Talk:Private schools in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Independent school (UK) INSTEAD.

Headmasters' association as a definition

I've heard there's some sort of headmasters' association, to which a school's headmaster must belong if it is to be considered a "public school"; otherwise it's an "independent school" but not a "public school". Can anyone clarify? 131.183.84.166 21:48 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

from the article - "The head teachers of British independent schools usually belong to the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference as distinct from the Secondary Heads' Association."

the HMC and SHA have a corporate membership agreement whereby all members of HMC are members of SHA as well, and the same applies to the Girls School Association (GSA) the single-sex girls school equivalent of HMC. However there is an organisation of lesser private schools, the Society of Headmasters and Headmistresses of Independent Schools (SHMIS)

Differing definitions

"The 9 are not the "correct" list of public schools, in anyone's mind. What about Bradfield, Sherbourne, etc..." (80.46.147.184, edit comment)

Well, you might consider it not to be 'correct', but quite a large number of people do (well over a dozen people from such institutions in merely my own personal experience...). Even discarding others' minds, it's 'correct' in mine. I'm concerned that there is no real way to acheive the Platonic ideal of NPOV, but merely leave it somewhere that neither side agrees upon which either says it's a matter for debate, or that it isn't. Such boolean states are the curious outlet of comprimise that are, indeed, situations where no party is satisfied.

James F. 23:19 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well I find it hard to believe that all of the 9 are considered correct in your mind when you were unable to name one of them i.e. the Merchant Taylors' School. You may consider some of the 9 "correct", but it is disingenous to suggest that this is "correct", by any definition. Perhaps, (and I only throw this up as a point of discussion and not as an opinion) the fact that the "traditional" public schools are run as non-profit organisations is what sets them apart from other "private schools"? - anon80

I knew of the existence and meaing of the revelent Act, regardless of the individual details thereof. Further, almost every independent school is run as a charitable trust; certainly more than the 9, 25, etc. mentioned herein (in personal experience).

James F. 17:11 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you are debating it, then there is a debate, by definition. Isn't logic great? NPOV is great, too, and can sort out all our problems! Everyone should be satisfied by NPOV. Each side just adds quotes from the authorities that they believe back them up, and then the reader can decide for themselves which authorities to believe. -- Oliver P. 23:37 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My point was more that the disagreement here is on whether or not one can debate, not on the debate itself; I was merely suggesting that the former, as a boolean states, sadly can't really be expressed as NPOV (even thought I think it is wonderful), as opposed to the actual content of the debate...

James F. 17:11 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... "Observers have reported seeing two people debating the issue. However, one of them denies that debating the issue is possible, and claims that the observers are only seeing things." Well, that's a point of view I suppose, but not one that is easily defensible. ;) -- Oliver P. 18:57 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I just added Christ's Hospital to the chronological list, because it's a very old school and I believe it's an independent school. But I'm not sure if it qualifies as a public school, because it's a charitable foundation. What do the experts think? Deb 20:51 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Westminster School, at the very least, is a charitable foundation. But I really don't think it has anything to do either way with the term 'public school'. Of course, as it's really a matter of interpretation and tradition, there's not really any such thing as an expert in the field...

James F. 22:42 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I realise I phrased that wrongly anyway. What I meant to say was that Christ's Hospital admits a large proportion of its pupils on scholarships, whereas the term "public school" tends to be associated (in my mind) with substantial fees -- although I know that most of them have scholarship pupils as well. Deb 11:07 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Should I add Oundle into the list of oldest public schools (1556)? It has an odd history, as it started as day-pupil fee-paying Laxton School, founded by the Grocer's Company of London. Despite its odd history, it is undoubtedly a public school, and Sanderson of Oundle (previous headmaster between the world wars i believe) is considered to be one of the most influential past public school headmasters in the country.

Use the 1889 yearbook

I think it is important to keep the Schools listed in the 1889 yearbook (and not just because I added it), because everybody's definition of what is and isn't a public school is different and this list gives us a clear indication from a time when they were at their peak. Mintguy (T) 17:13, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Bromsgrove School

Bromsgrove School was a founding member of the headmasters conference in 1869. It is still in existence, yet it is not in the list you published in Public Schools Yearbook, published in 1889 any idea why not? Philip Baird Shearer 12:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

"Public" due to prep. for "public service"?

On re-reading the article. I have a quibble on the origin of the phrase public school. I thought public schools prepared boys for "public service" as is used two paragraphs after the (first) explanation which starts public schools often relied.... BTW why is that paragraph in the past tense don't public Schools still rely on older boys to run the houses? Philip Baird Shearer 13:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

They prepared people for public service but 've never heard it suggesteed that was the origin of the phrase. And while public school still rely to some extent on prefects, they don't have the essentialyl unlimited power they used to. The Land 18:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

The "Public" as defined seems sensible enough. When you think about it the name isn't as strange as you'd think. Public Houses (Pub) are open to the Public and we all know they charge plenty. This is different to a Private members club, unfortantly there are no State Maintained Houses apart from the SU.--Ezol 6 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

Page move?

Maybe this could be at Public School, which is AFAIAA the 'correct' capitalisation, rather than than at the frankly rather ugly disambiguated Public school (UK) mess...
James F. (talk) 10:36, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thatcher government reference

Seeing this: '(it was Martin Wiener's opposition to this tendency which inspired his 1981 polemic "English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit: 1850-1980", which became a huge influence on the Thatcher government's opposition to old-school gentlemanly Toryism and, by default, a key reason for the recent upsurge of privately-educated pop singers in the UK).' leaves me wondering...What's that supposed to mean?

I don't see the correlation...--Penta 02:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

"British" vs. ... "English" (?)

I have some objection to the term of "Public School" as being 'British'. I have always used the term Public School to mean one that is financed by the public purse. I have not met anyone, other than someone from England, who uses the term Public School to mean a school that is financed privately - In fact, I'd use the term private school, or the disambiguated fee paying school to avoid confusion. --Colin Angus Mackay 03:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whether you personally use it, you at least recognise the term as used this way, however, which is what "British" is meant to mean. Of course, there are some Scottish people who would use it one way, and others that would use it another, but outside of the United Kingdom, pretty much no-one would use it in the way that this article describes, no? Thus I think "British" is better than "English".

James F. (talk) 03:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I recognise it as an expression used in England about a school in England that is financed by fees levied on the familiy of the student or some form of scholarship. This recognition is similar in the way that I recognise the expression más o menos as being used in Spanish speaking countries. I have never heard of a school in Scotland being refered to as a Public School except for state schools (i.e. financed by the public purse) - that is the main reason for my objection.

As to your argument about there being Scottish people who use the expression Public School to have the same meaning as in England then you are probably right. I wince at the fact there are Scottish people who refer to Pounds Sterling as "English Money"

My objection stands --Colin Angus Mackay 02:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe the Scottish independent schools that follow the English education system (GCSEs and A Levels) are generally known as public schools, since they are in every way equivalent to the English schools. And let's remember that there are also public schools in Wales - there are parts of the UK that are neither England nor Scotland, you know! -- Necrothesp 17:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The default meaning of "public school" in Scotland is the sense of a state-funded no-fee institution. Anyone using "public school" in the English sense in Scotland would encounter confusion. Bovlb 05:52:17, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Agreement with the objection, "public school" in Scotland is a state school/financed with public money. Unsure with regard to what Scottish private schools who follow the England and Wales education system (the only private school I know of uses the Scottish system) call themselves. The fact that "public school" creeps into Scots conversations could be due to the fact that private schools (ones paid for by the family of the pupils or through scholarships) are even rarer in Scotland than they are south of the border, where they are called public schools? With regards to Wales it is an (unfortunate?) fact that what goes in England goes in Wales and therefore usually gets stuck in the "English" category or sometimes the more accurate England and Wales.

origins of public schools

The first sentence is a bit surplus to requirements surely? The next subheading provides both a list and a link... --Mark Lewis 18:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lead section.

James F. (talk) 15:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Origins, more info

A contributor I trust has just made this post to a forum re. public schools, and perhaps some of it can be built into the article at some stage. Sorry, all the para breaks have been stripped out when it displays, don't know why.

All of the 'public' schools were founded for the free education of the poor - hence the name.

Winchester was founded by William of Wykeham, in 1382, to be made up of 70 "poor and needy" pupils.

Eton was established in 1442, when Henry VI decided that "no one having a yearly income of more than five marks shall be eligible".

Rugby, Harrow and Westminster were founded as free schools for the poor. They were often extremely wealthy, due to endowments and bequests and charitable donations. This wealth was reflected in excellent results from expert teachers -- and it soon attracted vultures.

Because of the quality of the education they offered, this began to slip: Thomas Arnold (for example) closed Rugby's free lower school so that poor children could not learn enough to pass the necessary exams to get into the main school. Rich children began to filter in and soon took over.

Then the public schools decided that they would only accept pupils able to speak Latin -- which again selected the rich.

Each school was taken over by the emerging upper-middle classes. And each one found a different excuse for allowing this takeover.

Westminster, for example, claimed that Elizabeth I had never confirmed its statutes so they weren't binding (I'm not sure if this was ever resolved, actually).

Winchester claimed in 1818 that its pupils really were poor ... although their parents were rich!

The Public Schools act of 1868 (pushed through by paid-for MPs and lobbyists) enabled these schools to finish off their takeovers by re-allocating endowments that were meant to go on teaching poor pupils.

