This is all based on the assumption that 'academic' subject are more valuable, when that shouldn't be the case. They also don't necessarily lead to more lucrative jobs, not that I think high pay should be the primary measure of success, but by way of example, a doctor I know told me that her local private school is now largely the preserve of successful plumbers, electricians and other small business owners, while the local solicitors and doctors who would have used the school a generation ago are now all sending their children to the state primary school.
The IBacc is part of the a system that values academic achievement over any other form of achievement. It is fine for those children who do indeed succeed in it, but it doesn't change the fact that 10% of children leave with absolutely nothing. In the past, when bits of paper proving exam results were less important, they would have found it easier to make something of themselves in their adult lives. Now they are far more likely to be trapped.
Britain and the USA consistently produce mediocre results in Pisa tests, yet have better economies that offer their populations far more diverse job opportunities than many countries with higher Pisa scores. There are a variety of reasons for this, but among them is the fax that our creative industries are enormous.
Minifingerz, you are too easily offended on Noblegiraffe's behalf. It was a theoretical argument, not a personal one. There is no need to take offence. Noblegiraffe said:
"Giving people of wealth and power an opt out from the state system in the form of private education is actively damaging (in my opinion) to state education."
I think that the idea that choice is something that the state should grant where it deems fit is deeply troubling. The idea of preventing people from choosing how to educate their children is akin to a Soviet or Maoist level of intrusion into the freedoms of private individuals. Ironing out inequality by banning education choice would indeed be horribly intrusive. In that context, there is a relevant parallel between private schooling and extracurricular activities.
It is reasonable to extrapolate an idea to its logical conclusion. This is not underhand - it is just playing with ideas. If you wanted to take it a step further you would have a hypothetical society in which everyone wears the same clothes, children are all sent to state-run nurseries from almost the moment of birth... You could reach a theoretical extreme in the other direction if someone wanted to suggest that everyone should contribute towards the costs of educating their children (an argument I have heard from a childless taxpayer before).
Private schools exist. They are part of the history and fabric of this country, in the same way that Christian schools are. I don't see any value in involving them in state education, just as I am opposed to the creation of new faith schools. Nevertheless, I don't see any value in banning them or of creating convoluted ways of 'allowing' them to continue to exist, as if that right can be withdrawn at the drop of a hat.