A new study from researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison concludes that poverty has an important negative effect on brain development among young children.
“Poverty may have direct implications for important, early steps in the development of the brain, saddling children of low-income families with slower rates of growth in two key brain structures, according to researchers from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
“By age 4, children in families living with incomes under 200 percent of the federal poverty line have less gray matter — brain tissue critical for processing of information and execution of actions — than kids growing up in families with higher incomes….The differences among children of the poor became apparent through analysis of hundreds of brain scans from children beginning soon after birth and repeated every few months until 4 years of age. Children in poor families lagged behind in the development of the parietal and frontal regions of the brain — deficits that help explain behavioral, learning and attention problems more common among disadvantaged children.”
The study found no differences at birth between children from homes with different income levels:
“The maturation gap of children in poor families is more startling for the lack of difference at birth among the children studied.
“One of the things that is important here is that the infants’ brains look very similar at birth,” says [Seth] Pollak, whose work is funded by the National Institutes of Health. “You start seeing the separation in brain growth between the children living in poverty and the more affluent children increase over time, which really implicates the postnatal environment.”
“The study used brain scans provided by the NIH’s MRI Study of Normal Brain Development, data that excludes children whose brain development may have been altered by a number of factors: mothers who smoke or drank during pregnancy, birth complications, head injuries, family psychiatric history and other issues. As a result, the findings may underestimate the actual deficit developed by a more representative sample of children from poor families.
“The study found no meaningful difference in gray matter between children of middle-income families and those from relatively wealthy ones.”
Studies like this make me wonder whether the billions and billions poured into phony “reforms” like VAM and privatization are a massive distraction (some might say hoax), diverting our attention to the #1 problem in our society: generational poverty.

Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
This is consistent with my experiences. No doubt the steady increase in scores on intelligence tests has been at least in part due to higher living standards for children.
LikeLike
I think so, too, TE–that early nutrition, for example, and less parental stress and more nurturing are responsible for the Flynn Effect.
LikeLike
Unquestionably better health care, more high quality early childhood education, esp for youngsters from low income or english language learning families, and more good jobs are part of a progressive agenda for America.
LikeLike
I would think that poverty coupled with neglect would exacerbate the problems. Often there is just no one at home to take care of or guide the child.
But, when rich parents meglect their kids it is a different syory. Isn’t it strange that a teen whose parents give him “affluenza” was not jailed for theft of alcohol, underage drinking, and vehicular manslsughter, but a child of poverty is given no such “understanding”?
LikeLike
Carol Westby has done excellent and chilling work on the impact of abuse and neglect on brain development.
LikeLike
Thank you for this awesome piece of studied information. I will use this as I continue to write letters and lobby for quality public education for all children.
LikeLike
Research has shown how poverty impacts vocabulary & language development for kids. By the time they enter school, their language development lags well behind those kids who are from the middle and wealthy classes.
LikeLike
As I understand it, the amount of academic exposures children had prior to entering school in the 50s-60s outnumbered the exposures for children of the 90s-2000s by more than 100 times — for all socio-economic levels. General problems exist because there tends to be less and less time being spent with that is an option.
LikeLike
Society is definitely different today then when I was growing up in the 60s. Then again, the current young children are exposed to so much. Those soccer moms keep the kids busy with dance lessons, sports clubs, gymnastics, piano lessons, etc. Then there is all sorts of exposure to electronics – video games, computers, tablets, electronic books. They converse with friends all over the world via Skype, Internet Games, eMail, and Facebook. My son just got back from Brazil visiting his girlfriend who he met online. My three year old grandson watches his favorite movies on his iPad using Netflix.
So, once again, the haves are enriched, while the have nots are left in the dust. And even though they are not the same skills we needed to be successful back in the day, they are definitely skills that our children need in order to be a competitive member of society. It’s not your father’s world anymore.
LikeLike
This amazing study adds one more important finding to the large (exceptionally large) body of evidence for Samaroff’s Cumulative Risk Theory. Samaroff has been studying the long term effects of poverty on children for 4 decades. In study after study the conclusions are the same. The more social risk factors in the lives of infants, children and families the more detrimental and intractable are their challenges in every developmental area across the lifespan.
