Mayor insists that NSB + NSG should become partially selective schools? (1 Viewer)

[Erinaceous]

ok first of all - try not to use words like wankery. Grow up. I'm just presenting an argument for argument's sake, it's not an attack on your person If you can, try not to get too personal. If you feel that I am attacking you then tell and quote me. I'll apologise (but only with evidence haha) because it wasn't my intent. Hopefully I can say the same for you.

Secondly, read my previous posts before repeating arguments that I've already responded to. Just because it's not in the post that I replied to doesn't mean I or someone else has not already mentioned it. Arguments have been quite circular in the thread for a while now, and I can't be stuffed to type up everything again when all you have to do is scroll through a few pages.

Give me the numbers then. If it's acrisis then surely, it does mean quite a large number of kids. If the numbers aren't as much as to fit in like half of NSG and NSB, then why choose the stategy of employing NSG/B into partially selective? Just expand schools in the local area. IF the numbers do fit in the population of around half (generalizing here, if you don’t realize) the current student population in each school, then there's enough students for the gov to build a new school and make it co-ed. As for why making NSG/B partially selective isn't a good idea, refer to my previous posts. Tell me then, do you know the number of students that are invovled in this "crisis"? Give me a rough estimate, since obviously you don't think I know what I'm talking about.
Note: How can it not be a large number? You yourself are saying that 300 kids are not going to make it in other selective schools if NSG/B are going to become partially selective. And if it's a large number, then you may as well build a new school. Btw, I don’t know about NSB, but NSG is a relatively small school. You’re not going to be getting much space out of it anyways lel.

Fundwise. How do you propose to make NSG/B partially selective huh? It requires new resources, a new school curriculum, a new way of teaching etc. You'll have to have teachers who are catered to the needs of both student types etc. These all take up resources aka money and time. Either way, doing SOMETHING will take up resources.

Please do not use some slippery slope argument that this is gonna lead to the doom of all selective schools as this solution, even though you repeatedly miss the point, is a LOCAL issue.

I'm getting iffy by this argument. What the hell is my "slippery slope argument that this is going to lead to the doom of all selective schools as this solution." That, my dear, if your opinion c:

Let me summarise my arguments for you, in case you seem to be misunderstanding. Firstly. If NSG/B become partially selective due to pressure from the local council, then this may as well be an example set for the future. What happens if a crisis occurs in a region with a selective school? Should the Gov from that area also make that selective school partially selective? North Sydney can very well be setting up an model for the future, especially with our population growth. If they can be setting a model, then would you agree it goes further than local? I mean how many councils are there in one local area? Uh, one?

Secondly. Like what our friend classic jimbo stated, this is indeed appearing to be a "two way scheme" to make NSG/B public. Isn't this like a reverse model? So what? We're going to have selective schools turn public and public schools aiming to turn selective? That leads to two implications.
1) Loss in school culture and time - in that time is required for changes in school curriculum to fit different needs of students
2) Waste in resources. Having the school adapt to cater for public students, then having a school adaopt to cater for selective schools in the next x years (since going selective appears to be an aim of some public schools) just seems like a huge waste in resources to me.

No. I'm not saying that public school kids are utter crap and they deserve a bad education or something. I'm saying that, if you want to have education, then do it right. Cater the school to make it suitable for different student groups and their needs. Public school kids deserve to go to a school that has suitable learning environments for the public school kids. Unfortunately the environment for a comprehensive student is different to that of a selective school student. (if it isn’t then I’m backing off now. Reason? - if the environment that’s catered towards a selective school kid and public school kid is exactly the same, then why the hell do selective schools exist? Hmm) If teachers from selective schools with a difference of 6 ranks can't teach the other selective schools rights, then how the hell do you expect a teacher from a selective school to automatically adapt to teaching to comprehensive students. (if you want an example in how teachers from a selective school that's ranked lower than NSG by just over 5 ranks, refer to my previous post. I gave a detailed description of moi last princiapl with NSGs)

Ok, would you disagree with me if I told you that students who get high marks in their selective test are searching for schools that are stable in terms of rank? It's commonly known that the further down you get along the school rankings based of the HSC cohort, the more a school can fluctuate while the reverse is true for the higher rankig school. Well, if selective schools can randomly and quite willingly/easily become partial selective because of pressure from a local gov, then you're not going to get stability in rankings in even the top schools. In theory, a lack of selective schools = greater competition among schools, but that sense of competition becomes less, “competitive” if there's a constant fluctuation in schools becoming selective and public. A student would have to be relying partially on luck and hope that the local gov. doesn’t attack their school while they’re in it lol. You’re also going to cause a massive movmenet in student numbers – because can you deny that the average selective school kid from a top ranking school, would move to another school if their current school is going to become partially selective? Excluding the senior cohort, I think the majority would move.

Students need time to adapt to their environment. To force them to continually move schools – uh no. That just causes chaos for everyone – Teachers, who have to make the transition between selective and non selective almost fluently in class, students who have to adapt to different environments, teachers etc

It's going to have a negative impact because these fully selective schools that we're talking about are legit top ranking schools that have kept their position in the top ranks of this state for a very long time. This whole problem is centered space-wise, and NSG/B simply offer much more than just “space”. A school's success/ability to hone and adapt to student needs, once again, although is largely dependent on the student body (effort wise etc) factors like resources, teachers, experience, school events and opportunities ALL come into play. Reason? Student body is not the only thing that makes up a good school. Yes, if you make NSG/B partially selective, you end up with a more competitive selective environment in other schools, but also yes in that if you make NSG/B partially selective you're losing out on the school culture of NSG/B. If this wasn't a school who has proven to continually score good marks then that's another issue. This is because NSG/B is DESIREABLE. There is going to be an expectation of a continuous flow of students to the two schools, it’s not a random school that’s not doing well academically or EC wise. Refer to paragraph below for more info. Once again, NSG/B has much more to offer than just space-wise. Can you deny that this "LOCAL CRISIS" is not centered around space? I'm only saying, this isn't the best strategy in that it's not getting the most out of these schools(NSG/B) as it could be getting.

I was not hypocritical, you just seem oblivious to the fact that the crisis is local. I'm not sure if you know how population growth works but its not uniform everywhere, specific areas grow at specific rates which is why you need to be systematic about where you build new schools or how you handle education funding. If you don't have enough space for students in a local area but you do not think it is going to grow to the extent you need two whole new schools for it then the simple solution is just to add space to pre-existing schools.

I donm't know about you, but I'm seeing most of the competitive selective schools being located in areas that are considered to be more populated than the average suburb. If specific areas grow at a specific rate, then building a new school seems to be the best option, because they’re going to continue to grow at this “specific rate” Dude. It's not like our selective schools have gone rural or something they're all somewhat located in greater sydney. Sydney in general is a growing city. To answer your question, I am not missing the point that's it's a local crisis. I've suggested space, time and money being the main influences of this proposed strategy and have stated that I feel NSG/B can offer much more than simply SPACE. To make them a partially selective school, which will then result in the intake of a low number of selective school, hereby finally ending up with pretty much a public school, is a waste of time and resources. Refer to previous posts for more.

How am I oblivious so the fact that the crisis is local? I've raised certain points
- overall increase in population IN AUSTRALIA'S CITIES. Note that Sydney is a city. Most selective schools are in Sydney (as in the top ones, and we’re talking about a top selective school c: )
- You don't know if a crisis may occur in another area once you make NSG/B partially selective. Like you've said, most student travel there. This means that there's a movement of students across our city thanks to NSG/B. What's to say, another suburb isn't experiencing a local crisis right now BECAUSE OF THIS MOVEMENT. There’s too many factors involved if you want to make NSG/B partially selective, because the majority of students WILL MOVE. <~ this is the generalized mindset of a selective school student. Move to the school with the next highest potentially in giving you your desired marks. Can you deny this?
- Furthermore, you don’t know if another crisis is going to happen AT NORTH SYDNEY AGAIN. Accounting for circumstances that may happen in Sydney and around the city especially (growing population centered around CBD) building a new school will help
- Setting an example to other local gov. + reverse model causing confusion and more chaos as well as competition.
- How exactly do you plan on making NSG/B partially selective? Are you proposing that they will open 150 places in Year 7 for local students? If so, what about the very desperate local kids who are NOT in Year 7, but rather Year 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 and they have to unfairly travel so very far to escape this crisis? Don’t you think that they should transfer in? And if they do, who are you going to kick out of NSG/B that are currently attending? It may very well be the current Year 7s that cannot find a school, but you don’t know what uproar the parents of older children might spurt out once they feel as though they’re children missed out on this local opportunity.

And yes btw Sydney Tech does get 99.95s and most selective schools actually get a fair few marks above 99, which is indicative of competition.

Oh really? Because in my school we get like what? ~5~ 99+ (and that was the cohort that was actually smart) and ~3-4~ on average 99+. I don't remember a time when we actually got a 99.95er. Granted my reasons for doubting your post is based on rankings - but hey I feel that my doubt is quite justified seeing in that sydney tech is constantly getting those marks. Like, how? I think rankings are based on band 6s and if that’s the case it’s like, half of Sydney Tech’s awesomely smart and the other half is not so smart. Wtheck. (lol, do they favor the smart kids?) Again, an issue in consistency.

I do not think you really appreciate how education is in the selective system, you dismiss the point of selective education being a choice and comprehensive education being compulsory for literally no reason even though that is a major point. You also fail to appreciate that education is about personal initiative too, if the students are honestly mollycoddled to the point where they wouldn't do as well under teachers from another selective school, this is more a testament to their lack of maturity when it comes to learning more than anything else and these students frankly speaking would get pulverised by university education lol.

