UKH

So, there is an interesting article in tbe guardian about class identity, on middle class folk identifying as working class. So what class do you identify with and why?

Me, now firmly middle middle class, based on job type, income and assets. Science degree based work in pharmaceutical industry and home owning.

But would say originally either working class or lower middle class, Dad a butcher, Mum a nurse. 

I am quiet happy identifying as middle class, so no real hang ups there.

In reply to RX-78:

I’m middle class, but have working class roots so to speak. I vote labour and am very union minded. 

Dad was a sheet metal worker, vicar, financial advisor, dairy man, teacher (in a referall unit), he’d come from rough a rough gypsy family and always tried to better himself. Parents separated and my dad lived in a terraced houses in rough bits of stoke. Still remember the 3p beans when he was skint and out of work.

Mum was a primary teacher in the same inner city primary all her life. She is middle class through and through. 
 

My wife is a privately educated Londoner though, with Tory voting parents... 

In reply to RX-78:

Genuine question (I have not seen the article, maybe it addresses this) - would anyone outside of aristocracy / "landed gentry" self-identify as "upper class"? Like a successful multi-millionaire entrepreneur or sportsperson originally from a working class or middle class background?

In reply to RX-78:

Links are generally helpful 😀

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/18/why-professional-midd...

I'm from a working class background, (born and bred on a council estate) and didn't go to uni. Based on income and assets I, like you, probably fit the bill as being middle class. However I wouldn't join the Freemasons, Round Table, ( or is it the Rotary Club?) or the other 'middle class' institutions, take up golf, or attend a 'black tie' or other corporate shindig unless threatened with the sack.

That's not inverse snobbery (I think), it's  just not my natural habitat and not the sort of environment I feel comfortable in. Does that make me working class?

Also, from the article:

“Take Ella, an actor who was conscious that her claim to a working-class identity might be undermined by her middle-class accent (“I consider my background to be a working-class one even though I don’t sound like that”). She also tried to play down her private schooling (“one of the small ones, quite cheap”). Or Mike, a partner in an accountancy firm who gave a long family history when asked about his background, focusing less on his father’s career as an architect (“he was a technician made good, really”) and more on his grandmother, who had worked in a mill as a child.”

Plus, as a “technician made good” myself I'd hate to be associated with the likes of Ella or Mike, who are clearly as middle class as it gets.

In reply to RX-78:

Middle class here too. Home owner, doctoral level job with an income that, while not huge, is definitely above the median for my age and area. Money was tight when I was growing up, but broadly speaking both parents were in middle class jobs and definitely were middle class in attitude. It’s part of who I am, no issues with it. I’m far from the most privileged but I would have to be blind to not see that many have it much much harder.

It is an interesting one though. I grew up with someone who is adamant about her working class roots despite both parents being high earning doctors. Her own job history and salary might label her as working class, but that is through choice (she does the odd hour here and there so she can spend more time making art) and opportunity (parents bought her a house so she has no need to work full time). Nowadays I tend to avoid conversations with them about class. It’s too infuriating hearing them talk about “working class struggles” and “life on the breadline” with some sense of superiority when it is entirely through a combination of personal choice and being in a privileged position whereby they barely need to work. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Once read some comment that you're only really upper class if you never need to buy furniture (in your life).

Middle class vs Working class, the volume of IKEA/dfs furniture you possess? 

In reply to RX-78:

I think where people struggle is how these labels get used to make broad brush assumptions about people in that groups voting preferences, views, opinions, wealth etc.

Recent history has shown that people now belong to many different “tribes” which can comprise people from all sorts of social strata who agree on a single issue(e.g. Brexit), but all the multiple “tribes” you belong/agree with may differ in widely in their composition - each being supported by the self-reinforcing nature of the internet/social media etc.

In reply to RX-78:

The way of looking at class that interests me is the old "ownership of the means of production" one. Which comes down to can you live off your capital or do you have to work for a living. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that but obscure cultural markers don't really come into it. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Following the traditional class definitions, you can only really describe yourself as upper class if you were born in to a title. Of course that just illustrates the meaningless of the definitions.

I am firmly lower middle-class. State educated, University educated, professional job, own my own home etc. Childhood was that of a middle-class child.

My Dad is more tricky. Child of two unskilled manual workers (my Grandma was any to work on a farm at the age of 13 and worked in to her 70s), grew up in a Council flat then Council house. However, he passed his 11+ went to the local Grammar School, went to University, had a professional career and bought his own home in his 20s. Because he grew up as a working class kid, he still considers himself largely working class. He enjoys French cinema and bridge, but also meat pies and dingy pubs.

In reply to Ridge:

I have never understood peoples' URGE or WISH to be seen as "working class" rather than "middle class", and I don't agree with using one's parents or grandparents' lives to define one's own class. I am hardly going to pretend to be working class based on my English grandfather having been a joiner. .

In reply to RX-78:

I always considered my Mum's family to be very middle-class, my grandad was a teacher and my grandma was a little bit of a snob about certain things. She apparently once complained to my Mum that I, as perhaps a 5 year old, was developing an Oldham accent, which was bloody rich considering she had grown up in Wigan.

I only found out last year, many years after he had died that my grandad had worked in a foundry with his father, both before and after the war. He was only able to become a teacher because of opportunities that opened up to him as a demobbed serviceman.

In reply to The New NickB:

What would have taken to make you upper-middle class?  Could you still get there, or is something about where you came from?

I'm genuinely confused as to how this is supposed to work.

In reply to RX-78:

I once spent a couple of nights in Thurso and got talking to someone at the pub. They said there was a stark difference between those locals who had a well paid job at Dounreay and those who didn't. Regardless of background the average salary from Dounreay was so much higher than most other jobs it causes an unintended social divide between the haves and have-nots.

Income and asset wise I'm probably lower middle class but definitely come from a working class background (steel makers and farmers).

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I think it's about your childhood more than about your parents.  

I'd say I had a working class childhood at least as a younger child.  However my parents worked hard and would now be considered middle class I think.  

In reply to The New NickB:

My wife is from a more middle class family her mum was head teacher at the  local village school. So she had a certain social standing. 

Funnily  enough our son sometimes makes fun of our middle class tastes (music, etc.) although he is the one born into it and never had it otherwise and owns a tuxedo, one of which I still have never worn. 

In reply to Dave Garnett:

More money probably, a “good” private education is a traditional indicator. Possibly some independent means. As I mentioned it is less and less meaningful these days.

In reply to RX-78:

Not got a lot of time for class distinctions myself. They're largely an outdated invention cast adrift from relevance in the modern world. Nobody's paying them much attention bar a few insecure people who seem to be trying to escape association with their actual backgrounds.

As far as I'm concerned how much "class" a person has is entirely dependent on how much joy or distress they spread amongst the fellow mammals they come across in their daily lives.*

*Cats are exempt, all being born aristocrats 

In reply to RX-78:

That's an interesting article.  I'd definitely identify as Middle Class (and, if you count it, Upper Middle Class); my grandparents were definitely working class (one grandfather worked on the factory floor in a car plant, the other was a policeman of the "on the beat" sort), my parents were middle class (owned a car, had office-type jobs, drank wine if they drank); I have a degree, a very technical job, and occasionally go to black-tie dinners (I do work for the University of Oxford, though, and they're mad keen on a black tie do).  Equally, though, like Ridge, I'd not consider golf or joining the Freemasons as I'd doubt that I'd fit in (and, also, the Freemasons sound weird)

Not that class links to wealth: I've only very recently got together enough money to start looking at buying a house (Oxford may love flashy meals but they pay like any other Uni), and my cars have all been second hand. 

In reply to summo:

Yes, wasn't it Alan Clark about Michael Heseltine.. 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/aug/07/bbc.politicsandthemedia

Clark, although slightly to the right of Genghis Khan, did have entertainment value.... 

In reply to RX-78:

Well, he's never going to cut it as properly middle class if he calls it that!

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I'm not sure you could put farmers in the "working class" category. I guess it depends on the scale but even then, the ownership of assets might make it a stretch.

In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Think it was. Old money and new money. 

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Well there you go! That was my wording. I don't know what's the accepted term, penguin suit?🤔

In reply to Ridge:

Golf etc is boring.  

But I love the odd occasion to put on a posh frock.  Mainly because we were very much always brought up to believe that we were as good as anyone regardless of background, and that we should never feel otherwise.  My family worked hard and wanted us to do well, sent us to University when they didn’t have the opportunity themselves and are always proud to see photos of us at things like black tie dinners. I think we scrub up well.  

In reply to RX-78:

I'm pure class me.

In reply to Removed User:

There are farmers who own vast tracts of land, some live in wellies & overalls, others in mustard or burgundy cords with a tweed jacket. 

In reply to Removed User:

I’d agree, many farmers now are business managers, and if the cars are anything to go by not doing too shabbily. Not always true, I’ve met many hill farmers who are very much just making ends meet. 

In reply to RX-78:

Dinner Jacket or Black Tie would I guess be more acceptable terms to some. There are worse crimes, it isn’t a colour other than black is it.

In reply to marsbar:

Even then, if I wanted to I could make an argument for having had a "working class" childhood, and someone could easily argue against that. Dad a schoolteacher in a very poverty-stricken town (not my hometown). Mum a housewife forever cutting corners - we ate OK but always "cheap cuts" and stuff from the cheaper supermarkets like Kwik Save. Grew up with rubbish old cars, all repairs done by the moonlight brigade (probably a false economy). Summer holidays always spent visiting friends and family; apart from a week in Scarborough (that's a whole other story!) when I was 6 or 7, I don't actually know when I first stayed in a hotel. I might have been 20! Oh we had two nights in a hotel in London when I was 14 or so, but that was on a special offer from Echo baking margarine, if you saved up about 800 wrappers. My dad had what I now realise was an actual fear of getting in a taxi.
I grew up in dying industrial Teesside. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, I enjoyed a childhood in the Cubs and Scouts and Venture Scouts and was never left wanting for adequate equipment or access to activities or camping trips. I went on two school ski-ing trips to France/Switzerland. I'd been to Indonesia 3 times by the age of 16, and also USA/Canada, and Belgium, France and Holland. There was no question that I was going to do A-Levels and university. From the age about 12, we were a two-car household. I had piano lessons. 


None of the above is relevant to what class I am now, IMHO. If I had (say) dropped out of my undergrad and was now working (say) some semi-skilled blue-collar / factory floor job, I would surely be working class. I am very much middle class; not sure where my childhood experiences fit into all of that. 

In reply to marsbar:

A major "albatross" for me was the phrase "not for the likes of us", handed down from my English grandfather and possibly earlier generations. He was the estate joiner and all-round odd-job man on a country estate, essentially an indentured serf conditioned to kow-tow to the "Lord of the Manor" and by extension, any "higher authority". It took me until I was in my very late 20s to realise this ethos still existed in me albeit in a diluted form. I had an epiphany one weekend in April 2004 and managed to shake it off forever. 

In reply to Dave Garnett:

How about this?

If you sell your skills for less than they're worth, even if you wear a suit or have professional qualifications, you're working class.

If 'your face fits', regardless of income or assets, you're middle class.

If 'your face fits' to the extent you can command a really huge salary for doing little more than the working class and middle class do, or can get a few hundred grand for knocking up a few sheets of A4, purely because of who you know, you're upper middle class?

In reply to Stichtplate:

Well, besides the people responsible for recruiting people on to the career paths that lead to the most powerful positions in our society! https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/ 

In reply to TobyA:

Traditional class structures are about a whole lot more than whether or not your parents paid for your education, or do you reckon the offspring of dodgy Russian entrepreneurs are now aristos cos Daddy’s minted and they went to Harrow?

In reply to RX-78:

Interesting topic.

I remember seeing Stephen Venables talking about his new book once, and he used the line' I had a desperately untrendy middle class upbringing', or something similar. I can relate to that. I remember being pleased and relieved that he wasn't going to be apologetic for the situation he was born into by chance.

I also remember Jarvis Cocker saying 'and all the stupid things you do, because you think that poor is cool'. 

Having said that, I do think there is something to be said that professional jobs are not what they were and maybe it is the office workers who are the new working class? i.e. on the 'factory floor', removed from the ownership of their endeavours (as mentioned above).

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I had very much the same from my Mum, (who might be from the same generation as your grandfather). That might well be a lot to do with what defines the working class today, poverty of expectation and subliminal messages to 'know your place'?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Your identity seems to based on the present.  Some people’s identity is rooted in their childhood.  I’m not saying it should be, but it is.  

In reply to marsbar:

I don't disagree. I am only writing about my own self-identification/opinion, and experiences. I am not saying everyone should take the same approach. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

Are they? Or is it that private education, particularly at the top public schools, is not just a rather useful tool for identifying people's class?

And as to the dodgy Russians paying their kids' way though Harrow, well we're not really talking about aristocracy are we - although I suspect you stand a far better chance of landing yourself a lord- or lady-to-be as a spouse if you go to Harrow and Oxford - but absolutely, that's a fast track into the upper echelons of UK society. It's just like the industrial new bourgeois class marrying their daughters (and sometimes sons) into the aristocracy in the 19th century! 

In reply to Stichtplate:

As others have said it's an interesting topic, that I've not really thought about, so have more questions than answers. If this is true why are they sending their kids there? Others have said childhood experiences are part of it. Can kids be of a different class to their parents. If they meet their spouse at an exclusive private school and then send their kids to Eton, what class will their kids be?

In reply to Ridge:

Do you think, though, that this could be a moving target as people progress through different stages of career?

In reply to RX-78:

I’m not really sure where I belong on the class scale.  Both my parents, despite being bright, left school at 14 and did various dead-end jobs.  When I was growing up my dad was a butcher then a warehouse worker, mum worked on the production line in a food factory, then as a cleaner.  

We lived in a council house which they bought when “right to buy” kicked in.

We always had one crappy car and had caravan holidays - my mum was never out of the uk or on a plane in her life. 

I was fairly bright at school and was asked by the career advisor if I was interested in going to university.  On asking my parents what university was (I genuinely didn’t know and had never met anyone who had been), was told it’s where you go to train to be a doctor, a lawyer or a teacher and that the careers advisor had no business putting such ideas in my head as I wasn’t clever enough and would not be going.  So that was that.

In the end I went to college, got an HND then did an OU degree whilst working full-time.

Career wise, I’ve had slightly more middle-class jobs than my mum and dad, office work mostly, own my home, have travelled abroad and have more interests outside work, although I still struggle with the “not for the likes of me” about many things.  I worry constantly about money, hate debt, feel guilt about having “things” and have a hefty case of imposter syndrome.

