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?

I really do believe money is a big factor..

I’ve always assumed it was correlation rather than causation. If both parents are working and need childcare then kids will probably be at some sort of holiday camp at least once a year. Then, extra curricular activities cost money, so again, parents tend to be both working. both parents working means the kids are seeing good role models.

DH is from a wealthier background than me (private school, parents invested in education and made him study, lots of extra curricular stuff). Im from a council estate, couldn’t afford extra curricular unless free or very cheap (ie guides), but I was always in the top set at school: DH wasn’t.

i think that whether we want to admit it or not: intelligence is inherited from parents in many occasions

My dcs do well in school and go to a few extracurricular like swimming and football but not much more.
Holidays are spent going to places.
We don't spend much money.
They also do extra work at home and read lots.
Reading makes a big difference.

I agree with most others - clubs/holiday camps are childcare for a lot of families with both adults working, and with both adults working there’s more cash to pay for them.

There’s kids in my DS class that do heaps of activities and are very average and some that do minimal and are very bright.

If anything, I’d say parent jobs (so possibly parental intelligence or drive or even simply wealth) has been a bigger indicator of child intelligence in our smallish sample. Typically the kids of doctors/high flying careers are in the top groups. Whether this is due to nature/upbringing or genetics I don’t know.

This is a fairly standard state primary demographic wise, but with great attainment.

This. A friend is currently doing a fine art degree as a mature student. He said he was really shocked in his first year at the number of his younger fellow students who never showed up and never did a stroke of work. The attrition rate was ridiculous with about a third dropping out at the end of the first year.

It's complex - and there's a link, perhaps, but not a causal one, between doing lots of extra-curriculars and success at school (and in life?).

I think having a supportive family who take an interest, encourage you, are perceptive enough to understand what you're capable of so can give you a push, but not force you, is the best help a child can get. Also, having a family with lots of interests and a 'can do' attitude is good. It's an advantage to be well-off, but having parents who get you outside, notice the seasons, birds, animals, weather etc etc old buildings...just look around and take an interest.

There was a boy at one of my schools who was an amazing all-rounder - good at music, sport and academically and popular and modest too!!! He was always organising things and helping other students and teachers. His piano teacher was exasperated at students who didn't practise and confessed they'd spent their free time playing computer games, so she asked him how he managed his time. He said 'I only play computer games socially - never on my own - it's a waste of my time'. She thought these were wise words. It comes down to that old chestnut: deferring gratification. It tends to be an aspect of intelligence to understand that you'll gain in the long run if you prioritise the important things. From early childhood this does seem to be a indication of future success.

Why is piano always cited as an expensive extra-curricular? Or is our teacher massively undercharging? 30 minutes a week for £13. I know this will increase to more tuition time as they increase through the grades but surely this is no more expensive than swimming or any other class? Exam fees possibly yearly.

Former top set pupil here 🙋🏻‍♀️🤣
Lived in a council house, low earning self employed tradesman dad who left school at 15, low earning mum who jumped from job to job and never really stuck at anything (also left school at 15).

We couldn’t afford extra curricular activities and the school ones that were low/no cost I wasn’t allowed to do after school because it would have meant mum having to do 2 different pick up times and she didn’t drive. Never went to camp etc - never even went on a family holiday as we couldn’t afford it 🤷🏻‍♀️

2 siblings who both left school at 15 with very little in the way of qualifications.
I enjoyed school and got 7 1s at standard grade, 6 As at higher and 2 As at advanced higher then went to uni (first in my family ever to go lol) and got a 1st class BSc Hons.

I think a lot just depends on your interests as a person tbh!

I don't think it's the camps and the extracurriculars which are determinative, I think it's the benefit of living in a home which is financially secure and has enough disposable income sloshing around to burn on the niceties in life.

I mean, I'm sure there and benefits to the clubs and that they are fun to attend but I don't think they are shifting the balance of success markers.

