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

[Kiraken]

Why dont they just expand the local public schools instead?

is this more or less financially feasible than the partially selective solution? (srs question)

 

[OzKo]

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

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

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

A lot of the people who go to NSB/NSG come from ages away. They are nowhere near local students by any means.

Anyway, my argument is that with more competition, the standard of selective schools will improve as bottom end of the student base go to comprehensives (where they would be in the gifted & talented class anyway).

The best students aren't going to miss out.

 

[OzKo]

is this more or less financially feasible than the partially selective solution? (srs question)

I assume that these avenues have already been looked at and have been taken into account.

For whatever reason, the article didn't disclose that.
(changing NSB/NSG into a partially selective school makes better reading)

 

[RivalryofTroll]

A lot of the people who go to NSB/NSG come from ages away. They are nowhere near local students by any means.

Anyway, my argument is that with more competition, the standard of selective schools will improve as bottom end of the student base go to comprehensives (where they would be in the gifted & talented class anyway).

The best students aren't going to miss out.

This is the key point.

 

[Some Vunt]

A lot of the people who go to NSB/NSG come from ages away. They are nowhere near local students by any means.

Anyway, my argument is that with more competition, the standard of selective schools will improve as bottom end of the student base go to comprehensives (where they would be in the gifted & talented class anyway).

The best students aren't going to miss out.

Yes, but a bunch of them that I know attended NSB/G were closest to it.

That's not true though because most people get in in year 7 and some of them change from being bright to just not caring anymore, whereas other students who didn't get in and try harder or actually become gifted later would have less chance of getting in later since the amount of spaces would be smaller and the chance of a space opening up would be smaller.

 

[Lolsmith]

No.

It's not about the success at a non-selective school because of them.
The teaching is worse because the teachers are usually trying to control the class rather than teach.

That's not the whole deal. I've seen this happen in other classes at my school (i.e: a sub-550 ranked high school), but it didn't happen in mine. Teachers and environment are not the most important factor, personal motivation, dedication and hard work is. You can put the best student in the state in any school in this state and they will learn and come out on top because they're going to put in the hard yards. You can put the worst kid in the absolute best and most premium environment, and they still won't learn or perform well because they aren't cut out for it.

 

[twinklegal19]

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

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

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

+1

I'm sure nearly all of the current/ex- students/teachers/parents of both schools would have very upset about this.

The prospective students would probably just go to SGHS/SBHS/Baulko/Ruse instead anyway but this option should be the *very* last resort of the government though.

 

[Some Vunt]

That's not the whole deal. I've seen this happen in other classes at my school (i.e: a sub-550 ranked high school), but it didn't happen in mine. Teachers and environment are not the most important factor, personal motivation, dedication and hard work is. You can put the best student in the state in any school in this state and they will learn and come out on top because they're going to put in the hard yards. You can put the worst kid in the absolute best and most premium environment, and they still won't learn or perform well because they aren't cut out for it.

I disagree.

I know people who went to selective schools that got ATARs 98+ but they don't show the intelligence or hard work that would earn them the same mark at a lower school.

I also know people that missed out on 99 mostly due to their school being shit.

If you have shit teachers and you're in a shit learning environment then it's going to make it much more difficult to do well.
Intelligence is at the very least partially effected by environmental factors.

 

[OzKo]

+1

I'm sure nearly all of the current/ex- students/teachers/parents of both schools would have very upset about this.

The prospective students would probably just go to SGHS/SBHS/Baulko/Ruse instead anyway but this option should be the *very* last resort of the government though.

But it won't be.

This is one of the *very* last concerns for the government - essentially preserving the name of a high school.

 

[nerdasdasd]

The reputation of a high school should not be taken into account, rather more what should be taken account is the provision of benefits to the local students.

 

[OzKo]

The reputation of a high school should not be taken into account, rather more what should be taken account is the provision of benefits to the local students.

Pretty much.

 

[twinklegal19]

But it won't be.

This is one of the *very* last concerns for the government - essentially preserving the name of a high school.

Both NSG and NSB have been established selective schools for around 100 years and are in the top 3 of the state. I think that's enough to warrant at least a careful, informed consideration of other options instead of a knee-jerk reaction/band aid solution to a serious problem of growing enrollments.

The reputation of a high school should not be taken into account, rather more what should be taken account is the provision of benefits to the local students.

Would it really be a benefit to them? Would you put local students in existing schools already specialising in creative and performing arts, sport, technology, distance education, special needs, intensive english, languages etc? Would they really be getting the quality of education they deserve in a school that doesn't cater to their different needs? A selective high school is no different. The massive change needed in the culture of the school, curriculum, teaching, student body and facilities will not benefit the new students so what's the point?

If the DET has absolutely no other choice (unlikely) then I suppose none of this matters anyway. ~Any education is better than none right?~

 

[Some Vunt]

Both NSG and NSB have been established selective schools for over 100 years and are in the top 3 of the state. I think that's enough to warrant at least a careful, informed consideration of other options instead of a knee-jerk reaction/band aid solution to a serious problem of growing enrollments.

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

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

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

nope???

 

[twinklegal19]

nope???

rofl was one year out

How about on ~average~ between those two schools k?

 

[Some Vunt]

rofl was one year out

How about on ~average~ between those two schools k?

you said "for over 100 years" which is implying that it is a lot more than 100.
(you were at least 2 years off)

And no, that would be 100, not over 100.

 

[deswa1]

I disagree with this and the reason why is that currently NSG and NSB are elite selective schools. You make it partially selective and instantly school ranking drops because obviously the comprehensive stream will deliver a lower B6 ratio than the selective stream (not offended anyone here- I think we'll all agree on that). So the direct impact is a lower of school ranking. But then indirectly, school ranking will drop even further because why would you bother going all the way to NSG if the school is ranked 30th say. So all the top kids will move into Syd Girls, Baulko etc. And then ranking drops further and thus the students it brings into the school are of much lower academic calibre than originally.

Which is bad because NSG and NSB are built FOR academically strong kids. Like all the teachers there have experience with strong kids; their programs are for strong kids etc. So it wouldn't work well imo. Leave selective as selective and expand comprehensive

 

[twinklegal19]

you said "for over 100 years" which is implying that it is a lot more than 100.
(you were at least 2 years off)

And no, that would be 100, not over 100.

I stand corrected then, thank you for your correction

Guess my whole argument fell apart !!1!

 

[Some Vunt]

I stand corrected then, thank you for your correction

Guess my whole argument fell apart !!1!

yep, there's only one solution.

 

[Trebla]

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

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

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

One could also make the argument that those in the North Sydney area who live close to or border other areas which don't have a 'crisis' could enrol in their schools.

A lot of the people who go to NSB/NSG come from ages away. They are nowhere near local students by any means.

Anyway, my argument is that with more competition, the standard of selective schools will improve as bottom end of the student base go to comprehensives (where they would be in the gifted & talented class anyway).

The best students aren't going to miss out.

By your argument, you might as well convert the two schools into fully comprehensive ones to fully absorb those pressures. The overall standard of selective schools improving is not really relevant because no one is getting any additional benefit from that. It's just the same group of people with the same benefits except you've got a net loss in overall benefits from those who miss out which gives that illusion of 'improvement'.

Selective schools exist so that students can experience a more stimulating and enriching environment with more like-minded peers and a more specialised teaching program (of course subject to their choice to be in such an environment). If you reduce that then you are effectively denying good opportunities (for which there exists sufficient resources to build) for a large group of people who desire that kind of environment.

Note that it is also very costly to redesign a six year teaching program (across numerous subjects) which caters for talented students into a program that caters for a broader spectrum (even for a partially selective cohort). Teachers will have to be retrained and/or adjust their teaching methods accordingly... not to mention the costs from the cultural change that would inevitably occur at the school which could potentially drive some teachers and/or students to move elsewhere to seek a more suitable culture.

The reputation of a high school should not be taken into account, rather more what should be taken account is the provision of benefits to the local students.

Reputation of a school is pretty important. It is often a determining factor of what kind of students and teachers are attracted to that school. Regardless of whether you personally value a school's reputation or not, it is quite plausible to say that a large chunk of the people involved in this situation have concerns about reputation (e.g. it can affect the type of teachers and students who choose to enrol in that school), hence this must be taken into account.

I just think the idea of converting NSB/NSG into partially selective schools is very short sighted. Firstly, as mentioned already, I'm not a fan of the partial selective model in terms of the educational benefits (or lack of) in the first place. Secondly, if the schools were made partially selective to address an increase in local enrolments, there can only be a fixed number of students that can be enrolled, which for a partially selective school say is <100. In the long run, it is reasonable to expect this increase to continue, if not accelerate, due to population growth so it will come to a point where we run into the same problem again (but this time potentially after a sacrifice of quality education for a partially selective school). That is why the best long term solution is to build a new school (whether it be public or private) altogether because new schools obviously have greater capacity to take on these extra students. The long term economic benefits of having a new school almost always far outweigh the short term initial costs of outlay in building one.

 

[Lolsmith]

I disagree.

I know people who went to selective schools that got ATARs 98+ but they don't show the intelligence or hard work that would earn them the same mark at a lower school.

I also know people that missed out on 99 mostly due to their school being shit.

If you have shit teachers and you're in a shit learning environment then it's going to make it much more difficult to do well.
Intelligence is at the very least partially effected by environmental factors.

"Missed out on 99" (putting how ridiculous this assertion is aside), meaning that they still got an incredibly good grade, right? That just proves my point. They still obtained an outstanding mark, despite their environment. Besides if they're intelligent enough to get a grade that high, why didn't they just go to a selective school?

I didn't dispute that. I'm not saying that there is only one way to do something and there is only one factor that influences a result. I said the most important was personal drive, not that it was the only thing. The fact that people from shitty schools can score in the top 5% of the state only proves my point.

It does upset me that this of all threads is the thread that gets the most attention in NCAP for months