Mayor insists that NSB + NSG should become partially selective schools? (9 Viewers)

[classicjimbo]

Your statement seems to imply that there are excessive amounts of resources targeted at gifted students and not enough for the not so bright students which was a statement I didn't agree with as I mentioned that the government focuses far more resources to helping people at the bottom than the top already.

~except for like 40+ schools catered specially for them~?

if the mayor does it, nsw is fked

dumb

Supposedly we go along with your argument. You're suggesting that NSG students and NSB students will no longer go to NSB and NSG once the schools become partly selective.The thing is that, if those students leave their previous school, they would be looking to go to other selective schools that are ranked near or around the rank in which their school was at. We're talking about the top 10 selective schools in NSW xD Fact of the matter - there's not that many selective schools that can compete with NSG and NSB.
But they can also go to public schools. Unwillingly perhaps, but they can still score the top ATARs in those lower ranked schools. True but if students from NSG and NSB so choose to go to a public school, then they're probably going to aim for the higher ranks, and push previous students that were doing well at the public school to do not so well - this is based off my understanding that everyone except rank 1, are affected by the ranks of everyone else in the cohort and that public schools have a larger variety of ATAR marks. (e.g The lowest mark in a course in a selective school may be 70, while a public school may several people with marks centering around 60)

You missed my point which was that making NSG and NSB partially selective does not make a selective education any less viable for kids who opt for a selective education as chances are there are schools ranked just as high closer to where they live anyway

Again, just how many schools that are ranked close to NSG and NSB's ranks are able to potentially accept the majority of each schools? We're talking about at least 800 kids per school lol xD The vast majority of those students will aim to score themselves a position within another top ranked selective school. I seriously doubt there's room for everyone.

Also, if the majority of students from NSG and NSB leave the school as you're suggesting, then that pretty much means that NSG and NSB won't really be a selective school anymore. I mean, if most present students of the school leave, then that means that you won't have enough of selective school kids who can sustain NSG and NSB's current ranking. Since students who apply to NSG and NSB primarily do so because of the school's yummy tempting rankings, this means that less students are going to apply to the educational institution since the rankings are no longer desirable. Once the reputation of the school is tainted, teachers may also leave and eventually you'll only have a very small number of selective school kids as opposed to public school kids. Surely there can't be that many public school children in need of a school in north sydney to fill up pretty much TWO whole schools :O You pretty much have a decrease in selective schools and an increase in public school c:

At least that's my opinion

On a side note, happy belated New Years

he wasn't saying they're going to leave the school
he's saying the next cohorts won't have the same caliber of students enrolling

you're a fool if you don't think making nsg/nsb partially selective is part of a 2 step program to turn it entirely comprehensive to meet demands
they make it partially selective to keep some of the alumni/school board happy and alleviate a bit of the immediate crisis in local student numbers
and then once the selective demand of the school has gone down enough and local student numbers reach a high enough demand they'll turn it entirely comprehensive
they'll have the support of the local council and it's members for any/all steps and nobody can do anything to stop it really

teachers won't leave because their job market is fucked
and if they do
there will be many waiting eagerly in line to replace them

and yes there really is that much demand did you not even read the article

 

[Erinaceous]

~except for like 40+ schools catered specially for them~?

As opposed to the, what? 300+ public schools and x amount of private schools? c:

dumb

Justify please~ Otherwise it becomes somewhat of a personal insult and I'm sure you're not trying to provoke ijimmy c:

he wasn't saying they're going to leave the school
he's saying the next cohorts won't have the same caliber of students enrolling

however that logic is flawed because it presupposes that when NSG and NSB become partially selective, that those students would still go there, which isn't the case. What will happen is that they will simply go to another selective school and still get high ATARS and so on.

^ how exactly does, "however that logic is flawed because it presupposes that when NSG and NSB become partially selective, that those students would still go there
No. He is saying that students that are currently from NSG and NSB will not go to the two educational institutions just mentioned as suggested by that logic is flawed because it presupposes that when NSG and NSB become partially selective, that those students would still go there He never mentioned anything about having the next year cohort beig that of a lower caliber in th post C:

you're a fool if you don't think making nsg/nsb partially selective is part of a 2 step program to turn it entirely comprehensive to meet demands
they make it partially selective to keep some of the alumni/school board happy and alleviate a bit of the immediate crisis in local student numbers
and then once the selective demand of the school has gone down enough and local student numbers reach a high enough demand they'll turn it entirely comprehensive
they'll have the support of the local council and it's members for any/all steps and nobody can do anything to stop it really

uh, first of all. I'm not saying I or anyone else can stop it. In fact, I've never mentioned that anyone can stop it - if i did, please quote me and clarify things up for me lol. I was simply suggesting that it's detrimental and not exactly the smartest move by government to make NSG and NSB partially selective (refer to previous posts)
Secondly, with the amount of students protesting about making NSG and NSB partially selective - just look at this thread for heavens sake, I'm guessing that the school board would be quite chaotic trying to justify their reasons and perhaps filing in all the transfer forms that will be sent by students. I doubt they'll be happy alongside the reasons of reputation as well -i mean you've just been employed by one of the more prestigious schools and then BAM all them comprehensive students flooding in :c

teachers won't leave because their job market is fucked
and if they do
there will be many waiting eagerly in line to replace them

and yes there really is that much demand did you not even read the article

As quoted by the article
At Mosman High School, one of the few local comprehensives, enrolments grew 9.9 per cent
9.9 percent of a school's total huh? Well let's see, there's around 800-1000+ students in a school. Let's just say 1000. That's an increase in 99 students. TWO SCHOOLS. HOW? :O Please clarify. And it appears that mosman high school is an exception 9.9% is a pretty high rate with 5% being the average.

I just don't see how making selective schools more publicly accessible is even a solution. You might accommodate for all the kids in the north sydney region, but where do the kids that were previously in that school go to? They'll be aiming for the top 10 schools in the state - i know that there are 47ish selective schools in the state but we're talking about students who are of extremely high caliber. Unless the government wants to increase the classroom intakes in every other school - which defeats the point of making NSG and NSB partially selective e.e
I doubt it's fair to all the students who would consider leaving - i mean, the stress of moving schools, changing your entire travel schedule, meeting new friends, starting new clubs, getting used to new teachers... It surely will impact on the results of these students in the HSC. Again we're talking about students at the top of the state and why must they be affected and not everyone else? That seems a bit prejudiced to me.

ALthough teachers might not leave, I extremely doubt they'll be pleased.
Back to salshel's post -> Why aren't some responsibility falling to the private schools? North sydney is a rich area catered for rich people. Hence the amount of private schools in the area. Supply and demand. Duh.

If you ask me, if you live close to a school, it's selective, you're not smart enough or not willing to put in the effort to go to that school, then you may as well travel elsewhere or move. What is the problem in that logic? Many students take time out of their day to travel to public and selective schools, why can't those in North sydney do the same? It's not uncommon for a selective school student to move closer to their school. They'll also be affected~ e.e

Making it partially selective is just covering up the problem rather than solving it. So the teachers spend 6+ years getting training for the specific curriculum, the school essentially takes 6 years to transform itself for the problem. How do we know that in 20 years time, the rise in the students in the area wouldn't exceed the amount of students the newly transformed NSG and NSB has to offer then essentially the program is only effective for say 12 years? (this is just a random figure but you get the point) Then what? Make more selective schools ranked int he top 10 partially selective? Why not save all that effort and just build a new school or make the students travel, like everyone else.

One more thing. Making a school partially selective doesn't change the amount of students attending school in NSW. It simply shifts the crisis of a demand in school to another region. Like if it's such as crisis, shouldn't the parents and other relative taxpayers/donators be willing to pay to fund another school in the area? Seems like a passing around responsibility thing to me. The government really needs to expand to more options - like demanding for funds if they don't have it.

