
DaveR
Member-
Posts
2,263 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Blogs
FAQ
Tradespeople Directory
Jobs Board
Store
Everything posted by DaveR
-
I remember (vaguely) that for reading there were different colour groups, and that from pretty early on different kids got different work sheets. It becomes pretty obvious anyway when some kids are still reading books with six words per page and others are starting on Treasure Island. On the bigger issue, my instinct is the same - bright academic kids will do well anyway - but when you have to make an actual decision for your own child it becomes a little less easy. It's a bit like the rehabilitation of inner city primary schools; most parents hang back until the pioneers have got in there, made themselves governors, secured a new 'super head' etc., then gratefully follow behind. Not very noble but completely understandable.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29346906 There are a couple of threads already going where the benefits or otherwise of private and/or selective schools are going strong, and this seemed to me to be pretty relevant. The conclusions of this research (which I understand are consistent with lots of other research) reveal a pretty brutal and uncomfortable truth - streaming (and by implication selectivity in education in general) benefits more able kids but actively hampers less able ones, so the incentives for those two groups of kids and their parents are diametrically opposed. I think this chimes with most people's intuitive take on it (hence the continuing popularity of grammar schools wherever available) but to see it supported by hard data is something else. Also the political spin is interesting. This conclusion: "Streaming undermines the attempts of governments to raise attainment for all children whatever their socio-economic status. "Those of lower socio-economic status, as identified across a range of measures, tend to be disproportionately placed in lower streams, with consequences for attainment." actually raises more questions than it answers. Getting rid of streaming may well close the attainment gap but on the evidence that's as much because you're bringing the top down as the bottom up. It also begs the question why "Those of lower socio-economic status, as identified across a range of measures, tend to be disproportionately placed in lower streams"; it kind of leads to an obvious and equally uncomfortable nature vs nurture question.
-
"What pro bono things has Alleyn's School done for the East Dulwich community since the 2006 Act? Do these things surmount the de minimis threshold?" No - the trustees have no obligation to do anything for the East Dulwich community. The object of the charity that operates Alleyn's School is: "TO CONDUCT AT DULWICH A DAY SCHOOL FOR BOYS AND GIRLS, IN WHICH THERE SHALL BE PROVIDED A PRACTICAL, LIBERAL, AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, INCLUDING A SENIOR SCHOOL AND (IF THOUGHT FIT) A JUNIOR SCHOOL" The trustees have to demonstrate that they have pursued that object in such a way that more than a token or de minimis benefit has arisen for the poor (widely defined - in practice, families who cannot afford to pay the fees). So it's primarily about bursaries or tangible educational benefits to non-Alleyn's schoolkids.
-
The Dulwich estate ? modern day reverse Robin Hood ?
DaveR replied to DadOf4's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
Just going back to the original post re split in distributions between the beneficiaries, it appears that the percentages were fixed when the charitable scheme was last revised in 1995, so the 85% to DC, Alleyns and JAGS is not the decision of the trustees. Why it was fixed at that level I have no idea. "I suppose the real question is, does the modern world with universal state education available need educational charities like Dulwich anymore to advance education?" You can also turn the question around and say in a modern world where educational charities exist, and comply with their obligations, should they be stripped of their charitable status because the state is willing to provide education to everyone? And ask a similar question about medical charities, for example. I don't have any particularly strong feelings on the topic, largely because I just don't buy the idea that private schools are evil engines of social division and corrupt elitism, and the opposition to them having charitable always seems to me to come from people who actually object to the fact that they exist at all. -
The Dulwich estate ? modern day reverse Robin Hood ?
DaveR replied to DadOf4's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
"Fundamentally, a school which charges pupils thousands of pounds a term for their education is not a charity. Can anyone honestly suggest that it is, in the sense that most reasonable people would understand it?" I posted a link on page 1 to a legal judgment that is very long and tedious, but which answers this question: "The meaning which the law and lawyers give to ?charity? does not correspond entirely with the meaning of the word as ordinarily understood. It is important to remember that, in the proceedings before us, we are concerned with the legal concept of charity and not with the ordinary meaning of the word" Charitable status is a legally defined status, and all the formalities associated with charities (including relating to tax) flow from that. There are lots of words in every day use that also have precise legal meanings, but not many that people care about. -
The Dulwich estate ? modern day reverse Robin Hood ?
DaveR replied to DadOf4's topic in General ED Issues / Gossip
Perhaps unsurprisingly there is a boring and complicated legal answer to the question 'why is this considered a charity', largely arising from litigation involving independent schools and the Charity Commission in 2010-2011. The judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2011/421.pdf Pretty heavy going, even for lawyers, but the key finding was that assessing whether a trust was entitled to charitable status involves asking 'what was it set up to do?', not 'what is it actually doing now?'. Providing a general education has always been recognised as a charitable purpose, so unless the original trust document said 'education only for the rich' it's fine. The relevance of what the school is actually doing is to whether it is fulfilling its charitable purpose, and on that score the court said it's up to the trustees in each case to make sure they do enough to meet the public benefit test. Going back to the OP and sports clubs, one thing that is clear is that if you are an educational charity, doing non-educational 'good deeds' e.g. making your sports facilities available for free to local clubs is outside your charitable purposes and may be a breach of trust, which is a little ironic. In an ideal world fee paying schools would aim to be 'needs blind' i.e. if you satisfy the entry requirements you get whatever financial aid is necessary for you to take up a place. The difficulty is that you either need to start with a massive endowment fund (a la Harvard) or it needs public money. If the Tories get re-elected, we might hear more about it though: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d00408ba-e012-11e2-bf9d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3E21GfEpN -
I'd recommend going up The Gherkin (so to speak) - the view from the top is spectacular.
-
In the event of a 'no' vote, expect a major row over any proposed more favorable political/economic settlement for a devo-max Scotland, including re Scots MPs in Westminster, with no public sympathy for Scotland anywhere else in the UK, and especially not in the SE. Subsidising the jocks when they're out of sight/mind is one thing - giving them a load of pressies when they've just voted 51:49 not to f*** off is a bit different.
-
"However, indicators of deprivation are not a direct link to economic circumstances.and single indicator anyhow is usually not seen as a sign of deprivation in and of itself." do you have a link for that?
-
Lots of people suggesting I have been alarmist ("pushing people to the brink of hunger") or somehow misrepresenting the stats. I thought I made a simple point - the fact that ED shops now appear to cater disproportionately to those with more expensive tastes does not mean that those people are the majority, it just means that they have more money to spend. In those circumstances, assuming that Iceland giving way to M&S is not going to affect a large number of people is probably wrong. By way of an aside, it's interesting how everybody feels qualified to dismiss statistics that are inconsistent with their own experience/prejudices. The point about indicators of deprivation is that it has been established through analysis that certain factors (on which data is available) correlate strongly with deprivation, so they are a fairly reliable proxy, but by degree (hence 1 - 4 indicators). Of course they are not perfect, but you can be pretty sure the dataset and methodology is more robust than 'what me and all my friends think'.
-
"DaveR, when you look at the businesses that are struggling for customers, its pretty clear what the demographics are like. Rich newcomers are not from a minority position closing down all of the working class outlets. Again, the CPT turning into the Great Exhibition is a perfect example of why that argument makes no sense" Pubs are not really representative though, because the fundamentals of the market have changed so much. The stats don't lie though. Here's another one - between 2001 and 2011 the proportion of ED households displaying at least one indicator of deprivation declined significantly, but from c.56% to 46% i.e. nearly half of all ED households still show statistical indicators that correlate with deprivation: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6501600&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=10&g=6336662&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410795001822&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2520 http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6501600&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=10&g=6336662&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410795001822&enc=1&dsFamilyId=169 It's easy to think this can't be true when new shops and restaurants are buzzing and new funky businesses opening all the time, but that's really my point. It is actually very likely that a minority (albeit a sizeable one)of local residents are supporting the majority of these businesses.
