New research proves that the real beneficiaries of good teachers are those from poorer backgrounds
As the new government considers where the public service axe will fall, they would do well to remember the old Jesuit maxim, "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man." Catholics at least have always understood the value of a good education. But do schools really make a difference? Many geneticists believe that qualities like intelligence are mostly inherited, so what impact can teachers have on abilities determined by our genes? Yet a study just published in the journal Science indicates that good teachers do matter. When all teachers are excellent, it seems that genes are most of what separates the sheep from the goats. But poor teaching brings out the worst in everyone.
The influence of genes on intelligence has been at the heart of the nature versus nurture debate. Many geneticists have claimed that cleverness is something we inherit. Francis Galton, founder of the eugenics movement, based its principles on the proposition that it would be "quite practicable to produce a high-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations". But if genes are all that matter, why bother educating? How malleable our abilities are goes to the heart of the purpose of education.
Teasing out genetic and environmental influences is always tricky, but a favourite tool is comparison of identical and non-identical twins. Identical twins share 100% of their genes whereas fraternal twins share 50%. If a trait is entirely environmental, we would expect identical twins to share or differ in that feature to the same extent. But if genes are involved, we would expect identical twins to be much more alike in that trait. Comparing the level of similarity between identical and non-identical twins allows us to partition traits into genetic and environmental components.
The study by Jeanette Taylor and colleagues at Florida State University compared several hundred identical and non-identical twins for reading ability. What was novel in their study is that they also assessed their teachers. The researchers examined grade averages for all the children in each teacher's class, which allowed them to assess teaching quality according to how much their grade average improved over a year.
Taylor and her colleagues then focused on the twins in each class. What they found was that the difference in reading ability between identical and non-identical twins was greatest in the classes with good teachers. With a good teacher at the helm, it seems genes really do make a difference. But when bad teachers were at the front of the class the differences between identical and non-identical twins were less pronounced. In those classes where all the children did less well, it was environment, rather than genes, which had the biggest impact on performance. The study did not examine what those environmental influences were, but obvious candidates would be the socio-economic group, family income and home life.
The study suggests that good teachers are able to get the best from pupils, but less able teachers allow children's backgrounds to affect their performance. Taylor says: "Better teachers provide an environment that allows children to reach their potential." The study only examined reading ability, but there is no reason not to believe that the same is true for all skills we learn in the classroom. Teachers really do make a difference.
If the new government does want to tackle inequalities in our society then it needs to support an education system that allows the best teachers to get the best out of their pupils, irrespective of their background. The Jesuits were right. Good teachers can give us the successful men and women of our future.