Google Samaroff you’ll find more than you can digest in a month. Why do we continue to chase the test and punish windmill as the fix for poverty? What is the basis for such magical thinking?
LikeLike
“What is the basis for such magical thinking?”
The basis for such magical thinking is it lets politicians and business leaders off the hook for wage stagnation and declining middle class prosperity.
Politicians pushed low tax rates, disinvested in infrastructure and made it much more difficult for workers to organize. Business people stopped investing in employee training, started paying their executives absolutely outrageous salaries and chased short term profits over long term growth.
The basis for such magical thinking is it’s a lot easier to blame public schools for poverty and income inequality than it is to challenge powerful people in government and industry.
It doesn’t take a whole lot of courage to “stand up to” a public school teacher or off-load the entire responsibility for economic viability on public schools.
Ed reformers avoid or ignore economic issues outside schools because bringing those up means challenging some very powerful and influential people.
LikeLike
To answer your last question: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
LikeLike
The reason their brains don’t develop is that their life experiences are so limited. Their world consists of a small neighborhood – not much beyond the four walls of their home. You need some sort of background so that new information can “stick” to the old. It’s like trying to put up wallpaper that doesn’t have any glue. Without a rich home environment, learning does not take place. And poverty perpetuates this problem as parents with limited ability due to their backgrounds, raise their children the same way. There are exceptions, but, from my experience as an educator who has gone into their homes, this way of life seems pervasive in our inner cities.
LikeLike
would be anxious to see what ” children in poverty” means, 100% 50% what are the details. Curious for better understanding
LikeLike
Speaking of poverty, and our national aversion to talking about low wages and wage stagnation, I was looking at this Rocketship charter piece yesterday:
http://www.alternet.org/education/charters-get-kids-cubicle-ready
“Rocketship leaders brag that they think outside the box. Teachers, for instance—who needs them? The company says it saves half a million dollars a year by using fewer teachers, replacing them with non-certified instructors at $15 per hour.
These instructors monitor up to 130 kids at a time in cubicles in the schools’ computer labs. ”
If this is true (there’s no link and I don’t know if is true) I think Rocketship employees should know that General Motors outsources their employee testing to a private firm. The GM contractor pays $22.70 an hour to the people they hire to administer and monitor adult employee testing for GM.
They’re paying $22.70 an hour to monitor small groups of adults in standardized test prep in manufacturing, and Rocketship is paying $15 to supervise “up to” 130 kids.
Demand more money from the ed reform industry. You’re underpaid.
LikeLike
Eric Mahmund, director of a very successful charter in Minneapolis serving about 85% low income students, says they suffer from several gaps. These include a opportunity gap – they need high quality early childhood; a “preparation gap” – too many people are not trained well to work with these students, and a time gap (they need more time to gain skills and knowledge since they don’t acquire them at home).
But stressing poverty, poverty, poverty, day after day is as short-sighted as insisting reform, reform, reform will solve all problems.
LikeLike
We wouldn’t need to keep “stressing poverty, poverty, poverty, day after day” if the powers that be would listen and actually make a reasonable attempt to address it. “Reform, reform, reform”, on the other hand, has been tried day after day (and year after year) with no positive results (and plenty of negative ones).
LikeLike
“No positive results?””
LikeLike
So…is it the poverty that causes the poor brain development, or is it that people with less gray matter to begin with find themselves living in poverty? Getting the correct direction of causation (assuming that the relationship is, indeed, one of causality and not mere correlation) will (should?) have a profound effect on the policy response.
LikeLike
‘“One of the things that is important here is that the infants’ brains look very similar at birth,” says [Seth] Pollak, whose work is funded by the National Institutes of Health. “You start seeing the separation in brain growth between the children living in poverty and the more affluent children increase over time, which really implicates the postnatal environment.”’
LikeLike
Hmmm…I missed that…thanks.
