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?

Also agree with this… we’ve read to our children from day one, nurtured a natural curiosity about the world around them, take an interest in their topics at school etc. They go to the museum (completely free) and the library (also free) and they really enjoy those things. I don’t think throwing money at activities is what sets children apart from their peers, it’s support and encouragement of their learning at home.

Wealth is obviously linked to higher academic achievement. There have been numerous studies on this. But this is due to many factors, the ability to afford extra curricular activities being just one of them, and probably amongst the least significant.

I think it's the other way round. GENERALLY speaking, the high achievers at school are privileged children. That means having parents who have the time, the energy, the confidence, the knowledge, the education, the inclination, the money or a combination of some of these things to support them. So they will probably also be supported to do extra curriculars if they want to. I don't think it's the extra curriculars which make them high achieving.

Activities might not "set them apart from their peers", but kids usually enjoy doing something out of school and not with their parents, don't they?

100% agree. Time is the deciding factor more than anything else.

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).

Tbf things have changed a lot, certainly in my part of London.

@Nowhereelsetogo90 was the secondary they went to good?

I think time for most families these days involves having the money to support that.

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.

@Changeau I can assure you - we do exist lol. I had plenty of interests and there were many many things that I wanted to attend, I just wasn’t allowed to pursue any as my parents didn’t have the finances to pay for clubs/lessons etc, and they didn’t have the means to ferry me back and forth to them. I genuinely wasn’t able to do a single extra curricular in primary or secondary school.

They do things outside of school and not with their parents? What made you assume they don’t?

Where I am the primaries schools offer a great selection of clubs eg hockey, chess, debate etc but for many other extracurricular you need one parent p/t just due to logistics & timing

Let’s not overcomplicate this. Successful kids have parents that pay attention to their kids’ academic attainment, practice discipline and don’t make excuses and blame everyone else for their children’s behaviour.

The fact that this is only related to money is rubbish, are you just trying to start a goady thread? Invested parents yes, not necessarily money.

I don't think extra-curriculars necessarily increase academic achievement but it provides greater all round opportunity for achievement. So those kids who are not necessarily academic have an alternative forum where they can build their social and cultural capital to increase their sense of self-worth.

I was in top set all throughout school, I did zero extra curricular activities.

That’s twice as expensive as any activity my daughter does, including swimming.

Children with supportive parents do better at school. Children with parents who expect good behaviour do better at school.

You can buy attention for your child from other people or you can provide it yourself. Children do sometimes benefit a bit from mixing with a wider range of people but you dont have to spend a lot of money to achieve that, get them volunteering somewhere.

There was a great article in The Economist Christmas issue a few years back, looking at the rate of return on extra curricular activities. They identified scarcity and barriers to entry as the two strongest factors in whether an activity pays back financially.

The best instrument to play? Drums, then Double Bass. All bands need a drummer, all orchestras need a bassist. Very, very few parents have the space, patience, and cargo capacity to support learning those instruments, and if you do prioritise it, your kids will likely be highly sought after. The joke amongst musicians is that drummers are the least gifted, but they often have a van and the rest of the band need a ride to the gigs. The worst instrument - piano and guitar. So common, there's just no money in it. Probability of achieving greatness is negligible - you may as well embark on a strategy of winning lotteries as your route to riches.

The best sport to play? Golf, then lawn tennis. Less about the prize money on the circuit, more about the number of jobs available as a club pro. One decent tournament performance in your late teens / early twenties and you can get a job as a coach pretty much anywhere. Both are played at clubs that are expensive to join (nice grass costs money) so not many people play enough whilst young to reach those exalted levels. The worst ... football (obviously). You are up against every other kid in the country. Everybody wants to be Erling Haaland or Leah Williamson.

The flaw in this analysis of course is that the rich don't do these activities to one day get a job. They do them because they are pleasant and the exclusivity means the unwashed masses don't spoil their enjoyment. But it must also be nice to also get to feel exceptional when the reality is there just aren't that many other people out there to nudge you off the podium.

My DD is top set. She also does lots of extra curriculars. I think the connection with her is that she's naturally bright, curious, studious, driven and easily bored... so she does lots of extra curriculars because she likes to be kept busy and works hard at school because she likes to do well.

This holiday she's going away with us for a week; in the summer she's doing one (extortionately expensive) camp and will potter around at home getting bored, making her own entertainment and driving us all nuts for the rest of the time. Normally she'd do 2-3 weeks of e-c linked hobby activities plus a family holiday, but she's cleared us out of cash on the one week this year, so that's all there is.

You don't have to be a high performer to go to extracurricular activities, and you don't have to go to extracurricular activities to be a high performer.

The most successful person who went to my school was me, and I am from a deprived background, with early school leaver parents who struggled with basic literacy. I never did an extracurricular activity in my life, and there wasn’t even anywhere quiet to do my homework at home, and my parents weren’t able to help with it. If anything they’d have preferred me to leave school at 15 and learn a trade. They certainly discouraged me from thinking of university, but I got into Oxford anyway.

So much is down to parental encouragement and involvement though. The school's music services run heavily subsidised lessons, free for kids on free school meals or in receipt of pupil premium. They can hire instruments for a nominal charge or no charge at all. There are bands and orchestras and choirs they can join, all completely free, with the opportunity to play or sing in incredible venues.

All of this is signposted via school, so posters, letters home, detailed on open days and parent's evenings.

It becomes obvious very quickly who has the parental encouragement and support - it takes nothing to access the service, but it takes a bit of effort to encourage practice, praise progress, engage with a child's interest.

It needs a parent to take them there and back - so transport, parent not working at that time, child not needed elsewhere eg not a young carer.
I know in our area all lessons were at a centre 25 mins drive away with a monthly commitment in next city. You definitely wouldn’t sign child up unless you had transport.

Children are in the top set at school because of one of two reasons:
1.) They are just naturally very bright and excel academically.
2.) They have parents who really value education and so give them a lot of help and encouragement with their school work. Their parents spend many hours a week reading with them, helping with homework and doing extra tuition at home (either by their parent or a paid Tutor.)
Extra curricular clubs and camps may help build confidence, resilience, broaden the mind etc but would have very little affect on a child’s set at school. I think more likely that parents who take a very hands on and encouraging role in their children’s education are also likely to be parents who value extra curricular activities.

Lift shares? I used to take dcs friend to football as the parents didn't have a car.

I'm sure there are families who can't afford or access a single hobby for their dcs out of school but the vast majority will be able to access something.