Why do majority of kids from prosperous areas do better in school?

[mossdog]

Unfortunately you....err....and a few others are the exception to the rule.

Don't you mean "fortunately"?

[donkey]

One study showed that kids from households which have lots of books in therm do better than kids from households where there are none. Nothing suprising about that.

 

But when the researchers went on to measure the differences between families that read the books a lot, and those that never picked them up ay all, they found this factor had no impact whatsoever on the level of education and economic status which the kids later went on to achieve.

 

In other words, the mere presence of books in a house is the indicator that the kids are likely to be more aspirational. Whether anyone in the house ever picks them up seems to be irrelevant in this context.

[Suffragette1]

One study showed that kids from households which have lots of books in therm do better than kids from households where there are none. Nothing suprising about that.

 

But when the researchers went on to measure the differences between families that read the books a lot, and those that never picked them up ay all, they found this factor had no impact whatsoever on the level of education and economic status which the kids later went on to achieve.

 

In other words, the mere presence of books in a house is the indicator that the kids are likely to be more aspirational. Whether anyone in the house ever picks them up seems to be irrelevant in this context.

 

Interesting summary here from the Freakeconomics theorists (I recommend the book if anyone's not read it):

 

Chapter 5: What Makes a Perfect Parent? Several years before Freakonomics was published, author Steven Levitt lost his infant son Andrew to a sudden, fatal bout of pneumococcal meningitis. In the aftermath of this tragedy, Levitt and his wife became active in several support groups for bereaved parents. Even as he sought help and guidance for the terrible loss, Levitt noticed the disproportionate number of parents in the groups whose children had drowned in backyard swimming pools. This prompted him to research the issue, as well as a number of other aspects of parenting, from an economic point of view. His research uncovered the high risk of allowing children to play in swimming pools: Levitt estimates that a child is more than 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than playing with a gun.

 

In a series of subsequent articles, Levitt explored other facets of parenthood and their outcomes. He determined that in spite of the cottage industry of parenting and the millions of how-to books on the subject sold every year, who you are matters much more than what you do. In other words, positive parenting outcomes are linked more strongly to factors such as socioeconomic status and parental education than any specific parenting practices. Key to determining which parenting factors really make a difference to a child's upbringing, Levitt analyses data from the Chicago School Choice Program, a longitudinal study of Chicago school students in 60 schools since 1980, a huge data-set. Factors that are important in determining high standardized test scores in children include: highly educated parents, high socioeconomic status, maternal age of greater than thirty when the child was born, low birth weight, English as the primary language spoken in the home, parental involvement in the PTA, and many books in the home environment. Also, adopted children tended to have lower standardized test scores than their non-adopted peers. Factors that are not important in determining high standardized test scores in children include: the family is intact, the parents recently moved to a better neighborhood, the mother didn't work between birth and kindergarten, the child attended Head Start (US government program providing education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families), the parents regularly take the child to museums, the child is regularly spanked, the child frequently watches television, the parents read to the child nearly every day. Noting the overgeneralization, Levitt explains that what is important in parenting is who you are, not what you do.

 

Source

[harvey19]

Nowadays more young people go to university than in my schooldays.

When I was at school in the 1960s it was never considered as an option for the likes of me to attend university(although I went to a grammar school) as it just wasn't done by the likes of me . I admit I did not take full advantage of the education offered to me, possibly because of lack of ambition even though my parents fully supported and encouraged me whilst at school.

My point is that nowadays university is a realistic option for all who put in the work to gain a place and not just a minority.

There are those who are unsuited for extended education and this is where apprenticeships should be created.

I joined the army and progressed my education and learnt an excellent trade which has kept me in employment through my working life. The army treats everyone as an equal and gives you the chance to learn educational as well as military subjects but makes it clear that to progress it is ones own responsibility and no one elses.

[espadrille]

Interesting summary here from the Freakeconomics theorists (I recommend the book if anyone's not read it):

 

 

 

Source

 

I would also add to that'Highly motivated parents'.

Analysing behaviour of individuals is very interesting and one of the most important factors I have observed in children who are successful is their determination. The ones who try and try until they succeed. They get the reward when they achieve success in whatever task they attempt and when they fail they look on it with a well balanced attitude.They know they can win and they just keep on trying until they do.

This is one of the most important factors when employers recruit staff. Having someone on your team who is motivated and determined to complete a task is much more important than some of the factors that people think that employers want.

[espadrille]

Nowadays more young people go to university than in my schooldays.

When I was at school in the 1960s it was never considered as an option for the likes of me to attend university(although I went to a grammar school) as it just wasn't done by the likes of me . I admit I did not take full advantage of the education offered to me, possibly because of lack of ambition even though my parents fully supported and encouraged me whilst at school.

My point is that nowadays university is a realistic option for all who put in the work to gain a place and not just a minority.

There are those who are unsuited for extended education and this is where apprenticeships should be created.

I joined the army and progressed my education and learnt an excellent trade which has kept me in employment through my working life. The army treats everyone as an equal and gives you the chance to learn educational as well as military subjects but makes it clear that to progress it is ones own responsibility and no one elses.

 

I couldn't agree more with that.

[donkey]

I would also add to that'Highly motivated parents'.

Analysing behaviour of individuals is very interesting and one of the most important factors I have observed in children who are successful is their determination. The ones who try and try until they succeed. They get the reward when they achieve success in whatever task they attempt and when they fail they look on it with a well balanced attitude.They know they can win and they just keep on trying until they do.

This is one of the most important factors when employers recruit staff. Having someone on your team who is motivated and determined to complete a task is much more important than some of the factors that people think that employers want.

 

(My Bold)

 

It's a mixed bag though. Take it too far and you end up with manipulative sociopaths like Tony Blair and David Cameron.

[espadrille]

(My Bold)

 

It's a mixed bag though. Take it too far and you end up with manipulative sociopaths like Tony Blair and David Cameron.

 

I am not keen on either of them, however I do think that we should teach our kids life skills that ensures they take personal responsibility and not rely on others to get them by.I suppose this is something I inherited from my parents.

 

Also ,although the media present a person in a certain way it doesn't necessarily mean that is how they are if you got to know them, but I know what you mean.

[Nagel]

What about the IQ factor? People in prosperous areas have a higher IQ because they have become prosperous by using their intelligence. Before anyone gets their back up, that's not to say there aren't dimwits in prosperous areas. Likewise there are intelligent people in poor areas. It's a statistical thing and not a slur on any individual.

 

IQ is inheritable.

 

The tendency is towards the norm of 100, so two parents with an IQ of 120 are most likely to have a child with a slightly lower intelligence, somewhere towards 100.

 

Two parents with an IQ of 80 are most likely to have a child with a slightly higher intelligence, somewhere towards 100.

 

I guess it all balances out in the end.

[Nagel]

I've become more and more convinced over the last ten years that a few judiciously placed Grammar Schools would make a massive difference to the city. They need to go on the east side though.

 

I agree. The grammar school system was a great way of giving smart kids an opportunity in life. It aided social mobility in a way we haven't seen since.