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?

Late to this thread but wanted to add that, living in a GS area and seeing the scramble for places, I would think making %PP an admission criteria (effectively lowering the pass mark for children with PP) would result in the number of PP children increase hugely. Parents here would deliberately impoverish themselves to achieve that possibility (sometimes fraudulently).

I expect there are a vast number of reasons why children from low income families underachieve, each having a small impact on the total result. You can't pinpoint one.

The most interesting suggestion for me on this thread is address the teaching profession. Increase pay, status, training, ongoing coaching etc. This would benefit every child in every school.

The activities I listed were examples, I did not say it had to be that or you’re an underachiever. They might sound silly but let’s say lack of fear of water or doing a show () at 3 years old in front of big audience on a syage, give you confidence that you can master most things.

By “see the difference” I mean that looking at my DC class, the children who struggle most academically are those of parents with lower incomes and they have definitely not been socialised as other children in their class. The majority of kids are from well iff families and let’s say 10-15% are from poorer backgrounds. I volunteer at school so see it first hand.

The thing is, poverty isn’t as common as this thread suggests. Most 3 year olds would be scared performing in front of a group of adults, most would also be fairly rubbish. But many, many children will attend basic classes such as dance, gymnastics, swimming, etc. It’s not really unusual at all.

I’m not claiming that the poorest children will be able to do such classes but again, most children aren’t the poorest.

In my school 99% wouldn't have access to those basic classes I'm afraid. The figure is similar in neighbouring areas although there are pockets where every child will be fortunate enough to enjoy these past times

the children who struggle most academically are those of parents with lower incomes and they have definitely not been socialised as other children in their class.

I think this depends on the child rather than anything to do with poverty. My DC are quiet and shy and have had access to all those things (DH and I were both quiet shy kids too). My Dc attended a school with high levels of deprived children, lots of them were very outgoing and had spend their early years in a large extended family and vibrant (if sometimes violent and criminal) community and were sent to the shops by themselves at a young age etc. Very socially and emotionally developed.

I don't think those activities are necessary for socialisation ...

In my area, the majority of children aren't doing classes.
There's "Friday Club" at the community centre where they can get a toastie, do some crafts and run about a bit.
Some girls do dancing.
As waxonfeckoff says- kids are very socially developed from being part of a community and having independence. Lots of playing out. So very good at handling complex interactions in unstructured settings. I encourage DS to join in. I love it that we live somewhere where he can do this and I hope he grows up with some great friendships and a strong sense of belonging.
Its not a lack of socialisation. Its just socialisation into a different class.

You can take a very narrow view of attainment - just measured in ELG and then in KS1 SATs and KS2 SATs and GCSEs and A Levels and you can just target efforts towards those things and decide other 'enrichment' activities are frivolous, unnecessary or a distraction

Of course, but this thread was started about the link between income and academic attainment, not the link between income and participating in enriching extracurricular activities.

the children who struggle most academically are those of parents with lower incomes and they have definitely not been socialised as other children in their class.

Have you never heard of confirmation bias?

The problem with the free-range socialising is that it doesn't expose the children to a range of language and experience. They may learn how to navigate social situations with their peers, but they won't gain from meeting people that have a different lived experience. Children who attend music or sports or drama or whatever have to navigate relationships with adults and older teens and form relationships across social and other borders. They meet people that have different jobs, might have been or are going to university, something that might not be an experience anyone they know has.

Play is incredibly important, more important than anything, facilitating play and taking part in play with children is really under valued. But, I do think other experiences bring a multitude of benefits and not just the obvious.

My son does ones of these activities and does it to help with his dcd. For him it has definitely helped him academically, especially in regards to his gross motor skills.

Again, are we talking about preschoolers or late Ks1/ early ks2? The situations are quite different.
I found interesting @unlimiteddilutingjuice rather sexist club ;) it would be good to see the difference between boy and girl PP as they will have been socialised differently.

The Sutton Trust reported that spending pp money on extra activities and even on TAs in school make little difference to closing the gap. The gap can be closed for many children but not to the extent that posters are suggesting because too many other factors are at play for too many children who underachieve. I think ChocWombat expresses it far more eloquently than I can. However it is worth noting that parental education can make a huge difference to outcomes for children and the well educated who are poor generally are a very different set of parents.