 

[Kiraken]

As opposed to the, what? 300+ public schools and x amount of private schools? c:




Justify please~ Otherwise it becomes somewhat of a personal insult and I'm sure you're not trying to provoke ijimmy c:





^ how exactly does, "however that logic is flawed because it presupposes that when NSG and NSB become partially selective, that those students would still go there
No. He is saying that students that are currently from NSG and NSB will not go to the two educational institutions just mentioned as suggested by that logic is flawed because it presupposes that when NSG and NSB become partially selective, that those students would still go there He never mentioned anything about having the next year cohort beig that of a lower caliber in th post C:



uh, first of all. I'm not saying I or anyone else can stop it. In fact, I've never mentioned that anyone can stop it - if i did, please quote me and clarify things up for me lol. I was simply suggesting that it's detrimental and not exactly the smartest move by government to make NSG and NSB partially selective (refer to previous posts)
Secondly, with the amount of students protesting about making NSG and NSB partially selective - just look at this thread for heavens sake, I'm guessing that the school board would be quite chaotic trying to justify their reasons and perhaps filing in all the transfer forms that will be sent by students. I doubt they'll be happy alongside the reasons of reputation as well -i mean you've just been employed by one of the more prestigious schools and then BAM all them comprehensive students flooding in :c



As quoted by the article
At Mosman High School, one of the few local comprehensives, enrolments grew 9.9 per cent
9.9 percent of a school's total huh? Well let's see, there's around 800-1000+ students in a school. Let's just say 1000. That's an increase in 99 students. TWO SCHOOLS. HOW? :O Please clarify. And it appears that mosman high school is an exception 9.9% is a pretty high rate with 5% being the average.

I just don't see how making selective schools more publicly accessible is even a solution. You might accommodate for all the kids in the north sydney region, but where do the kids that were previously in that school go to? They'll be aiming for the top 10 schools in the state - i know that there are 47ish selective schools in the state but we're talking about students who are of extremely high caliber. Unless the government wants to increase the classroom intakes in every other school - which defeats the point of making NSG and NSB partially selective e.e
I doubt it's fair to all the students who would consider leaving - i mean, the stress of moving schools, changing your entire travel schedule, meeting new friends, starting new clubs, getting used to new teachers... It surely will impact on the results of these students in the HSC. Again we're talking about students at the top of the state and why must they be affected and not everyone else? That seems a bit prejudiced to me.

ALthough teachers might not leave, I extremely doubt they'll be pleased.
Back to salshel's post -> Why aren't some responsibility falling to the private schools? North sydney is a rich area catered for rich people. Hence the amount of private schools in the area. Supply and demand. Duh.

If you ask me, if you live close to a school, it's selective, you're not smart enough or not willing to put in the effort to go to that school, then you may as well travel elsewhere or move. What is the problem in that logic? Many students take time out of their day to travel to public and selective schools, why can't those in North sydney do the same? It's not uncommon for a selective school student to move closer to their school. They'll also be affected~ e.e

Making it partially selective is just covering up the problem rather than solving it. So the teachers spend 6+ years getting training for the specific curriculum, the school essentially takes 6 years to transform itself for the problem. How do we know that in 20 years time, the rise in the students in the area wouldn't exceed the amount of students the newly transformed NSG and NSB has to offer then essentially the program is only effective for say 12 years? (this is just a random figure but you get the point) Then what? Make more selective schools ranked int he top 10 partially selective? Why not save all that effort and just build a new school or make the students travel, like everyone else.

One more thing. Making a school partially selective doesn't change the amount of students attending school in NSW. It simply shifts the crisis of a demand in school to another region. Like if it's such as crisis, shouldn't the parents and other relative taxpayers/donators be willing to pay to fund another school in the area? Seems like a passing around responsibility thing to me. The government really needs to expand to more options - like demanding for funds if they don't have it.

lol that quote states literally states that those students would not go there if its partially selective, that means, in the context of what i was saying, that students who go for a high ranking selective school would no longer enrol in it anyway.

The fact is that whilst there are more public schools than selective schools overall in the state, this statistic hardly proves your point. You seem to be creating a lot of strawmen and missing the crux of what people are saying. Classicjimbo was talking about how there are MANY selective schools for students to choose from, the main difference is students tend to go to their local comprehensive school for a basic education, people who attend selective schools travel because they chose to travel to a distant selective school for a selective education, most of the students at NSG and NSB don't even live in that area, so travelling to another high ranking selective school would still be an option since they would have done that anyway for NSB and NSG.

As stated earlier, schools like Baulkho etc. are ridiculously close in rankings plus even the lower ranked selective schools provide enough competitiveness to motivate a student, sydney tech's cohort for example might overall have a lower average ATAR but the top set of students is ridiculously competitive in terms of getting high marks, so saying a selective school "isn't good enough" is pretty much just a shitty excuse.

Lol you missed the point again, students at the school already in year 11 and year 12 won't have to leave, if you leave a school because you're afraid that a few people entering your cohort in year 11 and 12 is going to hurt your hsc that speaks more of your lack of understanding of the hsc, your elitism and immaturity, than anything else.

So you believe that local kids not being able to fit into schools and not getting an education is less harmful emotionally than the mental tool it will take on an nsg or nsb student in year 11 or 12 when their school becomes partially selective?

Also if the number of public school students is only 99 as you say (it's a much bigger crisis cos that's just from one school) but running with your figures just for argument's sake that's like an additional 10 people per grade, you really think that is going to impact on nsb and nsg's performance significantly?

A local kid should not be moving or travelling for a basic education because public education is precisely that, it's not a choice, it's a compulsory thing. Going to a selective school though is a *choice*, travelling to a selective school is a *choice*, so that is why it is more expected of them to travel. Not only that, but if students who would have otherwise gone to NSB/NSG opt to go to another selective because of this decision, since many of them don't come from that region, they would likely end up travelling to a school that might be even closer lol, so again, that's another moot point.

Well ideally a new school would be a good idea but they obviously evaluated it and deemed it financially unfeasible. Plus can you imagine explaining to taxpayers that they have to pay more taxes because some selective school could not bother taking a few local students?

It's a crisis IN THAT LOCAL AREA. The caps emphasises the point you are missing. So it isn't just shifting a crisis, it's catering for the local community and alleviating that local crisis whilst potential NSG/NSB selective school students opt to go to selective schools in other areas where there is no such crisis

 

[Erinaceous]

lol that quote states literally states that those students would not go there if its partially selective, that means, in the context of what i was saying, that students who go for a high ranking selective school would no longer enrol in it anyway.

Explain. I'm not understanding anything from the above :c What do you mean? Are you saying that students who go for a high ranking selective school won't enroll in it? Why? I don't get the context of what you're saying xD Clarify please c:

The fact is that whilst there are more public schools than selective schools overall in the state, this statistic hardly proves your point. You seem to be creating a lot of strawmen and missing the crux of what people are saying. Classicjimbo was talking about how there are MANY selective schools for students to choose from, the main difference is students tend to go to their local comprehensive school for a basic education, people who attend selective schools travel because they chose to travel to a distant selective school for a selective education, most of the students at NSG and NSB don't even live in that area, so travelling to another high ranking selective school would still be an option since they would have done that anyway for NSB and NSG.

As stated earlier, schools like Baulkho etc. are ridiculously close in rankings plus even the lower ranked selective schools provide enough competitiveness to motivate a student, sydney tech's cohort for example might overall have a lower average ATAR but the top set of students is ridiculously competitive in terms of getting high marks, so saying a selective school "isn't good enough" is pretty much just a shitty excuse.

Honestly? I think you're missing my points in terms of space. How many more students can these other top selective schools fit in, hmm? Refer to Salshel's post. A difference of a few ranks can mean quite a large difference in terms of a cohort's ability to get top marks. Refer to below:

What you're suggesting sort of goes both ways, local kids are also capable of traveling- and there should be a plethora of other suitable institutions around. To put ranking into perspective, from what I do know, a drop in only 6 ranks from the school I attend (non-private) to another school (non-private) may not seem big, but is actually kinda demotivating for high-achievers. For one, the only-six-ranks-lower school has never had a student who achieved 99.95 whereas the school I attend constantly has at approximately 20-25% of all students achieving over 99 ATAR. Which is kind of a big difference. They're both selective and about ~16km apart, but you can really guess which one you'd rather attend.

lLol you missed the point again, students at the school already in year 11 and year 12 won't have to leave, if you leave a school because you're afraid that a few people entering your cohort in year 11 and 12 is going to hurt your hsc that speaks more of your lack of understanding of the hsc, your elitism and immaturity, than anything else.

