Talk:Independent school (United Kingdom)

Page move

It was agreed to move this page from Public school (UK) to Independent school (UK) on 6 October 2005 See Talk:Independent school (UK)/Archive 1#Requested move Philip Baird Shearer 17:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

After the move: name

OK, now that the new situation is in place, I have to repeat that the page should be moved yet again. Parentheses are for disambiguation, but this article is not trying to disambiguate UK independent schools from other independent schools around the world; the definition of "independent school" is much the same world-wide. The standard naming style for subcategories doesn't involve parentheses: Politics of the United Kingdom; History of the United Kingdom. This page should be at Independent schools in the UK.

Sorry for immediately suggesting another move; I tried to raise this point before, but was told to hold off until consensus was reached. Unfortunately, nobody announced that consensus was reached; the move was made rather abruptly. Doops | talk 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we knock the information into shape first and then worry about refining the page name. Give it a month or two. Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at knocking the info into a more logical shape under the heading. Happy with either name....dave souza 20:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

After the move: content

I think a great deal of this page's content — everything about the usage of the phrase "public school" — should be moved to public school. This page only needs a very brief explanation of that. Anybody disagree? Doops | talk 17:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I disagree. If the information is about UK independent schools it should stay in this article but under subsections about the use of the term Public School if that is appropriate. The page "Public School" is a a disambiguation page and should not be filled up with UK Public School sections. Philip Baird Shearer 17:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine; move the pieces on "public school" to Public school (England), which is the link from Public school. Leave the description of the present state of affairs here. Put the usage in Scotland both places. Septentrionalis 17:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Bullying

Strangely, there does not seem to be any mention of the bullying, rape and sexual predations that have long been associated with public schools. I've added a reference, albeit guardedly; perhaps someone can expand on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MansonP (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I am going to remove the addition because it is highly controversial. Not that the subject should not be address, but I think such allegations should be properly sourced with annotated footnotes. The current wording of "This comes amid various accusations and reports that bullying and sexual molestation by senior pupils was quite the norm in public schools.". There are other reasons for the change (Eg modern legal constraints) and without sources this is just speculation. What are the accusations and reports? Philip Baird Shearer 14:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

For information, articles [1] [2] referring to mid-20th century problems....dave souza 06:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• I also recall a recent inspection report that was scathing of public schools for the bullying, sexual molestation and other serious problems (less than a year ago). Maybe I should look for the report ... unless someone here has a handy link. Philip, I'm glad you feel the subject should be addressed because the article looks pretty lopsided without reference to these well known problems. MansonP 09:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.bullyonline.org/cases/case87.htm It is incredibly simple to find numerous credible sources on this behavior. A fair representation of the history and culture of these schools demands that this be added. I will add appropriate text in two weeks if a credible response aside from "It is highly controversial" is not provided. 21 Sept 2006 JD.

Because, of course, there isn't any bullying in State schools...

Anyway, to paint all schools with the same brush is completely unfair. While some schools have had issues with bad examples of fagging, many haven't, and this is becoming one of those issues where people who are anti- the private system pick up on a single issue and act like it defines public school life, which most ex-students would tell you, is nonsense.--Zoso Jade 13:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Public Schools are not the same as Independent Schools

I stumbled across this page by accident and I disagree with the definition that (UK) public schools are synonymous with independent schools. Public schools specifically refer to independent secondary schools e.g. Eton, Harrow, St Paul's etc. Independent primary schools in the UK are referred to as Prep(aratory) schools and this distinction should be made clear in this article. Vivenot 11:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Most Scottish independent schools have primary schools -- but they don't call them preparatory schools. In Scotland that term is reserved for primary schools offering an English education. To my knowledge a few prep schools do exist in Scotland. They are generally used by pupils intending to attend an independent/public school in England. So once again Scottish usage differs from English usage and it would be misleading to call either one, UK usage.-- Derek Ross | Talk 14:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Second paragraph "The term Public school has traditionally been used in England and Wales for the elite of such independent schools that provide 13 to 18 education. " --Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That was my edit in response to 'Vivenot'!--Westminsterboy 13:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems to have reverted to the (wrong) thing of simply saying that independent = public. Shall I put it back? Or is there a reason for that? Knole Jonathan (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My objection is more to the redirect from Public school (England) to Independent school (UK). They are not the same thing and there should be two separate articles.Vivenot 14:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just looked at the move discussion above. I didn't see it earlier as I have to do some work as well as Wiki-ing (?!). It sounds like you had a lot of fun discussing the move. Although I appreciate the vote is now closed, the resulting move/redirect has created a slightly incorrect wiki article. Public school (England) should be a separate article linked as a subset of Independent school (UK). I hope this clarifies, but I can understand if people do not want to open this can of worms again! Vivenot 14:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

