I hear and agree with 80% of what you write BeachLane, but when the comprehensive schools my DS attended for several years didn't teach him anything beyond what he had already learned by the end of Y9 towards his GCSEs (he is severely dyslexic but not stupid) then the state system I know it's under pressure to deliver average is only going to deliver average... and more average is NOT what is needed
@XingMing I do sympathise with this. I've never been in a situation where I could have afforded private schooling (already forego foreign holidays, new cars, etc just to pay bills and avoid debt). But I understand why people would do anything to give their kids a better start in life, whether that's academically or because their child doesn't feel safe in a school with a bullying culture. I wouldn't criticise individual parents for making those decisions, but I think the state could do a lot more to level the playing field.
The state system is terribly underfunded, and that impacts on exam results, pastoral care, facilities and many other things. I am lucky to live in an area with good state schools, but among other things they still have buildings falling apart, lack of equipment, shortage of teachers and other staff, parents have to pay a lot for text books the schools can't afford. That seems criminal to me. Even if politicians don't feel a duty of care to give every child a chance, they should at least realise that these kids are the resources this country will need to thrive in the next few decades. So if people who might be brilliant scientists, lawyers, statisticians, artists or whatever just don't succeed because of lack of specialist teachers, bullying, books, etc - that is not only a personal failure for them, it's someone whose skills this country doesn't get to benefit from in the future. Meanwhile, there are people with very limited skills and intelligence running the country because they happened to have gone the right school and made the right contacts. That just seems ridiculously short sighted, incompetent and unfair.
And as others have said, there's a difference between the local private school that just has slightly better exam results, better pastoral care, etc and public schools for the children of the wealthy. Those top 20 or so schools are the ones we should worry about. Yes, their alumni are charming, polite, well-educated people, BUT they are hugely over-represented in top jobs and top universities and far more likely to go on to powerful positions in industry, arts, politics, media and many other fields. That is not because they are especially clever, creative, analytical, etc. It's because their parents are rich. I don't see how we can ever create a fair, just society that works for everyone if those in power are from a tiny elite of the wealthy. I'm not saying those people should be punished or disadvantaged, just given equality of opportunity with everyone else. But for that to happen we need state schools to be centres of excellence where anyone from any background can flourish and we also need laws to ensure that opportunities in future life are awarded based on skills, intelligence, hard work, rather than belonging to an elite network.