From my understanding, everyone is affected by their cohort's marks unless you're rank one. Unless in partially selective schools, the comprehensive students aren't counted as part of the selective school's cohort - which I doubt, since it's been mentioned in this thread that to get the maximum amount of classes running, seperating selective school students and comprehensive studnets in a school is probably not the best idea. So yeah Perhaps not leaving would imply arrogance and perhaps a delusional mindset, in that the student believes they can rank 1 in all their subjects.

lSo you believe that local kids not being able to fit into schools and not getting an education is less harmful emotionally than the mental tool it will take on an nsg or nsb student in year 11 or 12 when their school becomes partially selective?

Why would they not be able to get an education? I'm simply saying that they can travel like the rest of us. If they don't like it, then simply study hard to get into a selective school or go to a private school. Again, North sydney is a wealthy area, the morgage alone suggests that to live in the area, a family has to be quite well off and if they're not, then they're fools for living in that area.
On the other hand, nsg and nsb's - alot of them (or more so than in public schools) will be aiming for a high ATAR. I think, it's probably going to be more stressing to try and get in the top percentages of the state than to travel a few more minutes c:

lAlso if the number of public school students is only 99 as you say (it's a much bigger crisis cos that's just from one school) but running with your figures just for argument's sake that's like an additional 10 people per grade, you really think that is going to impact on nsb and nsg's performance significantly?

Uh yes, because unless the selective cohort and non selective cohort aren't counted together in rankings (doubtful, since like you just said, that's an additional 10 people per grade) then it is going to affect the selective kid's atars.

lA local kid should not be moving or travelling for a basic education because public education is precisely that, it's not a choice, it's a compulsory thing. Going to a selective school though is a *choice*, travelling to a selective school is a *choice*, so that is why it is more expected of them to travel. Not only that, but if students who would have otherwise gone to NSB/NSG opt to go to another selective because of this decision, since many of them don't come from that region, they would likely end up travelling to a school that might be even closer lol, so again, that's another moot point.

True they might end up travelling closer - but if travelling was really a concern for them, then they wouldn't have gone to NSG or NSB in the first place and if they did, then they should have transfered out by now. Reality is in NSG and NSB there's a high chance of getting a high ATAR. So nope, not a win-win situation. And also, if there's another selective school that's closer, more suitable or more viable for the students from NSG and NSB, you'd really wonder why they didn't go in the first place.

Going from your logic you're suggesting that a public school kid only goes to school because it's compulsory. There's an implication that they don't really want to go to school and therefore they don't care. Well if they don't care, why can't they take the time to travel? Selective school students esepcially in top ranking schools DO CARE about their studying. They WANT to go to UNI and go to a course of their choice. And if that is the case, then if a kid doesn't care about studying, why would they care about travelling? From car to public transport, either way, the kid has to go to this hellish institution in which they will waste 6 hours of their life everyday, 5 days a week. Why should this public school kid who doesn't care about education take precedence over a kid who cares about education?

lWell ideally a new school would be a good idea but they obviously evaluated it and deemed it financially unfeasible. Plus can you imagine explaining to taxpayers that they have to pay more taxes because some selective school could not bother taking a few local students? It's a crisis IN THAT LOCAL AREA. The caps emphasises the point you are missing. So it isn't just shifting a crisis, it's catering for the local community and alleviating that local crisis whilst potential NSG/NSB selective school students opt to go to selective schools in other areas where there is no such crisis

Your previous argument was that a.) many NSGs and NSBs live closer to a selective school that's not NSG and NSB. True. Most of them live around one certain area. By making NSG and NSB part selective, what you're simply doing is shifting that "LOCAL AREA CRISIS" (OMG the horror) to the region that most nsgs and nsbs come from c: Imagine ~1800 kids pouring into their local area. or b.) Selective students can, oh just spend an additional 40 or so minutes to let's say, travel to Sydney Girls/boys or Hornsby Girls (where the brother school go to?). In which case, you're really just giving preference to the local kids and saying that it's no biggie if selective kids travel (mind you, your argument seems to point that travel is a huge factor on a indivdual's choice in schooling) SO yes, it is simply shifting a crisis. Because once again, you can't change the total amount of students in NSW or north sydney just by making NSG and NSB partially selective.

"whilst potential NSG/NSB selective school students opt to go to selective schools in other areas where there is no such crisis " Dude australia is a growing nation, face it. SOMEDAY the government will HAVE to implement new school(s) Why not sooner and deal with one crisis and not lag it out until all schools become explosive with their student numbers. Furthermore, what example is the council setting up for other councils? So what, when other "local areas" face a similar crisis, they should just get all the selective schools and make them partially selective because that will unquestionably solve our growing numbers!

 

[Kiraken]

Explain. I'm not understanding anything from the above :c What do you mean? Are you saying that students who go for a high ranking selective school won't enroll in it? Why? I don't get the context of what you're saying xD Clarify please c:


Honestly? I think you're missing my points in terms of space. How many more students can these other top selective schools fit in, hmm? Refer to Salshel's post. A difference of a few ranks can mean quite a large difference in terms of a cohort's ability to get top marks. Refer to below:





From my understanding, everyone is affected by their cohort's marks unless you're rank one. Unless in partially selective schools, the comprehensive students aren't counted as part of the selective school's cohort - which I doubt, since it's been mentioned in this thread that to get the maximum amount of classes running, seperating selective school students and comprehensive studnets in a school is probably not the best idea. So yeah Perhaps not leaving would imply arrogance and perhaps a delusional mindset, in that the student believes they can rank 1 in all their subjects.


Why would they not be able to get an education? I'm simply saying that they can travel like the rest of us. If they don't like it, then simply study hard to get into a selective school or go to a private school. Again, North sydney is a wealthy area, the morgage alone suggests that to live in the area, a family has to be quite well off and if they're not, then they're fools for living in that area.
On the other hand, nsg and nsb's - alot of them (or more so than in public schools) will be aiming for a high ATAR. I think, it's probably going to be more stressing to try and get in the top percentages of the state than to travel a few more minutes c:


Uh yes, because unless the selective cohort and non selective cohort aren't counted together in rankings (doubtful, since like you just said, that's an additional 10 people per grade) then it is going to affect the selective kid's atars.


True they might end up travelling closer - but if travelling was really a concern for them, then they wouldn't have gone to NSG or NSB in the first place and if they did, then they should have transfered out by now. Reality is in NSG and NSB there's a high chance of getting a high ATAR. So nope, not a win-win situation. And also, if there's another selective school that's closer, more suitable or more viable for the students from NSG and NSB, you'd really wonder why they didn't go in the first place.

Going from your logic you're suggesting that a public school kid only goes to school because it's compulsory. There's an implication that they don't really want to go to school and therefore they don't care. Well if they don't care, why can't they take the time to travel? Selective school students esepcially in top ranking schools DO CARE about their studying. They WANT to go to UNI and go to a course of their choice. And if that is the case, then if a kid doesn't care about studying, why would they care about travelling? From car to public transport, either way, the kid has to go to this hellish institution in which they will waste 6 hours of their life everyday, 5 days a week. Why should this public school kid who doesn't care about education take precedence over a kid who cares about education?



Your previous argument was that a.) many NSGs and NSBs live closer to a selective school that's not NSG and NSB. True. Most of them live around one certain area. By making NSG and NSB part selective, what you're simply doing is shifting that "LOCAL AREA CRISIS" (OMG the horror) to the region that most nsgs and nsbs come from c: Imagine ~1800 kids pouring into their local area. or b.) Selective students can, oh just spend an additional 40 or so minutes to let's say, travel to Sydney Girls/boys or Hornsby Girls (where the brother school go to?). In which case, you're really just giving preference to the local kids and saying that it's no biggie if selective kids travel (mind you, your argument seems to point that travel is a huge factor on a indivdual's choice in schooling) SO yes, it is simply shifting a crisis. Because once again, you can't change the total amount of students in NSW or north sydney just by making NSG and NSB partially selective.

"whilst potential NSG/NSB selective school students opt to go to selective schools in other areas where there is no such crisis " Dude australia is a growing nation, face it. SOMEDAY the government will HAVE to implement new school(s) Why not sooner and deal with one crisis and not lag it out until all schools become explosive with their student numbers. Furthermore, what example is the council setting up for other councils? So what, when other "local areas" face a similar crisis, they should just get all the selective schools and make them partially selective because that will unquestionably solve our growing numbers!

