Talk:Independent school

Public, Private, Independant in the UK

Someone added "In the United States..." to the opening sentence recently. Is "private school" really only a US usage? I thought it was fairly universal, even if British "public schools" are a kind of private school... does the phrase mean something else in other parts of the world, and if so, what? -- Rbellin 03:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Although other terms such as independent and fee-paying are used, the phrase private school is unambiguous in Britain. Public school is primarily used in England only and not, for example, in Scotland. Bovlb 14:17, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

I'd dispute this. The term "Private School" is not unambiguous in Britain. In England "Private School" correctly refers to a school which is not open to the general public (even if they could pay the fees). A "Private School" would be one set up solely for the use of an extended family or restricted to members of a particular group. "Independant School" is the correct term in England for a non state-school, (there are free "Independant Schools" so "fee-paying" would not be correct). English people educated in the state sector may get this wrong, or may deliberately use the term "Private" as a perjorative term to criticise Independant Schools, but the schools call themselves Independent or Public Schools. The language is different in Scotland and I've no idea about the Welsh. 195.212.29.75 15:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

Due to their ancient foundation, many public schools have a religious character, although this does not generally aim at pupils' religious indoctrination and does not preclude pupils of other faiths attending if they wish. Religion is not as important an aspect in the majority of parents' decision to send their child to an independent school as it is in the United States, due to the requirement of state schools to timetable periods of Christian worship. -- This passage is ambiguous in parts, and possibly somewhat POV. Can the author clarify? Thanks! ~ 67.42.203.155 11:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I deleted out the examples of "top of the heap" colleges, such as Yale, Williams, and Harvard. I also deleted the term "prestigious" when used to contrast schools for the performing arts with beautician schools.

Most private schools do not consider the academic achievement of applicants to be a deciding factor? Since when? One of the points of sending your child to a private school is to provide him or her with a superior education that will result, one hopes, in admission to a superior college or university. Private schools therefore do not particularly want poor or mediocre students, since their reputations partly depend on their college admissions results. I attended two private schools and had to take admissions examinations for both. Getting your child into a private school today is even harder than it was when I was an applicant.

Minority?

... private schools are favoured by a significant minority of parents because of their frequent achievement of academic standards higher than those of the state sector ...

Something doesn't seem quite right in that sentence, a significant minority? A significant majority would make more sense, but I don't want to edit it in case I misunderstood something. --80.171.52.14 11:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should imagine - though I am not the original author - that by "significant minority", is meant "less than fifty per cent, but more than negligible". "Significant majority" would change the meaning of the sentence entirely, but the significant seems there merely to suggest that the number of parents choosing independent education has an impact on broader education policy - which it does. Vneiomazza 16:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian section may need a rewrite

The section on public schools in India doesn't make much sense in parts. Although I realise it's trying to differentiate between the two uses of the term "public school" (in the American sense as a state-run school, and in the British sense as a private school), it could be rewritten to be a bit clearer and more coherent. I would rather not do this myself, as I don't know much about the Indian education system and might get it wrong. Walton monarchist89 09:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Parochial schools" =/= "Catholic"

In Milwaukee, where both the Catholics and the Lutherans maintain private schools systems, both are referred to as "parochial schools" (as distinguished from private prep schools, independent schools and charter [scam or not] schools).--Orange Mike 21:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be the case in several other cities I've been to, though. If it's limited to Milwaukee, then I think the "often" qualification is justified. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of schools based on the Catholic Christian tradition, "parochial school" has a distinct meaning and not all Catholic schools are parochial. "Parochial" schools are those Catholic schools associated with one or more parishes or are under the direct supervision of a diocese or archdiocese. Catholic schools that are operated independently by religious communities or by the laity generally are not referred to as "parochial." --Bond Head 23:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The entry on private schools in North America has all the feel of a public school activist writing in such a way to denigrate private schools.

If you are talking about the last paragraph, I agree. Even though I personally feel the paragraph is true, and maybe not even as harsh as it could have been, neither my personal opinion nor that of the person who inserted it justify such a POV violation in the article. --Orange Mike 00:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Christians are not sect

It’s nonsense to say “the Orthodox Christian sects such as the Russian, Greek and Byzantine”. One of definitions of sect that we can find at Wikipedia is: “In its historical usage in Christendom the term has a pejorative connotation and refers to a movement committed to heretical beliefs and that often deviated from orthodox practices.”--Jordan 777 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV and inaccuracies

Two edits to the Australian section 1. Removal of 'heavily government funded' - inaccurate since as a percentage of total income, government funding makes up a small proportion. A cursory examination of any private school's finances, made available upon request and to parents, suggests so.

2. Removal of 'perceived higher quality of education' - inaccurate. We live in a capitalist society people. Get real. Simple economics suggests that people, namely parents, will pay for their child's education and accordingly, and rightly, expect a better service. Moreover, teachers who are better at their professions will go where the money is better, private schools, because they can ask for it.

Really? In the U.S., wage levels are usually far worse at private schools because they are (by and large) not unionized and don't demand much in the way of credentials. Perhaps it's different in Oz. --Orange Mike 14:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further POV

"In the past, the culture of the private schools often led to behaviours such as student on student abuse and other forms of bullying that is generally strongly discouraged today, but still happens on a wide scale."

I would love to see the evidence for that. I'm deleting it as it does not contribute towards the article as a whole and is degrading and damaging to independent schools without having its own verifiable source. Not that I mind degrading and damaging to independent schools, it's just that it is a sweeping statement without backup. Crimson Blacknight 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]