ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => Victorian Education Discussion => Topic started by: brendan on December 27, 2007, 10:21:04 pm
-
Do you attend a state school outside your "zone" or "catchment"? These "zones" shouldn't even be there in the first place, imo.
-
My school was slightly out of the technical "zone" (although the school did put information evening notices in my Primary School Newsletter). I agree that they shouldn't exist, there's many factors that come into play when choosing a school, location is only one of them and in many cases the zones are pretty arbitrary.
-
It is a bit hard to determine how secondary schools are going to choose their students if there is a very high demand though.
That being said, I agree the zoning doesn't help much as people will just rent a house in the zone for a year just for their children to get into the school and move to somewhere else.
-
It is a bit hard to determine how secondary schools are going to choose their students if there is a very high demand though.
That being said, I agree the zoning doesn't help much as people will just rent a house in the zone for a year just for their children to get into the school and move to somewhere else.
there is only one just way to select students where demand exceeds supply => selection according to academic merit.
-
It is a bit hard to determine how secondary schools are going to choose their students if there is a very high demand though.
That being said, I agree the zoning doesn't help much as people will just rent a house in the zone for a year just for their children to get into the school and move to somewhere else.
there is only one just way to select students where demand exceeds supply => selection according to academic merit.
i think its a little hard to select students from just primary school results though...
-
It is a bit hard to determine how secondary schools are going to choose their students if there is a very high demand though.
That being said, I agree the zoning doesn't help much as people will just rent a house in the zone for a year just for their children to get into the school and move to somewhere else.
there is only one just way to select students where demand exceeds supply => selection according to academic merit.
i think its a little hard to select students from just primary school results though...
well they would need to sit a test or something. but i can see no other way of fairly selecting students other than on academic ability. all the other ways of selection that i have seen are at best inaccurate and at worst ethically compromised.
-
"How Much Do Public Schools Really Cost? Estimating the Relationship Between House Prices and School Quality"
Ian Davidoff & Andrew Leigh
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/pdf/SchoolQualityHousePrices.pdf
"Since houses in better school zones are more expensive high-quality public education is not costless. The price of buying into a good school zone may prevent poor families from accessing the public schools of their choice. Given that education can transform the social and economic opportunities of the underprivileged, such social exclusion may perpetuate cycles of disadvantage if left unaddressed."
-
My brother was refused access to Mazenod College in year 7 on two grounds:
1. We lived in Keysborough
2. We were not Catholic (hinted many times but never actually stated)
My parents complained about this and saw a Catholic priest about the situation (a different one to the primary school one from memory).
On the day my brother picked up his books for SJRC we got a call saying he had been accepted. So the whole crap of not living in Keysborough cost my brother and myself a place @ Mazenod. Retrospectively I would have looked forward to going there but then again I wouldn't know some of the best people in my life if it wasn't for zoning. =P
Oh yeh I don't like it
-
The advent of transportation helped to create a competitive atmosphere in the industry of education, since the reduction in costs of travel were insignificant compared to the benefits of better education. It forced schools to compete with each other. The introduction of school zoning only serves to remove the competition, and is certainly another strategy supported by the AEU to protect their bludgy jobs.
[said in a rant-like way ;)]
-
My brother was refused access to Mazenod College in year 7 on two grounds:
1. We lived in Keysborough
2. We were not Catholic (hinted many times but never actually stated)
My parents complained about this and saw a Catholic priest about the situation (a different one to the primary school one from memory).
On the day my brother picked up his books for SJRC we got a call saying he had been accepted. So the whole crap of not living in Keysborough cost my brother and myself a place @ Mazenod. Retrospectively I would have looked forward to going there but then again I wouldn't know some of the best people in my life if it wasn't for zoning. =P
Oh yeh I don't like it
is mazenod a public school?
-
No Mazenod is a Catholic school with median study score of 34. (Hence pretty good school).
I'm pretty sure other independant schools such as Mazenond have zoning implementation.