Lol i don't see what i need to clarify, i'm saying that when NSB and NSG becomes partially selective, all those kids who would have gone to NSG/NSB because of its high rank won't end up going there anyway, so saying any of this impacts on them is a moot point, they will simply opt for another school

No, that isn't really how ranks works for the HSC, as long as the top few students all perform really well (which is pretty much *every* selective school) then those people in those top few will get just as high marks as they would anywhere else, considering that that is the standard selective students should be aiming at, it is by no means a disadvantage if extra comprehensive school kids comes in because the selective kids should do better anyway (if they don't then it's their problem for not performing to the level they should be).

If you wanna talk about net shift i.e. people who would have opted for school A which becomes partially selective going for other schools, eventually the students who are missing out are beaten fair and square via the selective schools test, which ironically serves the purpose of this system which is to be selective. you're just making it slightly moreso

Lol if travelling to NSG/NSB isn't a concern for those selective school students, you just proved my point that they can travel to literally any other selective school then. You don't just get a high chance of getting a high ATAR at a selective school lol, it just looks that way because you got more people there who are likely to get high ATARS in the first place, the main drawing point of a selective school is the competitive environment, which is at pretty much every decently ranked selective school. Top tier students at any of those schools provide ample competition for anyone.

No that isn't an implication at all, i have no idea where you got that from. Education up to year 10 level iirc is COMPULSORY in Australia. It is extremely arrogant to assume a public school kid does not care about studying or about making a future for themselves or to place all of them under that umbrella. Not to mention it has nothing to do with my point which is people elect to have a selective school education and therefore it's by their own choice that they travel for it. This places them at a lower priority than other kids getting a comprehensive education that is compulsory in Australia.

Yes because whilst there seems to be a local crisis in one area that doesn't mean other areas don't have room either, its not "shifting" the crisis at all. Its a system that will mean selective school students would go to other selective schools (note that these schools will increase in ranking anyway when NSG and NSB are gone and the calibre of students will increase as they all go to these schools) in areas where they have room for these students. This will in the worst case scenario, in turn only shift out less able students from being selected into selective schools in the future. Now suppose NSG/NSB would have usually taken 150 people each per year, thats 300 students who would be distributed over 30 or so other selective schools, thats 10 extra people per grade which isn't much. Even if none of these people can be accomodated that just means that come the selective test, those 300 students wouldn't make it, which satisfies the entire "selective" aspect of it. I don't see how less students being selected for selective schools each year is in any way a bad thing considering that the entire point of the selective tests is to select higher level students.

But clearly you didn't read the article because the fact they are not building a new school atm is because it is NOT financially feasible, not to mention an area such as north sydney is not necessarily the one experiencing greater amounts of population growth so it's not even necessarily a problem that needs a long-term solution such as a whole new public school

 

[asianese]

Your first world view of the school system (outside your selective shell) is quite eye opening Erinaceous. You should step outside it and have a look at the point of view of a comprehensive student.

 

[Erinaceous]

Your first world view of the school system (outside your selective shell) is quite eye opening Erinaceous. You should step outside it and have a look at the point of view of a comprehensive student.

Like every other selective school student, I was in a public school from years 1-6 so been there, done that, no thanks For the purposes of my argument, I have chosen to be stereotypical. (I'm aware independent schools exist, and it is possible for a selective school student to be from an independent schools from k-6 etc)

Although I attend a selective school, it's not NSG nor NSB. However, I do have friends from both schools and if you compare the proportion of students who get 99+ in my school ( top 15) and their school (top 10) then you can see an huge difference, hence my arguments.

btw, what do you mean, "first world view of the school system?" If I'm not mistaken, public schools and selective schools all fall under the catergory of Australian education, australia being a first world country. Please elaborate c:

 

[Kiraken]

Like every other selective school student, I was in a public school from years 1-6 so been there, done that, no thanks For the purposes of my argument, I have chosen to be stereotypical. (I'm aware independent schools exist, and it is possible for a selective school student to be from an independent schools from k-6 etc)

Although I attend a selective school, it's not NSG nor NSB. However, I do have friends from both schools and if you compare the proportion of students who get 99+ in my school ( top 15) and their school (top 10) then you can see an huge difference, hence my arguments.

btw, what do you mean, "first world view of the school system?" If I'm not mistaken, public schools and selective schools all fall under the catergory of Australian education, australia being a first world country. Please elaborate c:

comprehensive education in high school is different from primary school though

also you're forgetting that has little to do with the school and everything to do with the fact that those students there are already of that calibre, if you put those same students in your school I can guarantee you they would get close to the same marks as they would at those schools

 

[salshel]

"Last week the Mayor of North Sydney Council called for North Sydney Boys’ and Girls’ Schools to*accept local students and become only partially selective. This would be a win for students and the community and would be similar to the strategy employed by Newtown Performing Arts High School which takes both a local and audition-based intake. MP Alex Greenwich*also[B ] supports this option for Sydney Girls’ and Boys’[/B], where entry is currently on academic merit only and students travel for up to two hours each way from all over Greater Sydney to attend." (Sorry, we’re full – high schools in high demand : South Sydney Herald )
Ruse's evil plan is already in motion.

Well ideally a new school would be a good idea but they obviously evaluated it and deemed it financially unfeasible. Plus can you imagine explaining to taxpayers that they have to pay more taxes because some selective school could not bother taking a few local students?

No offense (to the parents) or anything, but they are the ones that are really pushing for this change so it's really only logical for the parents to be the ones that donate to the establishment of their dreams. Plus, they (the govt.) stated themselves that they needed another high school. Evaluating it as financially unfeasible is not going to create a new high school for them- obviously they're going to have to find ways around this financial problem. And one such way would be to ask for sizable donations from the crisis-affected area.

For many students attending NSG or NSB schools like Baulkho and Ruse are actually probably closer and there are always options like Fort Street, Sydney Tech etc. for those from other areas.

To put ranking into perspective, from what I do know, a drop in only 6 ranks from the school I attend (non-private) to another school (non-private) may not seem big, but is actually kinda demotivating for high-achievers. For one, the only-six-ranks-lower school has never had a student who achieved 99.95 whereas the school I attend constantly has at approximately 20-25% of all students achieving over 99 ATAR. Which is kind of a big difference. They're both selective and about ~16km apart, but you can really guess which one you'd rather attend.

Remember this post?

Well, hate to break it out to you but one school was on par with NSB/G and the other was ranked higher than Hurlstone, Fort Street & Sydney Technical by a wide margin.

Additionally, there really are more factors than travel involved in a decision to go to a specific school. What if the parents wanted the child to attend a single-sex school? What if the kid thought they couldn't cope with the pressure in Ruse? What if all their friends and/or family were going to a specific school? Blah blah and the list goes on.

Quoted from - Selective high schools should let in local students, insists mayor
"The whole lower north shore needs another high school and a number of our high schools need another building,'' she (Steph Croft) said.

By making NSB/G partially selective you're not going to magically create "another high school" (which is very obviously needed) and multiple buildings/ facilities for "a number of our high schools". What's concerning me is that the mayor appears to want to use this proposal as a temporary solution because as the article itself suggested, it is undeniable that they will need (an)other high school (s). I'm concerned because if they are treating this as a temporary solution, then they may be making a mistake that they will not be able to take back. Apart from dedicating ~6 years for training (quoting page 3 of this thread)/ adopting a new curriculum and reconsidering multiple other factors (such as school culture) , all for the new system to become redundant when the "final" system, that is, the new high school, is built seems to me like a waste of effort and money.

"City of Sydney data shows that between 2006 and 2018 there’ll be an increase of 2,700 children in the 5-9 year-old age group and 1,200 in the 10-14 year-old age group. Yet, in 2001 the NSW government cited*“changing demographics” and declining enrolments for shutting down public primary and high schools around Sydney. It ignored increasing enrolments in comprehensive public high schools and that tens of thousands of inner city dwellers would be piling into new apartments." (Sorry, we’re full – high schools in high demand : South Sydney Herald)
Further evidence that they need more high schools. Plus, wtf did the Govt. shut down public and primary schools around Sydney? Aren't they just asking for this "crisis"?

Add Ruse's evil plan (refer to the top of the post) I found from Google, and you get

Furthermore, what example is the council setting up for other councils? So what, when other "local areas" face a similar crisis, they should just get all the selective schools and make them partially selective because that will unquestionably solve our growing numbers!

