The Dulwich estate ? modern day reverse Robin Hood ?

[DaveR]

"Fundamentally, a school which charges pupils thousands of pounds a term for their education is not a charity. Can anyone honestly suggest that it is, in the sense that most reasonable people would understand it?"

I posted a link on page 1 to a legal judgment that is very long and tedious, but which answers this question:

"The meaning which the law and lawyers give to

?charity? does not correspond entirely with the meaning of the word as

ordinarily understood. It is important to remember that, in the proceedings

before us, we are concerned with the legal concept of charity and not with the

ordinary meaning of the word"

Charitable status is a legally defined status, and all the formalities associated with charities (including relating to tax) flow from that. There are lots of words in every day use that also have precise legal meanings, but not many that people care about.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[DadOf4]

to me this isn't about the behavior of the schools: its about the Dulwich Estate. An organisation that controls vast areas of land (that they only want used as sports fields), charges commercial rates to volunteer orgnisations to use them and then gives ?6M to fund 3 of the best schools in the country

There is nothing charitable about that

[Penguin68]

There is nothing charitable about that

The charitable act is to give funds to support education - which is seen as being a 'good' thing. The application of those funds to meet educational needs is a necessary part of the charity's activity, but isn't (and needn't) itself be considered 'charitable'. Many artistic establishments are also charities - such as the Royal Operal House, but putting on operas isn't (very obviously) an act of charity.

The tickets for the opera (and the fees for the schools) are not considered to be charitable donations, and attract no tax relief, donations (including the original donation, and others from 'friends' of the opera house, or school alumni), are treated as 'charitable gifts' for tax purposes.

Don't confuse the work of a charity as being in and of itself 'charitable' - so long as it meets the criteria set out by the Charities Commission. Maintaining stately homes and parks for (paying) visitors is what the National Trust does, it is a charity - what it does isn't (really) charitable.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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

[LondonMix]

The concept that the advancement of education is charitable in and of itself is an old concept. Just like the concept of advancing the arts, even if it doesn't benefit the disadvantaged in anyway, most societies see it as an inherent good. Endowments set up to advance either on a non-profit basis around the world receive the benefits of charity.

I suppose the real question is, does the modern world with universal state education available need educational charities like Dulwich anymore to advance education?

[Earl Aelfheah]

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

[LondonMix]

Regarding the Dulwich Estate, it appears 100 percent of the money Alleyns receives goes to bursaries. If so, the foundation is definitely fulfilling the terms of its mission as all endowment money is for means tested scholarships.

http://www.alleyns.org.uk/page.aspx?id=860

[Loz]

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?

Does it need it? No.

Is it a bad thing? No.

[Henry_17]

London Mix,

If that is also the case for the other two private school beneficiaries then I view that as significantly reducing the moral case against the foundation, since as implied by others there is a large difference between the provision of funds for general purposes, which would naturally benefit more relatively well off children than relatively disadvantaged children, and providing funds specifically for bursaries which should benefit relatively disadvantaged children only, provided the means testing process is robust.

What surprised me on reviewing the annual report of the estate was the lack of disclosure on how funds were deployed once in the hands of the beneficiaries.

While I admit to not having reviewed the entire document, I did look at the majority of the relevant statements and the only enlightening points revealed on this were that trustees meet occasionally with the beneficiaries and received presentations on the spend, but with no further details passed on to the reader. As a comparison the report of the foundation for my school provides significant detail in this area.

It is good that you were able to find this information elsewhere.

DadOf4,

While I can understand views on the estate's policies on usage of sports grounds as being incongruent with a common sense understanding on charity, it appears based on DaveR's posts that the law is restrictive here in terms of maintaining charitable status.

I can imagine a theoretical justification for this provision being that it is better to focus on ensuring a charity's purpose is fit, and then require it to maximise revenues through its assets so as to donate to that purpose, rather than muddy objectives by allowing potentially revenue limiting activities such as provision of its real estate at below market rates.

I agree though that in practice in this case the result of this provision has led to a perverse outcome.

Henry

[DaveR]

Just going back to the original post re split in distributions between the beneficiaries, it appears that the percentages were fixed when the charitable scheme was last revised in 1995, so the 85% to DC, Alleyns and JAGS is not the decision of the trustees. Why it was fixed at that level I have no idea.

"I suppose the real question is, does the modern world with universal state education available need educational charities like Dulwich anymore to advance education?"

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.

I don't have any particularly strong feelings on the topic, largely because I just don't buy the idea that private schools are evil engines of social division and corrupt elitism, and the opposition to them having charitable always seems to me to come from people who actually object to the fact that they exist at all.

[LondonMix]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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?

[grabot]

>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 guess that since the government are firm believers in the academy system and are pushing state schools in that direction a gesture of faith would be to push non-state schools in a similar direction.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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]

Yes, I suppose the difference is that the private schools in the scenario I outlined would still be selective. They could be academically selective as well as offering sports and music places so the best athletes, scholars and artists regardless of family background could continue to benefit from the concentration of world class facilities.

I suppose I am not opposed to the concept of an elite school as long as its not only for the economically elite and therefore doesn't actively work against social mobility.

[grabot]

>I suppose I am not opposed to the concept of an elite school as long as its not only for the economically elite and therefore doesn't actively work against social mobility.

Is the BRIT school an example of this? Seems a good concept on the face of it.

[OrangeVanMan]

I live on a A road and own a freehold property however the Dulwich Estate bill me and many others for a service charge which they do not provide.

I have asked the DE on many times what service they have provided when it was provided and by who carried out this work as nobody from the Estate has set foot on my property in ever.

The Dulwich Estate in there bill claim it is for the upkeep of Dulwich? I pay council tax GLA tax which goes towards the costs of providing services Education Social Care Highway Maintenance, Social Housing etc.

The GlA and Councillors are elected and accountable. Whereas the DE are accountable only to themselves.

There is a booklet sent out by the DE which is so out of date it is crazy it has things in it like washing must not be hung out on a Sunday

The DE try to control planning applications when the fact is it is Southwark Council who have the say whether or not a planning application can go ahead.

If it is a charity then it should be up to the individuals choice what charity they want to donate to not be coerced to do so by threats.

This could be a human rights test case.

[LondonMix]

??? Unless you are several hundred years old, I imagine your solicitor explained the legal rights of the DE to you before you bought your house.

The entire area is in trust to them.

[OrangeVanMan]

No I am not several hundred years old The DE did not want to sell Freeholds and make it difficult as possible for anyone who does. What you may be referring to is the 1967 Leasehold reform act. The DE is the only charity of this kind in the country which is no doubt as described a modern day Robin Hood.

[OrangeVanMan]

In reply to the question of did my Solicitor explain this the answer is no and neither did the DE solicitor mention a service charge for a service the DE does not provide.

All services are provided by Southwark Council and the GLA. The only thing the DE provide is a bill as for the white posts and chains then look along Village Way opposite the Grafton Ballroom this grass has never been cut and is now covered in ivy and weeds.

Do not forget the schools apart from those mentioned Jaga, Alleyns Dulwich College, the DE also donate to

The Central Foundation School of London the boys school in Cowper Street EC2 and the girls school in Bow

St Olives and St Saviours schools Foundation

The boys school in orpington Kent girls school Old Ken Road

[keyhole]

I will happily sign a petition on this one!!Yes Dadof4 this is fact,we need some action,been going on too long and they have taken more space,!.everyone seems afraid to speak up...Action required ASAP .Cheers,my son is now 19 but I would happily get involved as it is SO mean,Edward Alleyn will be turning in his grave,shame on Dulwich Estate,

[steveo]

And these people have the vote

[James Barber]

A sad example is where the Dulwich Estate has ensured they provided the minimum possible space to the new Judith Kerr state funded free school.

They have kept 2/3rds of the site for future residential development to maximise their receipts at the expense of Judith Kerr state school children having no play space.

So this thread is very apposite. The DE are subsidising private education locally at the expense of state school kids.

It is morally wrong BUT this is how the Dulwich Estate has decided to fulfil its charitable aims.

I would hope that freehold enfranchisement could be altered to give people on the Dulwich Estate the option of buying out the Dulwich Estate. Most streets on Dulwich Estate land are or should be in conservation areas to ensure the look and feel of the area is maintained.

[Penguin68]

The DE are subsidising private education locally at the expense of state school kids

No, they are choosing not to subsidise or provide subsidised facilities to state funded schools but not 'at the expense' of these schools, since it is their own facilities/ grounds that they are not sharing - to do so would be at the expense of their intended (chartered) charitable aims.

It is only at 'the expense of' if you consider that state schools have a right to other people's property which they should be able to compel them to give up. At the moment, such compulsory purchase or acquisition on behalf of state schools is not lawful.

All those people living around state schools are also, presumably, in your philosopy, subsidising their accommodation 'at the expense' of those schools to which they are adjacent, rather than giving up their property free and gratis to those schools.

They choose to allocate their funds for 'educational purposes' in the way they, rather than you, would wish it - but that's what a free society should be about. Edward Alleyn did not set up his charity to fund what would normally be funded by taxation, but to fund that which isn't funded by taxation. Which private schools aren't (at least directly).