Alleyns...doing their bit for the community?

[LondonMix]

That's not true. The charitable trust (i.e. the endowment) was left to educate poor scholars. Alleyn's and the other Dulwich schools do that via the bursaries. And yes, there are children on full or near full bursaries at these schools and to qualify for these bursaries which are need based your income levels are no where near middle class. Around a 3rd of children at Alleyn's are on some type of income support and the school is in the process of raising an additional perpetual endowment for an additional 12 full bursaries to extend their charitable mission.

If you are really interested, all the information about the bursaries and qualification levels and how much the school is administering can be found online. But all the money that the Dulwich Trust earns in rent etc from investing its original endowment is used to provide need based bursaries at all 3 schools it supports.

If you are against private education as a point of principle you won't care but its wrong to suggest they aren't fulfilling their charitable purpose.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> if you go back far enough education was provided

> by private tutor arrangements in the home of

> wealthy families

>

> 17th century - Edward Alleyn Gods Gift ...

> provided public schooling - this was seen as

> charitable at the time as he gave up of his own

> money.

>

> I'd imagine the charitable status has been in

> place since then - it's not a charity for the

> poor, more of a not for profit, although the

> schools do have to provide bursaries etc to those

> who cant pay fees, presumably therefore meeting

> their current day charitable obligations to a

> certain extent that way.

[LondonMix]

That's not really the full story for the Dulwich schools. JAGs and Alleyn's in particular have a good amount of full to near full bursaries each year and the income limits to qualify are not that high. For instance to get a full bursary at JAGS, family net income (including benefits) has to be less than 13,500 a year. That is not remotely middle class. Its more common to have bursaries for 75% of the fees but even then, net income for the family has to be circa 25,000 with no material capital assets. Again, that household income (even taking into account the allowed adjustments) is below the London median.

65k is the point at which you qualify for zero assistance.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > I'd imagine the charitable status has been in

> > place since then - it's not a charity for the

> > poor, more of a not for profit, although the

> > schools do have to provide bursaries etc to

> those

> > who cant pay fees, presumably therefore meeting

> > their current day charitable obligations to a

> > certain extent that way.

>

> Indeed, though it's questionable as to how much

> they're helping the poor - most bursaries go to

> pay part of the fees for those who can't afford

> the full amount - for Eton financial help is

> available for those with a household income of

> less than ?80K, at Dulwich College it's ?60K. So

> it's more of a helping hand for the middle classes

> than fully funded places for the genuinely poor,

> but it still counts as part justification of the

> charitable status.

[Mick Mac]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's not true. The charitable trust (i.e. the

> endowment) was left to educate poor scholars.

> Alleyn's and the other Dulwich schools do that via

> the bursaries. And yes, there are children on

> full or near full bursaries at these schools and

> to qualify for these bursaries which are need

> based your income levels are no where near middle

> class. Around a 3rd of children at Alleyn's are

> on some type of income support and the school is

> in the process of raising an additional perpetual

> endowment for an additional 12 full bursaries to

> extend their charitable mission.

>

> If you are really interested, all the information

> about the bursaries and qualification levels and

> how much the school is administering can be found

> online. But all the money that the Dulwich Trust

> earns in rent etc from investing its original

> endowment is used to provide need based bursaries

> at all 3 schools it supports.

>

> If you are against private education as a point of

> principle you won't care but its wrong to suggest

> they aren't fulfilling their charitable purpose.

>

>

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > if you go back far enough education was

> provided

> > by private tutor arrangements in the home of

> > wealthy families

> >

> > 17th century - Edward Alleyn Gods Gift ...

> > provided public schooling - this was seen as

> > charitable at the time as he gave up of his own

> > money.

> >

> > I'd imagine the charitable status has been in

> > place since then - it's not a charity for the

> > poor, more of a not for profit, although the

> > schools do have to provide bursaries etc to

> those

> > who cant pay fees, presumably therefore meeting

> > their current day charitable obligations to a

> > certain extent that way.

You do make me laugh LM.

Which bit isn't true? I find it hard to see where the direction of your post differs from mine. My post was about the origination and development of charitable status. From what you have said you might as well say you agree with me.

And I find it hard to see where anyone might draw the conclusion that I may be against private education. Where on earth do you get that from?

[LondonMix]

Why laugh?

I disagree with your statement that the charity is more a non for profit rather than one that helps the poor Mick Mack.

The charity is the Dulwich Estate and 100% of the net income derived from the original charitable endowment is used to fund bursaries based on income need. Therefore the charitable endowment is still fulling its original purpose. More to the point, the income qualification levels to access this fee assistance aren't at a middle class earnings level.

