Allira
^I just feel that without the option of private education there would be more pressure on government to make sure that every child, no matter how rich or poor they are, is given the best possible start in life education wise so they can fulfil their true potential^
That should be an absolute given anyway.
Of course it should. But it isn't, and it's pointless pretending that it is.
I missed the 11+ and went to a very early comprehensive - the first year to do so in my area, and it was dreadful. I went into the 'top' stream, who were previously expected to have gone to grammar school, and it was bad enough for me (to be fair, I don't think many people got much of an education in state schools in the 70s), but the 'lower' streams weren't even taught the same subjects. We were divided into O level, CSE and no exam streams from the start and treated accordingly.
I did French, German and Latin, the CSE stream did European studies and goodness knows what the equivalent for the lower stream was. I did Biology, Chemistry and Physics, the CSE lot did General Science, and I think the others did Environmental Studies. The bottom stream did Gardening and Housecraft instead of Biology and academic subjects. There was no chance of moving to a 'higher' stream. Obviously there was resentment, and bullying was endemic.
It was huge culture shock, as I went there straight from a small primary school where teachers and parents were friends. I suppose my family was middle class (Dad in CS senior management, Mum stayed at home), but we were far from well-off or in any way pretentious, yet I was called a snob, which I wasn't. I left as soon as I could and the only thing I learnt was how to get on with a wide range of people and how to stand up to bullies. I guess both of those things have stood me in reasonable stead one way or another, but career-wise, if I hadn't had the support of Mr Dog to go back into education in my 20s I would have had a job rather than a career. Much, I suppose, as if I'd gone to a secondary modern. It was dumbing down.
Speaking personally, I would almost certainly have been better off under a grammar school system, but I am well aware of the unfairness of condemning the majority of children to that sort of 'education' and creaming off a few for 'better things'. It wasn't even fairly done, as has been explained upthread. In some areas it was far easier to get to grammar school than in others, yet many older people still boast about it as pensioners 
. A friend of mine went to a girls' grammar and boasts about her 'excellent education', despite leaving at 15 with no qualifications.
My children went to state schools, and by then schools had got their act together and it was easier to move streams - my children were streamed by subject for a start, which we weren't. However, our local high school gets 'excellent' OFSTED results, largely because the staff are very well aware of how to weight the system in their favour, and only enter children for exams if they know they will do well. The school scores far better than the equivalent school in a neighbouring but worse-off town, but in the neighbouring school more children get more chances to do well.
I have two bright children (I know - I would say that, wouldn't I, but as everyone on GN has exceptional children/grandchildren, why be modest 
?) and one of them is dyslexic. They had very different experiences, despite the fact that I worked in education and was not reticent about advocating for the dyslexic child and knew how to do it effectively.
Of course it should have been a given that I was taught in a way that encouraged such abilities as I had, and that my children should have had equal and tailored experiences at school, but none of us did.
I don't want to condemn more children to that, but it shouldn't be a binary choice. Neither do I see the answer as allowing those who are more likely to complain about failings to just take the easy way out by paying for an experience that doesn't rely on their input. If everyone had to advocate for children then those whose parents were unable to do so would be carried along in a more general move to higher standards because all articulate and knowledgeable parents would be doing so. Isn't that fair?
I appreciate that one of the reasons for the success of private schools is that staff are well aware that paying parents want value for money, so they 'up their game' or get out. Why can't that be a tenet of education in general? Lack of money and investment, general disenchantment, being worn down by experience - all of those things are understandable, but shouldn't be the norm, and I can't help thinking that things would change if there wasn't an 'opt out' for those who can afford it.
In the interests of full disclosure though, I would ban private schools altogether, so to me bringing them in line with general taxation is something of a concession.
. My daughter left teaching for several reasons but one of them was the lack of resources and class sizes. At one time she didn’t even have a desk.