Dun dun dun!! Aaand, all of a sudden Erinaceous amazing prediction comes true and we have even less choices for those selective kids! (Making the "let's get selective kids to compete for OTHER selective school spots next door to them (not really)" unfeasible. ) I can see a movement to make selective, partially selective coming... So who're they going to shut down next? Hornsby? Baulkham?


I disagree that this proposal, whether temporary or permanent, will be entirely beneficial long-term, especially if this will influence other similar actions. And I'm going to end it at that because to me this discussion's flow appears very circular, and I would personally liken it to a debate rather than a discussion, as it has been addressing quite a plethora of repetitive points for some time now.

also you're forgetting that has little to do with the school and everything to do with the fact that those students there are already of that calibre, if you put those same students in your school I can guarantee you they would get close to the same marks as they would at those schools

Not really they won't. I'm pretty sure something called rubber banding exists. Hence why some people's marks are pulled down as a result of their cohort and hence why all teachers tell us to work together to up our results. Not too entirely sure about this so please correct where necessary.
:3
How do you classify calibre if it is not uncommon for many students to struggle in their respective schools, and others to transfer because they find the classes too unfocused/ unsuitable? If everyone started off as the same calibre as they would end, then why would the selective model exist in the first place?

you're a fool

I seem to recall keeping civilised was supposed to be important in this day and age.

As a side note, Happy belated New Years everyone!

 

[salshel]

"Last week the Mayor of North Sydney Council called for North Sydney Boys’ and Girls’ Schools to*accept local students and become only partially selective. This would be a win for students and the community and would be similar to the strategy employed by Newtown Performing Arts High School which takes both a local and audition-based intake. MP Alex Greenwich*also[B ] supports this option for Sydney Girls’ and Boys’[/B], where entry is currently on academic merit only and students travel for up to two hours each way from all over Greater Sydney to attend." (Sorry, we’re full – high schools in high demand : South Sydney Herald )
Ruse's evil plan is already in motion.

Well ideally a new school would be a good idea but they obviously evaluated it and deemed it financially unfeasible. Plus can you imagine explaining to taxpayers that they have to pay more taxes because some selective school could not bother taking a few local students?

No offense (to the parents) or anything, but they are the ones that are really pushing for this change so it's really only logical for the parents to be the ones that donate to the establishment of their dreams. Plus, they (the govt.) stated themselves that they needed another high school. Evaluating it as financially unfeasible is not going to create a new high school for them- obviously they're going to have to find ways around this financial problem. And one such way would be to ask for sizable donations from the crisis-affected area.

For many students attending NSG or NSB schools like Baulkho and Ruse are actually probably closer and there are always options like Fort Street, Sydney Tech etc. for those from other areas.

To put ranking into perspective, from what I do know, a drop in only 6 ranks from the school I attend (non-private) to another school (non-private) may not seem big, but is actually kinda demotivating for high-achievers. For one, the only-six-ranks-lower school has never had a student who achieved 99.95 whereas the school I attend constantly has at approximately 20-25% of all students achieving over 99 ATAR. Which is kind of a big difference. They're both selective and about ~16km apart, but you can really guess which one you'd rather attend.

Remember this post?

Well, hate to break it out to you but one school was on par with NSB/G and the other was ranked higher than Hurlstone, Fort Street & Sydney Technical by a wide margin.

Additionally, there really are more factors than travel involved in a decision to go to a specific school. What if the parents wanted the child to attend a single-sex school? What if the kid thought they couldn't cope with the pressure in Ruse? What if all their friends and/or family were going to a specific school? Blah blah and the list goes on.

Quoted from - Selective high schools should let in local students, insists mayor
"The whole lower north shore needs another high school and a number of our high schools need another building,'' she (Steph Croft) said.

By making NSB/G partially selective you're not going to magically create "another high school" (which is very obviously needed) and multiple buildings/ facilities for "a number of our high schools". What's concerning me is that the mayor appears to want to use this proposal as a temporary solution because as the article itself suggested, it is undeniable that they will need (an)other high school (s). I'm concerned because if they are treating this as a temporary solution, then they may be making a mistake that they will not be able to take back. Apart from dedicating ~6 years for training (quoting page 3 of this thread)/ adopting a new curriculum and reconsidering multiple other factors (such as school culture) , all for the new system to become redundant when the "final" system, that is, the new high school, is built seems to me like a waste of effort and money.

"City of Sydney data shows that between 2006 and 2018 there’ll be an increase of 2,700 children in the 5-9 year-old age group and 1,200 in the 10-14 year-old age group. Yet, in 2001 the NSW government cited*“changing demographics” and declining enrolments for shutting down public primary and high schools around Sydney. It ignored increasing enrolments in comprehensive public high schools and that tens of thousands of inner city dwellers would be piling into new apartments." (Sorry, we’re full – high schools in high demand : South Sydney Herald)
Further evidence that they need more high schools. Plus, wtf did the Govt. shut down public and primary schools around Sydney? Aren't they just asking for this "crisis"?

Add Ruse's evil plan (refer to the top of the post) I found from Google, and you get

Furthermore, what example is the council setting up for other councils? So what, when other "local areas" face a similar crisis, they should just get all the selective schools and make them partially selective because that will unquestionably solve our growing numbers!

Dun dun dun!! Aaand, all of a sudden Erinaceous amazing prediction comes true and we have even less choices for those selective kids! (Making the "let's get selective kids to compete for OTHER selective school spots next door to them (not really)" unfeasible. ) I can see a movement to make selective, partially selective coming... So who're they going to shut down next? Hornsby? Baulkham?


I disagree that this proposal, whether temporary or permanent, will be entirely beneficial long-term, especially if this will influence other similar actions. And I'm going to end it at that because to me this discussion's flow appears very circular, and I would personally liken it to a debate rather than a discussion, as it has been addressing quite a plethora of repetitive points for some time now.

also you're forgetting that has little to do with the school and everything to do with the fact that those students there are already of that calibre, if you put those same students in your school I can guarantee you they would get close to the same marks as they would at those schools

Not really they won't. I'm pretty sure something called rubber banding exists. Hence why some people's marks are pulled down as a result of their cohort and hence why all teachers tell us to work together to up our results. Not too entirely sure about this so please correct where necessary.
:3
How do you classify calibre if it is not uncommon for many students to struggle in their respective schools, and others to transfer because they find the classes too unfocused/ unsuitable? If everyone started off as the same calibre as they would end, then why would the selective model exist in the first place?

you're a fool

I seem to recall keeping civilised was supposed to be important in this day and age.

As a side note, Happy belated New Years everyone!

 

[kaz1]

>make NSB and NSG partial selective or comprehensive or something to address the situation with the first available year 7 cohort
> turn an already existing comprehensive high school into a pure selective to replace NSB and NSG, like Randwick boys and Girls or something
> all the selective elites that hate the normals can go there instead of NSB or NSG

 

[Erinaceous]

comprehensive education in high school is different from primary school though

also you're forgetting that has little to do with the school and everything to do with the fact that those students there are already of that calibre, if you put those same students in your school I can guarantee you they would get close to the same marks as they would at those schools

Dayum, how do you reply so fast? D:

What i meant was that selective schools = schools where idividuals who have met a certain requirement can enter through. And if you look at that point of view primary public schools + public high schools = same.

Ha. Lol. If you put every student in NSG/B into my school, that's just basically recreating the same school in a different location with different teachers and even still, I doubt they'll do as well. Why? Because my teachers simply would not have the experience to teach a classroom full of high-calibre students. They have not catered to their needs as my normal school curriculum would differ to that of NSG (at least to what I can see from my comparisons between me and my friends)

No. If everyone was at the same calibre from when they were little to when they take the HSC, then that defeats the point of a selective school test and a HSC. Dude, a school hones an individual and should "aim" to refine their talent and potential. What this means is that, there's too much of a variety of potential in my school in order for us to remain "stable". Teacher's experiences and school curriculum should also play another part.

Students may be the main thing, but they're nto everything to a school. Reputation, different teachers, different resources, allumi, all play a part.

 

[Erinaceous]

how immature of you

there's a difference between debating a point and being close-minded about an issue

there's no point discussing anything with someone who's actually admitted they're unwillingly to empathise or consider things from the opposite side, it's like talking to a tree stump

how about you grow up a bit, experience things, be open minded then come back here and talk because you're making this threads discussion very circular with your ignorance

Clarify please. How am I being close minded about an issue?

