Professor Brian Byrne, Katrina Grasby and Professor Richard Olson

A recent opinion piece in The Australian cited research from our group based at the University of New England and the University of Colorado in which we have shown that school achievement in literacy and numeracy is influenced by a child’s genetic endowment. This is a finding that has been reported by many groups around the world, with estimates of the amount of variability attributed to genes across a range of school subjects ranging from around 50% to 80%. Jennifer Oriel, the article’s author, interpreted the findings to mean that implementation of the Gonski reform package is “unlikely to succeed,” and implied therefore that it should not be rolled out. She bolstered her argument with reference to the politics of envy, referencing, strangely, Hitler, Mao Zedung and Jack Lang. Her core point is, we assume, that if genes matter so much then there’s little that can be done about those whose performance is not up to some standard. Therefore we should abandon envy, live with this situation, and channel such folk into avenues where their talents may be better used. The article’s headline, Cash can’t beat genetics in class, says it all.

Where to start in refuting Ms Oriel’s curious argument? One place would be to alter the headline to read Cash can’t beat genetics in hospital. Genes are known to influence the onset and course of many diseases, so Ms Oriel might argue that it is pointless throwing more money at them and those who suffer from them. Another place to start would be to reverse her argument: Because some children who are struggling with literacy and numeracy are now known to be doing so because of biological constraints, then they will need more funds delivered to them to help overcome these constraints. This line of reasoning is supported by evidence that well-designed and well-delivered interventions can improve the prospects of children who struggle with literacy and numeracy, but they cost because they are best delivered in small groups or at the individual level.

So what does evidence of genetic influence on literacy and numeracy mean for how much to spend on education and how the funds should be spent? What do genes mean for Gonski? In thinking about this, two things are important to bear in mind. One, research into the roles of nature and nurture in academic achievement, which our studies are about, concerns differences among children, not the overall average level of achievement. Hypothetically, we could find high levels of genetic influence but simultaneously low levels of average national performance when calibrated in international surveys such as PISA (though in 2012 Australia was outperformed by just nine countries in reading). Or again hypothetically, we could institute whole-of-country curriculum changes in teaching reading that lifted the national performance level to the very top of the PISA rankings but left estimates of genetic influence unaltered; what caused the differences among students before and after the new curriculum introduced may remain unchanged even though each child is reading more competently than before.

The second thing to bear in mind, already alluded to, is that genes are not destiny. The classic case is the metabolic disorder, phenylketonuria, an inherited condition that can be readily controlled by dietary choices and supplementation. There is now a substantial tradition of devising scientifically-grounded interventions for literacy and numeracy that help (even if they require sustained support from teachers and families).

So if society values the core skills of literacy and numeracy, and if the current level of funding and the way it is distributed do not meet the needs of our children in reaching the required skill levels, then we should spend more and/or spend what we do spend better. That genes matter quite a lot for school performance does not mean that we should avoid investigating improved educational methods and funding patterns. To repeat, genes are not destiny. Believing that they are introduces a fatalism that is in no way justified by the available science. In our view, literacy and numeracy are so important for successful functioning in a complex world that they deserve to be supported as fully as they can in the educational system, and if that means adopting Gonski, so be it.