In 1869, a Schools Inquiry Commission decided that "indiscriminate gratuituous instruction" was "comparable in its mischief to the indiscriminate donation of alms to beggars."

After that, the schools grabbed a huge fortune in endowments which had been left for the benefit of the local poor across the UK -- which was used to pay for new fee-paying private schools for the emerging middle classes. (This has been described as "the biggest hijack of public resources in history").

• --bodnotbod 14:30, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fees

Well done to those who contributed to this excellent article. It points out that fees charged by public schools are often very high, which is relevant to the issue of their alleged social exclusiveness, as well as their charitable status, the assisted places scheme, etc. However the reader may not have much idea how high is high. Perhaps someone might be able to add an example of approximate fees at some of the top schools, and the less famous ones too, to give a clearer idea? Flapdragon 12:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

How's that?

James F. (talk) 15:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Public School vs Independent School

I came across this article today when starting to edit the Norwich School page to add a bit more content. It seems to me that the article suggests that any 'Independent' or 'Private' school that is sufficiently old is therefore a 'public school'. I would suggest that this is not the case. Returning to my example of Norwich School which you have listed in your list of 'Public schools', I can certainly say that I would not regard this school as a public school. The school itself is supported financially by a company of Dyers in London and thus fulfils the criteria of a 'Private School' - that is one "established, conducted and primarily supported by a non-governmental agency". As such it is not a 'Public School', even though it is old, formerly boarding and is a member of the HMC. Whilst I cannot comment for any of the other schools listed on this page, it would seem to me that the definition of a 'Public School' presented here is not entirely satisfactory. However, I am myself not clear on exactly what constitutes a 'Public School', so I am afraid I can contribute little to this article, over and above raising this issue. Compliments on an otherwise excellent article. Will June 15, 2005

As the article makes clear, there is no standard definition of the term. However, it is generally accepted in most of the literature that I've read that a public school is any school that is a member of HMC. Others may have different views, but that is certainly the commonest definition. What schools choose to call themselves is, of course, up to them. -- Necrothesp 01:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd say it's the 9 of the PSA, but then I'm perhaps an interested party in that I went to one of them, and am evidently terribly elitist. :-)

James F. (talk) 15:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidently. But in all seriousness, I don't think it's particularly valid to take as authority for a status an act passed in 1868. Things change and the rights granted by the PSA are now effectively enjoyed by all independent schools, whether granted in law or not. The 19th century was an era in which almost everything was regulated by Act of Parliament and one was needed for pretty much any change in any status - that has not been the case for a long time. -- Necrothesp 16:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terminology section

Which public school is meant by "Cambridge"? And surely "quad" isn't public-school slang. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "quad" isn't public school slang? Do you mean it's not slang or not a public school term? No, it's not slang, but then neither are many of the other terms on the list. I'll rename it. It's certainly a public school term. -- Necrothesp 01:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think that it originates with public schools rather than with Oxford? Oxford certainly had quads before public schools did (the first, Mob Quad in Merton, predates any public-school building, I think), and the term is more closely asociated with Oxford than with public schools. If you simply mean that it's a term used in pubic schools — well, so is every term commonly used in English. If there's any point to the section, it's surely to pick out terms used exclusively in, or originating in, public schools. I agree that that needn't mean slang, of course. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I ever said it originated with public schools. But it is a word that is commonly used in public schools and is not commonly used outside (except at Oxford). I doubt if many people who have not attended a public school or university that uses the term are aware of what a quad is in this context! -- Necrothesp 19:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the article states that several public schools predate Oxford I don't think you can say that the Mob Quad is older than "any public school building". Presumably some of these public schools had enclosed courtyards prior to 1264, but it's a moot point: A schoolchild attending a public school will hear the term "quad" before attending university, so it ought to be included here under public school terms so that they can use this article as a reference source. Wiki-Ed 11:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about dates of foundation, but the ages of buildings (Merton is almost certainly not the oldest College, it just has the oldest extant buildings). Nor is the origin of the term a matter of when people first hear it. Most children first hear the word "food" from their parents, but that doesn't tell us the origin of the term. When the news media and popular writers use the word "quad" they do so in the context of Universities, and especially of Oxford, not of public schools. Google is of no help, only throwing up Merton for "oldest quadrangle" (except for an entry on Cambridge), and offering nothing useful under "first quadrangle" (and nothing at all under "first quadrangle" + "public school"). The only relevant entry in a dictionary of quotations was to a University quad, though.

I'd be very surprised if most people hearing the word "quad" thought of anything but University, and probably Oxford. the real question, though, is if the term is public-school slang, and the answer is surely that it isn't. In fact it isn't even slang; it's just a common abbreviation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who has been to public school will associate the term with public school. I certainly do. I suspect, in fact, that more people associate it with public school than with university, since more people are likely to have attended public schools with quads (since many public schools have them) than universities with quads (since I've never heard the term used in any university outside Oxford). The section is about words commonly used in public schools, not just slang terms or terms originating in public schools. It was headed 'slang' until I retitled it, but actually ceased to contain solely slang terms long ago (if indeed it ever did). I really don't see your objection to its inclusion. It is a common term used in public schools, and not greatly used outside. I don't really see how you can argue against that. Nobody is saying the term isn't used in Oxford, but that doesn't mean it's peculiar to Oxford. -- Necrothesp 14:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

1. "Anyone who has been to public school will associate the term with public school." Well yes, that's rather my point. What percentage of people, much less readers of Wikipdia, will that be true of?
2. It's not a question of who's been to Oxford; it's a question of the place of the term in general understanding.
3. Though in fact the main point is that the term isn't used in public schools any more than in any other area; it may be that there are more quads in public schools than elsewhere, but that itsn't the issue.
4. As we seem to be getting nowhere, the best thing will probably be to place this at RfC, and get some other opinions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that's taking it too far. The term is used in public schools; this section deals with terms used in public schools. That's all there is to it. Wiki-Ed 21:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

In general understanding, most people wouldn't know what the hell a quad was anyway. It's not a common term. People who have been to Oxford will associate it with Oxford. People who have been to public school will associate it with public school. People who haven't been to either will probably not know what it is. Simple as that. It's therefore as appropriate here as it is in the article on Oxford. You seem to be suggesting that Oxford has some sort of proprietorial claim on the term. -- Necrothesp 02:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling that no-one is reading what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that anyone has claim on what is a perfectly standard English abbreviation. That it's used in English public schools is unsurprising, given that they're English-speaking. Is the section going to conatinevery English word used in public schools? I've been asking around, incidentally, and no-one to whom I've spoken (no Oxford graduates among them) associates "quad" with public schools. This is like including "chapel" because public schools have chapels, and the term is used there... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles. We are reading what you are saying and I can see what you are getting at, but I simple don't agree with your opinion. I'll take your points in turn:

1. The article does not contain every English word used in public schools. However, it does contain a selection of unusual slang and terminology used (nearly exclusively) in those institutions.
2. As Necrothesp points out, "quad" is not a common term so it is perhaps not surprising that the people you questioned haven't heard of it in this context. That is exactly why it is here - to educate.
3. Chapels are not exclusive to public schools and the term is commonly used and well understood. That's probably why it's not here (that and the fact they might not have them...).

I've come up with a (rather petty I admit) analogy: I could go to your article on Nikki_Iles (who I have never heard of) and debate the removal of "Iles is senior lecturer at Middlesex University" because I can be fairly certain that she is not the only senior lecturer at Middlesex University. A general reader wouldn't know the difference, but you might feel aggrieved and it would be omitting some factual information. Not quite the same thing, but I think you get the picture :) Wiki-Ed 10:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

1. "Quad" is neither slang nor unusual terminology.
2. "Quad" is not particularly uncommon; it is, in fact, often used as shorthand for the academic world (try Googling it; pages include North American and other universities, as well as general references to universities and education — e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc.).
3. The people to whom I spoke had all heard of, and understood, the term; they simply didn't associate it primarily (or at all, in some cases) with public schools.
4. The analogy fails; its logical structure doesn't match the current issue at all. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

1 I think the average bloke on the street would regard "quadrangle" as an unusual word. From reading your bio I don't think you would fall into that category (that's a compliment!).

2 It may well be familiar in some parts of the academic world but I think you've been misled by Google and are overestimating its common usage. Your examples are all universities - you need to do some extensive filtering to dredge up a similar number relating to other academic institutions. Besides, point 1 is more important.

3 As we have said, unless someone has gone to public school they are unlikely to be aware that the term could be linked to public schools. If you were to round up all the pupils who went to my old school and asked them what a "quad" was they would identify it with their school and possibly with their university (if applicable). If you rounded up all the pupils from a non-public school I think you would find that this association did not exist. Unless... a) they went on to a uni with a quad, b) were very well read, c) found this website article.

4 Sorry to see you didn't follow my anaology. I'll be more blunt next time.

To sum up: we are writing for the average bloke on the street who will not be familiar with the term (i.e. not you and not the public school kids who know anyway). This article gives some information on the etymology (if nothing else) and explains that it is used in public schools for those who don't know. Wiki-Ed 17:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The universities to which I linked (one of them wasn't, in fact — it was to the title of a book aimes at proselytising Christians) were mostly U.S, and the usage suggested that it would be exected that readers would understand "quad". Given the demographics of the U.S., I think that it would be fair to say that a large propertion of people would be expected to understand "quad". I really think in any case that you're grossly oversestimating the rarity of the word (or understimating the vocabulary of most readers).

