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?

My dp used to run a youth football team- 2 quid a session. There were kids who missed weeks because the 2 quid just wasn't available.

Purpledaisies- as I said in my post positive parental input is key regardless of income. The beach scenario was used as I personally believe, engaging with a child whilst they are soaking up experiences is the best way for that experience to stick. It doesn't matter if you're in black pool or bali if you're parents are helping guide you and encouraging you to learn

Die there are plenty of things that are free/cheap but sometimes it's being able to get to them. We thought nothing of walking miles as kids but if we had money there was a great bus service, now buses can be sparse and expensive. I think it's definitely harder to be poor now than it was when I was a child despite the access to to benefits.

I know the scouts try to be inclusive and whilst there are fees, these can be reduced/waived if you speak to the leadership as they don't want poverty to be a bar to the experience they offer. I appreciate you still need to be able to get there and also get a space.

Keep an eye on Eventbrite as ours often has free things listed on there. as kids we definitely appreciated and enjoyed the picnics we had in the park. My dad would take us all there with a ball or two and a bat and would organise us into games and my DM would follow with a trolly filled with sandwiches and squash - nothing much more than we'd have at home for lunch anyway and a towel for our feet as there was a small river running through the park and we'd paddle and guddle for fish. The fact that I can remember these things 40 odd years on shows the impact of simply spending time had on our welbeing.

When I was a teenager, for some of my less well off peers the focus was to get a job and start earning their own money. Those from better off backgrounds got money from their parents and wouldn't think of getting a job until after university. This is only anecdotal experience though.

Bertrand - yes, I agree many (most?) people have no idea what poverty really is. I wasn’t really talking about farm parks. (We we’re on a working farm, anyway). It was more leaving an estate, seeing greenery, breathing clean air - because those were all things many children weren’t going to do with their families because the bus fare to cross the city was huge. And even stuff that’s notionally free like picking blackberries or bilberries involves you getting to a place where you can do so

My friend worked at a primary school on tower hamlets and they took some of the smaller kids on a trip to a museum, half the kids had never been on the tube and were flummoxed by the escalators!!! I think my kids who love in the country in wales have probably seen more or London then they had!!

There will always be outliers - kids from poor families who go on to do extremely well and those from rich families who crash and burn but it is very true that income plays a big part.

• people who earn well are normally ok the upper end of the scale academically or have some sort of talent, this is often passed on to the kids through genetics and also exposure. Eg a holllywood actors kid is going to be able to forge a similar career regardless of talent just because of who they know.

• poor families cannot afford

Swimming lessons, Music lessons Scouts/guides Days out to museums etc Nice holidays (which apart from the cultural aspects of going to a foreign country it also allows the family to relax and bond, not easy to do when you are stuck at home, bored and hungry with no money)

• poor families often have a poor diet and not enough nutrition, it’s easy to revise for exams in a warm house in a quiet bedroom you have all to yourself and a belly full of good food, not so easy when you have to cook tea for your siblings while your parents are at work, surviving on beans on toast and have to share a bedroom with others

• well off families have a sort of confidence in themselves, as mentioned up thread, poor people can often be looked down on sonwomt have the confidence to voice something with thier child’s teacher etc.

• poor families often don’t see the point of pushing kids further and that there is no point as uni isn’t for the likes of them. Not so true nowadays but certainly in the past

• Rich kids are just exposed to a lot more, lots of inner city kids have not been out of thier district let alone to the beach or the country or even museums in their own city.

nic you said it was pointless going to beaches if there was no parental input there. Obviously we agree that parental input is incredibly important but you’re undervaluing those experiences of different cultures. Also, it isn’t usually Blackpool vs Bali. It’s often no holiday it change of scenery at all.

Purple - I don't think I undervalue experiencing different cultures my dd is well travelled in comparison to her peers at nursery, we as parents have to explain and show those differences in culture I accept that it's nice to soak it up but it requires some explanation

Brie - there are many poor families in the countryside who are poorly served with little transport and nothing on the doorstep at all besides fields! It might sound idyllic but it can be a very narrow upbringing. Some country kids don’t get to a city!

I don’t think it’s true to say poor families don’t push their children. Many genuinely do want the best. However there are aspects to life, apart from poverty, that stop aspiration. Fear of student loans, so DC go to the local university when they could/should aim higher. A lot of the things that hold children back, isn’t just money, it’s a lack of knowledge from parents about what is possible. What’s the best way to acquire an education and get a better job.

We're talking about general trends and correlation here not necessarily causation and even a trend will have exceptions.

Educated parents tend to value education more highly (again just a general trend). They're more likely to know how to help their children through their education and they're more confident in navigating the system. They have more choice of schools and can provide tutoring. They can provide an environment where the default engagement in education is very high and this has an impact on the kids who assume A-levels and university is a given because that's what almost everyone around them has done.

Educated parents tend to have a larger vocabulary which in turns means their child has a higher vocabulary, they are also more likely to have exposed their child to a broader range of knowledge and experiences outside of school. This actually has an enormous benefit on early literacy. They're more likely to spend time reading with their child and can easily provide access to books to encourage a child's interests. They're very unlikely to have any issues with their own literacy.