LOL. Ok first of all, you seem to misunderstanding something.
1) The tactic that my principal used didn't work for any NSGs. First of all, no one bothered to do his excersises,
2) It was to demonstrate that teachers are just human. They cannot automatically cater to the needs of two largely different groups of people. Note the key word is automatically? My demonstration was to show that if a teacher cannot adjust appropriately to the student body when moving only around ~6 ranks up then how can they make the transition from selective - public in a short amount of time?

If anything, it'll be the public school kids (in a partially selective environment) who will be either "mollycoddled" by the teachers at first - due to stereotypes that selective schools are so much better than public schools, or the content will be too hard until the teachers can sort out everything.

But if you insist that this is moddlecuddling, I guess that, Lol yes they are moddlecuddled- but their form of moddlecuddling seems to work quite well in this education system. Tutoring can also be seen as a form of the student’s personal initiative- they use it to persevere to become even better. Yet tutoring can also be seen as mollycoddled as it is the tutors that sometimes drive the students to reach new heights.
Why can you not understand that our education system aims to make the weak, stronger, but the strong, elite? (Honestly, compare the pulverization rates of Ruse in uni. I dare you.)

Secondly, I have never dismissed the point of selective education being a hoice and comprehensive education being compulsory lol. If anything, you’re either forgetting or ignoring my points and continually stating the same thing over and over again. I’m just saying that the advantages of keeping NSG/B fully selective outweigh the advantages of making them partially selective. Once again, you expect a school to make a transition from Selective to comprehensive automatically. If we want the local kids to go to an educational facility and receive some sort of a education, then I say, do it properly. You can’t expect a school which is catered towards a selective school to naturally shift to cater the needs of a public school! Classes for one. I don’t know about other selective schools, but my school doesn’t offer general maths because they feel it to be too easy for selective students, we also have compulsory EE1. Granted NSG/B and my school differ but they’ll have their own unique system, that will have to change to accommodate for public school kids. By making NSG/B partially selective, all the gov is doing is to get everyone in a school. That doesn’t mean everyone’s going to get their education needs met. All I’m saying is that what’s the point in making NSG/B partially selective, if you can build or expand a school? Fund wise- well if you make NSG/B partially selective you may need new resources for new classes, you will need to reorganize the school curriculum, and kids from both selective and comprehensive schools may not be in an environment that can bring our their max potential which will eventually leading to a lower amount of students getting high ATARs or more stress for the student because they’re not in an environment in which they can learn best in and thus becomes a negative environment for both the selective and comprehensive cohort while 300 kids are out there, believing that they’re missing out on an environment that may bring out their best ATAR. Keyword: Believing.

Also you do realise that the reason your teacher didn't say unusual words at assembly anymore wasn't necessarily because he thought you were inferior but because it was just kinda lame haha? It literally has nothing to do with the calibre of your school if he delivers assemblies with one less gimmick that has nothing to do with education hahaha

What are you talking about? My principal doesn’t give us random search-up-the-dictionary tasks to do, because he was catered towards my school’s needs. He never thought we were inferior (at least not to my knowledge, but any arguments you have is moot since you've never attended my school lol). This example was to show that stereotypes do exist even among selective schools. The assembly words thing, was to show that he stereotyped on the average NSG’s brain and how it would benefit them. So yes, it does have to do with education in that it shows teachers cannot adjust automatically to a different student group. Your point is null because it’s purely your own opinion and a pretty cynical opinion too lol. Plus, I doubt your statement is hardly complimentary towards the man at hand. Don’t be mean, it’s not very nice :c

Lol the last paragraph you have is nothing more than wankery, the history of a school isn't going to alleviate a crisis or provide local kids with an education they need. Not to mention that the culture of the school isn't going to necessarily be impact upon at all, you aren't demolishing the school so the history is still going to be there. Ergo, your point is moot because this initiative doesn't change the history of the school at all and its still going to be there, the only change in culture is that you will have local kids in the school, considering both schools have "north Sydney" in their names you could argue this would be excellent to school culture. Also it's kinda elitist and arrogant to assume that local kids are going to "damage" a school's culture, performing well in the HSC isn't a culture in itself, culture is a much richer term than that and if you define a school's worth by that then it shows you have no appreciation for its culture anyway. Also as I said, this solution would fix the crisis because the crisis is local, you have shown no evidence that the population of that particular area is going to grow so much in the near future that justifies building two schools, population growth in Australia cannot be applied uniformly to each individual area because each area has different rates of growth.

Who said anything about history? I’m talking about culture here. Their culture is suited to top-notch students. Their events etc, are all catered towards students who want to go to university. They offer stuff like getting university professors to talk in their schools and explain about uni, choices there etc (I don’t know too much about this, since my friends only gave a brief explanation) and loads of EC that the average school wouldn’t offer- the philosothon, what matters essay, holly, the “Dome”, the “Leviathan”, the “Umbrella Project” etc. “You aren’t demolishing the school” - that’s not an certainty because a school shifts itself to a different learning environment. (Building or changing facilities if you must see it physically) There are more than just physical aspects that make up a school. (Should I revisit my post on reputation?) Different student groups have different needs. But just because you’re not demolishing the school doesn’t mean there’s a loss in school curriculum, events etc that may have to be changed to accommodate for coming comprehensive students. You’re point is moot, because the word culture itself defines something more than just physical. Also, I’m not talking about a change in history LOL (I’m talking about a present/future change to some “historical” practices) How the heck do you even change history anyways? XD

So uh yes. Culture is going to be impacted because student body makes up a culture  Culture can be seen as just how a group of individuals act. How’d you come to the conclusion that culture isn’t going to be affected? Do explain

LOL Both schools may have north Sydney in their names, but both are located at Crows nest Did you not even know? Why would having North Sydney, in their names have anything to do with this? Are you trying to suggest they have an obligation to cater towards local kids in the north Sydney region because they have North Sydney in their name? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. What, so if NSG and NSB change their names to Crows nest Boys and Crows Nest Girls, then there will be no more pressure from the local gov? XD You’re one funny young grasshopper.

Precisely. You just reinforced what I’m saying. There’s goig to be a change and loss in culture and so events + environment that’s catered to needs of high caliber students. (how’d you even end up with history LOL)

Local kids going to damage school culture being elitist? No just logical. Like I’ve said, to intake comprehensive students you need to be able to provide for them. Otherwise – what’s the point? Around 300 kids are missing out on a selective education that will suit them better, and public schools, although they just got ito a school, there’s no guarantee they’re not going to be able to adjust efficently. By school culture I mean factors like school curriculum and environment. I’m not suggesting that local kids are mosquito and flie-infested potatoes who are going to bring doom to us all. No, I’m only saying that it will require a change in an environment and curriculum that has been previously catered to + suitably succeeded in churning out top ranked students. Dude, stop misunderstanding me. Read my posts before you make such remarks. Just saying – Doing well in the HSC is defined in the school reputation which attracts the students to make up the culture. (Psss. That means it does have an influence )

Making NSG/B partially selective is just going to make then public sooner or later. Think of it this way – The average public school migt aim to be selective. They may become partially selective first then fully selective (correct me if I’m wrong) So eventually it’s Public – selective. If a selective school becomes partially selective, it’s the reverse model. And if that’s the case, then it’s only obvious to assume they’ll go public sooner or later and then maybe later attempt to go selective again (causing a headache for everyone and a loss in precious resources + culture).

To sum it up. I disagree with making NSG/B partially selective because of the following reason
a) It's a home to many students who take a large amount of travel time. Note, this is willingly, so any points you have that state somewhere along the lines of, "it's more beneficial for them not to move as much" is null/moot. Why? Because if it was so beneficial, you'd wonder why they moved to NSG/B in the first place. To relocate all these students, could potentially result in another crisis elsewhere.
b) The government is looking for space. NSG/B has more than space to offer - resources, reputation (that would attract other shmart students etc)
c) There will be a massive shift in teaching methods, costing time + resources. It’s not something to take light of, it will require a carefully thought out plan. Furthermore, if teachers aren’t happy with how its set out, (like how students of partially selective schools don’t seem to be) the new system is operationally unfeasible, not to mention economically (intangible) unfeasible. Because there is one thing we both seem to agree on. That everyone deserves an adequate education If you want to give public schools a prosperous education that's catered to their needs, then do it right.
D) Why deny the inevitable? One day, in the future, Sydney in general is going to have to implement new schools. Why not do it now? All that means is that we have one less school to worry about building, in the future. Why is it not possible to expand other current high schools? They wouldn’t require a change in school curriculum and honestly, the environment would better suit the comprehensive students as opposed to an awkward transition in NSG/B. I’m not saying that selective school students are oh, so much better and are all elitist therefore teachers of NSG/B would be degrading themselves through teaching comprehensive school students. Nope, All I’m saying is that in selective and public schools, the environment and resources differ because if they didn’t, then why would the selective school model exist in the first place?

Since it’s evident that you’re misunderstanding me, I’ll like you to take the time to read through my post properly to clarify such misunderstandings. You could at the very least, return the same courtesy as I’m giving you (reading through your post+ keeping language G-rated).

 

[RivalryofTroll]

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".

Oh really? Because in my school we get like what? ~5~ 99+ (and that was the cohort that was actually smart) and ~3-4~ on average 99+. I don't remember a time when we actually got a 99.95er. Granted my reasons for doubting your post is based on rankings - but hey I feel that my doubt is quite justified seeing in that sydney tech is constantly getting those marks. Like, how? I think rankings are based on band 6s and if that’s the case it’s like, half of Sydney Tech’s awesomely smart and the other half is not so smart. Wtheck. (lol, do they favor the smart kids?) Again, an issue in consistency.

I think what Kiraken is trying to say is that Sydney Tech (or fully selective schools outside of the top 15 in general) have potential to get or have gotten 99.95ers over the course of many years. Obviously it's near impossible for Tech or a fully selective school outside of the top 15 like Hurlstone or Girraween to like 5 99.95ers every year - that's insane consistency for top end results.

