2. 职称英语
  3. Do genes determine how well children will do at school? If so, are teachers

Do genes determine how well children will do at school? If so, are teachers

游客2024-11-19  5
问题     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 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. He argued, less bright children should not be forced down the academic route but should be given practical and vocational training. 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? 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.
    The 1970 Birth Cohort Survey has followed over 17,000 babies who were born in the U.K. 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.
    The children were tested for their educational development at 22 months, 42 months, and at age 5 and 10. Later they were assessed at age 26 to see what educational success they had achieved in public examinations. 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 completely 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. 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.
    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. 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 could make a real difference by militating against social class factors which have held back bright children from poorer homes.  [br] Which of the following statements about the 1970 Birth Cohert Survey is CORRECT?
选项 A、Each subject received four educational development tests.
B、The survey was designed to prove the decisive role of genes.
C、The finding of the survey is against Woodhead’s viewpoint.
D、The survey turns out to be useless in the field of medicine.
答案 A
解析 细节题。文章第五段开头说，每个参与调查的孩子分别在22个月、42个月、5岁和10岁时接受了教育发展测试，26岁时再评估他们在公共考试中的成绩，因此，每个受测试者真正接受的是四次教育发展测试，故[A]为正确答案。文章第四段仅指出1970年进行的出生队列调查为确定基因的作用提供了数据，但并没有说该调查就是针对基因的作用而设计的，故排除[B]；文章最后一段首句提到，伍德黑德可能是对的，也就是说调查的结果是支持伍德黑德教授的观点，故排除[C]；文章第五段仅引用了调查中关于教育方面的数据，但并没有说该调查在医药方面没有用处，故排除[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3851661.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)