Which sport doesn't need financial investment as kids get better at it? Football maybe but even then my dc had to travel around the country to play which meant hotels and travel costs. Athletics is fairly inexpensive when young but again if you become elite as a teen that involves huge parental support. Yes, horse riding ends up being a money game to afford the horses involved, but that may not be because daddy is rich (although that helps with horses!) - and you still have to be an excellent rider to succeed ar the top levels. Do you mean you personally don't admire any sporting achievements because of the money involved?

Correlation versus causation as others have said. Also, to have the money for lots of extra curricular activities, parents are likely to be successful at work. You'd expect that also means that the parents are academic and well rounded. Surely children of academic and world rounded parents are more likely to be the same- through genetics and learnt behaviours/environment?

What? I think not. That is a bizarre opinion.

In my school the ones with lots of money didn't do fantastically well. They did well, but they were busy living a lovely priveliged life. There were the sporty kids who did lots of sports and did OK and some did well but they focused on sport. The ones who did really well spent a lot of time on their homework and did some extra curricular but it was not lots. To do very well meant going above and beyond the homework and joining things like debate club or being musical to a high level. More academic interests. Only a handful were true all rounders and good at everything. They were confident, popular etc, the whole package but sensible. I think they did really knuckle down at exam time. This was a private school so there was enough opportunity to have a good ucas application but it didn't mean extra curricular every night. The children were driven and mature that did well rather than relying on parents

It wasn't a dig. I genuinely don't know a single child who hasn't gone swimming or played football out of school, or dancing or music. I'd be sad if none of mine had any interests except school or going on family walks. Hopefully they'll have social hobbies at uni - it's important for mental health throughout life.

It’s all relative isn’t it. Over £50 a month plus exams and a keyboard to practice on is pricier end of activities.
Scouts/Brownies is usually in region of £30/40 a term - our Guides is equivalent £3.33 a week (Includes craft materials and ingredients if we are baking) and we’ve had parents complain it’s too expensive.

Of course it isn't!

You honestly can’t think why?

Presumably you have a piano at home? Inherited? Bought? Picked up from a skip?

Now get your piano up to your seventh floor flat when the lifts are out of order.

Now pick a regular hour a day when none of your neighbours will object to the noise.

Now find extra money - when you have no extra money available - not just to pay the tutor but to get you and your child across town to the tutor’s home once a week. Needs to be at a time when you’re not working irregular shifts or piano child doesn’t need to be looking after younger siblings.

It really is incredibly easy not to appreciate the challenges other people live with …

My DD did several after school and weekend activities, mostly related to The Arts eg, Theatre school, singing, dancing and piano. She scrapped by with 4 Cs at GCSE. I feel that that those who are more successful academically are those who are naturally more academic simple as that. I work with foundation students in a FE college. Lots of these learners come from well off families , who had obscene amounts of money spent on them for extra curricular activities, plus numerous foreign holidays, but none of this can improve their ability to be top of the class.

I think as others have said that the activities indicate a certain level of wealth and stability at home which probably mean three meals a day, space to study and not freezing cold, on average. Plus less moving from place to place. It wont be exact but enough if an overlap.

Lewis Hamilton's Dad worked more than one job. He grafted for sponsorship continuously. LH won races against kids who had everything handed to them. If you're going to pick a driver that has inherited privilege pick a nepo baby like Sainz, Verstappen or Schumacher.

What LH might have inherited is his Dad's work ethic and ambition.

FFS if anyone achieved against the odds, it's LH 🙄

It's correlation.

However my DC benefited when they started to struggle with some aspects of school having home support- time and our then very limited budget directed to helping them. They did end up in top sets in secondary and I don't think they would have without that home intervention.

However a better secondary - more expensive catchment area would have helped them as well - but sadly they have to content with class disruption and resulting loss teaching time - little to no homework being set or just no subject teachers/teachers. My oldest two are currently benefiting that we have income and educational background to buy, find resources and help if needed with their revision - some of their friends don't even have internet access or printers at home.

