Adoptions & IQ Tests

A couple of stories to highlight the law of unintended consequences, and its effect on our nation's children.

In Cash Incentives for Adoptions Seen as Risk to Some Children, the New York Times details how reforms in child dependency laws have, in some cases, turned "adoption" into a form of extended foster care, and how pressure to find permanency for children has sometimes resulted in a lack of due care when approving these state-subsidized adoptions. Once the adoption is complete, the state's obligation to monitor a child's progress and wellbeing ends.

In an APA press release, we learn that renorming of IQ tests to compensate for the "Flynn Effect" (the steady rise of IQ scores over time) can have a significant effect on educational placements for children with borderline or mild mental handicaps. Some tested with an earlier version of an IQ test are excluded from services that a renormed test would allow. Some tested with a "renormed" version are excluded from services that their more capable peers, who happened to be tested on a prior version, receive. Also mentioned are the impact of the "Flynn Effect" on low-IQ death row inmates, and members of the military.

Granted, social engineering is never without risk. In the former example, there is good cause to desire permanency for children in foster care, and many adoptive placements are in the best interest of children whose relationships with their parents have been severed by the courts. In the latter case, it is necessary to have some criteria by which schools can assess the needs of children, and allocate resources to assist those with learning disabilities.

At the same time, perhaps the problems in both situations result from looking for a fast or easy solution to a complicated set of issues, and attempting to apply a "one size fits all" model to situations which call for greater case-by-case analysis. While looking at individual circumstances is more time-consuming and expensive than applying standard rules which apply to all cases, when it comes to organizations which are involved in critical decisions relating to human beings, bureaucratic efficiency and actuarial tables are rarely the best measures of success.

Comments