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?

They do game things....
I may be working class but I have lived amongst you and I know your ways
But yeah-also the middle class default.
Especially as teachers tend to be from middle class backgrounds and I'm not sure they really "get" working class kids.
Have you read Diane Raeys recent book Bertrand? It's a really clear sighted account of how working class children are failed by the education system.

Individual experiences are meaningless in discussing research on broad statistics.

Obviously there are plenty of intelligent and high achieving people from a poorer background BUT the category of children from chaotic homes with low engagement with education will still pull down the averages for people from a poorer background.

The reverse scenario of thick-as-two-short-planks kids from wealthy backgrounds doesn't drag down the average so much because even if the parents aren't very engaged personally they have the resources to live in are "naice" area so probably better schools, or may pay for private, or pay for tutoring, so Tim Nice-butDim gets some alevels.

So overall the averages are different which doesn't prove anything about any specific individual.

1) The child has highly educated parents; 2) The child’s parents have high socioeconomic status; 3) The child’s mother is thirty or older at the time of her first child’s birth; 4) The child had low birthweight; 5) The child’s parents speak English in the home; 6) The child is adopted; 7) The child’s parents are involved in the PTA (Parent Teacher Association); and 8) The child has many books in his house.

My DDs tick every single one of those! Unfortunately I think the negative correlation (I assume) of 4 & 6 is pretty much outweighing all the others.

I think on this thread though, it is time to remind some people that the plural of anecdote is not data.

I have lived in this country for many years and the fact that class war still seem so relevant is something that I find gobsmackin. To me they belong to period dramas...
Regarding income equality, I have no problem with, say, doctors earning vastly more than the two of us combined. Whether people in more menial jobs should earn vastly more, probably not. If instead we are talking people earning obscene amounts of money, I wouldn't have thought their numbers is that high.
And, anyway, how that is going to help children going to school now escapes me entirely.

Ah, regarding the "curated" outings with your parents, I feel - in my experience at least - they belong to Fantasyland more than anything else.

Teen I agree about anecdata, which is why I quoted this study, which was enormous (though 20 years old now).

"I have lived in this country for many years and the fact that class war still seem so relevant is something that I find gobsmackin." It isn't about class it's about social and economic deprivation.

Indeed, buy why in so many posts it is a us Vs them?
Why is even the term 'middle/working class's still being used? It sounds very Downton to me.

In other 'classless' societies, are there no/fewer differentials in attitude and only in wealth then?

I get the feeling that in the UK we use 'MC' or 'WC' or 'UC' as short hand for stereotypes of attitudes. Which might not be true on an individual basis but as a population are still more true than not? I'm not a sociologist.

Name a classless society

I say hat because I don't think there is a classless society that has formal education, although I am happy to be educated if I'm wrong

Thegirl Well I don't know. But people saying 'oh the English obsession with classes' give me the impression that they think that other societies are less 'class-based' then we are?

If I had to guess I might say the Scandanavian countries might be, but I absolutely have no clue.

Clearly OT, but anyway...
AFAIK, Britain (and India?) Is still plagued by the idea of class, but nowhere else on the continent, and even less so in the States, such a concept exists. I wouldn't even be able to translate the terms WC and MC into my own language as the idea of class is not there.
True story: many years ago I was attending an English class and a session was devoted to explaining the concept of "class". So we have the upper class (aristocracy, judges, bishops, etc), middle class and a working class. I never really understood what it was meant by WC and MC, so I asked where an engineer would sit (I was doing engineering at university at the time), and I was told, oh gosh, of course an engineer would be working class. I was taken aback, I have to say... Note that there is a discrepancy between what the teacher meant by engineer (i.e. a technician fixing your TV) and what I meant (i.e. one that designs TV s), but still.
Of course there are everywhere the rich and the poor and those in the middle, but AFAIK only in Britain they would have a label attached, and people would consider themselves at liberty to vilify them because of the label.
As I said, so Dowton!
/OT

Some things which occur to me from this thread are;

