Impact of background on achievement

[lecce]

I have been looking at some other threads and thinking about research in this area and it has raised this question in my mind:

When it is said, as it frequently is, that social class/parental job etc, have a huge impact on the development and academic success of children, is this a passive or an active effect?

In other words, does growing up in a household in which books are read and discussed frequently, interesting outings take place and are discussed etc etc benefit dc, or is it the case that these kind of families do more of the active stuff - flashcards, tutors, workbooks etc?

I think it's the background noises as it were: seeing that adults around you get a lot of pleasure out of learning and thinking, and being drawn into it because they want to share their excitement with you.

I'd always thought it was probably largely due to the average IQ of professionals vs the average IQ of FSM parents etc.

Plus hugely to do with parental expectations. Certain ethic groups do vastly better than they should - really because they have ultra pushy parents.

(tiger mum for example)

I don't think it's down to 'active' stuff such as flashcards etc. I do think parental attitude and interest has a huge impact. I also think taking young children to places of interest help to stimulate growing minds and in turn, they want to learn more. However, this can just as easily be a 'bear hunt' in the woods or park as an expensive trip.

So although you probably do find a correlation between income and achievement I think thats to do with active interest. I have seen huge differences in attainment between children from deprived backgrounds based purely on the level of interest shown by their parents.

Hello all. Sorry to hijack this thread as my dd is in year 8 of high school. This is a subject i am quite interested in too. I am always seeing on tv or in newspapers about children coming from "deprived" backgrounds or one parent families etc being well below targets or not gaining gcse's and things like that and it always annoyed me and worried me as well. My dd is very bright and always has been way above her peers all through primary and still top of subjects and more. My background is probably what would have been classed as deprived. I was brought up by just my mum although i always had grandparents. I have been bringing up dd on my own since she was 2 weeks old (thats another tale) and was on benefits at beginning so dd would have definitely been classed as deprived. Also living on council est (not a bad one in honest opinion). I used to help at dd's primary school for a little bit in the mornings and i found that the children who came from the so called deprived families or areas were much brighter/brainier than the children who came from the private estates with the working parents (some were very stuck up i don't know why - it was a school on a council est and they were brought up on it as children). Now dd is at high school and still getting her targets easily and passing them. Her friends with good targets are all from council est and low income families. And still the ones less achieving and being naughty and disruptive are the "posher" ones. Any thoughts?

"I'd always thought it was probably largely due to the average IQ of professionals vs the average IQ of FSM parents etc."

Er- really? since when has poor=thick?

The passive effect alone is not enough, IMO. We have plenty of friends whose children are now 18+. All of our friends are highly-educated (both parents) and the children are well-travelled etc. However, unless parents have actively intervened in their children's education, their children do not achieve as much as their parents did. We are seeing a lot of rather unhappy parents (and children) wondering where they went wrong when their children don't get into universities anything like as prestigious as the ones their parents went to.

www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/367003/RSA-Social-Justice-paper.pdf

Isn't it stuff like making sure kids do their homework, helping them with it and encouraging them to do well at school that makes a difference? Not exclusive to high income / well educated parents, but more prevalent?

The key indicator is poverty. Being really really poor means that you often don't have the time, resources, confidence, knowledge, energy, space, self esteem, anything really to support your child's basic school education never mind any extras.

Seeker - Poor doesn't equal thick.

But being a doctor does equal not being thick. As does being a laywer etc.

Whereas working in McDonalds, Tescos, as a cleaner, or being unemployed may equal being thick.

There has got to be a difference in the average IQ of people earning above 50K, and people who are on FSM (earning below 16K). Got to be.

You can be as politically correct as you like. But how do poor people get to be poor? By not having jobs that earn good money.

(We are talking averages - not individuals. Each individual will have a different story)

I think there are parts of the population who are completely alienated from the education system. I know kids through my voluntary work who don't even have basic skills like using a knife and fork because they just survive on takeaways; they can't control anger very well because they can barely articulate; and don't seem to understand that other people have feelings and they can't always just do what they want - because they are simply neglected. It is very difficult for them to cope in the education system

Even at my DD2s successful comp, a lot of kids use gangsta slang and poses on their FB page etc, some of them see the education system as pretty irrelevant, and gain kudos through anti social or criminal behaviour.

Lecce in respect of your opening comments - I think a lot of it is passive - i.e. the DDs are interested in the things I and DH are interested in and have similar views to us on a lot of things. On the other hand if we see that the DDs are expressing an interest in say theatre or archeology or music we look for opportunities to nurture that interest. I have instilled in both DDs the simple fact that they will be working for at least 40 years of their lives and it is far better to get a job that you enjoy and pays enough to have a reasonable lifestyle; and that in most cases they will need to be educated in order to do this. I have not been allowed to view DD1's homework for many years (though I do have a look when she is out or asleep). With DD2 who is dyslexic, I have had to intervene much more, i.e. specialist teaching and currently a Spanish tutor to enable her to take an early GCSE with her peer group next year - these are quite expensive apart from anything else and there are other struggling kids who don't get that sort of support.