It's not that I didn't follow your analogy, incidentally — it's that I thought that it failed.

Anyway, I've placed this at RfC, so if anyone is interested, we might get a third opinion or so. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well. However, with reference to the first sentence of the article, this is a UK topic so I do not think the apparent usage of the word in the US is relevant. Moreover, I think you'd need a Mori-type poll to substantiate your supposition, not Google.

Having done my own (non-academic, non-Oxfordian) consultation I found that it was regarded as an unusual word which people only associated with Oxbridge and not public schools (which we appear to have agreed on). Since we are trying to establish the etymology I think this supports inclusion. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if anyone else has anything to add. Wiki-Ed 09:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to add a little more confusion I went to a state school where the term 'quad' was used. :P -- Joolz 14:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So did I, in fact; a (not very prestigious) Grammar School, some of whose buildings were older than those of my Oxford College. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

A'body kens whit a quad is, it's a four wheel cross-country motorbike...dave souza 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose moving this page to Public school (England) or possibly Public school (England and Wales) to remove the confusing implication that this sense of the term would be commonly understood in, say, Scotland. When I Google for "public school" and Scotland, I find the preponderance of uses is for state schools (including government sources, and Acts of Parliament), with several people explaining that the English sense is not used in Scotland. You will find a few cases of prestigious fee-paying schools in Scotland using the term in the English sense. For example, Glenalmond College uses the term in its meta tags, but not in the visible text. Here the term used is "English public school". This page gives an interesting take on the etymology, and confirms it as an English practice. Bovlb 06:12:43, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

I agree that public school is essentially an English phenomenon and not a pan-British one and therefore agree with your proposal. I think Public school (England) would be preferable to Public school (England and Wales) because in the nineteenth century heyday of the public school the very small upper and upper middle class in Wales which was in the market for public school education sent their children to English public schools and there were no prominent public schools in Wales. Part of the socialising purpose of public schools was to produce "English (sic) gentlemen" wherever their families lived and those who lived in Scotland and Wales, and (indeed) those who lived in outlying parts of the Empire such as India, were as keen for this result, if not keener, as those who were secure in their Englishness because they lived in England. Chelseaboy 18:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I am moving it to Public school (England).--Mais oui! 19:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Would not "Public School" be better? Paranthetical disambiguation is both very ugly and strongly discouraged, and the capitalisation is both the common form and unique to this meaning of the term...

James F. (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This move

I am suprised at this move.

Isn't Gordonstoun a Scottish "public school"?, Isn't Fettes? Isn't Loretto A quick google on the BBC site provides the following quote from the Scotland's chief inspector of Prisons "We can't be releasing people into the community with this sort of problem, especially when the tax payer is funding something which costs more than the highest costing public school in Scotland. " - surely it's clearer to say that the term is ambiguous in Scotland?! Jooler 19:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there are prestigious fee-paying schools in Scotland that style themselves as "public schools" in the English sense. However, it remains the case that the typical use of the phrase in Scotland is to refer to state schools, and the other sense requires disambiguation or context.

• Searching for "public school" at fettes.com gives three hits, two of which indrectly allude to the school as a "public school"; all of these are on relatively obscure and non-authoritative pages, so it is far from clear that the school claims to be a "public school".
• Searching for "public school" at gordonstoun.org.uk gives three hits, two of which indrectly allude to the school as a "public school"; all of these are on relatively obscure and non-authoritative pages, so it is far from clear that the school claims to be a "public school".

By the way, I was planning to wait for a little more consensus before making the move. Bovlb 20:15:08, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

You can prove whatever you like if you use contexually ambiguous Google hit counts. e.g. Searching for "independent school" at fettes.com gives 2 hits and Searching for "independent school" at Gordonstoun give 3 hits. Jooler 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Try searching Scottish sites and look for the context of the words "public school" "The Edinburgh News" or the Evening News or Scotland Online or perhaps most tellingly The Scottish Parliament where for the most part, the context of "public school" appears to be the same as the English term Jooler 22:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the top few search results in each case. The Scottish parliament seems to be distinguishing "public school", "grant-aided school", and "independent school", which are the three funding structures for schools in Scotland. There's no basis there for supposing that they mean "public school" in the English sense. The Edinburgh News seems to be talking about criticisms people are making about Tony Blair (yes, he went to Fettes, the "Eton of Scotland"). The Evening News seems to be talking about state schools in Scotland and America and private schools in England, but does refer to "public school Gordonstoun"[13]. Scotland Online has four hits, one is a reference to a school in England, one to "public school upbringing", one to the "public school enthusiasm" of the Earl of Cromartie, and one to "public-school tally-ho-ings". On the basis of "Scotland Online", I can see the argument for "public school" taking the English sense in the context of behaviour or upbringing, but not in plain description of a school. Returning to the Scottish Parliament, this does indeed seem most telling to me. Bovlb 06:19:47, 2005-09-13 (UTC)

Er. I don't think you looked at the diversity of links, you looked at several pages with the same original text. How about

• http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/education/reports-03/edr03-06-vol02-03.htm Education Culture and Sport Committee - "Until we shake off the shackles of the strictures of grammar and public school curricular" & "We are still working in an education system that harks back to the public schools of the nineteenth century"
• http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-social/or-01/so01-2402.htm - "If the nettle of exclusive public schools is to be grasped"
  • So what we have is ambiguity. Jooler 07:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Article title

I've reverted the over-hasty and incorrect move. Even if there were consensus for a move (and there clearly isn't), to call the article "Public School (England)" when even the first line of the summary contradicts that is peculiar (and making "Public School (UK)" into a redirect to Public school was surely perverse).

The term "public school" is commonly used and understood in Scotland to mean what it does in the rest of the U.K. (the claim in the article that Scots are ever surprised by this usage is ridiculous and faintly insulting to the Scots — as if they're too thick or ignorant to be aware of usage south of the border, and in countless novels and media reports); evidence has been presented to support that (the response to the evidence misunderstood the context). If those who wanted the article moved still want that, then it should be properly discussed (perhaps with a request to the page-move page, so that other editors are alerted). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Instead of having the courtesy to respond here, Mais oui! (talk · contribs) moved the article again, this time to a badly-formed title. I've moved it back, and protected it against being moved again. I'll place the suggestion at Requested moves, so that it can be properly discussed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably somewhat commonly understood, but certainly not commonly used to mean. Anyone I know educated in a Scottish private school would describe it as a "private school" (and at least one objects to the term "public school" (even on occasion, when entirely unprovoked)). The term's not in common use in either sense, and what it was taken to mean would depend, as the article says, entirely on context. After all, just as I would imagine most Scots are aware of the English usage, many are aware of the American. OTOH, "English public school" would be pretty clear-cut.

BTW, that would strike me as being a mild, but pretty clear cut instance, of admining in a dispute one is a party to. Surely preferable to have put up a protection request, like the rest of us mere mortals. Alai 04:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As someone educated at just such a private school in Scotland (in fact, one of the ones in the Headmasters' Conference which English schools take as being the qualification to call themselves "Public") I wholeheartedly agree with User:Alai above. Neither the pupils nor the staff would dream of calling it a Public School. We always used the term Private School, although I think the school's official publications preferred the term Independent School. Lots of my friends had similar educational backgrounds, and none of them would ever say they had been to a Public School, which is definitely seen as a (very, very) English concept. One could almost say quintessentially English. (probably mis-spelt: blame my education at a 1960's university (note: rarely referred to as "Red-brick" in Scotland, due to the relative scarcity of red brick as a construction material, until the 1980's, but I digress...)--Mais oui! 05:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be apart from the Welsh and Northern Irish ones presumably! And I would hope that 1960s universities are not referred to as 'red-brick' in Scotland. They're not in England either. A red-brick is a turn-of-the-century municipal university (of which there aren't any in Scotland, with the possible exception of Dundee). -- Necrothesp 18:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to throw in a couple of cents pence - in the eighties and nineties, the Edinburgh independent school I went to never used the term "public school", and none of the staff or pupils I can think of would have used the term. Indeed, I spent years somewhat confused as to what on earth a "public school" actually was... use of the term was, in my experience, avoided where possible on the grounds it would just confuse the hell out of people. Shimgray | talk | 17:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Public school (UK) → various options, but probably Public school (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland). One editor insists on making this move because, he claims, "public school" isn't used or understood in Scotland in the way described in the article. I've had to protect the page from moves to stop him moving it to different variations on his theme, as there is no consensus for a move on the Talk page, and some opposition (with evidence). —-Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The claim made by Mais oui! (talk · contribs) is that the term "public school" doesn't have the use covered by this article in Scotland; the "U.K." qualification is therefore incorrect, he argues. Should the article be moved?

