Specialist Science Schools: Do we need them?

[Photon]

Hey AN, I'm doing my English oral on whether or not we need selective-entry science schools in Australia. I'm meant to be addressing a Melbourne student forum (aka this forum), persuading students into believing we DO need these science schools in our society. I can't see how people could have arguments against the idea other than maybe that these schools are asking the students to specialise in a field at such a young age. In which I would argue by saying that these schools are aimed at students who are 100% keen on going into science as the students get to choose if they want to be in this school. Which side of the argument are you on? Would love to here your opinions!

[Photon]

Bump

[brenden]

Well you could say that stratifying our education system with anything other than mainstream public education will impact the overall level of achievement of the average Australian student (i.e., whilst selective schools excel the advanced students, perhaps a side-effect is the diminishing education of average students)... Potentially impacting on a host of other things like future productivity in a roundabout way.

Basically... how does the general public school class work?

You've got the super high-achievers, the middle band, and those that are really struggling.

Usually, the 'lower' two bands will ask the high-achievers "bro how do you get the answer", and high-achievers will end up taking on roles like unofficial teachers who aid the 'lower' bands. Additionally, having that top tier could motivate the middle band  to work harder in their education because they see what's possible.

Now, if you took out all the high-achievers from this system, our public education is left with two categories - low-performning students and middle performing students. The former of which aren't able to receive peer-to-peer assistance, and the latter who grow up thinking they're quite smart (because they are, relative to the performing peers), and as such, never really put the extra work into their education.

So, yada yada, etc etc, removing smart kids from mainstream education could have drastic impacts on our national educational levels which are all ready in trouble, and therefore, it shouldn't be done.


Another point: perhaps narrowing their focus on science too soon will actually make these students worse at science. After all, the best scientists have a broad education (not necessarily formal) in the arts, philosophy, and so on. Perhaps the aim for our budding scientists in high-school should be breadth instead of depth, before allowing them to take advanced university streams in narrower areas.


Note: I don't believe a word I'm saying.

[Photon]

Well you could say that stratifying our education system with anything other than mainstream public education will impact the overall level of achievement of the average Australian student (i.e., whilst selective schools excel the advanced students, perhaps a side-effect is the diminishing education of average students)... Potentially impacting on a host of other things like future productivity in a roundabout way.

Basically... how does the general public school class work?

You've got the super high-achievers, the middle band, and those that are really struggling.

Usually, the 'lower' two bands will ask the high-achievers "bro how do you get the answer", and high-achievers will end up taking on roles like unofficial teachers who aid the 'lower' bands. Additionally, having that top tier could motivate the middle band  to work harder in their education because they see what's possible.

Now, if you took out all the high-achievers from this system, our public education is left with two categories - low-performning students and middle performing students. The former of which aren't able to receive peer-to-peer assistance, and the latter who grow up thinking they're quite smart (because they are, relative to the performing peers), and as such, never really put the extra work into their education.

So, yada yada, etc etc, removing smart kids from mainstream education could have drastic impacts on our national educational levels which are all ready in trouble, and therefore, it shouldn't be done.


Another point: perhaps narrowing their focus on science too soon will actually make these students worse at science. After all, the best scientists have a broad education (not necessarily formal) in the arts, philosophy, and so on. Perhaps the aim for our budding scientists in high-school should be breadth instead of depth, before allowing them to take advanced university streams in narrower areas.


Note: I don't believe a word I'm saying.

I actually did not think of that. Thank you for your help Brenden! I will definitely keep that in mind.

[keltingmeith]

Is the issue just for science specialist schools? Or selective entry in general?

What does a science specialist school do that's even different to another school? Because at VCE, there's very little. You'll probably find it more worthwhile to think about what kinds in years 10 and under are doing in this school and how it's benefitting them.

[The Usual Student]

Hey AN, I'm doing my English oral on whether or not we need selective-entry science schools in Australia. I'm meant to be addressing a Melbourne student forum (aka this forum), persuading students into believing we DO need these science schools in our society. I can't see how people could have arguments against the idea other than maybe that these schools are asking the students to specialise in a field at such a young age. In which I would argue by saying that these schools are aimed at students who are 100% keen on going into science as the students get to choose if they want to be in this school. Which side of the argument are you on? Would love to here your opinions!

its kinda iffy to tell when a kid knows EXACTLY 100% that they want to go into a science field, I go to a science school and so do you. There are a lot of kids who entered in as science enthusiasts, met smarter kids and then got intimidated and ended up bailing out of science completely, Not to even mention the effect it can have on students being in such hyper competitive environments, of course this is a generalization but I remember stumbling over some evidence that supported it ( i did this as a debate last year ).

at the end of the day they are just kids, can they really be trusted to make such a bold decision that could affect the pathways they take in the future? wouldn't a holistic all-round education be much beneficial and allow the kid to explore different fields before they make up their minds come the end of year 12?

Obviously I agree with you entirely but the above is just some food for thought