Myth: Social intervention cannot raise IQ.
Fact: Social intervention has been shown to raise IQ at every year of childhood.
Summary
Social intervention has been proven to raise IQs at every
age level of childhood: infancy, preschool, elementary and middle
school. The problem is that these programs are not sustained,
so the gains fade as quickly as they are made. The Bell Curve
argues that this proves that social intervention is ineffective,
and therefore not worth it. But adoption studies show that when
enriched environments are sustained through adolescence (the critical
cut-off point), the IQ gains become permanent.
Argument
Although the authors of The Bell Curve estimate that
intelligence is 40 percent environmental, they are quite pessimistic
that social intervention can raise IQs. Herrnstein and Murray
write: "Taken together, the story of attempts to raise intelligence
is one of high hopes, flamboyant claims, and disappointing results.
For the foreseeable future, the problems of low cognitive ability
are not going to be solved by outside intervention to make children
smarter." (1) They go on to argue that because there is little
hope of raising the IQs of minorities, attempts to make them equal
are a waste of the taxpayers' money. On this basis they recommend
the abolishment of welfare and affirmative action. Murray argues,
"For many people, there is nothing they can learn that will
repay the cost of teaching." (2)
But it is simply untrue that the history of social intervention
to raise IQ has been a failure. Social intervention has been proven
to raise IQs at every age of development, from birth to high school
(and possibly even beyond). Before reviewing the studies for each
age group, however, it is useful to know the three main schools
of thought on IQ (and child) development.
The first school, Herrnstein and Murray's, holds that IQ is largely
genetic (60 percent, by their estimate). It is therefore surprisingly
stable and impervious to social intervention. They believe that
IQ at age four is a good predictor of IQ at age 18.
The second is the "ballistic" or "critical-period"
school, which holds that a child's first five years are the critical
developmental years. Although both genes and the environment contribute
to a child's traits, social intervention must be done before age
five, because afterwards change becomes exponentially more difficult.
The third is the "through adolescence" school, which
is basically the ballistic school extended over a much longer
period of time. Until children reach their teenage years, their
traits are more malleable and susceptible to social intervention.
A bad start in life is not necessarily detrimental if corrected
before adolescence; conversely, early gains may be wiped out by
deteriorating circumstances later on. By one's teenage years,
though, personal traits begin hardening into more permanent ones
(although this process may never be complete).
Just one example is learning a foreign language. To speak absolutely
fluently -- without even the slightest trace of an accent -- a
person has to learn a foreign language before the age of 13. "After
that age," says Judith Aissen, a linguist from the University
of California, "something solidifies or hardens in the brain.
No matter how smart you are, no matter how hard you try, you will
almost always learn a language with an accent after this age."
(3) The converse is also true: if a child immigrates from Russia
to America at the age of six, and is completely immersed in American
culture with little opportunity to speak his native language,
he will eventually lose his command of Russian -- not just in
vocabulary, but in grammar and accent as well. Some think that
"it's like riding a bike," that if the adult returned
to Russia, it would all come back. But, surprisingly enough, that
is not true. The ability fell into disuse before adolescence,
and he will speak Russian as if it were a learned foreign language.
Which of the above three paradigms is correct? A review of the
research literature below shows that only the third is compatible
with the evidence. It is interesting to note, however, that Herrnstein
and Murray seem genuinely unaware of this third school of thought;
they don't even consider it in their writing, let alone argue
against it. All their arguments are against the ballistic model.
If a social program is tried for a year or two, and the IQ gains
of the children are lost over the next few years, they treat this
as proof that social intervention doesn't work. It doesn't occur
to them that the program should be continued through adolescence.
This characterizes every single argument they make against a social
program that doesn't work. What this means is really rather remarkable
-- the entire argument against social intervention in The Bell
Curve is completely nonresponsive to the positions of most
environmentalists.
