It is generally accepted by left and right that private education in the UK is superior to state education, hence pupils from Public Schools do far better in life. I doubt this supposed superiority in educational methods, the difference being probably due to IQ differences in their intakes, so discussed this issue with a very distinguished education writer. The discussion was going round in circles, until it occurred to me to ask outright: "Are you saying that the IQ distribution is the same in different social classes?". Answer; "Yes, I suppose I am". But what theory predicts this, or is this simply wishful thinking? Genetic theories predict that bright parents will have bright children, though not as bright as themselves, and there may be some dull children as well. Environmental theories predict that bright parents provide better surroundings and hence will have bright children like themselves, no explanation forthcoming for dull children from bright families. So how could high SES or brighter parents fail to have children with mean above average IQ? It helps to look at the analogous situation with respect to height. What general theory would not predict SES differences in children's height?
Greetings.
Children do not have social classes; they are assigned that of their parent, usually father, with an occupation. But, see the early work of Sir Cyril Burt on this topic,
Hello Professor Gottesman! Very glad to see you here. I'm fully agree with your opinion here.
Regarding IQ Maybe some good genes combinations are the reason as well along with social environment? My long-term expeditions studies among small indigeneous ethnics of the Caucasus, mainly -Dagestan that is a most multiethnic region of the Caucasus, indicated that non-verbal tests of Cattel and 'Marburg game" performance are much more sucessful among some unique men or women who have no any education, cannot speak Russian and they are ordinary highlanders with traditional jobs. I have been impressed that these highlanders without any education, no any good environment for intellect development -in most cases were more successfull with these non-verbals tests than the villages techers with universities diplomas. I imagine how much success they could have if had better economy conditions that could study in schools, universities etc. Another example -myself: I'm originally from one small indigeneous ethnics of Dagestan, was born in remote highland village. No one of women in my extended kindred ever were educated even for simple -read and write could not (Muslim). My father was killed in World War last days...my mother died when I was a little girl. My older relatives send me to the city school where studied girls without parents...This was my start -to change traditional highlander female life ))) I loved so much to study from first classes - and always was a top student, as well as a first in my ethnics Docrtor of sciences in human genetics...where it was from in my brain? Just in new environment I had possibility to get education...and because I had no parents, especially father -nobody limited me in my wishes to get more and more higher education.
I admire and congratulate you Kazima on overcoming the obstacles in your history. It demonstrates the power of relevant environmental variables to elicit latent genetic predispositions. I am certain you would agree that there is no need to unleash useless Nature versus Nurture arguments of days gone by, as both are necessary for optimizing human development. The attachments provide a balanced view of some of the points you have raised in telling your heart-felt story.
Best wishes.
I admire and congratulate you Kazima on overcoming the obstacles in your history. It demonstrates the power of relevant environmental variables to elicit latent genetic predispositions. I am certain you would agree that there is no need to unleash useless Nature versus Nurture arguments of days gone by, as both are necessary for optimizing human development. The attachments provide a balanced view of some of the points you have raised in telling your heart-felt story.
Best wishes.
Thank you so much, Professor Gottesman, for understanding, your kind words made me stronger and your attached articles, as well as all your books and articles teach me how and in what direction to move! You are right, the hardest difficulties are related with many social stereotypes that limit much my (and like of me people) professional and research activities. In beginning of my scientific history when I suggested novel research approach to study psychogenetics-behaviour genetics, nobody from academic bosses did not believe me as to researcher from ethnic minority (how she can create anything original?) and I spent 6 years until they let me to defend my Doctor dissertation. Now, when I have successful research together with west scientists who appreciated my genetic isolates study, I have another difficulties -such academic bosses in Russia finally understood that I'm doing something original in human genetics, therefore by my back terminated my research team and owned (stole) all my created during long-term expeditions studies genomic and clinical dbs ( during one weekend). So, first what myself and all my ethnicity people learned is - 'ethnic minority cannot have or have no a right to have same level of IQ as have people from higher social classes' and a second is, if he/she anyway is strong enough and demonstrated that Can be and may be have even higher IQ, his/her research will be terminated and all his original experimental dbs will be stolen by such bosses. Sad story, but look how combines really Nature and social, not only economy and ethnocultural, environment in development of human IQ.
"Outlining her vision for the next parliament, Sturgeon’s focus is on the next generation, saying that education will be the “central defining mission” of a re-elected SNP government.
