Earl Aelfheah

I think you may misunderstand what a meritocracy is.

All these italics are irking me

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nine per cent - almost one in 10 head teachers and > senior staff - said that a child aged between five > and seven had come to school wearing a nappy in > the past year. The figure was five per cent for > classroom teachers. 5 per cent of classroom teachers come to school wearing a nappy?

The CS6 Superhighway (Penge to City - via Camberwell and Elephant and Castle) has been dropped. Yet more proposed transport improvements for SE London dumped by Boris. So not only does this part of London lack the tube, have an increasingly unreliable rail network, very few Thames bridges (after Boris dropped a proposal), no tram (after Boris dropped a proposal) and no Boris bikes (They're being extended West). It now misses out on a cycle highway too. Maybe he could also withdraw the bus service in this part of town? Excellent.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. The difference with medical charities is that they are not exclusive in the same way - the research they undertake, or the treatment and support they offer isn't limited to mainly wealthy individuals, but is for the general good.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t know the answer to the question I posed > but am glad its sparked debate. I can see both > sides of it. > > The benefits and goals that educational charities > were initially set up for are increasingly > difficult to achieve in the modern world. Private > education can be socially divisive and can > reinforce elitism while simultaneously preventing > social mobility, which is contrary to their > benefactors? original wishes. Many countries have > virtually banned private education so there > certainly is precedent. The law can and does > change so I am not really compelled by the legal > argument at all. > > However, these institutions set a bar to which > state education continually tries to strive > towards and in that respect, the by their very > existence advance the quality of education for > everyone. Also the concentration of facilities > have created terrific athletes etc for their > country. > > I?m beginning to feel that for educational > charities to be fit for purpose in the modern era > and fulfill the aims of their founders, they have > to become need blind via support from the state. I agree with all of this, but isn't that effectively what free schools are?

Definitely prefer chicanes to speed bumps, although difficult for buses I would guess.

I don't think there's been any 'chippy shouldered class whinging', I think there's been some generally reasoned debate on both sides.

cle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think it's a way of shutting down a debate > - it's a way of framing an alternative > perspective, making the point about not all > private schools being the same (which you > acknowledge) and adding a bit of depth and colour > to what has been quite a black & white, one-sided > discussion. > > I can't see that all this shrill "I abhor..." > nonsense isn't an attempt to shut down debate or > indeed, chippy shouldered class whinging. > Ironically, with a turn of phrase so pompous to > make an Etonian English 'master' roll his eyes. Saying you abhor a system which is the focus of debate, is simply stating a strong a view on the topic under discussion. Talking about 'the usual class warriors banging a drum' is dismissive. It's playing the man, not the ball. There's a clear difference, to me at least.

EDLove Wrote: > 'Inequality of opportunity' seems an odd reason > not to send your children to private school. You > could agrue that simply by living in Dulwich, > London, the UK, Europe you are also perpetuating > inequality of opportunity. You are fortunate that > you are able to afford to live in an area which > offers good state schools - many don't have this > opportunity. The world isn't fair, so why would you care about fairness?

I would love to see speed cameras (preferably average speed cameras), or even mobile traffic enforcement officers catching those driving dangerously, but please no more speed bumps.

Well it's more inclusive than some very exclusive public schools such as Eton for example. Of course, that may not be saying a lot.

It's true that not all independent schools are the same and that Alleyn's is certainly more inclusive and outward looking than many. This discussion has moved into a more general conversation about the place of private education however which is a valid one. It's ridiculous to invoke 'class warriors' and 'drum banging', which is just a way of closing down a legitimate debate.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > It's not a case of which pre-dates the other. > > Private Schools drain the state system of > talented > > teachers, pupils and parents. > > Private schools are the original schools, so the > order does matter. State schools entered a world > where private schools already existed so the > battle and the problems you refer to were formed > by the state schools creation. Well there are some comments taken out of context. The point is that I was responding to the claim that private schools somehow aid the state system by their very existence. They clearly do not, the two compete for resources. Which came first may be interesting historically, but it isn't directly relevant to a debate about their place in today's society.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ > I suppose the real question is, does the modern > world with universal state education available > need educational charities like Dulwich anymore to > advance education? ^exactly this

I don't think anyone is asking for clarification of the current rules, but questioning whether they are right.

I'm going to get my shoes shined later, will ask what the word on the street is.

It's less about motivations than impacts. By bestowing huge educational advantage, primarily upon an already privileged group, the impact is divisive. Even if it's done in order offer opportunity to (a much smaller) number of kids from less privileged backgrounds, the over all effect is regressive. It's a perverse intervention if the aim is to help the disadvantaged, as the sum result is to create more (not less) disadvantage.

I don't think anyone has suggested that independent schools are not entitled to be registered as charities. It is self evident that they are. There has been no suggestion that they do not comply with a legal definition or that they are breaking the law.

Anyone know what's happening to the old Haus of Wood / Soupdragon site?

BTW - I genuinely mean it when I say that I wouldn't criticise any individual for seeking to give their child a 'leg up'. It's just that in my opinion, this is what you are are doing. Wanting your kid to have the best chances in life is honourable. I just don't think it's reasonable to claim that private education is actually motivated by the public interest.

LondonMix, that's nicely put and the most convincing defence of their charitable status that I've heard. I guess the outcome of their work - the fact that for many, independent schools appear to entrench social inequality is an issue. Rightly, or wrongly, the perception is that they primarily serve the interests of a fairly narrow and already privileged group of people, which doesn't seem compatible with the 'charity' label. It's not as though they are voluntary giving help to those in need. They are providing a superior service, mainly to those who can afford it, in order for them to gain a personal advantage.

There is no doubt that they contribute something to the community ? I mean it would be a pretty sad state of affairs if they didn?t right? Even the local estate agents sponsor community events, I mean that?s just basic civility right? It?s not too much to expect an organisation of their size to occasionally open up their facilities, or reach out to those in the local area in some way. The fact that people seem to consider that this amounts to significant acts of charity is actually pretty sad.

Again, that's an example of a charitable act. It doesn't make JAGS a charity in the sense that most people would understand it. Many big corporate enterprises undertake charitable acts and donate large amounts of money to good causes, but it's not their primary function.

I don't understand the attempt to paint independent schools as charitable organisations being run in the interests of all, or even more absurdly, the needy. They are run for the benefit of a small minority of often already privileged children. If you pay a large amount of money to give your child a competitive advantage over others (and I wouldn't criticise you for it) then why not be upfront about it. Drop all the chicanery.