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?

Op, I've read somewhere that bilingual children often do well, because they need to use different part of brain, so develops more complicated neural pathways. Don't know if it's true or not, but it does seems to make sense.

@bertandrussel, you said:

"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."

I am sure that is all true, but I am also sure many of the things you describe apply to many many families, including my own.

However, it doesn't follow that income is the problem to be solved (not saying that it wouldn't help, though) especially in the here and now, not in 50 years' time (and that is probably why no progress has been made, as perhaps the problem is not understood).

With my example I was asking why don't my children suffer from a vocabulary gap. Actually I don't know any who does amidst my - admittedly rather limited - circle of immigrant friends. It doesn't get any worse than living in a household where English is not spoken, does it; it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are.

In terms of the gap at nursery level, let me use DH as an example. He grew up in a low income household. His parents were unskilled (his dad was an agricultural labourer who had long periods of unemployment); his mum was at home with children, one of whom had complex needs. They were poor due to lack of skill/education and caring responsibilities. My MIL struggles with literacy beyond a very basic level. I've heard her reading stories to my DC (5 and 2) and she struggles. She was occupied (physically and emotionally) by caring for the DC with disabilities and that no doubt impacted on the time available for DH. You then have to add in the stress of living on a very low income and the constant worry of feeding your children: the emotional burden and potential impact on mental health of that is going to have an impact on parenting too.

Further down the line, lack of parental education meant no support with homework, let alone navigating things like GCSE and A level choices and university. Poverty meant overcrowded housing with nowhere to study and no possibility of choosing to attend the good school five miles away (as opposed to the in special measures for years on end one in the town they lived in). Teachers expectations were low (DH was pretty much told by one teacher that he'd never amount to anything because of the estate he lived on).

And DH's parents were good parents by most measures: they worked hard to provide for their children; they were supportive of education; they valued hard work and instilled that in their children; they weren't involved in drugs or crime. But they were poor and uneducated and had a disabled child. These things had an impact.

The vocabulary gap - it doesn’t matter which language children have their Vocab in - the more the better!- because it is about generic language skills which can be moved from one language to another. Learning how to use more complex grammatical structures and that there are dozens of words for angry which specify the type of anger In the appropriate register and context - these things are learnt from reading LOADS of varied texts as well as talking to people who use them (in any language).

Also, increasingly many university courses want some relevant work experience from the candidates for places. So much harder to do when your social circle and family are not represented in the professions.

I cannot tell you how many really bright students I have taught from deprived backgrounds. Regular attendance at school, reading loads, parents who support their learning and engagement in any programmes to support such students seems to be the key to success. Except lots of those programmes aren’t available to so many students.

I don't have great English skills or vocabulary as a foreigner, and ds spent very limited time with dh who is British. But he has been exposed to all the other stuff where he can pick up good vocab from, especially books. I assume it must be the same with you, OP?

Irvine, if you have good Vocab in your home language then you are exposing him to good vocabulary - AND the huge advantage of being truly bilingual.

ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/clpp/other/positively_plurilingual.pdf

Please do read this, anyone who is bringing up bilingual children.

Bilingual kids use other parts of their brains - that isn’t a negative factor.

OP I have so much to say on this and what I can tell you for a fact is that kids from wealthier , educated families with high earning parents just know how. Yes Brownies etc and holidays abroad do make a difference. I know this I did none of this - it’s about what you have in common with your peers that also defines the circles you mix in and what your peer group does.

For example a number of us are holidayaying in the same location this year - that will bring shared experiences.

Other examples my parents didn’t know to get me tutoring for my oxford interview or for my 11+. They didn’t have that awareness.

My husband is white middle class Male - he without a doubt has more in common with people in our shared industry than I do. I’ve piggy backed onto his experiences I’ve learned from him. I’ve seen his parents in social situations I’ve learned certain etiquettes. Putting it simply a higher income means a cultural pound sign - or another way they know how to ‘be’ they know how to communicate effectively. They know how to mix in the right crowds. How to speak - they have experiences in common. ‘They’ chivvy each other along ‘they’ do each other’s kids favours! ‘They’ stick together.

It’s entirely multi-facted but all these things matter. You need shared experiences, need to offer these activities - you need money to do it. Holidays abroad for my husband’s family are not a recent thing. All their peers holidayed abroad. They all camped in France. Took caravans to the Alps. Visited Italy. They all went skiing and literally learned to play numerous instruments. They joined the choir, the joined debating clubs. All this I didn’t have or the opportunity as my parents were not educated or had the money to push me. They knew about books and grades.

Fair enough, Arkadia, it sounds as if you have decided that income is completely decoupled from attainment and nothing anyone says is going to make you think differently.

