However, have you failed to notice that any criticism on this thread levelled at the school seems to relate entirely to it being too much like a good state comprehensive?
The word 'good' being really important here. Many people don't have access to a good state comprehensive because catchments are so tiny and house prices near the good ones (just a different way of buying privilege) are so high.
If you don't have access to a good state comp where you live, and have the means to access a private school for about the same cost as moving into the catchment of a good state secondary, it can look like a good option.
We will be considering this for my kids when they're older. Their state primaries are great but they only have one non-selective option for secondary (the other state options are superselectives). So we can move away from all the things we love about our community, our support structures, the house we love, or we can think about private, or we can shrug and say 'we'll make the best of the not-great school'.
I'd love to be the sort of person who said 'we'll make the best of the not-great school'. But these are my kids, and I'm not a good enough person to sacrifice the best option for them that I can afford to do a tiny bit for the betterment of society as a whole.
Meanwhile, I'm holding out for the local comp to dramatically improve over the next five years. That would be the ideal.
Private education is problematic, but it's not the only form of social exclusion operating in the education system.