If true, then we have to look at the parents (part of “the postnatal environment”) to see if it is simply poverty that causes the poor brain development or, say, the poor education of the parents that, in turn, limits what they can do for their children’s brain development (less stimulation). I am speculating here, of course, as there can be many explanations, especially when talking about the postnatal environment. I would still caution that citing poverty itself as the problem might be way too simplistic and may lead to perverse policy prescriptions and results.
LikeLike
See Ellen T. Klock’s post below. Poverty is about a lot more than not having money. It’s about the compounding effects over time and across generations. Putting an impoverished family in a mansion and giving them lots of food isn’t going to fix the situation (although it will help with nutrition, security, etc.). It’s an on-going effort over time to ameliorate the effects of lack of stimulation and, paradoxically, too much stimulation (trauma, abuse, witnessing violence, etc.).
LikeLike
Unless I misread you Dienne, I think we are in basic agreement here. My point was that you certainly could not just focus on the $$$ and would have to address the underlying causes. Wealth transfers, for example, may do very little to improve brain development (though some would argue that they serve other, equally noble purposes…but that is for another discussion).
LikeLike
SC,
I don’t see anyone but you bring up the old boogie man “Wealth transfer” .
Except you.
LikeLike
Parents with less gray matter raising children in the same manner as their parents and thus have less gray matter. Not genetic, but determined by genetic background.
LikeLike
No, determined by the environment. It can’t not be and be genetic at the same time.
LikeLike
Thanks Jon, I meant to say “environmental background”.
LikeLike
Jon,
Are you really saying that we inherit things like eye color, hair type, and other physical features from our parents, but brain function is strictly a function of environment?
I’m not saying environment has nothing to do with it at all, but you seem to be saying that genetics plays no role at all. (If I am mistaken in my assessment here, please let me know.)
LikeLike
Jon, some people are just plain stupid (like my daughter’s first boyfriend – actually her first three boyfriends). Others have a limited ability. But the average learner is not reaching their potential when they live in poverty. Their gray matter does not develop appropriately (or whatever happens according to the research). We just want to level the playing field.
LikeLike
It depends in one’s definition of poverty. Both of my parents were born into extremely poor families. Dirt poor. But the were born in the 1920s. They were not poor students. In fact they were at the top of their classes. My dad was salutatorian. He graduated 3 years early. My mom was the youngest of 13 kids. She graduated a tear early. One of her brothers was an Annapolis grad and highly respected. Some of the siblings made good and bad choices. But, all of them were high school graduates and poverty wasn’t impacting their lives the same as it does today.
Poverty today has more impact on students because there is such a greater difference in what they experience than what even middle class kids can be exposed to. The gap has grown wider while the poor has remained unable to participate at all.
When the actual middle class emerged after WWII, the differences became more stark and those in poverty had their problems exacerbated. Even so, among the middle and upper classes, education varies both regionally and socially. Opportunity for travel changes one’s life. Opportunity for exposure to various cultural events changes one’s life. Even having the TIME to read to a child changes his/her life. Poverty saturated lives are not conducive to learning how to do much but survive.
LikeLike
As a teacher who has taught in both, there is a startling contrast between kids’ behaviors in low SES schools and high SES schools.
Kids in underprivileged schools have overt behaviors: they will outwardly tell you their familiy personal problems, are always in a “flight or fight” mode, are under nourished, less focused, have anger issues, more anxious, blame others for their actions, argue endlessly to win an argument, bully others, and victims of bullies who become bullies to stand up for themselves, traumatized from violence and abuse with little support, have difficulty making connections to content areas b/c of the lack of formal discourse and family adventures (low vocabulary), and the list goes on. More so, anyone who has refuges can tell you more about what their behaviors are like.
However, there are kids even with learning disabilities in both schools who have great potential in other areas, but CCSS will not allow us to explore their talents. So if anyone has doubts about where a child goes to school, they need to experience both to understand that environment has plenty to do with brain development which may also affect IQ.
Here is even further proof. When I worked in a high SES school, we had kids who came from underpriviledged homes. Aside from our snotty parents and children shunning them from after school play dates, these handful of children thrived. Why? Because the norms of the school was different. They learned that mannerism from a culture different from their own everyday in school.