In theory I think you're correct; doing the split in a "clean" manner is problematic, though. Trouble is "public school" is a historical and popular term that's no longer really used "officially", so it tends to be as clear as mud what it "correctly" refers to. When people start referring to titular (and previously actual) grammar schools as "public schools", it's clear there's not a coherent definition. Ideally I'd think the Public school (England) (or whatever else) article should be focussed on the historical sense, rather than trying to split out a "subset" of present schools to treat of separately. Alai 04:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Heres a point... never mind the 'public school's act' since thats like saying that countries presently in the EU are not in it because they were not listed 20 years ago! I agree that not all HMC schools share a public 'ethos' but it is silly to abandon the definition completely. At the end of the day the more 'prominent' schools now have fees in the range of £5000-£8000 per term... if this is not an acceptable modern definition then what is?.... people seem to forget that many of todays prominent Public Schools (ie the most popular and well known) are in fact ex-charity schools that used foundationers, it is absurd to say that these schools are not 'public' since for the past 100/200 years they have had a definitive Public School image regardless of if they are listed in the act or not! MoleValley, 20:17, 7 September 2006

It always makes me smile when I read an article in some trashy tabloid where the poorly informed writer refers to some unknown and irrelevant independent day school for girls aged 11-18 as a 'public school'. It isn't. There are only about 50 real public schools in Britain and only about half of those are top ones. If you have been to one of those top schools then you will know what the definition of a public school is - an independent school which does, or has historically, catered for boys aged 13 to 18 in a predominant boarding environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.158.44 (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but Public School really is very well defined. An act was passed in 1868 and I don't really see how there is room for discourse here. The nine schools listed there are public schools, the rest are not. They are called public schools because the act removed them from influence by Crown or Clergy. The above analogy is not valid. It's more like saying we can flout the definition of this cathedral because King's College Chapel is really rather large. Image is irrelevant, law isn't. Styxis (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a definition, but not the only one:

• Public Schools Club (1866): Charterhouse, Harrow, Rugby, Eton, Westminster and Winchester.
• Edward C. Mack's definition (1938) is commonly used in academic studies: "non-local endowed boarding schools for the upper classes".
• The Public Schools Commission (1944): "schools which are in membership of the Governing Bodies Association or the Headmaster's Conference".

Kanguole 12:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

HMC again.

Can we have a source for the 'often-defined' HMC member=public school? Not only are some members not the "typical" public school, surely several are quite clearly not the historical public school at all. Alai 04:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

It appears to me that this page, when protected, was not tagged, and was not listed on WP:PP. It was protected ages and ages and ages and ages and ages and ages ago. Last month or something. Apologies. Unprotected. Articles shouldn't really protected for longer than a few days. 3 or 4 days maybe. 10 days if there are some particularly recalcitrant squabblers. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Downside foundation

The school itself claims 1606, slightly earlier than we currently have in the article. Anyone know definitively? Barnabypage 14:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Like Stonyhurst College and St Edmunds College, Downside claims continuity with a school established on the continent for English recusant pupils during penal times. --Westminsterboy 17:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Bullying, beating and buggery

Although it is more fun to wind up the credulous, I do think we should address the issue, as well-read Americans may well think Flashman still rules. I am not clear whether there has already been a debate on this, so I hope I have not trodden on anyone's toes with a brief reference to mobile phones putting it all in the past Jezzabr 14:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (Old Westminster)

I agree we should address the issue, but we should make it clear that b, b& b (largely) disappeared long before the advent of mobiles. Barnabypage 18:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Not with an unsourced claim. That claim is, moreover, false. The image prevails; actual practice may however have changed. Crink 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas where we may find sources on this? Beating is (I'm pretty sure) now illegal; there must be extensive research on bullying; perhaps there's less on buggery, but I'm sure it's been done (the research, that is). Barnabypage 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No. If you google, it suggests there is still plenty of bullying in British schools, and does not suggest that the independent schools are a complete exception (mobile phones or not). It is indeed hard to find sources specifically about independent schools. Buggery has probably always been rather more of a minority sport. Beating is indeed illegal. The sentence should probably be changed to remove this statement, as I think it's flawed.Crink 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

dab header

I have removed the dab header. Dab headers are not for the purpose of giving high prominence to certain "See also" links. They are purely for the disambiguation of key search terms. Anyone typing in "Public school" to search would be led straight there, not here. Hence no need for a dab header.--Mais oui! 21:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

English Public School Language

I like the idea of a list of the slang used in public schools but I think it looks awful with some of the school's linked and others not. At the moment it looks completely random as to what it linked and what isn't. I'm not sure what the best solution is or else I would have a go at fixing it myself RicDod 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good.

James F. (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

- can someone competant sor this out? - Ive just added a small alternative (dulwich college) definition to "remove". BFS

Done. I've also merged two definitions which seemed to me to be identical.

