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?

If a child is exceeding expectations, should they get pp money? They don’t have a gap to close!
What if the child still has a potential that exceeds their academic achievement? There may not be a gap to close in order for them to achieve minimum or average expectations, but there may be a gap between them and the top table or set, which is where their potential may be.

Meant to say that the FSM recipients is an easy factor to measure, which massively generalises results. It makes assumptions (as set by the government) that families on FSM are feckless, uneducated, chaotic and have little to no interest in their dc's education. To a certain extent I believe it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Aobrwally all it boils down to is having the choices and making the right choices if you have them.

I agree with chocolate wombats summing up of poverty too. But all these things go for many working poor, average earners, students etc, which makes me think coping skills and resilience and growth mindset, can do attitude are extremely important and generally this is behaviour that is modelled by parents who are working their guts out.

Lots of economically poor parents will drill into their children that education is the number 1 priority and do everything they can to help them with this. Many will take a different attitude and model a poor work ethic and accept that any job is a job or moan they don't get enough benefits.

If a child is exceeding expectations and getting bored as the work is too easy and acting out or zoning out do they then get help?

Have not yet full thread but wanted to say there are plenty of not very bright people in high earning/niche roles because of who they know/ parents know.......

Of course there are very disadvantaged children who will exceed expectations. Bad situations happen to intelligent people - divorce bereavement, homelessness etc.

...as in rich parents can send kids to the 'right school' to make the 'right' contacts.

Meant to say that the FSM recipients is an easy factor to measure, which massively generalises results. It makes assumptions (as set by the government) that families on FSM are feckless, uneducated, chaotic and have little to no interest in their dc's education. To a certain extent I believe it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Rubbish. It uses data to show that as a group children on FSM/PP under achieve. It provides funding to help 'close the gap'. It makes no statement about parents being feckless. It recognises that poverty/disadvantage in families, for whatever reason, impacts on educational attainment and tries to compensate for it.

Also if wealthy....can send your child to a state school...which may still be selective but you have the money/contacts to bail thrm out or assist if required.

Also state schools are self selecting as they select by catchment area which can consist of only/mostly expensive houses.

TeenTimesTwo from a governmental policy perspective there are many generalisations applied to families who are considered disadvantaged. This is not rubbish at all.

Wow @Labradoodliedoodoo that report is so interesting and is unequivocal about causes of inequality and what needs to be done about it:

The UK is one of the most unfair countries in the developed world. Family background matters more to an individual’s life chances in our country than in almost any other rich nation. High levels of child poverty and a lack of social mobility are associated with the UK’s stubborn history of educational inequality, with the lottery of birth mattering more than a child’s efforts at school or their talents.
Firm foundations in reading are critical to breaking the cycle of educational inequality – and to improving the wider life chances of the poorest and most disadvantaged children. Ensuring that all children are reading well by the age of 11 would make a game-changing contribution to making Britain a more socially mobile and fairer country

Indeed, but do they elaborate as to WHY some groups read worse than others? Couldn't really find it.
Also, pity they didn't have a "white others" culomn in the stats.

Arkadia I think a lot of it is about parental attitude regarding reading. Parents who are readers often start reading to their dc very early on, therefore instilling a love of books (or at least familiarity) before their first birthday. The Read On Get On campaign requires that parents aspire to this, which really isn't the case. I remember being with a family whose 6 yo d's was struggling with phonics and was clearly not getting encouragement/support at home. I visited and brought some books (they lived beside a public library) and the father immediately retorted "Smelly books! Who needs books when you can have an ipad!" . He went on to boast that they were the best type of education and that the dd spent every waking hour on hers. They had seventeen children who all had had intervention in school due to poor literacy, but according to the father it was all the schools fault.

They had several dc, not seventeen!

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/books-home-strongly-linked-academic-achievement-82144

another interesting article.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284286/reading_for_pleasure.pdf#page21

Interesting point about parents role on page 22/23

Not all children from well off homes earn a lot - there is that "clogs to clogs" in 3 generations saying; but yes on the whole it seems higher incomes and educational level particularly of them other (and as said above reading) have a big impact.

I live in a very racially mixed area of London and it is pretty well know that there is a pecking order for exam ersults nationwide with Chinese girls at the top and the white working class particularly boys at the bottom mostly because the children aren't pushed in some groups and education isn't prized and the families and children are not working their socks off night after night on reading, spellings, times tables, music practice etc. I don't think all the families of these immigrants are well off but some will be well educated themselves. I think the children just work an awful lot harder and the parents require them to do their homework and get good marks.

