Nature versus nuture

Back in the old days, say the 1950s and 1960s,
it was common to debate the relative importance of nature (meaning one's genetic inheritance)
and nurture (meaning one's post-birth surroundings)
in determining various aspects of one's persona.

However such questions seems strangely (to me, at least) to be overlooked in much of more recent debate
(I am writing this on 2013-10-22, but have been observing this since at least, say, 1990).
For example, does not the at one time highly popular "No Child Left Behind" act
suggest that nurture trumps nature?
Does not much of the current (post-2000) emphasis on education assume that one's genes are of little significance in determining one's abilities?

The push to disavow the importance of nature received impetus, and took shape,
in the opposition to the very idea of "IQ", pushed by, among others, Stephen Jay Gould.

At any rate, skipping to the current, 2013, world,
here are some news articles that bring up, explicitly or implicitly, this issue.

2013-10-23-NYT-language-gap-study-bolsters-a-push-for-pre-k

Language-Gap Study Bolsters a Push for Pre-K
By MOTOKO RICH
New York Times, 2013-10-23

---

I have no doubt that children learn very, very much from their parents,
and that speaking to, and interacting with, children from the earliest age
plays a crucial role in their development of skills.
Children learn by observing.
So nurture certainly plays a dominant role in this arena.
But may not nature be of some significance as well?