Childhood Brain Development, the Educational Achievement Gap, and Cognitive Enhancement

Abstract

Research on the effects of adversity on the brain of children initially encountered strong skepticism mainly due to the fear of stigmatization and the potential pathologizing of poverty as a disease. Despite initial resistance, an increasing body of work demonstrates a correlation between low socioeconomic status and brain development. This article will focus specifically on the impact of poverty (material, economic, and social) on childhood brain development and educational achievement. Some suggest that the use of cognitive enhancers in healthy students is perfectly acceptable and should be promoted to counterbalance the failure of traditional means to improve educational achievements. In this article, I critically assess the claim that a broad use of cognitive enhancers should be promoted and offer an alternative approach. The first section evaluates the neuroscientific facts and evidence of the impact of poverty on brain development and outlines some of the criticisms raised against the “neuroscience of poverty.” The second section focuses on the proposal made by Ray (2016) that promotes the use of cognitive enhancers as a means to address poor educational attainment. I criticize the basis of her argument and propose a different approach I call the clinical ideal. Subsequently, I provide some ethical pointers to allow an ethical and prudent use of cognitive enhancers in the educational setting. The main point of the article is not to reject prima facie the use of cognitive enhancers in socially disadvantaged students but rather provide a more nuanced approach.

Melhoramento cognitivo farmacológico: futuro promissor? Ou futuro inevitável?

“…Less favored social situations are often caused and perpetuated by cognitive problems and difficulties in these circumstances. Due to their intellectual limitations, they are also called low-achievers or underachievers 1,3,12,28 .…”

“…Negative effects of methylphenidate have been reported in healthy students concerning sleep quality and increased depressive symptoms in these individuals 3 . All this is particularly important in the case of its use by parental or teacher pressure 12,19,28 in children and adolescents, whose brains are still developing.…”

“…The biological impact of PCE on developing brains is even more alarming than on adults, as alterations may be more serious, leading to changes in the individuality, personality, and authenticity (and feelings of authenticity) 3 . Psychologically, children and younger individuals partially attribute their behavior (especially bad behaviors) to peaks of abstinence from these drugs, which raises immediate (and long-term) questions regarding the perception of morality and ethics by these individuals 3,28,32,33 . This highlights the issues about individuality and authenticity discussed above.…”

Exiting from the Low Learning Achievement: Neurodidactic Insights

“…Remiantis tyrimų įrodymais (Rosen et al, 2019), kognityvinė stimuliacija, darbinės atminties neuropagrindą sudarančių smegenų dalių -didžiųjų pusrutulių kaktos ir momens skilčių ir kai kurių smegenų pamato branduolių -aktyvumas reikšmingai lemia ryšį tarp SEK ir tėvų įvardytų pasiekimų. Jotterand (2018), apžvelgdama pastarojo dešimtmečio tyrimus, taip pat patvirtina, kad vaikams iš žemo SEK sluoksnio įvairiapusės nepalankios sąlygos daro įtaką akademiniams pasiekimams ir smegenų struktūros raidai. Nustatyti neuroatominiai skirtumai, tokie kaip mažesnis hipokampo pilkosios medžiagos tūris ir mažesnis migdolinis kūnas, yra susiję su emocijomis, atmintimi, motyvacija, sprendimų priėmimu, kalba ir dėmesiu, todėl, galime matyti, kad įvardyti svarbūs procesai, esantys itin reikšmingi mokymosi procese, bus ne taip gerai išsivystę kaip vaikų iš aukšto SEK sluoksnio ir atitinkamai suponuos akademinių mokomųjų dalykų pasiekimus.…”

Relationship Between Classroom Management Strategy Focused on Student External Behaviour and Student Achievement in Low SES Schools: What Can Teachers Do?

“…According to researchers (Jotterand, 2018;Lipina, Evers, 2017), there is a large list of protective and risk factors associated with the future cognitive, emotional and social achievements of children from low SES and based on developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience research. These factors are of a very diverse nature, including individual factors of the mother (prenatal maternal health, mental health of parents), individual factors of the child (perinatal health, development disorders), family-level factors (quality of early attachment, level of stress at home, quality of parenting, early cognitive and learning stimulation at home, financial stressors on the family, lack of social mobility, family expectations about child development) and even systemic factors (access to health and social services, social and political stress).…”