With the Scottish Government facing criticism for the failure of poor children to perform as well as those from richer backgrounds in the classroom, Sturgeon has staked her reputation on closing the attainment gap."
(Read more: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/interview-nicola-sturgeon-on-the-next-five-years-1-4115736#ixzz47Oz9kSbK )
NS also repeated this mission on the Andrew Marr show on BBC 1 this morning.
****************************************************************************
So, a well-informed and highly competent politician thinks the gap can be closed. Since IQ is such a strong driver of school success, any genetic class difference in IQ has thus been discounted. This leaves environmental differences within families, or between families, or within society. So which environmental factors does NS have in mind, which does she think are amenable to political action, and how does she stop middle class children benefitting from any societal policies for improving attainment?
If children within families are divided up into those with above and those with below average IQ, what environmental or societal changes are required to raise the attainment of the latter group to those of the former? Presumably many people think this is possible, so where are the articles from a century of educational psychology to back this up?
The leading interview by the interrogator-in-chief John Humphrys on BBC Today May 2 was with Nicola Sturgeon. She reiterated that the SDP priority was to close the SES attainment gap. The 10 min interview was taken up with the usual unanswerable questions and haranguing about hypothetical situations. No mention of the gap. What he should have asked was "If you remove the environmental barriers to school success, would you not expect the attainment gap to increase?"
"That year, Nicola Sturgeon, fresh in post, put her own less perfumed stamp on the issue that has dominated the agenda – and heaped criticism on her party – ever since. “I want us to determine now that a child born today in one of our most deprived communities will… have the same chance of going to university as a child born in one of our least deprived communities.”"
Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/chitra-ramaswamy-vow-to-get-poor-to-university-melts-away-1-4152163#ixzz4BMYrxjlj
****************************************************************************
So which of the following statements does NS, and a large part of the educational establishment, think is untrue?
"Inequalities in educational attainment appear shockingly early in life. Even before they reach preschool age, disadvantaged children (by which I mean children from poor areas and with poor parents) lag behind the children of more affluent and educated parents. This isn’t because they are inherently less capable than other children."
(Professor Kate Pickett, The Conversation Sept 12 2016)
With the current rancorous and complex debate about boosting grammar schools, it is all the more crucial not to deny inconvenient but fundamental important truisms about cognitive development. High SES parents will have a larger bank of high IQ genes, a major reason why they and their ancestors have high SES in the first place. But more to the point, they will have provided a more stimulating and less harmful environment for their children, which will already have inherently influenced brain development. So how on earth could mean preschool IQ in lower SES children be as high as that in upper class children?
As Pickett points out, inequalities appear very early in life, so all this concern about schools is misplaced and irrelevant anyway.
Incidentally, the education expert who inspired my original question is mentioned in the quoted article.
"thammond Malcolm McLean • 5 days ago
I think the bigger political problem is that many refuse to accept that different income groups might have different distributions of ability, because we have a fair bit of social mobility based on merit over the last 50-100 years, and because ability is at least partially based on genetics.
So the Left says grammars fail because they don't take the right proportion of children from low income families. They may be right, but only if each income group has the same distribution of abilities...
thammond Pixelclear • 5 days ago
First, we have to be clear about what we are assuming - that the incomes of parents have no correlation with the potential educational achievements of their children. In other words, that children from low income families "should" be getting a similar distribution of grades as children from other income groupings.
That's a nice assumption, but if we agree that (i) grades have some genetic component, (ii) we have had some social mobility over the last 50-100 years based on merit and (iii) income is at least to some degree based on merit, then we should actually expect the distributions to be different, and to continue to diverge.
So then we need to work out the scale of the problem, i.e. how many children from low income families are underachieving and by what amount? If we can identify that, then we can have a look at why they are underachieving - schools, parents, culture of low expectation, etc..
But that requires real effort and putting aside the simplistic notion that rich kids are dim but coached and poor kids are bright but disadvantaged"
Spiked Jan 20 2017
"Evans and Tilley are adamant that we are not all middle class now. On the contrary, class divisions in Britain remain in their view as well embedded as ever. Inequalities have not only survived but in some respects increased. Schooling is till the key factor in in determining higher education and occupation: those who go to private schools have a huge advantage. The difference in rates of mortality between classes is widening."
Terry Eagleton The Guardian Review Jan 2 2017 p7
***********************************************************
This illustrates the contorted arguments arising from deliberately ignoring the obvious point that those who rise up in social class will have better health, ability and fitness, which is a major reason they succeed in life, and these advantages will tend to be transmitted genetically and environmentally to their descendants. So the more efficient the social mobility, the wider the class gap becomes, and a class system morphs into a caste system. I actually doubt there is any advantage in private schooling once correction is made for intake.
