Good schools in Western Suburbs (1 Viewer)

[Trebla]

..sounds like a waste of time and money tbh lol

Tell that to the coaching colleges which boast very high success rates (which are legit btw) in getting students through the selective test.

 

[davidgoes4wce]

..sounds like a waste of time and money tbh lol

I don't think its a waste of time. The material at that level is quite challenging, the comprehension texts are interesting and different, the maths questions are challenging (its an advantage if you have a year 7-8 knowledge to differentiate the good from the excellent) and writing is subjective but if you have good structures you won't go wrong.

What I did with the students that I tutored for selective was make them go through tests again and again. For one student, I printed out 6 copies of a make up exam and make them go through it again and again. I always tried to give better techniques in studying, in answering questions, time management etc

 

[davidgoes4wce]

Tell that to the coaching colleges which boast very high success rates (which are legit btw) in getting students through the selective test.

Pre-Uni College, James An are 2 of the well known Selective training providers.Read a stat from a SMH online link that said of 13,930 students who attempt the exam, only around 4,188 get accepted, thats roughly around 30% or so. But it seems to me that in NSW getting into a 'selective school' is a big thing.

 

[eyeseeyou]

If you look at the Distinguished Achievers data, Sefton's key strength has always been in Maths which is where the bulk of the band 6/E4s come from (usually 30-40 for Mathematics, 30-40 for Mathematics Extension 1 and 10-15 for Mathematics Extension 2). On Maths alone, Sefton typically ranks well into the top 30 schools in the state amongst the fully selective schools.

However, its overall rank has historically been in the 50s because every other area is nowhere near as strong. Interestingly, Sefton's performance in English has improved over the years to more 'selective tier' levels since my HSC (there was a time Sefton typically got less than five band 6s for English (Advanced) but these days it is typically around 20+) but that looks like it has been almost completely offset by a decline in performance within the social sciences (i.e. Economics, Business Studies, Legal Studies).

Sefton's performance in the Science subjects has typically not been that great. The fact that you typically have to be within in the top 10 of a large cohort (and sometimes top 5) to have some fighting chance at a band 6 in Chemistry/Physics/Biology resembles more of a highly ranked comprehensive school rather than a selective school.

What rank do you think they'd be without their maths?

 

[eyeseeyou]

people get tutored for selective? o.o

howw? how do you even prepare for it lol
isnt the point that you cant prepare for it

Do selective trial tests to get used to the structure and the types of questions asked

 

[eyeseeyou]

I don't think its a waste of time. The material at that level is quite challenging, the comprehension texts are interesting and different, the maths questions are challenging (its an advantage if you have a year 7-8 knowledge to differentiate the good from the excellent) and writing is subjective but if you have good structures you won't go wrong.

What I did with the students that I tutored for selective was make them go through tests again and again. For one student, I printed out 6 copies of a make up exam and make them go through it again and again. I always tried to give better techniques in studying, in answering questions, time management etc

yeah they've got a strict time limit. I think you will do well in Selective school comprehension and writing if you have the high school knowledge and skill (up to year 10 english) which is hard to develop at a year 5/6 level

Any of your students get in selective and if so which school?

 

[eyeseeyou]

Pre-Uni College, James An are 2 of the well known Selective training providers.Read a stat from a SMH online link that said of 13,930 students who attempt the exam, only around 4,188 get accepted, thats roughly around 30% or so. But it seems to me that in NSW getting into a 'selective school' is a big thing.

You forgot partially selective schools as well. By the way Pre uni and James An are crap for high school. Look at someone like Mr Ye

The reason why getting in a selective school would be a big thing is because parents want the best education for their kids and surprisingly enough when these kids are in year 10, they will try to change to a better school because of a better education in the sense that it will be more competitive and there aren't any "drop kicks". Also for harder exams

 

[eyeseeyou]

Tell that to the coaching colleges which boast very high success rates (which are legit btw) in getting students through the selective test.

That's coz they've got a million branches in NSW

 

[nerdasdasd]

people get tutored for selective? o.o

howw? how do you even prepare for it lol
isnt the point that you cant prepare for it

Buy books. Do IQ tests. Do comprehension tests etc.

Do those enough and you'll ace it.

 

[Trebla]

What rank do you think they'd be without their maths?

Without the strength in Maths they would probably rank close to 100.

