Aibu to think that the most successful kids in schools are the ones with money pumped into extracurriculars & camps?

[Imarealwoman]

In the dc's school the dc in the top sets are the ones who do expensive extracurriculars outside school eg piano, dancing, horse riding, swimming lessons, Spanish etc..
They stay after school for the baking or yoga clubs. It's Easter & the top set kids all seem to be doing expensive camps next week & some gone skiing this week.
Aibu to think one needs to have the money to pump into your child in order to have a high performer?

But they are exceptional at it. I mean, fuck all people do bob sleigh in this country but that doesn't mean the people who represent GB at Bob sleigh aren't exceptional.

(and private schools are beginning to play football - particularly women's football - and are getting much better at it!)

That's absolutely true, the mums of the top set in dc's school are either part time very flexi work from home or they are stay at home with very high earning partners. They are very invested in their dc as was evident during the covid homeschooling!

Why would doing extra-curricular baking, yoga and skiing make you better academically?

Yabu.

A bright, curious child will probably drive their parents insane round the house so they send them to activities to burn off physical and mental energy (looking at you, DD).

Sounds like DS1 too! Plus we both work f/t so he has to go to holiday clubs at least some of the time (the rest of the time is annual leave or grandparents).

Some educational activities are free though (like museums in big cities)...we don't go to make the DC cleverer though, we go because we/they enjoy them (and sometimes just because it's raining and we want to get out of the house).

They’re just richer and everything that wealth brings means they are more likely to be high achievers but the clubs themselves aren’t the thing.

Technically, you are of course correct @Changeau . They are exceptional because they are outliers from the norm. All I'm saying is that the source of their distinction is massively determined by whether they can afford to live in a hotel in St Moritz for a season as they practice for the Cresta Run - not because they're genuinely elite athletes who have bettered the performance of millions of other humans in open and fair competition.

Lewis Hamilton is an F1 champion. But he's never beaten me, or 6.999999 billion other people. He's talented, yes. But that talent was nurtured by the opportunities that came from having a dad who bought and paid for karts and track time from when he was 4 years old - and most kids in the UK didn't have that.

Anything that requires acres and acres of land set aside for the sole purpose of being the field of play, or thousands of pounds worth of kit and equipment to participate safely and competitively, is exclusionary - and this is by design. It means poorer kids are removed from the competition, and as such it does diminish (slightly) the reverence and awe they deserve.

It's the same with the free library events that are ticketed as there's a cap on numbers so you need to book online. The spaces are always taken up by very middle class kids. No issue with that it's free for all but interesting that they are always the ones watching & waiting for events to be released!

I'm a teacher and I feel that extracurricular activities boost confidence and help children socially but it stops there. The children who tend to academically succeed are the ones who read every night, have parents who talk to them and take them to museums which are all free (well museums in London). That's only my observations though!

Another teacher here and I totally agree. It's correlation, not cause. The kids who do best in school are intelligent and intrinsically motivated, usually with supportive parents who foster intellectual curiosity and a good work ethic in their children. Going on summer camps etc has nothing directly to do with it imo.

All those require a child to listen, follow adult instructions. Lots of children lack those skills and struggle in school as a result.

Maybe not the baking, but if your parents earn enough and have the motivation to send you to yoga or skiing (or horse-riding or music lessons) they are probably reasonably bright themselves. It stands to reason that their children will, more than likely be more than averagely academically able.

It could be that their parents are more invested and pushy and therefore demand more, and by default the kids also have high expectations of themselves. But then this can be also said by comparing different ethnicities too

That's what I mean these kids have a wide knowledge.

You don’t know the causality between the children in top sets being in extra curricular activities. Are the children high achieving/ in top sets because they do extra-curricular activities, or are the high achieving children more likely to want to join and stick at extra-curricular activities? Is there a genetic or environmental cause which means the children of high-flying high-achieving parents who are in well paid jobs and can afford to put their children into clubs etc are more likely to also be high-flying and high achieving? Are the kinds of parents who put their kids in clubs in your local area more likely to read with their kids, to ensure they do their homework, to engage in academic activities at home etc? In reality there are probably a combination of factors which make this the case at your child’s school.

I'm a teacher and disagree actually. Plenty of kids in the top sets who aren't taking part in extra curriculars, they are just a bit less visible if they're not in the school play/band/football team maybe.

But I guess the sort of parent who encourages and supports extra curricular stuff is also the sort of parent who prioritises education, backs the school, makes time to help with homework etc

Mine did after school clubs and holiday camps as I worked and used them as childcare. It obviously gives them confidence if they later encounter that activity as they’ve done it before but also builds skills like getting to know new people, listening to adults, following instructions, commitment etc. All those skills benefit a child in the classroom.

And it all levels out at university. Really the most important trait is perseverance and self-motivation. A lazy kid will fail once mum isn't there to insist on homework and drive him to drama.

Correlation…. DH and I are both driven with full time high earning jobs. We encourage DC academically and encourage them both to do extracurricular stuff . It’s bloody expensive too - I think you have to be a high earner to afford all these clubs and camps . Holiday camps are necessary holiday childcare!

But at the same time they are educational. There's music camps, musical theatre, stem camps, art etc..

Generally (not always!) people with money to pump into these things are higher educated and have more knowledge themselves, hence their kids do. As a teacher I’d say time, talking and reading are worth more than any expensive hobby. In my experience the kids with extra curricular activities do better as they are not sedentary in front of screens - they are talking, building communication skills, increasing confidence, meeting new people, honouring commitments, all these things that are skills for life and not just academia.

I was amazed. In my daughters y11 class one teacher asked whose parents took them to museums as children. Only her and one other said yes.

We are on the in z6 London so a heap of free museums and free travel for children.

We would generally do a museum every holiday.

I was consistently top of the class in school and college without much effort, got the top marks in the cohort in my BA etc.
I came from a family where there was DV, alcohol and neglect. I wasn't having money thrown at me, I was just talented.
My daughter does loads of sport and extra curricular stuff. She's very able academically but not top of the class etc.

My children are clever (all in their 20s now) and they did some extra curricula activities - mainly music and sport.
School was easy for them so they had time and energy for other things, also being clever they picked up other things easily so did well in their out of school activities which gave them the motivation to continue.
However, they also did gardening, DIY, cooking, sewing etc at home. We rarely took them abroad on holiday, but went to interesting places in the UK and we talked to them.
I teach, so was always home with them in the holidays. We didn’t go on expensive days out, but went out for walks, on the bus, went to the airport, to the library etc.

Mine was a straight A student at school. Socially adept amongst his peers, confident, at uni studying an integrated masters in engineering and working PT to support himself. His remaining organised extra curricular (community football training/matches £5/week) was dropped in his early teens. Never went to "camp" unless you count the 4 day school residential in primary school.

Extra circulars do not define future success as such, but I would suspect if their peer group is heavily involved and successful in them it may impact their own confidence and self-esteem if they are not which could in turn impact their behaviour/school work.

I think it's more dc with money do better

I think its more about having supportive parents and those parents tend to be more likely to pile money in. Obviously not all supportive parents can pile money in but the attitude still shines through