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?

I agree it most likely comes down to aspirations/expectations. For most people your home and background are your norm which you expect for your own adult life.

Intrinsically wrong, yes, but there’s no doubt that clever people are more likely to have clever children, and that in western societies the highest-paying jobs tend to go to clever people. In general.

I very much doubt that the link with income and attainment is down to any one single factor, but a combination of lots of little advantages which add up to a strong association over all.

These are statistics. So there will always be a bell curve of distribution - expections to the norm.

Overall though wealthy parents can give options, choices, basic needs met, better quality surrogate care (MUCH more likely a nanny than nursery). There is also probably a genetic component.

^exceptions not expectations, obviously

"I agree it most likely comes down to aspirations/expectations. "

Yep. Nothing to do with poverty at all. Poor people just like being poor. Otherwise they'd just stop being poor!

Oh come on, that's not what was meant. I think it's difficult to aspire to being, for example, a doctor, if you don't know anyone within your family or social circle who became one. It can seem as far out of reach as becoming queen.

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

Your point would stand only if there were zero correlation between innate intelligence and financial / educational achievement. Which would, of course, be wrong

Which is why some of the more dimwit members of the upper crust eventually slide down the financial pole—they haven’t got the brains to keep the income coming in. If you marry for class and looks rather than intelligence, over the centuries your stock risks becoming nice but dim. And poorer.

As a child from a very focussed family on education (my parents are first generation immigrants) the focus for me was education. What my parents were unable to recognise was a good school from a not so good school. I know immigration is a different matter all together. However we were a low income family. I didn’t go to the best school initially. When I moved to a better primary school (we moved to a better area). I realised how involved parents were how many clubs the other kids did e.g. dance and brownies. My parents didn’t think these were necessary nor could they afford it - nevertheless I was bright and ended up at a RG uni. However I was not as socially engaged. There was so much because of my parents income that I hadn’t done. These included holidays and clubs. I Had never grown up valuing hobbies or sport. Mainly just focussed on getting the best grades. No push for me to excel in creative or sports. I already spoke 3 languages so they didn’t push me to do a European language. My eldest loves dance and even my mum said the other day ‘what’s DC going to get from dance?’ I tried to explain its creative, meantal and physical well being advantages over reading a book! She still doesn’t get it.

I would say money/income affords experience. E.g. for me I didn’t know how to engage at black tie/ball events/ I didn’t know how to engage at interview. I got an interview at an Oxford college and got no tutoring unlike all the others there that had extensive tutoring.

My parents simply weren’t aware. I had to look after my younger brother and revise. I had to work in the family business at the weekends.

My husband on the other hand was privately educated , his parents valued sport and musical instruments and he went on numerous holidays. He got a lot extra because his parents had a higher income and a better education than mine.

Lots of truth in comments above. Also, wealthy families can give children a deposit for a home, family holidays they may subsidise, pay for private education.

As a pp, I grew up in a poor, chaotic, violent and uneducated family, education was not valued and my dad would get really mad at my choice to complete our version of a-levels. What I really noticed when I finally got into uni was the ‘vocabulary gap’. I think this is a massive thing to overall education. Funnily it’s one thing I’ve really instilled in my children is to have a wide vocabulary. I’m sure I’m a subject for a MN thread on pushy parents , but I was really unable to understand a lot of uni text books etc because my vocabulary was so low.

Yeah there is a massive correlation to how bright you are and how much you earn. And brighter people tend to have brighter kids.

Obviously there will be some exceptions to this rule, but it applies generally.

Same with factors like robust mental health and resilience which also correlate to being successful.

But it isn't that every low income child will be achieve less (academically) than every high income child. It's just about averages. So, in SOME cases, lower income indicates a more chaotic upbringing, lower family expectations, more deprived area or any number of other small issues that add up. And that brings the average attainment for lower income kids down. So income just becomes a reasonable predicting factor rather than a 100% accurate forecast.

Also, maybe if some higher income kids have a chaotic life, it is, in some cases, slightly offset by money eg low income kid has chaotic life, has to look after siblings/look after themselves, no stability. High income kid has a chaotic life but is looked after by nanny/childcare that provides at least some stability.

An element of genetics, expectations, opportunities etc are all at play. There are always many exceptions to the rule but as a generalisation, people with higher incomes will be more intelligent, diligent, better at spotting opportunities, confident and supported and often given the rub of the green by others. I say that as part of a couple that were both brought up in poverty by hardworking and intelligent parents who just never had opportunities or ambition for themselves or their children but did at least give a great example.

