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?

Norfolk Council sent 52 children in care to boarding schools and they did fairly well www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/04/29/giving-vulnerable-children-boarding-school-place-can-dramatically/

"More than 80 councils have signed up to the partnership scheme so far, which is backed by the schools minister Lord Agnew and Lord Adonis, a former Labour education minister. Currently, only about 100 children go to private boarding schools paid for by councils but Colin Morrison, chair of the BSP, hopes this will climb to about 1,000 a year within five years."

I think the council pays half the fees and the school bears the other half. I suspect it may be cheaper than the children being in care.

My parents did well because of education and I suppose IQ and had higher education whereas their parents did not, although my father had an aunt and uncle who in the 1890s trained as senior nurse and solicitor so there was that example in the family of people going to grammar school, undergoing training passing exams and becoming a professional.

That’s interesting Xenia. (Great minds think alike!!)

However as a DD of grammar school educated parents, it didn’t follow that they all had great careers. Parental influence certainly meant they did as their parents told them, grammar educated or not. Both my parents were forced to leave school and work. Bring money into the family or in my Dad’s case, work on the farm because the men had gone to war.

My aunt wasn’t even allowed to go to the grammar when selected because her sister hadn’t gone and it was getting above their station. My MIL said the same when my DD2 went to prep school. Obviously I ignored this advice but there seems to be a lot of people who cannot access something better due to ingrained mediocrity and a belief that you should not “better yourself. This is often expressed as proud to be working class. It’s due to this that some schools have not improved, they don’t aim high enough, can’t change attitudes and then they cannot attract the best teachers. All our children need the best from parents and schools. Not excuses.

i provided the same message as FurForksSake
i find it interesting that although the OP's topic seems to be geared towards children 0-18.
there remains opportunity (for those with ingenuity or support) to go on to great achievement or income later on in life.
i know of several disinterested teens who at 25 then go back to school and choose (through passion and a bit of life experience) great career paths.
i doubt those individuals are picked up in surveys.

Yes that’s true but the illiterate can end up in prison. This costs us as a society and we need to intervene sooner with effective measures.

It is the whole package. We used to live in a deprived area and I dreaded my children starting school there so much that we moved to a house twice as small just to get out of that environment. We now live in a very cramped house in an affluent area. What a difference to the social environment: vast majority of children have stable homes with loving supportive parents, they are fed and cared for well, therefore they behave well, sit and listen in class patiently, have their reading books read at home every week, complete their homework. They don’t even think where their next meal is coming from, they can occupy their headspace with other things like education. They have a routine, go to bed at reasonable time, so are well rested for the day of learning.

It is incredibly hard to achieve against all odds if you are born and grow up in the midst of deprivation. What you see and what you live every day, people you live among, shape you. It goes well beyond school and even beyond family, sadly. It takes an exceptionally strong character to be the odd one out, to not fit into your environment. It is against our survival instincts.

So it is a social issue, absolutely, not an educational or familial one.

Isn't education policy part of society? I think society and education need to work together to improve outcomes. As we discussed above, for the good of us all, children need to be given extra help to break the cycle of deprivation. It will not work for all, but we are too timid in delivery at the moment because we think we will offend parents and society.

I agree that it is very difficult for children in deprived areas, but if they did have parents that wanted the best, had access to the best schools, were shown good role models and encouraged to believe in themselves, there might be an improvement for a some. Homework clubs, peer to peer learning, meals provided at school, a broad education so that they can engage with all sorts of topics can all be used to help children whose parents do not do enough.

Sleep deprivation is a big problem and chaotic families do not have routines. I think house overcrowding does not help - so even if charities provide more beds, where do they go? You can sleep two in a bed if you have a structured bedtime. That scenario does not harm anyone too much. Calm homework spaces can be provided in schools. However, we do have to get these children to attend reguarly in the first place. There is no doubt that chaotic families need help from day one in parenting. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they are least likely to access services for children provided by libraries, nurseries and other early learning centres. Even speaking to their babies is too much of an effort. It is an uphill struggle.

I think the financial cut off for identifying children from poorer homes can be quite crude at times. Many deprived children are living in single parent households but some receive no financial or other help from the non resident parent or other relatives and some receive lots. Extending the issue, some countries, including Netherlands, used to provide extra resources based not on the family income but on the educational attainment of the parents. In an ideal world we would take a more holistic but still data driven view.