• those with high incomes might both work long hours, but the quantity of parental hours spent with a child isn't necessarily the big factor for ore-school children - if they spend a lot of the few hours a week they do have with their kids and are talking and reading etc, then that outweighs the very many hours other parents might spend with their kids, if actually they rarely speak, engage, read, explain to them in those many hours.
• it all depends on what you mean by attainment too. Some people will see attainment purely in terms of exam grades. Often recent immigrant families are very interested in grades and see education as the route to attainment and then to success (note attainment and success are not necessarily the same). People with lower incomes but plenty of drive and belief in the UK education system (often immigrants rather than low income British) can often gain success in terms of grades, with limited income. A strong focus on study, perhaps on home preparation for the 11+ and study, study, study with a great work ethic can result in great GCSEs, A Levels and degrees. This can be seen as great attainment in a narrow sense. However, I would suggest that some level of money or cultural capital or awareness of cultural capital amongst parents is what transforms just attainment in terms of grades into something much broader and richer - and this is often lacking amongst those who focus purely on grades and study. As others have said upthread, some families cannot see the point of music or dance or travel, if there is no direct and clear link to the exam syllabus - instead they see those things as distraction, not enrichment. So some children are not exposed to those things either because families don't value them or because of their cost or a mixture of the two. And then you end up with some teenagers who are bright and well qualified but narrow in their life experiences and broader attainment - they have no real interests or hobbies or skills, play no instruments, haven't been on choir or orchestra or sports tours, haven't hiked and built fires, visited places doing charity work, been to debates and lectures, read purely for pleasure, visited the homes of friends with successful parents and learned how people chat and interact and discuss, how to be have at a black tie event and a charity event, to chat with adults of different generations, to show interest and chat to those from much poorer or different experiences. And in the end, these things and many more contribute to overall attainment and life - perhaps they open doors and they certainly open eyes to broader opportunity which is beyond simply being a Doctor or a Lawyer. And all of these things are made easier with money.
• another link to money, I think is the confidence, self belief and sense of entitlement it gives people. So those with money behind them know they can try an activity and fail at it and it won't matter, or they can take a risk doing a course and their parents will bail them out and because everyone around them is a success, just believes they will be too - it is their norm and birthright. Others might be very clever naturally, but if their intelligence shows them that somehow they have drawn the short straw and that they are at the bad school whilst they know others are at the good school, and other kids get to take part in activities that they don't and that in some places people go to uni, but not round here, then naturally a sense that somehow these things are not for the likes of you becomes your norm and you expect not to have access to those things, or that taking risks are actually very risky and can result in serious consequences, so are best avoided - having money versus being very poor can result in a very different sense of self and your place innthenworld and what is available to you, even if you are naturally clever.

So I think that the poor are hugely disadvantaged. Those in the coastal towns with no good school within miles and miles and miles only know and have access to poor schools and are exposed daily to low aspiration - and whilst some might rise up, most won't. Most are born to those who were also born I the area and the limited aspiration and experience and vocabulary are inter-generational. For those who are poor but motivated and have enough drive to find out about opportunities and achieve academic success, perhaps it has to wait until the next generation before the wider attainment is valued and accessed.

"regarding the "curated" outings with your parents, I feel - in my experience at least - they belong to Fantasyland more than anything else."

Its not fantasy. An actual person, on this thread, thinks there's no point going to the beach unless your going to explain the wildlife and the tides. That shows a certain anxiety about education-whether the poster actually does this or not. I would argue its a particularly mc kind of anxiety.

I'm not sure why after several pages of discussion about how money (and lack of it) influences educational experience, expectations, priorities, how institutions interact with you, the OP has decided to question whether class exists.
These things are class. When people talk about social class-this is the sort of thing they mean.

No matter where on the planet you live, more money means more options. One of those options might be to bolster your child’s education.

And it strikes me as a form of class or previous experience type result to see attainment in very narrow terms (school grades) rather than appreciating a far wider definition of attainment, which is very clearly influenced by income/wealth.

Yes, the poor but motivated might be able to study, study, study (although as we know most don't due to various cultural factors which come with poverty and prevent study, study, study) and as long as you are poor but can access an at least decent school and have parents who are interested or encourage you, or you by chance are extremely naturally self driven to overcome poverty, then you might achieve good exam results. However, you will still have missed out on the cultural capital which is very much associated with income/wealth and your experience growing up will have been very different from someone will similar grades but a more affluent background.

OP, I think you have quite a weird and simplistic view of what class means. It's got nothing to do with Downton or anything like it. Also, class prejudice is apparent in lots of other countries, whether they call it 'class' or not.
Class is no longer as clearly delineated as it once was, and some of the things about children's backgrounds which might make them more likely to achieve in school are perhaps out of their family's sphere of experience rather than literally denied to them because of their class.

I've talked to so many kids who just don't see the point of school or of university. Kids who scorn academic success as something that only posh kids or weird geeky types are interested in. Kids who think that stuff is not for them. They are almost always kids from low socio-economic backgrounds.

I've also taught quite a few pretty unintelligent private school kids who assume they will go to university and get great jobs. Which they probably will.

