The Dulwich estate ? modern day reverse Robin Hood ?

[LondonMix]

Did the Dulwich Estate have to sell any of the land to Judith Kerr? Couldn't they have used all of the land for more profitable residential development?

Again, it looks like the Dulwich Estate actually sacrificed some of its holdings to help with the creation of this new school. That they wanted to balance the financial needs of the foundation vs. the public good it could do by selling some of the land for educational purposes (presumably for less than a residential developer would have paid) in my view isn't evidence of wrong-doing but rather good management balancing different objectives- helping state education as a public good while growing the value of the endowment to fund more bursaries at its educational establishments.

[legalalien]

James, unless I am missing something you are indicating that someone at Judith Kerr has disclosed confidential information to you about the terms of their lease from the Dulwich Estate, in breach of the confidentiality clause in their lease. If so that would put them in breach of their lease? Why would you post that in a public forum? Presumably the info about the lease was also transmitted to you in confidence? Am I missing something?

[david_carnell]

Is it even legal to have a school with no outside space?!

[Birdynamnam]

It is now.

http://www.change.org/p/nicky-morgan-protect-our-children-s-health-and-wellbeing-stop-new-schools-being-created-without-any-outdoor-space-for-children-to-play-and-learn

[Otta]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Did the Dulwich Estate have to sell any of the

> land to Judith Kerr? Couldn't they have used all

> of the land for more profitable residential

> development?

>

>

> Again, it looks like the Dulwich Estate actually

> sacrificed some of its holdings to help with the

> creation of this new school.

Yeah I'm sure it was all very altruistic. Gawd bless 'em.

[LondonMix]

Selling land at below market value to a school is altruistic. If the school was paying market for the land, there would be no logical reason for Dulwich Estate to limit the amount of land it was willing to sell them.

Its a non-profit trust that has a legal fudiciary responsibility to proctect the endowment in trust.

[mako]

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

But Penguin you are presumably not claiming to be a chairity for local schoolchildren so your comment is completely irrelevant.

[EDLove]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

James Barber Wrote:

James

I have made no comment about a gagging order, other than to note that it doesn't appear to be enforced based on the fact we all now know what it's allegedly attempting to conceal.

My point is in relation to the Estate's freedom to choose how it allocates its resources in accordance with its own charitable purposes. Just because you feel that a playground is more deserving, does not mean that the Estate is not acting appropriately or within the legal definition of 'charity'.

The school didn't have to choose this site and presumably knew about the available space before signing on the dotted line.

[Penguin68]

But Penguin you are presumably not claiming to be a chairity for local schoolchildren so your comment is completely irrelevant.

Neither is Alleyn's - they are, certainly, a charity which delivers education - and being a day school at least to some little extent locally, although pupils do travel far further than local authority catchement areas, but there is no obligation on the Trust to deliver only, exclusively or at all to 'local' children. Indeed other parts of the trust (being a bording school) very much do not meet specifically local demands.

As regards the delivery of any services to publically funded bodies they, like me, have no obligation, moral or legal - hence I was suggesting that to ask them to give up their ground to a local school was no different than asking me to - particularly as part of the argument put forward was that they didn't make much use of it ('are hardly used at all').

[stephent]

Is there going to be much space for playing fields once the Dulwich Hospital site is turned over?

[LondonMix]

Not if Harris get their way and squeeze a totally unnecessary primary school on it as they seem set to do!

[Dadadada]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Here is how Alleyns explain it

>

> http://www.alleyns.org.uk/section.aspx?id=830

>

> http://www.alleyns.org.uk/page.aspx?id=847

>

> The gist is the fee income collected does not

> cover the running if the school. They need Estate

> money just to keep the doors open

>

> I remember reading a third of pupils are on

> bursaries though not full bursaries. They say

> they are fundraising to create more 100 percent

> bursaries via a permanent endowment

There seems to be some confusion as to what a bursary is. What this means is "we make it easier for the parents of scholars to pay fees to us which we then spend on hundreds of predominantly rich and privileged children's education". This is entirely in the private school's self-interest - although it may be means-tested, the schools set the academic bar higher for scholars than for fee-payers and they have no obligation to provide for special educational needs - if you doubt, see if you can find any pictures of disabled pupils on its website or reference to provision for SEN. JKPS is also run by a charity, but by contrast it admits pupils regardless of background, wealth, academic ability, disability, half of the intake is by lottery (to avoid the "selection by house price" problem) and it provides for special educational needs.

Why should JKPS lose its only playing field to housing to fund Alleyns, JAGS and Dulwich College?

[Dadadada]

...and I am sure if Dulwich Estate went to the Charity Commission and said:

"Look, we're an edcuational charity and we want to allow an inclusive co-educational non-fee paying school run by another charity to keep its only playing field, even if that means that there is less in the pot for the private schools we fund, is that OK?"

I doubt the Charity Commission would insist. Why doesn't the Dulwich Estate ask them the question?

[Penguin68]

Why should JKPS lose its only playing field to housing to fund Alleyns, JAGS and Dulwich College

I'm sorry - how does this work - if the two are separate charities, the actions of one do not impede on the other? By 'its', do you mean 'someone else's'?

ALSO - Bursaries and scholarships are entirely different types of funding - bursaries are normally determined by need, scholarships by ability. So you are right to say that a school's scholars are indeed chosen based on a higher 'bar' if you want to put it that way, but children on bursaries are not. The selection criteria for entry are the same as for any child. Also schools additionally offer specialist scholarships (i.e. for music) where the criteria are academic competence similar to any entry requirement accompanied by a specific additional skill.

Private schools do take pupils with some types of learning difficulty, and indeed other disabilities, but generally only when (with support) these children may be expected to perform at similar levels to others. I'm not sure how many disabilities I would expect to see in a photograph anyway. But yes, most private schools (other than some specialist ones) will not be expecting to make SEN provisions as a major part of their offer (dyslexia etc. apart).

[LondonMix]

How could Judith Kerr LOSE anything to Dulwich? The Dulwich estate has existed and owned its assets via the endowment for hundreds of years. Judith Kerr was set up last year so how on earth can they lose something they never had?

[Amaryllis]

I live on the Sunray estate, which you may be surprised to know is also owned by the Dulwich estate. As far as I know they do not contribute to Bessemer Grange, DVIS, Hamlet, Judith Kerr or the charter school; all of which have been built to serve Dulwich and it's surrounds. To me this feels like an injustice. I don't understand the legal framework but I agree that morally, someone who set up an educational foundation "for locals" would feel like their purpose had been lost in time.

It's a pity and if there was the will we should bring the estate to account.

Edward Alleyn set up the trust, quite clearly, in a different age but in the 21C the support given to locals should be much greater. On the flip side I feel the local schools should demand more of Alleys, Jags and Dulwich college. If they don't ask they won't get usage of the facilities but they need to feel like equivalents at the table not underdogs.

I love Dulwich, the schools are fantastic and we should encourage them to work together more not build up barriers. It makes Dulwich better for all of us, children and parents alike.

[dimples]

Well said Keane,

My kids go to heber and love sports of every discription and really get no chance in the playground to practice .

[DadOf4]

so, back to the original point, taking some of this discussion into account.

last year, the estate gave Alleyns ?1.6M. On their website, Alleyns say "Our aim is to build an Alleyn's Bursary Fund of several million pounds that will enable us to offer the equivalent of a further twelve fully-endowed bursaries ?the twenty-first century heirs to Edward Alleyn's original 'twelve poor scholars'."

If their fees are c.?15k/year - that should be 106 scholars not 12 (or 24)

I think the "we use this for bursaries" is a standard defence play. I cant prove this, but I would guess a good % of the money just goes into the general budget of the school.

The point is this: the orginal intent of Alleyn was to provide education to poor people, in an age where those people simply would not have been educated otherwise. If that was still the case, I'd be all up for this being deemed to be charitable. Roll forward a few hundred years, we now have a state education system that serves most of our population. Using that money to support organisations that educate a overwhelmingly privileged elite is, IMO, a perversity of what was originally intended.

Throw into the mix, the fact that they are sucking money out of really good community organisations, just makes me think this is plain wrong.

I've got no problem with the estate managing the conservation of Dulwich (that's a separate commercial thing anyway) but I think they should think long and hard about putting their activities into context for the 21st century.

[Reg Smeeton]

DadOf4 Wrote:

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

>

> last year, the estate gave Alleyns ?1.6M. On their

> website, Alleyns say "Our aim is to build an

> Alleyn's Bursary Fund of several million pounds

> that will enable us to offer the equivalent of a

> further twelve fully-endowed bursaries ?the

> twenty-first century heirs to Edward Alleyn's

> original 'twelve poor scholars'."

>

> If their fees are c.?15k/year - that should be 106

> scholars not 12 (or 24)

12 x ?15k = ?180,000 per year. To support that as annual bursaries indefinitely needs a pot of ?3m+, so that's where their figure of 'several million' probably comes from.

[mikeb]

In 2013, the foundation gave ?3m to Alleyn's. Total bursaries were ?0.7m.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,239732,1405683#msg-1405683