James F. (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the references to Shell, Remove, and Hundred. The first is given as 'a pupil ...', the others as 'the year ...'. Certainly at Marlborough in the 60's these were all years and not boys. And most boys skipped the Remove and went directly from the Shell to the Hundred. Then again we took A levels in the upper Vth and Oxbridge entrance in the VIth until 1968. Maybe not at other schools at other times? Bearfoot 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

At Radley thirteen years ago (and presumably before and since) "Shell" was the name of the first year (i.e. entry at 13)and "Remove" the second year (14). Of course to confuse everything the third year was "Fifth" and there were two "Sixth" years (I forget if they were "Junior Sixth" & "Senior Sixth" or "Six One" and "Six Two"). If this isn't confusing enough (!) there had previously been the "Fourth Form" who entered in the summer term before the Shell year. This was scrapped at some stage between 1979 and the early 1990s. Timrollpickering 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The public school slang would be a much appreciated addition to this article, but in here should only be slang that applies to two or more schools. Could someone please put it back in and edit it accordingly to show an example of the weirdness that is public school language? Stephencraigen 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Language and Oldest School sections

Both of these sections are getting fairly long and are now a little unwieldy. What would people think about having a separate article for the language and having a cut-off date for the oldest schools? RicDod 16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely on the language - I also think such a page should make it clear in introductory text that the schools named against each slang term are not necessarily an exhaustive list. On dates of schools, instead of a cutoff date, how about a separate article entitled Public School Foundations or similar? Barnabypage 13:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The language section is sloppy, arbitrary and often wildly inaccurate! Needs to go - most of the school's own pages have these anyway. 195.195.166.31 18:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the date of founding for the RGS Guildford. Robert Beckingham left money in his will (1509) for the foundation of the school; it took at least 2 years for the will to be settled. By 1518 there are records of rents from his estate being paid to the school, so it's between 1511 and 1518. Number774 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Term "Public School"

I removed the text saying that public schools are called this because they prepare pupils for public office. Instead I believe the term arose because they are open to anyone who can pay the fee (unlike a real private school). See e.g. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-44533 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starless (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 May 2006

That had always been my understanding too. Barnabypage 19:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a cloudy area. Another Britannica article says that the "The term public school emerged in the 18th century" http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061798/public-school , while the above cited article says the 19th century. Also, the OED gives much earlier usages of the term yet meaning something very similar, and defining it as "any of a class of grammar schools founded or endowed for public use and subject to public management or control". (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50191828?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=public+school&first=1&max_to_show=10)

All these schools may have been originally free for the boys of the local parish, but (as in Harrow School)fee-paying for "'foreigners' provided that this did not adversely affect the children of the parish" (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22134). They may have been known as public schools even then, because they were not in private houses (see the OED quotation for 1530). Myrvin (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I have been given is that many of the public schools set up in the 19th century were originally funded with public money, i.e. shares were issued to raise the initial capital, hence the name "Public School". The shares in the school that I went to were bought by the school and eventually passed on to a charity that is now the owner.Welkinridge (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that works. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the schools set up in this fashion were called "proprietary schools", while "public school" referred to considerably older boarding schools taking upper class boys from across the country. Kanguole 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

POV/Untrue

"poor quality teachers are more often found in the independent sector." this whole paragraph needs rewording or removing. Doesnt cite a source and is clearly the result of some very dodgy deductive reasoning. If the teachers in public schools are so poor, why do such school consistently beat state schools in grades? Also, the paragraph states that teaching in a public school is seen as a soft option or 'cop-out.' As someone who has experienced both a major public school [Fettes] and a standard local comp, i can say that the dedication of the staff, and their interest in teaching and their subject etc, at the public school was far, far greater than at the public school than at the comprehensive. The notion that having a Postgraduate Certificate in Education makes equally qualified and motivated individuals any more suited to teaching, as this paragraph seems to imply, is simply rubbish. unless someone can come up with a source that includes statistical evidence that the prevalence of 'bad teachers' is higher in independent schools than in state schools, I shall remove this paragraph. Psidogretro 06:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to those involved in squabbling over the Criticism section - given that both sides believe they are in possession of superior skills in English, among other subjects, perhaps someone could spend some time on the style and structure of this? That might help your case just as much. Sorry but like many I don't have the time right now. 88.97.17.237 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect?

Why does "Public school (England)" redirect to this page, about Private schools? Anyone know? Yaanch^Speak! 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Um did you read the terminology section? Nil Einne 18:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

University-preparatory school

Someone with more knowledge of the subject should rework University-preparatory school on the UK. Currently it says:

In the United Kingdom schools are classified in other ways. The term preparatory school, more commonly "prep school" is used in a different way to describe schools which prepare students under thirteen for the equivalent of preparatory schools, called prestigious fee-paying Public Schools.

Unless I'm wrong, they're called independent schools or public schools (ala this article), not 'prestigious fee paying public schools' Nil Einne 18:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Parents' Rationale

"Many such independent schools ... the upper- and professional middle classes who, additionally, are attempting to improve the education provided by the State."

Oh that this were a possibility!

Parents are trying to give their children the quality of education that in most cases the State system is unable to provide.

