to think that the school logo is not very inclusive?

[weakestlink]

We have been looking at all the local primary schools as DS2 may be on the Autistic Spectrum and he may not get all the support he needs at the school we originally chose for him.

We have found a really lovely primary for him which has a really positive attitude to SEN and has a Good Ofsted report as well.

BUT DH is really not keen on the schools logo which appears everywhere, in colour, including on sweatshirts, polo shirts, book bags etc.

The logo is of two parents and a child reading a book. The bodies of the people are in blue/green but the heads (just ovals no features) are all white/pale beige colour. DH is black and says he is a bit about the logo and it would have been better if they had kept the heads the same colours as the bodies (blue & green) rather than putting a white family on the logo.

Is he being over-sensitive? I am white and we live in a mainly white, rural area.

I do always notice that the local Sure Start Newsletter is filled with photos of a wide range of ethnicities so they have obviously made a real effort to do that.

What do you think?

This thread has gone a bit crazy. The op did not say he would rush up the school to complain, just that it made him feel uncomfortable. I think this is fair enough. As I said YANBU, it would be just as easy to have blue or green faces like the bodies. I wouldn't complain but would bother me a bit. It's not hard to be sensitive and race is a charged issue that does matter.

If it were physically impossible for a child to access, then i should imagine a parent wouldnt apply for that school in the first place. This explains it better than i can!

"It is unlawful for schools and other education providers to discriminate against disabled pupils, students and adult learners. Find out how the Equality Act 2010 has increased protection for disabled learners against unfair treatment.

The Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act has simplified and strengthened the discrimination laws which protect people from unfair treatment.

It is unlawful for a school or other education provider to treat a disabled student unfavourably. Such treatment could amount to:
?direct discrimination
?indirect discrimination
?discrimination arising from a disability
?harassment

Direct discrimination

An education provider must not treat a disabled student less favourably simply because of their disability. For instance, they can?t refuse admission to disabled applicants because they are disabled.

Indirect discrimination

An education provider must not do something for all students which would have a negative effect on disabled students, unless they have a genuine reason. For example, only providing course application forms in one format, which may not be accessible for disabled people.

Discrimination arising from a disability

An education provider must not discriminate against a student because of something that is a consequence of their disability.

For example, they can?t stop a disabled pupil going outside at break time because it takes them too long to get there.

Harassment

Education providers must not harass students because of their disability. For example, a teacher must not shout at a disabled pupil if the disability means that they are unable to concentrate.

Making adjustments

Education providers must also make ?reasonable adjustments? to ensure that disabled students aren?t discriminated against. Making reasonable adjustments could include:
?changes to practices or procedures
?changes to physical features
?changes to how learners are assessed
?providing extra support and aids (such as specialist teachers or equipment)

The obligation for schools to provide extra support such as specialist teachers or equipment will be introduced at a later date.

Schools are not expected to change their premises. They are expected to make long-term plans for improving access to their buildings through their planning duties"

Anyhow, enough, we have hijacked the thread

Yes, however admissions is a different kettle of fish, varying in each LEA

Anyway as you said this thread is now nothing to do with op!

God there are some nasty comments on this thread!

OP I totally see why your dh is a bit about this logo, although I agree it shouldn't be the deal breaker. It sounds pretty naff to be honest, but I think if you are going to have a non-traditional logo (ie not a shield or a pair of keys or a mitre or whatever) then you probably should try to make it inclusive, actually.

However, seeing as you're not going to let it be the thing that makes the difference, I think you and DP are perfectly entitled to think it's a bit rum. I don't think your DP is 'playing a race card' at all, and I don't think it's something anyone who hasn't been in a minority can really get their head round.

For example, my dd is reading Noughts and Crosses, and hadn't really thought about the whole plasters as 'skin colour' issue before: so they blend better on a white skin than a black - and in this book things are reversed so that black people are the ruling majority, and one of the minor differences is that sticking plasters are dark brown. Which seems like a really small thing, and I'm sure if anyone started an AIBU thread on here to say that sticking plasters are racist, they would be hounded upon by many of the nastier elements on this thread. BUT the little things do add up, and can be more indicative than you would think if you just look at things and only ever say 'FFS it's just a logo/plaster/word'.

Coco, im not sure what you mean by admissions is a different kettle of fish. We seem to be talking at cross purposes throughout the thread never mind!

Ok in my county if a child has highly complex physical problems and applies for school A, the LEA may decide school B is more appropiate to meet needs due to the equipment available to suit childs needs. Therfore the admissions is prior the act.

Malcolm, I loved the Noughts and Crosses series. Fabulous books, but they are so depressing.

The thing with the plasters is that they were probably just made to suit the majority, because manufacturers want to spend as little money as possible. I would argue that they don't blend to my skin colour either (white pasty). No one was being deliberately thoughtless - just making a 'best fit' commercial decision. The thing is if you are a minority, you can't expect the world to change everything to accommodate you. You can expect fair equal treatment and equality of opportunity wrt education and employment etc but it really is only a logo/plaster. It only becomes a big deal if someone makes it into one.

I think that the world is focussed usually on profit. Goods (such as brown coloured plasters) will be made if someone can make a profit out of it.

OP, until recently the people on my children's school logo were sewn in black thread (the same faceless, genderless ones as on yours, I expect). My children's school is predominantly white. I don't know anyone who has thought that the black people in the logo don't represent them. Now that I've given it some thought, my conclusion is that they just picked a colour that showed up well against the colour of the sweatshirts.

Im still not quite sure what you mean, i must be having a bad day! All LA's can do that. The Equality Act 2010 covers admission too. The choice still remains with the parent, appeals and tribunals as to whether you get your choice or not.

Ok time to move on

I don't think you and your DH are being unreasonable to be a bit about the logo - and wonder whether it is a sign that the school isn't all that inclusive. It may be great and just have a duff logo they haven't changed. But it may be a sign of a school leadership team that hasn't thought much about inclusivity - it's something to check out when you visit - how do they teach about other cultures, how do they deal with racism, what books do they have in the library and posters on the wall etc...

It DOES matter if the only images of black people the kids see at school are for red nose day appeals. So yanbu to check!

I don't know any schools who ignore other cultures. Even in my dc predominantly white school, they have done teacher exchange visits to a school in another country and have studied other cultures. Schools are very careful these days to be inclusive and have all sorts policies to ensure this.

I don't know any schools who ignore other cultures but I do know schools who, despite their good intentions, have a "them" and "us" way of teaching. "This is what they do - y'know over there..." Imagine being "them" and "other" for your whole time at school. Having an all white logo, whatever the intention, excludes in a way that silhouettes don't.

I wouldn't choose or discount a school for a logo, but I would want to have a closer look at how the school talk about and teach about minority groups - of all types.

Another thought, but all the parents will have bought new uniform in time for the new school year. Many will hope to pass it down to younger siblings. It is a total pita when a school changes its logo (has happened to both my dc primary and secondary schools recently) as you cannot pass down clothing. It costs a fortune and the parent who instigates this change is going to be really popular in the playground. It wouldn't be my approach if I was the newbie at the school gate.

karma have you read my posts? DH would never ask them to change their logo he's just not that keen on it and thinks it could have been better designed.

I didn't post: AIBU to stomp up to the school office and demand an instant redesign of the entire uniform.

Yes, what Camdancer said...there are schools that teach about other countries and cultures either as 'exotic' or 'poor, starving African children' and assume a WASP norm.

weakestlink, the conversation evolved to a more general discussion. There were suggestions on here that your dh join the governors and instigate change from within. I was, in part, responding to the general conversation.

However, you did say he was really not keen rather than just not that keen. If he feels strongly it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he would bring this up at some future point with the school. Part of the value of AIBU is that it works through possible scenarios and outcomes.

I was taught like this Himalaya and despised it, Even from a relativity young age.

My father always insisted on bringing me and my brothers up to know that places like Africa are full of culture and should never be looked down upon (A white man brought up in Belfast! Not that it should matter :o) and I plan to bring my son up the same.

But children should still be educated about the "poor starving" children in Africa surely? As it is an actual fact in some areas.

I don't think DH would ask them to change the logo at any point in the future unless is was going to be changed and they asked for suggestions/improvements. Doesn't mean he likes it though. But he's pretty sensible and won't let that get in the way of DS's education.

He'd love to talk about his culture to the children though and this would benefit the school as a whole. I'll be sure to ask about their inclusion policy and if indeed there are other children from ethnic minorities attending the school. I did hear from a parent that there is very little bullying at the school though which is great :)

Cocoflower, if the only time the children see people with darker skins is in that context how do you think they will treat the OP's DH or DS? It is about balance and not always seeing the differences but the similarities and normalities.

And it is easy to change a logo. My DS's school changed theirs a few years ago. You can still wear the old logo stuff but you can't buy it anymore. As the old stuff wears out it'll disappear. No pressure though.

So you do or do not think children should be educated to the fact that in other parts of the world children live in poverty and are dying?

Absolutely, but that there are children in other parts of the world who live in poverty and are dying, not that black children live in poverty and are dying. As we all know, black skin does not equal living in poverty, nor does living in poverty equal black skin.

"not that black children live in poverty and are dying."

So by your reasoning we should only teach them that white children live in poverty and are not dying?

I don't think any school in this day and age would say that black skin = living in poverty. Maybe when we were kids they would have said it, but not now.