Poorer parents are just as involved in their children's activities as better-off parents

[ksen]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/sp-ppa011915.php

Poorer parents are just as involved in education, leisure, and sports activities with their children as better-off parents, a new study has found.

Dr Esther Dermott and Marco Pomati analysed survey data on 1,665 UK households and found that poorer parents were as likely to have helped with homework, attended parents' evenings, and played sports or games with their children in the previous week.

Dr Dermott, of the University of Bristol, and Mr Pomati, Cardiff University, say they found no evidence of a group of poor parents who failed their children.

"Those with lower incomes or who felt poor were as likely to engage in all of the good parent-child activities as everyone else," they say in an article published online in the journal Sociology.

No, this can't be true. Poors are too lazy and self-indulgent and too busy making horrible decisions to care for their welfare checks children.

 

[PyramidHead]

inb4 "UK is not the US"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not only is this the UK rather than the US but the problem isn't simply the poorer, but those at the bottom.

 

[ksen]

Took you long enough. I threw this thread out here almost 24 hours ago.

 

[Trausti]

Why should income or class determine whether parents are involved in their child's upbringing? It costs nothing to read to a child, tell them to do their homework, or otherwise teach them the lessons of life. My family met the federal definition of poverty by income growing up, but I had good parents and a strong family. I think that has a far greater impact on future development and success than an associative factor of income.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, I admit that I have to eat a bit of crow after reading this. I had assumed that poor parents weren't involved in their children's lives, but now I know that, just like me, they have one of the under-butlers give a weekly update on what they've been up to.

I learned something today.

 

[EricK]

Why should income or class determine whether parents are involved in their child's upbringing? It costs nothing to read to a child, tell them to do their homework, or otherwise teach them the lessons of life. My family met the federal definition of poverty by income growing up, but I had good parents and a strong family. I think that has a far greater impact on future development and success than an associative factor of income.

There are claims by some that poor parents aren't able to help their children as well as rich ones can because they are so busy working just trying to get by that they do not have the free time.

 

[Trausti]

Why should income or class determine whether parents are involved in their child's upbringing? It costs nothing to read to a child, tell them to do their homework, or otherwise teach them the lessons of life. My family met the federal definition of poverty by income growing up, but I had good parents and a strong family. I think that has a far greater impact on future development and success than an associative factor of income.

There are claims by some that poor parents aren't able to help their children as well as rich ones can because they are so busy working just trying to get by that they do not have the free time.

Eh, then what of those parents, unemployed, on public assistance, and living in public housing? Certainly they have lots of time to attend to their children?

 

[ronburgundy]

If one were to pretend that this single study from a completely different economic and social culture actually applied to the US, the implications would be far worse for standard liberal arguments than conservative arguments.

The research suggests that poor parents spend just as much free time as wealthier parents to educate and socialize their kids, thus the claimed inability of them to do so due to longer work hours, etc. cannot be used as a valid explanation for why their kids are more ignorant, less intellectually skilled, and more likely to engage in crime.
IF poor kids are getting just as much parenting quantity, then it is more likely that poor parents are just lower quality in how they spend that time parenting or poor kids are just more prone toward low intellect and high criminality, regardless of parenting.

Note that I don't buy those implications, because I know enough to realize this study is near meaningless with regard to the US where the degree and ways in which the poor and wealthy differ is not at all similar to how the differ in the UK.

 

[Trausti]

Here's a study that found parental educational behavior was a stronger indicator of a child's cognitive ability than social economic status: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZSEJPOXgxLTlrNTA/view?pli=1

 

[bilby]

If one were to pretend that this single study from a completely different economic and social culture actually applied to the US, ...

Well the US is not really that different economically or culturally from the UK, but even if it was, why would anyone give a flying fuck whether or not this study applies to the 5% of the world's population who live in the US? The other 95% of the world genuinely do not live their lives in awe of, or even with consideration of, whatever the USAians are doing.