-- Bearfoot 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fee fixing scandal

The Fee fixing scandal of September 2005, would seem to me to be a good guide to a modern list of public schools as seen by the headmasters an headmistresses of those schools, as they must see themselves in competition for the same pupils and parents! --212.139.117.97 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Political elite

I think the paragraph beginning "The political elite of Britain are often products of independent schools" runs the risk of backfiring upon itself by only citing five individuals from a period of many decades; it could seem to the reader as if it's trying to argue for an association which doesn't really exist. It would be far better if we had some statistics on the percentage of all PMs or cabinet ministers who had attended public school - does anyone have access to such data? Barnabypage (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this section clearly violates WP:NPOV! Pete Fenelon (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious reference

This article uses a reference '[1]' which is not impartial. It is the website of the Independent Schools own trade body, the Independent Schools Council. I believe that this puts into question the credibility of the entire article, since no opposing viewpoint is included in these sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheffred (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That reference is only to the number of pupils in fee-paying education. Since the UK Government recognises the ISC as the representative body for such institutions, it hardly calls the credibility of the entire article into question to reference a single statistic from that organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.247.98 (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Stats

Does anyone know/can find any stats for:

• breakdown to primary/ secondary numbers educated privately
• amount of university students from private school

ThanksChendy (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Breakdown per university is published each year in the papers, breakdown by age I have never seen - it would be an extremely useful figure as the '7% privately educated' is averaged over the whole population, and given the greater attendance in higher years (especially 16-18) the actual number of people educated in the private system for some of their childhood will be markedly greater than this figure. It might take some digging through gov.uk or the HMC.

Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.231.105 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference 1 (Hensher) does not provide a primary souce for the "7% ... 18%" figure but just states the figures. 87.114.228.201 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Assessed as C class and high importance - a key concept for an encyclopaedia. The article needs to be properly referenced for B class. Some photos would help. The list of oldest schools might be best as a separate article. Dahliarose (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose merge of lists of oldest UK schools

The section Oldest independent schools in the UK is (or should be) a subset of List of the oldest schools in the United Kingdom. Of course the latter list also includes a small number of state schools, but the difference is not enough to justify two copies. I therefore propose that this section be merged into that list and deleted from this article. Kanguole 00:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Support: makes sense. Wouldn't have been a distinction at time schools were founded, of course! mervyn (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Merged. Kanguole 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation vs. Neutrality for funding.

In the section that reads:

"Only a small minority of parents can afford school fees averaging over £19,000 per annum[according to whom?] for boarding pupils and £9,000[according to whom?]"

I would suggest that the [according to whom?] should be changed to [citation needed], and cite a table of UK after-tax incomes deciles or similar - that would demonstrate the percentage of parents able to afford such fees.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.247.98 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Schools with high fees

This is yet another list that everyone wants to add their favourite school to, and they're all unreferenced. According to the ISC census,[3] (p20) there were 29 boarding schools charging more than £9,000 per term last year. Since it's pointless to list them all, let's not list any. Kanguole 13:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Smith & Naylor, 2001, 2005

Studies at Warwick University using a wide dataset have correlated degree performance with a variety of variables, notably sex, social class, A level performance and type of school attended. What these studies have shown is not, as has been widely misreported in the press, that pupils from public schools are less likely to secure firsts and upper seconds than pupils from state schools. They show that, given similar class backgrounds, A level performance, and other factors, the candidates most likely to secure the best degrees are, in order, those who attended a number of highly selective public schools, then candidates from LEA schools, then candidates from the rest of the public schools.

The fact that social class is a key predictor is often overlooked in discussions of this topic. The studies did not show that a shelf-stacker's son who secures 3 A grades at A level and attended an LEA school will tend to secure a better degree than a lawyer's son who attended a public school. They show that a lawyer's son from an LEA school who attains a given A level standard is likely to secure a better degree than the lawyer's son with the same A level score who attended all but certain specific public schools, whose pupils - again assuming a given social class and exam performance - are the most likely of all to secure the top degrees.

It would help if those who wish to contribute to discussion of this topic actually read the two key Smith and Naylor texts, both available on the internet, rather than drawing on newspaper sources.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/naylor/publications/obes2001.pdf

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/88/1/WRAP_Smith_Jeremy_twerp657.pdf

VEBott (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The abstract of Smith and Naylor (2005) includes the sentence

We estimate that; on average; a male (female) graduate who attended an Independent school is 6.5 (5.4) percentage points less likely to obtain a 'good' degree than is a student who attended an LEA (that is; state-sector) school; ceteris paribus.

The sentence you have now deleted twice (with the accompanying reference) is:

Research carried out by the University of Warwick in 2002 suggested that a pupil educated at an independent school has an 8% lower chance of getting a first or an upper second degree than a state school pupil who enters university with the same A-level grades.

The figure of 8% clearly needs fixing. I take your point that the wording doesn't quite capture the ceteris paribus part. The solution is not to delete it but to fix it, and I've had a go at that. I don't see how you can justify deleting the citation of this study.

I didn't notice any mention of highly selective public schools in the paper. Kanguole 03:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kanguole, you seem to have missed the section in Smith & Naylor 2005 on variability which includes the sentences

"Group 1: Graduates who attended these schools prior to university are estimated to be more likely to obtain a `good' degree than equivalent students from the LEA sector, with an effect over LEA students of 7.0 (13.3) percentage points, on average."

