To wonder if there are supporters of grammar schools who didn't go to grammar schools themselves

[WildebeestH]

Just that really. The only friends I have who support grammar schools went to grammar schools themselves. I'm intrigued to know if there are many people who support them having not been to a grammar (or other selective) school and if so why?

"The longer I'm in education, the more I feel the system is set up to preserve the interests of more affluent parents and their kids though."

Not just affluent. I think it's important to acknowledge that privilege does not necessariily mean affluence, although obviously the two usually go together.

Yes the 2 don't always go together but I think affluence does rig the system even more I somebody's favour.

Affluence means having a great deal of money and normally goes with 'privilege
'. Seriously. So skirting over Bert's assertion that watching David Attinbourough and having interested parents means you have special rights. Such parents normally have a great deal of money too. My poor Dc are clearly disadvantaged.

"So skirting over Bert's assertion that watching David Attinbourough and having interested parents means you have special rights." Special rights? Certainly special access to education.........

I dont buy into this idea that having your own bed, 3 hot meals a day, watching David Attinbourough and having interested parents means you are privileged and/or have wealthy parents. I would call it normal.

". I would call it normal"

And therein lies the problem. I would love to introduce you to some of the 37% PP children in ds's school.

walking
That's the point. For a reasonable number of children I've worked with that's NOT normal.

What you describe is the issue with discussing privilege. People have an idea of what normal is and can't see that many kids don't have that.

So clean clothes and a lunch box give you special access to education? What even if you go to a lack lustre or shite primary or have stressed time restricted parents....

The majority do though, having those things doesn't give the majority special rights.

It's a sad day when having interested parents in your education is deemed a special right.What about the poor countries which have huge numbers of interested and pushy parents. Are these huge populations privileged then?

green You quite clearly have zero interest in accepting that some kids and parents are benefited by the current system so what's the point anyone discussing it with you.

Obviously, research into outcomes for disadvantaged kids is made up, the literacy gap thats been proven doesnt exist, theres no difference in cultural capital between different social groups, there's no difference at all and successive governments doing FSM and pupil premium funding are just making it up, kids from poor backgrounds are as likely to make it to uni as those who are wealthier, they're also as likely you make it into occupations that are dominated by those who've been privately educated.

We'll all pretend that it's a totally level playing field and then you can pat yourself on the back that your kids have the same opportunities as every other child.

Wasn't inferring that at all. Simply pointing out that anybody not on pp or without a healthy lunch box is not by default privileged. Those on pp make up a very small percentage, the rest of the population up to the very wealthy should not just be written off as privileged. Privileged is used on these threads incorrectly.

"So clean clothes and a lunch box give you special access to education?confused"

Did you read my definition of privilege in this context? There was more to it than that.

Ah right.

There's degrees of privilege though.

E.g. my parents didn't have much when I was a kid, but they worked and scrimped to get a small house near good schools. We were far from rolling in it. But that act meant I went from a failing school to a decent school. I'm under no illusions that them doing that made me more privileged than my friends who didn't get that opportunity from my first school. Our lives now are very different.

So yes, mosy kids who attend the school i work at now (2/3 suburban and 1/3 deprived) are privileged. They have got home lives, parent last involvement, cultural capital etc that the school 10 mins down the road (where 75% are deprived) don't.

The current system secures the privilege some already have. The grammar system in my opinion only widens that gap between the haves and have nots. For that reason, I think all schools should be comprehensives with appropriate pathways to support the weaker students an stretch the very top end. The money for grammars and buying land for free schools that don't exist should be spent making sure every comprehensive in the country can make that offer.

A privileged child is a child with aware, involved parent/s. Who is warm and well fed. Who is talked to and read to. Who has clean clothes and a healthy lunch box. Who has books and good television. Who has space and time to do homework. Who is safe and allowed space and time to be a child. Who gets positive attention.

Just in case you missed it and genuinely thought I was saying that a privileged child is one who has clean clothes and a lunch box.

some kids and parents are benefited by the current system Yes but that's not the fault of the system, children with caring parents will always do better than children with crap parents. If you really want equality then you should only let people have children if they can pass a good parenting test. Of course we are not going to have such a test, that does not mean its helpful to label all caring families as privileged.

Yes and I think it's a ridiculous definition. It's a childhood the maj strive to provide and do( including many on pp).

walking It's more than just caring. I feel were going around in circles here because some people don't want to accept the playing field is grossly unfair.

My friends at the failing school had amazing hard working parents. Zero doubt they were cared for. But due to circumstance they had to stay in failing school whereas mine were able to get me out of it and into a great one.

That's my point. Me and my friends both had caring hard working families. But where we are now is very different and that school move for me was massively significant. My parents wouldn't have been able to afford tutors for me and my siblings so that move was huge.

It seems you mention money and that's a no no. You mention home life and that's a no no.

I really do think there's a group on mumsnet who are probably middle class, do alright in life and think that because they're not loaded and do ok that privilege doesn't exist. It does. In different amounts, sure.
But I'll not have anyone tell me privilege doesn't really exist when I've seen first hand that it does. I'm hugely grateful to my parents for working their arses off for me to get me out of that school. Sadly, for my friends their parents wouldn't have managed it however hard they worked.

Privilege does exist but it isn't a simple childhood the maj are capable of providing and do. It certainly isn't the childhood Bert described.

"Privilege does exist but it isn't a simple childhood the maj are capable of providing and do

As I said. I'd like to introduce you to the 37% PP children at ds's school. Then you might understand why my definition works in educational terms. Those are the things that make the difference.

And I'd like to introduce you to the pp families I know who would be outraged that you assumed they don't provide the items on your list just because they are on pp.Aside from that as I said before privileged means special rights, the items on your list are not special rights enjoyed by the few.

I am not assuming that they don't. I am saying that many can't

But hey ho. Carry on happily thinking that the playing field is level. Even if that means willfully "misunderstanding" what people are saying.

I dont think anyone does think its a level playing field

I wonder sometimes if people have lived privaliged lives then suddenly stumble across a world they never knew and want to tell us about it.

We already know.

God this is just going round in circles. Whether or not people are swayed by arguments about the unfairness of the grammar school system, or even by the lack of proof that it actually improves educational outcomes, it shouldn't be that hard to understand that you can achieve all that a grammar school does, and indeed improve on some of what grammar schools currently do, by making changes to how comprehensives are run. The kids of different abilities don't need to be in separate schools, they just all need to be in schools that are allowed to cater to their needs. That isn't easy, but a lot more can be done. Schools are currently run to serve government targets, not children's interests. You won't get many school senior leaders who would admit that in public, but it is nevertheless true.

they just all need to be in schools that are allowed to cater to their needs

But Grammars are few and far between now sadly. Plenty of areas around the country represent a true comprehensive system and many are excellent - which is wonderful, but sadly many are not.

This has been the case for many years through many successive governments.