Is Alleyn's School a cuckoo?

[HannahSE23]

I went there, did nothing philanthropic whilst there and would not send my children there. Not worth the money. Most parents who send their kids to private school pay to shield their children from other kids they perceive as being from 'rough' families and not for a better education. Be honest... It's snobbery. The results are good but only because they've weeded out the less bright kids from the start.

[*Bob*]

What about if it were a non-fee-paying Grammar-type school, with selective admission?

Would you still avoid it?

[grabot]

There is mention of it being next to an estate. Which estate is that, not the tiny low rise block of flats on Lytcott? Not particularly important to the overall argument I know. But, I am struggling to picture Alleyn's as Inner City school next to an estate.

[Gubodge]

Those who raised Eton as a comparator might want to know that Eton takes its status as a charitable institution very seriously. Their boys act as mentors to pupils in the local state schools and their teachers as governors in those schools; they are working towards having 25% of pupils receiving some fee remission with 70 pupils paying no fees at all. There is an Eton college Housing Association that provides low rent accommodation to local people and an OE Housing Association that provides loans for teachers to purchase houses and affordable housing for rent. It also allows local schools to use its facilities free of charge. They are in a partnership with some local state schools and, together with several other independent schools, sponsor a selective London free school.

I was unable to read most of the chart showing Alleyn's community involvement, but, while it's possible they may be more inclusive than many independents, they fall a long way behind others. None of the bits that were legible went over and above what most independents do.

[brezzo]

i am not against private schools per se, but laughed out loud at the comment that the alma mater of David Cameron & Boris Johnson takes its status as a charitable institution seriously.

[cle]

brezzo Wrote:

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

> i am not against private schools per se, but

> laughed out loud at the comment that the alma

> mater of David Cameron & Boris Johnson takes its

> status as a charitable institution seriously.

What specifically about the comment (rather than its previously unmentioned and irrelevant alumni) was funny?

[lbsmith73]

People really do write some ill informed comments about this topic. I am a deputy head teacher in a state school in a selective borough with grammar schools. We have a truly comprehensive intake from A* students to students with complex needs. I am proud to serve our local community and if we really want to create a level playing field then why not get rid of private and selective schools and let all children go to their local schools? And if parents got involved and showed more support then you just might see all our schools thriving!

Regards the comments that private schools do so much to help their poorer state school friends, well I have experienced this first hand and quite frankly the co-opted governors from one elite private school that I experienced had no idea about the challenges and issues we faced and I found it rather patronising. As for their teachers supporting state schools, all I can say the teachers I work with have a much higher level of understanding of how to maximise the potential of all their students not just those who are easy to work with (and they have to be qualified!)

Regards opening their facilities to the local community, yes they do have clubs but these are not subsidised. I have children who attend clubs at these schools and we pay a considerable amount in fees, which if I am not mistaken, the majority of which goes to the private schools. Their facilities, which have been built with tax payers money (in directly through their joke of a charitable status), act as an important revenue stream and generate vast sums of income. I am sure they do some worth while activities in the local community but I hardly think they are really reaching out to all parts of the community.

I understand we live in a free market economy and if people wish to pay for services then so be it. What I can't understand is when the private sector (in this case independent schools) think all they have to do is help a few old ladies, allow the local primary school to see how the other half live and have a few middle class sports clubs use their facilities on a weekend is reason to justify it's charitable existence. I would prefer they keep themselves separate and let them survive on the fees they charge. Other private businesses do not get the luxuries afforded to private schools and if they don't generate the income they go to the wall.

It's seems these schools can certainly have their cake and eat it, but one day they might just choke!

[Green Goose]

lbsmith73 Wrote:

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

> I am a deputy head teacher in a state school in a selective borough with grammar

> schools. We have a truly comprehensive intake from A* students to students with complex needs. I am

> proud to serve our local community and if we really want to create a level playing field then

> why not get rid of private and selective schools and let all children go to their local schools?

>

> Regards the comments that private schools do so much to help their poorer state school friends,

> well I have experienced this first hand and quite frankly the co-opted governors from one elite

> private school that I experienced had no idea about the challenges and issues we faced and I

> found it rather patronising. As for their teachers supporting state schools, all I can say the

> teachers I work with have a much higher level of understanding of how to maximise the potential of

> all their students not just those who are easy to work with (and they have to be qualified!)

>

> Regards opening their facilities to the local community, yes they do have clubs but these are

> not subsidised. I have children who attend clubs at these schools and we pay a considerable amount

> in fees, which if I am not mistaken, the majority of which goes to the private schools. Their

> facilities, which have been built with tax payers money (in directly through their joke of a

> charitable status), act as an important revenue stream and generate vast sums of income. I am sure

> they do some worth while activities in the local community but I hardly think they are really

> reaching out to all parts of the community.

>

> I understand we live in a free market economy and if people wish to pay for services then so be it.

> What I can't understand is when the private sector (in this case independent schools) think all they

> have to do is help a few old ladies, allow the local primary school to see how the other half

> live and have a few middle class sports clubs use their facilities on a weekend is reason to justify

> it's charitable existence. I would prefer they keep themselves separate and let them survive on

> the fees they charge. Other private businesses do not get the luxuries afforded to private schools

> and if they don't generate the income they go to the wall.

>

> It's seems these schools can certainly have their cake and eat it, but one day they might just

> choke!

I feel very sad that you as a Deputy Head is spouting the classic socialist politics of envy. You bang on about a level playing field. The reality is we all live in a competitive world where meritocracy rules and rightly so too. In this world, meritocracy extends beyond individuals into competition between nations. Look at the success of these nations where meritocracy in the educational system has brought immense success eg Singapore, USA etc etc

Look back at the relative decline of the UK during the last 5 decades and you can see it is due, in part, to the introduction of the comprehensive education system.

I grew up with the state education but, if I had the choice, I know what I would have chosen.

I suggest you get the socialist chips off your shoulders and study what Edward Alleyn did for the poor of London.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think you may misunderstand what a meritocracy is.

[mako]

'When they get on the career ladder I will consider it money well spent' must be the saddest comment I have ever read on this forum.

[????]

Middle class lefties of East Dulwich Unite, you have nothing to lose but your envy

[Lynne]

Florence (and the Machine?), Jude Law, and I agree with Vallajo, Dr Fenner was one of the good guys but there were some teachers there then who shouldn't have been teaching anywhere.

[NewWave]

mako Wrote:

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

> 'When they get on the career ladder I will

> consider it money well spent' must be the saddest

> comment I have ever read on this forum.

Seconded...

And all those who consider anyone anti the concept of private education is either jealous or a middle class leftie

probably attended one of these schools hence the ignorance.

[Earl Aelfheah]

???? Wrote:

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

> Middle class lefties of East Dulwich Unite, you

> have nothing to lose but your envy

Well that's engaging with the arguments.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It is notable that a lot of those 'defending' the charitable status of private schools are actually just resorting to name calling. Thankfully not all.

[brezzo]

Actually, I think people should be free to spend their money as they choose, and maybe if I had more money I might spend some of it on private education rather than a Dulwich sized mortgage. Some people use their money to buy education for children, others play the postcode lottery, others still get religion. I am not sure that any one is better or worse than another

But that doesn't mean I close my eyes to the reality of the world. Without turning all Dave Spart,the purpose of the British education system is to maintain the British class system, Eton is a charity in law, but it's not exactly Medecin Sans Frontieres in practice. Turning out 19 prime ministers (will Boris be 20th?), I think makes the point.

As for Edward Alleyn and the poor of London. Come on! you've got to admit that's long past. The beneficiaries are overwhelmingly from the middle class. As I said before, I don't mind, but the righteousness of posters cuts both ways.

[SLad]

"'When they get on the career ladder I will consider it money well spent' must be the saddest comment I have ever read on this forum."

A common sentiment so far as my experience is concerned. E.g. I was at university with an extremely diligent girl who had gone through Cheltenham Ladies College at a cost of I-don't-know-how-much. She was the definition of a hard-worker: up for breakfast in hall every morning, attended all the non-compulsory lecture, studied so hard she didn't really get involved in collegiate activities, never remotely late with an essay, a perfect student and nice with it. Cue our first set of exams and who should turn up to sit in her university bedroom making sure she revised hard? Her mother, that's who. A grown woman watching another grown woman revise for exams. Why? Because she didn't want to see her and her husband's investment "go to waste".

Gross.

[srisky]

Private versus state debate usually results in polarised views with each end vehemently defending their choice, whilst giving negative examples of the other system - what's the point of these anecdotes? I can think of examples of negative examples from my state school but it doesn't mean that all parents/children from a state school don't give a monkeys about education, equally not all parents that use private school are pushy and their kids don't all snort coke. The state system worked well for me but may not for others. Whilst both systems exit, I don't think any parent should be criticised for their choice.

A debate about whether a private system should exit at all, as well as their charitable status, is probably more reasonable (but may be less fun). I'm not sure how the extra pupils from the private system would be funded if they all entered the state system, given that their parents already pay tax. Would taxes need to be increased? Would those deemed more wealthy (i.e since they could afford private anyway) have to start paying towards state education (think winter fuel allowance for the wealthy elderly)? Would it be a slippery slope with all, apart from the lowest earners ,paying fees (as per higher education, which I am saddened about)? This is probably a whole new thread.

Re: snobbery and avoiding the 'riff raff' - I only really know of the catchment areas around Heber, Goodrich and DVI and that's not exactly slumming it. It may be a case of paying a huge amount of money for a house in the catchment area or buying in a cheaper area and paying for private school and there will be those that can not afford either. In that sense, a great state school can become unaffordable to many. Either way, there is definitely a financial bias (with the occasional exception).