When I have I admitted that I'm unwilling to empathise or consdier things fromt he opposite side? If you mean the bit when I said, "I was in a public school from years 1-6 so been there, done that, no thanks" that literally meant that I am unwilling to transfer to a public school. It doesn't mean I'm unwilling to empathsise and consider things from their perspective. But if an unwillingness to transfer to a public school on the first year of my senior school is considered immature, then by all means, I am so, and I would prefer to stay immature c:

This thread has been recycling it's arguments for quite some time now. I'm sure everyone has realised this by now

EDIT: SAAAAAAAAAALSHEEEEEEEEEL<33333

 

[Erinaceous]

>make NSB and NSG partial selective or comprehensive or something to address the situation with the first available year 7 cohort
> turn an already existing comprehensive high school into a pure selective to replace NSB and NSG, like Randwick boys and Girls or something
> all the selective elites that hate the normals can go there instead of NSB or NSG

What's the point in that? :c Unless Randwick boys and girls or something have a larger school that's able to fit in more kids or something. Isn't that stategy the same as just moving NSG/B into another location albeit one that takes a long time to implement and with no guarentee that students who are then willing to go to randwick boys/girls have a similar mindset of that of nsb/g.

That being said, if there's too much pressure on NSG to become a part selective, they might as well move to another school. I mean they've done it before lol

 

[salshel]

how immature of you

there's a difference between debating a point and being close-minded about an issue

there's no point discussing anything with someone who's actually admitted they're unwillingly to empathise or consider things from the opposite side, it's like talking to a tree stump

how about you grow up a bit, experience things, be open minded then come back here and talk because you're making this threads discussion very circular with your ignorance

OK, I said I was done with this thread, but I find it ironic how by accusing someone of being "close-minded" and "immature" it showed how immature and close-minded you, yourself was.

???! This should not be a debate. This should be a discussion. A debate and being close-minded can be seen as the same thing?? (Debates are when two opposing sides argue about a specific topic regardless of whether they believe it themselves).

I can't see any grounds with your accusation? Please provide a point with more substance than a mere accusation before you say some hurtful words such as "how about you grow up a bit, experience things, be open minded then come back here and talk because you're making this threads discussion very circular with your ignorance." When I was talking about a circular discussion I meant that the very same points raised in Page 1,2 & 3 could be found in the more recent posts. Furthermore, how is she ignorant? You quoted that she said for the purposes of her argument she has chosen to be "stereotypical". Stereotypical does not equate to an "unwillingness to empathise or consider things from the opposite side." As for talking to a tree stump, that (again) shows your immaturity in your need to somehow put down Erinaceous? Your post would not have its meaning lost without that ~rude~ comment.

For all you know, she could be playing the devil's advocate with expressing her view. It is important to keep in mind that this is not uncommon in a discussion, or a debate, and so if you have a qualm about an opinion (and a post is only that, nothing more) then you should respond accordingly, attack the post if you must, but do not attack the person. (Which I find incredibly immature of you when you did.)
//endlecture-likepost

 

[kaz1]

What's the point in that? :c Unless Randwick boys and girls or something have a larger school that's able to fit in more kids or something. Isn't that stategy the same as just moving NSG/B into another location albeit one that takes a long time to implement and with no guarentee that students who are then willing to go to randwick boys/girls have a similar mindset of that of nsb/g.

That being said, if there's too much pressure on NSG to become a part selective, they might as well move to another school. I mean they've done it before lol

you don't need to fit more students, make it pure selective from the next available year 7 cohort

 

[RealiseNothing]

Not really they won't. I'm pretty sure something called rubber banding exists. Hence why some people's marks are pulled down as a result of their cohort and hence why all teachers tell us to work together to up our results. Not too entirely sure about this so please correct where necessary.

Nope

 

[Kiraken]

"Last week the Mayor of North Sydney Council called for North Sydney Boys’ and Girls’ Schools to*accept local students and become only partially selective. This would be a win for students and the community and would be similar to the strategy employed by Newtown Performing Arts High School which takes both a local and audition-based intake. MP Alex Greenwich*also[B ] supports this option for Sydney Girls’ and Boys’[/B], where entry is currently on academic merit only and students travel for up to two hours each way from all over Greater Sydney to attend." (Sorry, we’re full – high schools in high demand : South Sydney Herald )
Ruse's evil plan is already in motion.


No offense (to the parents) or anything, but they are the ones that are really pushing for this change so it's really only logical for the parents to be the ones that donate to the establishment of their dreams. Plus, they (the govt.) stated themselves that they needed another high school. Evaluating it as financially unfeasible is not going to create a new high school for them- obviously they're going to have to find ways around this financial problem. And one such way would be to ask for sizable donations from the crisis-affected area.



Remember this post?

Well, hate to break it out to you but one school was on par with NSB/G and the other was ranked higher than Hurlstone, Fort Street & Sydney Technical by a wide margin.

Additionally, there really are more factors than travel involved in a decision to go to a specific school. What if the parents wanted the child to attend a single-sex school? What if the kid thought they couldn't cope with the pressure in Ruse? What if all their friends and/or family were going to a specific school? Blah blah and the list goes on.




By making NSB/G partially selective you're not going to magically create "another high school" (which is very obviously needed) and multiple buildings/ facilities for "a number of our high schools". What's concerning me is that the mayor appears to want to use this proposal as a temporary solution because as the article itself suggested, it is undeniable that they will need (an)other high school (s). I'm concerned because if they are treating this as a temporary solution, then they may be making a mistake that they will not be able to take back. Apart from dedicating ~6 years for training (quoting page 3 of this thread)/ adopting a new curriculum and reconsidering multiple other factors (such as school culture) , all for the new system to become redundant when the "final" system, that is, the new high school, is built seems to me like a waste of effort and money.

"City of Sydney data shows that between 2006 and 2018 there’ll be an increase of 2,700 children in the 5-9 year-old age group and 1,200 in the 10-14 year-old age group. Yet, in 2001 the NSW government cited*“changing demographics” and declining enrolments for shutting down public primary and high schools around Sydney. It ignored increasing enrolments in comprehensive public high schools and that tens of thousands of inner city dwellers would be piling into new apartments." (Sorry, we’re full – high schools in high demand : South Sydney Herald)
Further evidence that they need more high schools. Plus, wtf did the Govt. shut down public and primary schools around Sydney? Aren't they just asking for this "crisis"?

Add Ruse's evil plan (refer to the top of the post) I found from Google, and you get



Dun dun dun!! Aaand, all of a sudden Erinaceous amazing prediction comes true and we have even less choices for those selective kids! (Making the "let's get selective kids to compete for OTHER selective school spots next door to them (not really)" unfeasible. ) I can see a movement to make selective, partially selective coming... So who're they going to shut down next? Hornsby? Baulkham?


I disagree that this proposal, whether temporary or permanent, will be entirely beneficial long-term, especially if this will influence other similar actions. And I'm going to end it at that because to me this discussion's flow appears very circular, and I would personally liken it to a debate rather than a discussion, as it has been addressing quite a plethora of repetitive points for some time now.


Not really they won't. I'm pretty sure something called rubber banding exists. Hence why some people's marks are pulled down as a result of their cohort and hence why all teachers tell us to work together to up our results. Not too entirely sure about this so please correct where necessary.
:3
How do you classify calibre if it is not uncommon for many students to struggle in their respective schools, and others to transfer because they find the classes too unfocused/ unsuitable? If everyone started off as the same calibre as they would end, then why would the selective model exist in the first place?


I seem to recall keeping civilised was supposed to be important in this day and age.

As a side note, Happy belated New Years everyone!

I'm going to reply to the bold as those are the relevant points you are debating with me

I'm not sure if you know how society works but the government gets money from taxpayers, i.e. the parents anyway. I don't really see your point. The local government serves the interests of the local people, i.e. the parents of schoolchildren when it comes to schools, so I don't see how you distinguish between the two lol

Sydney Tech for example has tonnes of excellent students who get over 99.95 and over 99 ATAR, that is more than enough to provide you with the competition to stay motivated if you are a top student. You speak as if these schools aren't good enough for you lol

Of course there are more factors than travel related to how you pick a school, but again you miss the point entirely. The point is going to a selective school is a choice, going to a comprehensive school isn't. As such, providing facilities for a comprehensive school (to cater for the vast majority of the local population) takes priority over catering for a bunch of students from otehr areas who opt to travel there for a selective education they can get elsewhere (plus when NSG/NSB becomes partially selective, prospective selective students would gravitate to other selective schools anyway, so this entire line of thought is moot).

