Earl Aelfheah

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.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A friend of mine got his daughter into Jags then > was almost immediately made redundo. The school > cheerfully covered her fees for five years. 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.

It's not a case of which pre-dates the other. My post was a response to the suggestion that private schools in some way aid / support the state sector by their very existence. I don't necessarily have a problem with independent schools, but I do dislike the attempt to paint them as charitable organisations being run in the interests of all. They clearly are about providing an advantage to a minority of often, already privileged children. If you send your child to a private school in order to bestow such an advantage upon them, then you ought to be relaxed enough with that decision to declare your motivations without the double speak.

As of a few minutes ago, the petition has 811 supporters. Would be great to make it 1,000 or more. If you haven't already signed please do and please share it with those you know. http://www.change.org/p/heygate-estate-scandal-demand-an-investigation

There is a lot of private school bashing on the forum today.

amydown Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As thee parents don't get any tax deduction for education expenses > coming out of their net pay, the state doesn't > lose out and it provides more space in the state > system. Not quite true (Top public schools using charity status to help parents reduce tax bills): http://news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2014/02/20/wealthy-parents-save-on-tax-bills-thanks-to-private-schools-39-charitable-status.aspx

Private Schools drain the state system of talented teachers, pupils and parents. The state system loses a great deal when parents decide to withdraw their children, their energy and talents and instead invest them (along with considerable financial resources) in to competing with it. It's about giving your own child a competitive advantage in the world, by ensuring that all schools are not the same. Fair enough perhaps, but it seems disingenuous to pretend it's something else. amydown Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Given the shortage of state school places, I think > the more they can do to encourage quality > education through the private sector, the better. > > People who then end up sending their kids to > private school are, at the same time, relieving > pressure on the state school. As thee parents > don't get any tax deduction for education expenses > coming out of their net pay, the state doesn't > lose out and it provides more space in the state > system. > > If private schools were to lose charitable status > and therefore tax paying, for instance, the cost > would get passed onto parents. That would have a > huge knock on impact on already-stretched state > system capacity.