described as self-efficacy — are also able to achieve results better than what otherwise might be expected given their home background.

Additional positive factors include a rigorous and academically based curriculum, teachers who are masters of their subject and able to challenge and motivate students, and a disciplined classroom environment characterised by high expectations.

Instead of a self-fulfilling prophesy where socio-economic status determines educational outcomes, policy makers and educators should accept the role of cognitive ability and identify what characterises those education and school systems that are best able to maximise educational outcomes for all students, regardless of home background.

Dr Kevin Donnelly is a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University and author of Dumbing Down