We tend to think of special educational needs as something children are born with. Dyslexia, ADHD, autism: neat categories that are often treated as fixed from birth.

But the fact is that these needs are often not entirely heritable. The environment also shapes who we are - and school environments are helping to make genetic diversity problematic for many children.

The government’s recent proposals to reform special educational needs and disabilities provision do not change this. If we want to build a better system for all learners, we need to acknowledge how genetics and SEND interact, and use that understanding to help schools set the conditions that will allow every child to thrive.

Let’s start by unpacking the “born this way” myth. We are all born with millions of genetic variants. These can be benign, good or bad depending on the context. A recent study identified nearly 4,000 genetic variants associated with educational attainment and found that the more of the positive variants someone has, the better they tend to do at school.

Similar studies have identified genetic variants associated with common SEND, including autism, ADHD, and dyslexia. A greater number of risk variants for a given condition is associated with a higher risk of that condition.

However, genetics influence chances, not certainties. Having many variants linked to a particular condition doesn’t mean a child will develop it - it only means the chance may be higher.

Non-genetic factors, including pregnancy experiences and home and school environments, are also linked to differences in likelihood across groups of children in the population. Their effects vary widely and cannot predict outcomes for individual children.

What does this mean for schools?

Now, let’s think of children’s attainment and engagement at school as existing on a continuum; a line from one side of the page to the other. At one end are those who do well in most situations (Group A). In the middle are children whose difficulties vary depending on the stage of education, subject, task, teacher or classroom (Group B). At the other end are those who struggle in most situations (Group C).

We label most of those in Group C and lots of those in Group B as having special educational needs. This seems to make sense. If a child is struggling at school, they must have special educational needs, right?

Wrong. Our education system only really works for those in Group A and some of those in Group B, due to a combination of their genetics and their home and family environment. The problem, according to our recent work, is that most children struggle at some point during early years, primary and secondary school.

The vast majority of children’s difficulties change depending on the context. For example, an unmet language need in pre-school could become a language and reading difficulty in primary school, or an unmet speech, language and communication need in primary school might become a behavioural difficulty in secondary school.

A sizeable minority of children struggle with the underlying skills required to engage with learning and education (eg, social, emotional and cognitive skills). This affects them at multiple stages of schooling (eg, in primary school and secondary school).

It stands to reason that if lots of children struggle at multiple points during schooling, then there is a mismatch between children’s strengths and our expectations of them in the education system.

Why system change is needed

The special educational needs crisis is, therefore, really an education crisis. When children face difficulties at school, the label of “special educational need” is often applied, rather than changing the system to account for the fact that children excel in different areas.

I want to stress here that this is not me laying the blame for the special educational needs crisis on teachers or school leaders. This is a broad, systemic issue encompassing policy, accountability frameworks and the outcomes used to measure educational success, among other things.

But we must recognise the role that school environments and education systems play in creating the conditions under which certain genetic propensities become problematic, and that a lack of support compounds these difficulties over time.

For example, children with a high genetic propensity for inattention might struggle with long periods of sitting and concentrating. Other children with high genetic propensities for language and reading difficulties might struggle with a literacy-heavy curriculum.

By expecting children to engage with tasks, assessments and environments that do not align with their genetic propensities, and by structuring access to reasonable adjustments around formal identification, the education system may inadvertently exacerbate difficulties and contribute to the maintenance of special educational needs.

What’s the solution?

Genetic diversity is the rule. The current education system does not work for lots of children.

The solution is to create an education system that assumes that there is lots of genetic diversity; one that respects and supports individual differences. In other words, we need an education system that is flexible enough to allow for more personalised education pathways.

One way to achieve this would be through earlier specialisation. Currently, although students can select some optional subjects at key stage 4, the dominance of core academic GCSEs in accountability measures limits meaningful diversification. Moving specialisation earlier to key stage 3 could allow students whose strengths lie outside academic subjects to engage more with vocational, technical or creative pathways.

There may be lessons to be learned from some parts of Germany, where students specialise early, following vocational or academic pathways; some specialise as early as 10 or 11 years old.

What I am describing is not revolutionary; it is well established. We just need to consider how we might implement it in England in a way that doesn’t reinforce inequality and prevent pupils from following different paths later in life.

For earlier specialisation to work, we need to rethink our indicators of success. At the end of key stage 4, we need to better recognise and value diverse forms of achievement beyond GCSEs.

More broadly, we need to change what we value as a society. Academic success is highly prized; the government wants a highly skilled workforce. But the reality is that not all children will excel in academic subjects. Not everyone needs or wants to be highly skilled in the academic sense. We need a workforce with a diverse range of skills, including non-academic skills, for society to function.

By trying to force everyone into a narrow definition of educational success, we are setting up a large group of children to fail - and that is not fair.

Umar Toseeb is a professor of psychology at the University of York