Chapter 17 Raising Cognitive Ability
Raising cognitive ability is a difficult challenge that could help address many social issues. Better nutrition could be a key factor in increasing intelligence, as improved nutrition has been linked to higher IQs in various studies. However, the connection between nutrition and cognitive ability is still not fully understood. Formal schooling has limited potential for reducing cognitive inequality since many benefits have already been realized through public education systems. Preschool programs like Head Start have not shown significant improvements in cognitive functioning, and while more intensive programs may help, their effectiveness is debated.
Adoption from a poor environment to a better one shows consistent IQ gains, though modest. The possibility of increasing intelligence remains, as a substantial portion of cognitive ability is influenced by the environment. While addressing the disadvantages faced by low-income children seems straightforward, effectively improving their cognitive development remains challenging. Many children already receive adequate support, making it difficult to find new, effective interventions that aren't already in practice.
Nutrition
There is a long-standing belief that nutrition affects intelligence, supported by observations that people in wealthier countries tend to be larger and have higher IQ scores than their ancestors. However, some studies, notably one involving Dutch men who experienced famine, suggested that poor nutrition might not significantly impact IQ, as their intelligence scores were similar to those born during better times. Although this study questioned the nutrition-IQ link, experts noted that the famine was brief and may not have caused prolonged deficiencies in essential nutrients.
Further research indicated that improved diets could enhance cognitive abilities. A study in the late 1980s showed that Welsh children who received vitamin and mineral supplements scored higher on nonverbal intelligence tests compared to peers who received placebos. A follow-up American study with California students also found that those taking supplements had higher nonverbal IQ scores, though verbal scores did not improve.
Other factors, including birth weight and birth order, also seem to influence IQ. Heavier birth weights are linked with higher IQs, indicating an environmental factor at play. While there is some evidence of nutrition's positive impact on intelligence, inconsistencies across different studies suggest caution. It remains wise to ensure children receive the recommended vitamins and minerals for overall health and potential cognitive benefits.
Raising Iq Through Better Education
Many people think that kids from low-income families do poorly on tests because their schools are bad. They believe that if we fix the schools, the kids’ scores will improve. However, this idea has some problems. First, just because we add new educational resources, like libraries, it doesn’t mean that everyone benefits equally. For example, while some students might improve their scores, others who were struggling may end up falling further behind. Research shows that adding things like computers or educational programs, such as "Sesame Street," can sometimes make the performance gap between better and worse students even larger.
Second, while improving education can have some effect on IQ, the impact is usually small. Research shows that the quality of schools doesn't play as big a role in affecting students' cognitive abilities as most people think. The major study by James S. Coleman aimed to find out how school quality affects minority kids' learning. Surprisingly, it discovered that attending better schools didn’t necessarily help these children's cognitive abilities. Although later studies indicated some minor benefits from good school conditions, the results were modest.
When we look at differences in schools, we find that attending a good school can be important, but it often doesn’t explain much about why some students do better than others. Coleman’s research showed that, by 1964, many schools already had improvements, so simply enhancing school conditions likely wouldn’t change the situation much. Factors like funding and teacher experience don’t strongly link to how well students perform on IQ tests nationwide, which means other factors, such as students’ backgrounds, might play a more significant role.
It’s clear that going to school helps kids learn and improve their intelligence, but it’s harder to say how much the amount of schooling affects the differences in IQ. In a study from Sweden, researchers found that a child's IQ at age 10 was a much better predictor of their intelligence at age 20 than how many years of schooling they completed. This means that while schooling helps, a student’s early cognitive ability is a stronger factor in determining their future IQ.
Programs like Title I from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 were created to help disadvantaged students catch up. Evaluations of these programs have shown that they rarely close the gap in cognitive abilities between disadvantaged and more privileged students. While some studies indicated very small benefits, the overall findings suggest that these programs have not significantly improved the cognitive abilities of students who need help the most.
Stories about schools that suddenly succeed due to new programs or excellent teachers often make the news. While some of these programs may create short-term improvements, long-lasting changes in cognitive abilities usually do not follow when examined closely. There have also been instances where schools manipulated test scores to appear more successful than they really were.
There is some hope from structured programs aimed at improving cognitive skills. For example, Project Intelligence in Venezuela provided special instruction that showed some increase in intelligence on tests. SAT prep courses also demonstrate that focused coaching can raise test scores, but even these improvements tend to be moderate and inconsistent.
In conclusion, the evidence suggests that significantly improving intelligence among school-aged children through educational efforts is quite difficult. Making lasting substantial changes in cognitive abilities does not seem feasible with current education strategies.
Head Start and Its Sometimes Distant Relatives
In the 1970s, researchers discovered that children's IQs tend to become stable around age six, which suggests that it's important to intervene early if we want to positively affect intelligence. One major initiative aimed at helping vulnerable children is Head Start, which started in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty. This program aimed to improve the skills of preschoolers from low-income families while also offering health and educational support to their families.