As no clear consensus seems to be emerging, I am re-entered the entry on WP:RM as a approval vote, so that we can have another five days to try to decide this issue. Philip Baird Shearer 10:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposals

Vote is now closed

• Name to remain Public school (UK)

1. First, I've seen no good evidence for the claim that "public school" isn't understood in this sense in Scotland, and my own experience supports the evidence offered above that it is. Secondly, the title isn't meant to be exhaustive and precise; it serves only to distinguish this usage from other (especially N. American) usages. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
2. - 100% agree with Mel. Jooler 20:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
3. As per Mel Etitis. – AxSkov (☏) 07:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
4. I really don't see why this needs a move rather than a paragraph on Scottish usage, which probably influenced American. Also, how many "public schools", is this sense, are there in Northern Ireland? (I dislike longwinded titles.16:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)) Septentrionalis 17:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
5. The term is ridiculously long-winded and unnecessary. -- Necrothesp 18:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, but rather ugly. Paranthetical disambiguation is meant to be avoided. James F. (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Propose move to Public school (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland)

1. Support My experience as a public school educated Anglo-Welshman and historian confirms that of Mais oui! as a privately educated Scot that public school in the sense considered in the article is an English and not a pan-UK phenomenon. Chelseaboy 12:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support --Mais oui! statements, there is clearly a difference between Scottish and English linguistics when referring to what is considered a "public school" - we need to acknowledge once and for all that this difference doesn't only stop linguistically but nationally as well seeing as Scotland is not England! Therefore the two 'countries' have their own definitions according to what is a 'public school'. It is my belief from my own experience that the Scots consider 'public schools' (if it is taken into context as a grammar school) as private schools. Seeing as there are three types of schools recognised: State (comprehensive), Private and Public in England and Wales. However it varies depending on Scotland, because it is more independent than Wales - i.e. it's own education program and running its own schools having its own education board. Also recognise that Scotland does not do A-Levels. In Scotland they clearly have National State schools or Independent Private schools. Public school (meaning State) in this case is being misconstrued as Private school. Piecraft 10:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Propose move to independent school (UK)

1. Support Many (all?) English public schools are members of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference refer to themselves as independent schools as does the HMC web page. Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
2. You give me the devil's alternative. AKA, mainly an absentionist comment. Indeed, certainly not a pan-UK phenomenon, or descriptor. OTOH, current move option is truly terrible-looking. PBS's is quite an attractive suggestion; or just merge into independent school, which is essentially just a disambiggy-stub, and a more feasible merge target than public school, obviously. However, there's absolutely no reason for portraying this as "British" usage in the article, where more precision is perfectly feasible. Current article doesn't seem to be sure whether it's talking about the term, or the phenomenon. Alai 15:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Support (EDIT) This would be precise and exhaustive for this UK topic, but the article must include an explanation of the etymology. Wiki-Ed 11:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support SoM 14:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support This suits me if next option needs split, section including "Public school" should include a brief explanation of the Scottish usage which could link to more detail, probably in education in Scotland...dave souza 19:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support seems to allow for an article on private schooling in the UK, with a section on English Public schools. --Doc (?) 19:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support as second choice. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support as second choice.--Mais oui! 06:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support as second choice as well Piecraft 11:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support as second choice, but rather ugly. Paranthetical disambiguation is meant to be avoided. James F. (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Propose merge into independent school

1. You give me the devil's alternative. AKA, mainly an absentionist comment. Indeed, certainly not a pan-UK phenomenon, or descriptor. OTOH, current move option is truly terrible-looking. PBS's is quite an attractive suggestion; or just merge into independent school, which is essentially just a disambiggy-stub, and a more feasible merge target than public school, obviously. However, there's absolutely no reason for portraying this as "British" usage in the article, where more precision is perfectly feasible. Current article doesn't seem to be sure whether it's talking about the term, or the phenomenon. Alai 15:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support SoM 14:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support First choice, section including "Public school" should include a brief explanation of the Scottish usage which could link to more detail, probably in education in Scotland...dave souza 19:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support as first choice. Mais Oui!'s statements accurately sum up the Scottish situation as I experienced it. PBS offers a good solution. There seems little reason that an article on independent schools cannot discuss that category of English independent schools known as "public schools" even given the ill-defined nature of the term. -- Derek Ross | Talk
5. Support as first choice. The English-usage term "public school" is really just a subsection of the entire independent school topic.--Mais oui! 16:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support as first choice, agree with Mais oui! Piecraft 11:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Propose merge into Public school

...which would then become a disambiguation page + info on historical use of the phrase "public school." Separately, there would exist a new page called Independent schools in the UK which would focus on the schools themselves and only deal with terminology as necessary.

1. We need to think about how an encyclopedia should be organized. Just because we're all (myself included) obsessed with names and with terminology and with old-fashioned customs doesn't mean that it's the most important information. Doops | talk 18:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Support, this is how we used to do things when I helped write it many moons ago. James F. (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Proposed move to Public school (England)

1. Support Why not? Septentrionalis 03:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Proposed move to Public school (England and Wales)

1. Support Never let it be said I did nothing for the Cymraeg. Septentrionalis 03:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's wrap this up

Could a neutral administrator wrap this up please, so that we can all get on with improving the article under its new heading.--Mais oui! 12:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. It would seem to me that Independent school (UK) is the prefered name. violet/riga (t) 12:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

As there is more than a simple Yes, No option, I have converted this into WP:RM Aproval vote: Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

With approval voting one can not oppose' but one can vote for as many preferences as one wish to and to reach a consensus one can vote tactically by withdrawing a vote for a proposal. If no consensus emerges for any one proposal then the page remain under its current name.

I have used good faith to re-arrange the votes into preferences, but if you think I have made a mistake then please contact the author of the vote and they can change it if I made a mistake.

Please do not rearrange the ordering of the proposals as they're in time order in which they are proposed. Please feel free to add more proposals if you prefer another name or think that another name would be a suitable compromise. -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

---

• The suggested name at "Requested Moves" includes "Northern Ireland." How can usage be different in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland? The two have been separate for less than a century; surely usage was well-established long before this! Doops | talk 02:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a very good question, and one that I wish I could say I was clearer as to the answer to. Historically, it seems clear that a few "public schools" were established on both sides of the border; so far as I know, the term "public school" in the E&W sense has no real prevalence in the Republic, unless one were to say "English public school", or some such formulation. I'm not at all sure how clear-cut current NI usage is. If it's much more commonly in use north of the border, I can only really put this down to the differing fates of the Protestant Ascendancy in either jurisdiction. (I tried to nuance both aspects of this in my recent edit, but that's been eliminated by Mais oui, and I'm not sure I want to struggle to put it back precisely as-was. I'm not sure either, however, that there's much point in placing the Scotland reference so prominently in the introduction, if the gist of it is simply to say Scotland is largely outwith the scope of the article.) Alai 23:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

---

"My experience as a public school educated Anglo-Welshman and historian confirms that of Mais oui! as a privately educated Scot that public school in the sense considered in the article is an English and not a pan-UK phenomenon. Chelseaboy 12:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)" (Quote extracted from the "Requested Move" votes above)

As the article says "The head teachers of major British independent boys' and mixed schools belong to the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference (HMC), and a common definition of a public school is any school whose head teacher is a member of the HMC." and as Fettes College and other Scottish Private Schools are members of the HMC the article is internally consistent in defining Public Schools as being in all parts of the UK. Philip Baird Shearer 13:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article is right about the definition. Certainly no school whose head is not in the HMC would be considered a public school. But the HMC now includes heads who certainly do not run public schools - e.g. the headmaster of the London Oratory School which is non-fee paying state comprehensive school. The HMC website reflects their self-definition away from being a grouping only of public schools: "The Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference represents the Heads of 246 leading independent schools in the UK and Ireland, over 60 International members and 16 Additional Members who are Heads of successful maintained schools." Chelseaboy 16:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the "16 Additional Members" are not public schools, since they're not independent (and a distinction is made in their status - i.e. "Additional"), but the others are. I think the HMC definition is still a valid one. -- Necrothesp 18:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the "others" are not. None of the Scottish ones are "public schools" (sic). The HMC defintion only applies to the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland member, independent schools.--Mais oui! 18:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just have a search on Google and see how many times Fettes etc are referred to (often by their own old boys and on Scottish websites) as "public schools". Here, for instance, The Scotsman does it. You may not like the term, but it is often used. This is just a pointless and pedantic argument, since common usage does not agree with you. Unless you're saying that The Scotsman is nothing to do with Scotland! -- Necrothesp 22:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The HMC definition seems inconsistent with normal usage, and not just in Scotland. Can you make the case that Bradford Grammar School and Kelvinside Academy are "public schools", and are commonly referred to as such? Or have ever so described themselves? What if the proposed merger with the Girls' School Association goes ahead, will they then all become public schools? Googling for "Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference" and "public school" together seems to largely get wikipedia mirrors. Does anyone have a notable (setting aside definitive) source that makes this equation in such direct terms? Alai 23:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what I wrote. The HMC uses the term independent schools. I said that this article is internally consistent because it says that "a common definition of a public school is any school whose head teacher is a member of the HMC." and that there were schools throughout the UK (like Fettes College) which are members of the HMC. The HMC does not claim to represent "Public Schools". Philip Baird Shearer 21:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Who, me? (The threading's becoming a little unclear.) I don't think I misunderstood at all. I was replying to the above comments by Necrothesp, not merely claiming internal consistency (which is fine, but actual correctness would be nice). The HMC article asserts this is the case, but doesn't providence any evidence for it. I don't doubt this has been said, but it'd be nice to have a) a source for the assertion, and b) for it to be put more directly in those terms. Anyhow, I'll take this to that article's talk page. Alai 04:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Just to annoy Jooler, I've done a Google search and... (only kidding). I prefer PBS's solution too because this article describes a type of UK school which includes - but is not limited to - something traditionally known as a "public school" in England. Wiki-Ed 16:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with this is it simply eliminates treatment of the topic of public schools in favour of a different topic, independent schools. As this talk page illustrates, the English can get very heated about what a public school is or is not, because it affects social status. I think public school is a particular topic which deserves its place on Wikipedia. Chelseaboy 16:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I really don't see why this needs a move rather than a paragraph on Scottish usage, which probably influenced American. Also, how many "public schools", is this sense, are there in Northern Ireland? (I dislike longwinded titles.16:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)) Septentrionalis 17:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about American influence, but I actually could support this, if a short but prominent Scottish disambiguation were allowed. This whole thing is a storm in a tea-cup, brewed/stirred, one one hand, by Scottish oversensitivity and, on the other, by an unwillingness to trust the unannimous tesitimony of every Scots editor that there is a linguistic difference. --Doc (?) 20:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

+/- precision

The article, and the discussion on this talk page, sometimes shows the following ambiguity when referring to usage outside England: it doesn't recognize that using the phrase "public school" to refer to state-funded schools and not using the phrase "public school" to refer to independent schools are two entirely separate things.

