[quote=Frank]Or you could just make your point?
It's pretty obvious. There's no mention of the quality of schooling.
Quote:
|
income and home environment account for about 25% of educational attainment.....inherited intelligence is responsible for the rest.
|
Now again I suspect the journo has made this omission, not the academic, but I don't know for certain. Either way, it shows the claim up for being utter crap.
But returning to our race debate, I would warn against falsely assuming that blacks are scoring lower IQ scores because of genetics so long as significant differences in the quality of education between black and white exist, and have historically.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
Which would be a fair theory had the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Studies not illustrated that students with two black biological parents by age 17 had an average IQ 89 while adopted children two white biological parents with an IQ of 106. Interestingly enough the Asian students from the northeast scored highest of all in three differing studies though they suffered from environmental weaknesses not experienced by the above control groups...
|
It's not surprising that whites adopted by whites who live in a white state (13:1) and are sent to white schools have higher IQ scores than blacks adopted by whites who live in a white state and are sent to white schools. What is more telling to me is despite these conditions "the average IQ of "socially classified" Black children was greater than the U.S. White mean" (Wiki). Despite the disadvantages of being adopted, and being adopted by people of another race and obviously not biological children, and being a minority in their community, these kids did quite well in a well funded system. This is a strong indication of what black kids can do given a relatively equal playing field, something we've never had en masse. Lastly, I think the authors of the study agree with me that environment is the dominant factor, not genetics, although I'm aware there is an ongoing debate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
The problem here is that black students who were placed into the 'Head Start' program seemed to eventually suffer the same regression toward the mean as other black youth. Black youth who came out of the program immediately had an IQ improvement of 30 points...though three years later the same tests placed them back in the 80's score range.
To be specific a study of childhood enrichment in the early 90's produced similar short-term results. J.S. Fuerst of Loyola University tracked and monitored 684 black children who attended specially funded 'Head Start' type programs that were so intense, advanced and far-reaching that Mr. Fuerst referred to them "Head Start to the fourth power." The children remained in these programs for two to seven years, and had significantly better test scores than a control group outside of the program. However, a decade later, after the children had returned to regular schools, their performances were practically indistinguishable from those of children who had not received the special instruction.
|
Again, there is nothing surprising here. The "head start" program probably equates with a better white school, and three years after leaving the program and returning to a typical underfunded black school their IQ scores had dropped.
What part of this scenario isn't absolutely screaming environment factors from the rooftop?
You could take a bunch of white kids from their "normal school" for two to seven years and placed them in a black school, then put them back in their "normal school", checking their IQ results throughout and it would show the opposite pattern.
Jerry