Infant intervention
There are at least a dozen major studies which show that intervention
can raise IQs in infants (from birth to age three). (4) The best
of these was a very large, eight-site study published in Pediatrics
in 1992, which found that intervention for at-risk infants (those
born prematurely or with low birth weights) raised their IQs nine
points by age three. (5)
Curiously, Herrnstein and Murray mention none of this vast literature
in The Bell Curve. Instead, they only describe two other
studies -- The Abecedarian Project and the Milwaukee Project --
which suffer from statistical or design flaws, even though they
produced encouraging results like the studies above. Psychologists
have heavily criticized the authors of The Bell Curve for
this negative, one-sided review of the evidence.
Preschool intervention
Head Start is perhaps the best known social intervention for
children aged three to five. It is a truly comprehensive program,
covering six areas: early childhood education, health screening
and referral, mental health services, nutrition education and
hot meals, social services for the children and their families,
and parent involvement. Head Start produces dramatic results while
it remains in effect: it can immediately boost a child's IQ the
equivalent of about eight points. (6)
Unfortunately, the gains associated with Head Start begin to fade
out once the program is stopped, which is usually when the child
enters school. By the end of the third grade, almost all the IQ
gains have vanished. (7) Herrnstein and Murray argue that this
proves that IQ cannot be permanently raised, and suggest the reason
why is because IQ is largely genetic. But the obvious rejoinder
is that the gains could be maintained if the program were maintained.
Again, the authors seem to be stuck in a false dichotomy, one
between the genetic and the ballistic model. The fade-out effect
of Head Start does not eliminate the possibility that a child's
developmental years extend through adolescence -- hence Herrnstein
and Murray cannot automatically claim the victory for genetics.
Primary and middle school intervention
What happens when the enrichment of Head Start is continued
into a child's early school years? Studies show that, in the few
cases where this has happened, the intellectual gains are largely
sustained. (8) Even Herrnstein and Murray give an example of a
successful intervention -- one that was introduced not during
preschool, like Head Start, but during middle school. In 1979,
the Venezuelan government began Project Intelligence, an experiment
in which 900 seventh-graders from a poor district were divided
into two groups. The experimental group was given sixty extra
45-minute lessons during their school year, which resulted in
a gain of 1.6 to 6.5 IQ points over the control group. (9) These
are large gains for such a modest program, yet Herrnstein and
Murray dismiss them. Why? Because the program was continued for
only one year, and no one knows if further effort would have produced
further gains, or even if the gains faded away. But the fact that
social intervention produces IQ gains even in the 7th
grade strongly suggests that Head Start is terminated too quickly
in the U.S.
A University of Michigan study shows the IQ gains by Head Start
are in fact undermined by the poor elementary schools that Head
Start recipients enter. The researchers analyzed data on 14,800
eighth-graders, some of whom were former Head Start recipients,
some recipients of other forms of preschool, and others none at
all. They found that those who have received Head Start (typically
the nation's poorest) attend schools that rank among the academically
weakest and most problem-ridden in the nation, even after correcting
for race and other demographic variables. (10) Obviously, if personal
development continues through adolescence, then exposure to eight
years of crime, drugs and a weak curriculum before then is going
to depress it. A tireless crusader for improving disadvantaged
schools is William Bennett, Reagan's former Secretary of Education.
Bennett has compiled an impressive list of interventions that
work, from elementary to high school. (11) Again, The Bell
Curve does not even mention these successful programs.
The problem with many intervention programs is that they are simply
too limited to counteract the pervasive effects of poverty. A
few years of Head Start are not going to negate 13 years of ubiquitous
poverty. Poverty results in the worst of everything: worse nutrition,
worse health care, worse education, worse living environments,
worse jobs, worse social problems
Giving a child a few extra
lessons a week is little more than putting a band-aid on the whole
problem. What a child really needs is to be lifted completely
out of poverty.
How can we test this hypothesis? Scientists know of two ways in
particular: nutrition and adoption studies.