Accordingly, I'd like to invite people to help me fill in the following chart so we can be more precise. Thanks. Doops | talk 21:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

country	usual, everyday names for a state school	usual, everyday names for an independent school	how often do people use the phrase "public school"?
United States	public school	private school (more common colloquially) independent school (usually only used in formal settings) prep school (in the sense that it prepares for university)	all the time, always used for state schools
England	local authority schools, state schools, comprehensive (one specific kind)	public school (for certain ones) private schools (for other ones, generally for younger children) independent schools (preferred for official use)	pretty frequently, always referring to independent schools
Scotland	local authority schools, council schools, state schools, public schools, comprehensive schools (or colloquially, perhaps euphamistically, simply "the local school")	private school (more common colloquially) independent school (usually only used in formal settings) or colloquially simply "a posh school"	infrequently, when referring to English Public Schools, or as a pejorative term by a small number of Scots (eg. some left-of-centre politicians) opposed to private education who wish to tease the independent schools sector
Wales
Ireland (ROI)
Ireland (NI)
Canada
India
Australia
New Zealand
etc

Commentary on the above

A Very Important Question Which Was the Whole Reason I Started This Ridiculous Table and Now I Feel Vindicated in So Doing: Mais oui, the article right now suggests that people in Scotland someimtes use "public school" to refer to state schools; but you didn't include this in your recent contribution to the table. What is your sense in this matter? Doops | talk 06:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Scots definitely used to refer to state schools at public schools. There must be hundreds of towns and villages with old red sandstone buildings which have a name like "Cathcart Public School" carved in proud letters on the side, which now have a cheap metal sign with something like "Cathcart Primary School" or "Cathcart Secondary School" (plus logo of local council.

However, I think that this common usage of the term "public school" has gone out of fashion, as with improved communications (TV etc) Scots have become aware of the different English usage. As in many other areas of linguistics, the English definition tended to squeeze out the native Scottish one, but what is interesting is that the new English definition has never been applied to Scottish private schools, either by themselves or by others: it is used to refer to schools outwith Scotland itself. I would say that not only is it pejorative, but if a Scot used it, eg said "I went to a public school" (ie. in Scotland), they would be seen as very pretensious (yeah, I know it is mis-spelt). (All anglifications tend to be seen as pretensious in Scotland. I'm not saying I think this is a good thing, but it is hard to deny that the phenomenon exists.) This of course is why it is able to be used as a tool to tease the private school sector.--Mais oui! 07:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

1) Although individual schools may have had "public" in their titles, do you think that people in Scotland ever used the phrase in the generic sense (no capital letters) like we do in the US? 2) Do you think that a Scot seeing the phrase "public school" today would think "English name for private school" or "American name for state school" ? Doops | talk 08:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Doops, you missed out rather a fundamental possibility: "Scottish name for state school"! I have been making enquiries. I am probably not a typical Scot, having gone to a private school. I am also relatively young and from the capital city (and I no longer live in my home country), so I consulted my elders and betters in the Scottish provinces (mother plus her two sisters, one of whom was a school teacher). They have confirmed that "public school" is taken to mean "council school" in Scotland. Admittedly this is only oral evidence, but I'm sure a quick Google will turn up some relevant on-line sources. I suspect that the advocates of "Public School (UK)" (sic) already know of the cultural/linguistic differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK, but they are determined to impose homogeneity on the occasionally rebellious appendage.--Mais oui! 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"Public school" has now been added rather belatedly to the Scottish section of the table, but with no source or citation. (How, incidentally, could "the local school" be a euphemism?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Mais oui's insulting assumption of bad faith aside, if he thinks that citations for his position can be easily found on Google, then he should find them. "I asked my family" is original research, and doesn't have any weight here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

If you really were interested in this topic, you would do some research yourself. You do not seem to be interested in the slightest in other peoples' experience/knowledge. Yoookay rules!--Mais oui! 22:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is proposing to insert Mais's "OR" into the article, so his anecotal evidence here is hardly out of order. Contrariwise, the evidence for the "status quo" version of article, which asserts "British" usage without any qualification or caveat as to the generality or uniformity of such, and states without any equivocation that Fettes is (not merely, is sometimes referred to as) a "public school" seems to be merely "unresearched". I don't see why making a weaker, more conservative claim (about usage in E&W) should be held to some higher standard of proof than the stronger, broader, and frankly less accurate statements about "British" usage. Without either the weaker form of words (which keeps being reverted), or some caveat about historical and presently hap-hazard Scottish usage (which seems to be under similar threat), the article is in effect pretty misleading. My preference would be for the caveat, especially if this article is going to remain resolutely at the "(UK)" title. Some references as to the Scottish usage that must not speak its name: from my bookshelf: The Oxford Concise dictionary. From a quick trawl with google:

• Defines the terms[14].
• Qualifies Public School with "English" (as per my earlier comment), and with "i.e., independent"[15].
• Quotes from relatively recent Scottish law using the public-is-public sense[16].

Hope these help. Alai 07:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Mais oui: the onus of proof is on the person who's making the claim (both generally, and on Wikipedia); it's not acceptable to make a claim and then to accuse those who ask for evidence of laziness for not finding it for themselves.
2. Alai: The first link takes one to the source of what turns out to have been a copyvio in the article (and I'll have to check, but perhaps it still is, though slightly altered). The second doesn't seem to have anything helpful; Shrewsbury is an English public school (as opposed to Gordonstoun, a Scottish public school), and any Web page that's likely to be read by non-U.K.-English speakers has to gloss the term. It's interesting to note, though, that the third link is to a document apparently intended for and addressed to Scottish parents, and that it feels the need to explain that "public school" means "state school".
3. Which is this: [17]? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Scottish "Public schools" : state schools

User:Mel Etitis has deleted a sentence and inserted the following note today:

Citations please: In Scotland and Ireland the term "public school" is sometimes used to refer to a state-funded school, but there is seldom confusion over which usage is intended, as the context usually implies one meaning or the other.

It seems only fair to put this on the Talk page.

As I have already stated, there are countless state schools in Scotland with "Public School" engraved on the outside.--Mais oui! 18:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

An historical usage, however monumental, even though set in stone, is not enough to justify the claim that the term is used in this way. You wouldn't claim that the English any longer use the word "hospital" to mean a charitable home or school, yet the word is inscribed in stone on many buildings that had just those purposes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This Talk page is very long but, in the context of the discussion as to how "public school" is understood in Scotland, I see that there are comments above from Colin Angus Mackay and Bovlb which both state that "public school" is not used in Scotland in the sense considered in this article. Both these people appear from their pages to be Scottish. Mais oui! also appears from his page to be Scottish. Mel Etitis does not appear from his page to be Scottish or to live in Scotland. Chelseaboy 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The OED (1989) groups Scotland with the Commonwealth and North America on this, although all their quotations for "public school" = "school provided at public expense are North American until the Education Act for Scotland (1872):