Without exception, all of DH and my siblings have grown up to be above average earning, home owning adults with DC who have gone into uni etc. I don't think any of us were pushed at school or at home though.

I don't think anyone wants to be poor but for many there aren't obvious routes out of poverty.

I think, to temper, what I said above, about being heritable, that is true only in the cohort as a whole.

My brother has a high IQ and so do his children. But one of them has severe mental health issues. She probably will find it very hard to earn a lot as she dropped out of school.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs explains in quite a simple way why income is such a factor.
Have a read up of it op.

Apparently by age 3 children from the poorest household have heard 30 million fewer words than those of their wealthier counterparts .

I knew there was a gap but that is shocking.

A teacher at primary once told me about a long range study that was done that concluded that children who had been read to as babies/toddlers very quickly jumped at least two years ahead when they started school and no matter what intervention took place after that, the gap couldn't be closed. :(

This is why there is a focus on books in nursery and getting extra hours provided for deprived children. I've seen folk moaning saying as working parents they would appreciate the hours more, but it's not about childcare, it's about trying to get that early input to help with long term outcomes. Without this, there are children who were starting school that didn't understand who stories worked or which way to turn the pages in a book. I appreciate that a lot of learning is no done on e-books/ipads, but that is really sad regardless.

I have read with interest the replies, but I am still unconvinced that holidays overseas (which are a new thing) or brownies are THAT important or that a lack thereof is going to scar you for life. We would be very shallow and as parents we would instill very poor values in our kids if that were the case. It is much more believable that there is a cause upstream that manifests itself in poor income and poor school results, rather than poor income being the cause of poor results. So, how do we go about solving this problem?

In any case it doesn't explain the gap at nursery level.

True story: my kids live in a non English speaking household (meaning that English is not spoken at home). I also insist they do NOT speak English at home because I want them bilingual. There were not exposed to any real English until they went to nursery, with the exception of Peppa pig and such like and even that it was very limited especially with my eldest.
No external tutoring, no extravagant expenses, no activities till they were older, books from the library, etc.
So, my kids should come from a (very?) disadvantaged household, however there was NEVER any vocabulary gap. They acquired all the linguistic skills required from nursery first and from school after that and I might add they are top of their class. So, why is that when they had everything going against them, by many of the arguments put forward here?
Ok, it is true that I tell them that is paramount to do well at school and take an active interest in their education, however, there was never any gap to be bridged, even before school started. What is that? I know several non English speaking families whose kids do just fine. Some are involved, some less so. Perhaps ai need to wait until the go to SS see something? Doubtful.

Yep. Nothing to do with poverty at all. Poor people just like being poor. Otherwise they'd just stop being poor!

Of course that isn't what I meant. Or said. I was referring to extrinsic factors such as societal expectations - which children are all too often well aware of.

And of course it is just a factor - more affluent parents can afford to live in a better catchment area for schools, private school, feed their kids well, fund extra curricular activities and are more likely to be able to better weather any major life events.

Their parents are likely to have a higher level of education themselves, which increases the value they place on it, the exposure of the child to things that will benefit them from an educational viewpoint and potentially more ability to assist and guide their child.

I remember reading in an article that it was the education level of the mother that was one of the most strong predictors. These studies are incredibly complex and there is no smoking gun because human experience is so varied. We do know that the gap starts as soon as a baby is conceived. Well off mothers tend to eat a far better more varied diet. They aren't swilling Coca Cola and eating processed junk while pregnant. If they run into PPD they have the resource for support such a maternity nurse/nanny. They speak to their babies far more and that leads to the "vocabulary gap" which is well studied. They have the resources to attend lots of well run and enriching toddler groups where they make friends and form a strong social circle which we know is protective for children's well being. If there are problems at home like addiction/divorce the money acts as a buffer. The more educated the parents the less likely they are to divorce in the first place. All of that takes place befor the first day of reception when are more likely to attend a good school because their parents will have bought a house based in part on schools.

Forgot to add, council nursery and bog standard primary. Nothing private or selective.

Akkadia- can I refer you to my post of 9.35 which I think you must have missed. Do any of those factors apply to your children?

I think youre misunderstanding statistics and their uses if you can't understand why your one family experience doesn't fit a trend. These aren't hard and fast rules. This not a 1:1 causation effect. This is directional data that helps us to better understand which factors influence attainment.