For the past 3 years at Tech:
- 2011: Dux got 99.90
- 2012: 3 99.95ers
- 2013: Dux got 99.95

Clearly, the top Tech students (top 15ish) can get 99+ and a few hitting 99.90s and 99.95s over the years.

And don't correlate SCHOOL RANKINGS with TOP END RESULTS (e.g. 99.95ers or 99+).

School rankings looks at DA (Band 6 conversion) so the school as a whole rather than the amount of high-end students. Band 6 conversion is the next closest thing to average ATAR when it comes to accurately determining fair school ranks - you should look at the overall performance of a school rather than just looking at its top end students.
In 2011, Tech was like ranked 23rd with 0 99.95ers while in 2012, Tech was ranked 33rd with THREE 99.95ers. In 2013, Tech was ranked 32nd with 1 99.95er. So, in the year we got a few .95ers, the school was ranked lower compared to the years where we got 0 or 1 99.95er.

A good hypothetical situation, a school where all the students got 90 exactly in all their subjects would be 1st (100% DA, which will beat Ruse who usually gets around 70% DA) yet their highest ATAR may only be 99.00 (for example). While Ruse could get like 8 99.95ers or something yet be 2nd cause their DA conversion was lower.

As for your comment on Tech having half of the cohort being strong and half of the cohort being weak, it might be true or it might not be true. All depends on the year. Then again, when it comes to being relative, all schools will have a stronger and a weaker part of the cohort. The school with a smaller tail will most likely produce more band 6s and hence, end up with a higher school ranking. And yes, consistency does play a big role.

What I really want to place emphasis on (Kiraken probably has mentioned this before) is that - the top end students of most schools (regardless of their ranking or previous years' average ATAR) can do equally as well as each other.

The very top students of Sydney Tech, Girraween, Hurlstone, St George Girls, etc. may very well be as good as (or close to) the very top students of NSG, NSB, Sydney Boys, Sydney Girls, etc.

Obviously, the top 10 schools will produce more ''top students'' but that doesn't stop students from schools outside of the top 10 from achieving 99.90 or 99.95. Heck, you can achieve 99.95 at a rank 500 school with the right subjects, the strong marks and being 1st in all your subjects.

On another note, while many of you might argue that the PARTIAL SELECTIVE SCHOOL model does not work - we should look at Sefton High for example. In 2013, they cracked into the top 40 (i.e. being higher ranked than fully selective schools like Girraween and Penrith iirc) and was like only 4 ranks away from Sydney Tech. It has the potential to work and if its economically feasible, they might as well do it. There's many fully selective school alternatives out there for students such as Sydney Boys, Sydney Girls, Hornsby Girls, Ruse, Baulko, etc.

 

[Kiraken]

I think what Kiraken is trying to say is that Sydney Tech (or fully selective schools outside of the top 15 in general) have potential to get or have gotten 99.95ers over the course of many years. Obviously it's near impossible for Tech or a fully selective school outside of the top 15 like Hurlstone or Girraween to like 5 99.95ers every year - that's insane consistency for top end results.

For the past 3 years at Tech:
- 2011: Dux got 99.90
- 2012: 3 99.95ers
- 2013: Dux got 99.95

Clearly, the top Tech students (top 15ish) can get 99+ and a few hitting 99.90s and 99.95s over the years.

And don't correlate SCHOOL RANKINGS with TOP END RESULTS (e.g. 99.95ers or 99+).

School rankings looks at DA (Band 6 conversion) so the school as a whole rather than the amount of high-end students. Band 6 conversion is the next closest thing to average ATAR when it comes to accurately determining fair school ranks - you should look at the overall performance of a school rather than just looking at its top end students.
In 2011, Tech was like ranked 23rd with 0 99.95ers while in 2012, Tech was ranked 33rd with THREE 99.95ers. In 2013, Tech was ranked 32nd with 1 99.95er. So, in the year we got a few .95ers, the school was ranked lower compared to the years where we got 0 or 1 99.95er.

A good hypothetical situation, a school where all the students got 90 exactly in all their subjects would be 1st (100% DA, which will beat Ruse who usually gets around 70% DA) yet their highest ATAR may only be 99.00 (for example). While Ruse could get like 8 99.95ers or something yet be 2nd cause their DA conversion was lower.

As for your comment on Tech having half of the cohort being strong and half of the cohort being weak, it might be true or it might not be true. All depends on the year. Then again, when it comes to being relative, all schools will have a stronger and a weaker part of the cohort. The school with a smaller tail will most likely produce more band 6s and hence, end up with a higher school ranking. And yes, consistency does play a big role.

What I really want to place emphasis on (Kiraken probably has mentioned this before) is that - the top end students of most schools (regardless of their ranking or previous years' average ATAR) can do equally as well as each other.

The very top students of Sydney Tech, Girraween, Hurlstone, St George Girls, etc. may very well be as good as (or close to) the very top students of NSG, NSB, Sydney Boys, Sydney Girls, etc.

Obviously, the top 10 schools will produce more ''top students'' but that doesn't stop students from schools outside of the top 10 from achieving 99.90 or 99.95. Heck, you can achieve 99.95 at a rank 500 school with the right subjects, the strong marks and being 1st in all your subjects.

On another note, while many of you might argue that the PARTIAL SELECTIVE SCHOOL model does not work - we should look at Sefton High for example. In 2013, they cracked into the top 40 (i.e. being higher ranked than fully selective schools like Girraween and Penrith iirc) and was like only 4 ranks away from Sydney Tech. It has the potential to work and if its economically feasible, they might as well do it. There's many fully selective school alternatives out there for students such as Sydney Boys, Sydney Girls, Hornsby Girls, Ruse, Baulko, etc.

pretty much this when it comes to the ranking argument

 

[RealiseNothing]

lol if you have to go to a high ranking school to get a good atar, must be pretty dependent on other people

 

[Kiraken]

ok first of all - try not to use words like wankery. Grow up. I'm just presenting an argument for argument's sake, it's not an attack on your person If you can, try not to get too personal. If you feel that I am attacking you then tell and quote me. I'll apologise (but only with evidence haha) because it wasn't my intent. Hopefully I can say the same for you.

Secondly, read my previous posts before repeating arguments that I've already responded to. Just because it's not in the post that I replied to doesn't mean I or someone else has not already mentioned it. Arguments have been quite circular in the thread for a while now, and I can't be stuffed to type up everything again when all you have to do is scroll through a few pages.

Give me the numbers then. If it's acrisis then surely, it does mean quite a large number of kids. If the numbers aren't as much as to fit in like half of NSG and NSB, then why choose the stategy of employing NSG/B into partially selective? Just expand schools in the local area. IF the numbers do fit in the population of around half (generalizing here, if you don’t realize) the current student population in each school, then there's enough students for the gov to build a new school and make it co-ed. As for why making NSG/B partially selective isn't a good idea, refer to my previous posts. Tell me then, do you know the number of students that are invovled in this "crisis"? Give me a rough estimate, since obviously you don't think I know what I'm talking about.
Note: How can it not be a large number? You yourself are saying that 300 kids are not going to make it in other selective schools if NSG/B are going to become partially selective. And if it's a large number, then you may as well build a new school. Btw, I don’t know about NSB, but NSG is a relatively small school. You’re not going to be getting much space out of it anyways lel.

Fundwise. How do you propose to make NSG/B partially selective huh? It requires new resources, a new school curriculum, a new way of teaching etc. You'll have to have teachers who are catered to the needs of both student types etc. These all take up resources aka money and time. Either way, doing SOMETHING will take up resources.


I'm getting iffy by this argument. What the hell is my "slippery slope argument that this is going to lead to the doom of all selective schools as this solution." That, my dear, if your opinion c:

Let me summarise my arguments for you, in case you seem to be misunderstanding. Firstly. If NSG/B become partially selective due to pressure from the local council, then this may as well be an example set for the future. What happens if a crisis occurs in a region with a selective school? Should the Gov from that area also make that selective school partially selective? North Sydney can very well be setting up an model for the future, especially with our population growth. If they can be setting a model, then would you agree it goes further than local? I mean how many councils are there in one local area? Uh, one?

Secondly. Like what our friend classic jimbo stated, this is indeed appearing to be a "two way scheme" to make NSG/B public. Isn't this like a reverse model? So what? We're going to have selective schools turn public and public schools aiming to turn selective? That leads to two implications.
1) Loss in school culture and time - in that time is required for changes in school curriculum to fit different needs of students
2) Waste in resources. Having the school adapt to cater for public students, then having a school adaopt to cater for selective schools in the next x years (since going selective appears to be an aim of some public schools) just seems like a huge waste in resources to me.

No. I'm not saying that public school kids are utter crap and they deserve a bad education or something. I'm saying that, if you want to have education, then do it right. Cater the school to make it suitable for different student groups and their needs. Public school kids deserve to go to a school that has suitable learning environments for the public school kids. Unfortunately the environment for a comprehensive student is different to that of a selective school student. (if it isn’t then I’m backing off now. Reason? - if the environment that’s catered towards a selective school kid and public school kid is exactly the same, then why the hell do selective schools exist? Hmm) If teachers from selective schools with a difference of 6 ranks can't teach the other selective schools rights, then how the hell do you expect a teacher from a selective school to automatically adapt to teaching to comprehensive students. (if you want an example in how teachers from a selective school that's ranked lower than NSG by just over 5 ranks, refer to my previous post. I gave a detailed description of moi last princiapl with NSGs)

Ok, would you disagree with me if I told you that students who get high marks in their selective test are searching for schools that are stable in terms of rank? It's commonly known that the further down you get along the school rankings based of the HSC cohort, the more a school can fluctuate while the reverse is true for the higher rankig school. Well, if selective schools can randomly and quite willingly/easily become partial selective because of pressure from a local gov, then you're not going to get stability in rankings in even the top schools. In theory, a lack of selective schools = greater competition among schools, but that sense of competition becomes less, “competitive” if there's a constant fluctuation in schools becoming selective and public. A student would have to be relying partially on luck and hope that the local gov. doesn’t attack their school while they’re in it lol. You’re also going to cause a massive movmenet in student numbers – because can you deny that the average selective school kid from a top ranking school, would move to another school if their current school is going to become partially selective? Excluding the senior cohort, I think the majority would move.

