Posted on 08/29/2003 8:25:32 AM PDT by Jakarta ex-pat
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12059-2003Sep1.html
Genes' Sway Over IQ May Vary With Class Study: Poor More Affected by Environment
By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, September 2, 2003; Page A01
--->snip Back-to-school pop quiz: Why do poor children, and especially black poor children, score lower on average than their middle-class and white counterparts on IQ tests and other measures of cognitive performance?
It is an old and politically sensitive question, and one that has long fueled claims of racism. As highlighted in the controversial 1994 book "The Bell Curve," studies have repeatedly found that people's genes -- and not their environment -- explain most of the differences in IQ among individuals. That has led a few scholars to advance the hotly disputed notion that minorities' lower scores are evidence of genetic inferiority.
Now a groundbreaking study of the interaction among genes, environment and IQ finds that the influence of genes on intelligence is dependent on class.
Genes do explain the vast majority of IQ differences among children in wealthier families, the new work shows. But environmental factors -- not genetic deficits -- explain IQ differences among poor minorities.
end snip
----begin snip
"This paper shows how relevant social class is" to children's ability to reach their genetic potential, said Sandra Scarr, a professor emerita of psychology now living in Hawaii, who did seminal work in behavioral genetics at the University of Virginia.
end snip -- end quoting
Now..Let's discuss WHAT IS CLASS? A great many people define "class" (not pub ed) as socioeconomic status. A new car each year is NOT going to "encourage" a child's education or IQ. Having beaucoup bucks to shop without limit at the mall is also not especially going to encourage "IQ" (unless the shopper plans on going into those particular fields: fashion, retail...). Homeschooling is excellent for exactly these reasons and provided goals are clearly laid out by the parent(s). If the family goal is "looking good" -- this is not going to encourage IQ or knowledge (except about great sales and superb lines of clothing, and the whole "strutting" thing.) However, I don't think the IQ tests -- test for these.
I'll wager the banned "poster" was thinking of the "Bell Curve". Think for a second on this with me, in re "race" which is a purely political construct as it certainly can't be proved definitively by science -- how is it I've met some of the sharpest (but not educated) people who know HOW to get ahead; whereas some with PHd's and the like can't figure out how to program a DVD? In my own view, homeschoolers tend to do better and because they are routinely exposed to "liberal" issues, but also get the more traditional issues and topics covered. Ergo, these students are getting what used to be known as a Classic Liberal Arts Education -- something which is still called by this title; but not taught in pub ed. Pub ed usually covers the "liberal" aspects, and the vagaries and differing nuances BUT within that aspect, only.
I've witnessed a number of times, personally, pretty much the same story you've shared about your homeschooling mother friend. I'm glad to know the eldest is doing SO well! However, divorce is death, in a manner of speaking -- to most families; but having a judge come in and to order you about with regard to how you SHALL raise your child, educationally, is exceptionally nasty; and wrong.
Yes, it is about a family's priorities -- no matter their income or status. Even a poor family can seek knowledge -- unlimited knowledge -- internet, library, just call a governmental entity and they SEND VAST AMOUNTS OF DATA - Dittos colleges. There's no sound reason for being poorly educated in America, if one's priorities on the importance of educating one's children is clear. And foremost.
And as every homeschooling parent I know over so many years has said: The parent, regardless, of education, of socioeconomic status has to want to learn too. I know homeschooling parents who could have double majors and masters if there were such a test to take; given how much they've learned, in order to teach their own children.
how is it I've met some of the sharpest (but not educated) people who know HOW to get ahead; whereas some with PHd's and the like can't figure out how to program a DVD?
Ain't it the truth? I know people who fit those descriptions, too.
Yes, it is about a family's priorities -- no matter their income or status.
Absolutely. I can think of so many real-life examples where that theory held true, too.
Also, this talk reminds me of a study by Prof. John Ogbu: Source
From the article, "Rich, Black, and Flunking":
-SNIP-
The black parents wanted an explanation. Doctors, lawyers, judges, and insurance brokers, many had come to the upscale Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights specifically because of its stellar school district. They expected their children to succeed academically, but most were performing poorly. African-American students were lagging far behind their white classmates in every measure of academic success: grade-point average, standardized test scores, and enrollment in advanced-placement courses. On average, black students earned a 1.9 GPA while their white counterparts held down an average of 3.45. Other indicators were equally dismal. It made no sense.
When these depressing statistics were published in a high school newspaper in mid-1997, black parents were troubled by the news and upset that the newspaper had exposed the problem in such a public way. Seeking guidance, one parent called a prominent authority on minority academic achievement.