No wonder the UK educational system is a confused and controversial mess when a supposedly expert committee has failed to grasp the fundamental point that educational success is largely familial:
"Grammar schools should lower their entrance exam mark for poorer pupils to stop the middle classes from dominating them, the chairman of the education select committee has said...[Neil Carmichael MP's] comments came as a new report by his committee warned that grammar schools must not select students based on entry tests alone".
Comment
Many persons from a poor background have ended up as MPs only because the old 11 Plus test recognised their high IQs (that were not, incidentally, attributable to their poverty or social background).
On the same page (The Daily Telegraph Feb 14 2017 p4) there is also a brief report of highly relevant research:
"Sending children to a nursery school rated 'outstanding' by Ofsted makes barely any difference to how well they develop"
"Times letter 13 March 2017
Sir, Politicians seem unable to understand that even in a perfect meritocracy, where children were selected for grammar school or university solely on the basis of their intellectual ability, children from middle-class homes would still outperform those from lower-class backgrounds (“May shakes up 11-plus”, News, Mar 11).
The reason is that in a meritocracy, the higher-level positions in business and the professions will be filled by the highest-ability people. They will tend to produce children of higher than average ability who will compete successfully for these positions when they grow up. Unequal outcomes do not necessarily indicate unfair selection procedures — they are what we should expect to find.
The government says it believes in meritocracy, yet it keeps pushing our best schools and universities to accept “positive discrimination” quotas that will make their selection procedures less meritocratic, as well as undermining academic standards.
Professor Peter Saunders
Professorial Fellow, Civitas, and author of Social Mobility Delusions"
Comment
I think the main blame lies with social science academics who have done a good job in blocking debate on this issue.
"Sir, Politicians refuse to accept the awkward truth that cognitive ability is significantly shaped by the genes we inherit from our parents.
In Social Mobility Delusions, my 2012 report for Civitas, I reviewed six government or parliamentary reports on social mobility, only one of which mentioned “innate ability”.
Improving social mobility is one of the government’s key aims, yet it routinely ignores one of the principal influences on occupational attainment. Politicians tell us it’s unfair that, on average, children of professional and managerial parents outperform those from working-class backgrounds. But how much of this difference is down to their genes?
The truth is, unless we factor natural ability differences into our analysis, we don’t even know if we have a social mobility “problem” that government needs to solve.
Peter Saunders
Professorial fellow, Civitas"
The Times Aug 18 2017 p 30
Here is an explicit statement (emphasis added) that there is the same level of ability in all social classes. This is a rather crucial assumption which if untrue undermines the whole of this sociological edifice. So, again what is the evidence for this assumption? Children in lower social classes have less favorable extra-familial and intra-familial environments, so how could they not be behind academically when they start school?
"Let's talk about poverty and inequality today
Teo You Yenn For The Straits Times...
Today, Oct 17, is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, declared 25 years ago in December 1992, by the United Nations General Assembly...
Contrary to popular belief in some circles, there are people living in poverty in contemporary Singapore.
Yet, I ended up writing a book not just about poverty, but also inequality...
All of us in society should care about poverty and inequality. During my research, I often met children who were immediately marked as falling behind as they entered Primary 1...
Every future adult should have the opportunities to find her/his strengths. Children in low-income neighbourhoods have just as much potential as those in my own social circles. They have qualities I admire, often missing in children like my own - independence, generosity, grit. These are qualities worth recognising and nurturing. We must give them more time to learn, without marking them as weak from the start, without demoralising them and their parents..."
•The writer is associate professor and head of sociology at Nanyang Technological University, and author of This Is What Inequality Looks Like (Ethos Books, forthcoming next year).
In the absence of any answer to my question, I have consulted Giddens A (2006) Sociology. "With this new edition of Sociology, Anthony Giddens has done the seemingly impossible. He has lifted the best introductory text in sociology in the world to yet a further level of excellence" (blurb on back). However, I can find nothing inside relevant to my question, and a lot of misinformation and wilful blindness on IQ.
"While the variations between individuals that influence scores on IQ tests may in part be genetic, that some races are on average cleverer than others remains unproven and improbable" p 725
Comment: So, presumably, social class genetic differences in IQ are equally improbable? But, there are class and racial height differences, at least some part of which is obviously of genetic origin. A priori, then, genetic differences must be expected, though these are not necessarily of any practical importance.
