Talk:Private schools in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use the 1889 yearbook 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bromsgrove School 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Public" due to prep. for "public service"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page move? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thatcher government reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: The claim made by  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Vote is now closed
*Name to remain Public school (UK)
# 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)
thread_title: Proposals

message: 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)
thread_title: Let's wrap this up

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Scottish "Public school" vocab

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Three points about options mentioned in the polls above 

message: 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 ...dave souza 21:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary references to "public school" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  After the move: name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  After the move: content 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  After the move: content 

message: 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)
thread_title: Page move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  After the move: name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  HMC again. 

message: 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 SidawayTalk 23:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: The school itself claims 1606, slightly earlier than we currently have in the article. Anyone know definitively? Barnabypage 14:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Downside foundation

message: 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)
thread_title:  dab header 

message: Why does "Public school (England)" redirect to this page, about Private schools? Anyone know? YaanchSpeak! 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um did you read the terminology section? Nil Einne 18:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  University-preparatory school 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Parents' Rationale 

message: 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)
thread_title: Fee fixing scandal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bullying, beating and buggery 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, this section clearly violates WP:NPOV! Pete Fenelon (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Political elite

message: "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)
thread_title:  POV/Untrue 

message: 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)
thread_title: Assessment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Language and Oldest School sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: Support: makes sense. Wouldn't have been a distinction at time schools were founded, of course! mervyn (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merged.  Kanguole 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merge of lists of oldest UK schools 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation vs. Neutrality for funding. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dubious reference

message: This is yet another list that everyone wants to add their favourite school to, and they're all unreferenced.  According to the ISC census, (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)
thread_title:  Schools with high fees 

message: 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.
Hairyboff (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone integrated the above? Note however that I have split 'Selection' from 'Conditions' now. PeterEastern (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection and Conditions section update?