Students need time to adapt to their environment. To force them to continually move schools – uh no. That just causes chaos for everyone – Teachers, who have to make the transition between selective and non selective almost fluently in class, students who have to adapt to different environments, teachers etc

It's going to have a negative impact because these fully selective schools that we're talking about are legit top ranking schools that have kept their position in the top ranks of this state for a very long time. This whole problem is centered space-wise, and NSG/B simply offer much more than just “space”. A school's success/ability to hone and adapt to student needs, once again, although is largely dependent on the student body (effort wise etc) factors like resources, teachers, experience, school events and opportunities ALL come into play. Reason? Student body is not the only thing that makes up a good school. Yes, if you make NSG/B partially selective, you end up with a more competitive selective environment in other schools, but also yes in that if you make NSG/B partially selective you're losing out on the school culture of NSG/B. If this wasn't a school who has proven to continually score good marks then that's another issue. This is because NSG/B is DESIREABLE. There is going to be an expectation of a continuous flow of students to the two schools, it’s not a random school that’s not doing well academically or EC wise. Refer to paragraph below for more info. Once again, NSG/B has much more to offer than just space-wise. Can you deny that this "LOCAL CRISIS" is not centered around space? I'm only saying, this isn't the best strategy in that it's not getting the most out of these schools(NSG/B) as it could be getting.


I donm't know about you, but I'm seeing most of the competitive selective schools being located in areas that are considered to be more populated than the average suburb. If specific areas grow at a specific rate, then building a new school seems to be the best option, because they’re going to continue to grow at this “specific rate” Dude. It's not like our selective schools have gone rural or something they're all somewhat located in greater sydney. Sydney in general is a growing city. To answer your question, I am not missing the point that's it's a local crisis. I've suggested space, time and money being the main influences of this proposed strategy and have stated that I feel NSG/B can offer much more than simply SPACE. To make them a partially selective school, which will then result in the intake of a low number of selective school, hereby finally ending up with pretty much a public school, is a waste of time and resources. Refer to previous posts for more.

How am I oblivious so the fact that the crisis is local? I've raised certain points
- overall increase in population IN AUSTRALIA'S CITIES. Note that Sydney is a city. Most selective schools are in Sydney (as in the top ones, and we’re talking about a top selective school c: )
- You don't know if a crisis may occur in another area once you make NSG/B partially selective. Like you've said, most student travel there. This means that there's a movement of students across our city thanks to NSG/B. What's to say, another suburb isn't experiencing a local crisis right now BECAUSE OF THIS MOVEMENT. There’s too many factors involved if you want to make NSG/B partially selective, because the majority of students WILL MOVE. <~ this is the generalized mindset of a selective school student. Move to the school with the next highest potentially in giving you your desired marks. Can you deny this?
- Furthermore, you don’t know if another crisis is going to happen AT NORTH SYDNEY AGAIN. Accounting for circumstances that may happen in Sydney and around the city especially (growing population centered around CBD) building a new school will help
- Setting an example to other local gov. + reverse model causing confusion and more chaos as well as competition.
- How exactly do you plan on making NSG/B partially selective? Are you proposing that they will open 150 places in Year 7 for local students? If so, what about the very desperate local kids who are NOT in Year 7, but rather Year 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 and they have to unfairly travel so very far to escape this crisis? Don’t you think that they should transfer in? And if they do, who are you going to kick out of NSG/B that are currently attending? It may very well be the current Year 7s that cannot find a school, but you don’t know what uproar the parents of older children might spurt out once they feel as though they’re children missed out on this local opportunity.



Oh really? Because in my school we get like what? ~5~ 99+ (and that was the cohort that was actually smart) and ~3-4~ on average 99+. I don't remember a time when we actually got a 99.95er. Granted my reasons for doubting your post is based on rankings - but hey I feel that my doubt is quite justified seeing in that sydney tech is constantly getting those marks. Like, how? I think rankings are based on band 6s and if that’s the case it’s like, half of Sydney Tech’s awesomely smart and the other half is not so smart. Wtheck. (lol, do they favor the smart kids?) Again, an issue in consistency.



LOL. Ok first of all, you seem to misunderstanding something.
1) The tactic that my principal used didn't work for any NSGs. First of all, no one bothered to do his excersises,
2) It was to demonstrate that teachers are just human. They cannot automatically cater to the needs of two largely different groups of people. Note the key word is automatically? My demonstration was to show that if a teacher cannot adjust appropriately to the student body when moving only around ~6 ranks up then how can they make the transition from selective - public in a short amount of time?

If anything, it'll be the public school kids (in a partially selective environment) who will be either "mollycoddled" by the teachers at first - due to stereotypes that selective schools are so much better than public schools, or the content will be too hard until the teachers can sort out everything.

But if you insist that this is moddlecuddling, I guess that, Lol yes they are moddlecuddled- but their form of moddlecuddling seems to work quite well in this education system. Tutoring can also be seen as a form of the student’s personal initiative- they use it to persevere to become even better. Yet tutoring can also be seen as mollycoddled as it is the tutors that sometimes drive the students to reach new heights.
Why can you not understand that our education system aims to make the weak, stronger, but the strong, elite? (Honestly, compare the pulverization rates of Ruse in uni. I dare you.)

Secondly, I have never dismissed the point of selective education being a hoice and comprehensive education being compulsory lol. If anything, you’re either forgetting or ignoring my points and continually stating the same thing over and over again. I’m just saying that the advantages of keeping NSG/B fully selective outweigh the advantages of making them partially selective. Once again, you expect a school to make a transition from Selective to comprehensive automatically. If we want the local kids to go to an educational facility and receive some sort of a education, then I say, do it properly. You can’t expect a school which is catered towards a selective school to naturally shift to cater the needs of a public school! Classes for one. I don’t know about other selective schools, but my school doesn’t offer general maths because they feel it to be too easy for selective students, we also have compulsory EE1. Granted NSG/B and my school differ but they’ll have their own unique system, that will have to change to accommodate for public school kids. By making NSG/B partially selective, all the gov is doing is to get everyone in a school. That doesn’t mean everyone’s going to get their education needs met. All I’m saying is that what’s the point in making NSG/B partially selective, if you can build or expand a school? Fund wise- well if you make NSG/B partially selective you may need new resources for new classes, you will need to reorganize the school curriculum, and kids from both selective and comprehensive schools may not be in an environment that can bring our their max potential which will eventually leading to a lower amount of students getting high ATARs or more stress for the student because they’re not in an environment in which they can learn best in and thus becomes a negative environment for both the selective and comprehensive cohort while 300 kids are out there, believing that they’re missing out on an environment that may bring out their best ATAR. Keyword: Believing.

Also you do realise that the reason your teacher didn't say unusual words at assembly anymore wasn't necessarily because he thought you were inferior but because it was just kinda lame haha? It literally has nothing to do with the calibre of your school if he delivers assemblies with one less gimmick that has nothing to do with education hahaha

What are you talking about? My principal doesn’t give us random search-up-the-dictionary tasks to do, because he was catered towards my school’s needs. He never thought we were inferior (at least not to my knowledge, but any arguments you have is moot since you've never attended my school lol). This example was to show that stereotypes do exist even among selective schools. The assembly words thing, was to show that he stereotyped on the average NSG’s brain and how it would benefit them. So yes, it does have to do with education in that it shows teachers cannot adjust automatically to a different student group. Your point is null because it’s purely your own opinion and a pretty cynical opinion too lol. Plus, I doubt your statement is hardly complimentary towards the man at hand. Don’t be mean, it’s not very nice :c



Who said anything about history? I’m talking about culture here. Their culture is suited to top-notch students. Their events etc, are all catered towards students who want to go to university. They offer stuff like getting university professors to talk in their schools and explain about uni, choices there etc (I don’t know too much about this, since my friends only gave a brief explanation) and loads of EC that the average school wouldn’t offer- the philosothon, what matters essay, holly, the “Dome”, the “Leviathan”, the “Umbrella Project” etc. “You aren’t demolishing the school” - that’s not an certainty because a school shifts itself to a different learning environment. (Building or changing facilities if you must see it physically) There are more than just physical aspects that make up a school. (Should I revisit my post on reputation?) Different student groups have different needs. But just because you’re not demolishing the school doesn’t mean there’s a loss in school curriculum, events etc that may have to be changed to accommodate for coming comprehensive students. You’re point is moot, because the word culture itself defines something more than just physical. Also, I’m not talking about a change in history LOL (I’m talking about a present/future change to some “historical” practices) How the heck do you even change history anyways? XD

So uh yes. Culture is going to be impacted because student body makes up a culture  Culture can be seen as just how a group of individuals act. How’d you come to the conclusion that culture isn’t going to be affected? Do explain

LOL Both schools may have north Sydney in their names, but both are located at Crows nest Did you not even know? Why would having North Sydney, in their names have anything to do with this? Are you trying to suggest they have an obligation to cater towards local kids in the north Sydney region because they have North Sydney in their name? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. What, so if NSG and NSB change their names to Crows nest Boys and Crows Nest Girls, then there will be no more pressure from the local gov? XD You’re one funny young grasshopper.