Ultimately, wherever you go, it is natural for people to gravitate towards and mix with others from a similar background and mind set, whether you are the riff raff, the extremely wealthy or the inbetweeners.

Re: charitable status - I know nothing about if/what JAPS and Alleyn's contribute. However, some schools have a linked school in a poorer country which they support financially, supply equipment, provide bursaries for students and staff visit to provide training. I don't know if JAGS/Alleyn's do anything similar.

ETA: I don't know if there is a proviso that they have to do charity work in the UK in order to have a charitable status.

[Gubodge]

My post up thread, that Brezzo found so amusing, was posted in response to the Alleyns' supporter who thought they went over and above what other independent schools do. My personal take on the subject is much more in line with lbsmith's.

And for what it's worth I am the product of an independent boarding school, which I loved, but which proved to be a very poor 'investment' for my parents. Luckily they never viewed it like that. Despite, or possibly because of, my education, I have turned out as the classic middle class leftie. I could afford to educate my children privately but have no intention of leaving the state sector.

[mikeb]

The Tribunal case of 2011 is very interesting and overturned a lot of law / guidance on these points. I haven't been through it all but it seems like they considered in detail many of the points people have been making here.

full decision here: http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/1_TheISC_v_TheCharityCommission_forEnglandWales.pdf

and an analysis of it here: http://www.radcliffechambers.com/media/Public_Benefit_-_Merged_handout.pdf

Some selected quotes

"165. It is reasonable to conclude that a merely token provision for those who could not pay full charges would not be sufficient to satisfy the public benefit requirement if otherwise it was not satisfied."

"219. In our view, however, where facilities at what we might call the luxury end of education are in fact provided, it will be even more incumbent on the school to demonstrate a real level of public benefit. This is not to impose different standards on different schools; it is simply that where such luxury provision is made, a stringent examination of how it is provided and how the public benefit is satisfied is appropriate."

"196. It is in this context of activities that indirect benefits and wider benefits (as described in paragraph 37 above) fall to be taken into account as part of the public benefit requirement. Many, and probably most although not all, schools of the type with which we are concerned provide benefits other than education to those who pay full fees. Those benefits include some or all of the following:

a. provision of scholarships and bursaries;

b. arrangements under which students from local state schools can attend classes in subjects not otherwise readily available to them;

c. sharing of teachers or teaching facilities with local state schools;

d. making available (whether on the internet or otherwise) teaching materials used in the school;

e. making available to students of local state schools other facilities such as playing fields, sports halls, swimming pools or sports grounds; "

"231. Thus it is said that private schools reduce the burden on local authorities; that is a benefit of which account should be taken. In principle, we think that approach must be right. But in point of fact, however, we do not think the point matters because the only wider benefit which has been identified is the reduction in the burden on local authorities to provide schooling for those attending private schools. For reasons already given (see paragraphs 206 to 208 above) we see this factor (a) of very little weight and (b) in any case very speculative."

[mikeb]

.

[edhistory]

Thanks MikeB,

So to the facts of the case:

What pro bono things has Alleyn's School done for the East Dulwich community since the 2006 Act?

Do these things surmount the de minimis threshold?

[Jeremy]

Someone posted a while ago that anyone who could afford to send their kids to private school would, and that any objections were pure jealousy.

Surely nobody could seriously be that stupid and narrow minded. There are plenty of affluent parents who choose to send their kids to state school.

[Penguin68]

I recall that Alleyn's terminated its Sports Club (which allowed people to use the pool and gym/ fitness facilities when the school wasn't operating, inter alia, for a fee) to dedicate the time freed up to local use of local clubs (the membership of Alleyn's Club had been parents and associates of the school - i.e local middle class private users). I do not know whether and how much they charge for this facility, nor how much it is in fact used by local clubs, but clearly they gave up a revenue stream in order to facilitate this.

This was a consequence, I think, of the act.

[DaveR]

"What pro bono things has Alleyn's School done for the East Dulwich community since the 2006 Act?

Do these things surmount the de minimis threshold?"

No - the trustees have no obligation to do anything for the East Dulwich community. The object of the charity that operates Alleyn's School is:

"TO CONDUCT AT DULWICH A DAY SCHOOL FOR BOYS AND GIRLS, IN WHICH THERE SHALL BE PROVIDED A PRACTICAL, LIBERAL, AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, INCLUDING A SENIOR SCHOOL AND (IF THOUGHT FIT) A JUNIOR SCHOOL"

The trustees have to demonstrate that they have pursued that object in such a way that more than a token or de minimis benefit has arisen for the poor (widely defined - in practice, families who cannot afford to pay the fees). So it's primarily about bursaries or tangible educational benefits to non-Alleyn's schoolkids.