The NSW selective schools system is beneficial

Because this is the third round, and Pro does not have to worry about responding in a new round, I will be posting before it hits 22 hours. I apologize for my mistake saying con instead of pro within my last argument when addressing my opponent; I recently finished a debate in which I was pro, so I have been jumbled. 1. My argument about special needs holds grounds. I say again. Gifted students are special needs students, and so are the mentally, learning, physically, and socially disabled. Just because a student does not have a disability, it does not mean that the student is not special needs[2]. There is a common misconception that gifted children are not special needs[1][3]. Just because Wikipedia did not include gifted children, does not mean that they are not special needs. 2. I will concede that partially selective schools are selective schools, however I urge readers not to consider the students who are at these schools who have not been chosen through selective measures as part of the NSW system. Pro is not viably allowed to say that the entire school is part of the selective system, if only part of it is selective (this is not semantics; I am just clarifying what points the resolution backs up), however the partially selective school can in part be part of the NSW selective system, because the resolution states the selective school SYSTEM not selective schools themselves. Students will learn at maximum efficiency under a teacher more equipped at teaching students, and pro fails to show why it does not matter who teaches the children, saying only that time management will count towards learning without providing evidence. It is very important for teachers to be of high caliber [4] for any student, and selective schools take away the best qualified teachers from comprehensive schools. Pro has also failed to argue that in a comprehensive system, the majority of students will not suffer. 3. Pro has still not shown any sufficient evidence to support his side, and does not argue against my 3rd; he just states that there is a contradiction. Since my argument was unrefuted, you can extend it. 4. Pro has the burden of proof, and has still failed to refute my question about "how does he know? " and instead attacks me. Also, students who undergo selective testing are not told how they can improve in these areas, may lack the abilities to improve in these areas and often do not get any second chance at all to retake a selective exam, so the students who fail may have a chance to improve, but will never have a second chance to show that they have improved to get into a selective school. Also, people learn better through positive reinforcement than punishment (being excluded from a school for failing to pass an exam) , so the disappointment is form of punishment, and is less likely to encourage them to do better [5][6]. 5. I do not oppose multiculturalism, but I argue that the reason for multiculturalism in these schools is not because they select the gifted, as is the reason behind the NSW system; it is a by-product of collecting students from different areas, all around Australia that are not in one area. The same could be achieved through a comprehensive school that randomly selects students from different areas without following the NSW system. The NSW system itself is not the cause for this benefit, but the recruiting of students from all over the country is. 1. . http://giftedkids.about.com... 2. . http://hubpages.com... 3. . http://www.imperfectparent.com... 4. . http://www.ascd.org... 5. . http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu... It had fun researching the Australian education systems. I would love to debate again (perhaps not as devil's advocate).