to be amused that the more exclusive a school is..

[seeker]

.. by faith, fees, ability, aptitude..whatever- the more diverse a community the school's parents say it is.

Sorry, should have said in that last post that I agree with the first quotation save for the word 'equally'.

"But you didnt include exclusive on the grounds of face, whether intentionally or not. A school with no or few ethnic minorities is just as exclusive in a different way.

I was talking about overtly exclusive schools. Schools where the admissions criteria include "excluding" criteria.

The whole concept of "white flight" is a different thread.

The whole concept of white flight is central to any discussion about diversity in schools. How could it not be? Again, you think it's not central because you are white. I'm not, so I look at the issue through a different lens. But to suggest its a separate issue is very odd, IMO.

And overtly excluding criteria includes catchment area, which is a major source of the racial ghettoisation of schools. So yes, comprehensives have overtly excluding criteria just the same as a private school. It's just different criteria.

It's not because I'm white, it's because what I am talking about on this occasion is the overt, permitted by law, admissions criteria which produce exclusive schools.

I am very happy to talk at equal length about "white flight", and the other ways in which BEM children get a crap deal in the education system by covert means. I have lots of personal experience of the situation in Leeds and Bradford to bring to the debate.

It is permitted by law because we are all free to make choices about where to education children. The choice will depend on the area you live in but no one can expect a full range of choices in the sticks.

Seeker
I am very happy to talk at equal length about "white flight", and the other ways in which BEM children get a crap deal in the education system by covert means. I have lots of personal experience of the situation in Leeds and Bradford to bring to the debate.

Do you have experience or do you have knowledge? They are not the same.

I know how hard it can be for my DH and his friends, I know that their wives might face comments because they wear the hijab, I know that my sons' may face discrimination and negative judgements because they are muslim and have arabic names. But I am white and christian and I haven't experienced it myself only vicariously through them. I have knowledge but not necessarily experience.

Novak. Couldn't have summed it up better myself
now let's hope you've had the final word on the subject

Sorry molly

seeker And catchment area is also an overt permitted by law admissions criteria which produces exclusive schools. No different.

Seeker's concerns are only faith, fees, ability, aptitude, because that is what has affected her children. Her particular issue seems to me to be academic selection, because one of her children failed the eleven plus.

Bletchley- don't be silly.
Chaz- I'm sorry- I should have said knowledge- I don't have first hand experience-only second hand through family members.
Thebossofme- if catchment areas can be deliberately set to avoid areas with a high % of particular groups within society, then yes, I should have added catchment to my list of exclusivity producers. Can they?

Yes of course they can and they are. Look at the appeals. Which is why your beatification of comprehensives is such bollocks.

I wonder if all exclusive schools pupils were suddenly sent back to mainstream "diverse" all inclusive state schools "because it is not fair" - would it improve the situation for more disadvantaged (for whatever reason) children's education? Don't forget, their education doesn't cost taxpayer anything. Would it not be better to campaign for better quality education in state schools then against exclusive schools?

I think it is totally unrealistic to expect any child to gain experience of every single socio economic or cultural variation through school, which is what I think seeker would be happy with. My children know poor kids and rich kids, black, chinese, asian and white kids. That'll do for now.

My DSSs moved from a state school that was highly diverse on all of economic, religious and intelligence grounds (state comprehensive in Neuilly-sur-Seine) to a school that was much less diverse by far (private Catholic in 7th arrondissement). They were instantly and immediately much happier in the new school (despite not being part of the overwhelming Catholic majority). So much for diversity, and for being part of the diverse mix.

Where working class children of all ethnicities are separated from middle class chaidren, and are generally given fewer opportunities, don't get to the top universities, and don't have a hope in he'll of getting to th topnuniversities.

But what about all the areas of the country that don't have the grammar system - far, far more than those that do? Like my city, which has no private school at all, and only one selective Catholic secondary with a very small intake. The system you are experiencing is not the norm for the greater part of the country, is it?

Well, let's have a look at the 4 primary schools within a couple of miles of my old home in the uk, in a pretty ethnically diverse area not too far from London. 1 is a CofE school. Almost 100% white and middle class. The rest don't select on faith, purely on catchment, so let's look at them.

The second is a lovely village type school, gorgeous and with amazing results. Not one non-white child. Not even one. Its again very very middle class.

The third looks like its falling down, and had very poor Ofsted reports. Nearly all the local ethnic minority kids go there.

And the fourth is where nearly all the working class white kids go.

I doubt anything about that is coincidental.

rosettes exactly true. School is never going to be a Utopia, let's be real. So we all make the best choices for our children, and don't deserve to be sneered at or criticised for choosing ethnic diversity over social. It's just about what suits each child best.

The same probably goes for your DSSs Bonsoir, the needs of the children in this instance were clearly better served by making one choice (academic excellence?) over another (comprehensive system?)

I don't think anything about it is coincidental either. And it stinks. But it's about people being in a position to "flood" desirable catchment areas, rather than the catchment area policy itself, surely?

Sure it's to do with the policy. Easy enough to change the catchment area by widening it out to counteract the flooding. The catchment area of the 2nd and 3rd schools is largely terraced and ex council houses that the nice middle class mummy's who apply to the first two schools wouldn't be seen dead in. Simple enough, surely, to give all 4 schools the same catchment area, given they each have extremely small catchment areas.

I of course meant 3rd and 4th schools from my list, 2nd and 3rd only of the non-faith schools.

Oh, and I already have Dictator of Britain earmarked for my next job, so hands off