To the self righteous arseholes who think it is despicably racist to wish to be surrounded by comfortable familiarity rather than feeling like a foreigner in your own country, I would have to ask how many of you grew up or live in an area which is 90% Asian? How many of you have children at such schools?
I suspect the large majority of your are admirers of diversity from afar: diversity is great, so long as its other people who have to experience it, and my social circle and that of my kids is majority white.
And for the small number of you who actually do embrace diversity, I am sure no one would object if you migrated to South Asia or Africa (well maybe the South Asians and Africans themselves, and to judge from the self-righteous arseholery of this thread, I cant say I blame them), but before saying its fine to inflict radical demographic change on everyone else, you might want to bare in mind that the majority of the population does not, nor has it ever, supported mass immigration. And really, why would they? By and large, people like to associate with those like themselves, be it class, race, religion, ideology, interests and so on. And immigrants do not differ simply in race, they differ in all of the above in terms of aggregate trends.
Its also worth pointing out that for all the feel good rhetoric that surrounds diversity and multiculturalism, when people actually do empirical research on the matter, the results are that its impact is overwhelmingly negative. Take the following study by Robert Putnam:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities
"In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups...
Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
Less likelihood of working on a community project.
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
Fewer close friends and confidants.
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment"."
So thats quite a lengthy list of reasons to not wish to have diversity. I havent seen any scholarly work which indicates that diversity has any comparably positive social benefits.
And to pre empt accusations that the author of the study is racist:
"Putnam published his data set from this study in 2001[4][5] and subsequently published the full paper in 2007.[6]
Putnam has been criticized for the lag between his initial study and his publication of his article. In 2006, Putnam was quoted in the Financial Times as saying he had delayed publishing the article until he could "develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity" (quote from John Lloyd of Financial Times)."
And to the people claiming the OP must be a liar because of the demographics of Surrey as a whole, that is not necessarily representative of the demographics of young children in the particular area of Surrey in which she lives.