My other half comes from a fairly solid middle-class background.  His dad was an airline pilot, mum never had a job but volunteered for National Trust, played piano and golf and painted.  He and his brothers were expected to go to Uni and most of them did.  Funnily enough he doesn’t share my money/debt/imposter angst.

In reply to RX-78:

Is the UK the only European country where these questions would be asked? 

What's the opinion of the non-Brits on UKC?

Although they may have automatically skipped over the thread as that weird or even uniquely UK thinking.

In reply to Sealwife:

This is starting to be a recurring, and interesting, theme.

In reply to Removed User:

I reckon working to middle class can be fluid, but entry to upper-middle class probably needs the social capital and total belief in your own superiority (despite ovewhelming evidence to the contrary) that only an expensive private education can deliver.

In reply to TobyA:

No, I don't think it is. To take a prominent example; Sir Philip Green was privately educated and ennobled but do you seriously think anyone is going to mistake the man for being upper class in the traditional sense or possessing any class by my definition ?

What they are buying (apart from the obvious educational advantage) is access to social networks and the huge leg up provided by having parents of friends who can provide mentoring, internships and the sort of inside info that can get you into everything from the right chambers to the right TV production company. This isn't class hierarchy in the traditional working/middle/upper definition which have become, as I said earlier, "largely an outdated invention cast adrift from relevance in the modern world."

In reply to RX-78:

How depressing that it is a meaningful question in 2021. 

In reply to RX-78:

Lower middle class,  middle class , up middle class, tack your pick. You could argue the majority of people are working class as we dont own the means of production. 

In reply to RX-78:

I've no doubt about my social status. Parents skilled working class. Dad was a fitter in heavy engineering and Mum a mill girl. They and by default me and my brother benefitted from the welfare state and full employment of the 1960s. They did a lot of community work, mostly through the church. Doing stuff for free is ingrained in me. I'm now retired on a final salary NHS pension to which I paid the maximum possible contributions for decades. Proud to be working class.

In reply to Stichtplate:

If you want to say the only definition of class is as it was until, say, the 1970s, then no it's not, but the class system has evolved and changed over time just as everything else has. Look at the ONS socio-economic classifications, the basis of which has been around since the early 90s - but doesn't really look like the traditions "working/middle/upper definition".

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Just had a quick look at some definitions, Wikipedia but given the whole thing is meaningless I don’t suppose it matters. It seems that in Britain, to be upper middle-class you need to have gone to the right school, in the US predictably it is about income. I may qualify by the US definition, I certainly don’t and never could by the British one.

In reply to TobyA:

I'd say the whole notion of class, shorn of the actual content of a person's character, is meaningless. That works for me, but if you want to order your perception of people based on schooling, musical taste or what condiments they have on the dinner table, crack on. I'd still maintain its an odd way of viewing things and one that's been gradually receding for a couple of centuries now.

In reply to RX-78:

Sorry but I don't want to appear to be rude,but as far as my outlook on class...it's utter nonsense and self defeating....I'm not going to be labeled,because quite frankly no one is below me and no one one is above me.

In reply to Stichtplate:

So are you saying we shouldn't  be concerned that social mobility is allegedly getting worse, because income mobility isn't?

In reply to RX-78:

I think the classes outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Class_Survey are much more reflective of modern life than the tradtitional class system.

I think many people downplay their class because being middle class is often conflated with being an SUV-driving, golf-playing Tory voter. While there are definite correlations there, in that the majority of participants in any of those activities are likely to be middle class, they aren't defining features. I suspect many people don't identify with those stereotypes and thus don't want to attach the middle class label to themselves. In reality, it's perfectly possible to be socio-economically middle class and still drive a 10 year old car, vote labour and have zero interest in golf.

I am definitely middle class. Homeowner, grammar school education (not private, but nevertheless), three degrees, doctoral-level job, above average income for my age.  There is no real way I could claim to be anything else. My parents are also middle class, although my grandparents on both sides were working class. According to the link I posted above, I could probably put myself in either the technical middle class or established middle class groups. I also have no interest in any of the activities discussed above

In reply to kathrync:

Round where I live it was the people on lower income who voted Tory - masochists!

In reply to RX-78:

Why does anybody  waste any time thinking about their class?

In reply to RobAJones:

No, I'm saying (repeatedly) that class is a bollocks way of categorising people and one that is increasingly irrelevant and has been gradually decreasing in significance for centuries. There are much bigger drivers stifling economic mobility than what your great grandad did for a living or whether you're about to sit down for your tea/dinner/supper. 

Edit: and what exactly is social mobility these days?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Precisely, a dress code named after a country club for millionaires in New York shouts new-money and no class whatsoever.

In reply to timjones:

Maybe they are neither wasting time nor thinking about it. 

In reply to RX-78:

Does 'working class' actually mean anything nowadays ?  It isn't identified with property ownership, or hours worked anymore.  Its clearly not about aspirational values.  Its main use seems to be trying to identify as not being like 'them', where 'them' are the 'middle class' (which seems to span just about every social strata imaginable).

In reply to Deleated bagger:

Maximum possible contributions....what % were you paying of your wage, out of interest?

In reply to Stichtplate:

I think it is movement within the groups outlined in kathrync's link. I agree it needed updating and it has been. I still think it's parents attitude to and ability to affect their children education that results in some having a more privileged experience than others. This hampers both social and income mobility. If we are going to do something about it, we need some sort of definition.

In reply to RobAJones:

Brilliant, then let's address parental aspiration and attitudes to education but I fail to see how social mobility is aided by pigeon holing people into little boxes that they then need help mobilising out of.

In reply to RX-78:

No idea. Probably some sort of "Class Mongrel"

Dad was a dairy farmer for 30 years from a farming family, Mum trained as a computer programmer in the early 80s (she never stuck with it, we'd have been effing loaded otherwise) but worked in a bank and from a naval family.

Both from fairly working class families but also both went to university when it wasn't all that common, and there's the odd great auntie or uncle that was a Doctor, Army officer, Lawyer or whatever if you look back through the generations.

As for me, I'm on round two at university going from one painfully middle class profession (dentistry) to another one that's becoming more and more middle class (But don't tell anyone on station i said that ;p)

In reply to RobAJones:

What if I'm happy living in my council house...I don't want to move anywhere,does this count against me?

In reply to Ridge:

I guess it depends (as this thread attests to) on what measurement you use. When I left school I went to work on a farm and then later joined the army as a private soldier. So essentially I joined the working class out of the gates. When I left the army I went back to a farm and lived in a tied cottage so very definitely working class. I then went to University (late) and became a consultant - so then lower middle class. 

But now I'm in Canada where there is no class system, other than the measurement of income. and I would now be upper middle class on that scale.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I can certainly sympathise with those that don't think about it, but existence of this thread and the article that they reference suggests that at least 2 people do think about it?

What useful purpose does it serve?

In reply to RobAJones:

I'm very aware that home ownership is a massive, practical distinguishing factor between different groups. If your folks own their own property then you are going to inherit a significant sum, at some point in your life. As a friend so cheerfully put it, you have the definitive non-contributory pension scheme. If your folks DON'T own their own, then you are down by £100, £200, £X00 K before you even start.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I have have tried for 25 years

if we don't how do I or anyone else know where to focus our efforts or if we have had any success?

In reply to GrahamD:

I thought exactly the same thing. It's meaningless in 2021. Almost as crude as using left/right for political affiliations since the world is more nuanced.

My dad was started as a docker in Hull but retired as a headteacher. I very much grew up in the East Hull council estates (although we owned our house) but scraped though exams and uni and made a career success to end up an educated, affluent homeowner. I'm not sure what that makes me.

If I go to the pub in my dad's village (leafy, but not rich, although pretty much everyone owns their own homes) being anything other than working class is seen as an insult.

Excluding upper class, you're essentially dividing 99.9% of the population down an arbitrary line which makes no sense. Except that class identity is a great way of keeping people in their place. 

In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

I wonder if we will be saying the same about trump/Johnson in 30 years time? 

In reply to RobAJones:

Yeah, it's a tough one.

No idea. Perhaps I've not explained my viewpoint fully;

it's a pointless exercise born of a ridiculous effort to force people into ill fitting pigeon holes and then judge them and their needs based on those pigeon holes.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That is becoming a bigger and bigger division, the latest report I read was that 10% of people born in the '80's are predicted to inherit more than half of what they will actually earn during their lifetime.

In reply to RX-78:

I guess being from a two parent and 2 car family, with one who was a teacher, and another who was an engineer (retired), and having a music teacher brother, I'm unarguably middle class, and count myself pretty lucky, when I think of the financial support, and to some degree a network of role models to help inspire me (family friends, and other peeps).

On the last point, a more recent network of friends has done similar, in my observing their confidence, and that bringing something to mind I read in an interview, where a person from working class roots talked about envying the innate confidence of his middle class peers. Mine hasn't been innate, it's more something I've talked myself into, in aiming at in exploring my potential, but finding similar 'pointers' from (friends of) a less fortunate background might have been trickier. 

I'm middle class, and recognise the good fortune...

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Not against you, there are plenty of studies that indicate being more affluent doesn't make you happier. It did count against me however particularly in the last 10 years of my career.

In reply to Stichtplate:

For me it’s about the opposite.  Helping people aspire to escape the boxes other people have put around them. 

This thread has been very interesting to me.  

In reply to Stichtplate:

I think we might be at slight cross purposes in that I agree that working/middle/upper is outdated. I was referring the the more modern A,B,C1,C2, D and E "pigeon holes" I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that a child with parents in group E need more support than one with parents in group A

In reply to marsbar:

I've absorbed a lot from interviews of working class people talking about having to learn not to settle for less than is possible for them, and it seems to be an aspect of depression that goals and hopefulness aren't something which is second nature. With humans being social animals, and status being something which we all register, I guess when mental health becomes a factor as well, the importance of role models and people with ideas becomes another benefit which working class may more often lack.

The more one delves into things, society, and what it means to be human, it strikes me that the inequalities of class become more apparent as well. In that it's an unequal race when people are well, and then it's an unequal race in terms of what people have towards overcoming obstacles. I heard a lady on the radio saying that for things which would be life changing, and set back working class children by rather a lot, or radically alter their life chances, there's (more often) the resources available to support working class grown up children until they can find their feet, which is something I believe to be true. 

In reply to Ridge:

I’ve just been reading the story of Carole Goldsmith. Carole is born in Ealing, daughter of a builder, has a modest working class childhood. She is bright, but doesn’t go to university and gets a job with British Airways.

At BA she meets and marries Mike, he is from Leeds, but a posh lad with a public school education and a bit of family money. They have some children and she starts a business which becomes quite successful. Through money have made and also with the help of some of Mike’s family money they have a very nice life and send their children to various public schools, ultimately Marlborough College.

Eldest daughter goes to St. Andrews University and meets a chap. Carole becomes the mother of a Duchess, Mother-In-Law to the future King of England and Grandmother to 3-5 in the line of succession.

Pretty impressive social climbing.

In reply to marsbar:

That’s key in my view. There is one thing I have noticed often about people who were born in rich families.

They aren’t necessarily better educated, or more intelligent, but they have the confidence to have the highest aspirations for themselves and the most ambitious goals, they can afford to take risks because their financial security is never really at stake.

The psychological advantage of this mindset against the mindset of someone who lives in (justified or unjustified) fear of poverty or destitution is huge.

In reply to marsbar:

I don't think that's the opposite. I've been arguing against people being put in boxes.

When it comes to helping people (barring issues of neglect) it always seems more productive to help them with what they see as a problem rather than what other people have decided must be a problem.

In reply to RX-78:

University educated with a master's degree. University educated dad.

Working in the care sector, husband a landscape gardener, still renting aged 38 and drive a scabby van. 

Wouldn't know where to put myself in the class system! Don't really care though, I'm happy and healthy with a lovely husband and dog.

In reply to RX-78:

Me.... 

youtube.com/watch?v=fg_bWlmbeb0&

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Honestly can't remember but 17% rings a bell. I certainly felt it in the pocket but given that my employer paid in double what I did it was a bargain in the long run. I saw it as deferred wages for years of hard work and dedication. Wish everyone had access to the same instead of this depressing race to the bottom.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I don't see it as anything to do with a person's character. It's about wealth, power and privilege or the lack thereof. Marx had Andrew hat right two centuries ago. And it's connected in complex ways to other ways people get classified: ethnicity, gender, nationality, sexuality and so on.

Social class is changing, absolutely, but I see little evidence that it's retreating. 

In reply to Alyson30:

Agree completely. As someone up thread noted, there's also the 'unpaid internship' barrier to weed out those not from rich families.

In reply to TobyA:

You might not but it was always been seen as a central strand of the old class system. 

Noblesse oblige (/noʊˌblɛs əˈbliːʒ/; French: [nɔblɛs ɔbliʒ]; literally “nobility obliges”) is a French expression used in English meaning that nobility extends beyond mere entitlements and requires the person who holds such a status to fulfill social responsibilities.

We live in a World where some of the Windsors think they're Kardashians and some of the Kardashians think they're Windsors. It's all essentially meaningless.

You aren't the sum of your circumstances. You're the sum of your actions.

In reply to TobyA:

I see it as stratifying, with the people 'on the lower level' economically, having more difficulty than ever in improving their circumstances, with people who hold down okay jobs but not being able to save for a home being among the luckier ones (and life being grimmer than that for the less lucky, in having casual and short term work and needing to navigate a harsh benefits system while keeping their rent and bills up to date).

How can anybody have dreams and hope and the space to make things happen, when they're in that kind of grimness?

 In case what I said about helpful 'pointers' being possibly less likely to be available in a working class environment wasn't quite understood, it was the element of hope and actual possibilities of progress I had in mind, and examples to follow from that, rather than a lack of people wanting something better. I think it's an unjust inequality of life chances which now exists in this country.

In reply to RX-78: When I was a kid I remember one of my dads friends telling me about the class system. His take was, if you’re willing to do the dirty work for someone else’s benefit, your working class. If you want to manage those who do the dirty work, you’re middle class and if you own the work, you’re upper class. Simple as that. He was an old miner and things were simpler then. Now we probably have people who would say they are working class, electricians and plumbers and the like who probably earn more than the middle class folk that employ them so class cannot be down to money in the U.K.  I also remember being invited to a meal at Ripley Castle by Lord & Lady Ingleby many years ago for some work I did, they were the very definition of upper class but in conversation they were so down to earth and despite living in a castle they informed me that the  only way they could manage was by using the castle as a form of income, guided tours hiring parts out for filming and events. Again they probably didn’t have the same disposable income as the sparky or plumber who spent a Sunday afternoon looking round the place. 

In reply to Deleated bagger:

17% is indeed a large amount.I only ask because I retired on a final salary scheme which started with contributions of 11% and ended at 14.5%...we thought this was high..

When I started my working life I never thought about retirement.

Unfortunately I've left behind colleagues having to work for 40 yrs...on career averages...little lump sum and paying more in....it is a race to the bottom.

In reply to RobAJones:

In what way?..if ok to ask..

In reply to Stichtplate:.

Or alternatively you believe in the myth of meritocracy - which is what the research that the Guardian article is based on, is saying causes this class based self justification from seemingly a chunk of people they interviewed.

And apologies for the weird autocorrect in my last post! Not sure at all why my phone thought I wanted "Andrew" in the middle of the sentence! I should read before hitting send more carefully! 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yeah it's a strange one. I'm not sure the categories are accurate anymore.

We grew up in what we classed as working class, on or around estates, in that we had little money, never left the country for holidays, one car, and my parents struggled a lot, clothes from charity shops etc. But my Dad was a PhD student with 3 kids - I'm not sure you can be working class getting a PhD but financially we were as poor as most families in a very depressed area at a very depressed time (Stoke in the 80's). Then he was a warden on a Poly site (which we thought was awesome as we had keys to the astroturf). He raced pigeons and could never tell the guys he raced pigeons with he was actually a university lecturer. Both parents came from pretty rough areas, my mum's parents lived in her Gran's council house as they couldn't afford their own place, my Dad grew up in one of Manchesters overspill estates and was one of the few to get out, his Dad worked in the gas works. He was the first one to get a degree in both their families. My brother and I were the first to get degrees in my Mum's side. But we never questioned the A-levels>degree path because that's what my Dad had done. 

By the time we hit our late teens/had left home his career was more established, my mum was working and financially we were far more comfortable. They are certainly well outside working class now. Seeing their struggle and where they came from certainly gave us drive I think, so I think it shaped us.

My wife and I still struggle a lot financially, but we're certainly part of the middle/professional class. I teach and my wife is an oncology fellow (specialized MD training stage so relatively low paid) and gets job adverts for the best part of half a million dollars if we lived in say the midwest, she'll earn a bit less in the North East but still more than enough. So we live in this strange time of struggling with her medical school debt (multiple 100's of thousands) and paying for childcare, living pay check to pay check, but knowing we're just 18 months off financial security and probably never really worrying about money again.

And that's what my kids will grow up in. They'll probably attend a prep school until they are 18 and live a totally different life. Especially the twins who are only 9 months old now. I actually worry how detached from reality they'll be growing up in a liberal bubble of money, attending an elite prep school.

In reply to Alyson30:

I think the key...is making an individual feel valued and included in society.

I know plenty of tradesmen who are confident, know there true value and won't take any nonsense....

In reply to TobyA:

You seem rather wedded to pigeon holing people.  I don’t believe we live in a meritocracy but I do believe you’ll do better for yourself if you’re a grafter.

As far as the class system goes (for what, the seventh time now?) I simply believe it’s a ridiculous way to classify people. If you like it fine but for myself I’m not about to start looking up or down at people based on accent or where they went to school.

In reply to RX-78:

I'm fairly close friends with a Plumber and a GP. They both work about the same hours per week and earn a pretty similar amount pa.

Is one working class and one middle class?

E

In reply to Stichtplate:

"You aren't the sum of your circumstances. You're the sum of your actions."

I think that's easier for some than others. A kid born "on the wrong side of the tracks" has to take a lot more actions, and make a lot more correct decisions to get out.

I've worked in some of the roughest schools in the most murderous city in the US and those kids rarely get out. Less than 50% of kids graduated high school and many of them end up in prison. "the school to prison pipeline". Classes were awful. God knows how the kids learnt anything, they had to self teach or get into the strongest classes. I'd come home with my shirt ripped from brawling with kids stopping stranglings or knifings. The last act of the day was mopping the blood off the classroom floor. I remember the relief everyday when I stepped out of the school building.

They say the US is about equal opportunity for all, not equality for all and but that just doesn't happen. 

In reply to The New NickB:

They are more royal than the royal family...

In reply to Enty:

Of my mates the one who earns the most left school at 16 for an electrical engineering apprenticeship. He earns 3-4 times what I earn with a PhD..

In reply to TobyA:

No need to apologise! I once managed to insert a text to my kids after school club into a reply

In reply to girlymonkey:

Scabby van...can't be vw then.

What did you study?

In reply to Alyson30:

"They aren’t necessarily better educated, or more intelligent, but they have the confidence to have the highest aspirations for themselves and the most ambitious goals, they can afford to take risks because their financial security is never really at stake."

I think it can work both ways. Some are ambitious and competitive from the env they grow up in.

But I see kids with no drive, seem to think life will just fall into place because their Dad is a surgeon and they go a top high school.

Likewise I've taught kids who won't do any school work because they'll just plow drives like their Dad does and make a perfectly good living - even though that'll probably be an automated job by the time they are 35.

But kids who go to top high schools/colleges get connections/the doors open for them. I see our kids go to top colleges that I'm not convinced they deserve but we write their letters of rec and coach them through the interview process. A kid in the high school down the road won't get anything like that support.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Sorry, that was a bit cryptic so probably just made sense in my head.

The school I was in at the time consisted mainly of white working class/socioeconomic group D,E/ had parents who finished their education at 16/18,  students take your pick for a definition. As well as exam results, "outcomes" are judge. Very few of our parents regarded higher education as an investment. Many were quite content in their jobs and happy for their children to have a similar lifestyle, and some of the pupils were happy to follow in their footsteps, but we were judged to be "failing" them, if they didn't go on to higher education (amongst other criteria). It was frustrating, making decisions that were in the best interest of the student,  and knowing that was later it was going to result in in uncomfortable meetings (for me) trying to explain the outcomes. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

That's interesting because after reading the original article I took it people were using the 'I didn't work hard enough' as a default to not being seen as 'successful'

I see lots of people who work really hard but never see the justified rewards. 

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

So do I. Doesn't take away from the fact that you'll do better if you work hard than if you don't. And by 'do better' I don't just mean material rewards. That's never been much of a measure of how well you're doing.

Edited to correct the odd why you'd truncated what I'd written

In reply to RX-78:

Yeah I read the same article.

I think it's not so much about how you live but how you're raised as to how you identify in class terms. 

I'd put myself as "first generation middle class" in that I was raised by a working class farther (carpet/flooring fitter most of his working life) but managed to get educated (first in my family to gain a degree) and move on from the working class world I was raised in.

These days I roll in largely middle class circles and I can match or surpass them in most material respects and as such most people who let me might assume I'm middle class, but I'm not really middle class I'm a bit of an imposter really. You don't really notice it until you mix with real middle class people what you missed out on culturally while growing up and no matter how much you learn you'll never make up for those developmental years in a middle class world.

My wife on the otherhand is very much middle class, with generations of middle class people behind her, when we go see her family (pre covid) I'm still a bit baffled by the lunch spreads laid out and funny cordials to drink etc, it's a different world to me. 

In reply to RobAJones:

It’s an interesting point. I think it’s unfortunate that university is seen as the pinnacle of aspiration when so many kids would be better served with a practical skill set rather than a crap degree and lots of debt. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

Sorry for cutting your text at the wrong place..fat fingers ha.

I agree working hard is a positive but I look around and just think....luck and timing have a lot to play.

I was churned out of school when there was 3 million unemployed...not the best timing on the conveyor belt.

In reply to Herdwickmatt:

Because the education system wants that..

My Dad was involved in a massive apprenticeship scheme with a Russel Group Uni and was about to double the size of it. The Uni ended up cutting it as they felt it was beneath them.. It gave kids in the area great training and provided a skilled workforce which attracted companies like Boeing into the area but the Uni felt it 'weakened the brand', to be associated with these training schemes. It was a pretty big bust up in the city and a factor in him leaving the Uni.  

In reply to RobAJones:

So if I'm reading right ...it was how you were perceived by the parents that made relating to them difficult?

In reply to Herdwickmatt:

At the risk of generalising greatly is that predominately a popular middle class class view? Would working class parents be more proud if their son/daughter had a well paid manual but skilled job? We have sort of then created a system where whether a student goes to Uni. or not is more about their parents situation/views than their own wants/achievements. You're correct about not valuing practical skills. I just about remember when DT lessons were mainly about making things and food lessons involved cooking something to the best standard you could. Now it is more about how you perform on a written exam. Linking to RR's point above I'll be interested to see if that changes in the next decade or so, yes taxi drivers days are numbers but are plasters/hair dressers/chefs?

In reply to Herdwickmatt:

When I left school most of my friends did apprenticeships...electrical,mechanical and building,skills that have set them up for life.

We've lost these apprenticeships and not realised the importance of these skills.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Sort of, your initial post was

What if I'm happy living in my council house...I don't want to move anywhere,does this count against me?

I was trying to say that I can understand that mindset, if people are happy that is probably the most important thing, and having a "better" job or earning more money doesn't necessarily make people happier.  In my job I feel I was often expected to try and change it. It's complex "raising aspirations" is generally a good thing, but it has to be done with the students interest at heart, otherwise it can easily backfire.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

"We've lost these apprenticeships and not realised the importance of these skills."

We know the importance of them and they are coming back, slowly, too slowly. We've a shortage of tradesman and skilled workers in most developed countries. Schools here and bringing back vocational subjects/tech schools. 

In reply to RX-78:

I've just googled this and according to my income (mainly) education etc, I'm apparently 'elite'.  In no way do I feel 'elite'. I couldn't give a tinkers cuss about class. I've met some very nice people from all 'classes' and some arseholes from all 'classes'.  

In reply to Herdwickmatt:

Very much the latter in my family's case, along with other hard ways of earning a living off the land (plus coal mining in the past). Myself, siblings and cousins have all pretty much moved away from the jobs previous generations have done. Enormous hours, low pay and isolation just don't appeal.

In reply to RobAJones:

I can see the difficulty...

You sound like you have the best intentions.

From experience, when I was trying to explain the benefits of a smoke detector to some people, it was like banging my head against a brick wall.

Why do so many people crave an identity? Is it about being part of a greater 'us'? Or something else?

In reply to RX-78:

I am from farming stock through and through and never felt at home in any of the usual class distinctions. That is until I lived in France for a few years where one can describe oneself as a peasant non perjoratively. Je suis paysan. 

In reply to RX-78:

Not aimed at you, more of a general opinion, but I have to say that I really can't bear middle class people going on about how working class they are. I'm middle class through and through, and I'm not ashamed of it. I was born into the middle class, I had no choice in the matter. It's nothing to be proud or ashamed of, it just is. If working class people want to become middle class and work to that end, then great. If they want to remain working class and work to that end, then great. But, people who were born into middle class privilege (like me), please don't bang on about how tough your parents had it. It's not something for you to be proud of.

Upper class is a different matter. You can never attain the upper class, you can only be born into it. Which IMO makes it fundamentally wrong.

In reply to Removed User:

Could it not just be that the class system (a system of power and privilege) is different in Canada? Two of the funniest comedies I've watched in recent years have been Schitt's Creek and Kim's Convenience, and I suspect they wouldn't have been nearly as funny if there wasn't a sort of class system in Canada!

In reply to Stichtplate:

You are completely missing my point, perhaps THE point - it's not about what I think or you think, it's just a social reality: some people have more power and privilege that others in society. 

In reply to TobyA:

Of course I'm aware of that. You're completely missing my point which is I don't think it's helpful to grade our fellow humans from birth according to perceived inherited social status.

In reply to RX-78:

Isn't class a state of mind, and aspirations, and moral values?

Definitely came from working class roots, neither parent went to Uni, though both probably could have, they were both clever people.

So we moved from working class to lower middle class.

We're definitely middle class, possibly upper middle.

But I certainly have working class values, which I would class as, being happy with what you have - not being jealous of people above you, empathy with others, working for what you earn, doing a fair days work, and a socialist bent.

I'm proud of where I came from and my roots, and would say I'm pretty free from airs and graces.

Class is all bollocks anyway, but people like to pigeon-hole others and identify themselves and other, so it continues.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

 

ha ha ..."if I'd dropped out of my undergrad......", and you'r suggesting it's got nothing to do with your childhood.

In reply to TobyA:

Hmmm. I love Schitt's Creek but I'm not sure that the main protagonists represent a different class. As you say, they came from power and privilege but I'm not sure that is the same thing. I guess here, we draw the distinction between white collar and blue collar and then the wealthy but we also use the term "middle class" when describing an economic grouping.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Free will bullshit. You don't choose your parents, you don't choose your genes, you don't choose your upbringing, you don't choose your environment. The universe unfolds in time and you are part of it. You just think you're "responsible" because it feels that way - it's a neat trick of the brain which evolution came up with to generate social behaviour that works out nicely for your genes.

You really are *exactly* the sum of your genes and the environment they're in. There isn't anything else. No soul, no magic, just a bunch of molecules assembled into a monkey in shoes. Sorry to disappoint.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

You keep coming out with the No Free Will thing as though it's Science, a proven fact, a done deal. It isn't. It's existed as a point of philosophical debate for at least a couple of thousand years now. Yeah, it goes in and out of fashion, as these things do (gotta have something to keep the dust off the philosophy professors) but there's no sign of any writ from on high declaring the matter decided.

Okaaaay. So what exactly defines a human being as a separate sentient entity if not their actions? (this was my actual point) and if you really believe all that crap how can you bring yourself to love, hate or anything in between if everything you interact with is just an animated flesh robot?

...then again, I might change my mind tomorrow, cos you know, free will and all that. :p

In reply to Removed User:

Tribalism. Letterkenny is a better example and way funnier.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Nope, Fiat Scudo! It's actually quite mechanically sound (not guaranteed with a fiat! Lol), but it comes with various "special" features! Lol

French and Russian as my undergrad and translation for masters. In non-covid times I do use them, but not in any "professional" type job. I instruct and guide and pick up bits of translation on the side. It's a lifestyle which suits me well 🙂 Covid has wiped all of that for now so care work it is for the time being!

In reply to RX-78:

To be truly working class, you need to wear cor-blimey trousers and live in a council flat.

In reply to Stichtplate:

But if you ignore class (regardless of what system you use for classifying it) you are ignoring reality, as much as you ignore reality if you say why didn't a woman defend herself better from a larger male attacker or why didn't the black guy just disguise his skin colour from the job interviewer who turned out to be racist.

"Working class" kids (kids from poorer families) still do consistently less well in the UK education system than kids from middle class families. It's just a simple fact - the "lower class" you are (it's mainly poverty vs wealth but not solely that) the greater your chance of failing in the education system. To ignore class is to ignore basic reality like that.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Just for a moment I thought you were showing your class by answering in Latin!

In reply to Big Bruva:

Most people feel more comfortable being part of a tribe. Class is one of your tribes but it's really only attitude plus money (and plenty of toffs don't actually have the money).  Being upper middle class (at least as defined on this thread) seems to amount to a reasonable education (not necessarily formal qualifications) and learning the language.

Nancy Mitford and George Bernard Shaw were right to latch onto the importance of our vocabulary and accent as signifiers of class.  We all have a mental image of prominent posters on UKC based on the way they write.  I wonder how many of those mental images (or class pigeonholes) would fit with the way they speak.

For what it's worth, TobyA and jcm are exactly as they write!  

Edit: and Gordon too!

In reply to TobyA:

But class isn't a reality like size or skin colour and it isn't simply a matter of wealth and power. There are rich and powerful hailing from traditional working class backgrounds and vice versa. Class is a pure social construct.

So you think it's appropriate that day one of school the teachers grade the kids accents, dress and table manners, stick them in a judgy little box and commence to educate them accordingly?

I don't want my kids to be judged as to what class their teachers reckon they are. I want their teachers to treat them based on their behaviour and educational needs. You not think doing otherwise would effect educational outcomes?

In reply to Stichtplate:

You appear to be confusing somebody acknowledging that prejudice exists with somebody thinking prejudice is appropriate. 

In reply to elsewhere:

Treating someone according to your perception of their social status is the definition of prejudice.

In reply to TobyA:

I'd agree that social deprivation breeds social deprivation.  Where I have difficulty with the British class 'system's is that it implies there are hard boundaries whereas I would argue it's a continuum.   Social deprivation doesn't stop or start as soon as you cross some mythical class boundary.

In reply to nastyned:

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

My parents were uncontroversially working-class, Dad was a welder and Mum stacked shelves. But they wanted better for me, and I was encouraged to 'better myself' through education. I didn't manage to do that through conventional means and I ended up as an apprentice electrician. I did eventually get a degree via night classes and day release and ended up with a reasonable job. Then through a combination of hard work and luck, I was in the right place at the right time and started a business with some colleagues. On paper, I'm worth some single-digit millions of £, mostly based on ownership of that business.

At that point, and perhaps before, most people I know considered me middle class. Because I had a 'good' job. I've never felt middle class though. I feel my values and way of thinking about life are very similar to that of my Mum and sadly departed Dad. So I inhabit a sort of nebulous 'class' where nobody seems to see me as 'people like themselves'. 

However, at some point in the next few months, our company is converting into an Employee Owned Trust, and the paper £ will gradually convert to real £ and I'll be able to retire if I wish.

So the question I was going to ask you was if that makes me middle class by means of "ownership of the means of production", or does it just mean I've worked hard and earned my way into retirement? In fact, I think I've convinced myself that I would have had to be 'born into' 'ownership of the means of production' to be middle class by your definition.

I've no idea what this means for my kids!

In reply to Stichtplate:

Of course, this does happen and it shouldn't - you are correct that children should be treated according to their behaviour and educational needs without regard to class. However, the flip side of this is that if you don't examine the correlation between wealth/background and eductional attainment you won't know that there is an attainment gap and can't work to address it. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

Absolutely right. I was matching your tone when you baldly asserted, as though it was fact, "You aren't the sum of your circumstances. You're the sum of your actions." You don't have to go all the way to the no free will conclusion to realise that this is completely false - Roadrunner6 pointed this out gently.

The reason it rubs me up the wrong way is that this obviously false belief that "You aren't the sum of your circumstances. You're the sum of your actions." is the foundation of everything that's shit in our society. Just listen to what the right wing wankers on this website have to say, it goes something like this:

"I worked hard for my wealth because I'm brilliant and I deserve it. Poor people deserve to be poor because they're not brilliant like me, they're stupid and lazy. They should just work hard and then they wouldn't have to scrounge off brilliant people like me. Why should I pay tax? I deserve all my money because I made it through my hard work and brilliantness, it should all be for me to spend on me, because if other people don't have stuff, then they should just work harder until they get it".

What happens if you reflect with a bit more intelligence about how you got to where you are? In my case, I work 30h per week in a fairly well-paid professional job which I enjoy, own my home on a mortgage and do pretty much what I want, which is mainly going climbing and walking, listening to music and wasting my life online. So, as David Byrne asked, how did I get here?

I'm (lower) middle class. I was brought up by a teacher and a librarian in a house literally full of books. Every weekend my parents would take me to some interesting historic place, or to a museum or to the countryside or a cool leisure centre with waterslides, or to hear live music, or to a play, etc, etc. They took a massive interest in everything I did at school, gave me loads of encouragement, developed my interest in science (which wasn't their thing, but they could see it was mine). Is it surprising that I sailed through the education system? Did I "work hard"? Did I f*ck! I smoked weed and took speed all the way through school, I did it with minimal effort, because the education system is very easy to succeed in if you're brought up by people who are a part of it!

That's not a fair characterisation of the debate. There are overwhelming scientific reasons to believe that free will is an illusion (as well as tight philosophical arguments), but the experience of free will is so overpowering and compelling, that it's a genuine paradox. All of science points towards no free will, but that just doesn't match what could be considered the biggest, most important datum: our experience.

Same thing that makes a monkey a monkey, or a rat a rat. It's all one piece of stuff in a lump with the same genes inside each cell.

Just like monkeys, people, myself included, are conscious creatures. Their behaviour either pleases or displeases me. I don't see the problem, I need consciousness for that, but I don't need free will.

I'm not quite sure what part it you think is "crap". We're made of molecules, right? And we're great apes, right? And we wear shoes, right? You just think we've also got some sort of magic juice (or gas, or something non-physical?) inside us that gives us free will. I don't.

In reply to kathrync:

Or alternately you just crack on with teaching the individual child without laying any judgment as to their social status on them. Is there an issue with that?

My point is a person's observed class only has any importance if the observer assigns importance to it. There's plenty of intelligent, well adjusted and productive people hailing from traditional working class backgrounds and there's plenty of upper class basket cases. Practical interventions to help people are based on individual needs or, at a group level, on economic needs. We don't need to stick little Johnny in a box labeled "Chav" or "toff" so let's stop doing it.

In reply to Stichtplate:

No. Thinking about someone according to your perception of their social status is also prejudice.

Acknowledging prejudice makes you think twice and perhaps avoid prejudiced treatment.

Hence somebody acknowledging that prejudice exists is not the same as somebody thinking prejudice is appropriate. 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

"You aren't the sum of your circumstances. You're the sum of your actions."

I can see why it'd rub you up the wrong way because it's short and without masses of context and provisos it can be read in a number of ways. I haven't the time, energy or eloquence to provide the necessary supporting context beyond this. Wider society, casual acquaintances and people you impact as you go about your daily life know nothing of your background or circumstances and by and large they couldn't care less. To all intents and purposes your impact on the World is the sum of your actions, that's just reality.

Edit: and the dislike isn't mine. I actually agree more than disagree with your point of view.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Whatever. But let's just be honest and admit that little Johnny the toff is going to drink champagne on a yacht from his job in investment banking, while little Johnny the chav is probably going to be on the dole. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

I suspect it might be from someone whose views I summarised sarcastically. It would be more interesting to hear them make an argument than to note that they were able to click a button.

In reply to The New NickB:

That's a strange definition of lower middle class surely?

Looks "firmly" "middle middle" or even "upper middle" to me. How would you define those categories differently? If we need to make such distinctions I would have thought typically that "lower middle class" implied reasonably paid, skilled, non-professional job without university education. Only common ground with your own situation would be home ownership I would have thought.

Interested in your reply though.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

Kathrync provided a link earlier, for (possible) more up to date definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_Kingdom

I would observe that like most things we will all be somewhere on a spectrum and not necessarily fir neatly into one pigeon hole.

when judging educational outcomes we tend to use the socioeconomic classification that is described. 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I agree with a lot of what you said in your 10.34 post, but I think you are letting your determinism run away with you a bit here.  What about the possibility that Little Johnny the Chav might meet someone who makes a connection?  Someone who becomes a role model, inspires him and provides just the spark Johnny needs to nudge him in the right direction?  Quantum mechanics clearly allows for this if you are an Everett Many Worldser , and even if you are hard line Pilot Wave determinist, how do you know you aren't destined to meet Johnny and be that person for him?

I didn't grow up in a house full of books and my parents didn't have a qualification between them.  My mum was smart and made sure I went to a decent(ish) school though and I was lucky enough to meet some important people along the way.  

In reply to Martin Hore:

I've got a different idea in my head of "lower middle class" which I associate with my upbringing. This is not a lot of money, but university educated and lots of "high culture" - it was all Shakespeare and Mozart with my parents, but they couldn't afford to go to the opera in fancy get-up, they'd get a VHS of it from the library. We'd go on family holidays to the south of France, but they'd drive all the way in a clapped-out car and we'd camp (which now strikes me as an horrific nightmare, with me and my brother beating each other up the whole way).

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Perfectly possible, just in the tail of the bell-curve. The world, from the quantum level up, works probabilistically, not like clockwork.

QM does away with the clockwork universe and fatalism (the idea that the future is already written). Events are inherently unpredictable - but while that randomness gives us freedom from "fate", it doesn't give us free will. So sure, as the story of the universe unfolds, some kids with a shit start in life will get a lucky break and become "successful" by whatever measure. The odd toff will have their whole world collapse around them and they'll end up on the streets (much less frequently). 

Instead of pretending that those kids with a shit start in life can just pull themselves by their bootstraps, and if they don't well that's their problem (as the right wingers would advocate), we should be changing society so that they get a better start. That means paying more tax so we can give them better education, better food, better access to sports, etc, from a central pot.

That's how it goes for some people; as you say, you were lucky. 

As my favourite philosopher Galen Strawson would say, "luck swallows everything".

In reply to Martin Hore:

Going off traditional definitions, which are of extremely limited value, there are only four classifications. Working-class, lower middle-class, upper middle-class and upper-class. Whilst that is a very outdated model, if we are talking about distinctions between working-class and middle-class that is the one we need to use.

In accordance with that model, as I wasn’t educated at one of the better public schools, I am barred from entry to upper middle-class and will remain lower middle-class regardless of any other factors.

If you use the class model used in the Great British Class Survey, which lists 7 different classifications from “Precariat” to “Elite”, I am probably on the cusp between “Establish Middle-Class” and “Elite”.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yep, in the immortal words of Everlast  'You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start'

However, I'm with Louis Pasteur 'le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés' and it wasn't just luck that got either of us to where we are.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Not the person you were replying to but I would say that it is almost impossible to move from working class to upper middle class in one generation. If you were the first person in your family to go to uni, and then go on to have exactly the same career as someone whose parents are firmly middle class then your life circumstances may be exactly the same but you are likely to be identifiably lower middle class. I guess the differences are in outlook and language.

Please note that I (hopefully) am not assigning value judgements to the various definitions. I am firmly upper middle class and make no bones about it. I am undeniably prejudiced inasmuch as I am uncomfortable in certain working class situations, but I hope I am not prejudiced against those working and lower middle class people that I interact with. Presumably I would equally be uncomfortable in certain upper class situations, but I have not had the opportunity to find out!

In reply to tlouth7:

You have to fake it until you make it, I suppose.  I think my parents would have been quite surprised to see the upbringing their grandchildren have had, to put it mildly.  I don't think anyone who met me now would have any clue as to what my background was. 

In reply to elsewhere:

Growing up in the Netherlands, I don't really remember being aware of the idea of 'class', but that doesn't mean that there's no differences in income, lifestyle, opportunities etc of course. Differences exist, I'm just not sure if we really have the same concepts to speak about these things, for example the ABC1C2DE scale isn't used in the Netherlands as far as I'm aware.

I also think immigrants in the UK are also more difficult to 'place' in a particular class. Where I grew up, the school I went to, the accent I speak with, these are all pretty meaningless in terms of trying to determine what class I am. My cultural/social capital is also different: I've not read the key books that everyone here seems to read in school (Shakespeare, Austen, Brontes, etc), don't understand rugby or cricket, etc.. Of course, many migrants will also have had middle class jobs 'at home' but have had to restart in entry-level jobs when moving to the UK. All these things combined mean that I think it can possibly be more difficult for many migrants to relate to a particular class? (Having said that, I do see myself as pretty solidly middle class )

In reply to RX-78:

I was born in Gorgi, Edinburgh in a tenement block and raised in a northern mining town, both very working class areas.  My father was a fitter in the mines and later at the steel works.  I went to a "central school" which was between a Comp and a Grammar and I left with only 2 x O levels. I did not know anyone who went to Uni.   I started working as an Electrical Engineering apprentice in the steelworks. That's the working class bit.

Over the years I studied at various Politech's and colleges and managed to improve both my position and my qualifications (HNC). I moved into Voice Comms (BT) but was lucky in that I spotted the future of Telecoms/Computing in the early days and focused my attention on getting into IT. This of course meant even more studying. At the height of my career I earned a very good salary as an IT manager, drove a company Mercedes and lived in a Cotswold village. So I went from typically working class to as typically middle class as it's possible to get.

My identity is  torn between the two "classes" but my kids are very middle class. I still have a strong Yorkshire accent although I do not use the working class dialect.  My kids speak posh.

Al

In reply to Jon Stewart:

If Johnny the Chav is going to get his hands on that champagne it's vital that school gives him access to the curriculum of power. And this means the traditional academic curriculum. There's no way Johnny the Toff took vocational options at age 14, so why should Johnny the Chav? This was one of my guiding principles when I was a secondary head, but it was unconventional and unpopular. I wouldn't offer vocational options pre-16, however many people told me they would make the curriculum more appropriate and relevant for many of the kids. We were a "bog standard comp," and our intake broadly reflected the ability and class spectrum of society as a whole (though not it's ethnic spectrum, since we were 95+% white). I got into trouble with Ofsted who questioned why I wasn't "broadening" the KS4 curriculum with vocational options. I said I'd offer them when Eton and Cheltenham Ladies College did. 

In reply to Brev:

I hadn't checked before but the NRS scale has a definition of 'upper middle class', (which was discussed above).  There's a detailed discussion on Wiki, which distinguishes between UK and US social group A:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_grade

"The upper middle class in Britain traditionally consists of the educated professionals who were born into higher-income backgrounds, such as legal professionals, executives, and surgeons. This stratum, in England, traditionally uses Received Pronunciation natively. A typical Mosaic geodemographic type for this group would be cultural leadership. It is also usually assumed that this class is most predominant in the home counties of South East England and the more affluent boroughs of London. Children of this group are often educated at a preparatory school until about 13 years old and then at one of the "major" or "minor" British public schools[23][24] which will typically charge fees of at least £11,500 per year per pupil (as of 2013)[25][26] followed by studying at post-graduation level."

Amusingly, there's a middle middle class too, apparently.

In reply to RX-78:

I don't give a damn about class, but I suppose if forced I would identify as being in the middle somewhere. Not for the purposes of dissociating myself from other classes, but more of an attempt to establish a standpoint of neutrality and acceptance of others. Languishing idly in a contrived system of class with hard boundaries automatically creates unnecessary boundaries.

In reply to RX-78:

Anybody who has to work is working class no matter how much you earn surely ? Or is that too simple? 

Keith s

In reply to The New NickB:

The 'classless society' is a myth supported by the upper echelons i.e the upper class and the upper middle classes the barriers to join either are real. As wealth has increased the numbers of the upper class has not noticeably increased you have to be invited, a few notables have joined usually through marriage. Making lots of money doesn't make you eligible you are just regarded as 'trade', its all about retaining power and ownership (in a survey a few years ago it was found that the aristocracy owned over 80% of the land in the UK). So 'classless society' suits their narrative they can hide away and still pull the strings using their wealth and connections.

There is much more fluidity between the lower orders mainly due as indicated by many middle class posters on here and a common thread seems to be education. Many artisans are regarded as middle class these days as their skills become more valued and their wealth increases. Menial jobs would still define the working class and unfortunately we now have what is unkindly called an underclass, people with no jobs or aspirations often into third and fourth generations of living permanently on benefits. How many middle class people claiming class is obsolete have friends in either the top category or the bottom category?

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

It's a continuum.   Somewhere at the bottom end of middle class and someone at the top end of working class.  What, in real terms is the difference?  There is no gulf between these two 'classes' and a vast gulf between lower and upper middle classes.  They are pretty meaningless terms for anything measurable.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Glad I didn't go to your school. Shutting off people from vocational careers and forcing academic failure. Well done!!

While I did quite well at school (comp but had the option to go private), and went on to college where I dropped out (best thing to happen to me). Ended up in a marine engineering apprenticeship, and now work as senior engineer in a large multinational company.

Don't know where I fit in the class "structure" parents were small business owners, nice house etc. further back, the family was either navy or customs and excise.

As mentioned above I'm a grease monkey, but now sit at a desk advising proper degree qualified Engineers how to do their job. I could and have earned 6 figure sums getting my hands dirty, but this job usually allows me to travel more and spend more time at home.

Only just bought a house (in my late 40's) and drive a  battered 30 year old land rover or a 40 year old jeep and play on skateboards, whereas my colleagues have range rovers/tesla's/BMW's and play golf

My son on the other hand is most definitely an academic (attends Grammar school) with no interest at all in getting his hands dirty.

In reply to artif:

It always surprises me that Engineers have been regarded in the UK as 'just artisans with dirty hands' and never given true professional respect.

In reply to keith sanders:

You are of course correct in a literal sense Keith, but it is too simplistic IMO in the context of sociology and human studies etc. where it is simply a convenient label to identify diverse groups.  One branch of academia will define it one way whilst another will define it differently in order to facilitate their own specific branch of study.

Al

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

Depends, you get the desk driving Engineers (degree qualified) who don't know one end of a spanner from the other, and then you get the "hands on" engineers, they both have their place but the "hands on" ones can be looked down on sometimes.

In reply to Stichtplate:

"Or alternately you just crack on with teaching the individual child without laying any judgment as to their social status on them. Is there an issue with that?"

That comes across as incredibly privileged.. Sorry and I know that word will piss people off but kids know. When they are in schools with metal detectors, grates on the windows, 35 kids to a class, they are very aware of their start in life. 

I think we have to work harder with those kids from backgrounds with no parents ever having gone to Uni to sell the need to graduate high school and get further education - be it vocational or academic. I'm at a prep school now and the kids are just on a pathway to college, but at other schools they were essentially on the school to prison pipeline. 

In reply to artif:

That reminds me of a sobering lesson I learnt whilst working as a newly qualified electrical technician in a melting shop (Better academic quals (HNC) than an Electrician but not quite a degree) I was sent to investigate a fault on a complex conveyor feeding system that supplied limestone to the furnaces. I went there with all the tools and electrical circuit diagrams and diagnosed, in theory, where the fault was.  Unfortunately after an hour or so I had not rectified the problem because I did know where the faulty item was in the complex set up.  The foreman sent an "Electrician" down to help.  This was someone who had no qualifications but had spent years as an Electricians mate, fetching and carrying.  He simply walked to the foot of the rig and kicked away a piece of limestone that was preventing a switch operating. He knew simply because he had encountered it many times before but at that moment in time he was worth more to the organisation than I was.

Al

In reply to RX-78:

I used to eat crisps off the playground floor because I was hungry at school and had no cash.

Grew up on a council estate where people would eat 'soakie' for dinner. That's a massive mug of milky tea with 7 sugars in it, some Rathbones white sliced bread rolled up with a half inch of Stork margarine on it. The bread was dunked in to the tea and sucked out of the bread.

Maybe I'm part of the underclass ha. Got a good education, job, house etc now and feel alrate to mix it with folks from all sorts of backgrounds.

No one at work ever believes me about my humble roots now ha. There is a perverse pleasure in sharing your own poverty stories with people though, like look at me, I did it, I made it, I had to work for this etc. Must be why people like to claim working class roots.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Ok. Dad left school at 15. Labourer, lorry driver, bar worker where he met my Mum who was a single Mother to a mixed race child. This was Blackpool in the early 60s so not a barrel of laughs. They got married so they could become pub licensees (a requirement at the time) and take on a tenancy. Then I came along. My own work history after gaining a crap degree, graduating during a recession and doing too much dicking about: post office, army, electrical labourer, labourer in a pet food factory, machine operator in a factory where I worked my way up to running a shift then redundancy, back to university to retrain and now at 51 living in an ex-council semi and doing something I love for a basic of £25K pa, and yes I do feel incredibly privileged but not remotely in the sense that you're inferring.

 Excuse me if I feel incredibly patronised

In reply to Stichtplate:

But you can't just ignore a kids background. As a teacher that's crazy.

But this is what I find great about medics, it's all stay in your lane about medicine, then education every muppet is an expert and tells teachers what to do. It's brilliant. As a teacher I've met so many expert teachers who somehow have never taught, won't teach, yet are fully confident of their expertise and experience on this matter from their n of 1 experience. And if teaching is so easy, teach. The money is pretty good, we only work half the year, a few hours a day, it's easy for more than 25k a year. I just don't get why we have a shortage of teachers with it being such an easy job and so many expert teachers on the side lines..

In reply to Andy Clarke:

It's a pity really. 

Clearly Boris would have been much happier on a building site.  

In reply to Roadrunner6:

You read Andy Clarke's post? Secondary head who insisted he'd teach the child not the background.

Everybody on this thread has spent decades working in schools. It tends to provide insight. How much time have you spent in the back of an ambulance?

Edit: oh Christ, I've just read your posts up thread and your edit. So you're the son of a Dad who was someone high up in a Russell group uni and you now teach in a prep school but you're quite happy telling someone who was the first in my family to be educated beyond 16 that I sound incredibly privileged? As well as the follow up muppet/aren't we the expert comments? Sorry mate I'll just pig about down here below your ivory tower and await your pearls of wisdom shall I.

FFS, and does anybody really wonder why assigning social class to kids plus the attendant attitudes might be a shit idea?

In reply to Andy Clarke:

I'm not convinced that offering Latin or Classics GCSE should be top of the priority list for schools in deprived areas. We did try to do Philosophy GCSE for a few years with mixed results. 

In reply to Andy Clarke:

"There's no way Johnny the Toff took vocational options at age 14, so why should Johnny the Chav?"

Interest tbh. I taught at a standard comp with a vocational tech next door and we were connected. We'd actually teach similar academics but they'd have Shop, Healthcare (essentially Anatomy), etc. It did pull some kids in who you couldn't reach with traditional academic subjects. 

I teach at a pretty strong school (10% went to Ivy League schools last year which was unusual, but Yale admissions visit our school to talk to the kids) so we'd never teach such vocational subjects (purely out of snobbery), but we do have more vocational schools in the city which are superb. We've never had a kid not get accepted to college as far as I know so we sell that pathway hard but there are kids who are just more interested in the vocational pathway.

Typically post 16 (we obviously don't have the split the UK does), in the junior and senior classes the kids can attend the vocational tech schools as well. We still have a class snobbery towards the manual trades in most developed countries but many kids will earn far more, off far less debt if they take that path. 

I worked in a deprived area with no college counseling so would work with the kids on financing and accessing free community college, which many looked down on, but sometimes I'd suggest none academic pathways and I think its a disservice to not do so. Here the kids can do 2+2, so 2 years in a community college, then 2 years at Rutgers (state Uni), and graduate with little debt from a very strong university.

In reply to Stichtplate:

But not as much as people think. When I taught students who wanted to go into teaching, I always pointed out that they had no idea about 80% of what my job was like and needed to do some work experience etc. to get a better idea.

In reply to Stichtplate:

If I tell you how many compressions you should give come back to me.. And yes that's how we do science. n = 1...

In reply to Stichtplate:

Since the idea of meritocracy evolved 60+ years ago, that's what schooling was meant to do. What's the idea behind the 11+ if it wasn't to let kids with certain natural abilities into schools (grammars) where they could make the most of their abilities? What was the idea behind the national curriculum if it wasn't to let all children, regardless of gender or class or anything else, access the same learning as each other? Ebacc? The same. An on and on. And what has happened - not much. Rich kids do well. Poor kids do badly. Girls now do better than boys (of the same socio-economic class) in school, and certain ethnic groups do much better than the national average whilst others do much worse, but normally even there when you adjust for socio-economic class that lowers the differences. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

One thing I don't like in schools at the moment is that the powers that be have have decided that use of dialect is unacceptable.  

I appreciate that in the written work it is important to use correct formal English, but now teachers are instructed never to use anything else when talking to pupils.  I think it harks back to the days where the BBC never allowed any regional accents.  

I suppose they mean well and are trying to help people hide their background so that they can fit in, realistically this is what happens in some cases when people get highly paid senior jobs, they usually do so by appearing to fit in, but it feels wrong to me.  

It's like in the past when immigrants changed their names to English names.  

In reply to RobAJones:

And a very narrow experience. I subbed for a year in NJ, I learnt more and experienced more in that year than in 5 years in other schools. I think it was such an informative time to experience the huge range of experiences kids get and the different challenges different schools face.

It's like parenting. "I had 2 kids therefore I'm an expert".. 

Having taught in the roughest schools in the US if I ignored their background I'd be negligent. Wifi access, no cars, parents in prison, horrific diet, little parental supervision, absolutely no ambition because they know they won't get accepted to college (that's just their view). The academics were only a very small part of their progress. 49% graduation rate from high school and something like 25% of those who didn't graduate would end up in prison within the decade. Academics was only a very small part of the solution. I could go in and ignore their background and just teach and grade like I would a kid in the elite state high school 5 miles down the road but I'd be letting the kids down.

At my school it's almost the opposite. I have to work on the academic pressure the kids are under. I really work on them to enjoy school, play sports and forget their school work for an hour or two a day. 

In reply to TobyA:

People game the system. 

11+ is not a measure of ability it's a measure of parents who can afford tutors.  

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Please see my edit, I haven't anything else to add

In reply to Stichtplate:

Brilliant. Yeah that's the sum of my experiences. Just because my dad did well (and if you read it he was far from a standard academic (how many RG's have apprenticeship schemes? - I'm waiting...) and I now teach at a prep school, let's ignore my 7 years in other schools, 3 states, 4-5 different cities, 5 different highschools as a permanent teacher, 10's of different schools as a sub. You just highlighted your ignorance. How many high schools did you attend growing up? In one area of the UK? You don't think that gives you a very biased perspective and a very narrow view of education? But yes those years in Blackpool made you an education consultant. 

And I love the 'nothing to add', the last thing you want to do is widen that experience. Imagine if we actually learnt something and experienced different ways of doing things.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Pah! - You were lucky! We used to drive to Spain to camp, with a trailer - because family tents were so big back then and my parents would avoid the peages in France because they were too expensive! And I have two sisters!  

We've inflicted on my children (a couple of times when there just two of them and now once since there is three of them) the drive either from Finland to the UK and back or vice versa - camping along the way. It makes the journey to Spain look relatively short.

I like to think it's all good cultural capital for my kids, even if they might disagree! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

You evidently believe your 7 years experience of teaching the proles beats 51 years experience of being a prole.  Well done sir, you're a fine example of how the class system ingrains a sense of entitlement.

In reply to TobyA:

What you say here is correct and we will agree on the definition of the different groups you have mentioned. For a few years white working class boys have been a focus. For that to mean anything presumably someone thinks they know what the working class bit means. 

In reply to TobyA:

Exactly. So we should keep going somehow. Education can be incredibly set because it's worked for a narrow few, well it worked for us so it's fine.

As a science teacher we've been getting it badly wrong for a long time yet working well with a narrow group who do well. One of the reasons I'm at my school now is our learning lab ethos. Our teaching is an experiment. We're encouraged to try new things, experiment, throw out the curriculum. 

As science teachers we are far too obsessed with pure knowledge not the process of science so have produced kids poorly qualified to actually be scientists or do well at college. There's a great paper out called "the importance of stupidity in scientific research", and kids also struggle with that. Being comfortable with being uncomfortable. But to change that the kids need time, so we need to actually cover less topics. 

Sadly the evidence of our failings as science teachers is the huge sector of society which is scientifically illiterate. Covid has brutally exposed this.

In reply to Stichtplate:

What a stupid statement..  so your 6 years in Blackpool makes you an expert in education. Again, you are playing the working class line when you aren't..

In reply to TobyA:.

I'm confused about my childhood, it was probably lower middle class, but holiday's were 6 of us in a 4 berth caravan (well mum and dad in the van we slept in the awning) somewhere on the Welsh coast. The other thought this thread provoked, was that the first time I sat in a restaurant with my dad was for his 70th birthday. How many middle class kids finish school now, without having been abroad or eaten in a restaurant?   

In reply to TobyA:

I could never quite completely understand why White English low income pupils achieve less than low income pupils from other groups.  

Then what Blue Straggler wrote made me wonder if this is still ingrained somehow.  

Although I could probably be categorised as White English (I describe myself as White British) my family history a few generations back in multiple different parts of the family is of people fleeing violence or poverty, people defying authority to survive or to stand up for their beliefs. 

When I was growing up I never heard "not for the likes of us" I heard "you can do anything you put your mind to". 

Much as I'm not a fan of Thatcher, she was the daughter of a shopkeeper, went to state grammar school in the local town and she was in charge when I was a kid.  

In the current time, when all the leaders seem to have come from Eton it doesn't seem as true.  

How can we as teachers get past this poverty of aspiration?  

In reply to Andy Clarke:

I see what you're saying, but I'm not really on board with the love of champagne. 99 times out of a hundred, I'd rather have a pint.

I think one of the shittest things about our society is the norm of aspiration to be rich. What's the point in being rich? It doesn't make people happy. Who wants the pointless, gaudy crap that rich people spend their money on? I don't want to stay in posh hotels, or eat in restaurants where there's some secret code of etiquette, or drive a car that tells everyone "how much I'm worth" - all that stuff is completely vulgar and worthless to me.

What I aspire to is having a job that's fun and worthwhile, eating well and staying healthy, and having plenty of free time and enough spare cash to do what I enjoy (which doesn't cost much at all). Sure, it's worth aspiring not to be poor. It's shite when you're struggling to pay the bills, it's miserable and stressful. And a lot of jobs are hard and miserable. Or just meaningless and miserable. But striving to be rich so you can drink champagne on a yacht? What's the point? Sounds f*cking boring, apart from anything, I'd rather go trad climbing on Scafell on a sunny day, no contest.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Perhaps that is where the "this is what Eton do, so we should do the same" attitude comes from.

In reply to marsbar:

"Much as I'm not a fan of Thatcher, she was the daughter of a shopkeeper, went to state grammar school in the local town and she was in charge when I was a kid."

But she was the exception. State schools have successes but we still see a strong bias.

My wife was educated at a poor state school in NJ, she attended summer schools, community colleges etc and managed to get to a good college and is now an MD. She's very much the exception from her peers. Her brother actually attended a top private UK school and went to Harvard. His path was unimaginably different and easier.

In reply to RobAJones:

It isn't white working class boys, its white English boys entitled to free school meals.  Does free school meals mean working class?  A whole other debate.  

The long term economically inactive families (a nice euphemism for those on long term benefits where no one in the family has ever really worked for a living) are usually of most concern.  The never-working class you could call them. 

In reply to TobyA:

You were both lucky!  I used to get two weeks on my grandfather's alottment in Ferndale.  We did used to get there in a brand new car - but only because my dad used to be allowed to take pre-launch cars that needed running in (it was a thing with engines back then) before they were reviewed by the press.  Sounds glamorous but it meant all the seats were covered with plastic, which is a smell that still makes me nauseous to this day.  And my dad smoked, which I hated.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Reading comprehension not your strong point then? Where'd you get the 6 years in Blackpool from? Where are you getting all this "expert in education" stuff from, or is me saying I don't like the idea of teaching kids according to perceived social status somehow me making out I'm an expert?

So I'm not working class then? Well you're the fan of assigning people to their appropriate class, so what am I? based on what?

Edit: nice to see an a supposedly educated man quickly resorting to all these muppet/stupid/patronising slurs. Now that's class.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Me too, usually.  But I've discovered that it does depend on the champagne.  And the beer.

In reply to RobAJones:

Haha this was literally mine. My Grandparents had a static in North Wales and we had a tourer we'd stay at friends farms for free. If my Dad had a conference in Western Europe we'd all go with the tourer and that was our holidays as work basically paid.

TBH though as long as it had a field we could play soccer in it was great. 

But him doing a PhD certainly opened that path up to us and of the three kids two of us have PhD's. I was actually sold the military path at school because I appeared to have little interest in academics (even though my grades were always good strangely). 

I remember walking in to the oxbridge meeting (my GF was applying..) and getting asked 'why are you here'. Yet got some of the best A level results in the school.

In reply to marsbar:

Fundamentally because the don't work as hard at school. It's not meant to be flippant as there are a lot of complex  factors surrounding why that is the case, but I firmly believe that hard work causes progress most other factors are just correlation.

Good teachers can make some difference but people need to appreciate that it is hard to make small improvements, and celebrate them. OFSTED not telling the kids and parents their school is inadequate would be a start.  

In reply to Stichtplate:

And yes it was a stupid statement. If i was telling you to change the number of compressions I'm sure you'd be all loving about it.

I didn't call you a muppet it was just a generic every muppet has a view. You are the one insulting people and dismissing experience. I thought you mentioned attending school in blackpool, I can only apologise if that was wrong.

I don't think class matters. I said up there. But you meet kids where the are. To ignore that has demonstrably failed.

In reply to RX-78:

I was once stupid enough to ask if climbing was a middle class activity.  Oh the joys

In reply to marsbar:

"How can we as teachers get past this poverty of aspiration?  "

It's the hardest thing and we don't know. We have to accept we don't have the answers yet. There's no magic answer to this. We've just got to chip away slowly.

But ignoring a kids background is the last thing we should do. It's a huge factor in that ambition and aspiration. 

If you ask people about their best teacher it's often the one who unlocked their potential and believed in them, showed them different routes. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

You were replying to me and the inference was clear, backpedaling now without any apology is just weak and not very classy. Now, if you'd like to point out where I've insulted you (note; insulted you, not disagreed with your opinion) I'll happily apologise.

So you you think class doesn't matter but you've been arguing with my point that children shouldn't be educated according to which social strata they hail from? Excuse me if I'm confused.

...and no answer to my question then? You're quite sure I'm not working class but you're unsure why and unsure as to what class I actually am? Does that size up your position?

Edit: in reply to your edit

But that's a crap example and completely loaded. A better example would be if you were telling medics to treat patients according to their social status. 

In reply to marsbar:

Yep, in education we have defined socioeconomic group for lack of a better description, but it always reported in the mainstream media as white working class boys. On your other point Ever6 makes the debate it even more complex. I was once sent to a school in London with 70% disadvantaged students it wasn't what I expected, I had never come across disadvantaged students who had 3 private tutors and parents earned over 100K

In reply to Stichtplate:

It's just semantics. And pretty meaningless. the important thing is to see the kids background and meet them where they are. Whether they are middle or lower doesn't matter. Identify their challenges and work with those. For many the lack of aspiration, like in Camden, comes from their homelife and city. So you work on that. Call it what you want, just don't ignore it.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

She was an exception, but there are far fewer these days.  

It was possible if unlikely.  

In reply to Stichtplate:

How many kids have you taught? What's your successes as a teacher?

You seem willing to throw insults yet not talk about your own vast experience?

In reply to marsbar:

Yeah I think it's the in spite of not because of.

It's actually exciting in US education now because there's an acceptance that we don't have the answers.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

So you have no answers to my own questions so can only reply with irrelevant questions and baseless insinuation.

I've levelled no insults at you and claimed no expertise at teaching, despite you repeatedly claiming I have.

Do you take this approach in the classroom. How's that working for you?

In reply to marsbar:

Absolutely - and it seems even more so now than in the past BUT the intention wasn't that it would let middle class families in effect buy their way in to grammars. 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Had you been sent there, would Eton have managed to change your mind?

In reply to Stichtplate:

Yes you have. I asked the questions first. But look let's agree to disagree. Off for a run.

In reply to RobAJones:

Had I gone to Eton, it would already be the case that I'd been brought up to believe that I was part of the elite and it would be natural for me to fulfil that role. Had I been brought up the way I was, and then sent to Eton, I'd probably have just ended up in jail, having tried to kill everyone there.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

That's a huge thing though. It's human nature and greed and way outside of just education. We're not all set that way and most climbers possibly aren't. But tbh I'd rather kids have some ambition.

Teaching those kids who are basically disenfranchised is brutal. It's just no longer about academics. It's without a doubt the most depressing time as a teacher.

And I wonder how many have experience of that to say we shouldn't look at a kids background. I've taught kids who fully believe they can't go to college because of race, money etc. If a parent is in prison it's their responsibility to earn money. In a class I taught about half the kids had a parent in prison.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Wow....you've literally run away! 

Not surprised, it wasn't really going how you wanted it to was it.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Eh? So let's spend our time arguing. You think I'm wrong. I think you are wrong. Of you want to zoom I'm honestly open to that but I'm not going to spend my day replying. Sorry I've 3 kids and classes to prep for and a run to go on.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I've been engaging in honest debate with no insults, no insinuations and a solid attempt at answering you point by point. You've done the opposite.

Edit: oh, and we're all busy mate but these things tend to go a lot faster if you don't spend half your posts trying to weasel out of what you've written in the other half. Just saying...

In reply to Stichtplate:

That's not at all true. Youve banded about similar insinuations. Have a good day. You got all offended because I used the word muppet on a generic sense and then went off on a rant about ivory towers..and attacking my and my families experience and having shit ideas. Then got offended when I said you had a stupid statement. So yes this is going nowhere. Happy to have a chat but it's going nowhere.

In reply to marsbar:

Blimey, a lot has happened in the last 50 years since I took 11+.  Then I don't think anyone had heard of personal tutors.  So now you reckon the onbly way to pass 11+ is with personal tuition ? sad

In reply to GrahamD:

Tutors are now common and big money.. $100 a session. It complicates it for sure. How do you have equity in a classroom when one kid is working with a tutor every night and I found it hurts those who dont have them. It further feeds the not got a chance narrative.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Strong words. Unfortunately not backed by what's actually written in the thread. 

Edit: quick run then was it?

In reply to Stichtplate:

Go and read the thread. You seem to think because you say it, that's how it happened. You went on the ivory towers rant and having shit ideas because I said every muppet criticizing teachers. Anyway, seriously let's agree to disagree. I'm sorry of I upset you.

In reply to marsbar:

I disagree, it's a measure of someone's ability at a certain time, which may or may not have any bearing on what they might achieve in the future. Unfortunately, it was at one time a very limiting factor for late bloomers.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

Have you heard of the 30 million word gap or something. It's a huge factor with kids coming into school. They come in at vastly different points.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think you are probably correct, I experienced the latter to a certain extent. Did O levels at local comp. on basis of these and an entrance exam got a full scholarship to local private school to do A levels. No overt "bullying" but me and Sharron (same route, dad was a builder) were very aware we were perceived as being a different "class" to the rest of the students. One of my younger brothers did the same but at a younger age (13, local comp in the '80 wasn't a pleasant place for an open gay boy, some staff were worse than the other kids). He seemed to "fit in" in the sixth form much better than I did.   

In reply to Stichtplate:

It's like a Letterkenny sketch...you two.

Come on now..less of this 1 inch dick talk....😉....

In reply to Stichtplate:

I doubt a severe bi-polar person would agree with you, on this statement.

Since "free-will" is a construct of the mind, do you not think this could be more fluid in some than others?

Having to wash your hands 50 times a day isn't free-will.

In reply to Shaun mcmurrough:

Eh!! I spent half an hour trying to walk away..

In reply to artif:

As I made clear, my kids were only shut off from vocational options until 16 - which is plenty early enough to start making choices based on what sort of career path you might follow. As to "forcing academic failure," I'm afraid that's nonsense. Kids in my school did extremely well academically, and far better than they would have in most schools - sufficiently better to put us in the top 5% nationally for value-added. A major part of the reason for this was that we did not start pigeonholing kids into non-academic options too early: we gave them the academic results that would give them the power to make the career choices they wanted, not the sort of career choices society deemed would be appropriate for them based on their class and background. The attitude that if kids can't follow vocational options they will "fail" academically is exactly what leads to vocational subjects being perceived as second-best. My kids achieved a better than average level of success academically at GCSE, and then went on to specialise as they wanted.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I like the fact he loves Letterkenny...👍

Never like to see a fallout on line..

In reply to Cobra_Head:

It's a measure of their attainment on a specific test, some schools claim they have "tutor proofed" these tests but I'm not convinced. There is some correlation between these test results and the student's ability but other factors have a significant impact. 

completely agree

In reply to RobAJones:

I did say my attitude was somewhat controversial and unpopular! But we enjoyed a fair bit of success with Classics even when I taught in the centre of Smethwick - and that was one tough school. I still recall having the local vice squad camped out in the D&T storeroom because it gave a good view of the playing field where the local drug dealers would ply their trade over the railings at break and lunchtime. The sort of place where a kid turns up in distress because his dad was shot the night before. But it changed kids' lives... and the Classics didn't half send a message.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I've read the thread. In summary bloke with decidedly working-class background, work history, etc is told by bloke with decidedly middle class background, work history etc, that he has no experience of social class in eduction and can't comment cos "I'm a teacher and spent 7 years teaching the proles before running off to teach at a posh school". Is that a fair summary? And what's 7 years teaching the proles equate to in actual time with the proles? 26 weeks a year at 7 hours a day? So that's like someone claiming vast experience after 3 years in a normal job, right? 

Further other bloke apparently claimed to be an expert in education (I didn't), has no idea about education despite other bloke spending 18 years in full time education and having two kids in full time education. And not that you bothered enquiring but training is part of my current job requirement, was part of my previous job requirement and before covid I was mentoring vulnerable kids through a scheme run by the local police. But hey, making assumptions about the proles is all part and parcel of our wonderful class system.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

It's hard, I taught a very low ability low motivation half special ed biology class. The tech route was their goal and they came from very blue collar backgrounds. But some couldn't even do that one year and were lostto education. This was an area decimated by opioids.

you know the kids, turn up to school with no bag. Absolutely zero interest in school. I think with those kids we fail by sticking rigidly to our systems. Our aim was basically somehow buy time and hope for some maturity to kick in.