Nutrition and IQ
Changes of nutrition for an entire geographical region offer
excellent evidence for the environmental causes of IQ. Nutrition
has been improving around the world as science and technology
resolve problems of scarcity and reduce the level of absolute
poverty almost everywhere. And this has coincided with the "Flynn
Effect," which is the rise of average IQs around the world
by three points per decade. Better nutrition has resulted in taller,
stronger, larger and faster humans around the world; there is
no reason to believe that it wouldn't make them smarter as well.
Narrower experiments with nutrition verify this observation. In
a study of 60 Welsh children (aged 12 to 13), researchers gave
half of them a substantial vitamin supplement and half of them
placebos for eight months. The experimental group gained 8 points
on their nonverbal test scores over the control group. (12) A
similar 13-week experiment with 600 California 8th
and 10th-graders resulted in a four point gain in nonverbal
test scores. (13) In both studies, verbal scores were not affected,
but that is consistent with the Flynn Effect, which is seeing
nonverbal, rather than verbal, scores rising.
Herrnstein and Murray hedge on these findings, because other studies
have not duplicated these results, and scientists don't know the
exact role nutrition plays in IQ. True, but they don't know the
exact role it plays in height, either, and it's well-known that
better nutrition makes for taller people. (After Japan adopted
a high-protein Western diet after World War II, the height of
their youth shot up in a few generations.) It would be more extraordinary
to believe that better nutrition does not improve IQ, rather
than it does.
Adoption and IQ
One of the best ways to determine how poverty affects IQ is
to study at-risk children who have been adopted by middle or upper-class
parents. By changing the entire environment to a healthier one,
it is possible to assess the degree to which IQ is environmental.
Unfortunately, for many ethical and practical reasons, adoption
data are hard to come by.
To date, the Minnesota adoption study is the only one that has
been done on black children raised in white homes. Unfortunately,
it is beset with statistical and methodological problems, and
even the study's authors admit that it is not informative on the
question of environment and IQ. (14) Just one of the many problems
is evaluating school attendance for a black child from a white
family. If they attend black schools, then that counteracts the
study's desire to see how children develop away from poverty-stricken
environments. But if they attend white schools, there are problems
of prejudice and social stigma. Both could lower IQ.
Outside the U.S., however, there have been successful adoption
studies (albeit with small study samples), which have the added
benefit of not complicating the issue with race. Michel Schiff
and his colleagues studied 32 French children who were born to
unskilled, working-class parents and were adopted by upper-class
homes. During childhood, their IQs averaged 107 points, which
was 12 points higher than their full or half-siblings who were
raised for a time by their biological parents or grandparents
in lower class surroundings. (15)
Another French study compared four groups of adopted children.
These were the children of lower or upper class biological parents
who had been adopted by lower or upper class homes. Here are the
average IQs of each group:
Socioeconomic status change and IQ of adopted children (16) Biological Adoptive Parent SES Parent SES Average IQ ------------------------------------ Low Low 92 points Low High 104 High Low 108 High High 120
So the difference between being raised in a lower and upper class
home is 12 IQ points! Defenders of The Bell Curve might
remind everyone here that this chart simply confirms what the
book admits repeatedly: that both genes and environment play a
role in forming IQ. However, we mustn't forget Herrnstein and
Murray's original claim: that social intervention does not result
in permanent gains. This chart shows them to be wrong. (When you
stop to think of it, it was quite contradictory for them to assert
that IQ is 40 percent environmental, yet can't be changed by social
intervention.)
A few qualifications about the study bear mentioning: the sample
size was very small (38 children), and it is unknown exactly how
rich or poor the parents were, or what their IQs were. Nonetheless,
both French studies come to the same conclusion. And for whatever
reason, Herrnstein and Murray have chosen not to dispute their
findings (as they have so energetically with other studies). Instead,
they raise a different sort of objection: that the lessons of
these studies cannot be applied to everybody. They write: