As a low-grade civil servant, I get training in diversity, inclusion and stuff like that. And by "training" I mean an hour or so once a year to look at a powerpoint and have a discussion within my team.

As a result, I know what "white privilege" means and what it doesn't mean. I admit that previously I had some wrong notions on the issue, but about 5 minutes in to the aforementioned training, it clicked.

Week 1 of being an MP, or a councillor, or anything else really, should include this kind of training. A whole hour wouldn't be needed.

'White privilege' does not mean that all white people hold privileged positions in society compared to all black people. We're all individuals and all face a different array of privileges and 'disprivileges'. Many white people are in a bad situation and many non-white people are doing very well thank you. This is not what we're talking about.

'White privilege' means not having to face, or even think about, the additional array of disprivileges that comes from not being white in this country. It's a small part of the array of privileges I alluded to in the previous paragraph, but it's a real thing.

But it's also reasonable for an Education Secretary to be concerned about telling working class white boys (who are one of the worst-performing groups, from an educational stand-point) that they're privileged, but the BAME boys that they share a class with, who get better educational results and more opportunities due to BAME-specific programmes targeting them for help, are not.

100% agree, but if the Education Secretary's response to that is to say that white privilege doesn't exist then she's wrong.

It may well be that white privilege is not a significant factor in educational outcomes (I don't know either way) but if so, then say what you mean. Communication skills are important in that job.