At first, Head Start seemed very successful. Kids who participated showed significant IQ gains after a few months. However, these gains often faded over time, especially by third and sixth grades, leading to a situation known as "fade-out." Despite its initial success, there has been no strong evidence that Head Start leads to lasting improvements in IQ.
In light of these findings, supporters of Head Start changed their focus. Instead of aiming primarily to raise IQ, they now emphasize reducing problems like school dropouts and crime in the long term. They argue that money spent on Head Start can save more money in the future. However, this idea doesn’t always hold up when examined closely. Many claims about these "sleeper effects" often come from more intensive preschool programs rather than Head Start itself.
A well-known example of a successful early education program is the Perry Preschool Program. This program provided in-depth early education to a group of at-risk children in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Though the children in this program initially scored higher on IQ tests, those gains didn’t last. By the time they reached the second and fourth grades, their IQs were mostly similar to those of children who hadn't participated. Although some long-term benefits were noted, like better graduation rates, the lasting effects are still debated.
To better understand the impact of preschool programs, researchers gathered data from several studies. They found that kids who went through quality preschool programs gained some IQ points right after finishing the programs, but these gains usually faded over the next few years. Other studies focused on children at high risk for mental retardation highlighted the importance of intensive help.
The Carolina Abecedarian Project aimed to support at-risk children from infancy by offering a specialized daycare program with a lot of structure. The program showed positive results; the children who attended performed better on IQ tests and had lower rates of grade retention and special education needs compared to those who did not participate. However, there are still concerns about whether the two groups could be compared fairly from the beginning.
Another important initiative, the Milwaukee Project, provided extensive help to children at risk but ended up showing that, despite significant IQ increases, those children did not do better academically than their peers. This raised questions about whether the IQ gains were meaningful or if they were just the product of coaching for tests rather than real improvements in learning.
In summary, while there are some hints that early childhood programs might help, the actual impact on long-term intelligence and academic success is not clear. Media reports often show these programs in a more positive light than what the research suggests. The challenge remains in evaluating how well these programs work, since those running them usually want them to be seen as successful, which can lead to biased interpretations of their results.
Overall, while some preschool interventions show promise, many questions remain about their effectiveness in boosting intelligence in the long run, making it hard to decide on future educational policies.
Changing the Environment at Birth
Adoption can significantly improve a child's environment, especially if it happens at birth. This change might erase negative effects of being raised in a bad environment. However, evaluating how much adoption affects IQ is complicated due to the lack of controlled studies and changes in adoption patterns over the years. Many children are adopted because of issues in their biological families, making data collection difficult and often unreliable.
Evidence shows that environment plays a crucial role in developing intelligence. Extreme cases of isolation demonstrate that children raised without proper human interaction often experience lifelong intellectual deficits. Generally, adopted children do not achieve the same IQ scores as their biological siblings raised in the same adoptive home, possibly leading to a difference of seven to ten IQ points. The deficit could be due to genetic factors, the timing of the adoption, or the emotional effects of being adopted.
Nonetheless, studies indicate that adopted children likely have higher IQs than if they remained with their biological parents. Recent studies in France have shown that moving children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) homes to higher SES environments can increase IQ scores by up to twelve points. Services or interventions designed to enhance nurturing environments could yield significant IQ improvements, potentially around twenty points if children are moved from very deprived to very nurturing homes. However, the challenge remains in how to create such supportive environments on a large scale, considering the variety of factors that contribute to effective parenting beyond just financial resources.
A Policy Agenda
Effective research and targeted programs are important to help improve cognitive development and overall well-being, especially for disadvantaged children. While people often say more research is needed, not all types of research are useful. Studies on programs like Head Start have shown they have limited effects, and changing a child's environment to boost IQ is very complex and often difficult.
New research should focus on understanding the biological roots of intelligence instead of just cultural and educational factors. Ongoing support for this kind of research, without interference from groups or politics, is essential to find ways to enhance cognitive abilities.
Nutrition is also important. All children should receive good nutrition, and it may be helpful to include vitamin and mineral supplements in school meals. While big changes in education can lead to progress, the United States education system has likely moved past those stages, and trying to raise IQ through special classes only leads to slight, short-term improvements.
Preschool programs show that even well-designed efforts like Head Start do not significantly improve cognitive skills. However, they might help with social benefits. Intensive preschool programs could assist children from very difficult backgrounds, especially those at high risk for mental challenges.
Adoption is highlighted as a promising way to improve cognitive outcomes for children from poor environments. However, political and social issues can make adoption practices difficult. In conclusion, there isn't a simple solution for raising IQ levels across the nation, so a realistic approach to these complex challenges is needed.
