Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I found this


" The considerable resources that public schools put into justifying their charitable status ? for example, ?365m a year in support for poorer pupils, according to Harman ? is an index of what they must know they gain by being charities. It reveals the scale of the effective state subsidy. "


from the above article ,particularly interesting .

Having just been visiting secondary schools in the area, I think anyone in the area who is struggling and scrimping to educate their children privately is, tbh, a bit foolish. We have some fantastic state schools in this area. Hilly Fields, Kingsdale, Charter, Harris, Sydenham School. Leave private to the bankers and oligarchs, send your kids to the local schools and use the money you've saved to enrich them through music, art, sport or travel.

Gubodge Wrote:

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

> Having just been visiting secondary schools in the

> area, I think anyone in the area who is struggling

> and scrimping to educate their children privately

> is, tbh, a bit foolish. We have some fantastic

> state schools in this area. Hilly Fields,

> Kingsdale, Charter, Harris, Sydenham School.


Yes we do - IF your child can get in. Kingsdale as we know is a lottery, HF you must live quite close these days - last place admitted on distance has been as tight as 600m, Haberdashers in one band was 170m...

rahrahrah,


Aside from the point miga raises, I found myself disappointed as a DM fan to see his use of the highly questionable rhetorical device involving the children of foreigners. I doubt as a dyed in the wool Observer columnist he really believes that offspring of foreign plutocrats benefitting from a given posited subsidy is any more objectionable than those of domestic plutocrats doing so.


Henry

Quids - I don't think that's fair. He isn't calling for the abolition of private schools, just the removal of their charitable status (in fact I wouldn't even go this far - he's really just questioning said status). I don't really agree that the nationality of students is relevant, but do think charitable status is odd. The fact that he went to a private school is irrelevant to his having a view IMO. If he hadn't been to private school, people would say he didn't know what he was talking about, or that it was jealousy - he has, so he is accused of wanting to pull up the drawbridge. Name calling and attacks on an individual doesn't engage with the debate. It's notable on this thread that many of those 'defending' (if that's the right phrase) private schools have resorted to this - referring to peoples' general politics, social background, or claiming they are jealous, or have a chip on their shoulder. It suggests to me a paucity of good arguments in defence of charitable status.
James - as I said earlier - yes Heber are allowed to use the Alleyns field ONCE a year. They have also been asking for 6 years if they can use it more frequently, the answer has ALWAYS been no. I can provide you with detailed information if you would like to know more.

keane Wrote:

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

> James - as I said earlier - yes Heber are allowed

> to use the Alleyns field ONCE a year. They have

> also been asking for 6 years if they can use it

> more frequently, the answer has ALWAYS been no. I

> can provide you with detailed information if you

> would like to know more.


I agree and remember all too well how unavailable Alleyn's facilities were to local schools over the last 10 years or so


A field one day a year for a couple of years when the school is closed does not fulfil charitable status requirements in my opinion

Curmudgeon Wrote:


> A field one day a year for a couple of years when

> the school is closed does not fulfil charitable

> status requirements in my opinion


But it's not your opinion that matters, is it? As has been pointed out umpteen times, this is not a test of charitable status. You might not like that (and I'm not sure I do either), but that's the way it is.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Curmudgeon Wrote:

>

> > A field one day a year for a couple of years

> when

> > the school is closed does not fulfil charitable

> > status requirements in my opinion

>

> But it's not your opinion that matters, is it? As

> has been pointed out umpteen times, this is not a

> test of charitable status. You might not like that

> (and I'm not sure I do either), but that's the way

> it is.



And let's not argue against the status quo eh?


My opinion matters to me :D

Re the Mitchell article, the fact that charitable status comes with tax breaks does not mean that private schools overall get a public subsidy. The ?365m in bursaries is a complete red herring - just the saved cost to the state of educating the 600,000 odd kids in private schools is around ?3 billion annually. Unsurprisingly, the Grauniad appears unfussed by the economic illiteracy.


"It's notable on this thread that many of those 'defending' (if that's the right phrase) private schools have resorted to this - referring to peoples' general politics, social background, or claiming they are jealous, or have a chip on their shoulder. It suggests to me a paucity of good arguments in defence of charitable status."


