Why are primary school parents so cliquey?

Honestly, I think that it's probably the same as an outsider in most small primary schools, especially if both parents are working outside the home, rather than one being at home or part-time, or even working shifts and with time to stand around and chat at drop-off/pick-up time. My oldest went to a small C of E primary school in a small Nottingham suburb - a mix of working and lower middle class parents, I'd say? The school didn't have a single class per year, it was that small. We moved to France when she was 10 and she spent her last year in a very tiny school, with 10 kids in the equivalent of Juniors, getting the bus from our village, so a very different situation! My youngest two kids went to a primary school in a large rural commune - the centre itself is just a large village by British standards, but the geographical area that it covers is very large, with many, many small hamlets, including the one we then lived in (pre-divorce!). That school was about the same size as the one that my oldest went to, with the same number of classes. Honestly, my kids were fine and had friends but I would turn up at the gates every day and almost no one would talk to me - and my French is excellent, by the way. With both schools, there were a couple of mums that I'd chat to occasionally - the mums of my kid's best friends - bit that was it. The problem with both schools was the same. Almost everyone already knew each other because they'd grown up together, gone to school together, gone to mother and baby classes together, gone to playgroups together... They're married/had kids with the guys they went to school with and they're also at the school gates, to be fair, as the major employer here is a massive meat production plant where everyone works shifts, and often parents end up working opposite shifts just to cover childcare :-( That's a *lot* of shared social history and social trust. I know many people talk negatively about this protective barrier of shared social history and social trust but, historically, when we couldn't just pick up a phone and call for help and also have a speedy response, if a stranger turned out to be a troublemaker, it made a lot of sense. There's also sense in being cautious in not opening up completely to someone new, who doesn't know the group's meta - for want of a better word - and why that new person should also tread carefully too. It's a lot of work on both sides, sometimes, to start again with someone new, to lay down the groundwork, explain why we never talk about *jam in front of Brenda* or *tennis with John, not since the incident*, and expect it to take at least 10 years for someone to tell you exactly what *the incident* was, maybe even 20! I used humour there but the real subjects maybe deeper, darker and far more tragic. In such close knit communities, everyone will know who went out with who in school and aldo who cheated in who in school! There'll be shared knowledge of tragedies, miscarriages, children and other family members who died. They will know who can't work anymore due to an accident, illness or disability; who has been laid off - there may be several people from the same employer and they might not all have had the same success at finding a new job afterwards. They'll know who seems charming at first but you can't trust at all. They'll know who promises the earth but always lets you down. They'll know who's always ready to help if someone's in trouble. They'll know who's the local drunk. The way to join the village and be accepted here seems to be signing up for organised clubs and activities and accepting that it's a slow process.