“Poor kids’ brains aren’t the same” could also be used to justify an attitude which believes that there is a limit to what poor kids can learn.

I agree.

As a tangent, I think that learning methods such as rote memorization/learning are unfairly demonized in certain education circles today, especially among the anti-testing faction. These people gasp in horror at the idea of kids doing seemingly endless drills of arithmetic problems. But really, there are certain basics that you just have to memorize to get it out of the way, so you can be prepared for the harder stuff.

For example, there’s the multiplication table. Obviously teachers should also explain what multiplication means so that it’s not just a meaningless concept. However, I think it’s stupid for someone to have to waste time trying to figure out what 8 * 7 is because he can’t recall it at a moment’s notice. Drills and rote learning help with that. I still remember doing timed worksheets where we’d have to finish 99 problems in a minute. Good times. Or those afternoons spent at Kumon. Which…wasn’t exactly a good time (more like torture), but they helped.

Art and music are important, but I think we should be more focused on making sure our kids know the basics first. Arithmetic and literacy take precedence.

I also recall reading some comparisons of Japanese and American mothers’ baby-talk experiences. American mothers language tends towards nouns and a concern with naming things. Japanese mothers focus on language of relationship and conversation. Interesting and perhaps significant findings. The value we place on them depends a good bit on our societal values.

But all of this focus on parental behavior overlooks some really pertinent environmental differences–things that we know about. The kids in the upper-middle class kindergarten are far more likely to have attended some form of high quality pre-school, had multiple formal socializing experiences in groups of children, attended classes in music, dance, arts or midget sports, swimming or gymnastics. They have been to plays and museums. They have experienced high levels of safety and free play experiences.

But they are also getting a very different education once they reach kindergarten. They are less likely to have any of these experiences within their schools. Their teachers are less experienced and more likely to focus on tested content to the exclusion of everything else.

These things all appear to be crucial when we look at the one intervention that appears to have some impact on the development of the part of the brain that deals with these higher order skills. Adele Diamond’s work incorporates exactly those things that we know are lacking, and shows success. I say that while we continue to research, we look at levelling the playing field in the area of dramatic play and some of the other things that merely SEEM to make a difference. It is not likely to hurt. Maybe it would help.

I would not agree that “some effective intervention has been identified.” It’s one thing to try to prove that environmental conditions can have a strong impact on brain development. It’s another to try to improve those conditions. I would argue that the last 40 years have seen many attempts to improve environmental conditions for the children of the poor. Few have shown any lasting improvement.

A study was published a little while ago, studying the differences between working and middle class values. While trying to find it on Google, I found an abstract on ERIC, of a study performed in 1971:

“This study was conducted to observe the effects of
social class on the interaction of mothers and their 12-week-old infants. Data on the infants’ cognitive and attentive behavior was also obtained. Each of 32 white and black infants from five different levels of social class was observed at home for two full hours of waking time. Observed infant behavior included move, vocalize, fret/cry, play, noise, and smile. Findings indicate that lower SES infants vocalize and smile more and fret/cry less than upper middle SES infants. Maternal behaviors of touch, hold, smile, look, and play were more frequent among lower SES than middle SES mothers, and lower SES mothers spend more time watching TV than the middle SES mothers. There is a relatively strong relationship between infant and maternal behavior. Middle SES mothers vocalize when their infants vocalize, touch and hold them when they fret and watch them play. Lower SES mothers tend to touch their infants when they vocalize, when they cry and when they are at play. There were no class differences on the two infant mental tests. Performance on a measure of attention indicated that two-thirds of the middle class infants failed to show response decrement while all the lower class infants demonstrated response decrement. In general, this study supports the presence of social class differences in terms of both cognitive and attentive behaviors.”
Eric #ED049836

Note that at 12 weeks, these researchers noted differences in the infants’ performance on a measure of attention. It is hard, maybe impossible, to change parents’ behavior.

This study is only a small start. It’s interesting, but a great deal of research should be done. Its results may not hold with a different population. Observing a difference says nothing about the causes of that difference.

I recall exactly where I was when I first heard a report that it had been established that kids who went to school hungry didn’t learn as well as kids who were well fed. I wasn’t real old–high school/college. But I remember thinking how silly it was that we had to do this kind of research to know that it is wrong for kids in this country to be going to school hungry–and that the adults ought to be doing something about it.

There are other possibilities. “Differing only in socioeconomic status” covers a huge range of difference. It could be influenced by nutrition. The “high SES” kids might be more likely to be breast fed. Substances in breast milk might influence brain development. The “high SES” mothers might be more likely to avoid caffeine and alcohol during pregnancy, and more likely to get enough sleep. We just don’t know.

It’s an interesting start, but that’s all it is. It would be interesting to look at the brains of twins adopted into families of different SES.

It’s intriguing that we start talking of the high SES kids as “wealthy” kids. The article doesn’t make the difference explicit.

The cause is a lack of childhood influence and good teaching to counter that. The effect is a lack of brain utilization even at a higher age.