Various bloggers are all over some recent research on the Head Start program which suggests that, at the low end of the income scale, IQ is less determined by inheritability than environment, as compared to the higher end, where inheritability plays a larger part. Here's a summary of the report and various comments:
"Genes' sway over IQ may vary with class" (Washington Post)
"Environment, IQ, and Head Start" (Mark Kleiman)
"Nature vs nurture, part 4578..." (Calpundit)
"Plug" (Jane Galt)
"Liberals for the Status Quo" (Joanne Jacobs)
What do I think? I think most of the blogosphere's got it absolutely right (Calpundit, on the other hand, is wrong in believing that Bush wants to "gut" the program by increasing the academic challenge and decreasing the federal control). These findings call not for a preservation of status quo, but for introducing changes into Head Start - and into the public K-12 system - that focus on intensifying the cognitive atmosphere surrounding minority youth. As one of Joanne's commenters put it, in the 1970's social workers became afraid to shove "middle-class ethics" down the throats of minority clients, and now we're seeing the inevitable end result.
All fears that kids are going to be pushed beyond their "readiness" level should be put aside, especially when the kids are coming from poor homes. Disadvantaged kids should not be coddled, nor saddled with the "bigotry of low expectations"; instead, they should be getting more stimulation, more exposure to facts, more intensive education - because they're not getting it at home.
I'm not going to get involved in the topics of federal vs. state spending or programs; I'll just say that this is yet another piece of evidence suggesting that lower standards in academic environments, from ineffective Head Start programs to bad schools to grade inflation to all the way up to AA in college admissions, disproportionately hurt those at the lower end of the SES scale who need help the most.
Posted by kswygert at September 4, 2003 02:07 PM