Of course there are more factors than travel related to how you pick a school, but again you miss the point entirely. The point is going to a selective school is a choice, going to a comprehensive school isn't. As such, providing facilities for a comprehensive school (to cater for the vast majority of the local population) takes priority over catering for a bunch of students from otehr areas who opt to travel there for a selective education they can get elsewhere (plus when NSG/NSB becomes partially selective, prospective selective students would gravitate to other selective schools anyway, so this entire line of thought is moot).
This. This basically sums up everything. Although the line of thought isn't moot because, Salshel's argument appears to be in that although the government will - and should- take priority for public schools, making NSG and NSB partially selective
isn't the best optionI don't recall anywhere in Salshel's argument where she has stated that this was the worst possible outcome that the government could make, nor has she stated what she proposes has to be absolute for the best of everyone. Furthermore, her post obviously suggests that the Governmnet is looking to make Sydney Girls and Boys partially selective- and in doing so, lessening the prospective schools that students can attend (and we must take that into consideration because we're arguing about whats going to happen in the future and if the above happens, well... it causes more uncertainty to many other factors- I'm using the line of thinking used in the Futures Cone model.)
Another thing - Are you sure sydney technical has a few 99.95ers (the top 5 from what you're suggesting) every year? I find that quite hard to believe if not only because Manly has barely any 99. Granted this is based of the rankings of a school, but if sydney technical can constantly get a few 99,95ers every year, then it would seem quite strange. I'd be curious to know why
Note keyword: "Constant".
From my understanding your arguments are based around the "present" I thought this discussion included the long term consequences and implication of the strategy as well as the short-term goals, "What do you think of these proposed changes? Discuss." Granted the gov can make NSG and NSB partially selective, but I' m arguing that it's not the best idea. I never said that they couldn't lol. If I have, then quote me please c:
Also granted, although by making NSG/B into partially selective, you're alleviating the crisis in the north Sydney region, but that simply means you're spreading around the students who would have previously attended NSG/B. I can see where' you're arguing at. You're saying that there are plenty of NSGs and NSBs who will be able to attend a school closer to their home. But you missed what I'm getting at. I'm saying that Australia is a growing nation, eventually crisis will occur all over sydney or other heavily populated cities (heavily populated as in comparision to other cities in Australia). So why not just build a school or expand educational facilities rather than shifting around the student population? Also, if many students from NSG/B are from one primary region, what's to say that the region itself won't have a crisis when the students from that area choose to relocate to a school closer to their house because they don't want to go to a school that's become partially selective. (Or can you deny that the majority of NSGs/Bs won't have that kind of mentality? Not me being an elitist here) Either way from what I can see, is that you're simply shifting students all over the place. Unless there's like a reallyempty school that's catered to the needs of previous high ranked selective school kids, I don't see how the problem is solved - only delayed or moved. Granted you can argue that other areas aren't facing crisis. But perhaps they're not facing crisises because local students are travelling into other regions for their education. Do you actually know if schools within the regions where NSgs/bs primarily live, aren't empty or willing to accept like a massive wave of students?
Also, How exactly does the government plan on making NSG/B into partially selective? If it's just year 7, then there's a fewer amount of people leaving, but also I doubt the "crisis" will be solved, since like classicjimbo said earlier,
as a reply to my post,
I severly doubt that if the crisis can fit local students in two whole school (with the exception of obviously the senior year cohorts + anyone who do choose to stay) then by making only year 7s partially selective, this will solve the problem quickly. And to solve the problem quickly must be what the local government's aim is. Otherwise why not just expand current public schools around the region? Or better yet, build a new school through funds raised over time?
- Kiraken. Few? You were just trying ot tell me a few posts back that it was a crisis... how is it even few? Clarify please
Otherwise, you're kinda being hypocritical in your posts.
- kiraken. Okie dokie. A local area is an region that is dominated by a community correct? A community has a bunch of students in it. Therefore the crisis is that students from that area don't have a school to go to. All students attend a school in NSW, regardless whether it's a "choice" or if it's "compulsory" (selective and public school namely) If you open up positions in the local schools in the local area for the local kids, that usually isn't a problem. What's the problem, is that NSG/B are top ranking schools. And like what i've said before as a reply back to your post when you said that if you place everyone in NSG/B into my school my school would do just as well as NSB/G ATM. If you do recall, I disagreed. Why? BEcause my school is not catered to the needs of students from NSG/B. My teachers wouldn't have the experience in teaching students like NSG/Bs. Would you like an example? In the last term of 2012, my principal transfered from my school (top 15) to NSG. He, in every morning assembly they had, attempted to give the student body a new sophicated, unusal word to use throughout the week. Did he do that every assembly in my school? No he didn't. All he did was read the daily notices and thank anyone who had any oustanding achievements. Was that stereotypical of him to assume the standard of intellects in NSG? Perhaps. Does this demostrate that my teachers are obviously not that well-prepared to intake kids from NSG/B? Yes it does.
I quote myself in a previous post.
So although it's a happy coincidence that NSG/b is in the local area that's experiencing a crisis, making them into partially selective - which will then eventually turn them into a public school, as there'll be a lack of students who will be trying out for NSG/B with their rankings down, and an increase in comprehensive students to accomodate for the crisis, I don't think it's a good idea. As you can see, teachers in NSG/B are already catered to the needs of what you can actually say to be "the best and brightest" of the state. And honestly, the gov doesn't really want the resources that NSG/B has to offer.
they only want the space and they want the space because of
time. In that case, why not just move NSG/B to another school elsewhere and make the current location of NSG/B school site into a full public school :c It's another viable option - especially if like what kiraken says, most NSG/B are centered around one local area. But then - what about those who've already had to make sacrifices to get to NSG/B? Moving closer to the school, choosing the school because it's closer etc.
I mean if the gov wants the space because of a lack in time - making NSG/B into partially selective isn't a good idea since both schools have MUCH MORE than space to offer. Bottom line. If you move NSB/G (since the only thing the gov wants is space atm) so that it doesn't become partially selective, you're still going to have to either build a new school, or move a public school to where NSB/G is currently and thus making some parties unhappy. If you make NSB/G into partially selective then you're undermining the resources and potential that they would have to offer (since the gov only wants space) if you leave NSB/G alone and build a new school, then you don't have enough TIME which is need to get MONEY likewise if you expand current public schools then you still don't have enough time (since expanding would/could only ever take a small % of kids a year and not alleviate the immediate crisis).
Just some food for thought. Based on all of this, I still disagree that NSG/B should be made into partial selective schools. I mean these are literally one of the top schools in NSW and have been for a very long time. You're like causing almost a 100 years loss in school culture. All for what? An immediate relief to a crisis that will inevitably occur in the future thansk to our population growth. But i suppose if you don't think that is important then meh. Each to their own.