"More than gender, some scholars argue, factors such as class and ethnicity produce the greatest inequalities within the educational system. For example, comparisons in achievement by pupils across social class reveal that 70 per cent of children from the top professional class receive five or more pass grades, compared with only 14 per cent from working-class backgrounds." p 719
"Scores on IQ tests do in fact correlate highly with academic performance... They therefore also correlate closely with social, economic and ethnic differences, since these are associated with variations in levels of educational attainment." p 723
Comment: So, any genetic explanation, even partial, for educational class differences is simply ruled out in principle.
"Some argue that genes determine the average IQs of groups; others believe that social influences determine them. The weight of evidence appears to be on the side of those arguing for social and cultural influences." p 735
Comment: Like this book, if you ignore or misreport the specialist IQ literature, you may well come to this conclusion. No one dead or alive believes that genes determine IQ (see my RG question on this topic). So, if the social environment 'determines' IQ, then why on earth would the mean IQs of upper and lower class children be predicted to be equal at school entry?
"EVENING STANDARD COMMENT
- Wednesday 24 January 2018 12:25.
Mind the gap
The good news is that the gap between the educational attainment of poor and rich children is lower in London — 52 per cent lower — than in other parts of the country.
The bad is that there is still a real gap, even here. According to the Attainment Gap report published by the Education Endowment Foundations, 51 per cent of poorer London children get top GCSE grades compared with 70 per cent of those from wealthier families.
The reason why London fares better is partly attributable to The London Challenge — a scheme to improve standards by encouraging schools to collaborate — with good schools helping struggling ones.
London schools lower the exam results gap between rich and poor
But there have been other initiatives, including a focus on improving leadership in primary schools which feeds through to secondary level.
These initiatives have been imitated elsewhere in Britain.
The 19 per cent gap in London is not just evident in the difference in outcomes between state and primary schools but between and within state schools, even those rated outstanding by Ofsted, where better-off pupils achieve better results overall.
We cannot be complacent about this, yet the progress made to date show that things can change.
Sir Kevan Collins, head of the Education Endowment Foundation, says that the achievement gap is not inevitable, given the remarkable gains made by pupils in schools in some poorer areas."
Comment
It is dispiriting that an education expert bases policy on alternative facts (see added highlight). Women have been getting taller, but that does not mean they will ever catch up with men. Height correlates with IQ and success in life, so mean height differences between social classes are inevitable.
As for the gap being attributable to education, see next post.
Book review of Educated by Tara Westover Sunday Times (Culture) Feb 4 2018 p36:
"This is the story of an extraordinary education. Of a girl who grew up in a 'jagged little patch of Ohio' in a family dominated by the survivalist beliefs of her bipolar Mormon father. It is the tale of a girl who had no birth certificate, no immunisations, no formal education and didn't set foot in a classroom until she was 17. Yet, a decade later, she graduated with a PhD in intellectual history and political thought from Cambridge University. It is also the story of a young woman who showed the most remarkable resilience in the face of extreme poverty, rigid religious beliefs, violence and family betrayals. It is a beautifully written account...
What makes Westover's [book] so impressive is the extreme isolation and ignorance in which she grew up, her instinctive desire for knowledge and her triumphant achievement in educating herself."
Comment
This story of success despite overwhelming cultural disadvantages is far from unique. It is also backed up by research showing that shared environmental influences like social class or education have no effect on adult IQ.
These latest research studies show what I and some others have long suspected, that the higher achievement of pupils from selective schools are largely if not entirely due to the higher mean IQs of their intake:
"Grammar schools damage social cohesion and make no difference to exam grades — new research
March 27, 2018 10.35am BSTPA [The Conversation]...
Stephen Gorard Professor of Education and Public Policy, Durham University
The evidence against grammar schools mounts again. Our new research shows that grammars are no better or worse than non-selective state schools in terms of their pupils’ progress in attainment.
Our research analysed over half a million pupil records and found that although grammar schools don’t tend to make much of a difference to children’s school performance compared to other schools, they can be very damaging to social cohesion. This is because grouping more able and privileged children in grammars then impacts on the remaining majority of children attending nearby schools.
Recent smaller studies have also shown that grammar schools are no more effective than non-selective schools – once their intake differences are taken into account.
The apparent success of grammar schools is due to pupils coming from more advantaged social backgrounds, and already having higher academic attainment at age 11."