I remember that we were on the wrong side of the main road to be considered. Literally 25 metres on the wrong side of the road.
-
No Mazenod is a Catholic school with median study score of 34. (Hence pretty good school).
I'm pretty sure other independant schools such as Mazenond have zoning implementation.
I remember that we were on the wrong side of the main road to be considered. Literally 25 metres on the wrong side of the road.
im talking abt zoning rules for public schools. these are imposed on all state schools by the Vic Department of Education. Catholic and independent schools don't have the same regulation imposed on them. they can select students according to location if they wish but they don't have to like public schools.
-
Do you mean you're not talking about Catholic schools?
-
Do you mean you're not talking about Catholic schools?
yup i don't believe they are required by the DET to select according to location. so they must have done it out of their own choice.
-
I can see why a catholic school might care if their students are catholic, but i can't see why they would care where you live, seems absolutely irrelevant to me.
-
Academic Merit is so much more relevant for student selection than district...
but then, select entry encourages prejudice against other schools, and esp unjust to low-achievers... social implications hereafter is not so bright...
-
I can see why a catholic school might care if their students are catholic, but i can't see why they would care where you live, seems absolutely irrelevant to me.
+1
i'm pretty certain that my school didn't care where you lived - people were from all over melbourne. but how often you went to church was one of the questions on the admission form thingy.
-
Being christened as a Catholic however doesn't mean you enshrine Catholic beliefs within your life.
I am Christian (Greek Orthodox) however I went to a Catholic primary school and now attend a Catholic high school.
I believe that for admission into Catholic high schools, one should have to be a practicing Christian (actually have some former education, either through church or through primary school) but not be based on whether you are Catholic or not. 10% of my school are non-Catholic Christians yet a lot of the baptised Catholic kids openly say "I don't believe in God" while many non-Catholic Christians say the opposite.
-
Being christened as a Catholic however doesn't mean you enshrine Catholic beliefs within your life.
I am Christian (Greek Orthodox) however I went to a Catholic primary school and now attend a Catholic high school.
I believe that for admission into Catholic high schools, one should have to be a practicing Christian (actually have some former education, either through church or through primary school) but not be based on whether you are Catholic or not. 10% of my school are non-Catholic Christians yet a lot of the baptised Catholic kids openly say "I don't believe in God" while many non-Catholic Christians say the opposite.
but that's not the point. the school doesn't just want students who believe in God, they want students who believe in their God. and they want students acquainted with the Catholic religion, not just Christian religion in general. there is a fair difference.
-
What is at the heart of Catholicism?
The belief in Christ.
... The same as the belief of all Christians. There are differences but the belief in Christ is at the heart of Catholicism and if students are willing to listen to the teachings of the Catholic religion then what purpose does it serve to disallow enrollment in a school based on the fact that one is of the "wrong" Christian religion. Would you not think that schools (as well as the entire religion in general) would be happy that non-catholics are willing to learn about their beliefs... possibly leading to a greater incidence of Catholics in society?
-
I can see why a catholic school might care if their students are catholic, but i can't see why they would care where you live, seems absolutely irrelevant to me.
Hm i'm not too sure, because where I'm from there isn't much variety haha and everyone generally goes to the closest school, buuuut, if schools did select on academic merit, wouldn't that mean there would be students who would miss out on going to a school close to them (because they weren't smart enough) and have to travel ridiculously long distances/move just to get an education?
-
I went to a Catholic school and they accepted students who were from other religious traditions (buddhism, islam,etc)... so you didnt need to be christian(catholic).. probably mainly because we didnt have enough students or something lol i dunno
-
I can see why a catholic school might care if their students are catholic, but i can't see why they would care where you live, seems absolutely irrelevant to me.
Hm i'm not too sure, because where I'm from there isn't much variety haha and everyone generally goes to the closest school, buuuut, if schools did select on academic merit, wouldn't that mean there would be students who would miss out on going to a school close to them (because they weren't smart enough) and have to travel ridiculously long distances/move just to get an education?
that might be the case, but that is still better than selecting on location. what's worse? selecting according to postcode or on academic merit (like MHS and MacRob)?
