RACIAL DISCRIMINATION in UK'S 11 PLUS EXAM (UNDER THE EQUALITY ACT 2010)

Tel:+91-99535-86513

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WHITE CHILDREN IN 11 PLUS TUTORING FOR NON-VERBAL REASONING

TO THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS OF THE EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 29 OF THE EQUALITY ACT 2010

The Complainant, Sidney Carlton, a practicing barrister of C.Dickens Road, Twin Cities, (Herts.) UK, most respectfully submits this complaint concerning the alleged discriminatory practices of INDIAMATHS.COM, an online tutoring service purportedly depriving white children of fair access to education.

I. INTRODUCTION

  1. This complaint arises from the tutoring cooperative INDIAMATHS.COM providing online non-verbal reasoning tutoring for the 11 Plus exam exclusively by tutors based in India. The Complainant contends that this practice constitutes unlawful race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

  2. The 11 Plus is a standardized test administered to students in their last year of primary education to identify their suitability for admission to academically selective secondary schools across England and Northern Ireland. The non-verbal reasoning section assesses a child's logic and diagrammatic reasoning abilities through tests on spatial awareness, ability to recognize patterns and apply rules.

  3. INDIAMATHS.COM prominently advertises its "tailored strategies and resources designed to help students develop and refine their verbal reasoning abilities" provided by "Indian tutors." The website lacks any British/UK-based tutors for non-verbal reasoning preparation.

II. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE EQUALITY ACT 2010

  1. Section 13 of the Equality Act prohibits direct discrimination, where because of a protected characteristic, herein race, a person (A) treats another (B) less favourably than A treats or would treat others.

  2. Section 19 prohibits indirect discrimination, where a provision, criteria or practice puts persons of a particular racial group at a particular disadvantage compared to others.

  3. Section 29 extends these discrimination prohibitions to the provision of services, including education and training services such as tutoring.

  4. In R (E) v Governing Body of JFS ([2009] UKSC 15), the Supreme Court emphasized that "no ethnic pupil may be denied...the opportunity to explore the intellectual opportunities offered by a given educational institution." (para. 25)

  5. In James v Eastleigh College ([1990] 2 All ER 607), the Court stressed prohibiting discrimination "even if the discriminator thinks that he is being actuated by non-racial reasons." The tutors' nationality is irrelevant; what matters is the discriminatory effect.

III. DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT ON WHITE CHILDREN

  1. By only providing non-verbal reasoning tutoring from Indian tutors, INDIAMATHS.COM treats white British children less favourably than Indian origin pupils. Indian origin children receive tailored tutoring from tutors who share their cultural background and familiar communication patterns. In contrast, white British children must adapt to foreign teaching styles and communication barriers.

  2. This creates a systemic disadvantage where ethnic Indian children receive an inherent cultural advantage in grasping subtle language and reasoning cues from their tutors. White British children face indirect discrimination through the provision criteria of only having access to Indian tutors for this key skill.

  3. Non-verbal reasoning is a vital component of the 11 Plus, with potentially devastating effects if British children fall behind due to culturally disconnected tutoring. This compromises their chances at admission to elite grammar schools and impedes their educational development.

IV. RELIEF SOUGHT

  1. In light of the foregoing, the Complainant most humbly prays that this Honourable Tribunal:

a) Declare that INDIAMATHS.COM has engaged in unlawful racial discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 by only providing non-verbal reasoning tutoring from Indian tutors;

b) Order INDIAMATHS.COM to cease this discriminatory provision criteria and tutoring practice;

c) Mandate that INDIAMATHS.COM offer non-verbal reasoning tutoring from British tutors on a non-discriminatory basis;

d) Award damages to compensate affected British children denied fair educational opportunities; and

e) Grant such further and other relief as this Honourable Tribunal deems just and equitable.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.