It seems plausible that similar results to these from the UK would apply across the OECD nations, and likely across the whole globe; but if the US really is totally different, you can always carry out your own studies to show that this is the case. Given that the genetics of Americans, and the cultural history of Americans, are pretty similar to those of Britons, I would be most surprised to find your claim of American exceptionalism supported by any actual facts.

I am going to hazard a guess that your knowledge of the degree and ways in which the poor and wealthy differ in the UK is based on exactly zero meetings with poor Britons, and zero study of British culture or habits. It is just a knee-jerk assumption that America must be different, made for purely ideological reasons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a study that found parental educational behavior was a stronger indicator of a child's cognitive ability than social economic status: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZSEJPOXgxLTlrNTA/view?pli=1

That's the impression I get, also. Children of the wealthy don't do better than children of academics and the like.

SES only shows up on the low end and even there's it's basically a proxy for bad parenting--it's not exactly a surprise people who aren't competent at putting food on the table are also not competent at providing the intellectual stimulation a child needs.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here's a study that found parental educational behavior was a stronger indicator of a child's cognitive ability than social economic status: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZSEJPOXgxLTlrNTA/view?pli=1

That's the impression I get, also. Children of the wealthy don't do better than children of academics and the like.

SES only shows up on the low end and even there's it's basically a proxy for bad parenting--it's not exactly a surprise people who aren't competent at putting food on the table are also not competent at providing the intellectual stimulation a child needs.

Loren do you have children? do you spend time around children? Have you bothered to do any research on parenting? or do you just kibitz?

 

[Toni]

Why should income or class determine whether parents are involved in their child's upbringing? It costs nothing to read to a child, tell them to do their homework, or otherwise teach them the lessons of life. My family met the federal definition of poverty by income growing up, but I had good parents and a strong family. I think that has a far greater impact on future development and success than an associative factor of income.

There are claims by some that poor parents aren't able to help their children as well as rich ones can because they are so busy working just trying to get by that they do not have the free time.

Ah, I thought the claim was that poor parents aren't able to help their children as much because they are bad parents and just plain bad. And from a bad culture.

Edit: I didn't see Loren's post above. He explains it much better than I ever could. Probably had more competent parents.

 

[EricK]

There are claims by some that poor parents aren't able to help their children as well as rich ones can because they are so busy working just trying to get by that they do not have the free time.

Ah, I thought the claim was that poor parents aren't able to help their children as much because they are bad parents and just plain bad. And from a bad culture.

Well obviously that's also a claim that is sometimes made. And equally obviously it is the one being referenced by the thread-starter. I was just trying to subtly point out that "both sides" in these debates present narratives to explain why children of poor parents perform, on average, academically worse than children of rich parents. And the fact that the result suggests one narrative might be wrong, does not, of itself, show another narrative must be right - it might provide evidence against that narrative as well.

 

[Toni]

Ah, I thought the claim was that poor parents aren't able to help their children as much because they are bad parents and just plain bad. And from a bad culture.

Well obviously that's also a claim that is sometimes made. And equally obviously it is the one being referenced by the thread-starter. I was just trying to subtly point out that "both sides" in these debates present narratives to explain why children of poor parents perform, on average, academically worse than children of rich parents. And the fact that the result suggests one narrative might be wrong, does not, of itself, show another narrative must be right - it might provide evidence against that narrative as well.

Despite the fact that my parents were raised in poverty and not doing that great themselves when I was a young kid, I actually got that. I think most people know where I come down on these issues.

But something I would like to point out and emphasize: your use of the words: on average. No matter what side of this issue you come down on--and I believe there are more than two, actually--So what if on average, children living in poverty do less well academically than do children raised by wealthy parents: Some children raised in poverty excel and some children raised in privilege never amount to much. It is wrong: morally, logically wrong to behave as though children raised in poverty are all doomed and will never amount to much. Some do extremely well. Some of our most successful people were raised in some pretty harsh circumstances, and sometimes without the actual support of parents who wanted better for them or saw education as 'better.'