"thammond • 3 days ago [Spiked May 8 2015]
"Yet despite the best efforts of scientists, no ‘intelligence gene’ has yet been identified."
Simply not true. A number of genes have been identified that influence intelligence. There are a quite a few, and the most intelligent have most of them, and there is a pretty clear gradient downwards whereby fewer and fewer of those genes (actually variants of genes, not actually different genes as such) the lower your intelligence.
Denying a genetic basis for intelligence is bizarre, but yet another reason why the education debate is so endless and pointless - too many people involved, especially teachers, refuse to acknowledge the science (ironically).
We have had a number of generations now of social mobility and of meritocracy in the UK, which means that parents earning more and likely to be more intelligent. That means their children are also likely to be intelligent. Claiming that children from parents with low incomes are just as likely to be intelligent as children from parents with high incomes can only be true if there is no genetic basis for intelligence and/or incomes are not correlated with intelligence. Yet we know neither is true."
Comment
Parents with high incomes provide more nurturing environments, hence their children will be more intelligent for non-genetic reasons irrespective of any genetic reasons.
"PUBLISHED MAY 15, 2018, 5:12 PM SG...
Tham Yuen-C Senior Political Correspondent [Straitstimes]
SINGAPORE - Tackling inequality is a national priority, with social stratification already threatening cohesiveness, said Education Minister Ong Ye Kung on Tuesday (May 15)...
To this end, the Government will actively look out for fresh ideas and try out interesting and promising solutions, he said, but this does not necessarily mean making major changes and undoing what has worked well in the past.
"We must be bold and we must also be wise," he said, pledging to "put our ears close to the ground" to listen to views from all segments of society.
Mr Ong invited people to offer their ideas on how to narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots...
Focusing on the issue in his speech, Mr Ong said Singapore's transformation from third world to first has brought prosperity to people, but also created new problems and new forms of inequalities.
He cited three problems which he said have been made worse by the success of existing policies:
- Material progress is getting increasingly difficult for the middle class, given the high base now
- Stratification risks becoming entrenched with families that are faring well passing down the privileges to their children, and low-income families finding it difficult to uplift themselves
- Some among the higher-income segment are becoming socially distant from the rest, with groups predominantly forming along sociology-economic status...
He set out the four dimensions of inequality - the income gap in society; the distribution in the middle; whether there is social mobility; and whether different groups mix with one another.
Elaborating on each in turn to explain how inequality is playing out in Singapore, he sought to show that the situation was not as dire as in other countries."
Comment
I have an idea on how to narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots:
Remove welfare from the have-nots; reintroduce all the environmental disadvantages from the past that affected the have-nots; maintain or create barriers to social mobility.
In that way, talented people will be trapped in the lower social classes, hence reducing the attainment and economic class gap. I somehow think this policy will be unacceptable, but it also untenable to suppose social mobility and less inequality are synonymous. Increasing social mobility increases genetic and environmental stratification.
Affluent and academic parents provide environments that benefit all their children. Only genetics can explain dull children in bright families:
"Margaret Wente strikes again. I have no "resistance" to strong scientific évidence indicating a causal relationship between genetic endowment, educational achievement, and financial success. But despite the sweeping claims made in this article--on the basis of one large study undertaken at one point in time -- the scientific evidence is not convincing. And anyone can see this anecdotally. I had academically brilliant and financially affluent parents, but only two of their eight children were outstanding academic performers, only one of their children became wealthier, and three of their children are absolute dunces. Go figure.
...Super Mittens 1 day ago Let’s simplify the genetic problem to pretend that just two chromosomes control intelligence (the same way two chromosomes determine your sex). A two-chrimosome determined smart/dunce characteristic should produce 2 geniuses, 4 average and 2 dunce results in a family of eight. Your family almost follows this distribution at 2/3/3 — and maybe one of the dunces isn’t as bad as you think. :-)"
Globe and Mail July 14 2018.
Comment
Chromosomes greatly influence but do not determine sex. See my RG question on avoiding the misleading term genetic determinism.
Here is some definitive data on the relation between social class and IQ in Hertfordshire in 1952 (Social Mobility in Britain ed DV Glass 1954).
The first figure is the percentage of pupils with IQ of 112 or over in relation to paternal occupation, the second figure the percent of pupils selected for entry to grammar school :
Managerial, professional 53/51
Clerical 46/38
Supervisory 22/23
Manual skilled 17/17
Manual semi-skilled, unskilled 14/12 "
******************************************
Conclusions
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education