Aibu to think most "gifted" children come from well off, affluent families?

[Blueballoons1]

Eg start instruments or sports very early, can afford top tuition, often a parent has the skills to teach the dc at home, they have the time & money to travel around the country for events.. Parents oversee practice is done at home.. Whereas they may well be quite medicore compared to a child with raw talent whose parents just cannot afford what it takes..
I just feel for music, sports or academics money & an affluent background is part of the parcel for the majority of "gifted kids"..

I agree with @MyNameIsFine it's sad but there is hardly any social mobility in this country. And private schooling is one of the reasons for this.

Don't blame private schools for Tories taking away the things that help with social mobility ie libraries, sure start centres, sports centres, good quality education etc. That isn't the fault of private schools.

I’m more positive about the arts and talent. There seem to be many schemes and local theatres providing affordable classes. Our local (expensive) drama school offers 3 free places every term. NYT and Drama schools waive audition fees and offer burseries for those without money. It’s still a risky business of course but more open than ever before. I think one factor some drama students don’t follow their talent is because some parents think it is a risky business and encourage into stem etc instead.

If you think public libraries and sure start centres can compete with private schooling, you are mistaken.

No but we still had private schools when we had good social mobility. We no longer have a decent level of social mobility but the number of private schools hasn’t massively increased. It is far too simplistic and naive to lay the blame for reduced social mobility at the door of private schools. You need to look at what has happened in the public services/sector.

One of the interesting things about football that singles it out as a field, is that the scouting network is now simply so strong that, if you're a child who is extremely good at football, and who plays at all for any kind of little local club, you will come to the attention of an academy scout without having to do any more than that and of course no specialist equipment, training or parental attention involved. Everyone has encountered football, pretty much the world over. Most boys, and many girls, will play it casually at lunchtimes at primary school, so you will discover if you are good unlike, say, discovering a talent for a particular instrument, when you would have to have had access to that instrument in the first place.

I agree with @Thepeopleversuswork -- people are confusing 'gifted' with 'extremely good' on the thread, though. I am not gifted, but I am clever, and got a scholarship to Oxford, despite my parents struggling with literacy and attending a school in which few students went on to any form of post-school education, so I had no support and filled out the forms etc myself and sent them off (back in the paper days!)

My parents are frequently puzzled by me, and my mother always says 'Where did you get it from?' The fact is that it's impossible to gauge genetic inheritance of IQ when no one before you in your family had any education or opportunity -- my family on both sides were very poor, and tracing as far back as I've been able, they were illiterate farm labourers. Who knows how clever they were, or what they might have achieved, in other circumstances?

The UK never had 'good social mobility' and private / public schools are definitely part of the problem. That doesn't mean the state sector shouldn't be improved. If the state sector was as good as private / public tell me why would parents send their dc not to state? What reasons would there be?

Affluent families can afford to give support and finances for a gifted child.
Others can't because they can't afford to.
So no, I don't believe gifted kids are an affluent families thing.
There are as many gifted kids from families that have nothing as there are from affluent families.

I agree with the PP who said you need money now to do sport or music etc and get the opportunity. However the things that have made these things so expensive are all the insurances and checks (agree with checks although they only show any conviction so are no guarantee). The other thing I think is that many parents now don't have the time or the inclination to give up their time. Many other parents, who never volunteer, are too demanding. You see threads on this all the time sadly.

Parents are deluded and always seem to think their little Jonny is the next Beckham!

I was a very academic child from a poor family, too many children and an alcoholic stepfather. I did very well academically. I worked from 13, I met DH working at the same place. He is also academic but did have a charmed life of private schooling, horse riding, sailing lessons and extensive travel, his family had a FT housekeeper. They did not bother to educate their DD privately because they deemed it a waste of money. She is someone that would have benefitted as she is really not academic at all. I was shocked when I found this out. DH would have done well anywhere.

You have the raw material and a natural level of academic capacity, for all children it’s the environment that influences. Many mediocre children thats parents can afford private education and tutoring overtake the poor who have natural academic ability. Extensive studies have shown this. I did research for an essay when at University on academic ability and socio economic class.

I am a text book example of social mobility, studied at a great RG University at a time when having a degree was worth so much more as about 12% people had a degree. Sorry I wrote that essay almost 30 years ago. Plus data changes.

So great degrees abound these days but the one thing the wealthy have especially if established wealth are contacts. DH got DS work experience in the head office of a global food company and also at a well respected engineering firm. He was offered a place on a degree apprenticeship because of that work experience, he did turn it down. I remember one of my students got an internship at the UN in Geneva as her Aunt worked there. I helped DS GF get her first job after graduating last year as my friend is head of sales at a very big firm. She is now already in charge of contracts at some major sports venues. It’s a game I didn’t know as a child but do now. One of my friends was head of research for a firm in big pharma, he offered DS an internship in America where he lives and to house him with his family for free. DS was not interested in that as a career.

Life is completely stacked against the poor, I have lived both sides.

Social aspirationalism and anxiety their child won't 'get on', which is rife in the British class system -- the desire for their child not to just get the same good education that everyone would get in a good state school system, but to get a better one, to 'get ahead', to have the edge on the others.

It's the same impulse that sees some parents checking visiting children's book bands on playdates, or coming on here to ask how many 'extracurriculars' people's six year olds are doing, for fear they're 'not doing enough' and will get 'left behind' while the others get UN internships and make 'nice friends' playing county tennis.

My area of interest is, of course, music. Music and the arts in general have been constantly run down in state schools for over thirty years now as a policy by successive governments of both huesin favour of the all-important STEM subjects. I am not saying that these subjects are not important, of course they are, but the arts play a vital rôle too. I wonder if some of the mental health issues that so many young people are experiencing are because the creative outlets, often fostered by schools in the past, have been denied them to a great extent. When I was at school in the seventies and early eighties, the importance of the arts subjects was well established and understood. As far as music tuition is concerned, these were the glory days of instrumental teaching. The peripatetic system, where an instrumental teacher would visit different schools was at its height. The lessons were free and you could borrow an instrument from the school to see what you took to it. I already had private piano lessons but my parents could not have afforded for me to learn another instrument privately so this is how I learned the violin. When it was obvious that I had taken to it, my parents bought me my first violin as a joint Christmas/birthday present. Many children discovered a talent for music in just this way. One of my friends, who, like many others, came from a very ordinary background, started learning the ‘cello at the age of nine. At sixteen, he passed grade eight with one of the highest marks in the country. All from twenty minutes a week peripatetic lessons at school. After graduation from one of the foremost music colleges in the country, he had the choice be tween two of the top orchestras in the country. I am certain that there were many others who discovered their musical talent because of this excellent scheme. We have gone backwards in this country in this respect, which is why children who attend private schools have so much of an advantage. However, my experiences over a lifetime would still suggest that true giftedness is innate and cannot be bought.

Sorry but I beg to differ. My dad pulled himself up through grammar school from a Northern WC background with generations living in back to back housing to be the first one in his family to go to Uni, moved to London and set up his own business. Swathes of his peers were able to do the same. By comparison it is much harder for an equivalent child to do that today. So yes I think we have been a lot better at social mobility than we are now.

@twistyizzy it is harder to do now, but it was not easy then. Most children left school for full time work at 15 to contribute to the family income. The poorest families could not afford to keep a child at school.

Actually a 2022 study cited by Sutton Trust says "the review of social mobility patterns over time concludes that the dream of just doing better in life, let alone climbing the income ladder, is disappearing for generations growing up in the early 21st century. Their prospects contrast with generations born shortly after the Queen began her reign, who enjoyed a ‘golden age of upward mobility’ fuelled by expanding opportunities in society"

I agree but I refute the PP who said we have never had good social mobility. There was a period when we had better social mobility than we do now.

There is less social mobility today, I agree. In comparison with countries that don't have a private school system as we do here we are doing, and have always done worse in terms of social mobility than many of our neighbours in the EU. In other countries bright kids go to comprehensive or grammar school whatever the prevailing system and anyone who's bright can go to these and indeed does. There isn't a significant sub section whose parents pay extortionate school fees so that their kids can become part of the elite. See previous prime ministers almost all from Eaton, Harrow etc. a handful of state grammar PMs and one single one from a state comprehensive state. These are the people who are governing us. It's off putting. Coming back to the topic of the thread. There is gifted, there is talented and then there are those with potential. An education system that enables all children to equally access high quality tuition including access to excellent sports, music, drama and other creative activities would allow everyone to thrive and the gifted, talented and with potential form poorer backgrounds or with less able parents could indeed fulfil their unique potential.

Actually some other countries pay a subsidy to parents who chose private schools but like you say, that is going off topic. Just don't blame private schools for the lack in mobility, it is way more complex than that.

Respectfully, I disagree with you @twistyizzy but let's not derail this interesting thread. You obviously are very much in favour of private schools as is your prerogative.

Maybe a bit more complex than just private schools but they are hardly facilitators of social mobility.

No but they aren't the cause of the decline in social mobility as PP said, that's who I was responding to. The main factors in lack of social mobility are: the cost of housing, job opportunities and the quality of state education. Not private schools.

@twistyizzy as you seem interested in the topic of private schooling and social mobility you might find this interesting.

https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/2019/02/19/why-britains-private-schools-are-such-a-social-problem/

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/research-projects/2023/dec/private-schools-and-british-society

And I can show you other studies which show that the VAT won't increase equality and will actually widen the inequality gap but all this is derailing the original post.
Grammar school Heads are very worried that private kids will push out bright but poorer kids with VAT policy.

I still don't think you can discount private schools from the picture. It's obvious that the fact that some can buy a better standard of education, while others are stuck with the inferior quality state education you cite, plays its role in constraining mobility. Also low quality of state education, job opportunities and affordability of housing are inextricably linked. The first is a key catalyst for the other two.

There's a difference between those born gifted from all walks of life, and those who have the opportunity given to them to expand on these gifts by private tuition etc. It's my experience that those with talent will eventually rise to the top though.