That's confusing as hell. Can anyone please explain?
Also, while that person's comment is correct, it's worth noting that not all private schools are referred to as public schools. That name is only for the oldest, mostly-boarding schools that were big players when the system was (finally) formalised in the 19th century. The vast majority of private schools would just be called private schools. And then state schools are the genuinely-free ones.
[0] ETA: Mostly around the Tudor period I believe; i.e. by Shakespeare's time most if not all of them were well established.
Basically there is a time when education was almost exclusively monastic; those who were not taught privately were taught by religious institutions.
The public schools were free of that influence to a greater extent.
There is one more tier of school you don't mention which sits somewhere below "public": the "commercial school". There were some of these owned by the livery companies, and were a tier of schools that were created along the lines of the public schools but before the school system was fully established. Most of them were not fee-paying but were funded by donations or livery company charitable funds. They taught largely vocational skills (but professional ones rather than technical ones); parents sent their kids to commercial schools to bring back the knowledge to professionalise the family business or to set them up in a trade.
(I went to a school that was originally founded this way, but was a part-state-owned grammar school by the time I got there a century later)
Though it adds another small question: aren’t/weren’t most public schools severely Anglican? I know my school was quite radical at the time for admitting Jewish boys, so that always painted a picture of a not-exactly-super-secular institution, but maybe I’ve got the wrong impression in some way...
Also, those commercial schools sound a bit - subtracting for a moment the fee-paying aspect - like the German technical education system which I’ve always liked the sound of. I wish we had something more like that today, though obviously now it wouldn’t - or shouldn’t - be fee-paying.
Yes -- implicitly.
(sidebar: I am not sure that, when public schools really first sprang up, it was even possible to educate people of Jewish descent; the situation for Jews in england in particular was deeply complicated by their unique relationship to the state as established by the Magna Carta. Either way, they were not landowners by law and therefore probably not that interesting to the church.)
But at any rate as Wikipedia says, the first public schools appear to have been generalised and detached versions of grammar schools, which were the schools run for wealthy families that were attached to churches and monasteries.
Those schools started off teaching young people the skills needed to function in church life, but eventually they seem to have become so generalised for various other trades that they separated themselves in an administrative sense.
They'd have had lots of clergy doing the teaching nonetheless, I imagine, simply because really only clergy had access to education at that point.
I am not sure how "technical" the school I went to ever was in its earliest form (we did have technical schools in the UK for a while as a precursor to the comprehensive system).
I get the impression it was commercial in the sense that it taught reading and writing necessary for conducting a business, maths necessary for bookkeeping and engineering, and some science.
(The livery company that founded it still owns half of it -- the outside half, literally)
It was a school that was open, in principle, to anyone. Think ‘free as in speech’ vs ‘free as in beer’, but with the added sense - like ‘public transport’ - of being democratic and round-about-accessible to all.
As for the US: when it began, fee-paying schools were the dominant mode, and there wasn’t really an aristocracy with private tutors to distinguish it from. So it never needed the ‘public’ - and when government schooling became a thing, it pretty naturally took on the ‘private’ qualifier instead.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public%20school
“An endowed secondary boarding school in Great Britain offering a classical curriculum and preparation for the universities or public service.”
The purpose of public schools isn’t academic excellence (though of-course they support it for their most able pupils) but networking and the ‘habits of person’ necessary to compete socially in class-sensitive institutions.
The state did not run schools when these were established. It's much older than that as a term.
I went to a private school aged nine to 13 and a public school 13 to 18. Then I went to a polytechnic, which changed its name after a year and then two (three?) years later it was a university! Whilst in sixth form (17/18)
So the message here is that the public/private distinction for school nomenclature here in England and perhaps some or most if not all the UK doesn't mean what it does elsewhere, unless it does except where it doesn't ... except on a weekend when all bets are off. Clear? Jolly good. As you were, carry on!
And, more importantly, thanks for adding detail on the state school side of things, which I suppose I left out of my answer because it’s not something I know about. It was definitely sorely needed.
Another example - public houses (aka pubs) are generally for-profit private (or large chains may be public in the sense of being listed) companies that take your money in exchange for real ale and good food; not social housing!
The more confusing thing is that we now (see history in sibling comments) have 'private schools' too. What you call 'public' are 'state' schools here, or something more specific where it's implied ('grammar', 'comprehensive', 'academy').
I know you're being dramatic, but at least charities in the UK do have vastly different treatment by HMRC, and much more granular financial reporting requirements.
Raspberry Pi foundation annual accounts are here: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live....
For example we can see one member of staff was taking home more than £290k in 2020
It seems this is a rather profitable business hiding beneath the label of "education exemption"
For example, a university student union can sell you beer in the SU bar and run events to raise cash in order to further its aims in education and student experience etc.