School sporting scholarships/recruitment
- Thread starter observer
- Start date
Section 83C
Frank Row (1)
Financial year end and I am bombarded with emails for a donation - oh the tax deduction!
It's never good when you end up being the subject of an Australian Financial Review Rear Window article just ask Hamish McLennan!
Hannah Wootton Columnist
Newington co-ed fight raises questions about private school charities
When you count so many investment bankers and accounting partners among your old boys, it’s no wonder your trust structures get complicated.
The fight of a few desperate old boys to stop their alma mater, Newington College, going co-ed was dealt another blow on Wednesday, this time in the NSW Supreme Court.
An anonymous current pupil, fronting for the anti-co-ed contingent, had claimed the school’s 1873 trust deed made the council’s decision to admit girls not just inappropriate, but illegal. Its reference to students as “youth” clearly meant boys, his lawyers said. They even pulled out a specific dictionary referencing a John Milton poem to prove their case. The wonders of a liberal education.
Parents and former Newington College students protest outside the Stanmore campus last year. Kate Geraghty
But Justice Guy Parker didn’t buy it. Even back then, “youth” was used in a gender-neutral context, he said. Different dictionaries backed this up, as did the use of other gender-neutral words to refer to students in the deed.
Definitions aside, the Supreme Court case actually served as a deep-dive into the school’s trust deed and its governing documents. It has raised eyebrows among some parents (including those at rival schools) about the rules under which Newington and its entities operate.
Particularly, why the Newington Foundation, the charity which collects and invests donations from parents and past students, isn’t run by the school itself. Its latest accounts show its balance is $102 million.
This is among the largest balances of any Australian private school’s charity arm. In 2023, which is the most recent year for which its accounts are available, it grew by about $11.8 million, mostly through income and fair value gains from its investments.
In that period, it gave just $1.5 million to Newington College through various grants for scholarships and capital works. So the foundation collects millions of dollars in donations from rich old boys (and soon old girls), and instead of using them to develop the school or support students, they play around as fund managers instead?
The management of these lucrative foundations and how to factor them into private schools’ bottom lines has long been contentious in discussions about education funding. Newington, incidentally, got more than $11 million in taxpayer funding last financial year.
The idea that schools themselves should administer them is gaining currency. The argument is that they are the ones who know best where money is needed. A NSW government review into private school funding actually recommended this be mandatory if schools contribute to the trusts.
Newington College has not only not gone down this route, but has gone the other way.
The school’s council had previously managed the foundation (including transferring around $30 million of Newington College’s revenue into it from 2015-2020). But in 2021, the council “retired” as the trustee of the Social Justice Foundation Limited. This was later renamed as the Newington Foundation.
We asked the school about the change. They said it was partly so the council wasn’t spread as thin, and the foundation could have more dedicated overseers. The foundation has recently funded some scholarships, a shade sail, and upgrades to the year eight and nine kitchen and Newington’s Eungai Creek campus.
It’s certainly got a killer board in terms of real-world firepower. Former Goldman Sachs partner and Aware Super director Phil Moffitt chairs it. Former Deutsche Bank managing director Chris Collings, Pendal Group exec Julia Forrest, Colin Biggers and Paisley restructuring partner Scott Hedge and former IRESS CEO Andrew Walsh are all directors.
But at what point should the Newington Foundation be spending instead of just growing? One parent suggested that maybe it’s been saving up its funds so it can offer tens of millions of dollars in scholarships to girls once it’s co-ed. Another court case might be on the horizon.
It's never good when you end up being the subject of an Australian Financial Review Rear Window article just ask Hamish McLennan!
Hannah Wootton Columnist
Newington co-ed fight raises questions about private school charities
When you count so many investment bankers and accounting partners among your old boys, it’s no wonder your trust structures get complicated.
The fight of a few desperate old boys to stop their alma mater, Newington College, going co-ed was dealt another blow on Wednesday, this time in the NSW Supreme Court.
An anonymous current pupil, fronting for the anti-co-ed contingent, had claimed the school’s 1873 trust deed made the council’s decision to admit girls not just inappropriate, but illegal. Its reference to students as “youth” clearly meant boys, his lawyers said. They even pulled out a specific dictionary referencing a John Milton poem to prove their case. The wonders of a liberal education.
Parents and former Newington College students protest outside the Stanmore campus last year. Kate Geraghty
But Justice Guy Parker didn’t buy it. Even back then, “youth” was used in a gender-neutral context, he said. Different dictionaries backed this up, as did the use of other gender-neutral words to refer to students in the deed.
Definitions aside, the Supreme Court case actually served as a deep-dive into the school’s trust deed and its governing documents. It has raised eyebrows among some parents (including those at rival schools) about the rules under which Newington and its entities operate.
Particularly, why the Newington Foundation, the charity which collects and invests donations from parents and past students, isn’t run by the school itself. Its latest accounts show its balance is $102 million.
This is among the largest balances of any Australian private school’s charity arm. In 2023, which is the most recent year for which its accounts are available, it grew by about $11.8 million, mostly through income and fair value gains from its investments.
In that period, it gave just $1.5 million to Newington College through various grants for scholarships and capital works. So the foundation collects millions of dollars in donations from rich old boys (and soon old girls), and instead of using them to develop the school or support students, they play around as fund managers instead?
The management of these lucrative foundations and how to factor them into private schools’ bottom lines has long been contentious in discussions about education funding. Newington, incidentally, got more than $11 million in taxpayer funding last financial year.
The idea that schools themselves should administer them is gaining currency. The argument is that they are the ones who know best where money is needed. A NSW government review into private school funding actually recommended this be mandatory if schools contribute to the trusts.
Newington College has not only not gone down this route, but has gone the other way.
The school’s council had previously managed the foundation (including transferring around $30 million of Newington College’s revenue into it from 2015-2020). But in 2021, the council “retired” as the trustee of the Social Justice Foundation Limited. This was later renamed as the Newington Foundation.
We asked the school about the change. They said it was partly so the council wasn’t spread as thin, and the foundation could have more dedicated overseers. The foundation has recently funded some scholarships, a shade sail, and upgrades to the year eight and nine kitchen and Newington’s Eungai Creek campus.
It’s certainly got a killer board in terms of real-world firepower. Former Goldman Sachs partner and Aware Super director Phil Moffitt chairs it. Former Deutsche Bank managing director Chris Collings, Pendal Group exec Julia Forrest, Colin Biggers and Paisley restructuring partner Scott Hedge and former IRESS CEO Andrew Walsh are all directors.
But at what point should the Newington Foundation be spending instead of just growing? One parent suggested that maybe it’s been saving up its funds so it can offer tens of millions of dollars in scholarships to girls once it’s co-ed. Another court case might be on the horizon.
only signed until the end of yr 12 (2026) he will head back to Qld
The Cleaner
Watty Friend (18)
Hope so! With Lemoto gone, Agapetos will be the perfect #8 for Scots.
Eighty Minutes
Bob McCowan (2)
Putting this comment in here as it was deleted from the regular GPS thread. I’m assuming because of the “S” word. It was in response to comments about a Newington introducing girls to the school, and having to increase more imports which is detrimental to morale, etc..
I’m sorry, but what exactly does letting girls into a school have to do with the strength of a rugby team? The idea that co-ed means weaker teams is just lazy thinking.
Let’s be real -GPS schools don’t dominate rugby because they naturally develop the best players. They dominate because they bring in top-tier talent on scholarships. Yes, those imports often take spots that could’ve gone to local kids -but not all local kids cut it at that level. If you want a weaker comp, go for it. But if you want to watch the best schoolboy rugby on a Saturday -the kind that’s fast, physical, and full of future rep players- then this is the trade-off. The imports raise the standard. That’s just how it is.
And those imports? They’re not just breezing in and cruising. Most of them are making huge sacrifices. They leave home, move away from family and friends, and step into an elite school environment where the pressure to perform-on and off the field-is relentless. They’ve got to maintain their grades, uphold school expectations, and prove themselves constantly, just to stay in the team. It’s not a holiday; it’s a grind.
A lot of them don’t want to go. They’d rather stay in their community, surrounded by comfort and support, and just play rugby. But they know the truth: if they want to be seen, if they want a real chance at higher honours and career in rugby, they have to be in the system. Having a GPS school next to your name on a team sheet can get you picked over a kid grinding it out at a local club. That’s the reality. It’s not fair, but it’s how the system works-and these kids are just playing the game they’ve been handed. Be nicer to them, it’s not there fault they managed to work hard enough to get noticed and given the opportunity to reach high.