-
"I remember (luckily I did this at a time of high inflation, when my 'real' debt came down quite quickly), that the early years of property ownership, with small children, were not a time of unlimited disposable income, even though I would have been in a more privileged position than some - the equivalent of those being portrayed here....... Those with real disposable income in ED are those who bought some time ago, have paid down or off their mortgage and whose children are now (more) self supporting, I would suggest." Possibly, but I suspect not. People buying in ED 10 - 20 years ago were able to do so on average London incomes - not at all the equivalent of anyone buying a family home now - and I seriously doubt there are many mortgage lenders handing out 1/2 million ? and more to folks who will be cutting back on their M&S shops to afford the repayments. In any event, although the prevalence of house price discussions on here may suggest otherwise, only a little over 50% of households in ED are owner-occupied, the balance being fairly evenly split between private and social housing tenants: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6501600&c=East+Dulwich&d=14&e=7&g=6336662&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1410792592597&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2505
-
"Ignoring the hyperbole, I suspect that the local demographic has actually tipped from Iceland to M&S - hence the changeover.......What this does mean is that choice for some in ED will be restricted - and that Iceland's absence, for some, will be a real loss. But those numbers will be less (and increasingly so) than those who think they will benefit from a small ED M&S." The first bit must be true in purely financial terms (M&S can only outbid Iceland on the lease if they can bank on making more money) but I'm much less sure about the second part. I've noted before that gentrification has an effect on the profile of local businesses that is massively disproportionate to the numbers of people involved - to put it bluntly, a family spending a million plus on a house are likely to have a load more disposable income than any number of long time local families on low incomes. Businesses that cater to the tastes of the (comparatively) wealthy will prosper and attract other, similar offerings, and potentially drive out even established businesses that may have lower turnover and lower margins. Successful independents attract upmarket chains, etc. etc. The demographic 'tipping point' comes way before high-spending incomers are actually in the majority. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of people in ED would prefer Iceland over M&S (and The Castle over The Palmerston, AJ Farmer over Oliver Bonas, and anything over Foxtons), even if I'm not one of them (at least as far as M&S and the Palmerston are concerned). But it's not so easy to do anything about it, and it would almost certainly be unlawful to use planning law, for example.
-
A criminal charge for fare evasion requires proof of an intent to avoid payment so the 'country bumpkin' who assumes he can pay on the train will have a good defence. In my relatively limited experience it's rare for people to be charged unless they are persistent offenders, or have altered a ticket or similar obviously dishonest behaviour. I have never heard of a case of someone being charged after going to the 'fares to pay' window, presumably because it's going to be impossible to prove the intent to avoid payment.
-
I can understand the argument for independence based on there being a distinct Scottish nation, rooted in specific territory and a strong national identity, and I don't think there's ever been any realistic doubt about that. I also don't think that there's any room for dispute that an independent Scotland is in principle viable in economic and political terms. However, the overwhelming likelihood is that for the foreseeable future the Scots will be better off in the Union than out of it, and the short term costs of a Yes vote (both in terms of actual transition costs and 'volatility' costs) will be large, and will fall disproportionately on the Scots. You also have to ask what sort of government an independent Scotland is likely to end up with - Salmond likes to talk up the history of the Scots as inventors and merchants but there's not much evidence of that history now, and you have to think that a newly independent Scotland is likely to see a brain drain to match the outflow of capital.
-
This is the verdict (no jury). And he has been acquitted of murder. And I wouldn't advise gunning the missus down on the basis that he seems to have wriggled off the hook - decisions in individual trials on the particular facts don't set precedents, and SA trials definitely don't set precedents elsewhere.
-
"sorry D_C, another pedants myth. disinterested can also mean uninterested as well as neutral" Not so sure it's a myth - rather that usage encompasses both meanings. Uninterested is more precise because it doesn't have the alternative meaning. Re England football, we have some decent young players but the closing of the skills gap between us and other countries just makes our tactical ineptitude more glaring.
-
Bamboo. Hard as nails, cheap as chips (comparatively) and eco-friendly.
-
Ideas for stop-over on way to Aus?
DaveR replied to Bonfire2010's topic in The Family Room Discussion
There isn't anywhere on the way that I would recommend for 2 weeks without some onward travel (I loathed Dubai, but others love it). Singapore is the obvious place though, because there's easily enough to do there for a few days while you're recovering from the first flight, and there are short flights from there to loads of other places where you might want to spend a week or so, including in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam etc. I also rate Singapore Airlines and Singapore airport as among the best in the world. The only specific place to stay I can recommend is in Penang, where I go often, and have stayed with kids at the Hard Rock Hotel - fab. -
Surrogacy is a legal nightmare, even more so when it is arranged informally, and worst of all internationally, where UK law, (or in this case Australian law) will usually follow whatever the legal position is at the time and place of birth. In many countries the default position is that the legal mother is the birth mother, and the legal father is the husband of the birth mother or no one i.e. no automatic parental rights flow from being a genetic parent.
-
"Has anyone been to the less flashy part of the French Med towards Spain? The Cote Vermeille?" Yes - I've been to Collioure a couple of times. It's a lovely town but unsurprisingly it gets very busy during the summer.
-
"What's a good way to foster fanaticism and radicals?" By continuing to launch largely ineffective rockets attacks against random civilian targets, inviting retaliation, whilst taking cash from your foreign sponsors and grandstanding to your own people about how you are sticking it to the oppressor "At some point someone somewhere will show an act of faith. And it will need brave leaders to act on it. And it will need pressure from extrnal countries." Correct - and one of those brave leaders needs to be Palestinian "Whatever the beliefs of the various neighbouring countries, Israel is behaving abominably. You cannot watch the footage, count the victims on all sides, see the disparity in weapons and say they are all as bad as each other" No, but you can recognise that, for as long as Hamas attacks continue, any Israeli govt that doesn't retaliate will be replaced by one that will. There are lots of differing views among the Israelis, but not while the rockets are falling. Hamas know this too. "You cannot say well if one behaves badly what do they expect. How does that differ from people who watched the twin towers fall and clucked "well America had it coming" " Unworthy even of you.
-
So, hilariously, I'm being slippery when I distinguish between (1) war and (2) people talking about said war on an Internet forum. I think a perspective check might be in order. Similarly in relation to comments like 'people think it's a game'. SJ, just because people don't take you as seriously as you might like doesn't mean opinions on the actual issues are not sincerely held.
-
"There has to be an incentive for Hamas to give up armed resistence, no?" Unfortunately, Hamas' existence and popularity is essentially predicated on armed resistance. " "side endlessly congratulating itself on how clearly right it is and getting 9mock) indignant about stuff." " that is gross misrepresentation as well - this mock-indignace. Who exactly are you to call what's happening, and reaction to it "mock"?" To be clear, the description 'mock' indignation does not refer to reactions to events in Gaza, but reactions to posts on this forum. Use of the phrase "gross misrepresentation' is a case in point.
-
I haven't posted recently because there is no debate here - just disagreement, with one side endlessly congratulating itself on how clearly right it is and getting 9mock) indignant about stuff. There is a macro question - what is the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which is complicated and involves lots of other parties apart from the current government of Israel, Hams and Fatah. Then there is an immediate, micro question - what should happen right now? The answer to that is clear - a cease fire by both Israeli forces and Hamas. So yes, no more rockets is an inescapable part of that, and counting bodies on either side doesn't change it.
East Dulwich Forum
Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.