In reply to Stichtplate:

And there we go.. teaching isn't a full-time job! Enjoy the day. If you find a teacher who works 7 hours a day half the year let me know.. I love the respect teachers are afforded by many people. It's brilliant. It's like me saying well ambulance drivers spend half the day waiting.. not a proper job. That's just ignorant.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Did all the students do Classics and for how long?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with the champagne. The point of my school's curriculum was to give the kids power to choose. This power resides in the sort of traditional subjects and qualifications beloved of the fee-payers. There are examples in this thread of how vocational subjects are still perceived as second-best - and you have to have them as some kind of safety net for the kids who will "fail" academically. I never bought that. I was determined my kids were going to master the curriculum of power to the absolute best of their ability before making any career choices. The pay-off was power over their own lives irrespective of background - it wasn't the sort of pay-off you can easily measure in banknotes.

In reply to RobAJones:

Christ, no - I'd never have talked the staff into that! It was an after-school voluntary extra GCSE. But it had a symbolic value far beyond the few who took it. It said: whatever our FSM figure we're just as good as the toffs.

I had a mate who worked in a top private school. He told me that once he was trying to cajole a girl to do more work for her GCSE maths as it was a vital qualification ......she just, very politely, replied, "But you don't understand....I'm never going to have to work in my life." She was the heiress to an absolute fortune.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Ahh, so similar to what we tried to do with Philosophy, I completely agree that students opportunities shouldn't be limited by the school they attend, but was (incorrectly) getting the impression you were forcing them down a certain route . Did you make an MFL  compulsory? We manged to go from 0 kids doing a GCSE (well 3 but they were native speakers) to 60 doing GCSE Spanish over the course of 5 years.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Fair enough if the kids have the options open to do the academic or vocational route but to shut the vocational option down is typical of an academics bias.

Its not about pigeonholing, I knew from a very early age that I was a hands on type of person, taught myself to build bike wheels when I was 11 or 12 , but was also reasonably good academically. School would have been  purgatory without the practical metal/woodwork even cooking and sewing lessons.

My son 12 and his best mate couldn't be more different, despite coming from similar backgrounds and the same class at primary school. As I said my son has turned out to academic and has gone to a grammar school his best mate is very much like myself at that age, making stuff and working with his hands and gone a school more suited to his abilities. Their particular strengths have been obvious for years.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Nice misdirection and insinuation there sir, bet you’ve even fooled some people. Never said it wasn’t a proper job, never said it wasn’t a full time job. What I said was that your much flaunted experience with the proles actually amounted to less than three years in their company.

In reply to RobAJones:

That's impressive growth. Interesting you mention MFL. When I was Head, we became a specialist language college. I had a couple of main reasons: internationalism and global school linking was a big thing for us; language was perceived as the most "academic" of the various statuses, so it was again a big symbolic statement. Every kid did French and German through KS3. At options everyone had to keep at least one MFL, some opted to continue with both and some opted to add Spanish as a third. All kids also did introductory Mandarin in KS3 (we had a great link with a school in Shenzhen, and they'd send us a language assistant each year). This wasn't in a very deprived area like the school in Smethwick, but we were a perfectly "bog standard" comp in terms of our intake. The kids were generally very proud of our global outlook and international links since they made us pretty distinctive - they accepted MFL was a key part of the whole package.

In reply to GrahamD:

Not the only way, but very common. I went to a state grammar school through the nineties after passing my 11+. I  didn't get paid for personal tuition, but I did have very engaged parents who spent a lot of time going through mock tests with me. About half my class did have personal tuition in the run up to the exam.

I went back to visit last year for a career day thing, and the head told me that almost all the pupils there do some form of tuition before the 11+ now.

The problem is that these schools take roughly the top 10% of 11+ grades. On a level playing field where this is based on attainment alone, that's fine, but if a subset of wealthier pupils are getting extra tuition, they are obviously more likely to get the places. While the 11+ tests are based on verbal reasoning and supposedly assess innate abilities, it is definitely possible to get better at them with practice and coaching.

In reply to RX-78:

I'm not sure whether anything I can add to a thread of (so far) 243 posts is worthwhile but I was just listening to this being discussed on R4 PM - good to hear that they obviously read UKC forums but a bit disappointing it took them 29 hours to get on board - so wanted to add my bit.

Two points.

1. I'm not sure how this is news when Cocker, J. et al. published the definitive work on this subject in 1995. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=yuTMWgOduFM

2. I'm 55 now but I still remember, with considerable resentment, one of the other residents of my hall of residence in Manchester in 1983 who really stuck the knife in for my "posh accent and f'in Tory politics" in contrast to his impeccably estuary accent, proletarian background and spikey hair. I actually came from a financially poor background, though with a lot of hope and encouragement for me doing better and went to a Leicestershire comp. I was too young to vote in '83 but later supported the SDP so fair do's - a yellow Tory. Boring haircut too. Thankfully those were the days of free tuition and maintenance grants, otherwise I wouldn't have been the first in my family to go to university. The punchline though is that I met his parents at the end of term: lovely people, very friendly and talkative. His dad was a stockbroker from Surrey (straight out of central casting) and drove a new, large, silver Mercedes . I'm not sure where his son lost the ability to sound a 't' at the end of a word or a 'th' at the start, or forgot his 14 years of private education that scored him that coveted spot on an American Studies course. 

My real point is, this isn't new.

In reply to kathrync:

I took the 11+ in 1968. We spent a lot of that year practising for the exam in lesson time under the tutelage of our class teacher. Our teachers obviously thought that it was time well spent.

In reply to NathanP:

Well if it's one upmanship you mean... youtube.com/watch?v=iEIApUNVBKg& says it rather nicely.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Well they can say what they want to make them self’s feel superior but there’s no coming back to they are working class, because that’s what they are, and quicker they realise that better for humanity.

keith s

In reply to The New NickB:

Hi Nick

I'm still confused. You now say you are on the cusp between "established middle class" and "elite". I've looked at the GB Class Survey. "Elite" is estimated at just 6% of the population. So that would place you in the "top" 10%. Earlier you said you were "Lower Middle Class" - so 3rd quartile on a 4 point scale. There seems to be a significant discrepancy.

Anyway, to declare my own position. I was independent school educated, but with a free local authority paid place (which was possible in the 60's). My parents paid nothing. I went to an "elite" university (Cambridge) but I left with a 3rd Class degree. My wife has a PhD and was a university lecturer. I was a local government officer like yourself - we're both retired. 

I don't think it's easy to classify me and my wife on any "class" scale. Educationally, I guess we might be classed as "Elite", but we never earned nearly enough to qualify economically, and we certainly don't move comfortably in "elite" circles.

I think I'd prefer to be classed as a "climber"!

Martin

In reply to baron:

Were there primary school league tables then? I only have a limited experience, as there is only one grammar in Cumbria. KS2 teachers are judged by OFSTED on their KS2 results, parents pay for bespoke tuition if they want their kids to pass the 11+

Edit. the is only weak correlation between KS2 results and entrance exam results. There is a very strong correlation between whether parents pay for entrance exam tutoring or not.

In reply to RobAJones:

I don’t think that there were any league tables back in 1968 but some schools were seen as better than others. My junior school had a mostly working class catchment but I think the vast majority of parents had high aspirations for their children hence the concentration on passing the 11+.

As a teacher in a secondary special needs school it was always amusing or should that be bemusing to see the KS2 Humanities results awarded by pupil’s junior school teachers especially when we then had to use those results to benchmark the pupils and show progress through KS3 and 4.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Maybe it's easy to categorise yourself by class if you are, by definition of education, job and earnings, in the same bracket as your parents, like I am. I'm plainly middle class, there's no ambiguity about it. It's much more ambiguous if you grew up in a working class household, but you have a degree and profession or money, that makes you more middle class; even though you're more likely to identify, at least a partly, as working class.

Thinking about my own "roots" and how they influence my identity and values, I think the reason I reject material aspiration is that my grandparents were wealthy, and I hated going to their place. I thought it was horrible, everything looked like it was 200 years old and was just a horrible, unfriendly environment. On the other side of my family there's "footballers' wives" (literally), and that lot were a bit more fun, but I still found all their flash cars and whatnot tasteless and shit, even as a kid (most kids would have loved meeting football stars of the day like Kenny Dalglish, but that soon wore off when I realised I didn't give a shit about football).

So as a kid, I'd met a lot of people with money, and concluded that they were all dicks. Of course, that was down to the people that happened to make up my family. Kind of stuck with me, and influenced my attitudes towards money, although I'm now more open to the idea that having money doesn't automatically mean you've not got a soul. But there is still a correlation. (These days, if I have a day of patients that are all posh, it's an absolute grind...if they're all normal/working class the day goes so much faster, they're simply far more pleasant to deal with in my working context).

I can imagine having a very different perspective if I'd not known how uptight and miserable rich people usually seem to be - if I didn't have any good stuff as a kid, but I knew it was out there to be had, I would be more likely to want it for myself and be motivated to get my hands on it.

In reply to baron:

Interesting how things seem to have changed. By the current educational use of working class, few of them (or anyone on this thread or their parents?) be categorised as working class now. It is now difficult to find disadvantaged students, whose parents have high expectations.  My understanding was that around 10% of students "passes" the 11+ then? 

Again I think this is at least partly due to league tables and pressure. I'm not sure I ever paid any attention to KS2 Science or Humanities results. In my first year as Head of maths (2000) in a new school, we actually  got the breakdown of the KS2 maths papers for each child. All the kids from one feeder primary had got question 17 correct, hardly anyone else had. I asked one of the students in my class about this. He said he remembered quite clearly that Mr X had told them during the exam that as he had been off ill when he was supposed to teach that topic and so they weren't to be disadvantaged, when compared to other schools he was going to write the correct answer on the board!

In reply to kathrync:

I think it's more likely to be "pushy" than wealthy parents! 

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

There is a fine line between supportive and pushy, but you might have a point about it not just being about wealth.

A breakdown shows 34% of those from “high-affluence” backgrounds said they had private tuition, compared with 20% of those from “low-affluence” homes.

This might go some way to explaining that lack of progress amongst white kids

Secondary school pupils from black, Asian and minority-ethnic backgrounds were about twice as likely to say they had private tutoring than those from a white background (42% compared with 22%).

In reply to GrahamD:

I'm sure its not the only way, but it seems incredibly common in areas of the country where there still are grammar schools.

I use a BBC story about this when I'm teaching my sociology students about the tripartite system, can't find it now, but random googling found this from 2013 and Kent: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-24668503 trying to make tutoring have less of an impact on who passes. Did it works, well this from 2018 suggests probably not as loads of private primary schools were illegally tutoring their students to pass the 11+: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-45412252 Of course some poorer parents make huge sacrifices to get tutoring for their kids, or do a lot of work themselves - so its not only wealthier families who get that advantage, but if you've got the cash its obviously a lot easier.

The same is true at GCSE level across the county. Paying for tutoring definitely seems to help kids, but of course not every family can afford it.

In reply to RobAJones:

I had friends who went to different junior schools than mine and nearly all of them had parents with high aspirations. ‘Get a trade’ was the oft heard advice from Dad’s to their sons. I don’t think I ever heard the same advice given to my sister! Of course there were some children whose parents couldn’t give a toss about them and it showed.

Our problem with KS2 scores was all down to the pressure exerted on the junior school teachers by their headteacher and parents. And I didn’t mean to criticise them in any way, I certainly couldn’t do their job. However, it was very difficult to explain to a parent why their child wasn’t making the expected progress without calling the KS2 teachers liars. The alternative was to simply go with the flow and inflate their KS3 scores and pass the buck onto the KS4 staff who had the problem of seeing pupils with high KS3 scores failing to achieve their predicted GCSE grades. What a situation!

In reply to baron:

And OFSTED don't seem to comprehend this??  In areas that still have middle schools, how many towns have outstanding middle schools on the basis of "made up" KS3 results, next to an RI or inadequate secondary due to "lack of progress in KS4"

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I heard about some newish research on that suggested there were lots of problems with the study that idea was based on. Yep - a bit of Googling reveals the NPR story where I probably heard it https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/06/01/615188051/lets-stop-talking-abou...

You read the original research here: https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/TheEarlyCatastrophe.pdf its rather noticeable that the research was in the 60s but not published until 92 (book in 95), and it quite a small sample size. Lots of other methodological choices which at best you could say are worthy of further discussion.

While googling I found this article supporting the original research and pointing to how the criticism could be unfair. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/making-edu-myth-30-million... FWIW, I had never heard of the Institute before and it's Wikipedia page quotes an AP story saying it "conservative leaning" so there might be some ideological baggage in the pushback to the pushback!

In reply to RobAJones:

I believe that certain subjects have national tests English, Maths, Science, but others are teacher assessed. It’s hardly surprising that teachers who are under pressure do everything that they can to show how well their pupils are doing.

OFSTED don’t seem to acknowledge that the problem exists.

We got around the problem of showing progression in KS3 without awarding ridiculous end of key stage scores by sub dividing our levels into a, b, c,d,e, etc.

This was a special needs school so I don’t know how mainstream schools managed.

All was well until some genius decided that all pupils including special needs pupils had to achieve two full grades progress in KS3.

Luckily I retired.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Your fondness of trying to browbeat people in to submission, regardless of the quality of your argument, is well known on here. However, I genuinely thought you were better than the behaviour you have demonstrated on this thread. Oh well!

In reply to The New NickB:

Roughly translated:

you and me have bumped heads on here previously and you've still got a hair up your arse about it. Oh well

In reply to Stichtplate:

You tell yourself that if it makes you feel better. But you would be fooling yourself, which is a shame.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Ff by any chance?

In reply to Stichtplate:

I'm not joking but you've lost me now.

This is going to blow your friggin mind. There's grey. You don't ignore their background and you don't teach by class you meet the kids where they need to be met.

It's too fluid to say he's a blue collar kid do this. Likewise a kid educated in china will have a different skill set to ours - about 1 in ten of my kids are exchange.

Their circumstances is who they are. You can ignore that, I dont. That's far more than class and I'm not sure it stands up anymore so it's essentially useless in a teaching environment. But the kids background, family, responsibilities is who they are. I can ignore that and teach and 20% do well, I can walk away feeling good and blame the 80% for not working hard enough. Then some of those 20% go on to teach and we repeat the system, because our system works.. 

And here's my run.. and I worked yesterday (MLK day), so I felt ok getting a long run in today having prepped this week...

Check out my activity on Strava: https://strava.app.link/67OTtwqvbdb

In reply to Stichtplate:

I haven't followed this spat, but I don't think you "brow beat"...but only because I'm worse🤣🤣

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I haven't, but my own case is one which proves the 11+ was bollocks.

I think I might have been dyslexic, at least slightly so, lots of letters the wrong way around, shit at spelling and could easily spell the same word a number of different ways in the same piece of writing.

When we moved to "senior school" from juniors, our classes were streamed by ability, so 12 classes, the top three did Latin or German and O-Levels, the bottom three classes were remedial, people who had trouble reading and writing.

We were the first year of the comprehensive system.

I was in 4th from the bottom, every year I moved up a band, but by the time it was time for O levels, I'd been used to people arseing around most of the time and if I didn't like the subject, didn't put the effort in. If I liked the teacher or the subject then I'd do well.

At the time of the mocks, I did so well in some subjects they moved me into top level classes for Maths, Physics and Chemistry, this was six months before the exams!!

I left school at 16 because I hated it and I wanted money.

Shortly before leaving we did some IQ tests, I know they're not the best measure of intelligence but an indicator at least, I had an IQ of 149.

I ended up doing OK, and went to college part time for the next 6 or 7 years, day release and night classes. So, things turned out fine for me, but if we'd have had the 11+ I'd have been in some dullard school with little or no chance of doing any better. I was lucky, but I also wonder where I would be if someone had realise I was clever enough to learn stuff, just couldn't express it clearly enough, in writing.

The best teachers were the ones who took the time to get the best out of me and I'm grateful for them.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Do you every re-read what you've posted? You can be very dismissive and downright rude sometimes. I'm not sure you realise you're doing it, and then at other times, it feels like you're doing it on purpose. It tends to, at least reading for the page, to be very different from the "bollocks!" response and is often on the verge of insulting. You may not be writing in the same tone I'm reading it, but you don't always come across as very nice.

Sorry

In reply to RX-78:

On the 'class' issue.Being dirt poor is no fun,but if you are fairly comfortable,ie. no financial difficulties,reasonable health,and have the wherewithal to enjoy more engaging activities,then raising ones social status is not necessarily  advantageous.

I am the same age as Prince Charles, but has he had a happier life? I don't know.

I believe more equal societies are happier for all {including those that otherwise would be the most powerful}. More equal societies have the benefit of less social antagonism,less crime, more universal respect, and self respect. I think it is better to work towards a more equal society than we have at present,rather than trying to work our way up the social ladder. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Quite simple. I didn't say the things you said I did. Didn't say teaching wasn't a proper job. Didn't say it was part time. Amongst a host of other stuff.

My mind remains unblown. You've simply been misunderstanding me. I haven't said you should ignore who the child is, I said you shouldn't assign a kid a social classification and then teach them based on that.

Wow, really? I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've written on this very point.

This was my first comment on here yesterday "Not got a lot of time for class distinctions myself. They're largely an outdated invention cast adrift from relevance in the modern world."

Also me yesterday "I'd say the whole notion of class, shorn of the actual content of a person's character, is meaningless."

Again from yesterday "You're completely missing my point which is I don't think it's helpful to grade our fellow humans from birth according to perceived inherited social status."

This is me again from this morning "I don't want my kids to be judged as to what class their teachers reckon they are. I want their teachers to treat them based on their behaviour and educational needs."

If you disagree I'd genuinely be curious as to why.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Cheers. I do usually have to go and lie down for a bit after our discussions

In reply to Cobra_Head:

Nuance and attempts at humour don't tend to translate well on here. Saying that, if I feel someone is blatantly misrepresenting what I've written and debating in bad faith it does tend to irritate me

No need for apologies. If that's how you perceive my posts then the lack of clarity is my fault

In reply to Stichtplate:

"And what's 7 years teaching the proles equate to in actual time with the proles? 26 weeks a year at 7 hours a day? So that's like someone claiming vast experience after 3 years in a normal job, right"

You seem to think because you deny saying something you didn't say it.

7 years of teaching is 3 years of a 'normal job'.. how is that not saying teaching isn't a proper or normal job? 

"You aren't the sum of your circumstances. You're the sum of your actions."

That's not what you said here. Of course your circumstances shape you.  They have to inform how we teach. Your circumstances shape everything about you. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

Well that was entertaining to see you claiming  to not have « a lot of time for class distinctions » and then watch you give us such a long-winded series of incredibly class prejudiced comments and attacks.

In reply to baron:

Same year as me.  I don’t recall any preparation at all.  Come to that, I don’t even recall being told the result but I passed the entrance exam at the local LEA direct grant grammar.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I don’t remember the preparation in great detail but I have very vivid memories of the head master coming in every week and giving the whole class a motivational speech or a good bollocking as it used to be called. Maybe he felt that his school’s reputation was on the line.

I was so proud when I passed the 11+ and went to a grammar school. Just in time for comprehensive schools to be established. ☹️

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Yep, that's what I wrote. You were making quite the deal of your experience with the underprivileged so I broke down how much time you'd spent face to face with the underprivileged.  Was it inaccurate? How much was I out then?

In the context of a man with a middle class background and middle class employment history brow beating a man with a working class background and working class employment history about the realities of working class kids, I thought the point worth making. Especially since you told me I wasn't working class.

Sorry I said teaching wasn't a normal job but in terms of how your working time is divided it isn't normal. If your jobs stacking shelves you don't spend half your time stacking the shelves and the other half planning how you're going to stack the shelves and writing reports on how the shelf stacking is going.

Yet again I see you've concentrated on the least consequential part of my post and ignored all the rest. You might have noticed that I don't do that, I just try to give you an honest reply point by point.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

In reply to your edit: Yeah I've already gone over that with John Stewart. You'll have to scroll up.

In reply to Alyson30:

Oh cheers Rom nice of you to join us as reigning champ of underhand debate and chronic misrepresentation. Still smarting at my revealing your multiple sock puppet accounts and propensity to use them to manipulate threads? 

In reply to Tom Walkington:

Totally agree. It's the prison of the human condition. We're wired to compare ourselves to others and try to increase our relative status for the ancient evolutionary purpose of attracting a mate. Which in our modern lives, most people did ages ago, we're no longer on the pull and we don't want any more children (if any).

Then, when we up our status by that one notch, it makes absolutely no difference to our happiness because we just compare ourselves to someone higher up the ladder with more stuff, or a more impressive job title, and feel exactly the same compulsion to keep trying to "do better", because that's what our monkey-brains do.

Better to try to find some other, higher purpose in life (but unfortunately, chances are that'll turn out to be bollocks as well).

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I don't remember anyone getting practice at our school either, though obviously I didn't take them.

Didn't people get notified by post?

In reply to Stichtplate:

No, it is just quite amusing to observe such a display of severe hypocrisy.

There is one thing you said I agree with:

 « Nobody's paying them [class distinctions] much attention bar a few insecure people who seem to be trying to escape association with their actual backgrounds. »

In reply to Alyson30:

That's quite the compliment coming from a man who was ringing his hands over how terrible covid was but managed to inform us that at least you'd make a profit out of it. And all in the same post. Chapeau! as they have it in your motherland.

In reply to your edit: Glad you picked up on that. As someone suffering with some weird multiple profile disorder and a serial need to swap countries, perhaps you should concentrate on the last bit? 

insecure people who seem to be trying to escape association with their actual backgrounds.

In reply to summo:

Makes me a toff as almost everything in my "country pile" has been collated from family and friends. Comforting thought as I ask Jeeves to defrost another polo pony for tomorrow's kedgeree. 

In reply to TobyA:

I've really not looked at it much at all. It came up in an anti racism meeting this summer. Our new head came from the Bronx so she was telling me about it.

I generally just teach upper school high schoolers, generally I don't even teach freshman so don't get involved with any of the lower school stuff. We're a pre-K to grade 12 school so we get some talks on this stuff with the lower school but its just not really part of my job, just something that interests me.

We're just seeing the impact of lack of close attention of parents on our kids who are remote. Some cope OK but some kids are remote, their parents are at work and they just are not engaged. They'll come back to school next fall having basically lost a year of school whilst others will have progressed much better. It's going to be tough for a while yet.

In reply to Stichtplate:

So predictable... never mind, I've got no more time for you.

In reply to Tom Walkington:

Reminds me of my late and much missed friend Pete Shotton, brought up in pre-war Rochdale. Always reckoned there was so little crime despite no one locking their doors because no one had anything worth nicking. "Who's going to steal a mangle!"

In reply to RX-78:

There are really only 2 classes. Working class and upper class (elites). If the average so called middle class person stopped working for a few months then likely to behind on rent/mortgage and spending much less at a supermarket. Hence if they didn’t WORK they can’t afford to live. This means they are working class. An Upper class (elite) has more money than they need and will never have money worries unless they do something drastically wrong. Middle class is a title created by Elites to keep making the working class work harder and harder. This increases the Upper classes wealth whilst the working class (aiming for fictitious middle class) is always a job loss,sack,personal injury and in some cases an expensive house repair bill away from financial disaster and the benefits office. I am a 38yr old tradesman with a mortgaged house (nearly paid off) and a rental property which is for my young childrens future. I work long hrs, anytime of the day and night to do this. I would be in the ‘middle class’ brackets. But i am and always will be Working class.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

Like some others I took the 11plus in 1968. From memory (so maybe not too reliable) it was a series of verbal reasoning questions and I have a vague idea it was 2 or 3 sessions (each maybe an hour) over a period of a couple of weeks. We did do some practise papers first but nobody had any special tution either in or out of school.  The results were sent to our parents by post some time later.

I passed & went to the local grammar school & later became the first in our family to go to university. Till one of my nieces went to university some 25 years later I was the only member of the family to go to university and I guess I'm the classic case of someone from a working class background (Dad was a carpenter, Mum a school dinner lady) who is now middle class

In reply to baron:

My mother got me some practice tests and made me do them. She was a very clever woman but had grown up very poor: boot polish on the soles of her feet to hide the holes in her shoes when they knelt down in school assembly prayers - that sort of poor. Had to leave school at 14 to become the only wage earner in a large family. She was determined her kids were going to be well-educated.

I'm not sure many people realise that practicing IQ tests (which is what our 11+ was) can significantly improve performance. Many years later as a head I got some great PR out of being the state comp with the highest number of kids in Mensa, in England. I got the test process free in exchange for letting Mensa use our site for local meetings. Any kid who wanted could take it, providing they agreed to do two practice tests which I cobbled together myself out of published IQ tests. It was a lot of marking but it was great for our reputation and I was on a hard recruitment drive. I wasn't popular with other secondary heads nearby, mind.

Middle class is realistically a very outdated concept that is far too broad. I think a lot of people identify as working class because it feels more authentic, because it gives them a sense of achievement against the odds, and because of their family.

Realistically though the middle classes should be the middle classes; there's a big difference between a young couple who are both on starting teacher's wages raising a kid and working, and a barrister with a stay at home partner who doesn't need to work and who go on skiing holidays twice a year. I'm definitely middle class, culturally, but I'm definitely lower middle class income and family background wise. Or you might call it the "service class" these days, people who aren't Professionals in a classic sense but who don't work manual jobs and who are fill our offices and such.

In reply to baron:

That probably depends on the the primary school you went to. Mine certainly didn't do this, but others in the area did.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I would imagine they would require a certain degree of wealth to afford private tutoring... A family who can barely afford to feed their children are not going to be able to do this regardless of how much the parents want their children to succeed.

I wasn't , but it bears out this: One of the many things My 13 year old has been doing after doing the work set by school is looking around the net for Various IQ tests , verbal reasoning , visual reasoning etc . He commented  the other day that they were getting easier the more he did them . He also said that when he was bored in year 6 ( I didn't realise ) he and his best friend would do this to entertain themselves .  Ill tell him to search out old 11 plus tests . 

Edit : Which of course means that anybody who knew this back in the day could ,  If they had the know how or the cash to pay for tutors ,   Could have easily got their children into grammar school .

In reply to Andrew Wells:

This has already been posted a couple of times further up the thread, but I'll post it again because it does address this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Class_Survey

In reply to Andrew Wells:

Google says inner city teacher starting salary £32k, criminal barrister £10-50k,  and 1/3rd of all barristers earn less than £60k.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Perhaps but if they got the info. from here

https://www.thelawyer.com/barrister-salary/#:~:text=The%20Bar%20Council%20h....

They could also have said over 50% of barristers earn more than 90k but less than 1% of teachers do. I think you might be onto a way of helping with retention within the teaching profession.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Perhaps, but if they got the info. from here

https://www.thelawyer.com/barrister-salary/#:~:text=The%20Bar%20Council%20h....

They could also have said, over 50% of barristers earn more than 90k but less than 1% of teachers do. I think you might be onto a way of helping with retention issue within the teaching profession.

In reply to baron:

Why the long face? What do you think would have been different? Schools were reorganised in my town two years (I think) before I was 11. Not sure I want to get into a debate with others about mixed attainment teaching, but basically after Christmas of Year 7 I was in the "top" set for everything along with others who would have passed the 11+, we were taught mainly by the teachers who had taught at the old high school. I'm not sure it made much difference to me.  It did make a big difference to a friend who is a couple of years older and "failed" the 11+ so started at the modern school, but was able to do some O levels at the comp. and is now an Architect. 

In reply to RX-78:

Wow! Over 300 replies. I wonder if the response would have been the same in another country, or is this a peculiarly British (or, dare I say it, an English) issue? Just thinking...

In reply to kathrync:

It will be interesting to see if the money to provide this tutoring to disadvantaged students over the next couple of years is effective. I think it a good idea, but it won't be enough to overcome the difference parental attitude makes. A poor (4th quintile, so just above the level you describe) Asian family in London is 3 times as likely t0 pay for a tutor as a wealthy (top quintile) white family in the North West.

In reply to kathrync:

Thats quite interesting:

"Average household income of elite households in 2011 was £89,000; average house price was £325,000 and above."

"As of 2011 the established middle class had an average household income of £47,000 a year and owned a home worth an average of £177,000 with average savings of £26,000. "

"The technical middle class is relatively well to do, with an average household incomes of £38,000, average savings of £66,000 and houses worth an average of £163,000. "

The household income for 'elite' seems low to me.

There's not a lot of difference between established middle class and technical middle class, though interestingly the technical middle class seem a bit more astute with savings. Obviously the established middle class are a bit "fur coat and no knickers" 😉

The figures for the Precariat are frightening. Not much 'trickle down' there.