"In the case of 24 (30) Independent schools, there is a positive effect for male (female) students implying that, on average, these students who had previously attended these schools are more likely to get a `good' degree than otherwise comparable students who had attended LEA schools."

Phrases like "otherwise equivalent" or ceteribus paribus lose their meaning when stripped of their context. I will amend your sentence to more fully reflect the authors' findings. It is important to realise that these authors have an axe to grind, and that their phrasing is correspondingly tendentious, which is why it is necessary to focus on the substance of their study rather than the spin. People need to understand that if the conclusions of this study were to be taken as a strict guide by admissions tutors keen above all else to secure the maximum number of firsts for their college, then they would select preferentially from social class I, ceteris paribus . VEBott (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I did see that section, but found no mention of highly selective public schools. They do say that the differential is greater for boys' schools and correlates with fee levels, though.

We do need to be wary of drawing different conclusions from publications than the authors themselves. Kanguole 09:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 'highly selective' was my inference; I would not have included the phrase in the main article anyway. I hope the current formulation is acceptable. The precise percentages are erratic, and given that people see newspaper reports of a small number of public schools consistently dominating the A level league tables and even more so, the supply of Oxbridge entrants, it's useful to discriminate between the best public schools and the wider mass of indifferent ones if one is not to convey a false impression. Explanation rather than propaganda should be the aim, n'est-ce-pas? VEBott (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence you added is problematic. The authors say the effect varies between schools, that with other factors equal, they find

• 24 boys' (30 girls') schools more likely to produce good degrees
• 21 (26) schools 0–5% less likely to produce good degrees
• 32 (26) schools 5–10% less likely to produce good degrees
• 22 (16) schools 10–15% less likely to produce good degrees
• 14 (15) schools 15–20% less likely to produce good degrees

Selecting only one end of that variation (the first 24 schools) does not accurately represent their results. Moreover there's no basis in the paper for identifying those 24 schools as the ones you think they mean. Contrariwise, they suggest that more expensive schools tend towards the "less likely" end. Kanguole 10:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that my final sentence is misleading. The other end of the spectrum is described in the preceding sentence, which we could modify to reflect the proportions if you think it appropriate.

I really wish the authors had been free to reveal which schools were in which group. However, it does seem likely that one would find the schools which require even arts students to take an A level in mathematics at one end of the scale. The authors themselves specify that as an indicator of future degree performance (p7). The correlation with school fees is misleading. Nobody who knows the schools would expect expensive establishments like Harrow, Marlborough, Wellington, etc to produce a great number of academic high flyers. However a minority of the most expensive schools - Westminster, St Paul's, Winchester - do dominate the A level tables and require entrants at 13 to secure a much higher Common Entrance (or equivalent) score than others in the same fee bracket. Since A level performance, up to but not beyond three A grades, remains the best predictor of eventual degree class, I'd suggest that the A level tables are an indicator of which schools might be in the 24/30 group, although I agree that speculation of this sort should not feature in the main article.

The substantive point is that a small number of schools are academically prominent, especially in the context of the debate about admissions to Oxford colleges. Not to mention that candidates from some public schools can be expected to do better at university than the children of social class I parents who have opted to educate their children in the state sector would be misleading. VEBott (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Academic differentiation between independent schools would be an interesting topic to cover in the article, if good sources could be found, but I think we agree that this paper discloses no link to it. Incidentally, their Group 1 seems rather smaller than the 24/30, which seem to correspond to Groups 1 and 2 together. Kanguole 00:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a few details on the variability of the observed effect, and restored the emphasis on the key factors that had to be controlled for to achieve the study's conclusions; I hope I've made it easier to appreciate that it is primarily focused on those public school candidates with relatively poor A-level scores and, rather strangely, from a social class background a few notches down the ONS scale. VEBott (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some more work on Smith & Naylor, a study which has so paradoxically attracted notoriety for an observation focussing mainly on public school students with poorer A level scores and presumably not from the top two ONS social class groupings; hardly the typical successful independent-school Oxbridge candidate that so incenses the left-wing media.

It's possible that Oxford admits many moronic Harrovians from social class IIIm families, but how could these people afford Harrow in the first place? I suspect the study is full of statistical artefacts. VEBott (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose to rewrite the section on further studies, referencing the studies themselves rather than the rather poor TES column. The Partington study, while interesting, pertains only to students at Cambridge, so it is not surprising that its conclusions clash with those of the Sutton Trust report which reveals that for students of a given level of attainment it is almost twice as difficult to get a First at the most selective universities than at those on the other end of the scale. Independent school pupils are proportionately over-represented at the former. The Sutton Trust report's conclusions tally with Smith & Naylor's, namely that privately educated pupils who, despite their educational advantages, have only secured a poor A level score , and who therefore attend less selective universities, do less well than state educated degree candidates with the same low A-level attainment. At Cambridge, one of the most selective universities of all, where the entrance requirements are often AAA at A level and a large number of A*s at GCSE, and which recruit a relatively disproportionate percentage of the independent rather than state school cohort, Partington's conclusion is that A level performance is of itself the best predictor of degree class. Given that certain independent sector schools regularly achieve much better results at the very top of the A level league tables, it is not unreasonable that their products should be well represented at the most selective universities, where they will be disproporionately competing with each other and where only the very ablest of them are likely to secure a First, for all their good performance at A level. I will try to find a short and uncontroversial way of expressing this complex picture, to which the TES journalist's article does no justice whatsoever. VEBott (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Selection and Conditions section update?

Apologies but I am new to contributing to Wikipedia.

As the General Teaching Council for England and Wales has now been abolished, is there any way to update reference to this for the sake of accuracy? All disciplinary matters within the teaching profession in England and Wales are now organised through the Teaching Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Education.[4] Hairyboff (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone integrated the above? Note however that I have split 'Selection' from 'Conditions' now. PeterEastern (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What is a public school?

I think public school should be prominent in the intro, as the redirect comes here. However, my edit was removed by Rangoon11, saying "only a small proportion of independent schools in the UK are regarded as public schools." Why redirect such an important topic, and yet say it isn't important enough to get headline prominence? Either we should restore the "public school" page, or be more inclusive of public schools in this article. Hyper3 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

On re-reading I see there is some mention a few sentences down. Sigh.Hyper3 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that adding bold type face to the first use of 'public school' in the lead, as I have just done, should work.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article currently says: "Around 10% of independent schools in the UK, which are in general older, more expensive, more exclusive and members of the Headmasters' and Headmindastresses' Conference,[1] are known in England and Wales (but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland) as "'public schools"."

What is the source for the claim that only %10 of independent secondary schools are members of the headmasters conference? -- PBS (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Independent Schools Council says it "represent over 1,200 independent schools. These schools are ranked among the best in the world and educate more than 500,000 children". That number includes children under 12 who are not at secondary schools and those between 11 and 13 at prep-schools.

The HMC top ten facts page says "201,998 pupils are taught in HMC Schools in the UK and Ireland" and "One in five of all those attending the UK's top ten universities come from HMC's 252 schools. "

So the Independent Schools Council schools 1,221[5] of which 252 belong to the HMC[6]. Some of the numbers of both are for foreign (Non UK) schools) but even using the gross figures which are skewed against the HMC (because it includes schools not in the secondary school system) the numbers word out as 201,998/500,000 and 252/1,221 (40% by pupils and 20% by schools) is nowhere near the 10% stated in the article. -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that not all private schools in the UK are members of the ISC. There are around 2,600 private schools in the UK [7], and the HMC currently has 252 members.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear and to be able to talk about "your source" it is McCormack, Steve (22 September 2011), Why a private education may be more affordable than you think Fees at independent schools are high but there are funds available to soften the blow. 

The number in McCormack is for all private schools including primary: "a small private primary school". This means that you are not comparing like with like and the 10% is both misleading and meaningless, as no one has ever stated that primary schools (or prep schools) are public schools. Do you have a figure for the percentage for secondary school education which would be a more meaningful number? -- PBS (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, since an HMC school must have a sixth form, although note that many HMC schools do have a lower school so there is overlap and giving a percentage is therefore rather arbitrary anyhow. I'm not personally wedded to the 10 per cent number and I don't believe I was the one who actually added it. Although note that third party sources often do describe members of the HMC and all private schools in the UK in the same breath without stating clearly that a school without a sixth form cannot be an HMC member or a "public school".[8].Rangoon11 (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a very useful tool called WikiBlame which is usually used to find who is responsible for copy right violations, but it is also a useful tool for finding out who added what when to an article. In this case the 10% was introduced here by Pol098 01:02, 10 January 2012. You presumably copied the wording to the articlePublic School (UK) with this edit 01:25, 10 January 2012 (23 minutes later). The original assertion was inserted into this article at 00:30, 4 January 2012 here "(roughly 10 per cent of the total)" by Rangoon11 without a source. -- PBS (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It was agreed in 2005 after a requested move debate to move the article on Public schools to this page (see above #Page move). On 10 January 2012 Rangoon11 altered the redirect that pointed to this article into a page with this series of edits. The lead statement of that change was "The term public school is commonly used in the United Kingdom to refer to a select group of about 10% of the independent schools", yet no reliable source has been presented to back up that statement, or that distinguishes "Public School" from Independent School. When we debated this in 2005 it was clear that school such as Eton College describe themselves as independent schools[9] and not public schools (can you find one independent school that describes itself a "Public School"?). The most common use of "Public School" in reliable sources was in broadsheet newspapers and when they use the term, if they define it, they link it to membership of the HMC. I suggest that the article Public School is a content/POV fork and I propose to reintegrate the text of the two articles and make the article Public School (United Kingdom) back into a redirect, unless it can be show that the modern usage of the term "Public School" has a clear definition and is more than an synonym for independent school that belongs to the HMC. -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be two merged threads in the section. The first one is a query over whether public schools "make up some 10% of these" and if this claim can be supported, the other being a suggestion that we merge the public school article into this one. Can we pull these two apart?