Precisely. You just reinforced what I’m saying. There’s goig to be a change and loss in culture and so events + environment that’s catered to needs of high caliber students. (how’d you even end up with history LOL)

Local kids going to damage school culture being elitist? No just logical. Like I’ve said, to intake comprehensive students you need to be able to provide for them. Otherwise – what’s the point? Around 300 kids are missing out on a selective education that will suit them better, and public schools, although they just got ito a school, there’s no guarantee they’re not going to be able to adjust efficently. By school culture I mean factors like school curriculum and environment. I’m not suggesting that local kids are mosquito and flie-infested potatoes who are going to bring doom to us all. No, I’m only saying that it will require a change in an environment and curriculum that has been previously catered to + suitably succeeded in churning out top ranked students. Dude, stop misunderstanding me. Read my posts before you make such remarks. Just saying – Doing well in the HSC is defined in the school reputation which attracts the students to make up the culture. (Psss. That means it does have an influence )

Making NSG/B partially selective is just going to make then public sooner or later. Think of it this way – The average public school migt aim to be selective. They may become partially selective first then fully selective (correct me if I’m wrong) So eventually it’s Public – selective. If a selective school becomes partially selective, it’s the reverse model. And if that’s the case, then it’s only obvious to assume they’ll go public sooner or later and then maybe later attempt to go selective again (causing a headache for everyone and a loss in precious resources + culture).

To sum it up. I disagree with making NSG/B partially selective because of the following reason
a) It's a home to many students who take a large amount of travel time. Note, this is willingly, so any points you have that state somewhere along the lines of, "it's more beneficial for them not to move as much" is null/moot. Why? Because if it was so beneficial, you'd wonder why they moved to NSG/B in the first place. To relocate all these students, could potentially result in another crisis elsewhere.
b) The government is looking for space. NSG/B has more than space to offer - resources, reputation (that would attract other shmart students etc)
c) There will be a massive shift in teaching methods, costing time + resources. It’s not something to take light of, it will require a carefully thought out plan. Furthermore, if teachers aren’t happy with how its set out, (like how students of partially selective schools don’t seem to be) the new system is operationally unfeasible, not to mention economically (intangible) unfeasible. Because there is one thing we both seem to agree on. That everyone deserves an adequate education If you want to give public schools a prosperous education that's catered to their needs, then do it right.
D) Why deny the inevitable? One day, in the future, Sydney in general is going to have to implement new schools. Why not do it now? All that means is that we have one less school to worry about building, in the future. Why is it not possible to expand other current high schools? They wouldn’t require a change in school curriculum and honestly, the environment would better suit the comprehensive students as opposed to an awkward transition in NSG/B. I’m not saying that selective school students are oh, so much better and are all elitist therefore teachers of NSG/B would be degrading themselves through teaching comprehensive school students. Nope, All I’m saying is that in selective and public schools, the environment and resources differ because if they didn’t, then why would the selective school model exist in the first place?

Since it’s evident that you’re misunderstanding me, I’ll like you to take the time to read through my post properly to clarify such misunderstandings. You could at the very least, return the same courtesy as I’m giving you (reading through your post+ keeping language G-rated).

I'll address your arguments from a-d

a) this makes no sense, students already at NSG/NSB don't have to move anywhere, they will complete their education there. The policy will pertain to students who have yet to enter the school in future so you aren't really forcing anyone to move at all and those students in the future would just opt for other selective schools in areas where there is room for a selective school and enough room for comprehensive students in local comprehensive schools
b) Reputation is a nebulous term that has no real practical value, not to mention that even if it's reputation goes down as a selective school, students will just opt for higher reputation schools, it has no real loss to anyone as the comprehensive students coming in wouldn't care less anyway. Why is it so important to attract tonnes of smart students if the real issue is getting an education for local kids who want a comprehensive education? Or in your view are selective school kids the only ones who deserve an education?
c) The shift in teaching methods between partially selective and fully selective would not be as massive as you think, not to mention that this in no way is economically unfeasible. Also, what resources are you talking about exactly? What resources are incompatible with comprehensive school kids?
d) Oh so you want to build a bunch of ghost schools that no one goes to for the next 25 years or so all over sydney so that in the future when certain parts of sydney become overpopulated that students from the overpopulated areas all migrate to these ghost schools which will somehow still be there and also magically be in just the right spots where the population has increased? I'm not sure if you exactly know what building a school entails. You can't just say "the population of sydney is gonna grow so BUILD SCHOOLS EVERYWHERE", you have to see which areas specifically are growing and build a school *when* there are enough students for it.

As for the term wankery, don't be such a child lol, wankery is a term used to indicate that all you are doing is praising something without any logical justification or direction, to claim a school's culture is based on how many band 6s it gets per year is a completely narrow way to view a school's culture, a school's culture has more to do with it's sense of place etc.

 

[Erinaceous]

I think what Kiraken is trying to say is that Sydney Tech (or fully selective schools outside of the top 15 in general) have potential to get or have gotten 99.95ers over the course of many years. Obviously it's near impossible for Tech or a fully selective school outside of the top 15 like Hurlstone or Girraween to like 5 99.95ers every year - that's insane consistency for top end results.

For the past 3 years at Tech:
- 2011: Dux got 99.90
- 2012: 3 99.95ers
- 2013: Dux got 99.95

Clearly, the top Tech students (top 15ish) can get 99+ and a few hitting 99.90s and 99.95s over the years.

And don't correlate SCHOOL RANKINGS with TOP END RESULTS (e.g. 99.95ers or 99+).

School rankings looks at DA (Band 6 conversion) so the school as a whole rather than the amount of high-end students. Band 6 conversion is the next closest thing to average ATAR when it comes to accurately determining fair school ranks - you should look at the overall performance of a school rather than just looking at its top end students.
In 2011, Tech was like ranked 23rd with 0 99.95ers while in 2012, Tech was ranked 33rd with THREE 99.95ers. In 2013, Tech was ranked 32nd with 1 99.95er. So, in the year we got a few .95ers, the school was ranked lower compared to the years where we got 0 or 1 99.95er.

A good hypothetical situation, a school where all the students got 90 exactly in all their subjects would be 1st (100% DA, which will beat Ruse who usually gets around 70% DA) yet their highest ATAR may only be 99.00 (for example). While Ruse could get like 8 99.95ers or something yet be 2nd cause their DA conversion was lower.

As for your comment on Tech having half of the cohort being strong and half of the cohort being weak, it might be true or it might not be true. All depends on the year. Then again, when it comes to being relative, all schools will have a stronger and a weaker part of the cohort. The school with a smaller tail will most likely produce more band 6s and hence, end up with a higher school ranking. And yes, consistency does play a big role.

What I really want to place emphasis on (Kiraken probably has mentioned this before) is that - the top end students of most schools (regardless of their ranking or previous years' average ATAR) can do equally as well as each other.

The very top students of Sydney Tech, Girraween, Hurlstone, St George Girls, etc. may very well be as good as (or close to) the very top students of NSG, NSB, Sydney Boys, Sydney Girls, etc.

Obviously, the top 10 schools will produce more ''top students'' but that doesn't stop students from schools outside of the top 10 from achieving 99.90 or 99.95. Heck, you can achieve 99.95 at a rank 500 school with the right subjects, the strong marks and being 1st in all your subjects.

On another note, while many of you might argue that the PARTIAL SELECTIVE SCHOOL model does not work - we should look at Sefton High for example. In 2013, they cracked into the top 40 (i.e. being higher ranked than fully selective schools like Girraween and Penrith iirc) and was like only 4 ranks away from Sydney Tech. It has the potential to work and if its economically feasible, they might as well do it. There's many fully selective school alternatives out there for students such as Sydney Boys, Sydney Girls, Hornsby Girls, Ruse, Baulko, etc.

Meh, I never said that students of schools that aren't in the top ranks can't achieve a good ATAR. All I'm saying is that NSG/B has been quite successful in churning out students with top marks, therefore it's an obvious assumption that they are currently a suitable environment for top achievers. Good environment + resources + EC offered = loads of top students.

My doubt can be justified in comparisons of sydney tec + my school C: But thanks for clearing that up for me Keep in mind that I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm obviously much more inexperienced in this HSC business talk thing <~ having not even taken my prelim course yet. Although to yours and kiraken's point in that "the top end students of most schools (regardless of their ranking or previous years' average ATAR) can do equally as well as each other." NSG/B still churns out more top end students than most schools, because of their rankings. Their reputation is desireabe and draws the top acheivers of the selective school test which reinforces their stance in the top schools. Although most schools can have the top few people of their cohort, do equally as well as anyone from a top-ranked school I'm just saying that NSG/B has things that these schools don't, which can enable them to churn out a large amount of top achievers

If Sydney tech might be favouring half of it's students - namely the top half (Key word. May) then that sort of demostrates the inconsistency + attitude educational institutions may have towards students, which kinda makes partially-selective schools an unsuitable environment for comprehensive students. This is just an assumption though. As for partial selective schools being a model that can be better than fully selective schools - yes, it can be better than a fully selective school but it's not really relistic to assume that NSG/B once partially selective, will still retain their rankings. A partialy selective school may be better than a fully ranked selective school under rank 40, but at this stage you can't expect one to beat top schools in NSW lol xD
If money is the issue here, what's the say the gov will spend funds to further the partially selective school model?

Again thanks for the clarification~ And sorry for the doubt~

lol if you have to go to a high ranking school to get a good atar, must be pretty dependent on other people

Eh, I think everyone's dependent on other people while studying for the HSC C: I mean, unless you lock yourself away during HSC year, and don't listen to anything your teachers say, then you kinda do depend on other individuals to help you study as well as your own efforts. And which school doesn't have teachers and/or students?