It would be interesting if the Sutton Trust could push through more nuanced definitions of deprived. Clearly fsm isn’t it and they acknowledge it’s shortcomings. We have had a parent asking that we pay for dancing lessons for a DD who is pp but we also know this is not a good way to spend pp money, as research shows. The difficulty is that this child is doing well so the parents want to take a view on how the money is spent. Obviously that’s a fairly MC take on pp. The Head agreed to the request.

I think if we ensured that more pp money went to children who were deprived on a number of counts and less to the broad brush of fsm we could do a better job for the truly deprived. Clearly a child with degree holding parents is not as deprived as some. If a child is exceeding expectations, should they get pp money? They don’t have a gap to close!

Do you really think so forfuckssake? I can honestly say I met more types of people at the Irish and cockney social/ working men’s clubs I spent my childhood in than my D.C. do in their dance/ music/ tutoring/ hockey classes. Even in their school/ nursery. Everyone in these places are like us!

I met so many people at those places in my childhood- builders, town councillors, stockbrokers, RAF, people who did min wage jobs at fascinating places like the BBC or stock exchange or Buckingham palace even.

It was incredibly rich, and full of music, dance, sport etc. Showed me the world was my oyster.
I would say very typically working class though. I know all sorts of people.

I worked from 13 in a wide range of weekend jobs and met loads of fascinating people that way (and got paid for it!)

Having a wide range of socialisation includes being exposed to cleaners as well as MPs. People seem to forget that.

Sorry, I didn't see any mention of socialising in those sort of clubs, just playing out alone with the local kids or clubs and classes. Of course anywhere where you are exposed to as many types of people and experience the better. If your social time is 100% playing with the neighbours on the rec it surely can't be as beneficial as Scouts / youth club / gymnastics. You need things to stop you being insular, things to show there is more than just your local experience.

My kids go to school in very mixed locations, we are considered rich but we aren't, we are ok and live in a nice house and have jobs. Friends chose another school in a much more MC area and were almost shocked at our choice. We want our kids to be able to mix with everyone, to understand that we are all the same at the end of the day. I have been a cleaner, I have worked in supermarkets, I have worked in care homes. I also have two degrees and have worked as a professional in a specialised career. I am no better than I was when I was a cleaner, I just have more education and that provided more opportunities.

Nah we just got dragged along so the adults could booze and eat shellfish it was great

@bubblesbuddy, pray tell, what does "that’s a fairly MC take on pp" mean? Did you mean frivolous? Or perhaps attentive? Why not use the relevant adjective as opposed to making what is pretty much a racist comment that does nothing to further the conversation?

The vast majority of the causation is surely simply genetics. High income parents will generally have higher IQs.

I don't think the structured activities actually offer much in the way of socialisation especially at the younger ages. 1 hour in Beavers doing games and whatever activity might involve a bit of chat with whoever is in your group but not as much as playing outside with friends or being round at your aunties or grans and seeing your cousins etc. same goes for football/ballet etc. Mainly they are there listening to the leader and doing things as a group.

And extended families can have all different types of people with different jobs. We are better off financially and my DC did every club imaginable but they don't have close relationships with their wider family as they are too widespread.

Waxon I think the point about extended family is very important.

My kids do both, lots of time with extended family, lots of time bored and extra-curricular activities. I definitely think you need balance and a real mix of activities if at all possible.

I didn’t say they were.

Our experiences depend in the areas we live in - what is standard for one person, might be odd for another.

"High income parents will generally have higher IQs." That's a very broad generalisation.

literacytrust.org.uk/documents/895/Read_On_Get_On_launch_report_2014.pdf

Reading and poverty are directly linked. Lots of articles and studies around this.

I have experience in a pastoral role in a primary school that involves going into predominantly disadvantaged children's homes. Our school sits on a deprived/mc boundary and the amazing newish Head has attempted to give access to all children to a range of experiences such as swimming, musical instruments, books etc. This is subsidised by the school. Many 'disadvantaged' families poo poo the notion of an instrument as it is 'too posh', books are 'a waste of time' and (we are a grammar county) free 11+ tuition is turned down as 'grammar schools are for snobs/posh people'. There are very few exceptions to this in British White households, IME it is the immigrant families that may be working the bones of their backside off and have very little stress-free time that are pushing through these outcomes.