to wonder why David Cameron is sending his daughter to a state secondary school?

[sexonthebeach]

He went to Eton and his wife went to an exclusive private school. Both have done brilliantly well, so why are they sending their daughter to a state school, particularly as most London state schools are apparently a bit rough.

On the one hand, I applaud them, as they are showing support for the state sector, and of course the standards should be sufficiently high that no parent should feel they have to spend £££s on opting out. On the other hand, are they just using their child for their political agenda.

Miriam Clegg has also made similar comments ie that their DC will not be educated privately, as why would you pay so much for the privilege of your DC to take their maths exam in a tailcoat? For some reason, Miriam comes over as more sincere, but I still can't help wondering if this is part of the Cleggs' political agenda, given that Nick went to a top 'public school'. Miriam, not being British, probably can't understand why the Brits want to send their kids away to boarding school, in any event, instead of bringing them up yourself - it seems to be something peculiarly British, going back centuries to the days when the noble families would send their children to the households of other noble families to be brought up.

Anyway, I've digressed. Do you think the Camerons are being responsible parents or being unreasonable to use their child to further their political agenda?

You can learn ('get good grades') without mixing, but IME and IMO mixing brings actual educational advantages in addition to other forms of learning.

In the same way that being bilingual improves overall cognitive performance, the more different perspectives that challenge your assumption or status quo, the more you test your ideas, broaden your wider knowledge and your thinking. It extends your awareness at the same time as being a brain gym. Diversity really is enrichment, not a tokenistic political thing (I say this coming from an ethnic minority). Your grades might well be excellent, but you learn more the wider your experience.

That's something I learned when I went to Uni from my single sex selective private school.

Yes; it's just so much nicer for the kids to go to a school like this. I can't tell how much my 13-year-old likes having friends who chat to their parents on the phone in Romanian or Tamil.

I always feel slightly uneasy about the implication that middle-class white children benefit from being able to mix with kids from disadvantaged or minority ethnic backgrounds - as if the job of those children is to provide white middle-class children with the necessary social skills to equip them for adult life. What about those kids - the black kids and the poor kids? What are they getting out of it?

(NB: I support the comprehensive principle, and I am all in favour of schools having a diverse intake. I'm just dubious about this instrumentalist justification for sending your kids to a comprehensive rather than a private school.)

Everyone gets the same out of it, as far as I can see - an opportunity to see that there's more to the world than the way their families and neighbours do things. (As well as an opportunity to learn and get good grades - don't panic!)

Well, in my case my children have a rather diverse set of ethnic origins and I'm keen for them not to feel as completely weirdly adrift as I did at their age...

I think that, on the basis that a more egalitarian society would be a Good Thing, that yes middle-class kids do benefit from an environment with a wider socioeconomic mix and that white kids benefit from a more racially diverse mix. It is one - one - benefit of it. I don't see disadvantaged kids there as being there to provide some kind of rainbow feelgood factor to the more privileged ones; I do want my children to be somewhere that is representative of their local area; I would like all children and young people in my local area to have access to a school which will educate them well.

Or wot MrsMac said. She says it better than I do.

hackmum - a lot of black kids are middle class, why are you differentiating? The big name public schools are full of DC of wealthy Nigerians etc. And presumably the children who are not middle class white also benefit from seeing different 'cultures', for better or worse, so they are getting an equal amount out of it. In some circumstances - and not saying poor or rich or black or white - it can raise aspirations. Education can increase social mobility - I think that is the message.

ALL kids benefit from a wide social diversity! 'diverse' kids are not just there as some sort of exotica or extra-curricular opportunity to trill over!

Look at the examples bellow about the paucity of ambition in the all-white areas of Norfolk and S Coast (sic) look at the problems in so called 'ghettoes', and look at the ignorant insensitive nonsense that some privileged sheltered politicians and other commentators come out with.

Mixing is good, educationally, per se. For ALL young people.

There are good and bad state and private schools. Most people have a realistic choice of maybe 2-4 schools including state and private schools.

If the Camerons, with all their wealth, connections and choice can't find a way to educate their children in the state system, then either we are all doomed or they are tossers.

As I said in my previous post: the local comp is 98% white British and one of the nearest independents is 40% non white British. As the mother of an ethnic minority child I am much more drawn towards the independent school as I value the importance of a child not feeling socially very different solely due to the colour of his skin (I have first hand experience of being the only non white child in my year group). I am not interested in my child being 'the token ethnic minority child' just so the local comp can appear to be more ethnically diverse than it actually is. Adolescent years are very important from the point of identity awareness and feeling comfortable in ones own skin.
I would choose an ethnically diverse school over an economically diverse school any day if I am given the choice.

My daughter goes to private school. She has black kids AND hijab wearing kids in her class. The local comp is 99% white british. Out of London things are quite different.

Quite reasonable, missunreasonable . (in wanting your child not to be a token ethnic minority).

My ethnic minority (except they are not a minority as there are no majority communities in their school) DC tend to socialise in very mixed racial and class and/ or economic groups but do not mix with kids who mess about or are trouble. So nothing separates them except values.

I honestly think that if somebody said "you have your pick of any state school in the UK" most parents with children at private schools would say "hooray! no more school fees!!" and jump at the chance.

What is quite peculiar is that all this mixing with people ethnically and socially diverse tends to be reserved exclusively for children up to graduation from secondary school. Adults socialise mostly with people of the same background, skin colour, education and even age.

Speak for yourself!

Adults socialise mostly with people of the same background, skin colour, education and even age.

Bollocks!

"Adults socialise mostly with people of the same background, skin colour, education and even age."

So how do you explain the increase in mixed race children being the largest increase across all groups in the birth rate in London?

And as MrsMcC says, speak for yourself!

Within our diverse group of friends, and within my diverse workplace, there are huge differences in education religious belief, class, wealth, nationality, everything!

I can imagine that it can be very different in different places, though. Where housing and therefore schools is more segregated (huge areas of wealthy suburbs v huge areas of council estates, which therefore dictate school intakes, for example). In London people live in each others pockets, by and large - in very close proximity.

But social mobility, and /or what the Cameron's term 'fluidity' can only be possible if people are prepared to work and live with people from different backgrounds.

Yes, there are absolutely no mixed-race kids in London or indeed anywhere else in the UK; it's a well-known fact no partnership between people of differing skin colours ever lasts long enough to have children.

I think people tend to socialise with people who have the same values - but that transcends class, skin colour, education etc.

Understanding that is one of the cornerstones of equality.

yes agree that VALUES are what brings people together - to create deep friendships anyway, of course we all know people who don't have the same values as us but all the really good friends have similar values.

In fact I don't exist. Neither does my partner or our kids. We are but a chimera of the liberal imagination.

"In fact I don't exist. Neither does my partner or our kids. We are but a chimera of the liberal imagination."

But I can see you! Oh, wait......

I have one of those liberally-imagined partners too, motherinferior. A quarter of my kids' relatives aren't there at all!

I always feel slightly uneasy about the implication that middle-class white children benefit from being able to mix with kids from disadvantaged or minority ethnic backgrounds - as if the job of those children is to provide white middle-class children with the necessary social skills to equip them for adult life. What about those kids - the black kids and the poor kids? What are they getting out of it?

(NB: I support the comprehensive principle, and I am all in favour of schools having a diverse intake. I'm just dubious about this instrumentalist justification for sending your kids to a comprehensive rather than a private school.)

Agreed my son is not their so the white middle classes can congratulate themselfs how inclusive they are

There's no congratulation involved. Not in my case anyway. It's just the local school and my kid goes there. The end.