Your statistics also do not back up your point because they do not pertain to North Sydney specifically, the student population seems to be growing significantly in Sydney as a whole but that should not dictate policy as it depends in which exact localities this is happening, so building an entirely new school in an area where the population of students is not growing as significantly would be useless. The government doesn't have infinite reserves of money, so when it comes to building entirely new schools it is more financially feasible to do it in areas where the population is increasing a lot more.

Lol but if there are "less choices" for selective kids they still have *choices*, comprehensive education isn't exactly a choice its a compulsory thing, a necessity. Furthermore, the entire premise of a selective school is selection, so all that's going to happen is it becomes slightly more selective, the students who really benefit from the selective program due to being higher calibre academically would still get in, the bottom 300 or so from the entire selective school cohort of NSW would be the only ones left out assuming that each of the other selective schools don't increase their intake each year by like 10 students to accomodate for them, which is highly likely anyway.

The selective school model exists because it provides a competitive environment for like-minded students, a competitive environment that is in practically every selective school. The top 5-10 students in every selective school are very competitive and as long as you are in them (if you aren't that's your problem because it shows you aren't competitive enough anyway and deserve your marks) your assessment marks aren't really impacted at all. Case in point is that I went to a rank 64 school (in my year) but the top 5 or so students all were extremely competitive and we all ended up getting exam and assessment marks that were roughly the same, we didn't get dragged down by the cohort at all. As long as you are at the top and perform consistently in your exams too, rubberbanding does not really have any effect. If you aren't at the top and you suffer from rubberbanding it means that you can't complain about your school not being good enough because if it isn't, you're a hypocrite for not being at the top of a not good enough school

 

[Erinaceous]

Of course there are more factors than travel related to how you pick a school, but again you miss the point entirely. The point is going to a selective school is a choice, going to a comprehensive school isn't. As such, providing facilities for a comprehensive school (to cater for the vast majority of the local population) takes priority over catering for a bunch of students from otehr areas who opt to travel there for a selective education they can get elsewhere (plus when NSG/NSB becomes partially selective, prospective selective students would gravitate to other selective schools anyway, so this entire line of thought is moot).
This. This basically sums up everything. Although the line of thought isn't moot because, Salshel's argument appears to be in that although the government will - and should- take priority for public schools, making NSG and NSB partially selective isn't the best optionI don't recall anywhere in Salshel's argument where she has stated that this was the worst possible outcome that the government could make, nor has she stated what she proposes has to be absolute for the best of everyone. Furthermore, her post obviously suggests that the Governmnet is looking to make Sydney Girls and Boys partially selective- and in doing so, lessening the prospective schools that students can attend (and we must take that into consideration because we're arguing about whats going to happen in the future and if the above happens, well... it causes more uncertainty to many other factors- I'm using the line of thinking used in the Futures Cone model.)

Another thing - Are you sure sydney technical has a few 99.95ers (the top 5 from what you're suggesting) every year? I find that quite hard to believe if not only because Manly has barely any 99. Granted this is based of the rankings of a school, but if sydney technical can constantly get a few 99,95ers every year, then it would seem quite strange. I'd be curious to know why Note keyword: "Constant".

From my understanding your arguments are based around the "present" I thought this discussion included the long term consequences and implication of the strategy as well as the short-term goals, "What do you think of these proposed changes? Discuss." Granted the gov can make NSG and NSB partially selective, but I' m arguing that it's not the best idea. I never said that they couldn't lol. If I have, then quote me please c:

Also granted, although by making NSG/B into partially selective, you're alleviating the crisis in the north Sydney region, but that simply means you're spreading around the students who would have previously attended NSG/B. I can see where' you're arguing at. You're saying that there are plenty of NSGs and NSBs who will be able to attend a school closer to their home. But you missed what I'm getting at. I'm saying that Australia is a growing nation, eventually crisis will occur all over sydney or other heavily populated cities (heavily populated as in comparision to other cities in Australia). So why not just build a school or expand educational facilities rather than shifting around the student population? Also, if many students from NSG/B are from one primary region, what's to say that the region itself won't have a crisis when the students from that area choose to relocate to a school closer to their house because they don't want to go to a school that's become partially selective. (Or can you deny that the majority of NSGs/Bs won't have that kind of mentality? Not me being an elitist here) Either way from what I can see, is that you're simply shifting students all over the place. Unless there's like a reallyempty school that's catered to the needs of previous high ranked selective school kids, I don't see how the problem is solved - only delayed or moved. Granted you can argue that other areas aren't facing crisis. But perhaps they're not facing crisises because local students are travelling into other regions for their education. Do you actually know if schools within the regions where NSgs/bs primarily live, aren't empty or willing to accept like a massive wave of students?

Also, How exactly does the government plan on making NSG/B into partially selective? If it's just year 7, then there's a fewer amount of people leaving, but also I doubt the "crisis" will be solved, since like classicjimbo said earlier,

and yes there really is that much demand did you not even read the article

as a reply to my post,

Surely there can't be that many public school children in need of a school in north sydney to fill up pretty much TWO whole schools :O

I severly doubt that if the crisis can fit local students in two whole school (with the exception of obviously the senior year cohorts + anyone who do choose to stay) then by making only year 7s partially selective, this will solve the problem quickly. And to solve the problem quickly must be what the local government's aim is. Otherwise why not just expand current public schools around the region? Or better yet, build a new school through funds raised over time?

because some selective school could not bother taking a few local students?

- Kiraken. Few? You were just trying ot tell me a few posts back that it was a crisis... how is it even few? Clarify please Otherwise, you're kinda being hypocritical in your posts.

It's a crisis IN THAT LOCAL AREA. The caps emphasises the point you are missing

- kiraken. Okie dokie. A local area is an region that is dominated by a community correct? A community has a bunch of students in it. Therefore the crisis is that students from that area don't have a school to go to. All students attend a school in NSW, regardless whether it's a "choice" or if it's "compulsory" (selective and public school namely) If you open up positions in the local schools in the local area for the local kids, that usually isn't a problem. What's the problem, is that NSG/B are top ranking schools. And like what i've said before as a reply back to your post when you said that if you place everyone in NSG/B into my school my school would do just as well as NSB/G ATM. If you do recall, I disagreed. Why? BEcause my school is not catered to the needs of students from NSG/B. My teachers wouldn't have the experience in teaching students like NSG/Bs. Would you like an example? In the last term of 2012, my principal transfered from my school (top 15) to NSG. He, in every morning assembly they had, attempted to give the student body a new sophicated, unusal word to use throughout the week. Did he do that every assembly in my school? No he didn't. All he did was read the daily notices and thank anyone who had any oustanding achievements. Was that stereotypical of him to assume the standard of intellects in NSG? Perhaps. Does this demostrate that my teachers are obviously not that well-prepared to intake kids from NSG/B? Yes it does.

I quote myself in a previous post.

Students may be the main thing, but they're nto everything to a school. Reputation, different teachers, different resources, allumi, all play a part.

So although it's a happy coincidence that NSG/b is in the local area that's experiencing a crisis, making them into partially selective - which will then eventually turn them into a public school, as there'll be a lack of students who will be trying out for NSG/B with their rankings down, and an increase in comprehensive students to accomodate for the crisis, I don't think it's a good idea. As you can see, teachers in NSG/B are already catered to the needs of what you can actually say to be "the best and brightest" of the state. And honestly, the gov doesn't really want the resources that NSG/B has to offer. they only want the space and they want the space because of time. In that case, why not just move NSG/B to another school elsewhere and make the current location of NSG/B school site into a full public school :c It's another viable option - especially if like what kiraken says, most NSG/B are centered around one local area. But then - what about those who've already had to make sacrifices to get to NSG/B? Moving closer to the school, choosing the school because it's closer etc.
I mean if the gov wants the space because of a lack in time - making NSG/B into partially selective isn't a good idea since both schools have MUCH MORE than space to offer. Bottom line. If you move NSB/G (since the only thing the gov wants is space atm) so that it doesn't become partially selective, you're still going to have to either build a new school, or move a public school to where NSB/G is currently and thus making some parties unhappy. If you make NSB/G into partially selective then you're undermining the resources and potential that they would have to offer (since the gov only wants space) if you leave NSB/G alone and build a new school, then you don't have enough TIME which is need to get MONEY likewise if you expand current public schools then you still don't have enough time (since expanding would/could only ever take a small % of kids a year and not alleviate the immediate crisis).
Just some food for thought. Based on all of this, I still disagree that NSG/B should be made into partial selective schools. I mean these are literally one of the top schools in NSW and have been for a very long time. You're like causing almost a 100 years loss in school culture. All for what? An immediate relief to a crisis that will inevitably occur in the future thansk to our population growth. But i suppose if you don't think that is important then meh. Each to their own.