Just to clarify, I never said anything about only ever getting a good atar because you go to hihg ranking school. I'm just saying it's possibly more possible? Because they churn out more top achievers than the comprehensive school~

I'll address your arguments from a-d

a) this makes no sense, students already at NSG/NSB don't have to move anywhere, they will complete their education there. The policy will pertain to students who have yet to enter the school in future so you aren't really forcing anyone to move at all and those students in the future would just opt for other selective schools in areas where there is room for a selective school and enough room for comprehensive students in local comprehensive schools
b) Reputation is a nebulous term that has no real practical value, not to mention that even if it's reputation goes down as a selective school, students will just opt for higher reputation schools, it has no real loss to anyone as the comprehensive students coming in wouldn't care less anyway. Why is it so important to attract tonnes of smart students if the real issue is getting an education for local kids who want a comprehensive education? Or in your view are selective school kids the only ones who deserve an education?
c) The shift in teaching methods between partially selective and fully selective would not be as massive as you think, not to mention that this in no way is economically unfeasible. Also, what resources are you talking about exactly? What resources are incompatible with comprehensive school kids?
d) Oh so you want to build a bunch of ghost schools that no one goes to for the next 25 years or so all over sydney so that in the future when certain parts of sydney become overpopulated that students from the overpopulated areas all migrate to these ghost schools which will somehow still be there and also magically be in just the right spots where the population has increased? I'm not sure if you exactly know what building a school entails. You can't just say "the population of sydney is gonna grow so BUILD SCHOOLS EVERYWHERE", you have to see which areas specifically are growing and build a school *when* there are enough students for it.

As for the term wankery, don't be such a child lol, wankery is a term used to indicate that all you are doing is praising something without any logical justification or direction, to claim a school's culture is based on how many band 6s it gets per year is a completely narrow way to view a school's culture, a school's culture has more to do with it's sense of place etc.

I'll just do this briefly, sice I've already addressed everything said above in previous posts;
a) Because NSG/B students are attracted to the school because of
- stability in school rankings (which means consistency)
- reputation
- school ranking
If you make the two schools partially selective, students will try and move. Also note - how are you going to make them partially selective? I quote my previous post, "How exactly do you plan on making NSG/B partially selective? Are you proposing that they will open 150 places in Year 7 for local students? If so, what about the very desperate local kids who are NOT in Year 7, but rather Year 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 and they have to unfairly travel so very far to escape this crisis? Don’t you think that they should transfer in? And if they do, who are you going to kick out of NSG/B that are currently attending?"

b) Why would you think that I assumed only selective school kids deserve an education? Look at my post, when have i ever stated this. Please quote otherwise I find it quite insulting and somehwat accusing. The real issue isn't giving comprehensive students education because they already have education opporturnities elsewhere. The real issue is money. The gov isn't willing to provide north sydney kids with a new school because of money. Hence they want to make NSG/B partially selective. So therefore your argument is moot, because comprehensive students do have education... If they don't, then that simply reinforces my argument of building a new school. Making NSG/B partially selective isn't going to change the amount of students in NSW.
c) Resources being time, money, facilities and possibly space... please read my post for further information. Like not just the summary but the entire post.
d) I never said building schools everywhere. Again you're jumping to conclusions lol... As for which areas that are specifically growing I can tell you right now that any area that closely surrounds the city, is going to grow. As a happy coincidence, North Sydney, seems to be one of those cities, so building a new school in north sydney is perfectly viable...

But I want to be a child c: Grown ups are scary ie. you D: On the other hand, thanks for the clarification for wankery, but you're not really understanding my points :c In NSG/B's school culture, the amount of band 6s their students have, is yeah, actually included in the school culture. WHy? Because part of NSG/B's school culture is to be a top ranked school. I mean, they have been so for as long as I personally can remember. It's the same as that Ruse's culture also invovles being a top school. I mean, their resources, student body etc are all governed towards churning out top achievers in mass amounts. Why would you think students performance rate isn't part of a school's culture, if the very definition of culture is "the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society."

If you could also clarify another thing up for me. Why isn't an individual's HSC mark not affected by their cohort? I thought there was something called rubberbanding + any marks that anyone gets in the HSC that's the top of the cohort, is given to rank 1 in the cohort... Please clarify~

 

[kaz1]

fuck really glad I didn't go to a selective school

 

[Kiraken]

Meh, I never said that students of schools that aren't in the top ranks can't achieve a good ATAR. All I'm saying is that NSG/B has been quite successful in churning out students with top marks, therefore it's an obvious assumption that they are currently a suitable environment for top achievers. Good environment + resources + EC offered = loads of top students.

My doubt can be justified in comparisons of sydney tec + my school C: But thanks for clearing that up for me Keep in mind that I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm obviously much more inexperienced in this HSC business talk thing <~ having not even taken my prelim course yet. Although to yours and kiraken's point in that "the top end students of most schools (regardless of their ranking or previous years' average ATAR) can do equally as well as each other." NSG/B still churns out more top end students than most schools, because of their rankings. Their reputation is desireabe and draws the top acheivers of the selective school test which reinforces their stance in the top schools. Although most schools can have the top few people of their cohort, do equally as well as anyone from a top-ranked school I'm just saying that NSG/B has things that these schools don't, which can enable them to churn out a large amount of top achievers

If Sydney tech might be favouring half of it's students - namely the top half (Key word. May) then that sort of demostrates the inconsistency + attitude educational institutions may have towards students, which kinda makes partially-selective schools an unsuitable environment for comprehensive students. This is just an assumption though. As for partial selective schools being a model that can be better than fully selective schools - yes, it can be better than a fully selective school but it's not really relistic to assume that NSG/B once partially selective, will still retain their rankings. A partialy selective school may be better than a fully ranked selective school under rank 40, but at this stage you can't expect one to beat top schools in NSW lol xD
If money is the issue here, what's the say the gov will spend funds to further the partially selective school model?

Again thanks for the clarification~ And sorry for the doubt~



Eh, I think everyone's dependent on other people while studying for the HSC C: I mean, unless you lock yourself away during HSC year, and don't listen to anything your teachers say, then you kinda do depend on other individuals to help you study as well as your own efforts. And which school doesn't have teachers and/or students?

Just to clarify, I never said anything about only ever getting a good atar because you go to hihg ranking school. I'm just saying it's possibly more possible? Because they churn out more top achievers than the comprehensive school~



I'll just do this briefly, sice I've already addressed everything said above in previous posts;
a) Because NSG/B students are attracted to the school because of
- stability in school rankings (which means consistency)
- reputation
- school ranking
If you make the two schools partially selective, students will try and move. Also note - how are you going to make them partially selective? I quote my previous post, "How exactly do you plan on making NSG/B partially selective? Are you proposing that they will open 150 places in Year 7 for local students? If so, what about the very desperate local kids who are NOT in Year 7, but rather Year 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 and they have to unfairly travel so very far to escape this crisis? Don’t you think that they should transfer in? And if they do, who are you going to kick out of NSG/B that are currently attending?"

b) Why would you think that I assumed only selective school kids deserve an education? Look at my post, when have i ever stated this. Please quote otherwise I find it quite insulting and somehwat accusing. The real issue isn't giving comprehensive students education because they already have education opporturnities elsewhere. The real issue is money. The gov isn't willing to provide north sydney kids with a new school because of money. Hence they want to make NSG/B partially selective. So therefore your argument is moot, because comprehensive students do have education... If they don't, then that simply reinforces my argument of building a new school. Making NSG/B partially selective isn't going to change the amount of students in NSW.
c) Resources being time, money, facilities and possibly space... please read my post for further information. Like not just the summary but the entire post.
d) I never said building schools everywhere. Again you're jumping to conclusions lol... As for which areas that are specifically growing I can tell you right now that any area that closely surrounds the city, is going to grow. As a happy coincidence, North Sydney, seems to be one of those cities, so building a new school in north sydney is perfectly viable...

But I want to be a child c: Grown ups are scary ie. you D: On the other hand, thanks for the clarification for wankery, but you're not really understanding my points :c In NSG/B's school culture, the amount of band 6s their students have, is yeah, actually included in the school culture. WHy? Because part of NSG/B's school culture is to be a top ranked school. I mean, they have been so for as long as I personally can remember. It's the same as that Ruse's culture also invovles being a top school. I mean, their resources, student body etc are all governed towards churning out top achievers in mass amounts. Why would you think students performance rate isn't part of a school's culture, if the very definition of culture is "the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society."

If you could also clarify another thing up for me. Why isn't an individual's HSC mark not affected by their cohort? I thought there was something called rubberbanding + any marks that anyone gets in the HSC that's the top of the cohort, is given to rank 1 in the cohort... Please clarify~

i'll let rivalry and realise reply to the first parts of your post

going back to the points

a) no, students from NSG and NSB won't "move out" if they are already there, their education would proceed as normal, this would apply to future students coming in from Year 7 onwards.

"If so, what about the very desperate local kids who are NOT in Year 7, but rather Year 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12"

um

if they are in year 8 onwards

they already *go* to a high school lol, this is for the inevitable overload of year 7 students in the area in the very near future

no one is going to be kicked out, the entire point is that they are integrating comprehensive school kids into the school and making it partially selective.

b) No, the real issue IS giving local students local opportunities for a comprehensive education, so you clearly missed the point entirely. Its about catering to the local community. You can't force local kids to travel when all they want is a comprehensive education in their local area and they obviously take priority over the potential selective students in the future who would opt to travel to NSG/NSB. Oh and btw, as i stated countless times before, if NSG and NSB becomes partially selective, these potential selective school kids would just opt to go to other selective schools anyway, no one is getting "kicked out"
c) I did, now please explain what, apart from an adjustment in teaching style (which wouldn't be that great because it's the same syllabus and the school would still be partially selective and classes will likely be tiered), would be an expensive resource that would make a shitto partially selective economically unfeasible?
d) On the contrary, if you look at population growth statistics, North Sydney has significantly lower growth than West Sydney, North-West Sydney and South-West Sydney amongst other areas. Areas that tend to grow faster are areas with more space, cheaper property, more newly settled immigrants etc. so pretty much not North Sydney lol. Of course it is growing, hence why this plan, but there is no evidence to suggest it's growing to the extent it needs an entire new school in the near future. Even if it grows to an extent that a new school is needed in 20 years or so, you need to cater for those few students now instead of having a school made for hundreds and having barely any students attend because you overstepped the mark in dealing with a few excess students.