Raising cognitive ability is a difficult challenge that could help address many social issues. Better nutrition could be a key factor in increasing intelligence, as improved nutrition has been linked to higher IQs in various studies. However, the connection between nutrition and cognitive ability is still not fully understood. Formal schooling has limited potential for reducing cognitive inequality since many benefits have already been realized through public education systems. Preschool programs like Head Start have not shown significant improvements in cognitive functioning, and while more intensive programs may help, their effectiveness is debated.
Adoption from a poor environment to a better one shows consistent IQ gains, though modest. The possibility of increasing intelligence remains, as a substantial portion of cognitive ability is influenced by the environment. While addressing the disadvantages faced by low-income children seems straightforward, effectively improving their cognitive development remains challenging. Many children already receive adequate support, making it difficult to find new, effective interventions that aren't already in practice.
Nutrition
There is a long-standing belief that nutrition affects intelligence, supported by observations that people in wealthier countries tend to be larger and have higher IQ scores than their ancestors. However, some studies, notably one involving Dutch men who experienced famine, suggested that poor nutrition might not significantly impact IQ, as their intelligence scores were similar to those born during better times. Although this study questioned the nutrition-IQ link, experts noted that the famine was brief and may not have caused prolonged deficiencies in essential nutrients.
Further research indicated that improved diets could enhance cognitive abilities. A study in the late 1980s showed that Welsh children who received vitamin and mineral supplements scored higher on nonverbal intelligence tests compared to peers who received placebos. A follow-up American study with California students also found that those taking supplements had higher nonverbal IQ scores, though verbal scores did not improve.
Other factors, including birth weight and birth order, also seem to influence IQ. Heavier birth weights are linked with higher IQs, indicating an environmental factor at play. While there is some evidence of nutrition's positive impact on intelligence, inconsistencies across different studies suggest caution. It remains wise to ensure children receive the recommended vitamins and minerals for overall health and potential cognitive benefits.
Raising Iq Through Better Education
Many people think that kids from low-income families do poorly on tests because their schools are bad. They believe that if we fix the schools, the kids’ scores will improve. However, this idea has some problems. First, just because we add new educational resources, like libraries, it doesn’t mean that everyone benefits equally. For example, while some students might improve their scores, others who were struggling may end up falling further behind. Research shows that adding things like computers or educational programs, such as "Sesame Street," can sometimes make the performance gap between better and worse students even larger.
Second, while improving education can have some effect on IQ, the impact is usually small. Research shows that the quality of schools doesn't play as big a role in affecting students' cognitive abilities as most people think. The major study by James S. Coleman aimed to find out how school quality affects minority kids' learning. Surprisingly, it discovered that attending better schools didn’t necessarily help these children's cognitive abilities. Although later studies indicated some minor benefits from good school conditions, the results were modest.
When we look at differences in schools, we find that attending a good school can be important, but it often doesn’t explain much about why some students do better than others. Coleman’s research showed that, by 1964, many schools already had improvements, so simply enhancing school conditions likely wouldn’t change the situation much. Factors like funding and teacher experience don’t strongly link to how well students perform on IQ tests nationwide, which means other factors, such as students’ backgrounds, might play a more significant role.
It’s clear that going to school helps kids learn and improve their intelligence, but it’s harder to say how much the amount of schooling affects the differences in IQ. In a study from Sweden, researchers found that a child's IQ at age 10 was a much better predictor of their intelligence at age 20 than how many years of schooling they completed. This means that while schooling helps, a student’s early cognitive ability is a stronger factor in determining their future IQ.
Programs like Title I from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 were created to help disadvantaged students catch up. Evaluations of these programs have shown that they rarely close the gap in cognitive abilities between disadvantaged and more privileged students. While some studies indicated very small benefits, the overall findings suggest that these programs have not significantly improved the cognitive abilities of students who need help the most.
Stories about schools that suddenly succeed due to new programs or excellent teachers often make the news. While some of these programs may create short-term improvements, long-lasting changes in cognitive abilities usually do not follow when examined closely. There have also been instances where schools manipulated test scores to appear more successful than they really were.
There is some hope from structured programs aimed at improving cognitive skills. For example, Project Intelligence in Venezuela provided special instruction that showed some increase in intelligence on tests. SAT prep courses also demonstrate that focused coaching can raise test scores, but even these improvements tend to be moderate and inconsistent.
In conclusion, the evidence suggests that significantly improving intelligence among school-aged children through educational efforts is quite difficult. Making lasting substantial changes in cognitive abilities does not seem feasible with current education strategies.
Head Start and Its Sometimes Distant Relatives
In the 1970s, researchers discovered that children's IQs tend to become stable around age six, which suggests that it's important to intervene early if we want to positively affect intelligence. One major initiative aimed at helping vulnerable children is Head Start, which started in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty. This program aimed to improve the skills of preschoolers from low-income families while also offering health and educational support to their families.