UC Berkeley Anthropology Professor John Ogbu had spent decades studying how the members of different ethnic groups perform academically. He'd studied student coping strategies at inner-city schools in Washington, DC. He'd looked at African Americans and Latinos in Oakland and Stockton and examined how they compare to racial and ethnic minorities in India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and Britain. His research often focused on why some groups are more successful than others....
The professor and his research assistant moved to Shaker Heights for nine months in mid-1997. They reviewed data and test scores. The team observed 110 different classes, from kindergarten all the way through high school. They conducted exhaustive interviews with school personnel, black parents, and students. Their project yielded an unexpected conclusion: It wasn't socioeconomics, school funding, or racism, that accounted for the students' poor academic performance; it was their own attitudes, and those of their parents.
Ogbu concluded that the average black student in Shaker Heights put little effort into schoolwork and was part of a peer culture that looked down on academic success as "acting white."
-END SNIP-
That "it's-not-cool-to-be-smart" attitude isn't limited to one ethnic/racial group. I subscribed to it myself in high school, and I was a lousy student, as were many other "white" students with the same attitude. But, as you pointed out, I guess that attitude isn't limited to schoolers, either. I haven't met homeschoolers more interested in "being cool" yet, but I have no trouble believing that they're out there, especially with all the insecurities about "lack of socialization." I can imagine some HSers might overcompensate... lol.
Parents send their children to school with, most often, the same mentality. I'm sending my child to you to get educated. I give you money; you educate my child.
The child doesn't get educated, and the parents don't even notice. And if they do notice, they tend to not DEMAND accountability of the school.
Generally, many simply nod their heads over the school's or politician's "abuse excuse" the reason the child didn't get educated was because the school doesn't have enough money to educate the child. The parent says. Oh, okay. Yes, we'll force everyone (via taxes) to ensure MY child, next, election -- gets a better education.
No rational voter would ever simply wait for another election cycle to get their car repaired.
Children are living beings -- they are NOT objects. However, with the advent of "socialist" causes -- many parents, while very much loving of their children -- seem very unaware of a premise they hold that is tripping their child up.
Lessee.. 8:15 to 2:30 each day, 5 days a week tied up in a classroom learning.. what?
Snip from article you posted:
Ogbu concluded that the average black student in Shaker Heights put little effort into schoolwork and was part of a peer culture that looked down on academic success as "acting white.
end snip
Uh-huh. The ole' "Oreo" ad hominem. But really, when you look at the media and liberals: Oreos, according to their quotes, articles, coverage -- only exist in the Republican Party; ergo, the hidden mentality of the "Oreo" monicker: Don't become a Republican.
No big decoder ring needed to parse this one...
Back to the idea of sending kids to school to maybe get an education: Well, if you click on the remote, activate the TV, and the child has seen "Friends" -- they've seen "Friends". The corrollary logic appears: They've been in class 5 days a week for a tons of weeks; they should just naturally be getting an education. Education is run, owned, controlled by Democrats. They care about education.
Another faulty assumption exists about "education". But by golly gee.. just trying walking a died-in-the-wool Dem or Liberal through seeing the disconnect(s) in their assumptions about sending their children to schools; and the paltry education they are receiving. Oh NooOOO! The reason education isn't working, the myth continues, is because some Nasty Republican is hiding in the woodpile somewhere tripping up Dems in their education focus. uh-huh.
Oreos, according to their quotes, articles, coverage -- only exist in the Republican Party; ergo, the hidden mentality of the "Oreo" monicker: Don't become a Republican.
Isn't it amazing that people fall for it, too? And let's not forget "Uncle Tom" (which is supposed to be an insult, even though the man on whom the Uncle Tom character was based led slaves to freedom). The message is definitely: Don't be a Republican (just look at what Colin Powell and Condi Rice have had to deal with recently) and certainly not a libertarian/Libertarian (thinking of Larry Elder there), though no one takes us as seriously.
Funny, the whole attitude seems to be: How DARE an African-American claim that African-Americans can do it on their own without "whitey's help"! Lol. And the racists I've come across on the Democrat side! I think GWB got it right with that phrase, "the subtle racism of low expectations," or whatever it was he said - it was a perfect analysis of the Democrat attitude in one short phrase.
And the hurtful part is -- Blacks (sticking my 60's lingo) who support the very party asserting "blacks" can't do it on their own are making BIG TIME FOOLS of American Blacks. The Dems are encouraging the "image" of American Blacks appearing "IQ-deficient" the longer American Blacks support the very party holding them down and back. (while Jackson screams about white racism from the "right".) Madness...
"the subtle racism of low expectations,"
The originator of the phrase "soft bigotry of low expectations" was originated by none-other than CA's (co-author) Prop 209 -- Glynn Custred! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.