Income and attainment are linked, why?

[Arkadia]

This article is just out:

I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

Closing disadvantage gap will take 'over a century' - www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44927942

Nothing new really, but I often wonder, why is attainment linked to income and not to parental involvement or school choice? I remember seeing a documentary on the BBC where it was stated, but not explained, that parental involvement does not matter, only income is a good predictor of how well you will fare at school. There was also a ted talk on the matter I seem to remember...
Anyway, my question is, why is income deemed SO key? Why are kids from rich but totally uninvolved parents in theory more likely to do well than kids from poor, but involved parents? One could say that it is the school because the rich parent tend to send their offspring to schools where parents are generally involved and in so doing they benefit from some kind of herd effect. But if that is the case, what matters is still the parent, and the school while the money is simply a side issue.
I am not talking about children from addicts parents or in the foster system and such like, but normal NOT well off families. Why should they be at such a disadvantage?

Broad brush. But.
Disadvantaged homes are more likely to be overcrowded. Parents are more likely to be working multiple jobs and be exhausted/ not physically present. Children are more likely to have caring responsibilities. Parents are more likely to be poorly educated themselves. Families are more likely to be complex/chaotic. Children are more likely to have an inadequate diet/disturbed sleep.

And also, some disadvantaged children have feckless, disengaged parents, possibles with drug/drink issues.

We had very little money and although I was gifted, I didn't go as far as my parents had no idea what way to push me, what was important in education, how to help me apply to uni etc. I think income is linked to knowledge and lifestyle and whether you can eat, feel stable, whether you worry about money and meals and parents arguing about finances, the car breaking down, whether you can afford uniform and lunches etc. Priorities are different and who you socialise with and what you do are different. My mum couldn't afford any clubs or days out etc so my life experiences were not on par with others

Oh and the emotions in the house were on another level. My sister was very violent and disruptive and my parents had no idea what to do with her, resulting in me moving out when I was 17. Not a great life move and it significantly messed me up and I've felt at a disadvantage and playing catch up to what could have been every since. Complex and chaotic

People with higher IQs tend to do better academically and ultimately get better-paid jobs and pass on their smarts to their children.

There are also people who believe that better off people are intrinsically cleverer than poor people. They are, of course, wrong.

I wonder if it's due to stress, and the neurological impact on children developing brains

Also averse childhood experiences (ACE) hugely impact health and presumably learning. Some of these directly correlate with lower household income eg an outcome of parental divorce

Nothing new really, but I often wonder, why is attainment linked to income and not to parental involvement or school choice?

Where does it say that? There’s a lot of evidence that good at home parenting has a significant influence on attainment. It’s not income in isolation but the things that tend to come along with being poor that cause the disadvantage.

I hear what you all are saying, but I still don't buy it.
For a start, you make a correlation that low income = difficult situation. Although that may be true in many situations, I am sure it does not apply to all, and also I am sure there are well off parents who are alcoholic, drug addicts, divorced, remarried and redivorced and so on.
And in any case what you are saying is that as you are on low income than cuz will happen which in turn will turn you into a poor attainer. If that is the case, then we should concentrate on xyz, whatever they might be, because that's where the problem lies. Instead it is being stated that there is a direct correlation (or should I say causation?) between income and school attainment. As I said, it has been stated that a stable family on low income with involved parents will have disadvantaged kids. This is the but I cannot understand. And don't tell me that it is all down to the foreign travels and owning the latest iPhones which is clearly tosh.
Besides, if there was causation between income and poor attainment, then the only solution I can come up with is to have grammar schools throughout the country to act "in loco money" (if you pardon the poor pun).

As I said, it has been stated that a stable family on low income with involved parents will have disadvantaged kids

The children will be statistically disadvantaged relative to their peers. It doesn’t mean in every case they will have things more difficult.

Can you link to anywhere with good evidence that income in isolation causes poor attainment?

"Besides, if there was causation between income and poor attainment, then the only solution I can come up with is to have grammar schools throughout the country to act "in loco money" (if you pardon the poor pun)."