Let me clarify something about school rankings to you

School rankings are a completely made up thing determined by the SMH dependent on how many band 6 a school gets, it's not even an official thing.

So no, a calculation done by a newspaper every year based on how many band 6s a school gets isn't the most important measure or even the most relevant to a school's culture, one would imagine its engagement with the local community, it's sense of place in North Sydney is far more important to it's identity.

There are plenty of threads here that explain how that works but as I said earlier, if a student is among the top few and they perform consistently well then you get the mark you deserve, school ranking has nothing to do with it

 

[Erinaceous]

i'll let rivalry and realise reply to the first parts of your post

going back to the points

a) no, students from NSG and NSB won't "move out" if they are already there, their education would proceed as normal, this would apply to future students coming in from Year 7 onwards.

"If so, what about the very desperate local kids who are NOT in Year 7, but rather Year 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12"

um

if they are in year 8 onwards

they already *go* to a high school lol, this is for the inevitable overload of year 7 students in the area in the very near future

no one is going to be kicked out, the entire point is that they are integrating comprehensive school kids into the school and making it partially selective.

b) No, the real issue IS giving local students local opportunities for a comprehensive education, so you clearly missed the point entirely. Its about catering to the local community. You can't force local kids to travel when all they want is a comprehensive education in their local area and they obviously take priority over the potential selective students in the future who would opt to travel to NSG/NSB. Oh and btw, as i stated countless times before, if NSG and NSB becomes partially selective, these potential selective school kids would just opt to go to other selective schools anyway, no one is getting "kicked out"
c) I did, now please explain what, apart from an adjustment in teaching style (which wouldn't be that great because it's the same syllabus and the school would still be partially selective and classes will likely be tiered), would be an expensive resource that would make a shitto partially selective economically unfeasible?
d) On the contrary, if you look at population growth statistics, North Sydney has significantly lower growth than West Sydney, North-West Sydney and South-West Sydney amongst other areas. Areas that tend to grow faster are areas with more space, cheaper property, more newly settled immigrants etc. so pretty much not North Sydney lol. Of course it is growing, hence why this plan, but there is no evidence to suggest it's growing to the extent it needs an entire new school in the near future. Even if it grows to an extent that a new school is needed in 20 years or so, you need to cater for those few students now instead of having a school made for hundreds and having barely any students attend because you overstepped the mark in dealing with a few excess students.

Let me clarify something about school rankings to you

School rankings are a completely made up thing determined by the SMH dependent on how many band 6 a school gets, it's not even an official thing.

So no, a calculation done by a newspaper every year based on how many band 6s a school gets isn't the most important measure or even the most relevant to a school's culture, one would imagine its engagement with the local community, it's sense of place in North Sydney is far more important to it's identity.

There are plenty of threads here that explain how that works but as I said earlier, if a student is among the top few and they perform consistently well then you get the mark you deserve, school ranking has nothing to do with it

That only makes sense since the first part of my post was addressed to them Uh dude. I thought this discussion was based on the argument that it's too hard for local kids to travel to other schools. i had no idea it was only purely year 7 based - whereabouts in the report does it state this? I thought it was like - hey let's make NSG/B partially selective so all the local kids in North Sydney can just go to NSG/B because they don't need to travel far because they're comprehensive students and education is compulsory and therefore they should take precedence over selective school kids.

b) This links to above. I don't really think it's fair to only provide comprehensive students in year 7s of year 20xx the option of attending NSG/B... The argument that comprehensive students take precedence over selective students applies to every year other than year 7. To only give year 7s the option to not travel as far doesn't solve that students from yr 8 + will still have to travel. And therefore making it unfair to years that are not year 7 and therefore making it better to build a new school.

Also, are you suggesting that only half of year 7 will be comprehensive or all of year 7s? I mean if this is a crisis, I'd be assuming that making all of yr 7 comprehensive students, would better solve the problem of space. But then, what of the consequences? That'll just be turning NSG/B into fully comprehensive once the year 8s of whichever year the "partially selective model" was implemented, graduate. Refer to my previous posts of the consequences of making NSG/B fully comprehensive

c) Why's a partially selective school being described as shitto? Once again, I think you're jumping to conclusions or at least make this argument seem personal... First of all, to me at least, the partially selective school model isn't shit. It's simply not as advantegous as a fully selective school model in this circumstance. That doesn't make it shit.
I can't answer to your resources question if you don't first clarify how you plan on making NSG/B partially selective. Are you suggesting that all year 7 students become comprehensive or only half? And are you just going to propose in only making changes to the year 7 cohort or other cohorts as well? Think of the consequences of both.

d) Honestly, if there's only a "few" students that needs to be catered to, then there is no need of making NSG/B Partially selective. Simply expand current schools in the local region - I mean, there are a few aren't they?
Uh secondly, our CBD is going to grow, and yes that means that areas like North Sydney that are close to the CBD< will also grow accordingly. Even if we take your stance and assume it isn't going to grow as quickly as western suburbs that are cheap etc, families who live in the CBD or near, may still choose to send their child to a school in North Sydney since the AREA is close to the city. So yes, a new school could be beneficial in terms of managing population.
Why would you have barely any students attending? I thought the reason why we ruled out private schools being a potential schooling for the local kids in north sydney was becuase they were filled to the brim and only if you booked your child in when they were 2 or something, you'll be guarenteed a place. (this was from a previous post in this thread) If that argument wasn't valid, and private schools aren't as filled to the brim as they are assumed to be, then why not have parents enroll their children into private schools instead? Like people who live in North Sydney are presumed to be quite wealthy because of the morgage - like you said, the area is not exactly considered cheap.

Let me clarify something for you as well
School rankings may not be official, but they are a common way for MANY and I mean MANY students of NSW who take the selective test, to make the decision on which school they want to go to. I don't actually know anyone who took the selective school test, and who did not consider the rankings of the school they want to go to. NSG/B is desireable - face it, because of how they're published by the media. It may not be official, but it's one factor that can determine-ish which school does indeed have the environment catered towards top-tiered students.

It may not be the most important, but over the years it has shaped how the community both local and state, view the two schools.

You seem to be denying that being a top -ranked school isn't part of NSG/B's school culture. The opinons of the local community towards NSG/B is also shaped by factors such as their reputation. Also, what involvment with this local community do you suggest, makes up such a large part of NSG/B's school culture, if like you said, only 5 % of students from NSG actually are from the local area. Btw, you do realise that NSG and NSB aren't actually in north sydney so they probably don't have much of a sense of place in north sydney anyways lol xD

and lol I know how school ranks works, silly xD

Btw consider a quote from the article:

''The whole lower north shore needs another high school and a number of our high schools need another building,'' she said.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Meh, I never said that students of schools that aren't in the top ranks can't achieve a good ATAR. All I'm saying is that NSG/B has been quite successful in churning out students with top marks, therefore it's an obvious assumption that they are currently a suitable environment for top achievers. Good environment + resources + EC offered = loads of top students.

My doubt can be justified in comparisons of sydney tec + my school C: But thanks for clearing that up for me Keep in mind that I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm obviously much more inexperienced in this HSC business talk thing <~ having not even taken my prelim course yet. Although to yours and kiraken's point in that "the top end students of most schools (regardless of their ranking or previous years' average ATAR) can do equally as well as each other." NSG/B still churns out more top end students than most schools, because of their rankings. Their reputation is desireabe and draws the top acheivers of the selective school test which reinforces their stance in the top schools. Although most schools can have the top few people of their cohort, do equally as well as anyone from a top-ranked school I'm just saying that NSG/B has things that these schools don't, which can enable them to churn out a large amount of top achievers

If Sydney tech might be favouring half of it's students - namely the top half (Key word. May) then that sort of demostrates the inconsistency + attitude educational institutions may have towards students, which kinda makes partially-selective schools an unsuitable environment for comprehensive students. This is just an assumption though. As for partial selective schools being a model that can be better than fully selective schools - yes, it can be better than a fully selective school but it's not really relistic to assume that NSG/B once partially selective, will still retain their rankings. A partialy selective school may be better than a fully ranked selective school under rank 40, but at this stage you can't expect one to beat top schools in NSW lol xD
If money is the issue here, what's the say the gov will spend funds to further the partially selective school model?

Again thanks for the clarification~ And sorry for the doubt~

tbh, it's not that NSB (the school itself) is definitely a good environment (i.e. better teachers or better resources) - it might have good teachers - but the main thing is --> they produce the results because they have a good intake of the highest performers through the Year 6 selective test. If these same kids went to another school, their results should be NEARLY the same in theory (if not the same, similar at least). At the end of the day, results are MAINLY a product of the students' hardwork AND natural ability (yes, teaching and facilities and resources come into play for a small proportion).

You can't OBVIOUSLY assume NSB has one of the best teaching environments (it might have or it might not have) but you can OBVIOUSLY assume they have many of the high performers in the HSC.

A school doesn't churn out top students because of its rankings. Rankings can fluctuate so it's not exactly DUE TO RANKINGS. It churns out top achievers because it had a large intake of the gifted students from Year 6 (yes NSB's rank attracts such students but ultimately, selective cohorts can change from year to year. NSB could be ranked 10th a year due to a weaker cohort and ranked 2nd in another year due to a stronger cohort).

Not sure what NSB/G has that schools like Tech/St George/Hurlstone don't - what they have is just more GIFTED students (from the Year 6 selective test) and that's it really.

I'm not sure how Tech can FAVOUR students? You mean bias/subjective marking or something? Our English assessments (internal exams) forced us to write student numbers (like a 2 or 3 digit number) on our exam papers - unlike quite a few schools out there which allow names to be written - so its more fair than many schools out there. Mathematics/Sciences/Social Sciences had fair marking too tbh.

