Mayor insists that NSB + NSG should become partially selective schools? (3 Viewers)

[OMGITzJustin]

lol, funny how most of the people responding are already finished school, and tbh, weve finished school and i care sht all about a school I didn't attend

 

[Blue Suede]

lol, funny how most of the people responding are already finished school, and tbh, weve finished school and i care sht all about a school I didn't attend

well hey, some us would have attended those schools and have a vested interest.

 

[kaz1]

Talk about being elitist, jesus christ.

 

[OzKo]

The whole selective vs partially selective argument isn't necessary either.

Where there are full selective schools, these top students will go.

As it's being mentioned though, it's a shame that the article doesn't discuss how the general plan to increase enrolments in the area may be facilitated by the other schools in the area.

 

[asianese]

Her major concern is

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

JUST BUILD ONE M8.

The definition of a selective school is that they are that: SELECTIVE - not open for everyone.

Making the schools partially selective most definitely is not the solution to this problem of 'too many kids on the north shore'. As far as numbers as concerned, if you allow a greater mix of selective/non selective, the total number of students ABLE to be admitted (total quota of school) hasn't changed.

The best solution is to make a new school. Maybe make it partially-selective.

 

[Trebla]

The whole selective vs partially selective argument isn't necessary either.

Where there are full selective schools, these top students will go.

As it's being mentioned though, it's a shame that the article doesn't discuss how the general plan to increase enrolments in the area may be facilitated by the other schools in the area.

The selective vs partially selective argument is necessary because of the proposed solution to the general problem. There exists a reputational risk because such a solution would alter the culture of the schools and ultimately the quality of the education (which then has other flow on effects). I think the best solution (which was mentioned already) would be to expand the public schools in the area (or even build a new one) which has better long term effects.

 

[OzKo]

The selective vs partially selective argument is necessary because of the proposed solution to the general problem. There exists a reputational risk because such a solution would alter the culture of the schools and ultimately the quality of the education (which then has other flow on effects). I think the best solution (which was mentioned already) would be to expand the public schools in the area.

But as I've stated before, what's wrong with prospective NSB/NSG students going to another selective school?

Why does it HAVE to be in North Sydney? The point regarding history while Blue Suede brought up is fine as far as I'm concerned though.

In reality, who is actually invested in the school itself? How many people would go out of their way to protect the school's reputation? I'm sure some of the alumni and the school's staff would care (and I don't discount the importance of this) but assuming that the other schools in the area DID NOT have the capacity to expand (the article does not elaborate on this which is a shame) and the costs of constructing a new school was not adequate in respect to time and money, should we still effectively rule out a partially selective transition?

As I said, I'm not too perturbed about whether or not this doesn't go ahead but I think the too many people here are placing too much emphasis on the whole "selective" nature of the school and thus endowing it with this undeserved 'untouchable' status.

 

[someth1ng]

The problem with making partially selective is taking out maybe 150 selective places and trying to push them to other schools but you forget that you can't support those 150 talented students right away. Now you have a selective student crisis.

 

[OzKo]

The problem with making partially selective is taking out maybe 150 selective places and trying to push them to other schools but you forget that you can't support those 150 talented students right away. Now you have a selective student crisis.

So then you just make it tougher to get into a selective school (which is perfectly fine).

 

[Blue Suede]

Talk about being elitist, jesus christ.

but that's exactly what a selective school IS. duh

 

[Alexis Texas]

no, the geniuses who populate the north shore's most prized and accomplished selective schools should not have to tolerate the mutants and degenerates of the broader public school system.

gotta keep those gene's A1

 

[someth1ng]

So then you just make it tougher to get into a selective school (which is perfectly fine).

Not really, there's already a limited number of 'good places' from 'good schools' - limiting it further will just spread the talent into comprehensive schools which is bad.

 

[Bobbo1]

Not really, there's already a limited number of 'good places' from 'good schools' - limiting it further will just spread the talent into comprehensive schools which is bad.

Yeah lol, they can't go "Hey, SBH and SGH are full but hey you can go to a selective high school: Blacktown Boys!"

 

[OzKo]

Not really, there's already a limited number of 'good places' from 'good schools' - limiting it further will just spread the talent into comprehensive schools which is bad.

The lowest standard of selective students will be in comprehensive schools.

 

[Lolsmith]

If you can't succeed at a public, non-selective school, you're a failure of a human being.

