Do middle-class kids have “better genes”?

People outside the United Kingdom may not be familiar with Chris Woodhead, but he was the Chief Inspector of Schools in the UK who reported in 195 that some 15,000 UK teachers were incompetent and should be replaced.

Five years after, Woodhead resigned from his position after he had several altercations with the then Secretary of Education. Almost ten years later, Woodhead is stirring up new controversies in The Guardian interview and in his book “The Desolations of Learning”.

Do genes dictate success in school?

Woodland says that children have differing abilities that the current British school system do not take into account when putting children together in classes. So what happens? Smarter children do worse after 4-5 years because these children succumb to the peer pressure to be less smart.

Instead, Woodland suggests that classes be segregated based on abilities, so that smarter students can be put together in one class and they have a chance to learn better. Less-smart children should be given “practical education courses” (after the basics) that will help them succeed in society.

Mr. Woodland also adds that children have better genes if the child’s parents belong to the middle class, or are either teachers, academics, or lawyers. Now of course, he did not give evidence about his opinion, so I’m not sure if there was a published study supporting his view. It’s a long shot, you know. What really factors in success in school – genes, socio-economic status, “selection”,  nurture, study habits? And what combination is better for optimum chance at succeeding in education?

So what do you think? Do middle-class children really have better genes and do better in life? If you’ve read studies about this I would love to know about it!

Image: Flickr