 

[asiloh]

Prairiewood High School (Partially Selective)

 

[Nailgun]

This is probably one of the truest things I've ever read on this site, especially considering my experience at a school that half the time doesn't even rank inside the top 500. Basically all bar one (maybe two) of my teachers focused on teaching the content at the most basic level, without giving that exam technique or attention to detail that the high achieving students in the class needed. I got an ATAR above 90 as dux and got mid-high Band 5s as well as one very high Band 6 for my HSC. And guess what? The high Band 6 subject was largely because of my teacher focusing on the top-end of students rather than the bottom end. We covered everything in extensive detail and did lots of exam preparation, which we didn't do very well in other classes. So it annoys me when people say these things don't have an impact and that everyone is equal when in actuality that is complete rubbish. In fact I'm currently beating people in law school who achieved 97 and 98 ATARs who went to privileged schools.

the statements above IR (well, and IR ) are so true

my school was 500+ and in most classes I was just so bored because most teachers would just teach the bare bones of the syllabus - never going into detail, never doing much exam technique stuff because half the students had a hard enough time grasping the content let alone how to properly apply that knowledge into detailed responses.

I know a lot of people would say "well the onus is on you to go above and beyond to study and teach yourself blah blah" and yes to a degree that is true and I sure could've done a better job of that and gotten better marks but a) I was never aiming high anyways b) I exceeded my expectations anyways so idc and most importantly, c) even though I could have done more for myself, that doesn't change the fact that I was still at a disadvantage by not being surrounded my peers to push me (there were a few but not many, and not all the high achievers were in my classes) and not having many dedicated teachers who cared less about getting kids to pass and more about getting kids to aim for B5/6.

In fact, the few teachers that really did care about helping students reach their full potential and not just passing were huge inspirations to me and are basically why teaching is a huge passion of mine.

I realise that this POV may sound rude because some students' full potential may be passing marks but I feel this is untrue for the majority of BoS users of whom I am addressing currently sooo... whatever.

I was thinking about this today, and I guess really it's a decision/balance that every educator must grapple with. If your policy is 'no child left behind', what if that means no child can get ahead? Like, realistically you'd find it hard to cater for each equally, so how does one make that decision to focus on one end of the spectrum? I'm especially curious as to your thoughts though mcchicken since I know you want to be a teacher (even you as well RenegadeMx lol).

Really the only solution I can think of off the top of my head is segregating classes based on ability - but that has it's own set of pitfalls and disadvantages.

 

[mcchicken]

I was thinking about this today, and I guess really it's a decision/balance that every educator must grapple with. If your policy is 'no child left behind', what if that means no child can get ahead? Like, realistically you'd find it hard to cater for each equally, so how does one make that decision to focus on one end of the spectrum. I'm especially curious as to your thoughts though mcchicken since I know you want to be a teacher (even you as well RenegadeMx lol).

Really the only solution I can think of off the top of my head is segregating classes based on ability - but that has it's own set of pitfalls and disadvantages.

This is true. My point in that post above was mainly to illustrate the disadvantage I (and thousands of others) have had in my HSC.

There isn't really a concise, uniform way to address the bulk of the class' needs as well as either of the extremities. I think it depends class to class how to handle this situation. Like in my English class it was "Advanced" so it was a bit easier but my teacher's approach was basically to do the best he could in class and then put so many hours into producing all of this extra content/homework that was basically optional and only a few of us did. In Modern my teacher had a similar approach, except the extra homework wasn't really optional lol although most people didn't do it anyway and tbh I would have liked more frequent/more challenging homework but that class wasn't too bright so I can't blame him. We did a lot of revision in class as well due to that, which I didn't mind (not gonna lie it gave me a big head sticking my hand up for every question haha).

Other classes were the ones that I felt were more heavily catered to assisting the lower end of the grade spectrum which was also the bulk so that was where I struggled to keep on the level that I wanted to be because I basically had to rely on myself to find other resources online.

To address your question(?), as a teacher I'd like to adopt the approach of my English/History teachers. Teach the class as best I can and assisting the stragglers or the high-achievers in my/their own time. In cases where the bulk of the class are slackers or high-achievers then I'd obviously spend more class time catering to them.

Also to your last point, from years 7-10 at my school the classes are segregated, kind of. There was a top class then the rest were mixed. This was good for us in the top classes, but it was so unhelpful for those who weren't exactly topping their subjects, but weren't shit cunts either and yet were subjected to being in a classroom with literal monkeys who did not deserve to even be in a school wasting our time (legit, like 30 people were "signed out amicably" on the ASAP once we started turning 17).

And yes, the misuse of 'literal' was so necessary. If you knew those people you would understand.

 

[Nailgun]

This is true. My point in that post above was mainly to illustrate the disadvantage I (and thousands of others) have had in my HSC.

There isn't really a concise, uniform way to address the bulk of the class' needs as well as either of the extremities. I think it depends class to class how to handle this situation. Like in my English class it was "Advanced" so it was a bit easier but my teacher's approach was basically to do the best he could in class and then put so many hours into producing all of this extra content/homework that was basically optional and only a few of us did. In Modern my teacher had a similar approach, except the extra homework wasn't really optional lol although most people didn't do it anyway and tbh I would have liked more frequent/more challenging homework but that class wasn't too bright so I can't blame him. We did a lot of revision in class as well due to that, which I didn't mind (not gonna lie it gave me a big head sticking my hand up for every question haha).