• Can I suggest that if the 10% claim is not properly sourced that we simply removed it until it is?
• With regard to the merge proposal, I don't think that would be useful and would favour developing separate articles for the distinct types of independent school, in particular to discuss prep schools separately from public schools separately from other notable types of independent school type (including Montessori schools for one). Is there general agreement that Public Schools focus on 13-18 and are also "in general, older, more expensive and more exclusive"? Is there also agreement that it is the schools which are part of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference which are called public schools?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A century ago "public school" had a fairly clear definition, but has since been broadened and diffused to the point where the schools that have always been agreed to meet the definition no longer use the term. Your criteria are contradictory. The members of the HMC are very diverse, and most of them cover the 11-18 range. Besides, we already have an article on the HMC. This is no basis for a separate "public school" topic. Kanguole 09:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me. By way of context, I have no great knowledge of such schools other than to have had the benefit?? of being sent away to boarding school at the age of 8; also that my father taught at one of the 'major English public schools' all his career as he would have put it. I unfortunately appear to have got rid of his copy of 'the history of the English Public School' or whatever it was called which I wanted to refer to last night. I am however prepared to work on my knowledge. To be clear, we can define the scope of a WP article in any reasonable way we choose and we can outline the article scope in the lead. WP is not a dictionary and the lead should not cover all uses of a word, but should instead cover a single notably subject and define what that is. It can have an 'about' banner if appropriate to guide people to other articles which use similar terms. What seems very clear to me is that what I know of as a 'public school' and what is culturally recognised by the term (13-18 education, boarding, high academic achievement, privileged, exclusivity, toffs, fagging, Tom Brown School days, Eton collars, etc etc ) really belongs in an article with that title. Similarly, an article on Prep Schools can deal with some of the physiological issues associated with boarding from 8yo. Surely it doesn't make sense to try and pack all of that into a single article about 'independent schools' which covers day and boarding schools for kids from about 3 to probably 18 simply because the term public school has blurry edges? PeterEastern (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, you're talking about the older, more focussed, sense of the term, along the lines of Sidney Smith's "an endowed place of education of old standing, to which the sons of gentlemen resort in considerable numbers" (1810) or Edward Mack's "non-local endowed boarding schools for the upper classes" (1938). That is quite different different from membership of the HMC, an organization originally set up to promote the interests of the non-Clarendon endowed schools, but which the Clarendon schools later joined. Few of the former direct grant grammar schools that make up the backbone of the HMC would fit your definition. For such an article to work, it would have to focus on the historical definition. Kanguole 13:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for coming back to me. I am totally open to discuss the appropriate scope for an article with the title 'Public school (United Kingdom)' or similar. The only thing I would resist is to merge all types of independent school into one general article. As to the exact scope of the article, I suggest we accept some blurriness and go with the consensus. If you are ok with having such an article, then possibly we should start fiddling with the definition in the lead and about banner until we are happy. We can then flesh out the articles. Are there any other types of independent school which should have UK specific articles (other than prep school which already has one)? PeterEastern (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Also... regarding the former direct grant grammar schools, can I suggest we focus the public school article on these top elite schools along the lines of the older definition (and the current article) as this will provide a useful platform to discuss issues of elitism, make-up of the Cabinet, social justice and it also fits with a corny part of British culture as viewed from overseas. Personally, I would like to see the article cover the evolution of these schools from their origins to today, showing how they have changed (and have not changed!). One interesting subject will be how corporal punishment was banned from state schools by some act of parliament 20 years back, but was retained for the elite. Odd that parliament specifically allowed their own children only to be beaten. To include the totally separate heritage of the former grammar schools would dilute this message. Would it be appropriate to cover that in the Grammar school article and should that article be focused on the British Grammar School system, regardless of where in the world it now operates, which is pretty much how the article is written anyway. Possibly we should mention grammar schools in the lead for this article. PeterEastern (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As I've suggested above, I think a "public school" article based on something equivalent to Mack's carefully worded definition would be reasonable, but not one based on HMC membership. Kanguole 15:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have updated the lead to reflect this conversation and removed reference to HMC. I had previously removed the reference to '10%' which I think addresses both issues raised in this thread. (I would o course be happy to see the 10% claim reinstated if supported by a suitable reference). PeterEastern (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WP uses reliable third party sources, rather than the likes or dislikes of its editors, and there can be no doubt that 1. "public schools" is a highly notable topic for a WP article, with vast coverage in reliable sources; 2. "public school" is not the same as "independent school in the United Kingdom", it is a separate but related topic; 3. although the definition of what constitutes a public school has changed over time, there is no doubt that membership of the HMC is now regarded as forming part of the definition of the topic. I understand that some may not like it - like some dislike the very idea of public schools, or indeed independent schools in general - but third party sources going back over decades clearly state this. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Not sure where you are coming from on some of this, however I have adjusted the lead again with a view to accommodating your input. I have taken out the citations you added to the lead since a lead should normally summarise content from the body of the article and does not need to repeat these citations except for any particularly controversial content. PeterEastern (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What is a public school (continued)