It is reprehensible for us as a society to fail to put forth our best efforts for all children. And that failure is biting us in the ass pretty hard right now.

 

[Playball40]

In my area, I disagree with the article. Purely anicdotal of course, but my 5 years owning a VPK program and my last two years as PTA President, parents in my neighborhood do NOT come to Parent/Teacher night, PTA meetings, fundraisers etc. They WILL come to kids performances though (plays, musicals, graduation ceremonies or sporting events).

 

[EricK]

Well obviously that's also a claim that is sometimes made. And equally obviously it is the one being referenced by the thread-starter. I was just trying to subtly point out that "both sides" in these debates present narratives to explain why children of poor parents perform, on average, academically worse than children of rich parents. And the fact that the result suggests one narrative might be wrong, does not, of itself, show another narrative must be right - it might provide evidence against that narrative as well.

Despite the fact that my parents were raised in poverty and not doing that great themselves when I was a young kid, I actually got that. I think most people know where I come down on these issues.

But something I would like to point out and emphasize: your use of the words: on average. No matter what side of this issue you come down on--and I believe there are more than two, actually--So what if on average, children living in poverty do less well academically than do children raised by wealthy parents: Some children raised in poverty excel and some children raised in privilege never amount to much. It is wrong: morally, logically wrong to behave as though children raised in poverty are all doomed and will never amount to much. Some do extremely well. Some of our most successful people were raised in some pretty harsh circumstances, and sometimes without the actual support of parents who wanted better for them or saw education as 'better.'

It is reprehensible for us as a society to fail to put forth our best efforts for all children. And that failure is biting us in the ass pretty hard right now.

I used the words "on average" because people who talk about these differences always bring up statistics which, by definition, are grouping people across these categories.

I am all for treating everybody as individuals rather than as members of groups.

 

[ronburgundy]

If one were to pretend that this single study from a completely different economic and social culture actually applied to the US, ...

Well the US is not really that different economically or culturally from the UK,

This an absurd statement. There are countless ways in which the countries differ both currently and historically (not limited to ethnic diversity, the cultures represented, slavery and the details of where and how poor immigrants came into the countries), all of which matter greatly to how the poor and rich got that way, how they view themselves and the surrounding social and economic systems, and thus how they could or would plausibly interact with their kids in ways to ensure their future success.

but even if it was, why would anyone give a flying fuck whether or not this study applies to the 5% of the world's population who live in the US?

Because if it doesn't apply to the US, then it has zero relevance to any ideas or policies at all related to relation between poverty and parenting among people in the US. The better question is why the would anyone outside the UK thinking solely about UK poverty give a flying fuck about a study that only applies to 1% of the world's population?

It seems plausible that similar results to these from the UK would apply across the OECD nations, and likely across the whole globe;

No, it doesn't seem plausible at all to anyone with an ounce of world and historical knowledge and the most minimal grasp of how human thought and behavior is heavily impacted by the particulars of the current and historical context in which people live. That's why social scientists tend to care a lot about a little thing called sampling methods.

but if the US really is totally different, you can always carry out your own studies to show that this is the case.

No, you can carry it out since the burden of evidence is 100% on you and anyone trying to generalize the findings outside of the tiny non-representative sub population of humans that the sample was drawn from.

Given that the genetics of Americans, and the cultural history of Americans, are pretty similar to those of Britons,

This is an absurdly untrue statement. Their are massive differences between OECD nations. Not only are the results unlikely to generalize the US, but even to many other European nations.

I would be most surprised to find your claim of American exceptionalism supported by any actual facts.

I am not claiming American exceptionalism. You are claiming worldwide universalism. I highlighted the lack of applicability to the US because the majority of people here focus their political discussions on the US. The US doesn't need an exception, because their is no rule that says all humans in all contexts are impacted in the same way by something as fundamental to human action as income and resources/. This is the absurd rule that you are taking on pure faith and the study provides zero rational basis to presume a rule that applies outside of the tiny sampled population.

 

[ksen]

ron burgundy . . . shut the fuck up.