Selective schools debate (2 Viewers)

[Trebla]

I noticed the SMH has released a LOT of articles (mostly editorials) on selective schools in the last week or so.

'Hubs of concentrated advantage': selective schools need a rethink
https://www.smh.com.au/education/hu...e-schools-need-a-rethink-20180715-p4zrkd.html

Selective schools: boon or drag on education system?
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw...drag-on-education-system-20180716-p4zrss.html

Parent contributions at selective schools 'exacerbating inequalities'
https://www.smh.com.au/education/pa...xacerbating-inequalities-20180710-p4zqmz.html

Study finds selective schools largely inaccessible
https://www.smh.com.au/education/st...ools-largely-inaccessible-20180718-56k7o.html

Selective schools set standards others should aim for
https://www.smh.com.au/national/vic...ds-others-should-aim-for-20180718-p4zs56.html

'I can see why people are worried': Have we hit peak selective?
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw...ve-we-hit-peak-selective-20180719-p4zsiz.html

Key point missing in selective schools debate
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...selective-schools-debate-20180718-p4zs80.html

Selective schools should reflect wider society
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...ld-reflect-wider-society-20180719-p4zsgt.html

Selective schools are not the benchmark
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/li...ls-are-not-the-benchmark-20180723-p4zt68.html


Seems like a lot of discussion from many different perspectives, with some more insightful or controversial than others.

What is your take on selective schools? Which of the above opinion pieces do you strongly support or disagree with?

I particularly liked 'I can see why people are worried': Have we hit peak selective? as it suggests some actual solutions to address some of the concerns raised in this debate.

 

[cosmo 2]

what exactly is the beef here

 

[30june2016]

What is your take on selective schools? Which of the above opinion pieces do you strongly support or disagree with?

I particularly liked 'I can see why people are worried': Have we hit peak selective? as it suggests some actual solutions to address some of the concerns raised in this debate.

The whole selective schools debate gives me a headache tbh.

Even though all the articles were asdfghjkl;, I liked parts of the 'I can see why people are worried': Have we hit peak selective?' one.

More specifically, this part:
"There's this mentality that selective schools are better than non-selective," he said. "I think we need to get away from that. Selective schools are generally different. They cater to a group of students who benefit from what is being provided, which is opportunities for interactions with others."

Every student, regardless of the school they go to, has a different experience and perspective. I have friends who enjoyed the competitive pressure of being in a selective school. I have friends who absolutely hated it, and struggled with not being able to cope with the high standards and lowered self-esteem. Some people disliked the laid-back approach of comprehensive schools whilst others thrived socially and academically from being in a more relaxed environment. I think one of the articles mentioned that we can't approach our education system with a 'one size fits all' mindset and I agree with this. In the end, it's either the student's or parent's choice on which type of school is chosen, as different students have different needs that are suited to different environments.

Coming from a selective school, I can see and appreciate the perks. Although I was surrounded by competitive peers, I always had role models to look up to in the grades above mine. I was exposed to different opportunities and extra-curricular activities. I noticed that at a lot of extra-curricular activities I went to (e.g. tech conferences, programming workshops, engineering camp, youth parliament) - all of these were programs that helped me find my interests and motivations), a majority of people were from a selective school. I realised that my school was lucky as we were spoon fed with all the opportunities available for us - whereas (from I've heard from friends) students from other schools are not so lucky and have to find information themselves, or other peers who were equally enthusiastic.

Maybe instead of pulling apart selective schools, we should focus on how we can help improve the experience of comprehensive schools to fit the needs of students. Different schools offer different experiences. And for the people who are complaining about tutoring, and how it's 'ruining' the education system - maybe people are going to tutoring because families view our education as inadequate. Maybe we shouldn't blame selective schools - which the media has loved doing the past few weeks (altho i'll be honest the articles gave me a headache so i only skimmed through them so i am guilty of making assumptions of what they're trying to say)

A few other things:

- it's interesting to see how education systems in other countries and states work: e.g. Finland's education system, there's a really good documentary called "Where to Invade Next" by Michael Moore and he shows how the country seems to focus on the quality of their teachers, resources and how they aim to make all schools of the same standard
--> which relates to this opinion from one of the articles: 'Selective high schools must be made comprehensive and all high schools should be co-ed to mirror the world in which we live in' (lmao the whole co-ed vs single sex schools thing is a another debate that's been bubbling away in the media lately)
I mean the 'one size fits all' worked for Finland but i don't really agree with this for nsw hmMMM

- there's also this, which was actually posted by a meme page for selective schools #feels tho

I have no idea what I just typed but yeaaaaaah

 

[c8]

Selective schools are quite competitive and its hard to be the best when almost everyone wants the same things. A lot of people say that its mostly rich people who go to selective schools but thats mostly the higher selective schools like the ones that are above 50 rankings. There are also a lot of new selective schools that are only partially selective and its in these schools were student are from much different backgrounds. There are also usually more local students at partially selective schools whereas lots of kids who go to selective schools that are fully selective sometimes travel more than 4 hours to get to and from school. I don't entirely agree with the whole idea of selective schools and the competition to even get into them however I believe that private schools are even worse as they are less diverse and have quite a few more oppurtunities than public schools but I mean I gues you are paying for the quality of education and the better work environment.

 

[pistachioman]

They should lower the amount of fully selective schools and turn them into partially selective schools...and also make other public schools into partially selective. Make like the top 5-6 or so fully selective like Ruse, Sydney boys, baulko, conservatorium, fort street. Make all the other ones into partially selective. I feel its better to have 2-3 classes which are selective in schools so there is a mix of local and selective enrolments in the schools. Such more fairness throughout the system. I also believe the selective stream in these partially selective schools be chosen during year 8...cause i feel the year 8 intelligence test will be done with students who have the intent.

 

[pistachioman]

I go to a catholic school, and pay thousands for a shitty education with shitty teachers tbh . Only the math department in my school is superb. Although I know there are better catholic schools like parramatta marist.

 

[cosmo 2]

macadamiaman

 

[c8]

i can see how making fully selective schools into partial can seem like a good solution however it will also mean that many parents who are extremely determined to get their kids into good schools will buy/rent houses in the zone for the sole purpose of getting in. for many selective schools, its not just the education that makes them so popular, it's also the name. schools like hurlstone and even sefton which are going lower in the ranks are still seen as really good because of their name and reputation. either way, the idea of selective schools or schools that are seen as overpopulated with super smart people will probably always exist or at least for a long while

 

[cosmo 2]

Donkey Kong Country

 

[cosmo 2]

funland

 

[HoldingOn]

Yes, selective schools doesn't promote equity that much, but private schools are worse.
The existence of private schools is capitalistic in nature as a whole, and Rob Stokes is being a hypocrite there.
Although I am a selective schooler, I don't mind the removal of selective schools IF AND ONLY IF the same happens to private schools.
By doing this, the Australian Education system becomes one step closer to the Finnish system.
It is both or neither Robert Stokes...

Look at Venezuela and honestly tell me you can make the poor richer by making the richer poorer. Same goes for education

 

[elseeto]

Selective schools are an obvious issue as hubs of advantage, but private schools are a whole other ball game. Either way... the way we offer different kinds of education for different kinds of students is ridiculous. We should just have public schools and that be that. At least that's a start to levelling the education stage

 

[SylviaB]

Selective schools are an obvious issue as hubs of advantage, but private schools are a whole other ball game. Either way... the way we offer different kinds of education for different kinds of students is ridiculous. We should just have public schools and that be that. At least that's a start to levelling the education stage

Removing opportunities for good students doesnt make bad students any better

 

[peterrabbit]

I don't like the selective system, because

[1] it assumes that most children matures at a similar rate at a narrow point of time in year 6. Sure there are chances later but in the main that's when most people get in.

[2] It put children in a hot house situation when they should be more free to just play, which i *feel* impacts on life long stress and creativity levels

[3] Sport must miss out somewhat

[4] It monetizes a whole sub culture of swat schools, which feeds back into public schools slacking off as they "see" students are doing well no matter what they do. So the taxpayer as usual has to pay twice.

[5] Children are always studying rather than enjoying life a ta time when life should be really really enjoyable

[6] Your marks are scaled by your cohorts performance, so if your at a academically poor school unless your a few standard deviations out your screwed. This has synergy with [1].

 

[Drongoski]

"your"?? "you are" or "you're"!

 

[Drdusk]

I don't like the selective system, because

[1] it assumes that most children matures at a similar rate at a narrow point of time in year 6. Sure there are chances later but in the main that's when most people get in.

[2] It put children in a hot house situation when they should be more free to just play, which i *feel* impacts on life long stress and creativity levels

[3] Sport must miss out somewhat

[4] It monetizes a whole sub culture of swat schools, which feeds back into public schools slacking off as they "see" students are doing well no matter what they do. So the taxpayer as usual has to pay twice.

[5] Children are always studying rather than enjoying life a ta time when life should be really really enjoyable

[6] Your marks are scaled by your cohorts performance, so if your at a academically poor school unless your a few standard deviations out your screwed. This has synergy with [1].

Here's my response to this.

[1]True

[2] Not really. No one who wants to get a high atar really plays in high school. Especially in year 11 and 12 where most students drop sports(including me). So really doesn't matter the school but any student who wants to get a high atar will end up dropping sports and forget about 'play' time as such.

[3] I missed sports as well in year 11 and 12. Completely dropped and so did everyone serious about getting a high atar and this is in a non selective school.

[4]I don't really get this.

[5] I was always studying as well. It's year 11 and 12, just 2 years of sacrifice doesn't matter if the selective system existed or not.

[6] Everything remains fair. A good student does well no matter where they are. You can't just be a failing student, go to a selective school and then expect the cohort will scale your marks up. That's not how scaling works.

 

[idkkdi]

Here's my response to this.

[1]True

[2] Not really. No one who wants to get a high atar really plays in high school. Especially in year 11 and 12 where most students drop sports(including me). So really doesn't matter the school but any student who wants to get a high atar will end up dropping sports and forget about 'play' time as such.

[3] I missed sports as well in year 11 and 12. Completely dropped and so did everyone serious about getting a high atar and this is in a non selective school.

[4]I don't really get this.

[5] I was always studying as well. It's year 11 and 12, just 2 years of sacrifice doesn't matter if the selective system existed or not.

[6] Everything remains fair. A good student does well no matter where they are. You can't just be a failing student, go to a selective school and then expect the cohort will scale your marks up. That's not how scaling works.

Agree. You can either have a life or be good/great at a thing. No pain, no gain.

[6] Actually, no. Lol. They literally take the mean of the people at your school for that subject then distribute marks according to how close your rank is to the mean rank (lack of better terminology). This is with the exception of the bottom rank and the top rank which get un-moderated marks. So basically if you're at James Ruse just screwing around at 80, but the mean is at 94, your internal mark would actually be carried upwards by like 2-5 marks. Sydney Morning Herald's HSC paper or smth, gave a few examples of how moderation of internal marks actually works.

Conversely, if you are unluckily rank 2 at a rank 300 school and the mean is substantially lower than your deserved internal mark(external mark rank 2), then your internal mark would actually go down by like 1-3 marks.

 

[Wizjaro]

The whole point of a selective school is to group kids of similar intellect, in hopes of increasing their academic performance. This I guess does work but it can also have the opposite effect of making someone think they aren’t smart because they are surrounded by people who do better, so it really isn’t for everyone. Also the thing most people don’t realise is that those kids would have done just as good at any other school. So I don’t see what’s so wrong with the system. Plus your school really shouldn’t defy how well you fare in the hsc, it’s really up to you and how much effort your willing to put in.

 

[Drdusk]

Also it kind of has to do with Aus as a whole. As mentioned by @blyatman the whole culture in at least NSW is to drop everything and focus on nothing but academics for a year or two as opposed to the United States where academics in high school aren't the major goal but also extra-curricular activities which also contribute to uni admissions over there.

 

[idkkdi]

Also it kind of has to do with Aus as a whole. As mentioned by @blyatman the whole culture in at least NSW is to drop everything and focus on nothing but academics for a year or two as opposed to the United States where academics in high school aren't the major goal but also extra-curricular activities which also contribute to uni admissions over there.

The main problem is that academics isn't a goal until year 11 and 12 in Australia lmao. Without dropping everything and focusing, we wouldn't actually be able to catch up on the distance that has been convincingly put between us and the rest of the world, due to an absolute lack of curriculum rigour and study culture. Did you read those SMH articles about Yr 7 Science in Singapore being equivalent to Yr 11 Science in Australia etc.? lololol.