Kids getting upset that the government wants to assert control over its own assets is hilarious. You don't own the school, nor do your parents. If you wanted some ridiculous upper-class quackery of an education (seriously, protecting the fucking "reputation" of a school????), you should have paid for it.

 

[Nooblet94]

Surely in the long term it would be more efficient to build a new school?

 

[OzKo]

Surely in the long term it would be more efficient to build a new school?

The article doesn't provide any numbers so it's hard to say.

That being said, it would be the natural solution IF the problem was big enough.

If the area is in crisis though, it wouldn't be feasible.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Surely in the long term it would be more efficient to build a new school?

In the long term, that's the best thing to do considering population growth...

 

[asadass]

I assume the selective kids would outnumber the non-selective, at least for the time being?

I imagine it could get awkward if you were in the minority group

 

[Some Vunt]

Just gonna say that there's Bradfield right across the road from NSG and up the street from NSB and they don't have full enrollments at all so I don't understand why the Mayor isn't considering that as an option.

As someone who went to a selective school, if I heard that it was going to become partially selective, I'd move to a different selective school.

In terms of why is the selective school based in North Sydney? Well it's a nice, central location for a lot of people who attend the school, but more importantly it goes back to the school's history (mostly nsg here). NSG has been a selective school since its inception in 1914 and during the war, etc was always selective. It moved buildings a couple of times, but the reputation of the school is in the name, and thus should it remain. Don't ruin the history of the school by making it partially selective.

Isn't Bradfield a TAFE?
The rest of this is fine though, I guess.

Her major concern is



JUST BUILD ONE M8.

The definition of a selective school is that they are that: SELECTIVE - not open for everyone.

Making the schools partially selective most definitely is not the solution to this problem of 'too many kids on the north shore'. As far as numbers as concerned, if you allow a greater mix of selective/non selective, the total number of students ABLE to be admitted (total quota of school) hasn't changed.

The best solution is to make a new school. Maybe make it partially-selective.

Yeah, building a new one would be better, because like, don't NSB/NSG only have the resources for a certain amount a students anyways???

But as I've stated before, what's wrong with prospective NSB/NSG students going to another selective school?

Why does it HAVE to be in North Sydney? The point regarding history while Blue Suede brought up is fine as far as I'm concerned though.

In reality, who is actually invested in the school itself? How many people would go out of their way to protect the school's reputation? I'm sure some of the alumni and the school's staff would care (and I don't discount the importance of this) but assuming that the other schools in the area DID NOT have the capacity to expand (the article does not elaborate on this which is a shame) and the costs of constructing a new school was not adequate in respect to time and money, should we still effectively rule out a partially selective transition?

As I said, I'm not too perturbed about whether or not this doesn't go ahead but I think the too many people here are placing too much emphasis on the whole "selective" nature of the school and thus endowing it with this undeserved 'untouchable' status.

because there are only a certain amount of selective schools with a certain amount of places, and they are spaced around Sydney in a way that people can go to their closest one and stuff.
So a lot of people would be disadvantaged from this.
Hs to be in North Sydney because there are selective schools in Sydney CBD and around there, in the west and etc. but those two are the main (if not only, I dunno) selective schools in northern Sydney.

I just feel like there are selective schools in other areas, and clearly they offer a better environment and education for brighter kids which they deserve so why should we disturb that for NSG/B?

I guess a solution could be to put the two schools together and then make the smaller campus a partially-selective school.
But this would drastically reduce places available at NSG/B and would take AT LEAST 6 years to transition and would be fairly difficult to plan IMO.

If you can't succeed at a public, non-selective school, you're a failure of a human being.

Kids getting upset that the government wants to assert control over its own assets is hilarious. You don't own the school, nor do your parents. If you wanted some ridiculous upper-class quackery of an education (seriously, protecting the fucking "reputation" of a school????), you should have paid for it.

No.

It's not about the success at a non-selective school because of them.
The teaching is worse because the teachers are usually trying to control the class rather than teach.
Talented students can be neglected because of this.
And sometimes the facilities and teaching just aren't up to standard just because the school is a bit shit.

But yeah, reputation and shit I do agree with.
It's a public school, they can do what they want.
This should be an argument an out education not really reputation.

Surely in the long term it would be more efficient to build a new school?

but we want a quick fix! Because its the government and that's what they do!