They shouldn't - it's an act of fraud on a massive scale, but the Charity Commission is completely toothless.

Completely agree - they shouldn't - I expect that will change by the time of the next election

Whether public or private schools are involved ,one thing that can't be taught is intelligence & creativity ,there are no qualifications in the world for that & there are no guarantees that the man/woman who has been schooled through his/her qualifications is not as thick as two short planks. That's why many of our inventions of our past & present have come from the mind of the man or woman in the street who has gone on to make a fortune.

Ideas are developed by interaction with other people who have diverse experiences - where do you think that is more likely to happen? It is no surprise that kids from private schools on the whole do better - they mix in diverse challenging environments where ideas are discussed/challenged at a more rigorous level.

I’d be absolutely astonished if a Johnson-led government challenged the charitable status of public schools (I cba to check, but I think the distinction between a public school and private school in this country is that former is not for profit and eligible to be a charity). A cartoonist who worked for the Spectator was surprised at the freedom he was given to mock all sorts of people and institutions under Johnson’s editorship - but the line was drawn at Eton.



I largely agree about the genesis of ideas and the foundation of sound thinking. However, although it is a different type of homogeneity to that in many state schools, it is still a problem in public/private schools - especially the more elitist (or ‘elite’ if you’re on their side). While it is no surprise that the more advantaged kids do better (although I think accepted metrics of success may be skewed by a culturally dominant elite [arguably part of their success, I admit]), I think the reason you give is only one of many, and some of the others are less wholesome.

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but I understand why people dislike out of touch liberal elites with their tofu and courgettes and avocados and hypocrisies. What I struggle to follow though is the embrace of Johnson or Rees-Mogg as champions of decency or normalcy or competency.

The Tories have got win northern votes - this is a no brainer - even a soft left Labour will attack the elitist nature of the Tories and something will have to give.

It will be different but at a higher level of debate - I am not trying to be elitist but I guarantee the level of debate in my household will be on a different level to that of the majority of kids attending public sector education. I really valued education as a platform for my children for their adult life and that didn't just mean the 3Rs - it was about challenging their thought processes and how they engage with the people around them. If you appreciate classical music or classical writing or travel it must enhance your existence and what you can offer in debate. Likewise if you like sport or economics etc. this diversity breeds development of ideas and if you have a better way of expressing it so much the better

It's doublethink, pure and simple. It was perfectly summed up yesterday by twitter rent-a-gob, Darren Grimes.



Note how he makes a point of tagging on 'elites' and 'Oxbridge-class rule' to make it sound like it's a bad thing on Labour's part.

Now, let's list the next 3 Conservative prime-ministers after Gordon Brown. These are the same 3 prime-ministers who plonkers like Darren Grimes cheerleads for...

David Cameron: Eton & Oxford
Theresa May: Oxford
Boris Johnson: Eton & Oxford

I agree, and it is how best to develop that for as many people as possible.

I was thinking of putting something about education in the New Sides thread, because it seems like an obvious win across the political spectrum. While we all want to level up the education rather than drag the best performers down, I’m not sure a structure I’d regard as being the pinnacle to aim for exists yet, in the UK at least.

It is very difficult to think about ‘success’ without prejudice and snobbery of one type or another. As my own attitude towards the Daily Star demonstrated to me the other day. And, tbh, my attitude towards Harrow, Eton etc. Fine line between being discriminating and discriminatory sometimes!

What do you all mean by education? The study and respect of all things or how to present yourself in a difficult moment by reciting facts or evidence or charm? I've studied a hell of a lot over the years, mainly due to a change in career but do I feel enlightened or enriched? No not really, that came when I read the classics on my night shifts back in the day. Do I know my stuff for my job - a qualified yes - but a well presented confident person who doesn't know the job to my level would easily trump me due to the attributes obtained from a private education. Are these type of people suitable to run a company or the country? In my opinion no, the cycle needs to be broken.

I wonder if, where Blair and Cameron extended their parties’ appeal in an effort to claim the middle, the fringes have found common cause by turning on the middle - creating some unlikely alliances. It is a powerful, and [ipotentially[/i even refreshing, force but one that will be difficult direct when ‘normal’ politics comes out of lockdown.

For public sector education to be a better standard you have to get parents to buy in and support it. Education is like health where ever it is seen as effectively free then it will never be given the gravitas it deserves. Parents take private education seriously because the costs are significant and they expect positive outputs - that doesn't just mean exam results.

I strongly disagree about snobbery - anyone can be successful regardless of upbringing - many use it as an excuse as to why they haven't been successful or climbed the ladder. Yes it might make it easier to get a job in the civil service or with a wine merchant where you can plod along your whole career but out in the private sector the quality of your contribution matters and the reward structure reflects that.

Maybe snobbery isn’t quite the right word, but the way we judge value and what we regard as success inevitably reflects our own preferences and prejudices. Sometimes we need to make quick judgements based on limited evidence to get through life, but they often won’t be fair or wise.

I’ve worked in the private sector these last six years and did a year back in the 90s too. I did a few months in the public sector in 2004 and around that I was in academia. Some of the stereotypes on all sides have truth to them. Across all of them I found good, talented people, and success (in terms of progression) among them seems to me to have been largely a function of ambition and right-place-right-time luck. I’m happy to say/admit that, with some ups and downs along the way, I’ve had my share of luck. People who think their success is all down to their own efforts, or that you ‘make your own luck’ I find a bit tiresome, similar to those who think their disappointments are all down to bad luck. There are extreme cases of pure good and bad fortune, but they’re the outliers. You can’t legislate for luck but it is a huge factor.

Private education buys you access to the right people and perpetuates the old boy/old school tie networking that keeps the upper echelons of society in their privileged position. The sooner it is done away with so that every kid gets a fair crack the better. Eton and Harrow would be better purposed educating special needs kids.

The first thing to do is remove their charitable status.