I don't think it's a rich and poor argument tbh.
Whilst I agree, you are hugely disadvantaged if you are really poor as the examples above. But this is far away from the very rich who can afford to spoil their children.
Somewhere in the middle parents can afford some of these things for their children on a typical wc wage if they budget well.
Some areas, such as ours, heavily subsidise music lessons, loan instruments for free. The take up is pretty poor tbh.
You don't have to be rich to afford the train fare to visit free museums and galleries, or the seaside, and take a packed lunch etc. You just don't have to be poor.
My parents weren't rich and they did all these things for us, we aren't rich and have done the same for ours.

Because a lot of low income areas have only poor schools to pick between too. Tbh all the schools for seniors in our local area are not great atm. In lots only twenty percent leave with five a to c gcse which is pretty bad.
In the richer areas of our borough it is 80% plus.

Maybe school expectations play a part? No idea if this relevant these days, but I recall a study where children turned up clean and tidy, others late and a mess and estimated difference in IQ as 30 points in favour of first child when in fact no difference in IQ
So maybe some poor kids don't stand a chance from the beginning?

That was certainly the situation when I was at school abi. There were exams to sit to go to a more academic high school (not quite grammar but similar type of situation). I wasn't even offered the chance to sit it and my DPs would never have even thought to ask. none of the other DC who sat it (the more upper working class kids who were clean and bright looking) passed and I was therefore at school with them in High School, despite my lack of push and personal ambition, i still did better than they did (classes were streamed and I was in higher classes than them).

I would hope things are better now and teachers are less judgmental.

I teach in a rural school and some children have never been to the nearest town. They don't have a bed so sleep on the floor. Their parents have to decide whether to buy food or put money in the electric meter. For some the only meal they get is school lunch. Imagine how ready they are to learn when they arrive at school tired, hungry and worried.

You don't have to be rich to afford the train fare to visit free museums and galleries, or the seaside, and take a packed lunch etc.

Not sure what the nearest beach to London is but for 1 adult and 2 kids return train to Southend is £50 and clacton is £75
That’s more than poor families entire food budget for the week!
Even tube to a museum is probably going to be a £5 which when they are scrabbling round for £s to put on the electric can’t be spared

Not sure what the nearest beach to London is but for 1 adult and 2 kids return train to Southend is £50 and clacton is £75
That’s more than poor families entire food budget for the week!
Even tube to a museum is probably going to be a £5 which when they are scrabbling round for £s to put on the electric can’t be spared

And this assumes that public transport is there in the first place. In lots of rural locations public transport is virtually non-existent and where it does exist, takes lengthy, circuitous routes. DH grew up 25 miles from the coast. Public transport to get there would take between 2 and 3 hours each way and involve at least two buses and often three, depending on the time of day/day of the week etc.

I live 10 miles from a lovely beach. We went all the time when my children were small. Sometimes we just went for a pre bedtime paddle. Quick trip down the road in the car. It would take an hour each way and cost £18 for an adult and two children by public transport- including a 3 mile walk.

Strange Op. Evidence says one thing. You seem to be determined it's not like that and demand to be convinced otherwise. Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Your personal anecdotal evidence of how you raise your children means nothing. Substantial correlation between poverty and low attainment exists. Sorry if it doesn't fit the narrative you want it to.

I thought the link between poverty and poor attainment was partly attributed to poor nutrition. Both of the parent during pregnancy (for example lack of iron, iodine and drinking alcohol) and during early years. This is the case in extreme poverty anyway.
It may affect kids to a lesser degree in relative poverty.
Lower IQs can be traced back to pregnancy and nutrition to some extent.....am pretty sure there was another article about this recently.

So if you ‘don’t buy’ a single one of the reasons but forward on this thread OP, what do you think the answer is? You must have an opinion on it?

I think the '30 million words' figure is being misunderstood. It means those children have had 30 million more words in total spoken to them, not that they have heard 30 million extra individual words. There are only about 300,000 words in the English language!

That's still a lot of talking though, 38 words a minute for 12 hours a day. Up until the age of three.

Which if you constantly engage with your children would probably be about right.

The thing I find particularly difficult to understand when looking at attainment and income is how much pupil premium are a stand alone group

A lot of studies just look at 'disadvantaged children' measured as the pupil premium group v all other children and I always assumed that basically the 'all other children' started with the lowest income doing not that dissimilar to pupil premium and it getting better and better with more money.

But that isn't as true as I thought. There is a great chart here showing progress 8 scores with pupil premium and other income deciles. I see it gets better with more and more money - but there is something different about families that have needed benefits. its not a straight line.

I don't know whats different though.

ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2017/04/ordinary-working-families-are-not-educationally-disadvantaged-those-claiming-benefits-are/

Grammar school area. A teacher at a 'poor' school told me of a child of uneducated parents did unexpectedly well in the 11plus. Failed by only 1 mark, with no extra help at all. Parents had no idea about appeals and they were not told. I do hope the child did well at the secondary modern

There are schools in deprived areas in London that do really well and they focus on experiences for the kids.
They’ll do things like hatch ducklings, have camp nights on the school grounds, have city farms to come and visit, get the kids to do a poetry recitation and so much more. I think it’s great that they focus on that. A lot of the kids wouldn’t have these experiences otherwise.