Talk:Independent school (UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
Current Collaborations:	McGill-Toolen Catholic High School - Newton North High School - Kennet Comprehensive School

Contents 1 Archives 2 Page move 3 Origin of Term "Public School" 4 After the move: name 5 After the move: content 6 Bullying 7 Public Schools are not the same as Independent Schools 8 HMC again. 9 Unprotected 10 Downside foundation 11 Bullying, beating and buggery 12 dab header 13 English Public School Language 14 Language and Oldest School sections 15 POV/Untrue 16 Redirect? 17 University-preparatory school

[edit] Archives

• Talk:Independent school (UK)/Archive 1 live up to 17:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

---

[edit] Bullying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Public Schools are not the same as Independent Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)