I didn't mean to suggest you personally are against private schools (I have no idea). My point on that was that if someone is against private education in general, then they probably won't care about those details, which is also perfectly valid position to have.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you think Dulwich College helps the poor, I think your mistaken. Are there some bursaries on offer to help a small number of middle class parents - yes. The net effect of places like DC however is to entrench inequality and protect the interests of a small and affluent minority to the detriment of the poorest.

[LondonMix]

I think Dulwich College does the least good job at providing full bursaries of the 3 Dulwich schools. I think Alleyns and JAGs both use their charitable endowment to provide education to families who most would consider working class or poor and that this was the basis on which the endowment was made and charitable status originally conferred.

Like I said raharah, if someone is against private education, that the charitable endowment offers free to near free education to poorer families would be irrelevant. But that's a separate (though totally valid) point.

However, I tend to find people's views on wealth and education quite inconsistent. I personally see no difference between people who buy a place in a good school catchment and those who more directly pay for education.

[Earl Aelfheah]

How many people actually buy to be in a school catchment? You hear this a lot, but I think in reality, most people live in an area they like and when they have kids, send them to the local school. I'm sure that's not universally the case, but would guess it's so, for around 90% of people. Fundamentally, I think that it's misguided to suggest that places like DC serve the interests of the poorest.

[Earl Aelfheah]

.... after all, how much would one really save moving to an expensive area, next to a great school, compared to private school fees? I agree it amounts to much the same thing, but doubt it's actually that common.

[LondonMix]

I think almost every middle class person, before deciding where to buy a family house, looks to see if the area has good schools as part of their decision making process.

Based on this forum alone, its obvious parents spend an inordinate time worrying about this. Plenty of people move within or out of London once their children reach secondary school age to ensure they are near a good local school.

Its not a criticism by the way.

[Mick Mac]

LM

The Dulwich Estate is a charity for the poor - to use layman's language.

I'd say the schools are the "medium" whereby the Estate provides its charitable work via assisting in the bursaries.

The schools themselves may provide limited charitable service themselves and as such I view them as not for profit - there is current pressure on the schools to do more locally.

The opening line of my previous post was to differentiate between private schooling of the day and the original Dulwich public school - being run not for profit. Private schools are run for private profit, Public schools (the Dulwich schools) are not.

[LondonMix]

Rahrah and by this, I mean parents will buy into the best school system they can afford as part of making decisions about where they live. Of course other factors like amenities, house size and commute play their part but I don't know many people who would buy into an area with low performing schools if they could afford otherwise. Of course, not everyone can buy into the best state school districts but again, that's a function of personal means.

[LondonMix]

Mick, I totally agree that the fee paying students are more a 'not for profit' activity conceptually rather than charitable work per se.

This is much in the same way a cafe in a museum is not part of the charitable work but rather supports it.

Without the fee paying students, the poorer students wouldn't have as good a school. The size of the endowment isn't large enough to educate enough students to provide the facilities the 3 Dulwich schools now have. Without the economies of scale provided by the fee paying students, the 'poor scholars' would be in a little school house still rather than a well resourced facility offering a wide range of sporting, arts and other enrichment facilities and activities.

This is the logic that allows the entire school to function under 'legal' charitable status.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LM

>

> The Dulwich Estate is a charity for the poor - to

> use layman's language.

>

> I'd say the schools are the "medium" whereby the

> Estate provides its charitable work via assisting

> in the bursaries.

>

> The schools themselves may provide limited

> charitable service themselves and as such I view

> them as not for profit - there is current pressure

> on the schools to do more locally.

>

> The opening line of my previous post was to

> differentiate between private schooling of the day

> and the original Dulwich public school - being run

> not for profit. Private schools are run for

> private profit, Public schools (the Dulwich

> schools) are not.

[Mick Mac]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> .... after all, how much would one really save

> moving to an expensive area, next to a great

> school, compared to private school fees? I agree

> it amounts to much the same thing, but doubt it's

> actually that common.

It's extremely common.

[Mick Mac]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick, I totally agree that the fee paying students

> are more a 'not for profit' activity conceptually

> rather than charitable work per se.

Ok good - I consider I have educated you on this point. I'm not even going to send you a school fee. It's on the house/state.

[LondonMix]

Mick, why do you always have to be so aggressive and rude towards me?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think this idea of people moving to be near the best schools is massively overplayed. You wouldn't move to an area you don't like just to be near an 'outstanding' school. You would probably do what you could to avoid sending your kid to one that was in special measures of course.

