If wealth is used as a proxy for parental academic achievement, is research that children from disadvantaged homes are up to a year behind in their learning than those from more privileged backgrounds by the age of 3 surprising?
How will increasing benefits change anything?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Some terrible unpolitically correct sort (not me of course) might wonder if the children of graduates are just more INTELLIGENT rather than more "advantaged"?
Such dreadful right wing people (unlike me) might wonder if perhaps they are more worth spending money on than the thick kids of thick people.
Oooh! disgraceful!
Xoggoth, if the parents are not aware of what is going on around them, how can they be expected to pass on any knowledge to their children!?!
How will increasing benefits change anything?
Put simply it would have very little effect.
Wealth may in general, to some extent, be a by-product of the previous generation’s drive, commitment, intelligence and educational attainment.
The real main cause and indicator of a child’s likely attainment is: native intelligence and provision of a stimulating environment, by motivated, engaged, parents.
That is what is probably responsible for the differences observed.
Phil A, I totally agree. However, I fear the research will be used to justify more benefits as it seems to be the univeral weapon of choice for dealing with the "disadvantaged"...
Post a Comment