For decades, the selective school has been the cornerstone of gifted education in New South Wales: the single most coveted gateway for ambitious families, and a source of enduring debate about whether public education should sort children so decisively at age ten. Now, the Minns Labor Government is signalling a rethink, promising to extend meaningful options for high-potential students well beyond the 17 fully selective high schools that dominate the conversation, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald.
The centrepiece of that push is a substantial capital commitment. The government is investing $100 million in upgrades at 33 public high schools to support the rollout of High Potential and Gifted Education (HPGE) programmes, with an additional $50 million allocated in the 2025-26 NSW Budget, split between Sydney and regional NSW. The intent is to let comprehensive schools deliver advanced learning opportunities rather than leaving that work exclusively to a handful of specialist institutions concentrated in metropolitan Sydney.
The scale of the problem that policy is trying to address is not trivial. Education Minister Prue Car has acknowledged that selective streams and opportunity classes are only available in half of the state's public schools. For families outside those catchment areas, or for students whose abilities do not fit neatly into the academic test that determines selective entry, the current system offers comparatively little. Researchers have also pointed out that the placement test measures a narrow range of abilities, while the government's own HPGE policy defines potential as not just intellectual, but also creative, social-emotional and physical — abilities the test does not identify.
The government has also announced structural changes to the selective schools system itself. From the 2027 intake onwards, there will be an equal number of selective places available for girls and boys at all selective and partially selective high schools, as well as opportunity classes in public primary schools, in response to a decline in girls accepting and applying for places. The data behind that decision is arresting: the gender mix in selective high schools currently stands at 58 per cent boys and 42 per cent girls, while in opportunity classes it is 60 per cent and 40 per cent respectively, a shift from 45 per cent female Year 7 enrolments in 2019 to only 41 per cent in 2025.
From a fiscal standpoint, the expansion strategy carries real risk. Distributing gifted education across hundreds of comprehensive schools requires not just buildings but specialist teacher training, curriculum development, and robust accountability mechanisms to ensure the investment actually lifts outcomes rather than merely generating activity. HPGE policy implementation became mandatory across NSW public schools in 2021, yet the evidence that it has been consistently or effectively delivered in schools without dedicated resources remains thin. Committing $100 million to infrastructure is the easy part; the harder question is whether the state's teaching workforce is equipped to deliver differentiated programmes for high-potential students at scale.
Those sceptical of expanding selective pathways, and there are many with serious academic credentials, raise legitimate concerns about who benefits from the existing system. Researchers have pointed out that selective high schools are among the most socio-educationally advantaged in the state, surpassing even prestigious private schools. A 2018 NSW Department of Education review found "unintended barriers" in the application process that may be deterring students from disadvantaged backgrounds, Indigenous students, students with disability, and students in rural and remote areas. The NSW Department of Education's HPGE policy at least formally acknowledges this, with an Equity Placement Model that reduces barriers to entry for under-represented groups of high-potential students.
Advocates for selective education are not without a case, either. The schools exist because concentrating gifted students together does produce measurable academic outcomes, and parents who have invested in test preparation understandably resist rules that alter the criteria mid-stream. Opportunity classes and selective high schools group high-potential students together, concentrating school resources and using specialised teaching methods — an approach that research in peer effects broadly supports. The question is not whether selective schools work for those inside them, but whether a system built around a single competitive test adequately serves the full population of gifted children across a state as large and diverse as New South Wales.
The selective high school network currently includes 17 fully selective schools and 26 partially selective schools, alongside 89 opportunity classes, including those at Aurora College, which provides online opportunity classes for rural and remote students. That infrastructure is not going away. The government's bet is that it can build a second tier alongside it: robust HPGE programmes inside every local school, capable of identifying and challenging students who might never sit a placement test. The government is also investing up to $6 million to upgrade Lisarow High School on the Central Coast as part of this expansion.
Whether this proves to be genuine reform or expensive symbolism depends entirely on implementation. Reasonable people will disagree about how much weight to give competitive selection versus universal enrichment; both values carry genuine merit. What the evidence does suggest is that gifted students from disadvantaged backgrounds are currently being failed by a system that functions well for those who can afford coaching and are aware of the application process. Expanding options is a sound instinct. The test of this government will be whether the expanded programmes in comprehensive schools are substantive enough to matter, and whether the data on student outcomes in coming years reflects the investment. Good intentions, backed by $100 million, are a start. They are not, by themselves, a policy.