The Dulwich estate ? modern day reverse Robin Hood ?

[Green Goose]

>>>messageThe Dulwich estate ? modern day reverse Robin Hood ?

>>>Posted by DadOf4 September 22, 10:49AM

>>>But they?re a charity right ? ? they?ll take that income and redistribute it to the poor scholors (sic) and brothers?

That's where you started to go wrong.

Then your let your bigoted socialist ideas merge with the politics of envy.

Better to accept that we don't live in a socialist ideal where everyone has to conform to the lowest common denominator. That died in Berlin in 1998.

Why not also consider that in a meritocracy everyone benefits by virtue of the increased competitiveness of the nation as a whole and the trickle down factor.

Also an old chestnut of a thread (Is Alleyn's a cuckoo?) was resurrected recently. Was it you that did it by any chance?

.......................

Aside- Isn't it amazing that these themes of inequality and injustice seem to crop up around the time our Socialist brothers have their annual party conference?

.......................

GG

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

The Dulwich Estate decided to limit the space for the Judith Kerr state funded school - they have no plasyground - so that they could build houses that will be used to subsidise local private school more.

It ensured a gagging order in the lease so that the government department and school are not allowed to even mention this for fear of breaking the lease.

Clearly even the Dulwich Estate realise that what theyve done is morally wrong else why the gagging order?

Such behaviour is clearly contrary to what Edward Alleyn would have ever expected and the Dulwich Estate Governors should be ashamed of themselves.

[nxjen]

"Such behaviour is clearly contrary to what Edward Alleyn would have ever expected and the Dulwich Estate Governors should be ashamed of themselves."

Hmmm ... Edward Alleyn set up the Foundation 400 years ago when things were very, very different. Very little education, none of it state funded, the Dulwich area hardly built upon at all and the population a miniscule proportion of what it is today. I don't think it's possible for anyone to hazard a guess what Edward Alleyn would have expected!

[Penguin68]

so that they could build houses that will be used to subsidise local private school more.

Interesting to see a local councillor not wanting more housing locally - the Estates job as far as administering the charitable donation is to fund their (not other people's) education delivery - including offering bursaries to allow a wider range of chidren to benefit (so not quite the spirit implied by 'local private school') - you don't like private education - that's your (political) right of course, but to suggest that the Trust isn't acting properly because they aren't following your political prejudices is unhelpful - it's like being a Wee Free and complaining (and suggesting they are acting unethically) because the local Catholic Church isn't giving land for your church to be built on.

[EDLove]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> so that they could build houses that will be used

> to subsidise local private school more.

>

> Interesting to see a local councillor not wanting

> more housing locally - the Estates job as far as

> administering the charitable donation is to fund

> their (not other people's) education delivery -

> including offering bursaries to allow a wider

> range of chidren to benefit (so not quite the

> spirit implied by 'local private school') - you

> don't like private education - that's your

> (political) right of course, but to suggest that

> the Trust isn't acting properly because they

> aren't following your political prejudices is

> unhelpful - it's like being a Wee Free and

> complaining (and suggesting they are acting

> unethically) because the local Catholic Church

> isn't giving land for your church to be built on.

Completely agree Penguin. There seems to be a weird presumption that certain charities should curtail their own activities for the benefit of separate groups. Would this be expected of other charities or is it just that private schools are considered to be a fair target?

If there's a gagging order, why do we know about it? ... Uh oh, who breached the gagging order? :p

[bawdy-nan]

> Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> -----

There seems to be a

> weird presumption that certain charities should

> curtail their own activities for the benefit of

> separate groups. Would this be expected of other

> charities or is it just that private schools are

> considered to be a fair target?

>

It's quite a complicated question of interpretation of the 2006 Charities Act, I think, which requires a "public benefit" test to be met in relation to the charitable status of all charities. "Education" as a charitable aim ceased to be a sole justification for charitable status and it was required that charities also provide a public benefit.

As private schools provide a service to a small number of people for a large amount of money their status as charities is questionable. They must provide benefit to the wider public which they argue they do via bursaries and "sharing" facilities with other local schools. (other sports clubs don't count if the charity's original purpose to provide "education"). Quite how much has to be shared, whether through bursaries or sharing of facilities hasn't been established.

Some schools make the argument that they meet a public benefit test merely by relieving the burden on the state (this was tested in court and found not to be a satisfactory argument); likewise, the argument has been made by those opposing private schools' charitable status that there mere existence is a public detriment rather than benefit (ie no private school should have charitable status) but this argument too has been tested in court and found wanting.

There's a very helpful outline here: http://www.sjol.co.uk/issue-3/private-schools

So, it's not clear and there's an ongoing wrestling match. Complicated, I would have thought, by the free schools and academies who have state funding and charitable status.

[mako]

Am I right in thinking that bursaries are just a discount in the cost. So if you put the prices up by a couple of thousand and then give everyone a discount you are fulfilling the 'we give bursaries'. Surely its who gets these discounts that makes it a charity not that you give discounts at rates that most are still priced out?

[bawdy-nan]

mako Wrote:

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

> Am I right in thinking that bursaries are just a

> discount in the cost. So if you put the prices up

> by a couple of thousand and then give everyone a

> discount you are fulfilling the 'we give

> bursaries'. Surely its who gets these discounts

> that makes it a charity not that you give

> discounts at rates that most are still priced out?

I'm not sure but certainly there are very few 100% bursaries. That question is dealt with in the document. I think that they need to be substantial to meet the criteria but I think they needn't be 100%.

[James Barber]

Hi P68, nxjen, EDLove,

So you think it morally acceptable to ensure state school kids don't have a playground so that bigger subsidies can be given to private schools?

[Otta]

I like threads like this, it's like a game of spot the people that send their kids private and spend their lives justifying it.

[????]

Really? I don't see that. It's easy to justify - choice in how to spend your money and doing what you thinks best for your kids. I have no problem with people making those choices. It's quite easy to spot chippy, lefties with stereotypical views in this thread too

*kids at state school, btw.

[nxjen]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi P68, nxjen, EDLove,

> So you think it morally acceptable to ensure state

> school kids don't have a playground so that bigger

> subsidies can be given to private schools?

My response to you had nothing to do with what's morally acceptable with regards to larger subsidies being given to private schools though by DE holding on to land which belongs to them does not amount to giving a subsidy to the private schools. For what it's worth, I agree with posts further up the thread that state schools should be allowed access to the largely unused playing fields of Alleyns and pressure should be brought on the Estate to enable this. My post to you was an objection that you feel you know what would be going through Edward Alleyn's mind regarding events nearly 400 years after his death to enforce your argument - sloppy, just your opinion. Bequests were given in the 17th century, not so much as a philanthropic gesture to help one's fellow man but to ensure a place in heaven, and building a Chapel, almshouses and enabling education were popular means. Alleyn, as well as an actor, was a business man (with brothels among his interests), and my opinion is that he would primarily be a business man today.

[Otta]

???? Wrote:

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

> Really? I don't see that. It's easy to justify -

> choice in how to spend your money and doing what

> you thinks best for your kids. I have no problem

> with people making those choices. It's quite easy

> to spot chippy, lefties with stereotypical views

> in this thread too

>

> *kids at state school, btw.

Well you're no fun today. Be gone with your reasonable posts when I'm trying to make mischeif.

[Otta]

And as it happens, I actually agree with you in terms of people choosing to use an existing service if they can afford it.

I'd just rather that the service didn't exist.

[Townleygreen]

"access to the largely unused playing fields of Alleyns "

this amuses me - who imagines the school's fields are largely unused? They have - what - 1300 pupils from 4-19. Perhaps you walked past at break time? lunchtime?? when they were out of commission due to rain/waterlogging??

They are being used pretty much all the time otherwise.

What a laugh - largely unused!!

[LondonMix]

Before slandering the estate, why not actually figure out what they do. I know 100% of the money they provide to Alleyns goes to bursaries and that many of the bursaries are significant 50%-100%. Alleyn?s are trying to offer more 100% bursaries through donations. Not sure about the other schools (I have a friend whose kids go to Alleyn?s) but if the others use the Dulwich Estate income similarly, I think it?s a bit harsh to criticize them for trying to increase the income they receive to provide means tested bursaries.

If the other schools don?t use the money to provide means tested / significant bursaries, then the Charity Commission to challenge them to do more. However, the Dulwich Estate has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the financial interest of the endowment and its stated aims and has done just that.

[mako]

Townleygreen. The fields on the left hand side of the road if you are coming from LL are very hardly used at all.

[Penguin68]

bawdy-nan wrote:-

> Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> -----

There seems to be a

> weird presumption that certain charities should

> curtail their own activities for the benefit of

> separate groups. Would this be expected of other

> charities or is it just that private schools are

> considered to be a fair target?

>

Actually, the quote attributed to me was a comment by EDLove to a comment of mine - not that I would necessarily distance myself from it, but it wasn't actually my expressed view.

[Penguin68]

The fields on the left hand side of the road if you are coming from LL are very hardly used at all.

Neither is my garden, in winter, but I don't feel any obligation to give it up to a third party.

Please also remember that using land has a cost - I suspect that if a local school had to take over the expense of land management, and indeed the necessity of regular upkeep if the land was being extensively used, cost of groundsmen etc. etc. (together possibly with the costs of risk associated with that use) then the 'benefit' might not be affordable - and if the Trust took on those costs bro-bono for the school then it might be in breach of its own duties re expenditure on its own stated aims.

If the grounds are not used very much, then the costs associated with them are undoubtedly going to be lower - high use leads to high cost.

I recall the local furore when it was suggested the Rye could be used as sports fields for local schools - that is a public amenity to be used by state schools - that was strongly resisted (I'm not saying it shouldn't have been) - but diverting use of private amenity to a state school is apparently be be applauded - as are plans to build more state schools (i.e. that in the old ED police station site) without any access to outside field areas. Or should access to local gardens now be demanded for this school?

[EDLove]

.

[EDLove]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi P68, nxjen, EDLove,

> So you think it morally acceptable to ensure state

> school kids don't have a playground so that bigger

> subsidies can be given to private schools?

Hi James

Morality is not the issue. I just don't think it's our place to cast aspersions on a charity when it opts to allocate its funds or resources to furthering its own charitable functions and not to a cause that you felt to be more deserving.

[bawdy-nan]

apologies penguin68 - poor cutting and pasting on my part

[Penguin68]

No problems bawdy-nan - just wanted to clarify for posterity...

[Robert Poste's Child]

99, eh. Teetering.

[James Barber]

EDLove,

We should not turn a blind eye to the Dulwich Estate gagging a new local junior school from talking about the disservice the Dulwich estate has done to them.

The Dulwich Estate has ensured this new state funded school has no playground so that the Dulwich Estate can maximise funding for better facilities and subsidies to local private fee paying schools.

You are right in that the terms of their references are being strictly followed but those terms don't mean they have to be so brutal in the execution of property management.

It is hard to accept that they are being charitable or working charitably for the greater good.

So with respect to this threads title - for the Judith Kerr state funded school on Half Mood Lane the Dulwich Estate is indeed a latter day Robin Hood in reverse.