Act 35 & 36 Vict. (Scotl.) c. 62 §25 Every school under the management of the school board of a parish shall be deemed a parish school, and every school under the management of the school board of a burgh shall be deemed a burgh school, and all such schools are hereby declared to be public schools within the meaning of this Act. Septentrionalis 22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, in this article, The Scotsman refers to Fettes as an "Edinburgh public school". Maybe The Scotsman, one of Scotland's premier newspapers, is only pretending to be Scottish? Or maybe, I'm not permitted to quote evidence in support of recognition of the phrase "public school" in this sense in Scotland at the risk of being shouted down for not being Scottish and therefore not knowing what I'm talking about despite the evidence of my own eyes? It is quite obvious that "public school" is both used and understood in this sense in Scotland, whatever the "common" meaning may be, and it appears to me that those who object are simply being pedantic in order to emphasise the age-old "we're completely different from the English, honest" argument. -- Necrothesp 21:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the relevant statement here is "Don't believe everything that you read in the papers". No... really... don't... It's got nothing to do with being Scottish or English -- it's just not a good idea. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question of belief. It's a question of evidence that the term is used in this way in Scotland. If a quintessentially Scottish newspaper refers to a Scottish independent school as a 'public school' then I think it's fairly good evidence that, contrary to some of the claims here, the term is well understood in Scotland, is used of Scottish private schools, and the situation is not a matter of English vs Scottish differences but merely of personal opinion. -- Necrothesp 19:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Calling "The Scotsman" (sic) a "quintessentially Scottish newspaper" is, I am afraid, an oxymoron.--Mais oui! 19:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree - "The Scotsman" is a load of anti-scottish rubbish and has been for years. I don't read it any more - from the days of Andrew Neil as editor it has just become a joke. They rubbish just about any original ideas that come from Scots and whether I agree with the ideas or not their reporting is beyond a healthy level of skeptisism and into outright cynicism --Colin Angus Mackay 23:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This is silly. As far as I can see, every editor here with a Scottish background agrees that the term 'public school' most often refers to 'state-funded' schools. Yes, some Scots do at times refer to independent schools as public schools (hence your newspaper article - it's an anglification) but, unless the context is clear it is apt at best to cause confusion in Scotland. Anyhow, I sense a sensible compromise is being worked out on the article now, which will save renaming. --Doc (?) 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My 2c (and I'm surprised to agree with Mais Oui, - but there's a first for everything). ‘Public school’ is a term most modern Scots will avoid as it is apt to cause confusion. But when it is used, it normally (although, granted, not always) refers to state schools. We should either 1)Rename the article 'independent schools' and put a rider in the intro that these are more usually referred to as public schools in England. 2) Leave the article, but insert a clear disclaimer in the introduction that the term means 'state school' in Scotland, and what is known as a public school on England is generally called an 'independent or private' school in Scotland. I'd be happy with either solution. --Doc (?) 17:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

In addition to what seems to be an overwhelming consensus from the Scottish editors here, see the Press Release dated 28 November 2002 (so very recent) from the Scottish Executive Education Department (so very Scottish and official and educationally mainstream) here . It uses "public school" throughout to refer to any Scottish school (not independent schools), see especially paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Notes to Editors. Chelseaboy 16:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's another even more recent reference from aScottish Executive consultation document in 2005 which actually defines "independent schools" as being schools which are not public schools (see paragraph 7) thereby demonstrating that, for the Scottish Executive, "public school" does not mean "independent school" but the opposite of an "independent school", namely, a state school. Chelseaboy 18:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I like (2), but the article already says that about England. I'll see what can be done. Septentrionalis 18:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer (1), as we still have a series of different articles, some very short, dealing with essentially the same thing: private school, independent school, who knows what else. If this article is to be about the terminology or culture of "public schools" as distinct from other private/independent schools, it should really be a bit more focussed: for example, the Criticisms sections is mainly dealing with the "independents" in general. But (2) deals with the immediate objection at hand, and recents edits seems to implement it largely satisfactorally. Ideally, though, get rid of the sudden flip-flop between "public" and "private" when Fettes is alluded to by way of the PM; and deal with the instances in Wales and Northern Ireland explicitly. (Scotland seems to be now pretty well dealt with, as the two mentioned are the only ones with any frequency of designation as such (and one wonders how much Princes Charles and Tony Blair by themselves contribute to such, though there's clearly an element of different history and school ethos, too).) Alai 20:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm English and I've been asked to comment here because I previously supported separate coverage of Scottish usage on another topic. It seems to me that contrary to the claims made the Scots here are not motivated by undue nationalism. Mel Etitis completely fails to convince me that he knows best about how this term is used in Scotland, and I think he should allow the Scottish users to write the explanation of this point. CalJW 21:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia is edited. Indeed, when this sort of thing happens on other pages ("I'm Peruvian/Singaporean/Kuwaiti, etc., and I know best about my country, so other nationalities should defer to me") the editors in question are told very clearly that that sort of approach isn't acceptable. It's ruled out by Wikipedia:No original research apart from anything else.

Evidence, citations, and arguments have been offered against the claim about the Scottish use of the term, and on the other side is little more than "I'm Scottish, and I'm telling you". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

I've added this template, reluctantly, because the article seems to have descended into an inaccurate mess of original research, nationalist wishful thinking, and outright dubious claims. The discussion above certainly doesn't provide consensus for any of this. It's not only the issue of the use of "public school" in Scotlans, but, for example, the claim that the term is used pejoratively — where is the source for this? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Relax! We can handle this in Talk and further improve the article.Chelseaboy 15:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what you want to dispute, exactly? (Or, be-considered-disputed, if you prefer.) There may be an element of over-reaction, but it certainly seems to me currently to be both more accurate, and better-researched, than the "all British usage is exactly the same" implication of the recent state of this article. Alai 22:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the pejorative use of "Public School" in Scotland - I've certainly never used it as a pejorative term. In fact I steer well clear of the term because it is confusing because of cross-cultural contamination. I would refer to a "Public School" (in the sense of this article) as fee-paying or private. An independent school is one that has opted out of local authority control but is still payed for by the state. Finally a state school is one paid for and under the control of the state. I think that the article should probably retain this level of information about the how the term is confused in Scotland, but I'd remove the pejorative stuff because I think these examples are fairly isolated instances. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, we should remove the pejorative discuission. Yes, it can be used perjoratively in Scotland (and elsewhere) but so can 'aristocrat', 'middle class', 'privately eductated', 'establishment' and a thousand other terms. In fact just about anything is open to caricature and being subverted by the language of class war. So what? --Doc (?) 23:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the term is probably more loaded, and more often used pejoratively than those other examples, or perhaps just more "vividly stereotyped". I suspect that's why most "public schools" are backing away from the term, though there's also the aspect of making common cause with the (ex-) grammar schools, and other "independents". But I don't think that's at all particular to Scotland, and I think it probably has (at least) undue prominence in the article, and I wouldn't weep to see it go entirely. If it stays, it should be sourced with someone notable asserting this the case, and put in that context, rather than specific incidents. Alai 23:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that this whole debate shows just how profoundly unwise it was to move this article from its happy home at Public school (England), to the attempted gross-over-generalisation of Public school (UK).--Mais oui! 05:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this link uses 'public school' in Northern Ireland as 'state school'. Pending evidence to the contrary, I will remove NI from the intro; which will support your argument. Septentrionalis 20:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It's partly this over-eagerness that worries me about the article. On the basis of one Web page, which is an unknown person answering a question in sopme sort of bulletin board, the article is to be changed? Does this strike people as the correct way to edit Wikipedia? I'm sure that Septentrionalis wouldn't knee-jerk edit like this on other articles, so what on Earth is going on with this one? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The question of whether the English "public school" exists in Northern Ireland has been asked several times on this page and not answered. Therefore it is unsourced. All someone has to do is cite an example; but no one has. Septentrionalis 04:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, it's alive and well and living in the Wikipedia category system: Category:Public schools in Northern Ireland has a mighty four articles, of which one is a multi-cat of the HMC, one is what would perhaps be more usually be called a "prep school", if it's indeed fee-paying (not clear from either the article or the web site), and the remaining two introduce the terminology of "voluntary grammar school" (which is a new one on me). If anyone has any knowledge, or better yet, sources, on this, this is another area that could stand some clarification. Alai

The problem we have here is that there is no coherent definition for "Public School" in the UK. I have just been to have a peek at Eton's web site and like most schools which are called Public Schools in the press they say in their FAQ that they are an independent:

Eton College is an independent, fee-charging, boys-only boarding school for approximately 1,290 pupils between the ages of 13 and 18. It is a Public School in the English sense and a Private School in the American sense.[18]

They also give a page to explain the old historical difference between public and private, which is not so different from that used by the Scottish contingent on this page. They also go on to say

It has now become common to replace the word ‘public’ by the word ‘independent’, meaning a school able to determine its own curriculum, admissions, fees, etc, largely independent of Government regulation. The expressions ‘Public School’ and ‘Independent School’ are thus virtually synonymous, with the former perhaps being regarded by some as slightly old-fashioned. school:[19]

To put in links to the above pages I broke Eton's forms to view then as Eton would like use their web portal http://www.etoncollege.com/default.asp.

Unless someone can find a school web site in England where a member of the HMC defines itself as a "Public School", I suggest that this discussion comes to an end that the page is moved to independent school (UK). At least then the page will be at a location which is used by both English[20], Scottish[21] and Welsh [22] independent schools

Here are two organisations which independent schools belong to in the UK to help with the search for the elusive Public School:

• http://www.isc.co.uk/
• http://www.scis.org.uk/

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That's my preferred solution too. (Or simply merge it with independent school.) The sector describes and defines itself in those terms, and the present-day phenomenon should be described in such an article. It won't entirely make these issues go away, of course, since either that article will still have to discuss the terminology, or a separate article at this title will do so. But it'd be a good start. Alai 03:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

compromise wording

look, irrespective of who's right overall -- does public school "naturally" have one meaning in Scotland, or the other, or neither, or both -- I don't think there's any doubt that even the relatively weak set of citations above show that at least both usages exist. I realize that the page name is a thornier issue; but I don't see any reason why the opening § can't have a compromise wording everybody can get along with. So I've tried to write one. Doops | talk 05:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I disagree with the notion that we should just avoid the whole problem by moving the whole shebang to "Independent School." Or at least not headlong. Perhaps there should be a split: one page with "independent" in its name could address the current status, popularity, successes, failures, etc., etc. of independent schools in the UK. But there would also need to be a "public school" page, as the natural place for links to go from Tom Brown's Schooldays, etc. In short, just because something is dead doesn't mean it doesn't get a page. Doops | talk 05:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur on both points. Most recent edits have reflected the "variability" of Scottish usage, one way or another, if we set aside lack of distinction present in the "British usage" version. And the difficulty of finding many citations either way is partly a reflection of a tendency to use different terms for both senses. (Still not quite convinced that the OED is staffed with rabid Scots Nats, though.) I think that ultimately the "major article" should be at independent school, but I wouldn't claim it'd be ideal right now. And consensus for a move of any sort currently looks unlikely, anyway, so I imagine we'll have the status quo. (Which has been that way for how long, incidentally? I gather since sometime before the 1.5 MW software, but aside from that...) Alai 06:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I totally dispute that both meanings have some kind of equality of usage in Scotland. What has been cited (eg The Scotsman example) are rare exceptions (and almost certainly meant mischieviously because it is about Tony Blair's school Fettes: The Scotsman is an arch-critic of Blair). By the way, why is there so much emphasis on Fettes in this discussion? There are many, many Scottish private schools, all of which are called private or independent in both official and everyday speech and text. I suspect that the Fettes and Gordonstoun references are because they are very widely perceived (wrongly) to be English institutions that happen to be located in Caledonia. What about Heriot's, Watson's, Stewarts Melville, Edinburgh Academy, Loretto, Merchiston, St Margaret's, St Serf's, Glenalmond, Dollar, Queen Victoria's, Dundee High, Glasgow High, Hutchie, Robert Gordon's, Kelvinside, etc? No way would any self-respecting Scot refer to any of these as "public schools", yet many of them as more ancient, more prestigious and have better academic records than many English public schools. Full list - "Scottish Independent Private Schools"

It is common knowledge in Scotland (and probably more outwith Scotland than this discussion acknowledges) that Scottish private schools are not referred to as public schools, except as a taunt or by non-Scots. The term is pejorative in a different way to its pejorativeness in England: by calling someone a "public schoolboy" in Scotland for example, you are effectively calling them a "non-Scot", which, as it would be in any other country, is a strong form of linguistic attack. That of course is why the Billy Connelly joke only really works properly with a Scottish audience: they are the only ones fully aware of the contrasting English and Scottish usages of the term "public school".--Mais oui! 06:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I wasn't trying to make a claim for "equality of usage." I was just trying to write a version that claimed, neutrally, the existence of both uses, because I was looking for a compromise wording that might acquire some stability. Your current version, Mais oui!, which bears your own particular stamp, will no doubt attract editors from the other side of the issue who will be drawn to give it their own slant; the battle will continue.

I understand why people from both sides of the issue care strongly that the article be accurate. They don't believe we should be ostriches, and that's noble of them. But as long as the content of that paragraph keeps changing rapidly, its phrasing won't be gradually perfected as it ought to be. I would prefer that the battle be fought out somewhere down the page so the opening § can acquire some stability and respectability. Doops | talk 15:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Fettes is a pretty weird case anyway, being by far (percieved as) the most "English" of the Edinburgh private schools - I don't know Glasgow or Aberdeen well enough to comment on their equivalents - and Gordonstoun... well, Gordonstoun is a strange place by anyone's standards, English or Scottish. Shimgray | talk | 15:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if there's a case for keeping the "Public schools (UK)" title, and trying to properly accommodate both the English meaning and the general Scottish meaning, so that the whole article disambiguates and clarifies these different perceptions. Some of the content might fit better under a "Independent School" article which would also have more on the other private schools. Considering the other options, have there actually been any "Public Schools" (not just "independent schools") in Wales and Ireland? Another question is whether "State school" is a bit POV as they're actually under LEAs (Local Education Authorities) with considerable autonomy...dave souza 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Scottish "Public school" vocab

I'd ask for references for these being Scottish "independent school" banter, but I know for a fact that with the possible exception of "spof" (which was a new one on me) these are all pretty generally used Scottish English, Scots, or slang (variously). Would anyone object to this entire section being dropped? Alai 06:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I consider it should stay, but evidently it's still not clear enough that Scottish public schools are council schools. Further clarifications added....dave souza 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see: I'd completely misunderstood the intent of your phrasing. Need a programme to keep track of the players, I suppose. Well, I think that's even more clearly beyond the scope of the article. Or any sensible scope at any rate, despite the "(UK)": surely we're discussing Scotland only insofar as to exclude and/or qualify it from the sense of "public school" being discussed, not to cover a distinct one. There are distinct articles for that. And I'm still skeptical that any of these are specific to schools of either flavour. Alai 00:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

One meaning or two?

Doops has reverted the following intro para, stating that "this article is about one thing, not two", and has amended the disambig notice to confine the usage to England and Wales.

In the United Kingdom the term Public school has two distinct meanings, related to different areas. The term is widely understood, particularly in England and Wales, to refer to a particular kind of fee-paying independent school with a long history in England. This usage also extends as far as the Indian subcontinent. In Scotland the term Public school has long been used to refer to schools in a public system available to all, and is still in use to refer to state sector schools under the control of Local Education Authorities providing free education, though Scots are well aware of the English usage.

The obvious implication is that the article should be moved to a more specific heading. The evidence so far is that all "public schools" are in England, so "Public school (England)" would seem the best choice. If there are any such schools in Wales, there's an argument for adding "and Wales", but as the usage clearly relates to an English tradition this seems superfluous.
In commenting on "Scottish public school vocab" Alai also wants to confine the scope of the article to the English sense. Presumably a move would meet this objective, with the section on vocab in Scots schools then properly being moved to another page, possibly a new article on Public school (Scotland).....dave souza 07:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I would be fine with moving this page to Public school (England). I suppose, though, that this might be insulting to any Scots out there who use the term in the other way than you and Mais oui! do. (I know that you two don't think any such Scots exist and perhaps you're right; I'm not qualified to say.) So how about this for a thinking-outside-the-box compromise: Public school (boarding school)? Ugly and unfelicitous, I know; but if it buys us some peace and tranquility... (By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody has made this suggestion before; I haven't had the patience to read all the historical arguments.) Doops | talk 07:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

(By the way, the reason I removed your ¶ was purely in the interests of my particular obsession: articles should begin strongly. Under your revision the page opened with a little disambig notice, then your paragraph, and then another paragraph written in the tone of a first paragraph. That in-between ¶ seemed ambiguous, uncertain about whether it wanted to be a disambig notice or a content one; I thought that the point was made clearly enough by the longer version of the italicized dab. Doops | talk 07:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

Fair points. I do feel that clarification of the meaning of UK is needed at the outset, both for readers unaware of the union and to avoid the common conflation of UK with England. Unfortunately this confusion is particularly common in relation to education, where government announcements about England & Wales are often reported (BBC and Guardian on school meals yesterday) without mention that they don't apply to Scotland. The usage of public school for LEA schools in Scotland isn't universal, though it has a long tradition and continued official use, however I do think Scots generally associate the other sense of "public school" with a specifically English tradition. However, although many people worldwide are aware of Billy Bunter, Tom Brown et al and of the English usage, the schools associated with it are (almost?) all in England. "Boarding school" might be contentious given the claims given in the "Differing definitions" section for some "day schools". Fee paying might be an option, but some Edinburgh Corporation schools were fee-paying, though never referred to as public schools. Public school (England) seems the best option if the meaning on this page is to be confined to the English usage....dave souza 09:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There has just been a requested move on this issue. There is no consensus for such a to PS(England etc). Further IMHO dividing the UK into regions because the nick name for a type of school differs in different regions is silly as no one has so far listed any independent school which calls itself a Public School. http://www.isc.co.uk . It makes more sense to move the article to "independent school (UK)" then put in a paragraph that some independent schools in England of used to call themselves Public Schools (insert Eaton's explanation) but now althougth the news media still use the expression the schools themselves do not. Philip Baird Shearer 15:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In fairness, please note that while the term 'public school' may not be explicitly used in their advertising by many (or any) schools these days, many are still referred to internally and by their former pupils using that term. To suggest that the term 'public school' is no longer heard outside the media or that it is an uncommon 'nickname' is frankly wrong. -- Necrothesp 18:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no rationale for an article titled Independent school (UK), since "independent schools" are much the same thing in every country of the world and don't need to be defined separately for each. However, I could imagine a page existing called Independent schools in the UK which discussed those schools, their advantages and weaknesses, their current status, any debates swirling around them, gave statistics (how many students attend there vs. state schools), and so forth. Such a page could certainly exist; and the name mentioned would be the appropriate one since "independent school" is the term with the best and most official currency today.

There would still be a need, however, for some page including "public school" in its title, which dealt with public schools as a historical phenomenon. Such a page would, like this page, discuss usage of the phrase, discuss which shchools the label was applied to, discuss "public school" vocab. It should also have sections discussing the myth aof the public school in Victorian and Edwardian fiction and how it compared with reality; have a section called "critics"; discuss whether or not modern independent schools still go by that name; etc.

A glance through "what links here" show that some of the pages which link to public school (UK) would, after a split, link to the one future page, some to the other. Among those which would continue to link to the one with "public school" in its title are— innumerable biographies of pre-WWII people; Such, Such Were the Joys, Football (soccer), received pronunciation, and so forth.