Thank you Peter for teasing out the 10% issue. The reason I raised it with the current article Public school (United Kingdom) was because that statistic was used to recreate the article Public school (United Kingdom) when there had been a long debate back in 2005 to move the page from Public school to Independent School. It that debate several issues were raised:

1. Public School is not a UK term public school in Scotland means state school (so the current dab extension is wrong).
2. The schools commonly called "Public Schools" refer to themselves as independent schools.
3. A survey of current reliable English (and Welsh?) sources that use the term Public Schools (particularly reliable London newspapers) define Public school as members of the HMC. To date no evidence has been presented that the majority of such reliable sources define Public Schools any other way than by the member ship of the HMC. So the text "The term public school is sometimes used to refer to a group of older, more expensive and exclusive fee-paying privat schools" in the public school article needs a sources as does the clause in this article that says "Some of older, more expensive and more exclusive schools catering for the 13-18 age-range in England and Wales are known as Public schools," to support those statements because the the majority of modern reliable English sources that define public school do so as an independent school that is a member of the HMC.

I also do not think you can use definitions that pre-date World War II as a way to define what is meant by a "public school" today. I think we can ignore a 1810 definition, and what makes the 1938 "non-local endowed boarding schools for the upper classes" (So out goes Westminster!) and better than the Flemming report of 1944, which had to consider the legal position for possible future legislation, and basically said that a public school is a member of the HMC?[10]. The Flemming type definition was also used by the The Donnison Report (1970):

The main function of the Commission will be to advise on the best way of integrating the public schools with the State system of education. For the immediate purpose of the Commission public schools are defined as those independent schools now in membership of the Headmasters' Conference, Governing Bodies' Association or Governing Bodies of Girls' Schools Association.

Both these definitions seem to be similar to the popular 21st century definition that equates public schools to those who are members of the HMC.

AFAICT the the only way one could glean what the term "The term public school is sometimes used to refer to a group of older, more expensive and exclusive fee-paying privat schools" means would be to list the schools found guilty of involvement in the independent school fee fixing scandal because clearly those schools considered themselves a self selecting cartel who are in competition with each other, but as I know of know reliable sources that draws that conclusion, it can not be used as a way to determine what is an English public school.

The original reason for recreating the article (the 10%) has been shown to have no foundation in sources, unless someone can show that there is a well known definition that makes a distinction between public school and independent school that belongs to the HMC, the POV fork should reintegrated into this article (see WP:REDUNDANTFORK). If there is a need in the future to create such an article as part of a summary style then it should be given a neutral descriptive name such as Independent secondary school (United Kingdom) if Scotland and Northern Ireland are to be included, or Independent secondary school (England and Wales) if not (although I notice that Monmouth School was not part of the fee fixing fixing!) -- Also as the article is only 31k in size I see no need for a summary style article at present.

-- PBS (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. Personally I am keen for there to be an article that relates to the schools traditionally called public schools that had a huge impact on British Empire, and at the top of the Social structure of the United Kingdom. As the article identifies, these schools still educate a surprising number of our leaders (for better or worse) and play a key part in maintaining a social pecking order, with a distinction being made between attendance at a 'major public schools' (Harrow, Eton etc), 'minor public schools', and other independent secondary schools: [11][12][13][14][15][16] The fact that the schools don't identify themselves as such only reflects how British understated elitism works. Personally I suggest we keep an article based on the traditional definitions, but that we should possibly focus it on the heritage of these schools. Surely there is enough content to create a great article based on this historical definition? Needless to say, WP is not a dictionary, and we can define the scope of an article as we see fit. Rolling these schools into a pot with every other fee paying school would miss the point. PeterEastern (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then I suggest you write an article with a descriptive names such as the "impact of public schools on the British Empire". PBS (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that these schools, and their impact on the social structure, are still very much in evidence I suggest that the current title is fine. PeterEastern (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• This sentence in the lead "Some of older, more expensive and more exclusive schools catering for the 13-18 age-range in England and Wales are known as Public schools, the term 'public' being derived from the fact that they were open to pupils regardless of where they lived or their religion." needs to be changed because all the modern definitions of public school (since World War II) defines public school as synonymous with membership of the HMC, and this article should reflect that, and not try to imply that there is some other definition of "Some of older, more expensive" which is not backed up with a reliable source. PBS (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The HMC definition of public school seems to have drifted so far from the more common 'elitist' school usage (as evidenced by the numerous reference I have provided above) as to not be a suitable basis for an article. In addition the HMC website doesn't use to term in its own website, preferring the phrase "the world’s leading independent schools"[17] and only makes one reference to the term public school on a page where it is quoting from The Times.[18] (an article which incidentally supports the current current 'elitist' scope). PeterEastern (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Independent school (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051029105219/http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk:80/MainSite%20pages/LawUpdates/lawupdatenewmatc.html to http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/MainSite%20pages/LawUpdates/lawupdatenewmatc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)