 

[Kiraken]

Of course there are more factors than travel related to how you pick a school, but again you miss the point entirely. The point is going to a selective school is a choice, going to a comprehensive school isn't. As such, providing facilities for a comprehensive school (to cater for the vast majority of the local population) takes priority over catering for a bunch of students from otehr areas who opt to travel there for a selective education they can get elsewhere (plus when NSG/NSB becomes partially selective, prospective selective students would gravitate to other selective schools anyway, so this entire line of thought is moot).
This. This basically sums up everything. Although the line of thought isn't moot because, Salshel's argument appears to be in that although the government will - and should- take priority for public schools, making NSG and NSB partially selective isn't the best optionI don't recall anywhere in Salshel's argument where she has stated that this was the worst possible outcome that the government could make, nor has she stated what she proposes has to be absolute for the best of everyone. Furthermore, her post obviously suggests that the Governmnet is looking to make Sydney Girls and Boys partially selective- and in doing so, lessening the prospective schools that students can attend (and we must take that into consideration because we're arguing about whats going to happen in the future and if the above happens, well... it causes more uncertainty to many other factors- I'm using the line of thinking used in the Futures Cone model.)

Another thing - Are you sure sydney technical has a few 99.95ers (the top 5 from what you're suggesting) every year? I find that quite hard to believe if not only because Manly has barely any 99. Granted this is based of the rankings of a school, but if sydney technical can constantly get a few 99,95ers every year, then it would seem quite strange. I'd be curious to know why Note keyword: "Constant".

From my understanding your arguments are based around the "present" I thought this discussion included the long term consequences and implication of the strategy as well as the short-term goals, "What do you think of these proposed changes? Discuss." Granted the gov can make NSG and NSB partially selective, but I' m arguing that it's not the best idea. I never said that they couldn't lol. If I have, then quote me please c:

Also granted, although by making NSG/B into partially selective, you're alleviating the crisis in the north Sydney region, but that simply means you're spreading around the students who would have previously attended NSG/B. I can see where' you're arguing at. You're saying that there are plenty of NSGs and NSBs who will be able to attend a school closer to their home. But you missed what I'm getting at. I'm saying that Australia is a growing nation, eventually crisis will occur all over sydney or other heavily populated cities (heavily populated as in comparision to other cities in Australia). So why not just build a school or expand educational facilities rather than shifting around the student population? Also, if many students from NSG/B are from one primary region, what's to say that the region itself won't have a crisis when the students from that area choose to relocate to a school closer to their house because they don't want to go to a school that's become partially selective. (Or can you deny that the majority of NSGs/Bs won't have that kind of mentality? Not me being an elitist here) Either way from what I can see, is that you're simply shifting students all over the place. Unless there's like a reallyempty school that's catered to the needs of previous high ranked selective school kids, I don't see how the problem is solved - only delayed or moved. Granted you can argue that other areas aren't facing crisis. But perhaps they're not facing crisises because local students are travelling into other regions for their education. Do you actually know if schools within the regions where NSgs/bs primarily live, aren't empty or willing to accept like a massive wave of students?

Also, How exactly does the government plan on making NSG/B into partially selective? If it's just year 7, then there's a fewer amount of people leaving, but also I doubt the "crisis" will be solved, since like classicjimbo said earlier,

as a reply to my post,
I severly doubt that if the crisis can fit local students in two whole school (with the exception of obviously the senior year cohorts + anyone who do choose to stay) then by making only year 7s partially selective, this will solve the problem quickly. And to solve the problem quickly must be what the local government's aim is. Otherwise why not just expand current public schools around the region? Or better yet, build a new school through funds raised over time?

- Kiraken. Few? You were just trying ot tell me a few posts back that it was a crisis... how is it even few? Clarify please Otherwise, you're kinda being hypocritical in your posts.

- kiraken. Okie dokie. A local area is an region that is dominated by a community correct? A community has a bunch of students in it. Therefore the crisis is that students from that area don't have a school to go to. All students attend a school in NSW, regardless whether it's a "choice" or if it's "compulsory" (selective and public school namely) If you open up positions in the local schools in the local area for the local kids, that usually isn't a problem. What's the problem, is that NSG/B are top ranking schools. And like what i've said before as a reply back to your post when you said that if you place everyone in NSG/B into my school my school would do just as well as NSB/G ATM. If you do recall, I disagreed. Why? BEcause my school is not catered to the needs of students from NSG/B. My teachers wouldn't have the experience in teaching students like NSG/Bs. Would you like an example? In the last term of 2012, my principal transfered from my school (top 15) to NSG. He, in every morning assembly they had, attempted to give the student body a new sophicated, unusal word to use throughout the week. Did he do that every assembly in my school? No he didn't. All he did was read the daily notices and thank anyone who had any oustanding achievements. Was that stereotypical of him to assume the standard of intellects in NSG? Perhaps. Does this demostrate that my teachers are obviously not that well-prepared to intake kids from NSG/B? Yes it does.

I quote myself in a previous post.

So although it's a happy coincidence that NSG/b is in the local area that's experiencing a crisis, making them into partially selective - which will then eventually turn them into a public school, as there'll be a lack of students who will be trying out for NSG/B with their rankings down, and an increase in comprehensive students to accomodate for the crisis, I don't think it's a good idea. As you can see, teachers in NSG/B are already catered to the needs of what you can actually say to be "the best and brightest" of the state. And honestly, the gov doesn't really want the resources that NSG/B has to offer. they only want the space and they want the space because of time. In that case, why not just move NSG/B to another school elsewhere and make the current location of NSG/B school site into a full public school :c It's another viable option - especially if like what kiraken says, most NSG/B are centered around one local area. But then - what about those who've already had to make sacrifices to get to NSG/B? Moving closer to the school, choosing the school because it's closer etc.
I mean if the gov wants the space because of a lack in time - making NSG/B into partially selective isn't a good idea since both schools have MUCH MORE than space to offer. Bottom line. If you move NSB/G (since the only thing the gov wants is space atm) so that it doesn't become partially selective, you're still going to have to either build a new school, or move a public school to where NSB/G is currently and thus making some parties unhappy. If you make NSB/G into partially selective then you're undermining the resources and potential that they would have to offer (since the gov only wants space) if you leave NSB/G alone and build a new school, then you don't have enough TIME which is need to get MONEY likewise if you expand current public schools then you still don't have enough time (since expanding would/could only ever take a small % of kids a year and not alleviate the immediate crisis).
Just some food for thought. Based on all of this, I still disagree that NSG/B should be made into partial selective schools. I mean these are literally one of the top schools in NSW and have been for a very long time. You're like causing almost a 100 years loss in school culture. All for what? An immediate relief to a crisis that will inevitably occur in the future thansk to our population growth. But i suppose if you don't think that is important then meh. Each to their own.

I find myself having to repeat myself.

Nowhere have you demonstrated that there is a better solution, you suggest building entirely new schools yet you have not demonstrated how this is financially feasible considering you don't even know if there are enough excess students to justify the building of two new schools. Just because demand is growing it doesn't mean its gonna grow at such an exorbitant rate that you have to build two entirely new schools to cater for these students. And how is lessening the number of fully selective schools by two really going to have an enormous impact? Overall in the selective system there are two possible outcomes 1) these students will be spread amongst the remaining selective schools 2) if they aren't at most the net shift will be a maximum of 300 students out of the system, 300 of the lower scoring students who couldn't get into a selective school. Considering that a selective school is based on the concept of selection and only choosing students of a specific calibre, all this serves to do is reinforce the system. 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 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.

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.

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.

I didn't say most NSG/NSB students are centred around one area lol, i said the exact opposite haha.

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

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.