But the bottom line is that 1) if there were a split, it would be the "independent schools" page which is new, and the "public schools" one which would get this page's edit history, since it would keep more of its content. 2) the "public school" page is arguably more important than the "independent schools" page, since so many old biographies and suchlike need somewhere to link to so that American readers, etc., can quickly figure out why Eton is being described as a "public school." That being the case, I'm afraid we're stuck trying to figure out the best and least controversial name for this page. There's no easy way out.

But again, since a compromise is so desperately needed so we can all move on to other and more useful things, how about Public school (independent) Doops | talk 18:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

To have two pages describing the same schools is not IMHO the way to go. For a start you would have to decide when the name changed from public school to independent school and decide which were public schools before the name change. Unless you have a definitive documented date that is fraught with POV.

• Independent schools have been describing themselves as independent for many decades and not just in their advertising literature. Although I would agree that the nickname "Public school" is still used by some outside the media, I never heard an English person who went to a "public school" qualify the name of the school they went to with either either independent school or public school. They just went to "Rugby" or whatever, and it would be very non-U to have to describe the status of their school. In a broader context this is similar to the way one does not have to describe the status of Oxbridge or Ivy League.

No, not true. If you went to a famous public school like Eton or Rugby then it is true that you wouldn't need to say more than just the name of the school, since everyone's heard of them. But if you went to a lesser known public school (as the vast majority are) then you would indeed describe yourself as having gone to "public school", just as someone who went to an English state school would say they went to a "comprehensive" or "grammar school". It's not non-U at all - it's simply a statement of fact. I have never heard anyone say they went to an "independent school". -- Necrothesp 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If former pupuls find it "necessary" to distinguish between "grammar school" and "public school" in this manner (and I'd agree it's pretty common practice), then can we now agree that "public school = member of the HMC" is not an accepted or workable equation? Alai 17:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, since a grammar school and a public school are entirely different things, I fail to see your point. A grammar school is a state school, and like other state schools they can only belong to the HMC as additional members (of which there are only 30), not as full members (of which there are 240 - the public schools), as already explained. So yes, it's a perfectly "accepted or workable equation"! Yes, some public schools have "grammar school" in their title - that doesn't make them "grammar schools" in the generally accepted modern sense (i.e. a selective state school). -- Necrothesp 12:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• It is not just the schools that describe themselves as independent. The Government's OFSTED describes them as indpendent schools and makes a destinction between those which belong to ISC and thoses which do not in the OFSTED FAQ:

  "Ofsted only inspects independent schools which are not members of associations affiliated with the Independent Schools Council (ISC). The ISC has its own inspectorate which undertakes Ofsted style inspections of ISC schools: the Independent Schools Inspectorate's website is here"

• The Eaton explanation is a good as any I have see as to why some schools were called public schools and "It has now become common to replace the word ‘public’ by the word ‘independent’, meaning a school able to determine its own curriculum, admissions, fees, etc, largely independent of Government regulation." Using such a reference would be authoritative and not POV ridden as the current article is.
• A history section and possibly a literature section would cover the points you raise about the usage during WWI Tom Browns School days etc.
• A redirect from "public school (UK)" to "independent school (UK)" takes care of the public school links in articles such as Winston Churchill, A.E. Housman, Robert Graves Siegfried Sassoon etc, although at the moment they seem to get by, with just a mention of the schools by name and not type!
• As the term independent school is used in both England and Scotland it gets rid of that squabble.
• Further the article as it stands is a mish-mash of phrases which standardising on independent would solve, eg:

  Some public independent schools are particularly old, such as Westminster (founded 1179),....

  Today most public independent schools [in the United Kingdom] are highly selective

  Public schools are often divided into "major" and "minor" public schools, but these are not official definitions and the inclusion of a school in one or the other group is purely subjective (although a select few would be included in any list of "major" schools). This suggests that there is an official definition of public school if there is where is it?

  Many recently founded fee-charging schools do not refer to themselves as 'public schools', preferring the term 'independent school'. Well Eaton and Harrow describe themselves as independent schools so which ones are older than that?

  Many politicians of all parties, including even Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair (Fettes and Clement Attlee) (Haileybury), have been products of private independent schools.

• I think the name "Public school (independent)" is not a good idea. Nor is the opposite "independent school (public)".

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Point of information. Ofsted does not have any remit in Scotland, There it is Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education.--Mais oui! 22:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes the HMIE inspects all schools in Scotland as the SCIS make clear in their answer to FAQ Q9 How accountable are independent schools?". SCIS is recognised in Scotland as representin independent schools in Scotland [23] as ISC is in England. However the Independent Schools Council (ISC) has affiliated organistions one of which is the Headmasters' Conference[24] (HMC) which includes many Scottish independent schools including Fettes and Gordonstoun[25].Philip Baird Shearer 11:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, I wish people would join me in thinking like encyclopediasts. In the ideal world, what would there be? There would be a long, detailed article at independent school rather than a little stub; and it would deal with the phenomenon on a worldwide basis. There would be a long, detailed article at independent schools in the UK; and it would deal with any issues specific to independent schooling there. Neither of these pages exists at present. Surely we can all agree that the present article -- the one we're working on -- is not anything like what ought to exist for an independent schools in the UK article.

I keep trying to come up with new compromises, and another one has occurred to me: why not include all this trivia (because that's really what it is) about English public schools at the public school article (after the disambig, of course)? Doops | talk 23:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. We need an article to cover Eton, Marlborough, St. Cyprian's, etc. This should be called Public schools or some disambiguated variant. Even if this usage is now largely historical, we need an article on it. Independent school cannot cover the same topic: Dotheboys Hall was independent, but I don't think Mr. Squeers dared call it a public school, even in its advertising; and I'm sure no-one else has.Septentrionalis 16:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Three points about options mentioned in the polls above

1. One option suggests movement to Independent school (UK). In general, parentheses in article titles are used for disambiguation, not simply for making a page more specific; there are other ways to do that. We don't, for example, have an article titled Politics (UK), but rather Politics of the United Kingdom. So to me this parenthesized name suggests an article about the phenomenon of the UK independent school, which is somehow a different phenomenon than the independent school anywhere else, and from which, therefore, it must be disambiguated. But of course this is not the case; independent schools have much the same definition worldwide. If we want an article considering the intersection of Independent school with UK, the proper name should be Independent schools in the UK or something like that. Doops | talk 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware that by using brackets you can save some typing? eg [[Independent school (UK)|]] appears as Independent school Philip Baird Shearer 23:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no I wasn't aware. Thanks. But we could always do a redirect to make that possible; I don't think that's enough reason to stray from the naming conventions. (Plus who would want to make such a link? Least astonishment would suggest that an Independent school link would go to that article!) Doops | talk 23:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

See English interregnum and interregnum (England) for examples of this usage. But another move to a name without brackets can be decided once the move had been agreed and the page has been recustructed as there are several ways of writing it eg "UK independent school" and I think discussing it before a move has been agreed and reconstructoin of the article has taken place, is like discussing the number of angles on a pinhead. Philip Baird Shearer 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

or Saxons, for that matter. :) Doops | talk 03:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Another option suggests Public school (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland). As I've asked before, is there evidence that NI use is any different from ROI usage? I would tend to suspect not, since "public school" as a term was in its heyday long before the partition of Ireland. I suspect that in including NI in our title we're simply assuming that NI is "more UK-ish" than the ROI. But actually, if you think about it, the language of NI has quite a lot in common with that of Scotland; although I'm not an expert myself, I wouldn't be surprised to find the most England-like usage around Dublin. My guess would be that Ireland is in or out as a whole, not divided along the border. (Plus of course there's the Indian subcontinent to consider.) Doops | talk 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Is the voting only for support? Or can we make one-sentence statements of opposition below the options we oppose? Doops | talk 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

We've been thought several heated debates about approval voting and opposing does not count. You can always add you opposition in the Discussion section. We probably need to be able to add opposition voting BUT then it would not be approval voting. First "catch you hare" you would have to write an article on the rules etc and get a consensus to add the new voting system to the WP:RM page as guidelines. No one has yet been willing to invest the time and effort in setting up such a page and then getting it accepted as WP:RM guidelines. Philip Baird Shearer 23:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I asked was that with all the reams and reams of discussion below the poll, it's hard to know what discussion is "live" and what discussion is "fossilized." To be frank, for the past few days I'd been assuming that the poll had been abandoned as inconclusive. Absent the option adding opposition to the poll, I guess the only thing to do is what I've done — add another § at the bottom of the page. Any higher up on the page and I'd be afraid nobody would see it. :) Doops | talk 23:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Literary references to "public school"

I would like to hear some background on the social/class implications intended by the term when a character refers to "public school" (Dorothy Sayers's Lord Peter is the first name that pops in my mind at this moment, but there are so many others). I am an American reader of British fiction, but I sense that I'm missing elements of characterization, humor, sarcasm, and even sometimes of plot, because my sense of the term is incomplete. Also, have the the social/class implications of the term changed over time (say, turn of the 20th century to now)?

Sorry - I should have signed that, but it's my first time. -Adrienne

This is a good point and I think it should be reflected in the article to inform those who are unaware that in Britain "public school" tends to mean "ivy league" redoubled. I've made a stab at such a section. The term is still in use, as can be seen from comment in the Guardian about a court case brought by n aggrieved parent when the "public school" Marlborough expelled his son [26]...dave souza 21:32, 2 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)

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)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Independent school (UK) INSTEAD.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 addressed, 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 [27] [28] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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,[29] (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)

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)

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.[30] 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)