Just be a bit careful, because it’s quite a short step from that to “disadvantaged children underachieve because they are thick/feckless/don’t try/deserve it”

We -and most of our friends - belong to the relatively cash rich but time poor parents. There are several factors i think

• most of us had children late, and spend ALL our free time with them. Reading, playground, swimming, junk modelling etc. It may only be 2 hours per day (and full weekends), but that is usually very involved (because we can - we outsource cleaning etc). my time for myself is work, which is very different from a lot of other (usually lower paid) jobs
• childcare is important, and we can afford to pay a bit more (most of us took 6 months maternity leave at most). no nannies here, but carefully selected childminders with low ratios and priorities fitting to ours. most children continue to go to private schools with emphasis on pastoral care. here (outer London) very few childminders and nurseries accept the "free" 30 hours, the ones who di are often not great.
• work is quite flexible once you're up the pecking order. i can go to a 10am school thing by working flexibly, no problem

on most days

• guilt. children are prioritised because we feel guilty, so all free time is spend with children (i have the choice of fulltime in my job, or no job. parttime is not possible, neither is an extended break of more than 6 months)
• a higher education level in combination with guilt means that times like commuting time, when kids are asleep are spend reading up on development and how to support it without coping school (things like devicing fun games to help skills etc - but not tutoring)
• position of authority at work means we are quite good in getting people to listen if there is a problem (SEN etc), and get help. practiced negotiation skills help as well

People with higher income can do more educational activities that cost money, and can often access more cultural stuff like the theatre etc. More money for things like a piano at home, or home tutoring.

Less money means more likely to live in areas with increased crime and overcrowding - no space to do homework etc.

Kids from poorer families are also more likely to drown - due to less being able to afford private swimming lessons etc, less can swim. Also more likely to die from a fire due to living in crappy private rented houses with landlords that don't keep to fire regulations or have huge electrical faults...

Labelling theory and self-fulfilling prophecy also. Teachers spend more time on the kids who they are told are expected to do very well in the next exam or who have huge potential (even when these are selected at random and are not true!). I forget the study.

What my husband got: private education, holidays, musical instrument lessons, books read to him from being a baby, countless clubs, peer group of equally wealthy people, high quality Childcare, living in an affluent area, no mental health issues, both sides of family affluent. Large house, garden, theatre trips, recreational activities, eating out in restaurants regularly. Going on school trips. Money to take a year out to travel before uni - didn’t have to work.

Me - inner city state school, no clubs, no holidays, we ate out once as a family, would go to school without breakfast, I would look after my little brother, my holidays were with family or working. I worked through uni. I had student loans to repay. No garden. Drug dealers in the school. Teenage pregnancies. Children coming to school no uniform/battered/bruised. Smelling. Prolific bullying. Needles outside school. People living in tenement blocks. People in benefits trap. Do you see how income plays a part?!

Swimming I can’t swim! He was a flipping life guard!

BobblyBits mentioned children in poverty having fewer experiences. I agree with this in spades - but it starts from birth, not from brownies/black tie etc. I did some voluntary work with the literacy team at my LA which encompasses some of the most advantaged and most disadvantaged wards in the U.K. They were giving disadvantaged KS1 children a literacy day on a farm so the full day included: chatting to new adults; seeing, smelling and touching farm animals; seeing, smelling and naming wildflowers; having a countryside walk (going over a stile); going to the library van and choosing a book; listening to stories; singing.
The coordinator of the day said to me that mc people (eg me) simply don’t realise that if you’ve never drunk hot chocolate ((for example) there is no way you can describe the experience of drinking hot chocolate - so your written English is automatically limited by your lack of experience.
It had honestly never previously occurred to me that children grow up not knowing the difference between daisies, buttercups and dandelions - but they DO. So they can’t begin with the primary writing and comprehension they need to do - so then how are they supposed to catch up as they get older?
Obviously experience is one small part of a big picture, but I think it’s important

I agree with experiences being important as part of education. Education happens more outside of school than in school.
Many people don’t have the financial means to provide experiences that cost money.
In my dcs school, children are not provided with text books. We re fortunate as we ve been able to afford a textbook for every subject. I don’t know how kids can get the top grades without textbooks and revision books.
Income really does help.

It's not income it's disposable income available and parental input.
You can earn a huge amount but have so many outgoings and or debt that you can't afford to invest financially in your child's education.

You can have a low income, but have enough of a disposable income to do this.

You can be on benefit and not see the importance of a good education and spend disposable income on designer labels, as this is where your priorities lie.

You don't have to be rich to support your children's education, to help with homework, to encourage a love of Art and culture, or sport. Time and looking for the opportunities is the important thing.

