to avoid a primary school that has a high proportion of traveller children

[APeePleaseBob]

I live in a catchment area for several primaries so when we were thinking about schools for my DS we started be looking at Ofsted reports for the closest ones.

One of them got a 'good with some outstanding features' report but in the school make-up section it said it had a high number of traveller children in the school. It is near a well-known traveller site so this makes sense.

I have to confess this put me off and I didn't even go to see it. We have since made our selections elsewhere.

I still think about it though - AIBU to be put off? Would you have felt the same?

I'm going to bed, my brain hurts

which covers the point that Aplletree's was trying to press earlier, that Race was a sie issue and that this was about educational outcomes.

No one would find it acceptable to not even look at a school merely because of a large black male population.
Most would find refusing a school based on a high percetntage of LAC pretty awful too.

So to not even consider a school considered good to outstanding by ofsted simply because of the possible higher then average traveller attendance can't really be observed as anything other than a decision based upon ethnictity/race. therefore Racism

Er.....did the OP ever come back?

Could it be that he's scratching his balls somewhere and laughing at us all?

Exactly penelope, hence why LACs and black boys were involved. Nicely explained. :)

Anyhow, I'm off to bed now. If anyone can unravel the conundrum of whether 15 is indeed lower than 27 or not, please let me know, it might stop me from sleeping.

Night all. :)

That's the point I was making- thank you for getting it!

altinkum, if you can point out where I was inaccurate, I will be happy to change it

Yawn studies etc how boring.
In the 80s i was sent to the nearest primary. Same for my friends' kids now - sod ofsted etc; the main thing is they learn to read and write and the school is near enough to walk to / has provision for working mums.
The area i'm from has lots of council estates (as well as private homes + mobile sites) lived in by english Romanies. (They use the word 'gypsy' or 'romany' usually. The word 'traveller' does not mean you are romany). I never met any 'irish travellers' apart from those who arrive in the summer and are resented by ALL the locals im afraid.
At school some romany kids were bullied and called 'cackers' (nasty local term); i got called that too at one point by some lads - because of my cousin whose (very lovely) mum is romany. Most kids did integrate well.
Locally there are notorious romany families (inc my aunt's).
Sadly they are notorious because many are known criminals and thugs. Other members of those families though are successful tradesmen or professionals.

I would send a child to my primary as it was, and still is a nice school.

Oh dear, altinkum. You do seem upset. FWIW, the smiley was meant genuinely, not in a passive-aggressive way.

This is the post you pulled up for not being wholly accurate:

"The children with the poorest outcomes of all are children in care.

Would you not send your child to a school which had a 'high proportion' of Looked after Children?"

I just want you to tell me which part of that statement is not accurate. I'm sorry if you think that means I'm 'being a twat'.

Several posters have said that they would not send their children to a school with a high proportion of traveller children because some other travellers they have met have been violent and criminal.

I have to say the only violent and criminal people I have met in the last 15 years or so have been white British. I believe that apart from Black Caribbean boys (not many around here) the lowest educational outcome seems to be white British. So would I be justified in refusing to send my children to a school that had a high proportion of white British children? It's the same logic, isn't it?

My child was at a outstanding ofsted school which had traveller children at at. Didn't know who they were, it was a nice little school so don't think their were any issues - never heard anything mentioned. All the talk of prejudice and racism has got me wondering if the people giving the Op a hard time would be happy to see a group of travellers set up site in the field next to their house or the bit of grass opposite you. Just wondering how far our tolerance would go.

I would have no issue with a legally purchased piece of land being occupied by anyone.

I would be understanding of the factors behind illegal occupation of land.

If the behaviour became anti social I would report to the authorities and then judge those responsible, not tat an entire race with the crimes of a few

Cory, at secondary where there are more reports of school age violence you might just not see the figures as a lot of traveller children do not go on to secondary education, and those that do presumably want to be there/have parents who support education. Plus where there are small numbers & are settled travellers, as at my dcs' school, there are no/fewer issues.

A nearby village school with 100% traveller population has a good Ofsted report re care and community, there are no tensions because no local child from the village attends and goes to the next nearest school in town. However, there is now a big traveller camp near that school and traveller make up the majority intake, very serious issues have meant parents are removing their children in droves.