They've done some actives - brownies, guides, scouts, swimming dancing football, forest school- odd science/eng camp, limited music lessons and many days out in museums and castles/historical building - mainly as DH and I had childhood with those in and it's normal to us ( our working class parents got us to university) school trips abroad.

I would have loved to give them more and more variety and for longer but wasn't able to but they did much more than I did as a child.

It's not a level playing field out there - and some kids do have many more advantages. Parents time and money poor are going to be able to give their kids fewer advantages but kids with innate abilities and some drive can still do well it's just a longer harder climb up.

yes I agree

Who said they didn’t have any interests outside school? They have plenty of interests they just don’t need to attend structured groups and clubs to partake in them. They frequently engage in activities with their friends - last weekend for example DD1 was out paddle boarding with her friends, DS1 was ice skating with friends and then went to a street circus with a different group of friends. I think you’re assuming that just because they don’t go to classes or groups that somehow they’re stuck in the house or unable to pursue their interests… I’d be sad if their lives were micromanaged to the extent they had a myriad of clubs and activities they were forced to do rather than choosing to spend their free time however they please.

I think you're right, OP. I think often these kids have a father who is a high earner and a SAHM who ferries them back and forth, or both parents work and they have a nanny. They also often have a tutor on top of private school. Privilege upon privilege....

Back in the real world...

All my friends work, some in Tesco, some in offices, a few for the local council. Our children (now in their 20s) did an activity, mine played cricket, some did martial arts etc. none of us used tutors and our children went to local primary and secondary schools (no grammars here).

Almost all our children have gone to uni. 3 to Oxford, 1 to Texas on a full scholarship, the others to Durham, Loughborough & Manchester amongst others. One graduated with a first even though he was never expected to independent (autism) and spent most of his early years running away from school.

My boys are the first in our family to go to uni. We are not high achievers, more senior/middle management 'plodders'. DS2 who didn't do great at school just graduated with a 1st and an award for being the highest achieving student in the country last year, he's now off to do his masters. DS1 who was always in the top sets and has a good degree just plods along without any thought of what he could achieve should he put his mind to it.

We didn't have tons of money, nor a luxurious lifestyle but what we all had was an interest in our children and invested our time in them.

That's all you can do. They have to want to succeed and put the work in to do so. You have to invest your time in them. There are so many variables on how a child achieves it's impossible to make a statement like the one you have above. you can't write a child off because they don't do extra activities, or don't go skiing in the Easter break.

Do you mean you personally don't admire any sporting achievements because of the money involved?

No, but in the context of the OPs question, I do believe that things society thinks mark out a child as exceptional tend to be things that are expensive to gain skills in. If it was free (or at least, accessible), being good at it wouldn't be quite so highly prized. I'm not talking about elite levels where world champions operate - I'm talking about the top set kids in any school in the country, where also being in the school play and going on the school ski trip is singled out by the OP as those kids being high performers - despite the fact that they are still pretty ordinary on a national scale, and the kids that don't enjoy these privileges will do just fine.

I can remember when having a computer at home was a real differentiator. Parents scrimped and saved to get their kids one. Schools fretted about those children who would be left behind without access to one. Turns out that period only lasted about 5 years, and all anyone used their computers for was gaming anyway. Nowadays a home computer is an old-fashioned appliance, not a differentiator of class or ambition in the way that a piano might still be seen. A mate joked that when he suggested to his primary-aged son that he might like a computer for Christmas, the son looked horrified and said "sure, and what will you get me next year? A toaster?" Being great at Call of Duty isn't cherished by any parents. No-one pays for lessons on how to be better at Minecraft. Yet these are very real skills that can be honed (and monetised, too - just like elite sports). The reason they aren't valued is because they are dirt cheap to acquire and almost anyone who is so inclined can afford to participate.

The talents that are valued (as in - bragged about at the school gate) are the ones that mark you out as elite, special, or distinguished. They are markers of class. They are (usually) expensive to acquire. That's why they are valued. That is not to say there isn't also hard work involved ... just that the social value payoff for a given input of effort is disproportionally greater, that's all.