MedVision ad

New inner Sydney high-rise school for 1200 students revealed (2 Viewers)

BLIT2014

The pessimistic optimist.
Moderator
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
11,591
Location
l'appel du vide
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2018
A new 14-storey high school will be built in inner Sydney for 1200 students as the government scrambles to meet a surge in enrolments that will require 12 new schools to be built every year.

The new Surry Hills school, to be built on the site of the existing Cleveland Street Intensive English High School, is expected to open in 2020 and is one of five high-rise government schools currently planned for greater Sydney.

Education Minister Rob Stokes said most new schools will involve "multi-storey buildings" amid increasing cost and space pressures.

"Where land is constrained, we'll have to look at going up," Mr Stokes said.

"It really depends on context, we won't necessarily be building high rises in the outer suburbs for obvious reasons."

Fairfax Media yesterday reported that the first of the five high-rises, Arthur Phillip High School in Parramatta, has experienced a cost blowout of $50 million. The development, which will now cost $225 million, is expected to be completed by 2019.

Elizabeth Carpenter, managing principal of FJMT, the head architectural firm for the project, said it would look at the "lessons learnt from that building".

"We are using the Parramatta school as a benchmark," Mrs Carpenter said.

"The whole thing with these buildings is that it really is a process of development as we move through these new types of schools."

The school is part of a new $5 billion, 10-year school plan announced yesterday, along with projections that enrolment numbers at government schools will surge 21 per cent over the next 15 years


Currently, 180 schools, or 5 per cent, are over capacity and 37 per cent are at capacity.

The plan includes increased standard enrolment capacities of 1000 students for primary schools and 2000 for secondary schools, significantly higher than the currently maximums of 640 and 1190 students.

However, Mr Stokes said that class sizes are "non-negotiable" and will not be increased.

The Labor opposition says that based on current investment levels and school-building activity, it will take the government "45 years to deliver enough schools to meet the projected demand".

"I fear that following six years of inaction on schools building, the Liberals are now softening us for increased class sizes," Opposition Leader Luke Foley said.

The nearest primary school to the new Surry Hills development, Bourke Street Public School, is one of the fastest growing schools in Sydney, with student numbers surging by 130 per cent since 2013 to 430 pupils this year, according to the NSW Department of Education's latest enrolment data.

he high school with the most enrolments in greater Sydney, Cherrybrook Technology High School, currently has 1931 students.

Some overcrowded schools are also experiencing high growth rates, such as Bonnyrigg High School, which has grown nearly 34 per cent since 2013 to 1510 students and Castle Hill High School, which has grown nearly 17 per cent to 1595 students.

Among the state's most crowded primary schools, Westmead Public School has grown more than 31 per cent since and has 1408 students, which already exceeds the government's new standard enrolment capacity.

Similarly, Chatswood Public School has grown 41 per cent to 1246 students, with parents at the school reporting that there are 60 girls to a toilet and some classes have been moved to demountables across the road on high school land.

A spokesman for the Department of Education said changing school catchments is a common strategy used to respond to overcrowding.

"Enrolment boundaries are regularly revised at NSW public schools, particularly in response to changing patterns of enrolment," the spokesman said.

However, Mr Stokes said: "As education minister, I have a clear responsibility to provide a place for every student in their local primary school, and that will continue to be the case." "

Source:http://www.smh.com.au/national/educ...r-1200-students-revealed-20170427-gvtg8a.html
 

cosmo 2

the head cheese
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
649
Location
the hall of the hundred columns
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2023
why do we need to grow the population? besides specifically enriching gerry harvey types and property developers (which is mainly the reason we do it), and juicing australia's extortionate real estate market, there is threadbare economic rationale for a 'big australia'.
 
Last edited:

Green Yoda

Hi Φ
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
2,859
Gender
Male
HSC
2017
The current students are getting fucked because of the construction of this. It has impacted the learning environment quite a bit.
 

cosmo 2

the head cheese
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
649
Location
the hall of the hundred columns
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2023
lol cool wikipedia paste dump there bro

examining the most common arguments for australia's mass-immigration project leaves them largely lacking or absent a strong, one-sided case for something as dramatic as the enormous population expansion enivisioned by the proponents of 'big australia' (for example, sydney's population is projected to grow at present migration rates by about 1.7m to the year 2035 - equivalent to about one albury-wodonga a year). these arguments typically run along these lineS:

a) immigration is necessary to prevent an inversion of australia's demographic pyramid towards older ages (certifiable bullshit)

b) immigrants are more skilled, more productive and are necessary or beneficial to australia's economic growth (these arguments can either be completely untrue, or somewhat true though oversimplifications)

c) immigrants are necessary to alleviate skills shortages (untrue)

addressing, vaguely, whatever vague american shit you just posted within the australian context

modelling from the productivity commission envisions about an 8% increase in australia's GDP per capita following historical migration rates, vs. zero net overseas migration. this means that, at least according to their models, migration continued at present rates and presumably at the same structure (which will lead to 60 million australians by 2060, as opposed to a zero NOM, where australia's population would stabilise at about 25 million people by 2060) will yield about an 8% increase in australia's percapita GDP over a zero NOM intake. okay, cool. however, this is a double edged sword; real wages and labor productivity would fall, and, as the migrants themselves age, this will drag down future growth/productivity (necessitating more migrants - essentially the ponzi demography that our migration intake system runs on).

distributional effects of these "benefits" matter as well; the p.c found in 2006 that a skilled migration intake increase of 50% would tend only to increase the incomes of capital owners and the migrants themselves - migrants and 1%ers reap the benefits, while incumbent workers are worse or no better off. that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the other present term consequences of high migratory loads that primarily impact upon incumbent workers and the vulnerable, such as increased traffic congestion, urban reconfiguration, environmental stresses, spiralling real estate costs and crush-loaded public infrastructure. and we haven't even started on workforce automation, which increasingly renders the priorities of labor driven migratory policy suspect.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top