Yet to receive any comments on my proposal that the answer should be open transparency from all schools. Perhaps Vindictam would like to post the publicly available views of the "Principal", otherwise I can only presume that said Principal prefers to conduct his campaign by word of mouth or G&G. Mind you that is probably reflective of the GPS schools in general; there is no desire for real transparency at all. The status quo is preferable for most.
As has been discussed here previously these schools are significant SME businesses which means it is possible to lose a significant amount of money if enrolments fall. For instance there is a financial advantage if you can run a low cost model without boarding or significant investment in sport. If you are under pressure from your community for not sustaining historical sports advantages it is far easier to try and chop off the victors at the legs than build your own capacity.
Most people hold the view that New & Scots have entered the arms race to gets bums on seats - winning a GPS Rugby title apparently is fantastic for enrollments. Last years New Year 7 is the largest ever in the Schools history (over 230), so apparently it works - what I love about that year is that they will not be able to 'parachute' in large numbers of sporting scholarship boys in future years, as they literally do not have room for them. What is interesting however is that Shore - the only fully clean GPS School - is the hardest of all Schools to get into - you basically need to enroll your son the day he is born, otherwise you are likely to be on a waiting list (you cannot enroll 'in utero'), so maybe there are other more honorable ways (rather than extreme cheating) to achieve that.
In addition the other comment in that Para - 'chop off the victors at the legs' in my view has nothing to do with the current position of the gang of 5 - otherwise this would have happened years ago to Joeys & Kings - it is, as has been said before, the extremes that New & Scots have taken it to - In my view what they have been doing is obscene.
As for transparency and your view that Sporting Scholarship's are ok..
Transparency as I think you have described it creates some serious 'management issues' in this politically correct world that we live in. The Scots 'external reviewer' did not interview any of the 61 boys on privacy grounds - it is hard to argue with that position. You need to see more than just the 'books' to have 'transparency.
And as for Sporting Scholarships - I personally agree with you - my issue is, that they should only be 'accepted' in year 7 - my huge problem with this 'arms race' is the 'parachuting' - it is just an atrocious way to treat people. My suggestion remains...
Unlimited Scholarships in year 7 (they cannot afford to carry large numbers for 6 years - it is harder to pick top sportsman when they are only 12, etc) but none in following years AND use the Shore/Iggies game day program approach (Name and previous teams listed). All Schools follow the turning 19 rule because it is black & white - the rules need to have no grey - no room to wiggle out! Then you only need to check that the late 'arrivees' are fee paying - not hard (officially or unofficially by a walk down the sideline!).
)