Me and DH went to a GCSE options talk at DD2s school a couple of months ago. Three year groups (8,9,10) were invited as they do GCSEs over three years. There are 240 kids in each year. Only about 20 parents turned up - it was unbelievable and this is an outstanding school...

It makes sense to me that parents who use longer words and more complex sentences, who don't tend to assume that any subject is likely to go over their children's heads when they talk to them so share all sorts of knowledge with them, who enjoy exploring the world around them and have the means to do so, who think word and number games and puzzles are fun, who love books and stories, who think themselves that learning something new is exciting, who want to pass as much on to their children as possible, whether skills in gardening, DIY, cooking, financial management, etc, and who take an interest in what their children are learning at school and take pleasure from talking about it with their children... are going to have children who are going to start out doing well at school and who are capable of thinking around a subject and bring into their schoolwork ideas and knowledge from a wide range of experiences. Workbooks are very limiting in comparison - they might help a child do well within the narrow confines of school tests, but they won't set the child up to do well academically beyond a certain point.

We have a small number of parents who don't regard education as important most parents regardless of background want the best for their child but may have lower aspirations.

"Seeker - Poor doesn't equal thick.

But being a doctor does equal not being thick. As does being a laywer etc.

Whereas working in McDonalds, Tescos, as a cleaner, or being unemployed may equal being thick."

Even if I accept your premise- which I don't- being a child of either group implies nothing about your intelligence. Unless we are going down a scary line of biological determinism......

I agree Mrz, and thanks for the link.

Kensingtonia, your voluntary works sounds much like my job! And what a shame that so few parents turned up to the options evening. Why do you think that was?

I agree with those who say both are important - not the drilling your DC with flashcards, etc, but offering support when they need it - making sure they work with the school to help the child progress, modelling a good work ethic, helping with homework, paying for tutors if necessary, etc.

bigTillyMint - re the options evening, I really don't know, the teacher doing the talk was clearly shocked. I think the year 9 and 10 parents had possibly heard it before. There are also some parents who don't speak English (but then again some bring their kids along to translate or older brothers and sisters come); also quite a lot of single parents with younger kids to look after. The school sends parents a planner at the beginning of the year and tends to send out text reminders about parents evenings etc. Maybe they just thought they could sort out the options via a mailing (which arrived a couple of weeks later), or were relying on the school, which is quite controlling tbh, to guide their kids.

The school also do open evenings on which they do demonstration lessons. DH and I went along. We were the only parents in at least year 7 or 8 who turned up and while there were a few Sixth form parents (who had been invited to discuss UCAS applications), I didn't see any other parents from the lower school at all, though there were other talks planned such as how to get an A* for older kids etc. The poor teacher had to do a demonstration lesson for us alone - he was lovely, but it was absolutely excruciating as we felt we should just go home! There are some pushy middle class parents at the school who you would think would be interested at least ;) There was no text reminder sent and it was fairly soon after parent teacher consultation day, so maybe that was why!

What a shame - it sounds like they had gone to a lot of effort. What were their tips for getting an A*? (if only it was that easy)

We have one after Easter - it will be interesting to see what they have to say / do and actually find out how the whole "options" thing works there!
I anticipate it will be rammed as the school is now very popular with the pushy middle class interested local parents

Seeker -- are you saying that intelligence has nothing to do with how good (well-paying) a job somebody gets in life? And what social status they can achieve for themselves and therefore the social background that their DC enjoy? It's not all down to circumstances beyond our control, is it?

Or are you saying that intelligence is not genetic, and that thick people are just as likely to produce clever children, and clever people are just as likely to produce dim-witted offspring?

I don't think social status automatically equals intelligence

It is perfectly possible to be FSM and intelligent

Indigobell

'You can be as politically correct as you like. But how do poor people get to be poor? By not having jobs that earn good money.'

That shows absolutely no recognition for the advantage having parents with money, education and privilege gives to a child. We do not live in an equal society, children are not born equal and their outcomes in adult life reflect this.

OP more than likely its a combination of both active and passive factors. People value different things, not everybody values education as highly as the aspirational middle classes and this will rub off on their children.

I would say there is not necessarily a link between intelligence and well paid job, but there is a link between intelligence and well qualified job. You simply can't get a post grad degree without a certain level of intelligence. Can't see anything controversial in that
What is not so strong, imo, is the link between graduate level qualifications and high pay

bigTillyMint We didn't go to the A one - I think it was cancelled as nobody turned upand the one we went to was a humanities demonstration lesson and pretty much tailored to DD2 as we were the only ones and we ended up having a general chat to the teacher. DD1 is at a super selective where many get As and they recommend past papers and good exam technique (i.e. being aware of the mark schemes); the teachers were practically begging DD1 at parent/teacher evening to work hard and do well, as it would be a personal insult if she didn't - they have a point to be honest. She is clever but largely bone idle and got A*s in her mocks with virtually no revision.