The social debate on cultural and socio-economic diversity on our schools is rich and knows a long history. Scholars have various opinions on the extent to which schools bear responsibility to counterbalance present inequalities in society. Some argue that school should primarily focus on its nuclear role, i.e. to be a space for learning. Others call attention to the ‘social’ aspects of the school, a tendency which continues to increase. This is expressed, among other things, in the growing attention for children’s well-being and the development of a care framework in schools. That brings us to the broader societal context of which schools form part. Without saying there is a direct link, at least the provided care for individual children cannot be seen as independent of the pursuit of social equality. The interrelation of both these intentions is shown in initiatives that aim at the realisation of equal educational opportunities. The latter concept refers both to a lawful framework, to an underlying social ideal as well as to compensating or caring measures on the shop floor. How this is realised in particular, is an inevitably normative issue. The way equal educational opportunities are shaped, may refer to very divergent images of society. This contribution stands still at the ‘social function’ of education and at various answers to the question how the latter can be interpreted. As such, it reassumes the classic discussion on the reproductive vs. the emancipatory function of education. Opinions differ when causal factors of failing school careers are to be defined, but on one thing there seems to be agreement: a solution for the present problems needs to be conceived of in terms of a social mix. The coexistence of so-called ‘white’ and ‘black’ concentration schools does not fit into an ideal which expects every school to be more or less representative for society as a whole. This contribution stands still at the possible added value of this social aspiration and adds some critical reflections to it. In order to do so, the case of Roma people in Ghent, Belgium is focused upon. The starting point of a critical analysis is the right to education for every child. Whose interests are served when pleading for a social mix? Which view on social justice grounds this ideal? And in which sense does this shift the meaning of the right to education? Throughout these questions, some classic beliefs are confronted with a radical pedagogical interpretation of children’s rights. 

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1970). La reproduction: elements pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Parijs, Frankrijk: Editions de Minuit. Driessen, G. (1990). De onderwijspositie van allochtone leerlingen. De rol van sociaal-economische en etnisch-culturele factoren, met speciale aandacht voor het Onderwijs in Eigen Taal en Cultuur. Nijmegen, Nederland: ITS. Dronkers, J. (2010). Positieve maar ook negatieve effecten van etnische diversiteit in scholen op onderwijsprestaties? Een empirische toets met internationale PISA-data. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en Onderwijsbeleid, 6, 483-499. Duru-Bellat, M., Mons, N., & Suchaut, B. (2004). Inégalités sociales entre élèves et organisation des systèmes éducatifs : quelques enseignements de l’enquête PISA. Note 04/02, l’Institut de Recherche sur l’Education. Dijon, Frankrijk: Iredu. Hirtt, N., Nicaise, I., & De Zutter, D. (2007). De school van de ongelijkheid. Berchem, België: EPO. Karsten, S., Roeleveld, J., Ledoux, G., Felix, C., & Elshof, D. (2002). Schoolkeuze en etnische segregatie in het basisonderwijs. Pedagogische Studiën, 78(5), 359-375. Nicaise, I., & Desmedt, E. (red.). (2008). Gelijke kansen op school: het kan! Zestien sporen voor praktijk en beleid. Mechelen, België: Plantyn. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Parijs, Frankrijk: OECD Publications. OECD. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed – A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Parijs, Frankrijk: OECD Publications.