-
sponsorship
I always feel queasy about such studies, Ann, because of the potential problem you mentioned, namely fatalism. These researchers are writing about the circumstances of poverty, which puts them on the traditional left of the poverty and social policy spectrum. But I'm not sure the effect is all that different from Charles Murray, who made many of us furious when he argued that differences in I.Q. were enduring and a predictor of success. Unlike Murray, the latest crop of brain researchers are careful to steer clear of race issues, or use words such as innate. Instead, they have recast the evils of poverty in the latest neutral neuroscience language. The NAS studies you mention focus on "cognitive development," and "working memory." Still, in reading the study one feels like by age 3 or 4, some permanent architecture has been erected that can't be undone.
In his great book, Whatever It Takes, Paul Tough does a wonderful summary of all the studies that come to a similar conclusion as the one you mentioned. The gist is that early intervention is crucial, because the circumstances of poverty leave children farther and farther behind. I suppose one can't elide or ignore this fact. And Tough's book is about a program—the Harlem Enterprise Zone—that grapples with the evidence. But that program is so comprehensive and well, expensive, that I can't help but think that in this economy, it won't be replicated so easily.