If you believe in equality of opportunity you cannot support school zones:
"How Much Do Public Schools Really Cost? Estimating the Relationship Between House Prices and School Quality"
Ian Davidoff (Harvard) & Andrew Leigh (ANU)
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/pdf/SchoolQualityHousePrices.pdf
"Since houses in better school zones are more expensive high-quality public education is not costless. The price of buying into a good school zone may prevent poor families from accessing the public schools of their choice. Given that education can transform the social and economic opportunities of the underprivileged, such social exclusion may perpetuate cycles of disadvantage if left unaddressed."
Say you have two kids one X and Y and you had to pick 1. X lives within the school catchment zone, but Y doesn't. Y has a greater academic merit than X. How do you pick? I'd say the school should pick Y. Location shouldn't come into it. You don't deny a meritorious student a place at university because he doesn't live within a 2 km radius and accept the less meritorious student who does live within a 2 km. Neither should you do it anywhere else.
Just think how you would feel, if you were denied a place at university, not because your marks weren't good enough, but because you didn't live close enough. Is that fair?
-
Hmm you do make a valid point there Brendan... it would be unfair to be denied a place because you didn't live close enough...i see where you're coming from :)
-
I go to a public girls school in central Geelong. I'm not zoned to it.
Personally I have no idea how my school selects its students. I know they take 25 people a year for
the SELP program. Then I think they take the zoned girls who apply (which isn't that many, not too many primary schools in central Geelong).
They have a sibling rule too but other then that I don't know. People all over Geelong go to my school. Even one or two from really far away places like Anglesea or Anakie.
Beyond the SELP people, the siblings and the ones zoned everyone else just seems randomly accepted. For example out of the 4 kids who applied from my primary school this year (who weren't zoned, siblings or SELP) 3 got in and 1 didn't. There was no discernable difference between the ones who got accepted and the one who didn't. Perhaps if there were clearer guide lines for selection this girl could have got in.
-
What is at the heart of Catholicism?
The belief in Christ.
... The same as the belief of all Christians. There are differences but the belief in Christ is at the heart of Catholicism and if students are willing to listen to the teachings of the Catholic religion then what purpose does it serve to disallow enrollment in a school based on the fact that one is of the "wrong" Christian religion. Would you not think that schools (as well as the entire religion in general) would be happy that non-catholics are willing to learn about their beliefs... possibly leading to a greater incidence of Catholics in society?
non-catholic students don't go to catholic schools to learn about their beliefs - they go there because it's a good school.
but as i said, the main purpose of catholic schools is and always has been to educate members of the catholic community. if there are any places for students left over, then they go to non-catholics.
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
for one most asian parents would
EDIT: took comment out of quote box >.<
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
but how much of a choice is that?
its alike to saying to a vegetarian "here's some meat, if u starve it's ur own damn fault"...
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
but how much of a choice is that?
its alike to saying to a vegetarian "here's some meat, if u starve it's ur own damn fault"...
no one is forcing him to be a vegetarian that is his own choice. in any case selection by academic ability is a lot fairer than selection by postcode. what choice does a child have in where he lives? none.
-
sorry about previous post... i accidentally put my comment in the quote box >.< i said that most asian parents would force their children to study hard...
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
but how much of a choice is that?
its alike to saying to a vegetarian "here's some meat, if u starve it's ur own damn fault"...
no one is forcing him to be a vegetarian that is his own choice. in any case selection by academic ability is a lot fairer than selection by postcode. what choice does a child have in where he lives? none.
the child doesn't have any choice on how smart s/he is either
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
but how much of a choice is that?
its alike to saying to a vegetarian "here's some meat, if u starve it's ur own damn fault"...
no one is forcing him to be a vegetarian that is his own choice. in any case selection by academic ability is a lot fairer than selection by postcode. what choice does a child have in where he lives? none.
however, when you consider that in context with the ultimatum I adopted by analogy, there isnt much of a choice to be vegetarian either
my point:
given select entry, the kid is practically given the ultimatum to do well or be useless (education can be pretty life determining)
then that kid doesnt really have much of a choice to choose between childhood pleasures and future, given the above ultimatum...