You can also be rich, enough disposable income, and not have the time yourself, but the means to employ others to educate and support your children.

I think experience plays a huge part in a child's education sunny

Regardless of income positive parental input is key, being willing to help your child experience as much as possible and build that foundation of general knowledge is paramount, yes a higher income will mean more expensive experiences but its no good being on a tropical beach if your parents are not going to take the time to show you the local wildlife or talk you through why the tide goes in and out

Their wealthy dp's are often rushing out early until late, meetings, doing overtime, networking, conferences, overseas travel to earn big income to pay for huge properties. Their DC are left to their own devices at some point allowing them to become independent and think for themselves whilst having the security of money, a functioning home in a safe location, a full fridge, warmth, internet etc. Then they are treated to experiences, holidays abroad, days out, holiday homes, theatre, concerts, gigs etc Then they get a monetary head start driving lessons, house deposit etc.
They then might want to replicate that lifestyle for themselves and their own families. They've been shown how to do it all their lives.

I think some people (not saying anyone on this thread) have no idea how poor some people are. It's not a matter of being unable to afford a trip to a farm park-it's not being able to scrape together two quid for school swimming..........

yes a higher income will mean more expensive experiences but its no good being on a tropical beach if your parents are not going to take the time to show you the local wildlife or talk you through why the tide goes in and out

Rubbish. Obviously it’s better if parents do all that but experiences of different places, foods and people stimulate curiosity and an understanding that there’s life outside your tiny bubble. Some children haven’t ever seen the sea. Can you honestly say going there but without parental explanation is pointless?!!

Plus, you don’t have to look at tropical wildlife or talk about tides to learn loads on a beach.

I think it's also about the way things are now in society. I was brought up with parents constantly concerned about putting food on the table for their large family. Both parents worked but my DM was also a seamstress so made our clothes, she'd make things for other people and use the extra material for us, she also knitted, knew how to cook meals from cheap ingredients etc. My dad did night shifts but slept in between looking after children while my DM was working. There was little in the way of benefits back then (1960s)

There was very little technology and we didn't really have much in the way of TV and also had lots of freedom to roam, so we became independent and were outside most of the time. We were taken on picnics to the park or long walks and occasional trips to the beach when they'd saved enough for bus fares. We went swimming a lot as it was free sometimes or very cheap, we walked into the city to go the museum, also free. We were members of the library and I remember going with my Dad to the mobile one every week.

Christmas and birthdays were modest but always included a book and an annual which we all swapped about.

So, in essence my DPs had skills that aren't so prevalent now, we weren't reliant on technology, we became independent and resourceful and we had access to cultural activities that were free/cheap. They didn't have anything to do with school as they didn't see education as their job and their ambitions for us were limited to trying to get a decent job in a decent company. no money for Uni so no real motivation but we were instilled with the basics to be successful, even if we were really poor.

I think it's such a shame tbh. I have a friend who thinks that her DC has done plenty of reading practice because they have been typing stuff into their ipad.

There seems to be a belief on this thread that all children go to a nursery. They don’t. There are still parents who don’t access a nursery for their children. When they start school they are behind in so many ways (not 3,000,000 million words though!).

I have seen plenty of parents who disengage with educating their children because they didn’t enjoy their own education. They get by but they are never going to earn a lot. Some parents can barely read themselves and others just lead a lifestyle where education doesn’t feature. They don’t support their childrens’ education. Schools are trying to improve the situation by pp, however a lot of this money isn’t well spent because schools don’t review outcomes vs money spent. There is excellent research about what works, but schools don’t follow it.

Low income isn’t the only factor behind poor performance at school and parental attainment certainly is a major factor. In the current generation, most parents have had an opportunity to get educated. They have been able to grasp what is available. They want even better for their children. By and large, the ones who are parents but have remained uneducated, known to social services and are in and out of prison are unlikely to have brilliant children. They might, but it’s unlikely. They have not been able to improve themselves as the majority have. It’s estimated that there are around 250,000 families like this and we should find a way of targeting these children very quickly after birth. Pp is fine but a lot of it goes to fsm parents who can be highly educated, but just low earners, sometimes through choice. Their children can and do achieve well. It’s a highly complex situation and outcomes are not all about money.

I always imagined that when I had kids they'd do one sport, one musical instrument and one other (non-sport/music) extra-curricular. Now I laugh at that because I am never going to be able to afford that for my kids.

I won't be able to afford to take them on regular trips abroad to learn things.

I can't even afford to get a babysitter so that me and my husband are less stressed when we spend time with them and can actively enrich their lives instead of putting out stress fires.

I still think I can do well by them mind - and it's not ALL stress fires - but I can see how much better and easier money would make all our lives - and we're not even that poor.