LAUSR

Westminster School) gain one between them. This may not reduce the accuracy of the opinions expressed but it does skew the perspective. Additional information was gleaned from interviews and correspondence with many who worked in these schools. Thanks are expressed at the end of the book to more than a hundred men and women who helped in this way – but only the 15 whose quotations are published are identified in the endnotes. Statements made by all his other contributors are used without attribution. In fact, a close examination of one chapter shows that Peel only names the source of his evidence if it is in the form of a direct quotation; nothing else can be traced. Did his sources ask for anonymity, or did his publisher demand fewer endnotes? Whatever the reason, the book’s usefulness to students and researchers is reduced. Finally, let us return to the title – The new meritocracy. If Peel means by this that the independent sector has earned this label because its leading schools are the best in the country, and that they reached this position through their own efforts, then fair enough. But if he boasts that their former pupils now form the nation’s new meritocracy, then he is overstating his case. Yes, there are more means-tested bursaries nowadays but private education still remains out of reach of the vast majority of the population. Merit is earned and not bought.