The "gap" starts pre school. That's why, in the areas where there are still grammar schools, disadvantaged children don't get into them.

Well, there was the documentary I watched some time ago and that sparked a lot of discussion in our household where it was stated (but not explained) exactly that. I am trying to find it...

In any case, the article only talks about income, but that doesn't help... Ok, "free school meals" is an easy indicator, but in what way does it further our understanding of WHY that happens? How can you solve a problem you don't understand in the first place, you only know it exists.
Do I solve it by throwing money at people? I seriously doubt that, especially if the real issue is one of attitude passed down the generations and money is not the cause, but the by-product, just like poor school attainment.

I though my post earlier indicates some of the reasons why it happens

Well off parents who are alcoholics or drug addicts can outsource parenting to nannies or boarding schools so perhaps their kids are less affected?

@bertrandrussel, indeed. But why? Preschool is when money counts the least, so the reason for the poor attainment must be in the parents and not in the disposable income they have.
As I said, so am sure there are plenty of parents on long hours (doctors, solicitors, you name it) with plenty of disposable income but no time to devote to their children. Why are these children not disadvantaged at preschool?

There are myriad factors but higher income families are likely to be higher educated families. Involvement in your education from a well educated parent will have a more positive impact than involved parent/s with less of an education. Parents with money will have more resources including time to spend on their child: houses full of books, cultural experiences, enrichment activities, tutors if needed, bigger house with quiet place to study and to buy additional help to make up for being time poor. They are also more likely to be better read and have more extensive vocabularies - as will the people and other children they socialise with -which is the key to so much success in education.

@bertandrussel, I am sure there are also plenty of well off people married three times and with three sets of children. But if that was one of the causes, then it should be stated as opposed to a generic "low income" argument.

Can I share an anecdote? I live in a grammar school area. My dd had a friend who came from a very disadvantaged but supportive home. His mother asked me where she could get the 11+ practice papers. I directed her to Waterstones in our nearest town. It later turned out that she had gone there, but had been so intimidated by the shop that she had come away without buying anything.

I am not saying that bad things don't happen to privileged children too. But their baseline is set much higher. It is very u usual for privileged children to live in inadequate housing, for example.

Expectations play a part.

Children are not raised in a bubble. Having a lower income is also likely to mean you live in a more deprived area where status and success is defined in different terms than they would be in a more affluent area.

There is likely to be a greater exposure to antisocial counter cultures and an entrenched view that high educational attainment is not a priority from the wider community, not just because of (and in some cases despite) parental input.

A parent in such circumstances who has a bright child may be pleased that their child has better prospects than many around them. They are already 'exceeding expectations'.

A parent in a more affluent area may interpret this as simply meeting expectations and do more to push them to a place which they deem to be 'exceeding expections'.

Simply put, the more affluent pupil has a higher baseline of expectation placed upon them not just by the parents but wider society.

The story of Alan Sugar, for example, wouldn't be interesting if he was a private school educated boy from a wealthy family. It is interesting as he started out selling shirts from the back of a van and was bought up in a council flat.

As I said, so am sure there are plenty of parents on long hours (doctors, solicitors, you name it) with plenty of disposable income but no time to devote to their children. Why are these children not disadvantaged at preschool?

Does that often happen though? Many of those professionals will be working part time to care for the children. They will also have likely had a whole year off on maternity leave with their child.

You’ll understand that “I saw it on a documentary once” doesn’t exactly count as good evidence...

"I am sure there are also plenty of well off people married three times and with three sets of children"
Yes. But the more money you have the less practical impact this has on the children.

Arkadia, because the children are in a language rich environment. Theta are surrounded by complex vocabulary and books and have parents who value education and will be providing stimulating toys, activities and experiences. I read somewhere recently that many 3 year olds from mc families have more extensive vocabularies than some wc adults.

"plenty of disposable income but no time to devote to their children. Why are these children not disadvantaged at preschool?"
Because they can afford to pay to fill in the gaps

thethoughtfox this is absolutely spot on, and a major reason that disadvantaged kids do badly.

Look up “vocabulary gap”.