Sensational-Adelaide.com

I wonder if the kids at these schools will feel like products from a factory. Man the yard will be a busy place at recess/lunch.

Somebody wrote:I wonder if the kids at these schools will feel like products from a factory. Man the yard will be a busy place at recess/lunch.

For example there are around 12 000 students at Flinders. I don't think any of the students feel like products from a factory.

I cannot see why the students of these schools would be any different.

The fact that there are a lot of kids at these schools means that the schools can afford to offer more, in the way of subjects, resources, and even playground equipment. The kids from these schools will therefore, have more opportunity to learn what they are really interested in (especially in High School) and feel less like a number than those kids stuck at smaller schools learning subjects they are not really interested in (e.g. Modern European History in lieu of Australian History, or basic Science in lieu of Trade Physics).
Of course, there are down sides to such big schools too, especially for some kids who may get 'lost in the system', but the Govt would have weighed the downsides against the upsides. With the Naplan tests that every kid has to sit now, any govt wants to see public education getting the best accademic results possible from their education system, or there will be hell to pay.

Will wrote:For example there are around 12 000 students at Flinders. I don't think any of the students feel like products from a factory.

And? That is a university. Given the importance of school's contribution to a child's development (knowledge & social skills), that is a bad comparison.

Universities also do not have the same obligations as schools, for example all people in a certain age group are not forced to attend by law, they do not have student welfare obligations, have uniforms or require the students to stay within fenced grounds while attending.

Somebody wrote:

Will wrote:For example there are around 12 000 students at Flinders. I don't think any of the students feel like products from a factory.

And? That is a university. Given the importance of school's contribution to a child's development (knowledge & social skills), that is a bad comparison.

Universities also do not have the same obligations as schools, for example all people in a certain age group are not forced to attend by law, they do not have student welfare obligations, have uniforms or require the students to stay within fenced grounds while attending.

Students at a school of just 10 students are still forced to wear a uniform or stay within the school grounds, so I do not understand where you are coming from.

As long as the class sizes in these new superschools remain at under 25 students per class, I cannot see how the students at these schools would feel like products from a machine.

All I can see is these students having access to greater facilities and the opportunity to study the subjects they want to study.

Try reading my post please, I was responding to your comparison of university vs high school.

You're right, the concept could work, although if a school has 2000+ students it could have significant impact on surrounding transport links etc. Having said that, it's not much different to where you have a cluster of schools in one area

The schools I went to were all in the same area. I went from Jnr Primary, up the hill to Primary, then up the hill again to the high school. When I was at that high school they had 3000 students there.

If what Somebody's saying is right these "super schools" don't sound that super to me.

who cares?

so nobody knows anything about the Superschools PPP itself

another empty promise from the rann government

Will wrote:

Somebody wrote:

Will wrote:For example there are around 12 000 students at Flinders. I don't think any of the students feel like products from a factory.

And? That is a university. Given the importance of school's contribution to a child's development (knowledge & social skills), that is a bad comparison.

Universities also do not have the same obligations as schools, for example all people in a certain age group are not forced to attend by law, they do not have student welfare obligations, have uniforms or require the students to stay within fenced grounds while attending.

Students at a school of just 10 students are still forced to wear a uniform or stay within the school grounds, so I do not understand where you are coming from.

As long as the class sizes in these new superschools remain at under 25 students per class, I cannot see how the students at these schools would feel like products from a machine.

All I can see is these students having access to greater facilities and the opportunity to study the subjects they want to study.

"Superschools" are super-as-in-market, not super-as-in-hero. There's a wealth of research dating back to the mid-60's that students in smaller schools have better outcomes (on a variety of measures) than those from large schools. For example, there's this, or this, or this, or this which in turn quotes this major study from Chicago.

The important thing is that several small schools together can act as a "super school system" and provide the variety of facilities and opportunity that the single mega school is supposed to offer - they don't all have to be clones of each other.

Prince George wrote: There's a wealth of research dating back to the mid-60's that students in smaller schools have better outcomes (on a variety of measures) than those from large schools. For example, there's this, or this, or this, or this which in turn quotes this major study from Chicago.

The important thing is that several small schools together can act as a "super school system" and provide the variety of facilities and opportunity that the single mega school is supposed to offer - they don't all have to be clones of each other.

A lot of the research about education from the mid sixties is completely irrelevant now, though. There were far fewer subjects taught, far fewer resources were needed. There was virtually no technology involved, which is a major, and necessary, and expensive part of education today. Schools got by quite well without a gym, but what a boon they are for those schools that can afford them! Similarly, woodwork and metalwork workshops were in many high schools, but what about plastics, a mechanics workshop, a commercial teaching kitchen? Campus-style schools can work in High School, but can you imagine a group of primary school kids traipsing from one campus to another to access a science program here, an art program somewhere else, and a technology program at a third campus?

I must admit I haven't had time to look at the links you've supplied, I'm just responding to your own comments.

Do they still teach plastics in schools?

Cruise wrote:Do they still teach plastics in schools?

i just had a flashback to grade 10 - tech studies class - the smell of chloroform...

Wayno wrote:

Cruise wrote:Do they still teach plastics in schools?

i just had a flashback to grade 10 - tech studies class - the smell of chloroform...

Chloroform?

peas_and_corn wrote:

Wayno wrote:

Cruise wrote:Do they still teach plastics in schools?

i just had a flashback to grade 10 - tech studies class - the smell of chloroform...

Chloroform?

yep, it is used to bond acrylic sheets together. Has a doozy of a smell...

rhino wrote:

Prince George wrote: There's a wealth of research dating back to the mid-60's that students in smaller schools have better outcomes (on a variety of measures) than those from large schools. For example, there's this, or this, or this, or this which in turn quotes this major study from Chicago.

The important thing is that several small schools together can act as a "super school system" and provide the variety of facilities and opportunity that the single mega school is supposed to offer - they don't all have to be clones of each other.

A lot of the research about education from the mid sixties is completely irrelevant now, though. There were far fewer subjects taught, far fewer resources were needed. There was virtually no technology involved, which is a major, and necessary, and expensive part of education today. Schools got by quite well without a gym, but what a boon they are for those schools that can afford them! Similarly, woodwork and metalwork workshops were in many high schools, but what about plastics, a mechanics workshop, a commercial teaching kitchen? Campus-style schools can work in High School, but can you imagine a group of primary school kids traipsing from one campus to another to access a science program here, an art program somewhere else, and a technology program at a third campus?

I must admit I haven't had time to look at the links you've supplied, I'm just responding to your own comments.

Hmm, I should have phrased that better: there is a wealth of research over the last 45 years that students in smaller schools have better outcomes than those from large schools. All of those links that I posted before are from between 1996 and 2001.

Primary schools have much more modest requirements for facilities than middle/high schools; to my mind, a school that couldn't manage to have a room for art and science would have to be absolutely tiny. The talk of technology in the schools has me confused too - I can see that 20 years ago there were advantages to rebuilding schools to accomodate networking for computers, but in the era of wireless and laptops what exactly do they need to build? And, really, how many of these super schools are going to have something as specific as a commercial teaching kitchen? I could imagine that there may be one such school in the entire city that would offer that, and that people would still have to travel cross-town to take advantage of it - basically the same situation as we have now with schools like Urbrae.

(BTW, I'm pretty sure that my middle school offered a plastics class, they just did it in one of the science labs. But that was a long, long time ago)