Re this, perhaps a Freudian slip - "defending private schools..". If the debate is about private schools in general (and many of the posts on this thread have ranged far wider than the issue of charitable status) then general politics and social background are inevitably relevant. Even the charitable status argument is essentially political - how many of those arguing in favour of public schools losing their charitable status are also having a pop at the RSPCA for wasting so much cash on ill-advised hunting prosecutions? Everybody has their own idea of what charity means; charity law has to be a little more certain and specific.

From an operational point of view, and I'm sure this could be resolved, having adults and children from other schools who Alleyn's have't CRB or whatever the new TLA is for this now would mean they need extra staff on hand to ensure child safety.

One way around this would be to ensure the fields are used at different times. But I can understand an initial H&S excuse on these grounds.

They'd also need to check insurances.


But the way to resolve tihs isn't via this forum.


My earlier post was written after checking with the Headteacher of Heber School.

DaveR Wrote:

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


> Re this, perhaps a Freudian slip - "defending

> private schools..". If the debate is about

> private schools in general (and many of the posts

> on this thread have ranged far wider than the

> issue of charitable status) then general politics

> and social background are inevitably relevant.

> Even the charitable status argument is essentially

> political - how many of those arguing in favour of

> public schools losing their charitable status are

> also having a pop at the RSPCA for wasting so much

> cash on ill-advised hunting prosecutions?

> Everybody has their own idea of what charity

> means; charity law has to be a little more certain

> and specific.


It's not a Freudian slip, I deliberately put it in inverted commas and said 'if that is the right phrase', because I actually don't think anyone is attacking private schools. However, there are individuals who are being defensive of private schooling generally, which is why I stated it in the qualified terms I did. General background may shape one's perspective on a topic, but it doesn't change the quality or otherwise of their arguments - calling people names - lefty (used as a pejorative), 'chip on your shoulder', 'Jealous Guardianista' etc. is not engaging with an argument, but mocking an individual.

Individual policies can always be debated, but I doubt many people would argue that the impact of the RSPCA is not largely positive and therefore worthy of public support.


Whatever your personal view, you would have to agree that there is less consensus with regards the impact of Public Schooling.

Whilst I'm all for having a bash at private schools when the opportunity presents itself - Keane may I respectfully say that Heber is not the only primary school in the area that would benefit from access to the fields at Alleyn's, or for that matter any of the JAGS or Dulwich College facilities.


And of course there may be other local school use, community groups, charitable activities that use the Alleyn's facilities that you are unaware of because it doesn't directly concern you or your interests.


If this is a matter of access to fields has anyone asked about using the St Olaves and St Saviours ground which is next to Greendale/JAGS which, as I see it, is largely under unused and gated off?


*puts on tin hat, crawls back under rock*

Alleyns publishes its accounts online.


http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends71/0001057971_AC_20130731_E_C.pdf



In 2013, Alleyns saw a net increase in total funds last year of ?4.3m of which about ?0.7m is a pension gain, ?1.4m was unrealised gains on market value of investments and about ?1.3m was a Dulwich Estate Capital distribution.


The schools seems to have received about ?3m from the Estate in total (note 3) and total bursaries were ?0.7m (note 2). Scholarships were an additional ?0.5m.


Of the costs, ?0.7m is depreciation on land & buildings. ?0.25m spent on non-pupil catering.


On cash, ?3.3m net operating cash inflow before ?1.3m of capex.

My husband born and bred in Camberwell was given a scholarship to Alleyns on academic merit and says it was pretty horrible always being the poor boy. He never wanted to invite friends home. Interestingly he's not in touch with any of his friends from his school days now.


Also, his scholarship was in the days when Alleyns had to provide a certain number of full scholarships for local children - so it could did something for it's local community. That's not been the case for many a year now.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
    • Sadly, the price we now all pay for becoming a soft apologetic society.
    • Exactly the same thing happened to me a few years back; they were after my Brompton. Luckily there were only 3 of them so I managed to get away and got a woman to call the police, then they backed off, but not after having hit me in the back of the head first. Police said next time just give them what they want, but I sure as hell wasn't just going to hand over my bike to them!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...