Anyway, I go back to my fundamental point which is that it's misguided to think that places like Dulwich College serve the interests of the poorest. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They're there to serve the rich and to maintain privlledge (which also means ingraining disadvantage).

[LondonMix]

I think private schools play there part in restricting social mobility (except for the poor students who get to attend via bursaries).

I think that the state school system does the same via distance based admissions. Using your financial resources to avoid bad schools entrenches privilege and reduces social mobility as much as private education does. Those without any financial resources are left with the worst education unless special efforts are made to counteract this.

As long as all schools aren't equally as good as one another, the only truly fair system is lotteries. Parents hate them of course.

[Mick Mac]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick, why do you always have to be so aggressive

> and rude towards me?

I'm teasing.

However - I'm not so keen on how you open your responses to other people - "that's not true" or "that's not quite right / the case / the whole truth" comes across as you are the oracle ready to be there to educate us all. It makes me want to take up the challenge and debate - sorry if it's come across as rude.

IMO its ok to say you disagree with someone - but to say someone else is wrong, or that there post is not true, can come across a bit teacher/pupil. Although I've probably done it myself a few times.

[rendelharris]

It's very difficult to find out what schools are offering what as bursaries - they're pretty quiet about it, which leads one to suspect there are a lot more households near the ?60K threshold of Dulwich College being helped than people who can't afford the fees at all. What can be discovered is that only 1% of pupils in public and private schools which have charitable status have 100% of fees paid by bursary.

Someone mentioned earlier that public schools are not for profit and private schools are for profit, that's not the case. For starters there's no clear distinction of what is or isn't a public school - certain places like to consider themselves public schools when other people say they're not. "Public" school originally simply meant a school where pupils were educated in public rather than in private, i.e. at home by tutors, so in the strict sense of the original term all schools are "public schools." Anyway, nomenclature aside, of the 2500 or so private and public schools in the UK, over 1000 have charitable status and are not for profit.

As a local example, Dulwich is a public school, whereas JAGs and Alleyn's are private schools, but they all have charitable status and are all, I believe, "not for profit".

[Mick Mac]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a local example, Dulwich is a public school,

> whereas JAGs and Alleyn's are private schools, but

> they all have charitable status and are all, I

> believe, "not for profit".

Public schools emerged from charity schools established to educate poor scholars, the term "public" being used to indicate that access to them was not restricted on the basis of religion, occupation, or home location, and that they were subject to public management or control,[1] in contrast to private schools which were run for the personal profit of the proprietors.[2]

[rendelharris]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Public schools emerged from charity schools

> established to educate poor scholars, the term

> "public" being used to indicate that access to

> them was not restricted on the basis of religion,

> occupation, or home location, and that they were

> subject to public management or control,[1] in

> contrast to private schools which were run for the

> personal profit of the proprietors.[2]

OK, but that is no longer the case - as I said above, close to half of the private schools in the UK are now nfp.

[Earl Aelfheah]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Using your financial resources to avoid bad schools

> entrenches privilege and reduces social mobility

> as much as private education does.

This is simply not true. The social mix in a good comprehensive school will be immeasurably broader than in somewhere like Dulwich College.

[Mick Mac]

What is your definition of a private school then?

Why is Alleys private and Dulwich College public in your opinion?

[Earl Aelfheah]

... in fact a number of excellent state schools are located in poor areas with extremely diverse intakes. Especially in London. To suggest that the state system entrenches privilege to the degree public schools do, is wide of the mark imo.

[rendelharris]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What is your definition of a private school then?

>

>

> Why is Alleys private and Dulwich College public

> in your opinion?

Originally there were seven public schools by Act of Parliament back in the Victorian era, then the Headmster's Conference was formed with about forty extra schools, which were pretty much considered public schools...nowadays the HMC has 200 schools but not all of them would be considered public schools. There's no absolute rule, it's pretty much down to tradition - there's not as far as I'm aware a legal difference between a public or private school. Basically I'd say a public school is one of the most exclusive, most expensive, has an ancient foundation and takes boarders, but there is no hard and fast definition. Interestingly even schools which one would say are indisputably public schools, like Eton, now don't like the term - too synonymous with snobbery, Flashman, fagging etc - and refer to themselves as independent schools on their websites.

So there isn't a clear definition, I'd say as Alleyn's probably historically caters for a lower strata of society than Dulwich, isn't as expensive and doesn't take boarders that makes it private rather than public.