Some spot on comments I've read, some reverting to snobbery and stereotypes. As a low income child (at times on FSM) who has grown up to be married to an upper middle class man, I can see huge differences. Both of our families are intelligent, educated (eventually, my mum got an excellent degree when I was 13) and interested in education but the difference in expectation is huge. It was interesting today because my son asked what a building was that we drove past and my mum said dismissively 'Oh an accountant or solicitor or insurance company' in a really dismissive way...completely like it would never be anything for us. And I grew up with that viewpoint of professional jobs. My parents always wanted us to do well and study, but the job side of thing was a blank. My in laws on the other hand...i think my husband was destined to be an engineer from birth. So theres an aspiration and a goal issue.

Otherwise the mental strain of not having much money is huge and effects everyone, from being hungry to counting pennies out of a jar for the bus, to taking the last £1.20 out of the bank to buy tampons, and we weren't even as hard up as other kids I knew. It's a lifelong mental load that you can't imagine if you've not had it, just like the same way I can't imagine a childhood not having to worry about how everything is going to be paid for. My parents didn't even put that on me, but kids aren't stupid.

https://www.tes.com/news/exclusive-four-hundred-thousand-uk-children-without-bed-charity-warns imagine the impact on education ...too tired to learn.

I think it is a very interesting point about whether being educated makes you ambitious. I did not have parents who were ambitious for me. They were intelligent but did not have the opportunities to pursue a higher education for various reasons. Mostly two world wars.

However, I wanted more. We had a strange childhood where doing well at school was valued but a professional job was not seen as anything we would or could aspire to. Good enough was good enough. I do think one of the problems we have today is that lots of people are still like this. They almost limit themselves. I still see it in my own wider family. Whereas other people would look to the best schools and universities, some in my family just do what's good enough. They rarely meet high achievers in the sense of what job they do and even when intelligence is not a bar to greater achievement in terms of a job, doing the work experience or extra reading required just does not happen. So they fall back on what is easy. Others (such as many MN parents) do not and are striving to be the best they can be. I do not think this is even typical of a certain class of person. It is more to do with personality and moving forward to a better job when you can and have the intelligence to do it.

I do not believe anyone should be limited by their parents or family traits, poor, rich or middle class! They should certainly not be told that good enough is good enough.

BB, yes I see that on MN. Sometimes I will say well encourage your daughter into high paid work and people say in a sense rightly well someone has to empty the bed pans in care homes. Well of course I accept someone has to do that and good for them for doing it but why would anyone want to assume their child would be the one doing that (other than I suppose some kind of religious fervour).

It's the luxury of choice, my children can choose to do anything. We will support them financially through uni / give them somewhere to come back to afterwards/during while they find their feet. We will drive them to open days, we will help them plan a gap year, I will help them find a part-time job. I will give them the materials and the space to study and the requirement and expectation to do so. What they do with that - their choice. They will have the ability to fail and have a safety net. They won't need to worry about trying something and then it failing and them not being able to pay rent. They can come home, we won't be worried about bedroom tax or not having a room for them. That freedom means they will take risk, go down different paths and have choice.

I try and explain this to them when they are doing homework or whatever, we do this so you can choose. If you learn to read you can choose to read anything you want and go on amazing journeys and learn amazing things. If you learn to swim you can then learn to do diving or sail the ocean or go kayaking.. choices.

That's it bubbles buddy. The good enough thing. I remember everyone thought I'd get B grade Gcses, for no particular reason, anyway I got all As and was thrilled. It never occurred to me that I was capable of that or even higher. My French teacher came over and told me I could have got an A*. News to me! No one had ever told me I was even good at French, if I was from a higher income family I might have even been take on holiday there.

It might only be a grade or two but on average it's a big difference.

Same for work, my husband has really pushed me to do well and it's opened my eyes. I do battle against how I was brought up and have a bad case of imposter syndrome, in some ways it's good that it doesn't matter to them if I'm on £11k (yup my first full time salary at 22) or £35k, I know I've missed so many opportunities because of the family and place I was born into and I was one of the luckier ones.

I think there are huge problems with people having children when they are unable to provide the basics for them. I said earlier that we need meaningful intervention in families who are chaotic and really struggle. Not having a bed and sleep deprivation is an obvious example. It makes you wonder if residential accommodation might actually work for some extreme cases. But that’s probably unthinkable. In the meantime, we think parents know best and wring our hands with angst.