New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

[EC]

By Lyndsey Layton April 15 at 7:27 PM

New research that shows poor children have smaller brains than affluent children has deepened the national debate about ways to narrow the achievement gap.

Neuroscientists who studied the brain scans of nearly
1,100 children and young adults nationwide from ages 3 to 20 found that the surface area of the cerebral cortex was linked to family income. They discovered that the brains of children in families that earned less than $25,000 a year had surface areas 6 percent smaller than those whose families earned $150,000 or more. The poor children also scored lower on average on a battery of cognitive tests.

The region of the brain in question handles language, memory, spatial skills and reasoning, all important to success in school and beyond.

The study, published last month in Nature Neuroscience, is the largest of its kind to date. It was led by Kimberly Noble, who teaches at both Columbia University’s Teachers College and the university’s medical school. Elizabeth Sowell, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, was the senior author.

“We’ve known for so long that poverty and lack of access to resources to enrich the developmental environment are related to poor school performance, poor test scores and fewer educational opportunities,” Sowell said. “But now we can really tie it to a physical thing in the brain. We realized that this is a big deal.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/new-brain-science-shows-poor-kids-have-smaller-brains-than-affluent-kids/2015/04/15/3b679858-e2bc-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

[aligncare]

Before anyone has a cow, remember this is ONE study. Before any conclusions can be drawn from this experimental design the findings the must be replicated by other researchers and peer reviewed.

[mountaineer]

“We’ve known for so long that poverty and lack of access to resources to enrich the developmental environment are related to poor school performance, poor test scores and fewer educational opportunities,” Sowell said.

Dr. Ben Carson comes to mind.

Sometimes the problem is not so much the "lack of access to resources" as parents who make no effort to "enrich the developmental environment" for the children.

[andy58-in-nh]

Well then, we're just going to figure out how to redistribute brain cells more equitably. It's so unfair. No wonder the world hates us. 

[EC]

Dr. Ben Carson comes to mind.

Sometimes the problem is not so much the "lack of access to resources" as parents who make no effort to "enrich the developmental environment" for the children.

There is that. Or "enrich the developmental environment" in utero - a healthy fed mother tends to produce a healthy, well developed baby. It could explain a bit of the change most of us have noticed in our life times. A lot of us grew up poor or certainly had familiarity with growing up poor, but thinking back being poor seemed to mean we ate more healthily (as defined now). It was a lot more economical to cook from scratch. Now, the opposite seems to be the case.

[alicewonders]

Dr. Ben Carson comes to mind.

Sometimes the problem is not so much the "lack of access to resources" as parents who make no effort to "enrich the developmental environment" for the children.

That's it.  Poverty is no excuse not to introduce your children to learning experiences.  There are lessons to learn just from watching rain fall, or looking at snowflakes, watching leaves turn color in fall, etc.  All it takes is parents that care.  Granted - I'd say most of the parents of children growing up in poverty probably grew up the same way with parents that never challenged them to learn.  That's the root cause of most poverty anyway - failure to challenge one's self. 

Lack of parental guidance - the cause of most of society's problems.  That's where we fail with social programs - we don't teach people how to be good parents that take care of, discipline and challenge their children - irregardless of their financial circumstances.

[aligncare]

That's it.  Poverty is no excuse not to introduce your children to learning experiences.  There are lessons to learn just from watching rain fall, or looking at snowflakes, watching leaves turn color in fall, etc.  All it takes is parents that care.  Granted - I'd say most of the parents of children growing up in poverty probably grew up the same way with parents that never challenged them to learn.  That's the root cause of most poverty anyway - failure to challenge one's self. 

Lack of parental guidance - the cause of most of society's problems.  That's where we fail with social programs - we don't teach people how to be good parents that take care of, discipline and challenge their children - irregardless of their financial circumstances.

Unfortunately, today the State has injected itself between parent and child. The left has managed to engineer it so that society threatens legal action if parents behave as parents have since the beginning of child rearing. Using age-old methods of discipline will put a parent in legal jeopardy. 

"Spare the rod, spoil the child" lands you in hot water with child protective services.

[andy58-in-nh]

All the social programs in the world, even if funded by magic gold-breathing unicorns cannot replace human virtue and values or an intact family structure.

[Millee]

All the social programs in the world, even if funded by magic gold-breathing unicorns cannot replace human virtue and values or an intact family structure.

I wish we could "like" posts here.