We are talking about two different worlds which most people don’t understand or are apathetic to understanding the dire situations of others.
LikeLike
It is a complex issue with numerous dynamics. One could say that being poor in and of itself does not mean one lives in poverty. Children whose parents lack money but still provide enrichment in their children’s lives have escaped that downward spiral. So poverty is the absence of both money and a stimulating environment. A life that inhabits the small circumference around ones home with limited access to the outside world. Similar to the effects on the orphans in Russia who were confined to their cribs and had little human contact.
So what is the solution? Waiting for the kids to go to preschool, even if they enter a three year old program, is too late.
Due to my background, I recognized my two year old grandson was behind in his speech development. I also knew that Erie County would provide speech instruction for him, free of charge, in the home. He now gets Speech 3x a week. That’s what we need to do. Get into the homes and provide speech, OT, PT, and whatever else the child needs. In actuality, the pathway to resources already exists – but unless you are aware of the possibilities, there is no extra help. Current programs need to be expanded to include these vulnerable toddlers. We can’t wait for the parents to ask for help.
One Early Childhood Charter School in Buffalo had a push in program for younger siblings of their students. A teacher visited their homes for an hour or two several days a week. I was always curious to see if this pilot was successful. To me, it seemed a worthy experiment. (This charter school was created specifically to combat poverty. I was on the start up committee, but it was originally going to be a part of the public school system, then it turned charter.)
LikeLike
Yes to all of that Ellen, and early intervention is crucial. (As with you, I know rom whence I speak on that issue, albeit from a different perspective.)
“We can’t wait for the parents to ask for help.”
Yes, but the sustained effort needed will, ultimately, fall on them. That is the Achilles heel here.
LikeLike
SC math Teacher – a program needs to be set up where the parents can easily opt in. I think the onus is on the public school system to identify the children and supply the teachers. There has to be a way – perhaps through social services. Maybe a check off box on the food stamp or welfare application. Social services definitely has a record of children living in poverty (unless they are homeless – so the shelters need to be included too).
LikeLike
“It is a complex issue with numerous dynamics.”
No doubt, Ellen. And not only all the physiological components wherein the nature versus nurture concept has lost standing as being shown with epigenetics and other studies just how complex the interaction between genes at the molecular level interact in differing ways at different times which can effect the “nurturing” environment etc. . . but also the ethical and legal issues concerning an individual’s right to be left alone to do as they see fit (echoing HU here) for themselves and children. Who has the right to determine that a parent may or may not be providing “the proper environment” for supposed “optimal” growth? (obviously other that neglect and abuse, but even then, what does neglect mean?) Who says the state can dictate to parents how they should raise their children? Very sticky/thorny issues these things are.
LikeLike
True. No one can “make” anyone be a certain kind of parent. The difficulty in all of this discussion and determination of what impact all of this has on education is the issue. Is the use of this testing process meant to weed out those unfit for college or may ddle class or whatever kind of scenario we wish to paint. So much of what is coming down seems to run in circles, never resolving anything.
In Ohio we have been informed that our “governor” and his crony legislators don’t subject their kids to public schools and their tests. They no doubt don’t even know anyone in poverty. No wonder they make terrible decisions.
LikeLike
The state can dictate where the children go to school, however. At least for those without the resources to go to a private school.
LikeLike
Yes, it can and I have no problem with that.
LikeLike
Duane – We can’t force parents to accept early childhood intervention in the home, but we can offer them that option. Many of the options are already out there, parents just don’t know it exists (my daughter wasn’t aware).
And I’m not so arrogant that I consider my philosophy of child rearing (providing enriching experiences from an early age) is the only philosophy used by other parents. In my readings I was amazed to discover that many families have no philosophy whatsoever. My cousin had a hands off policy and allowed her children to learn through self discovery. So they learned you can get burned by touching the hot stove. I thought it was just her excuse to explain why she ignored her kids, but it was a legitimate policy of some parents in the 80’s.
My experiences lead me to believe that people in poverty do care, but don’t know what to do. Even drug addicts feel love for their children. If they were offered an option to help their child, at no cost, most would jump at the chance. When I came to tutor their children for home instruction, they showed me courtesy, respect, and gratitude.
However, I don’t see how participation could be legally mandated.
LikeLike
I read the article and the KEY takeaway for me is that the negative effects of poverty begin to accrue well before school age, meaning that interventions that lets parents do their jobs and provide a good environment for their kids like a living wage and parenting classes (for a start) are the most important thing we can do to enable the subsequent inputs of education to succeed. The fight against poverty cannot move forward if we limit it to the schools alone. Education cannot make it’s fullest contribution if children arrive at school with underdeveloped brains that cannot take full advantage of what education has to offer.
LikeLike
How will a living wage affect brain development? And what if the living wage forces the employer to lay off the child’s parent(s) because that wage is set beyond their level of productivity? (Remember, whatever the government says is the minimum wage isn’t really so…the true minimum wage is zero.)
LikeLike
“How will a living wage affect brain development?”
Well, adequate nutrition is very important to brain development, yet very hard to do without adequate money. Housing security is also important – homelessness, or even the risk of being homeless, is extremely traumatic for children (and for their parents, which is part of the children’s trauma). Trauma has extremely negative impact on brain development. Low income parents are also not able to provide many or perhaps any enrichment activities, especially if they’re working several jobs just to provide the bare minimum. That lack of enrichment negatively affects brain development.
Again, throwing money at the situation may not necessarily solve the problem. But not having money is certainly a big root of the problem.
LikeLike
Maybe so, Dienne. I don’t doubt the importance of good nutrition, housing, and oer basics. But when the government commands that businesses pay people at a a rate above their level of productivity, their wage may drop to zero. That will make good nutrition and housing even harder to come by.
Indeed, why not make the minimum wage $30 an hour? Or even $50? Wouldn’t that solve a lot of the poverty problems we face?
LikeLike
There are no quick solutions. However, I would suggest that if we had NOT had the fiasco called “trickle down” our country’s middle class would not have been stagnant and flat-lined in income increases for the last 20-30 years. I don’t know who thought that deregulation would give corporations an incentive to “pass it on” to workers. All they did was grasp at loopholes, hoard money and create jobs with no accountability (hedgefund managers et al), and keep money FROM the actual WORKERS, middle class and otherwise. Look at the excessive pay of executives and high level managers … who get bonuses for “saving the company money” … which generally means to squeeze the guts out of workers and lay them off for not quite being efficient enough. As people age, they slow down, but no one cares any longer. There is no respect for loyalty, doing a good job, etc. Now, all that is expected is dedicated to playing whatever game is out there and above all ASK NO QUESTIONS.
The reason so many want a higher minimum is because so many people have been laid off and they can’t make house payments, etc., or find a job that will pay their bills. They are lucky to get a burger job … and so, here we are.
If this great plan of selfishness “works” then why are so many people furiously looking for jobs and can’t even get interviews, even with experience, intelligence, and degrees? Widespread generalized disrespect is killing this nation.
LikeLike
Jon – if the parents were knowledgable, they would provide a rich environment whether they had money or not. In this case it’s an issue of ignorance. The cycle stops when the next generation is provided an opportunity for an early start of developing skills so that their own children grow up with an enriched home life.
Or, at least, that’s what I feel is the natural answer to the study.
LikeLike
If you are knowledgeable but have no resources, no time to actually do the job, no money to provide even the basics, then what you say is highly unlikely to occur. It may have more potential to happen but without that potential being realized, ZILCH! I agree completely with your solution, but parents need support to make that happen. Read the Haaretz link that I posted below. Just because you have the tools doesn’t mean that you are then automatically in a position to use them to best effect, if at all. If you don’t have them because you never acquired them it’s a moot point. That’s a thumbnail sketch of the nature of living in poverty.
LikeLike
Ellen-I am not insinuating that a schools’ environment is the only answer. I was merely stating that environment is a factor to dire outcomes.
With that being said, our “small” part as teachers is being role models, because we see them everyday and more than their parents do for many. The first thing that kids care about is how much you care about them. Academics come second to teacher/student relationship. Then they will thank you for later for teaching them academically.
My point is that our role as teachers are important and we do what we can. But we also have to accept their parents even though they may contribute to the problem, otherwise we end up blaming them as an excuse. I care about my students like I care about my own kids, wanting the best for them. That is a powerful message that must be felt by our students.
LikeLike
Jon, you said it all. Now why can’t the people making the decisions agree with your observations? If they really want to make a positive impact on education they would work with the teachers instead of declaring war on them.
LikeLike
Some resources for the many above who don’t understand the relationship between poverty and behavior/education/social class etc. Teaser: poverty creates it’s own psychology. http://www.haaretz.com/business/the-psychological-poverty-trap-1.414260 and http://www.epi.org/blog/poverty-achievement/#sthash.umcLQ93r.gbpl
There’s a ton of information out there about what the actual effects of poverty on the brain and on education are and about what the manifestations of poverty are in the wider scheme of life. It cannot be divided into the difference between having money or not and/or social class status. http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/neuroscience-poverty-implications-teaching and http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-12-07-childrens-brains_N.htm
If you don’t have time to read the links, OK, just think about this. During the economic collapse of 07/08 a lot of 6 figure income people lost all their savings and ended up with no resources whatsoever. They were living in their cars if they still had them. Their behavior was exactly the same as people who had grown up in generational poverty, Indistinguishable.
LikeLike
Speaking of the brain, the conclusion of this study is a no-brainer. (Having said that, good that it was done, anyway, as it stands as more research that can be used in favor of our argument.) Teachers who have taught in low SES areas (or those who previously taught in them, & now teach in more middle class or high SES schools) can readily tell anyone who will listen that this is observable on a daily basis. Just as teachers have always known that smaller class size will yield a richer learning environment for children. However–who listens to teachers?
In any case, even POTUS, recently, was talking about inequality and poverty (not necessarily in those words). I found that surprising but, the bigger question is, what’s he and his administration willing to do about it?
My suggestion is another invocation of the LBJ era domestic policy.
LikeLike
“My suggestion is another invocation of the LBJ era domestic policy.”
You mean the policies that led to an explosion of single motherhood in the black community? That in turn led to inner city poverty, crime, and dysfunction of epic proportions? If LBJ’s war on poverty, birthed about 50 years ago, was worthy of replication, why is poverty prevalent enough that it is still such a major issue? Shouldn’t the billions upon billions upon billions of dollars spent have gotten us somewhere?
LikeLike
The Great Society was a worthy experiment. Too bad it didn’t work as intended.
LikeLike
“. . . why is poverty prevalent enough that it is still such a major issue?”
Because for well over three decades the dominant economic theory has been the PISS ON ECONOMIC THEORY, that says if you give the rich ever increasing opportunities to enrich themselves they will, and what little dribbles (at times in human history many thought that drinking urine had an ameliorative effect) that come out might work their way down the economic ladder, but usually to be swallowed up by those directly below the avaricious bastards at the top.
LikeLike
Please give references for these “facts”.
The domestic policy of LBJ led to : explosion in single mothers, inner city crime, poverty, and epic dysfunction.
thank you.
LikeLike
Tragic. So this is how one of the wealthiest countries in the history of the world treats a quarter of its children.
It’s children.
It’s children.
It’s unspeakable.
Look, according to the Cost of War Project, we now have 6 trillion dollars of sunk costs and committed costs for the wars (or whatever the hell they have been) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me give you an idea how much that is. A million seconds is eleven and a half days. A trillion seconds is 31,688.8 years.
We have spent as many dollars is Iraq and Afghanistan as there are seconds in 190,133 years.
For what? The Army Times, the Army’s official publication, recently ran a cover story asking, 10 years on, what the hell is our mission over here, and what has it ever been?
I can tell you what the mission was: there was a whole lotta money made by defense companies.
The same folks who go ballistic about programs to feed hungry kids–who just can’t stand those big government programs (I am talking to you, Paul Ryan)–think that this is just peachy. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.