At first, Head Start seemed very successful. Kids who participated showed significant IQ gains after a few months. However, these gains often faded over time, especially by third and sixth grades, leading to a situation known as "fade-out." Despite its initial success, there has been no strong evidence that Head Start leads to lasting improvements in IQ.
In light of these findings, supporters of Head Start changed their focus. Instead of aiming primarily to raise IQ, they now emphasize reducing problems like school dropouts and crime in the long term. They argue that money spent on Head Start can save more money in the future. However, this idea doesn’t always hold up when examined closely. Many claims about these "sleeper effects" often come from more intensive preschool programs rather than Head Start itself.
A well-known example of a successful early education program is the Perry Preschool Program. This program provided in-depth early education to a group of at-risk children in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Though the children in this program initially scored higher on IQ tests, those gains didn’t last. By the time they reached the second and fourth grades, their IQs were mostly similar to those of children who hadn't participated. Although some long-term benefits were noted, like better graduation rates, the lasting effects are still debated.
To better understand the impact of preschool programs, researchers gathered data from several studies. They found that kids who went through quality preschool programs gained some IQ points right after finishing the programs, but these gains usually faded over the next few years. Other studies focused on children at high risk for mental retardation highlighted the importance of intensive help.
The Carolina Abecedarian Project aimed to support at-risk children from infancy by offering a specialized daycare program with a lot of structure. The program showed positive results; the children who attended performed better on IQ tests and had lower rates of grade retention and special education needs compared to those who did not participate. However, there are still concerns about whether the two groups could be compared fairly from the beginning.
Another important initiative, the Milwaukee Project, provided extensive help to children at risk but ended up showing that, despite significant IQ increases, those children did not do better academically than their peers. This raised questions about whether the IQ gains were meaningful or if they were just the product of coaching for tests rather than real improvements in learning.
In summary, while there are some hints that early childhood programs might help, the actual impact on long-term intelligence and academic success is not clear. Media reports often show these programs in a more positive light than what the research suggests. The challenge remains in evaluating how well these programs work, since those running them usually want them to be seen as successful, which can lead to biased interpretations of their results.
Overall, while some preschool interventions show promise, many questions remain about their effectiveness in boosting intelligence in the long run, making it hard to decide on future educational policies.
Changing the Environment at Birth
Adoption can significantly improve a child's environment, especially if it happens at birth. This change might erase negative effects of being raised in a bad environment. However, evaluating how much adoption affects IQ is complicated due to the lack of controlled studies and changes in adoption patterns over the years. Many children are adopted because of issues in their biological families, making data collection difficult and often unreliable.
Evidence shows that environment plays a crucial role in developing intelligence. Extreme cases of isolation demonstrate that children raised without proper human interaction often experience lifelong intellectual deficits. Generally, adopted children do not achieve the same IQ scores as their biological siblings raised in the same adoptive home, possibly leading to a difference of seven to ten IQ points. The deficit could be due to genetic factors, the timing of the adoption, or the emotional effects of being adopted.
Nonetheless, studies indicate that adopted children likely have higher IQs than if they remained with their biological parents. Recent studies in France have shown that moving children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) homes to higher SES environments can increase IQ scores by up to twelve points. Services or interventions designed to enhance nurturing environments could yield significant IQ improvements, potentially around twenty points if children are moved from very deprived to very nurturing homes. However, the challenge remains in how to create such supportive environments on a large scale, considering the variety of factors that contribute to effective parenting beyond just financial resources.
A Policy Agenda
Effective research and targeted programs are important to help improve cognitive development and overall well-being, especially for disadvantaged children. While people often say more research is needed, not all types of research are useful. Studies on programs like Head Start have shown they have limited effects, and changing a child's environment to boost IQ is very complex and often difficult.
New research should focus on understanding the biological roots of intelligence instead of just cultural and educational factors. Ongoing support for this kind of research, without interference from groups or politics, is essential to find ways to enhance cognitive abilities.
Nutrition is also important. All children should receive good nutrition, and it may be helpful to include vitamin and mineral supplements in school meals. While big changes in education can lead to progress, the United States education system has likely moved past those stages, and trying to raise IQ through special classes only leads to slight, short-term improvements.
Preschool programs show that even well-designed efforts like Head Start do not significantly improve cognitive skills. However, they might help with social benefits. Intensive preschool programs could assist children from very difficult backgrounds, especially those at high risk for mental challenges.
Adoption is highlighted as a promising way to improve cognitive outcomes for children from poor environments. However, political and social issues can make adoption practices difficult. In conclusion, there isn't a simple solution for raising IQ levels across the nation, so a realistic approach to these complex challenges is needed.