I always thought in income studies that it wasn't that income is directly proportionate to attainment g someone on £100,000 wouldn't do better that someone on £50,000 household income: once there is "enough" money to cover food, heating, some leisure time, then how much exactly doesn't matter. It's the same in happiness surveys.

However in answer to OP, I would say poverty or a very restricted income will always limit one's scope no matter how involved parents are due to the practicalities of offering a rounded upbringing - even a pack of paper and pens costs money, never mind other resources and trips to museums and holidays.

• I've talked to so many kids who just don't see the point of school or of university. Kids who scorn academic success as something that only posh kids or weird geeky types are interested in. Kids who think that stuff is not for them. They are almost always kids from low socio-economic backgrounds.

I've also taught quite a few pretty unintelligent private school kids who assume they will go to university and get great jobs. Which they probably will.*

Yes. And this is very depressing and sad and it goes on even After education has ended.
Because a child who achieves grade As can't afford university or is caring for their Mum and can't leave her. Or needs to get a job to help Dad or even just survive themselves, claw their way out of the pit of depression, stigma, low self worth and class bias.

The old adage about the clever people being full of doubts and the not so clever being so full of confidence.

How many tines do we even see here the confidence and entitlement of people on MN who have had a good education and privilege and feel in a position to put others down. Thinking back to sausage rolls and fruit shoots.

Bright people with great ideas who will never break through due to their back ground or lack of confidence or simple lack of OPPORTUNITY. And sticking with the comfort of what they know because it's, well, comforting.

And the case of it is not what you know but who you know. Networking and nepotism.

Hmm DH and I are from working class backgrounds. We went to uni at a time when not many people did. We did alright for ourselves. We probably pass as middle class now (though we are a bit nouveau).

There was never any question for us that our four kids wouldn't go to uni; the lazy one but bright who got mediocre A levels was channelled into a foundation course at a Russell group and then did fine; the less academic one who wasn't particularly good at exams did A levels with a big chunk of coursework and then a creative type degree; the other two fortunately are bright and motivated.

But my kids have working class friends who were brighter than them, with similar or better exam results who have eschewed university and happily slotted into jobs that will never pay very much. And it tends to be kids from close families. Staying in you hometown, close to your family, maybe marrying young to someone you went to school with, having the same lifelong friends, living a safe cosy life, it's a choice some people make even when they have other choices. And some middle class people just can't comprehend that.

I think using class can be a bit of a red herring-particularly when you're talking about money. I think disadvantaged is more useful.

I think it's primarily about ambition. If parents don't have ambition for themselves they don't imbue their kids with drive and determination either. They don't bang on about the value education and hard work, they don't tell their kids to work hard so they can get good grades and go to university and get a good job, because those aren't the lessons they learned at home - and so the cycle of poverty and low ambition continues.

You only have to look at immigrants and their work ethic to see that it's not just about poverty - it's about the mindset of the family and the ambition that the parents have for the kids. People who leave their home nation and move somewhere else to better their lives sacrifice so much that they seize every opportunity that comes their way. They're not lazy or complacent, they're single-minded in their pursuit of excellence and they work really hard and push their kids hard too. How many poor British families can you say that about?

In terms of the middle classes/the already well off, they know that good grades are the key to uni and a good uni/degree is the first step on the ladder to earning a good living, so they pass those lessons on to their kids from a young age. They make sure they do their homework, take them to museums, have books in the house and/or go to the library, talk to their kids and debate things with them, teach them soft skills like how to speak nicely, how to dress appropriately for the occasion, how to greet people, how to make small talk, etc, etc.

A great many people describe themselves as working class because their grandparents were or even their parents. Many who say they are WC are nothing of the kind. Once you get a reasonable job and qualification you have moved up! Many WC strived for this. Some people actively didn’t want their sons down the mine or working as a farm labourer.

It is very easy to overlook the fact that, in the main, the poorly educated have the worst jobs. They earn the least money. That’s why there’s such a scrabble to get to university.

The PP who said there's no point being on a beach unless you also explain the wildlife and describe the tides is a great example. It's not so much parenting as curating a child's entire experience.

An elegant and insightful paragraph amongst many. 'Culture' (and the construction / curation of that innately constructed / curated concept) is overwhelmingly the MC's main weapon - in different ways, the WC and UC don't need it so much and can afford to ignore or disdain it. Which is why a truly aspirational MC parent should remember to add that sometimes a beach ... is just a beach

Im finding many of these posts really quite distasteful. So many of posters seem to be saying that it's the own fault of people on low incomes if they don't achieve academically. The flip side being that the middle classes do better because they deserve it/work harder. Yuck.