If you look at the official poverty thresholds, they are breathtakingly low. For a single parent with one child, in 2010, that number was $15,030 a year. For a family of four, $22,113. Imagine trying to live, you and your child, on $15,035 dollars a year. But you would be above the poverty line.
But even with thresholds this low, in 2012, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s recent study on child poverty in the United States,
23 percent of all U.S. children were living in poverty.
37 percent of American Indian children.
40 percent of African American children.
34 percent of Hispanic or Latino children.
Oh, I see. It’s mostly dark children. No prob. Sorry I bothered you. Back to the Normal Rockwell Romney family Christmas.
LikeLike
This is an extremely important study. So are all the epigenetic studies being done, right now, at the cutting edge of science, that show the dramatic effects of stressful environments on genetic expression–the studies that completely invalidate the heritability of IQ studies that the Neanderthal wealthy in the U.S. have pointed to for years to justify the moral outrage of not increasing equity for children who, after all, do not choose the circumstances of their births. You won’t read a lot about such studies in the popular press because the popular press is owned by the Neanderthals, and there is far more PR today than there is investigative or science journalism–exponentially more. What you will see a lot of in the popular press, and in pop science books, is the pseudoscience of behavioral genetics, which consists of just-so stories based on a now discredited model of genetic inheritance that underplays the variability of genetic expression and the dependence of that expression on environmental factors.
Take those two kids–the one born into wealth and the one born into abject poverty. Switch them in the maternity ward. See what happens.
Want to make a bet about what happens?
We all freaking know what will happen. The wealthy one will become a Master of the Universe. Hell, if that child happens also to be brain damaged, he or she might even become a Senator or a President or sit on the board of Achieve.
LikeLike
There are more African American boys and men in prison today than there were in slavery at the beginning of the Civil War. This is how we have kept our promise of liberty and justice for all.
Jesse Jackson had it right when he said, “You can pay on the front end or you can pay on the back end.” But what the heck. Those private prisons are a great business. A booming business. Just look how successful that business is! We now imprison a greater percentage of our population than does ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE EARTH. Think of the most despotic, most corrupt regime anywhere. We imprison more of our citizens than they do. And all that imprisoning sure does buy a lot of tinsel for that Christmas tree in the big house in the gated neighborhood–the one like those in the Christmas commercials on television. That prison company stock just goes up and up and up. Who knows what the limit is? We haven’t imprisoned ALL of the children of the poor by the time they turn sixteen, not yet.
But we’re working on it.
LikeLike
But it’s easier, isn’t it, to believe the fairy tale being peddled by the Meritocracy sans Merit–that the reason why those kids don’t just pull themselves right up like Horatio Alger–is that the schools aren’t tough enough.
Of course, the part that these Neanderthals DON’T talk about, except among themselves at their fund raisers when they think the cameras aren’t rolling–is that they believe the Social Darwinist myths about their own superiority and that the best that one can expect for THOSE PEOPLE is response to tough training so that they can become reasonably efficient, if dumb, cogs in the machine that makes all those goodies for their betters at the top. So, training for the proles, education for the elite.
A personal note: I have always believed in individual initiative–I’ve always had a warm place in my heart for the Horatio Alger story. But I look around me in the United States today and I see not an equitable competitive playing field but crony capitalism in which the fix is in, big time.
Social mobility in the United States hasn’t been this low since the age of the Robber Barons.
And all that starts with the savage inequalities of our schools.
LikeLike
and with child poverty at home.
LikeLike
Oh Robert, you sound so jaded, yet EVERYTHING you said was the truth. And it’s not even a hidden truth – it’s out there for all to see. Obvious. Yet nobody does anything about it – they don’t even try. And it’s reaching a tipping point, beyond crisis.
And the few haves that are left, like teachers, are being attacked. Many have already joined the have nots. Then who will be left?
Thank you all for keeping up the fight. Let’s kick them in the head – maybe sanity will return. Right now, the people in power act like they all have Alzheimer’s. They’ve forgotten their humanity.
(And the “they” are the decision makers driving this nonsense and forcing the rest if us along for the ride.)
LikeLike