Other classes were the ones that I felt were more heavily catered to assisting the lower end of the grade spectrum which was also the bulk so that was where I struggled to keep on the level that I wanted to be because I basically had to rely on myself to find other resources online.

To address your question(?), as a teacher I'd like to adopt the approach of my English/History teachers. Teach the class as best I can and assisting the stragglers or the high-achievers in my/their own time. In cases where the bulk of the class are slackers or high-achievers then I'd obviously spend more class time catering to them.

Also to your last point, from years 7-10 at my school the classes are segregated, kind of. There was a top class then the rest were mixed. This was good for us in the top classes, but it was so unhelpful for those who weren't exactly topping their subjects, but weren't shit cunts either and yet were subjected to being in a classroom with literal monkeys who did not deserve to even be in a school wasting our time (legit, like 30 people were "signed out amicably" on the ASAP once we started turning 17).

And yes, the misuse of 'literal' was so necessary. If you knew those people you would understand.

Interesting answer, your insight is much appreciated.

What do you mean the best you can though, like let's say you have a kid/s that are completely lost as to what's going on, but are making a genuine effort to understand (but are struggling). Do you mean that you'd just kinda speed past them and continue with the lesson for the benefit of the rest of the class, and perhaps try and see them after class and sort something out?

As in do you adjust to the lowest common denominator, or do you try and address the average students needs?

 

[Kolmias]

Really the only solution I can think of off the top of my head is segregating classes based on ability - but that has it's own set of pitfalls and disadvantages.

How does streaming classes based on ability have any pitfalls at all? I just fail to see any negatives.

 

[Nailgun]

How does streaming classes based on ability have any pitfalls at all?

Well just from mcchicken's post
"but it was so unhelpful for those who weren't exactly topping their subjects, but weren't shit cunts either and yet were subjected to being in a classroom with literal monkeys who did not deserve to even be in a school wasting our time "

Plus I feel like it can be terribly unmotivating for someone who has the aptitude for a subject but perhaps hasn't performed to their potential to be put into a 'bottom' class.
You'd be amazed how many kids can massively pick up their game in yr11/12/some point in the hsc when they realise its legit serious

 

[mcchicken]

Interesting answer, your insight is much appreciated.

What do you mean the best you can though, like let's say you have a kid/s that are completely lost as to what's going on, but are making a genuine effort to understand (but are struggling). Do you mean that you'd just kinda speed past them and continue with the lesson for the benefit of the rest of the class, and perhaps try and see them after class and sort something out?

As in do you adjust to the lowest common denominator, or do you try and address the average students needs?

At that moment in class I wouldn't ignore them or anything I'd try to help them out but say if I'm helping them whilst in the middle of addressing the class, I wouldn't spend more than a few minutes at that point in time on them but I'd come back while everyone is writing or at the end of class or something.

I wouldn't just teach based on the average aptitude at that's that - I'd address the students on higher or lower levels but wouldn't spend say 10 minutes of class time addressing the smaller % whilst the rest are sitting there doing nothing.

How does streaming classes based on ability have any pitfalls at all? I just fail to see any negatives.

What I said and Nailgun reiterated

And also I like history but say they didn't put me in the top class I would stop enjoying it as much and would put in slightly less effort

 

[davidgoes4wce]

yeah they've got a strict time limit. I think you will do well in Selective school comprehension and writing if you have the high school knowledge and skill (up to year 10 english) which is hard to develop at a year 5/6 level

Any of your students get in selective and if so which school?

Yeah I did happen to get a student into a selective school, their parent let me know as well. (They were a family based in Ryde- it was a local school in their catchment area) . There was also a family I taught but unfortunately the kid was not motivated enough. (He has too many distractions i.e cricket, sport) Both of these kids also had Pre-Uni College training in addition to 1-on-1 tutoring from me.

The other 3 I tutored up until the exam date....all were motivated and pushed themselves because they knew how important it was.

 

[davidgoes4wce]

The kid that got in, said to me his dream school was 'North Sydney Boys', he didn't end up there but he was pretty gifted. I haven't had so much tutoring in selective in the last year or so, mainly because I have put more focus on High School and University level tutoring. (I didn't mention I wanted to tute Selective Schools/O.C tutoring ad in the past year as well).

I enjoy the comprehension readings, my slight weakness is poetry as I didn't read alot of it in high school. Teaching students in NAPLAN, Selective School assessments has in a way improved my reading ability. I sometimes have to read things two times or three times to pick up the meaning. It is a time pressure exam as well. Maths and G.A I can knock off in a blink of an eye though.

 

[eyeseeyou]

Without the strength in Maths they would probably rank close to 100.

I'd say 80ish