So no, the problem isn’t the girls. Having girls at the school doesn’t stop boys from training hard, being selected, or succeeding. And it’s not the imports’ fault either-they’re not stealing anything; they’re competing, and most of the time, they’re winning those spots because they’re better. It’s not personal- its performance.
So let’s stop pretending this is about fairness or tradition. If you want the best schoolboy rugby to watch on a Saturday, you accept the system that creates it.
I’m sorry, but what exactly does letting girls into a school have to do with the strength of a rugby team? The idea that co-ed means weaker teams is just lazy thinking.
Let’s be real -GPS schools don’t dominate rugby because they naturally develop the best players. They dominate because they bring in top-tier talent on scholarships. Yes, those imports often take spots that could’ve gone to local kids -but not all local kids cut it at that level. If you want a weaker comp, go for it. But if you want to watch the best schoolboy rugby on a Saturday -the kind that’s fast, physical, and full of future rep players- then this is the trade-off. The imports raise the standard. That’s just how it is.
And those imports? They’re not just breezing in and cruising. Most of them are making huge sacrifices. They leave home, move away from family and friends, and step into an elite school environment where the pressure to perform-on and off the field-is relentless. They’ve got to maintain their grades, uphold school expectations, and prove themselves constantly, just to stay in the team. It’s not a holiday; it’s a grind.
A lot of them don’t want to go. They’d rather stay in their community, surrounded by comfort and support, and just play rugby. But they know the truth: if they want to be seen, if they want a real chance at higher honours and career in rugby, they have to be in the system. Having a GPS school next to your name on a team sheet can get you picked over a kid grinding it out at a local club. That’s the reality. It’s not fair, but it’s how the system works-and these kids are just playing the game they’ve been handed. Be nicer to them, it’s not there fault they managed to work hard enough to get noticed and given the opportunity to reach high.
So no, the problem isn’t the girls. Having girls at the school doesn’t stop boys from training hard, being selected, or succeeding. And it’s not the imports’ fault either-they’re not stealing anything; they’re competing, and most of the time, they’re winning those spots because they’re better. It’s not personal- its performance.
So let’s stop pretending this is about fairness or tradition. If you want the best schoolboy rugby to watch on a Saturday, you accept the system that creates it.
TheRock
Bob McCowan (2)
Hi EM,
I agree with most of your post particularly around how the 1stXV teams are managed/built at present.
However, I think the prior posts were talking more about the rugby program as a whole, not just the 1sts success which is part of the program.
Time will be the ultimate judge here and there are other factors at play, changing demographics, pull of other codes etc..
Again, posts were pointing risks in introducing a 2nd Rugby program to a school, I note there would be mitigations to most of these but therein lies the risk.
Resource Dilution - Stretching coaching staff, facilities, medical support, and admin delivering 2 programs (there are some Female specific considerations, e.g. S&C for adolescent Girls while similar, there are important differences to Boys requirements)
Facility Constraints & Scheduling Conflicts Clashes over field space, gym slots, or game-day resources can create internal tension and perceived inequity. Even if only 1 team per year (= 17% increase in teams)
Cultural Resistance or Backlash – Lots of time and energy diverted to communication and managing this live issue, internally and externally
Lastly just because there are risks doesn't make it not worth doing, but you need to be eyes wide open.
I agree with most of your post particularly around how the 1stXV teams are managed/built at present.
However, I think the prior posts were talking more about the rugby program as a whole, not just the 1sts success which is part of the program.
Time will be the ultimate judge here and there are other factors at play, changing demographics, pull of other codes etc..
Again, posts were pointing risks in introducing a 2nd Rugby program to a school, I note there would be mitigations to most of these but therein lies the risk.
Resource Dilution - Stretching coaching staff, facilities, medical support, and admin delivering 2 programs (there are some Female specific considerations, e.g. S&C for adolescent Girls while similar, there are important differences to Boys requirements)
Facility Constraints & Scheduling Conflicts Clashes over field space, gym slots, or game-day resources can create internal tension and perceived inequity. Even if only 1 team per year (= 17% increase in teams)
Cultural Resistance or Backlash – Lots of time and energy diverted to communication and managing this live issue, internally and externally
Lastly just because there are risks doesn't make it not worth doing, but you need to be eyes wide open.
Last edited: