Mayor insists that NSB + NSG should become partially selective schools? (2 Viewers)

[SylviaB]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0080341#s1

Strong Genetic Influence on a UK Nationwide Test of Educational Achievement at the End of Compulsory Education at Age 16

more proof that priamrily students make a school, not external factors

 

[kaz1]

No offense or anything but why aren't they doing anything to the gazillion private schools around North Sydney? I mean... people have said above "WELL THE PROBLEM IS THAT NSG/B IS SPECIFICALLY LOCATED IN NORTH SYDNEY WHERE THERE'S A SCHOOL SHORTAGE" Well, wtf are all these private schools there for? What, so they're just skirting by the sidelines and not taking any responsibility for this massive overload of students?

If parents can afford to live in a pretty well-off suburb like North Sydney, afford to pay a pretty high mortgage (Families with children in North Sydney have a median family income of $3412 pw -http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/LGA15950?opendocument&navpos=220; fyi $1,234 is the weekly median family income across Australia- http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0), they can afford the massive quantities of tuition to ~essentially~ force their children to do well in a selective test or afford the tuition of a private school if they're that desperate for their kids to study in their local area.


If it takes so much money to build a school in a, frankly, overcrowded area such as North Sydney, then why can't they build it somewhere nearby like Mosman or Neutral Bay? Honestly, even though there are other schools such as Manly Selective up north, Manly (from what I know and unless someone corrects me otherwise) is also catered for people who travel all the way from Monavale, Elanora, Avalon etc. I don't think there's another selective school that is better located for these students (who surprise, surprise, may also want to have a quality education in a selective school).


Furthermore, NSG is seriously midget. There is pretty much no space for whoever wants this to build new classrooms etc etc. If you want to cater some sort of feasible number of students to attend it (taking into account the inevitable population growth) you've got to implement at least a few more buildings. Then, if you think about it, you also need to implement the new teaching program for teachers (costly, no?) and I would say that all this effort could just amount to the government building another school (which would also be more ideal long-term).

If, by some reason, the mayor wants to do this the other (more stupid) way by kicking out half of NSG/ NSB so that local students enter then they're really just shoving the problem to some other area (who will no doubt soon suffer this predicament in the near future) whilst simultaneously also uprooting both school's reputation and/or culture. Reputation is actually pretty important, especially so for Selective schools. As its been mentioned above, a reputation is more or less, the deciding factor to which students or teachers are attracted to the school. (which is why certain groups are commonly stereotyped). And how are they going to single out the people to kick? Kick out the people who are not local students? imo, that's sort of semi-encouraging the idea of over-possessiveness/ territorial behaviour. I believe this can be somewhat referred to in history (albeit to a lesser extent) where instead of saying of "Go back to your own country!" we're saying "Go back to your own municipal area!".


Isn't it also making it more unfair to the students who will have to travel 1+hr to a selective school that is competitive enough for their liking? Sure, sure we're concerned about the local families' travel problems, but let's look at it from a NSG/B student's POV (despite it obviously being inferior in the Mayor's eyes). I know many students, me included, that simply chose to not attend Ruse because of the ridiculous amount of distance and time needed to travel to and from school each day, and I'm quite hesitant to agree that time is a viable excuse for a poorer quality education. There are currently (according to http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/gotoschool/types/shs_ahs_details.php) 17 fully selective, 25 partially selective and 4 agricultural schools available. To sum it up that's 46 selective schools available in Sydney/NSW. Sydney is 12,145km^2. That's what... 264km^2 for each selective school to cater for? (obviously there's other factors but you can do the math for these.) Take out one and jeebus, that km^2 just increases exponentially!

Median doesn't mean minimum, there are still poor people in the North Sydney area and they need public schools if they don't pass the selective test, cut the crap and say you hate poor stupid people.

 

[salshel]

Median doesn't mean minimum, there are still poor people in the North Sydney area and they need public schools if they don't pass the selective test, cut the crap and say you hate poor stupid people.

And those people, who I must point out are in the minority, can't travel one or two suburbs because...? Also, their opinions are held in higher regards (travel times) compared to students attending NSG/B because...?

For your benefit, I think we need to define "median". You're right in saying that it doesn't mean minimum, but that doesn't really change anything in my "arguments". I mean there's got to be at least one unemployed person in every suburb (which makes minimum kinda $0 every time in every suburb which is why they should totally include it in the census). Granted, a better calculation would be to use standard deviations but since I don't know how to access such information, I'll leave that up to you.

The definition of median is: "denoting or relating to a value or quantity lying at the midpoint of a frequency distribution of observed values or quantities, such that there is an equal probability of falling above or below it." (Oxford dictionary) To revisit Year 3 or 4 maths, a median can become higher when a) everyone's income is high or b) The high income earners outweigh the low income earners by far. Given the extremely high median income of families earning in North Sydney, I think it's safe to assume that the poorer families are in the minority and yes, my argument means that I totally "hate poor stupid people" (sarcasm in case you didn't catch my drift)... you're basing your claim over senseless pieces of your own imagination which I personally do not particularly appreciate.

fyi, the median income for private dwellings (families) in Greater Sydney is $1447. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/1GSYD compare that to North Sydney's median income? Yeah, that's a massive difference.

 

[classicjimbo]

look i think you're forgetting at the end of a day these selective schools are a privelege/novelty provided by the government and they can do whatever they want to them and there's plenty of other selective schools that these students could attend if nsb/nsg no longer suited them with the exact same 'intellectual competitive' environment that nsg/nsb seems to offer

that being said i think they should really just from 20XX have a completely comprehensive cohort intake with nsb/nsg or not at all, partially selective seems like a very token effort and an intake of like 50+ more students in the partially selective version wouldn't make a dent in the so called 'crisis'

if this happened all it would mean is the scores for other selective schools would rise a bit higher, cutting out about 300 students that would've been the bottom of the selective school barrel anyway and that seems fair enough and would only make sghs, sbhs, hornsby girls etc. more elite than they already are

nobody really suffers except arrogant alumni

 

[SylviaB]

look i think you're forgetting at the end of a day these selective schools are a privelege/novelty provided by the government and they can do whatever they want to them

Just because they can do it doesn't mean that they should

and there's plenty of other selective schools that these students could attend if nsb/nsg no longer suited them with the exact same 'intellectual competitive' environment that nsg/nsb seems to offer

and thre's plenty of non-selective schools the government could use instead

nobody really suffers except arrogant alumni

It is socially beneficial that the best and brightest are cultivated to their full potential

 

[classicjimbo]

and thre's plenty of non-selective schools the government could use instead

It is socially beneficial that the best and brightest are cultivated to their full potential

not in the north shore
i actually live on the north shore and know how hard it is to get into any schools where we live
schools like killara high already have ridiculous class sizes/cohort sizes and private and religious schools have very very high intakes as well
it's not fair to ask those schools that are already bursting at the seams to accept even more so that a 200+ kids from the other side of sydney can go to a selective school whose novelty schooling environment already exists where they live
i tihnk the only exception is Bradfield and I guess people don't want to send their kids to what's essentially half a tafe and a finishing school for troubled kids

exactly
the best and brightest will still get into other selective schools
and will be groomed to their full potential
only the 'sort of best and sort of bright' miss out and will have to ~~~~somehow deal with the pleb normies~~~~ and get private tutoring which they would've gotten anyway

 

[salshel]

So basically the system that you're suggesting is one where the gap between the elite and the "norm" becomes wider, and wider. But what do you suggest we do about the mid to low ranking individuals in selective schools- are we just going to encourage them to spread themselves out amongst their own local comprehensive schools? These students are still considered to be in another learning league and thrive in different learning environments than the students in comprehensive schools (hence the divide between selective and non-selective learning). I think it's safe to say that learning in such comprehensive schools would not cater towards them at all. Furthermore resources, some extra-curriculars (such as debating, public speaking, olympiads etc.) and learning materials/ curriculum (for example 5.3 maths vs 5.1 maths/ Ext 1 vs General maths etc.) Partially-selective environments also do not happen to be the best idea (from what I'm getting from the above posts) as multiple subject lines make it nearly impossible to separate the two. (And it was agreed somewhere along the thread that selective students do better competing against other selective students).

It almost seems as though we're encouraging an even more dog-eat-dog system than the current model.

 

[Kiraken]

So basically the system that you're suggesting is one where the gap between the elite and the "norm" becomes wider, and wider. But what do you suggest we do about the mid to low ranking individuals in selective schools- are we just going to encourage them to spread themselves out amongst their own local comprehensive schools? These students are still considered to be in another learning league and thrive in different learning environments than the students in comprehensive schools (hence the divide between selective and non-selective learning). I think it's safe to say that learning in such comprehensive schools would not cater towards them at all. Furthermore resources, some extra-curriculars (such as debating, public speaking, olympiads etc.) and learning materials/ curriculum (for example 5.3 maths vs 5.1 maths/ Ext 1 vs General maths etc.) Partially-selective environments also do not happen to be the best idea (from what I'm getting from the above posts) as multiple subject lines make it nearly impossible to separate the two. (And it was agreed somewhere along the thread that selective students do better competing against other selective students).

It almost seems as though we're encouraging an even more dog-eat-dog system than the current model.

they could always go to another selective though, travel and distance shouldn't really be an issue for the vast majority of students who don't necessarily even live in the area

you could argue that most of the top selective schools have an almost indistinguishable competitve learning environment so it isn't really a great loss if they are admitted into another one such as baulkho etc.

 

[rumbleroar]

not in the north shore
i actually live on the north shore and know how hard it is to get into any schools where we live
schools like killara high already have ridiculous class sizes/cohort sizes and private and religious schools have very very high intakes as well
it's not fair to ask those schools that are already bursting at the seams to accept even more so that a 200+ kids from the other side of sydney can go to a selective school whose novelty schooling environment already exists where they live
i tihnk the only exception is Bradfield and I guess people don't want to send their kids to what's essentially half a tafe and a finishing school for troubled kids

exactly
the best and brightest will still get into other selective schools
and will be groomed to their full potential
only the 'sort of best and sort of bright' miss out and will have to ~~~~somehow deal with the pleb normies~~~~ and get private tutoring which they would've gotten anyway

to be fair, I've heard about how they're closing Bradfield down and turning it into a new high school or something.

also if you live in the north shore, it is often implied you have sufficient means to send your child to an independent school, if they cannot get into comprehensive. There are plenty of independent schools around - loreto, monte, shore, aloysius, PLC, abbotsleigh (should I keep going on?)

and the reason why there is a need for selective school is so students that are academically brighter (trying to avoid sounding like a massive elitist, but it's failing) have an appropriate learning environment catered to them. It's extremely difficult to create a learning environment that will satisfy the needs of a gifted and not-so-gifted student. My friend, having previously gone to a school that often merged gifted and not-so-gifted learners together, found that kind of learning model disadvantaged students of both calibre, as the teaching material was too easy for the gifted students but too difficult for the not-so-gifted students. If you force upon that kind of learning environment upon students of disparate learning capabilities, it can be detrimental to their learning environments, thus the need to maintain selective and non-selective schools.

Also consider the types of resources that will need to be targeted at the students, and the social disparity it can cause among the selective and non-selective cohorts of the school. (I've been in the GnT streams, and it kind of places a barrier between comprehensive/mainstream streams when you interact with them, so imagine that type of barrier magnified in a high school context. Not pretty.)

 

[rumbleroar]

they could always go to another selective though, travel and distance shouldn't really be an issue for the vast majority of students who don't necessarily even live in the area

you could argue that most of the top selective schools have an almost indistinguishable competitve learning environment so it isn't really a great loss if they are admitted into another one such as baulkho etc.

I think the matter of convenience is kinda relative and important, you don't want people who live in the west and find it easier to go to schools like NSG and NSB to be travelling to hornsby and stuff. I know when I was putting down my name for selective schools, my parents took convenience of travelling as a factor (they didn't want me to be too tired at the end of the day)

 

[Kiraken]

I think the matter of convenience is kinda relative and important, you don't want people who live in the west and find it easier to go to schools like NSG and NSB to be travelling to hornsby and stuff. I know when I was putting down my name for selective schools, my parents took convenience of travelling as a factor (they didn't want me to be too tired at the end of the day)

yes but what i'm saying is people in the west for example have pretty high tier selective schools to go to too, i think local students wanting to get a comprehensive education close to home take precedence over people opting to go to a distant school because their closer school is 1 or 2 ranks higher which likely has barely to do with the learning environment at all

Having said that, i think the best idea might have been to expand existing public schools in that area rather than expanding nsb/nsg but if that is the more feasible/reasonable option then so be it

 

[rumbleroar]

yes but what i'm saying is people in the west for example have pretty high tier selective schools to go to too, i think local students wanting to get a comprehensive education close to home take precedence over people opting to go to a distant school because their closer school is 1 or 2 ranks higher which likely has barely to do with the learning environment at all

Having said that, i think the best idea might have been to expand existing public schools in that area rather than expanding nsb/nsg but if that is the more feasible/reasonable option then so be it

eh, I just feel as though it won't help mixing students with different learning capabilities and I think they might be changing the bradfield into a local high school, so that's probably a more viable solution (don't quote me, I'm not 100% sure if it's true, only heard it off some of my friends)

and you can't expand the nsg or nsb, the space is already limited enough as it is.

 

[unforlornedhope]

eh, I just feel as though it won't help mixing students with different learning capabilities and I think they might be changing the bradfield into a local high school, so that's probably a more viable solution (don't quote me, I'm not 100% sure if it's true, only heard it off some of my friends)

and you can't expand the nsg or nsb, the space is already limited enough as it is.

Or they can split classes, like they have the top classes catered for selective kids with all the excellent resources and teachers and then the ordinary classes for the non selective and comprehensive kids.

 

[classicjimbo]

It almost seems as though we're encouraging an even more dog-eat-dog system than the current model.

welcome to the real world little one
also isn't dog-eat-dog the crux of selective school environments?????

not all bright people need to be mollycoddled to succeed either and it seems as though you're implying they need to be
peoples intelligence don't operate under a simple lock & key function

this is getting away from the point but it's not as though selective school environments cater to all kinds of bright students, some perform better under relaxed conditions
ive known nsg's who've attempted suicide because of the pressure

also if you live in the north shore, it is often implied you have sufficient means to send your child to an independent school, if they cannot get into comprehensive. There are plenty of independent schools around - loreto, monte, shore, aloysius, PLC, abbotsleigh (should I keep going on?)

there are plenty of independent schools THAT ARE COMPLETELY FULL TO THE BRIM and have implemented waiting lists where you have to enter your children in at 2 years old to be guaranteed a spot
you really don't understand how full these schools are and how difficult it is to get into
money isn't the issue

and the reason why there is a need for selective school is so students that are academically brighter (trying to avoid sounding like a massive elitist, but it's failing) have an appropriate learning environment catered to them. It's extremely difficult to create a learning environment that will satisfy the needs of a gifted and not-so-gifted student. My friend, having previously gone to a school that often merged gifted and not-so-gifted learners together, found that kind of learning model disadvantaged students of both calibre, as the teaching material was too easy for the gifted students but too difficult for the not-so-gifted students. If you force upon that kind of learning environment upon students of disparate learning capabilities, it can be detrimental to their learning environments, thus the need to maintain selective and non-selective schools.

i know what a selective school is for silly

we're getting quite side tracked but im just saying the unnecessary special needs that all bright people supposedly need according to you two shouldn't be put above local students needs especially when these students can have their special needs fulfilled elsewhere where overcrowding isn't a problem

 

[isildurrrr1]

its funny how underperforming kids need the most amount of help/resources to be brought up to scratch yet were throwing tons of money at kids so they can go "lol 99 atar im a badass" like that shit matters when they hit uni.

 

[SylviaB]

its funny how underperforming kids need the most amount of help/resources to be brought up to scratch yet were throwing tons of money at kids so they can go "lol 99 atar im a badass" like that shit matters when they hit uni.

its almost as if secondary education is about more than atar scores

 

[salshel]

welcome to the real world little one
also isn't dog-eat-dog the crux of selective school environments?????


this is getting away from the point but it's not as though selective school environments cater to all kinds of bright students, some perform better under relaxed conditions
ive known nsg's who've attempted suicide because of the pressure

Precisely, which is why I'm saying that a dog-eat-dog model isn't the best thing. What you're saying is that students are already under an incredible amount of pressure to do well and what I'm saying is that they don't need even more pressure to achieve the exact same thing. Furthermore, students do have the option to transfer out if they feel the need to suicide under the aforementioned pressure.

I agree with rumbleroar. The space is an obvious issue and frankly, the two schools don't really have much to spare, if any at all. If we compare "space", it should be more feasible to expand in an independent school, given that they really have better resources (like c'mon, most private shcools have their own gym, pool etc. etc.) space-wise. Surely a compromise could be met?

not all bright people need to be mollycoddled to succeed either and it seems as though you're implying they need to be
peoples intelligence don't operate under a simple lock & key function

You're failing to understand that all my posts have been referring to generalisations. Sure, sure, we all hear of the one kid who goes to a rank 4874987348 school, is financially disadvantaged, yet accelerates like 5 years and graduates from high school or uni or w/e at the top of their cohort. But, realistically, how many of those geniuses do you think exist? In fact, the whole reason why selective schools exist in the first place is because the general population agree that frankly "bright people" do need to be "mollycuddled", maybe not to just "succeed", but to be given that slight push to realise their full potential.

And comprehensive schools just don't offer that opportunity.

its funny how underperforming kids need the most amount of help/resources to be brought up to scratch yet were throwing tons of money at kids so they can go "lol 99 atar im a badass" like that shit matters when they hit uni.

That "shit" doesn't matter once you "hit" uni, but it sure matters when you're trying to get into uni.

Well, our society does kinda favour the elite, (not to offend anyone with my choice of words) because why would we not "groom" such potential candidates to advance our human civilisation?

Sadly the education system is an elitist system and does follow the concept of priming the top students to hold the top-tier positions such in firms and/or their respective fields (medicine, science etc.) simply because those positions are more seen as more "important" than the average blue-collar worker.

The system, in my opinion, does work though, because competition stimulates growth and/or change and it really does separate the apathetic, from the enthusiastic and/or hard-working. Like classicjimbo so kindly suggested, anybody can achieve the top results if they try. Our education system however, recognises a selective school as a huge gathering of those "potential candidates" and therefore, it is important to them that children with the "potential" to succeed, actually do succeed. Kudos to those who achieve a high ATAR through hard-work alone, but why would you not take the easy path when it is willingly offered to you? (and at no disadvantage to you either)

It's almost as if we're priming the next generation under the guise of "human advancement" to "fix the mistakes of the previous generation". Think of it as their parting gift.

 

[salshel]

there are plenty of independent schools THAT ARE COMPLETELY FULL TO THE BRIM and have implemented waiting lists where you have to enter your children in at 2 years old to be guaranteed a spot
you really don't understand how full these schools are and how difficult it is to get into
money isn't the issue

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.

 

[Kiraken]

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.

wat

 

[JT145]

ObliviousNinja u mad bro?