Yeah not sure how you can FAVOUR STUDENTS (this happens more in a pure comprehensive school I would think). If a partial selective doesn't have dodgy teachers, I believe the teachers wouldn't favour the selective part of the cohort for no reason.

As for the money issue, who the hell knows what the government is thinking at times

 

[Kiraken]

That only makes sense since the first part of my post was addressed to them Uh dude. I thought this discussion was based on the argument that it's too hard for local kids to travel to other schools. i had no idea it was only purely year 7 based - whereabouts in the report does it state this? I thought it was like - hey let's make NSG/B partially selective so all the local kids in North Sydney can just go to NSG/B because they don't need to travel far because they're comprehensive students and education is compulsory and therefore they should take precedence over selective school kids.

b) This links to above. I don't really think it's fair to only provide comprehensive students in year 7s of year 20xx the option of attending NSG/B... The argument that comprehensive students take precedence over selective students applies to every year other than year 7. To only give year 7s the option to not travel as far doesn't solve that students from yr 8 + will still have to travel. And therefore making it unfair to years that are not year 7 and therefore making it better to build a new school.

Also, are you suggesting that only half of year 7 will be comprehensive or all of year 7s? I mean if this is a crisis, I'd be assuming that making all of yr 7 comprehensive students, would better solve the problem of space. But then, what of the consequences? That'll just be turning NSG/B into fully comprehensive once the year 8s of whichever year the "partially selective model" was implemented, graduate. Refer to my previous posts of the consequences of making NSG/B fully comprehensive

c) Why's a partially selective school being described as shitto? Once again, I think you're jumping to conclusions or at least make this argument seem personal... First of all, to me at least, the partially selective school model isn't shit. It's simply not as advantegous as a fully selective school model in this circumstance. That doesn't make it shit.
I can't answer to your resources question if you don't first clarify how you plan on making NSG/B partially selective. Are you suggesting that all year 7 students become comprehensive or only half? And are you just going to propose in only making changes to the year 7 cohort or other cohorts as well? Think of the consequences of both.

d) Honestly, if there's only a "few" students that needs to be catered to, then there is no need of making NSG/B Partially selective. Simply expand current schools in the local region - I mean, there are a few aren't they?
Uh secondly, our CBD is going to grow, and yes that means that areas like North Sydney that are close to the CBD< will also grow accordingly. Even if we take your stance and assume it isn't going to grow as quickly as western suburbs that are cheap etc, families who live in the CBD or near, may still choose to send their child to a school in North Sydney since the AREA is close to the city. So yes, a new school could be beneficial in terms of managing population.
Why would you have barely any students attending? I thought the reason why we ruled out private schools being a potential schooling for the local kids in north sydney was becuase they were filled to the brim and only if you booked your child in when they were 2 or something, you'll be guarenteed a place. (this was from a previous post in this thread) If that argument wasn't valid, and private schools aren't as filled to the brim as they are assumed to be, then why not have parents enroll their children into private schools instead? Like people who live in North Sydney are presumed to be quite wealthy because of the morgage - like you said, the area is not exactly considered cheap.

Let me clarify something for you as well
School rankings may not be official, but they are a common way for MANY and I mean MANY students of NSW who take the selective test, to make the decision on which school they want to go to. I don't actually know anyone who took the selective school test, and who did not consider the rankings of the school they want to go to. NSG/B is desireable - face it, because of how they're published by the media. It may not be official, but it's one factor that can determine-ish which school does indeed have the environment catered towards top-tiered students.

It may not be the most important, but over the years it has shaped how the community both local and state, view the two schools.

You seem to be denying that being a top -ranked school isn't part of NSG/B's school culture. The opinons of the local community towards NSG/B is also shaped by factors such as their reputation. Also, what involvment with this local community do you suggest, makes up such a large part of NSG/B's school culture, if like you said, only 5 % of students from NSG actually are from the local area. Btw, you do realise that NSG and NSB aren't actually in north sydney so they probably don't have much of a sense of place in north sydney anyways lol xD

and lol I know how school ranks works, silly xD

Btw consider a quote from the article:

a) and b) you completely misinterpreted what i said, i didn't say the partially selective model was only for year 7 I'm saying that making a school partially selective would start from the new year 7 cohort and proceed on up, they are not going to make the years that are already in the school partially selective and no student already in it will be kicked out. This policy applies for future students lol.
c) shitto was a spelling error of "shift to". So now that we have clarified that, please answer my question lol
d) Show me evidence that it will grow lol and show me it will grow to an extent that building an entirely new school there *now* would be feasible.

Also your suggestion that people in North Sydney might as well send their kids to private schools because they tend to be rich is ridiculous, not having enough facilities for a comprehensive education and saying they can afford private schools is practically forcing them to spend their money on what other people get for free, it's silly.

e) except that by making NSG/NSB partially selective you will just get potential future students going to other schools, how is that a bad thing lol? That is the entire point. As I said, culture can shift in terms of the school having a less academic focus, that is not necessarily a bad thing at all, plus this shift will be miniscule because history, the local area etc. are far greater determinants of the culture of a 100 year old school than the number of band 6s it gets each year in the HSC

we cannot just assume that entire new schools are required to cater for those students because the article doesn't give exact info on it, as such one can assume that it isn't growing to the extent that new schools are justified but at the same time there needs to be more space

 

[iEatOysters]

I'm not sure if this has been said already (because half of this thread is tl;dr), but iirc, in the year that Tech came 33rd with 3 99.95s, NSG had 0 99.95s despite ranking 3rd (dux was 99.90)
So really, there isn't that much of a difference if the students are truly gifted and have strong work ethics.

 

[oasfree]

This is quite similar to Sydney Boys and all of its media attention. The issue also covers Sydney Girls. There are many groups of parents with hidden agenda trying to get their kids into these top 4 selective schools without having to compete on academic merit. Sydney Boys already accept a lot of students at year 9 based on sport and other merits. Sydney Girls also accept lots of kids at year 9.

The truth is all selective schools accept extra students based on academic merits and other merits at year 9-10. What some groups of parents want to do is to force these schools to allocate seats to local students at year 7 not based on academic merits! But this is not possible so some academic merit must still be considered. So if they partly open up these schools, only the very best students of local HS will be able to get in and further reduce the quality of local HS to further mediocrity! So this will hurt the local HS even more.

The success of a school depends heavily on the students they get. As most of students in NSB+NSG are going to tutoring any way, the schools themselves do not make too much difference. What they should do is an experiment to verify this issue. Just swap all staff from a top selective school like NSG over to teach at a low performing local comprehensive school and vice versa. See if this will make any difference to the ranking of students. I guess the impact will be minimal. And this will help prove that NSB+NSG are any thing more special than a gathering place of high performers.

This will expose the hidden agenda of some parents who just want to tag along high performers for better HSC mark scaling.

 

[kaz1]

This is quite similar to Sydney Boys and all of its media attention. The issue also covers Sydney Girls. There are many groups of parents with hidden agenda trying to get their kids into these top 4 selective schools without having to compete on academic merit. Sydney Boys already accept a lot of students at year 9 based on sport and other merits. Sydney Girls also accept lots of kids at year 9.

The truth is all selective schools accept extra students based on academic merits and other merits at year 9-10. What some groups of parents want to do is to force these schools to allocate seats to local students at year 7 not based on academic merits! But this is not possible so some academic merit must still be considered. So if they partly open up these schools, only the very best students of local HS will be able to get in and further reduce the quality of local HS to further mediocrity! So this will hurt the local HS even more.

The success of a school depends heavily on the students they get. As most of students in NSB+NSG are going to tutoring any way, the schools themselves do not make too much difference. What they should do is an experiment to verify this issue. Just swap all staff from a top selective school like NSG over to teach at a low performing local comprehensive school and vice versa. See if this will make any difference to the ranking of students. I guess the impact will be minimal. And this will help prove that NSB+NSG are any thing more special than a gathering place of high performers.

This will expose the hidden agenda of some parents who just want to tag along high performers for better HSC mark scaling.

or maybe the parents just want to send their kids to a school in the local area

 

[braintic]

As most of students in NSB+NSG are going to tutoring any way, the schools themselves do not make too much difference.

Exactly what logic are you using to make that conclusion?

Why not argue the reverse? That is: take all the selective HS students who go to a particular tutoring company and say "as these students go to a selective school, the tutoring itself does not make too much difference".

You do not get better scaling just by virtue of being in a selective school. To say that means you have no understanding of the scaling system. The advantage of being in a selective HS is the mental stimulation provided my mixing with people of like ability, and the ability of teachers in these schools to teach at a higher level because they don't have to spend most of their time catering to the lower ability students. No-one claims that staff at selective schools are better than staff elsewhere, except of course that they tend to have more years teaching experience. But one thing is certain - the average teacher at a selective school is significantly better than the average tutor just out of high school.

 

[OzKo]

New school announced for North Sydney in the state budget.

 

[teridax]

Lol @ that cos the whole reason why this debate is happening in the first place is because of ... dun dun dun... money! (I'm taking into consideration time & effort also equates to spending more money.)

At the end of the day even though public education institutions, such as selective schools, are under direct control of the government where they can really do anything to "what's theirs" save a few bucks.. it's going to be ~primarily~ the selective kids that are gonna go to university and fuel the economy.

bullshit

 

[dan964]

if I remember correctly
Sbhs has the same issue being discussed.

 

[deboiz]

or maybe the parents just want to send their kids to a school in the local area

This will make the public education system more unequal... as of now, the selective school system enables social mobility for kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The kids in the rich north sydney area cannot be given a free pass to the best schools of the state due to their location. Why not just expand the comprehensive schools in the area?

 

[kyusungasong]

Its not that great for the people who studied hard to get in the first place and it might turn out like sydney boys... Just build another school