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?

And yet my 3 yr old DD can tell you where the Pyramids, Stone Henge, Chichen Itza and the Taj Mahal are on a map, just from watching Go Jetters.

If screen time really makes them talk less, I'd better get a second iPad 🤣🙉

They learned to swim with us when they were younger, there was no real need for lessons? I’m unsure why lessons with an instructor are a prerequisite for knowing how to swim? They've all been taught to swim from a young age and have benefitted from water sports growing up both with us, and for the elder two, with their friends. I have two in their teens and two younger- DD2 is 8, Ds2 is 5. The younger ones frequently have play dates where I’m not present. They play sports in school as part of their curriculum , and also football/dodgeball etc in the cul de sac with other neighbouring children.
They don’t attend any after schools clubs, and have never expressed an interest in doing so, their social lives are pretty comprehensive without them. Not one of them has ever expressed an interest in dancing or playing sport on a team, I’m not opposed to them doing those things, it’s just not their area of interest 🤷🏻‍♀️ DD1 for example would rather go to gigs, plays at the theatre, cosplay conventions etc. DS1 has self taught himself drums and frequently gets together with his friends (under the illusion they’ll be the next foo fighters 🤣)
Not one of my children have missed out on anything because they haven’t been sent to a paid for group or lesson. Those things aren’t the be all and end all.

Sorry I've not been back will read all this evening!

The reality is that the high achieving children are more likely to have high achieving parents. Intelligence isn't completely genetic but it's got a component, also intelligence doesn't mean high earning but there's a correlation. Finally high achieving parents are more likely to prioritise educational activities.

Basically going horseriding or playing the piano isn't going to get you into top set, it's far more complicated

Just to add, I guess my question is why do you feel those activities and social experiences are only beneficial to a child if they’re paid for and structured? If a child is learning skills through their own social and family activities, what further benefit is there to them by sending them to clubs and lessons?

Maybe they are just, you know, cleverer?

These researchers peg genetic heritability at 40-60% and, interesting, they consider intelligence of the mother to be far more significant than that of the father.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/children-intelligence-iq-mother-inherit-inheritance-genetics-genes-a7345596.html

Because they can learn things that they couldn't learn from hanging out with friends? I couldn't have taught my dd ballet and we'd have struggled to field a team for football. I wanted a swim teacher to teach them to swim? If dd wanted to learn to make a pot I'd struggle to find a mate with a potters wheel and the time to teach them to do it? I don't have a horse? I mean, come on.

I did very well academically despite growing up low income on a very deprived council estate in the 80s & 90s and doing no extra-curricular activities whatsoever. Luckily for me I was mostly brought up by grandparents who were massive readers and placed a lot of emphasis on education (having had little formal education themselves). For me the lack of extracurricular activities only hit home as a social issue when I went off to quite a posh university and was suddenly surrounded by people who played five different sports or musical instruments or whatever and seemed intimidating confident and accomplished. I think extracurricular activities buy confidence and social status more than anything.

OK so they aren't sporty. I guess then yes you can learn all the things they are into on YouTube 🤷‍♀️

Learning sports is also fun. Kids often,.you know, enjoy it. They aren't all learning different sports to get a head start on the hoi polloi

My DC do lots of extracurricular activities. Their most stereotypically 'aspirational' hobby (chess) is also easily the cheapest. Junior chess in our part of the world is full of kids from low income first generation immigrant (some refugee) families. There's no reason their White British peers couldn't join too. They just don't.

@Changeau. Well, obviously. My own kids do sports (and all their hobbies actually) for fun. But no one is seriously pretending there aren't other advantages, especially when sport is probably one of the biggest class indicators this country has.

Poverty is linked with lower educational outcomes, so yes, you're right.

I have one very academic child who would do well even if I didn't do anything with him. However, I take note of areas where he could use a boost and throw time and money at it, e.g. he needs to work on his French vocab, so we're going to France over the May half term and next year we're going on a family language camp in the summer holidays.

My DD is less academic so she has private tuition for maths and English and she does various extra-curricular activities to boost her confidence and help her find her niche.

Family activities and holidays are planned to help get them interested in learning: trips to museums, events and the theatre, weekends away to visit places like Bath and York for the history, holidays to see Roman ruins, the rainforest, etc. It's expensive and I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't think it would help.

Well DD was bought up in a single-parent, low income family and lived in small bungalow owned by a housing association. She didn't do any of those things on your list ( I couldn't afford any of it), yet she still managed to be in the top sets for all subjects and got a 1st class honours degree, so purely on that anecdote alone YABU.

@Imarealwoman I think it's a mix of both, the main factor is will power and desire to learn, then having the extra ££ certainly helps.
It's said abe Lincoln was an avid reader and taught himself, same with Ben Franklin etc. I think overall if the passion and desire to do well and learn is there, then that's 3/4 of the battle.

I’m sure there is evidence that the best predictor of a child’s GCSE results are the mother’s level of education. I’ve also seen research that (is possibly a bit less solid) shows correlation between attainment at 3 and gcse level. The nature/nurture angle is interesting. I have a high IQ - I suspect at least one of my children does. The other one I can’t tell yet but I expect both to do well partly because of natural ability but also expectation and opportunity.

My children go to camps because I work and need the childcare. I’d actually say a lot of the best camps don’t work as childcare. Eg I’d love to do our local tennis camp but the hours aren’t long enough to be useful. But.. camps and stimulation are going to be better than a child largely left on their own during the holiday watching tv and I think the kids they go to camp probably do develop some additional resilience as they often have to get used to a new circle of children, do different activities etc.

Extracirculars are important and we have sacrificed a lot of time ferrying our children. The benefits I see are listening skills: I think something like attending a class independently at 3/4 is excellent preparation for school for example. I also think there is value in having to work at something that doesn’t come easily. My daughter doesn’t have to try that hard at school but she’s had to learn to practice an instrument when that hasn’t come naturally or realised she has to prepare for a dance exam etc. She’s learnt a lot and expanded her social circle so I do see a big benefit even if she’s never gets particularly good at her activities.

My daughter is about to take her GCSE exams and is predicted to do well in everything, but she's never been very interested in extracurricular activities. She's done a bit of dancing, art club, but nothing has lasted. She prefers to go out and take photos or read books or write something. I am trying to encourage her into volunteering now but she doesn't really want to do it.

exactly - and children who have had these experiences can be identified in the classroom, as they are generally the more curious, calmer and have better general knowledge, making them more able to see connections and understand the wider picture - they are also better communicators, both in listening and responding to others, and in expressing themselves

No amount of money pumped into your child can change their academic ability if they have a severe learning disability. Sorry but it’s just not the case. I work with some very disabled children and some are from very well off families who do a lot of extra curricular type things with them. I also have a friend in mainstream who’s child is in bottom sets academically but is highly accomplished at sport and dance.

@Imarealwoman - it's an interesting question you've posed. Are your DC in secondary school?

Both my DC are in primary school and go to after school club everyday, as both DH and I work full time. DC1 has piano lessons at school and is in 2 choirs (also at school) as well as attends Acrobatics class and drama class. They love singing and performing so we're happy to support them. DC2 hasn't really shown any interest on any specific activities at the moment but we will support them when they do, if we continue to remain in our current financial position.

We've encouraged / supported our kids with extra curricular activities to build their confidence and resilience as opposed hoping they will because high performers or reach the top sets of classes.

My dd moved primary schools. The first primary school was in a little village where the majority of parents are successful high earners. The majority in her class did all sorts of extra curricular activities. They were also extremely intelligent.

My dd bless her, is not one of these kids. She was falling behind in school and the work was so difficult.
I used to dread her homework each week as she couldn't do it and neither could I. When we moved house, she moved schools and we now live in an area that 'fits' her better. Surprisingly she's massively improved in her maths and English and she says the work is so much easier! Her last school report marked her as 'expected standard' in all subjects. Her last school marked her 'lower than expected' on everything. It turns out she wasn't as far behind as I thought she was.

I've come to that conclusion that the first school caters for the children who come from wealthy households and holidays in France during half term. I actually really liked the school and the kids were lovely but my daughter always felt out of place as I did as a parent.

Nothing against these parents though, they've worked hard and done well for themselves and probably have a higher level of intelligence which their kids have inherited.

This.

These types of posts baffle me. You can't just make a child intelligent. Yes, environment helps, but genetics play a huge role. Thus, intelligent parents, more often than not, produce intelligent children 🤷‍♀️

You can't 'make' a child intelligent, but you can make a child well-read, well-rounded, well-qualified, more motivated, more focussed, more disciplined, erudite, inquisitive, accomplished in a variety of pursuits and pastimes ... and these are all markers of ability and are often taken as proxies for intelligence (which is almost impossible to measure accurately anyhow). All of the above take resources, time, effort, energy, patience, perseverance and access. That's what extra-curricular activities provide. Kids that attend passively and go along for the ride won't get any greater benefit than those whose parents can't afford it but spend time with their kids reading, helping with homework, and being inquisitive about the world. But you absolutely can improve any child's outcomes - even ones with SEND. They may not leapfrog to the top of the class, but they'll do better than they otherwise would have done without the enrichment.

No, they are just wealthier, middle class and probably better connected. Plus most likely have ' successful' parents. It's not the clubs pet say. Though having skills like tennis or a language give a social advantage.

I wouldn't count camps though. Many if these are just for childcare and are needed over holidays. We don't have a choice but to send ours to holiday camp. He'd be home alone otherwise!