Advertisement

loader

Talk

Advanced search

How to make your kid do well

(39 Posts)
fishfinger Wed 22-Jun-05 10:47:30

according to the times today, this is the reasearch that show how a kid can achieve academically:
"1. The child has highly educated parents.

2. The child’s parents have high socioeconomic status.

3. The child’s mother was 30 or older at the time of her first child’s birth.

4. The child had low birth weight.

5. The child’s parents speak English in the home.

6. The child is adopted.

7. The child’s parents are involved in the PTA.

8. The child has many books in his home.



And the eight factors that are not:


1. The child’s family is intact.

2. The child’s parents recently moved into a better neighbourhood.

3. The child’s mother didn’t work between birth and kindergarten.

4. The child attended Head Start. ( american literacy shceme for underpriveleged kids)

5. The child’s parents regularly take him to museums.

6. The child is regularly spanked. (??!!))

7. The child frequently watches television.

8. The child’s parents read to him nearly every day.



To over generalise a bit, the first list describes things that parents are; the second list describes things that parents do. Parents who are well-educated, successful, and healthy tend to have children who do well in school tests, but it doesn’t seem to much matter whether a child is taken to museums or frequently read to or plopped in front of the television. For parents who are obsessed with child-rearing technique this may be sobering news. The reality is that technique appears to be highly overrated.

But this is not to say that parents don’t matter.

okapi Wed 22-Jun-05 10:51:37

I got 7 out of 8 on the first list and 3 on the second - is that good?

HappyHuggy Wed 22-Jun-05 10:58:10

2 out of 8 on the first bit

5 out 8 on the second

is that good????

fishfinger Wed 22-Jun-05 10:58:57

dunno its intersting though
also that tv in finland makes pre school kids lern to read as allt he progs have finnish subtitles

beachyhead Wed 22-Jun-05 11:01:14

I think you will find that 4 and 6, low birth weight and adoption are ADVERSE factors. They list the factors that matter, either way and those that don't matter.

Basically, it seems it is more about 'who you are as parents' rather than 'what you do'.

Quite interesting though!

invisiblegirl Wed 22-Jun-05 11:02:25

and not a typo in sight!

invisiblegirl Wed 22-Jun-05 11:04:49

hmmm not sure about it to be honest. Dd is G&T and although I am supposedly bright I am not successful nor do I have good s/e status. Dd was over 97th centile when born and I was 24 when I had her. Although we do speak English.

piffle Wed 22-Jun-05 11:16:10

The only thing I truly believe makes a difference is the reading!

Caligula Wed 22-Jun-05 11:19:46

I'd be interested to know exactly how they did the study. I'm extremely suspicious of the idea that having a low birth weight is an indicator of academic achievement.

It may be that a greater proportion of children who did well in this study, happened to have low birth weight, but it might also be that they came from homes where parents used Colgate to clean their teeth. Would that mean that Colgate usage by parents is an indicator of academic acheivement as well?

Lies, Damned lies and Statistics again.

invisiblegirl Wed 22-Jun-05 11:20:30

we could of course do our own study

Gobbledigook Wed 22-Jun-05 11:23:52

Oooh, I'm feeling quite encouraged by that! Just read the article!

Gobbledigook Wed 22-Jun-05 11:25:34

LOL Caligula!! I'm sure it's rubbish, but I've heard the one about low birth weight before - I think it's quite a well known correlation.

aloha Wed 22-Jun-05 11:27:15

Caligula, I think fishfinger made a mistake as low birth weight and adoption are (as beachyhead says) ADVERSE factors, not postive ones.
Which isn't to say that anything absolutely guarantees success or that anything absolutely militates against it.

aloha Wed 22-Jun-05 11:35:32

Can anyone do a link? Just went onto timesonline.co.uk to read the original article and it is genuinely fascinating research, done on over 20.000 children over many years.

fishfinger Wed 22-Jun-05 11:38:16

no reading makes no difference - having books around does

fishfinger Wed 22-Jun-05 11:39:05

linktastiuc

Caligula Wed 22-Jun-05 11:39:44

Ah that makes more sense. But even then, is the study saying that they are actually adverse factors, or just not a positive factor? Like going to museums surely can't be an adverse factor (unless you're doing it every day when you should be at school!)? Are the eight "not" factors neutral or negative?

Has anyone got a link?

Caligula Wed 22-Jun-05 11:40:04

Sorry posts crossed

fishfinger Wed 22-Jun-05 11:43:45

said to dh this morning -" well YOU may have a high socio eeconimic status I dont"
" you do " he said reassuringly

I'd like to point out it was 8 30am and i was still int he bath at this point. Hardly career gal!

aloha Wed 22-Jun-05 11:55:39

Caligula, not the second lot are things that make no difference, positive or negative. And this is ONLY about what makes a difference to school academic performance, which of course, is not the same thing as having a happy successful life, as Jamie Oliver, amoung many others, would agree.

kama Wed 22-Jun-05 12:02:27

Message withdrawn

aloha Wed 22-Jun-05 12:05:11

Kama - read the link it will all become clearer!

Guardianangel Wed 22-Jun-05 12:20:03

5 out of 8 on first and 4 out of 8 on second.
DS 3.5yrs speaks second language (we dont)! and he is off to take Weschler Test in August.

TheVillageIdiot Wed 22-Jun-05 12:24:12

poor dd, she's a fatty with a mum under 30 but if I have her adopted by people with high socioeconomic status she'll be alright

YEAY FREEDOM!!!

<I am just kidding of course (about the aadoption)>

kama Wed 22-Jun-05 12:29:49

Message withdrawn

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now