I agree that school by zones isnt a fair system, but school by academic merit doesnt present us with any less problems...
-
the child doesn't have any choice on how smart s/he is either
Wrong: http://economics.uwo.ca/faculty/Stinebrickner/recentpapers/thecausaleffect.pdf
Secondly, this is how university places are allocated anyway. Of course a child can change their academic standing, they have to work for it though: see http://economics.uwo.ca/faculty/Stinebrickner/recentpapers/thecausaleffect.pdf
To be consistent in your position you should abolish VCE and the ENTER too and allocate all university places according to where you live.
given select entry, the kid is practically given the ultimatum to do well or be useless (education can be pretty life determining)
then that kid doesnt really have much of a choice to choose between childhood pleasures and future, given the above ultimatum...
I agree that school by zones isnt a fair system, but school by academic merit doesnt present us with any less problems...
It already is select-entry. Didn't you read the study by ANU? The only issue is to select on what basis? (n where you live or your academic merit? MHS does academic merit and so does MacRob. It is much fairer than selection according to postcode.
Secondly, no one forcing you to be a vegetarian. if you are a vegetarian then that's your own business.
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
without wanting to get into this argument cos i cbf, i don't think that's far fretched at all. its pretty realistic actually. just look at many asian countries that have a streaming type system. the pressure is enormous. kids dont always get to exercise choice at that age; often their parents like to make those decisions for them. so yes, it happens, it's absolutely not far fetched and its not a positive thing either.
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
without wanting to get into this argument cos i cbf, i don't think that's far fretched at all. its pretty realistic actually. just look at many asian countries that have a streaming type system. the pressure is enormous. kids dont always get to exercise choice at that age; often their parents like to make those decisions for them. so yes, it happens, it's absolutely not far fetched and its not a positive thing either.
well then thats not the fault of the selection system, that's the parents fault.
-
the child doesn't have any choice on how smart s/he is either
Secondly, this is how university places are allocated anyway. Of course a child can change their academic standing, they have to work for it though: see http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009791
To be consistent in your position you should abolish VCE and the ENTER too and allocate all university places according to where you live.
If a child has to work to be smarter, that means they have to study hard at a young age and there goes childhood. At secondary school age, children are more informed and can think better for themselves and will therefore be able to make better choices (ie study more/ go to tuition) that suit them. People who aren't smart enough to go into uni can at least go to TAFE if they want to continue studying. Secondary school (the first few years) is compulsory though.
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
without wanting to get into this argument cos i cbf, i don't think that's far fretched at all. its pretty realistic actually. just look at many asian countries that have a streaming type system. the pressure is enormous. kids dont always get to exercise choice at that age; often their parents like to make those decisions for them. so yes, it happens, it's absolutely not far fetched and its not a positive thing either.
well then thats not the fault of the selection system, that's the parents fault.
this type of selection system is bound to make these parents do that and it is the children who suffer though. and they are the ones who were suppose to benefit.
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
without wanting to get into this argument cos i cbf, i don't think that's far fretched at all. its pretty realistic actually. just look at many asian countries that have a streaming type system. the pressure is enormous. kids dont always get to exercise choice at that age; often their parents like to make those decisions for them. so yes, it happens, it's absolutely not far fetched and its not a positive thing either.
well then thats not the fault of the selection system, that's the parents fault.
ahah are u kidding, for all the arguments that other people put forward that you claim as being cop outs, this takes the cake!
are you saying that you can put any situation in place that is obviously going to change the behaviour, attitudes of people whatever, but that that system doesnt have to be accountable for it cos its those peoples fault for changing their behaviour?
come on thats effing ridiculous. i dont even no how to argue back to that.
streaming/select entry system -> parental pressure -> loss of childhood or whatever you want to call it, unnecessary stress on kids, creation of a society undesirably over centered on academic results at a young age
-
A point I don't think it has been mentioned yet (unless it's in one of brendans links, because I don't understand those):
There needs to be a school available for every kid. If you select only by academic streaming, then you're going to have kids left behind that end up having to go to schools 20km etc away because it's the only one left. As much as a lot of government schools are overflowing atm, you still need a place for everyone.
And also, I personally would hate being in a select entry school :P
-
if students were selected according to academic abilities, there would be much more pressure on the kids to do well so they can get into a particular school as opposed to the 'dumbed-down' school. that will probably raise the state's education level but may mean the kids have to sacrifice their childhood studying and their social lives (which is what happens in asia).
i'd say thats pretty far-fetched. no one is forcing any kid to sacrifice his childhood. if he does that is his own choice.
without wanting to get into this argument cos i cbf, i don't think that's far fretched at all. its pretty realistic actually. just look at many asian countries that have a streaming type system. the pressure is enormous. kids dont always get to exercise choice at that age; often their parents like to make those decisions for them. so yes, it happens, it's absolutely not far fetched and its not a positive thing either.
well then thats not the fault of the selection system, that's the parents fault.
ahah are u kidding, for all the arguments that other people put forward that you claim as being cop outs, this takes the cake!
are you saying that you can put any situation in place that is obviously going to change the behaviour, attitudes of people whatever, but that that system doesnt have to be accountable for it cos its those peoples fault for changing their behaviour?
come on thats effing ridiculous. i dont even no how to argue back to that.
streaming/select entry system -> parental pressure -> loss of childhood or whatever you want to call it, unnecessary stress on kids, creation of a society undesirably over centered on academic results at a young age
its already a select-entry system mdee. it already is.
-
ok i clarify. academically selective entry.
anyway. i think iv spoken enough about this topic on irc :P
-
ok i clarify. academically selective entry.
anyway. i think iv spoken enough about this topic on irc :P
well that's a lot beter that postcode select entry system we have now.
-
I have a proposal. Tell me what you think of it.
The state is divided into geographic regions. Each region has one or two select-entry schools government schools. The rest are normal government schools.
This should solve the problem of having access to the best education for your child as each select-entry school would have to have a set of minimum requirements and standards that ensure high quality teaching and facilities, allowing students chosen on academic merit the opportunity to excel. This also eliminates properties being influenced by schools (maybe to a lesser degree but probably no a full elimination) and also it ensures that students are able to attend a school that is close to them and are not denied entry because of their lack of academic merit.
This is just an idea. Maybe people can build on it or just burn it down lol
-
I have a proposal. Tell me what you think of it.
The state is divided into geographic regions. Each region has one or two select-entry schools government schools. The rest are normal government schools.
This should solve the problem of having access to the best education for your child as each select-entry school would have to have a set of minimum requirements and standards that ensure high quality teaching and facilities, allowing students chosen on academic merit the opportunity to excel. This also eliminates properties being influenced by schools (maybe to a lesser degree but probably no a full elimination) and also it ensures that students are able to attend a school that is close to them and are not denied entry because of their lack of academic merit.
This is just an idea. Maybe people can build on it or just burn it down lol
that's just the same thing we have right now. i don't see how it will solve the problems identified by Leigh and Davidoff
secondly, the answer to the following question will determine the policy:
what's worse? being denied a place on the basis of where you live, or on academic merit?
-
... how is it the same as the current system? Are there dozens of select entry government schools based on academic merit?
-
... how is it the same as the current system? Are there dozens of select entry government schools based on academic merit?
i missed the dozen selective schools bit. but my point was that when a normal school has more apps than actual places, what are they to do?
-
Oh ok I getcha.
Lottery system hahah
-
Oh ok I getcha.
Lottery system hahah
lol i'd say if a normal school has the situation where there is apps > places. i can say for sure what they ought not to do:
select on race, religion, family income, location.
-
hmm
i could have gone to different 5 schools
two i was zoned into based on postcode (both walking distance from my house)
two i got in cos of the accelerated programs they offered (had to do a test to get in)
and one was a catho school which didn't take people according to zones just on if they went to a catho primary school, baptized blah blah etc (p.s. i openly do not believe in organised religion and definitely did not won't to go to this school, it was just a backup incase i didn't get into either of the accelerated programs)
the two schools i was zoned into are crap. dunno what their median study scores are but they aren't high, bad teachers, lots of deros/dropkicks who don't give a shit and i know all schools have these people but these schools seem to have a lot more than average
i'm REALLY glad i didn't have to go to those schools but a lot of people have to cos they can't afford catho/private school or can't get into a different school based on acedemic achievement and i don't think that's fair
anyway zoning
bad for the most part but i guess you have to take into account how many kids want to go to that school
also i think mhs and mcrob are fine for selecting on acedemic merit but WHY is there a 3 person from each school limit
that's what makes it unfair imo
my friend's sister deliberately went to a crap school for year's 7 and 8 just so she had a better chance of getting into mcrob and of course she DID cos only she applied from her school
whereas a school like mine gets about 30 girls applying and many of them are probably smarter than those coming from other schools but they won't get into mcrob cos of the 3 person limit
-
anyway zoning
bad for the most part but i guess you have to take into account how many kids want to go to that school
also i think mhs and mcrob are fine for selecting on acedemic merit but WHY is there a 3 person from each school limit
that's what makes it unfair imo
my friend's sister deliberately went to a crap school for year's 7 and 8 just so she had a better chance of getting into mcrob and of course she DID cos only she applied from her school
whereas a school like mine gets about 30 girls applying and many of them are probably smarter than those coming from other schools but they won't get into mcrob cos of the 3 person limit
Unlike other State schools, Melbourne High School and MacRobertson Girls High School, selects its students based on an entrance examination held in Year 8 for entrance into Year 9, but "the maximum number of students admitted into Melbourne High School and The MacRobertson Girls High School combined must not exceed 3% of any one school’s Year 8 enrolment." That is, if at St. Albans Secondary College, the Year 8 cohort was 200 students, then the maximum number students that can be admitted into MHS and MacRob is 6.
One might ask, what is the reason for this cap? Well, in short, the Victorian Department of Education fears that individual schools like St. Albans Secondary College might be negatively affected if more than 3% of its best students were to allowed to leave to MHS or MacRob.
Here is an example of the argument being made:
“Professor Lamb said based on enrolments at Ringwood Secondary College, which could be a neighbour of the new select-entry school in Melbourne's east, a 3 per cent cap would result in up to 10 year 8 students leaving the school each year.
"Now that's not small when these schools probably get about that number of students into high-entry university courses," he said. "So there are immediate effects in terms of the productivity and marketability of the school and then there's the effect on the climate of the school in terms of the peer effect. On both those grounds it's, I think, potentially damaging."”
This argument is fundamentally flawed and one that I find highly insidious. It suggests that the more academically able students should carry the burden of improving the academic performance of their peers, and thus should be held back - even at the expense of their own academic performance. I find this a highly offensive expection, especially when many of these able students report they have been marginalised in their previous schools because of their ability. Such a cap imposed by Department of Education serves to distort the only merit based selection process in the whole State, and consequently, results in some less deserving students from one school gaining a place, at the expense of more deserving and able students from another school.
Enrolment caps essentially reduce the incentive for comprehensive schools to cater to the needs of the more academically able, and ensures the school has a continued captive audience.
Professor Lamb also ignores the basic fact that if the original school were to better cater to the needs and abilities of the more academically able, then these students wouldn’t want to leave in the first place. These students are only leaving because they believe that the selective school can better cater for their needs. If a student can have his needs and abilities better catered for at another school, what right does his original school have in holding him back? The argument that the school has this right is one that is ethically compromised.