To not understand why Katharine Birbalsingh is so controversial

I know lots of girls taking Further Maths who were utterly disgusted by that comment. She was also social mobility tsar when she said it. It was nonsense.

Is that untrue?

Im not sure shes saying its right or wrong, she's just citing why it seems to be

I think thats probably true, hard maths isnt for some reasons that attractive to girls.

Not in my field

Somebody mentioned upthread that STEM subjects at A-Level / degree result in higher income potential. Is there a link to this because we've been told that STEM is now a massively overcrowded degree field and the long term earnings potential isn't all that - especially if you're looking for jobs in the UK.

Its catchment is a sizeable chunk of the west of the city, taking in the most affluent suburbs in the west/south west as well as some considerably less affluent in the north west. The most deprived areas, broadly, are in the east and so not in catchment. There are four Ofsted Good schools in the south west, all very established, but a good number of parents are ranking the Michaela-type first, attracted by the discipline, approach and site/building, all of this before the school had any GCSE results. Last year, it was 70% over subscribed. The other four schools have much better arts provision. I quite agree with you about box-ticking and Ofsted. I asked my DD, now 22, if she would have wanted to have gone and she said no, because she didn't believe she needed the stringent approach it offers as she was/is self-motivated. It's not what I would have wanted for her either. Just as well as her strengths are music and languages.

Apologies, posted before reading this! Think we are actually saying the same thing.

Because she doesn’t fit into the liberal left that dominates education in this country. She came to prominence after speaking as a Tory party conference which gave those liberal lefties a fit of the vapours.

She doesn’t like the culture of low expectations especially for ethnic minorities.

Most people don’t have X so what she posts there is irrelevant to most. Not everything she says is controversial, and what counts as controversial is subjective.

Also a very controversial school which has received similar criticism I’m not saying some people don’t think it’s good, but it’s certainly not the education everyone wants for their children.

I can’t say I’m familiar with the catchment area, what is so different about it? Would the model work in a rural location where there is not alternative? Or a leafy suburb where the arts are considered important?

An as for an outstanding ofsted, as someone who has worked in education for 20 years, outstanding ofsted means little to me other than people who can tick the right boxes, and know how to play the system. I have known phenomenal schools, who meet the needs of all pupils brilliantly but will never be better than good precisely because they do meet the needs of all pupils .

We agree. My post wasn't clear. By 'telling', I mean that the take no prisoners approach of KB is what Ofsted wants and what the inspection framework is designed to find outstanding.

Not really. KB got an Outstanding despite issues being pointed out with curriculum that would have caused any other school to have been failed.

She’s also not really preparing students to study the humanities at degree level. The Michaela pedagogy is extremely didactic and knowledge based. Students really need to be being more exploratory and questioning what their teachers are telling them. There seems little room for intellectual curiosity and going of script in their lessons.
It’s a very specific type of humanities study they seem to be following.
But yes, the surrounding area is hardly deprived (we park on someone’s drive for events at Wembley and walk past Michaela). I’d be more impressed with similar results in schools serving Clacton and Jaywick to be honest.

It has been replicated, successfully, at Mercia in Sheffield, in a very different catchment. Ofsted graded it Outstanding on its first inspection. Telling.

The fact that only 2.6% of Michaela pupils are doing separate sciences st GCSE according to @0ohLarLar suggests that very few will be prepared to do a STEM subject at university. To the extent that Wembley is a deprived area - there seems to be some controversy over that - STEM careers are reliable pathways to economic security.

KB is funnelling her pupils into the Humanities. We need people in these disciplines and good ones can definitely succeed economically, but it is more ad hoc. A number do struggle.

Furthermore, whilst her self proclaimed A level results are very good, I could not find Michaela in the A level league tables I came across in a quick search. However I did come across enough data to see that ‘nearly 2/3 grade A and A star’ whilst excellent, is exceptional for a school in a deprived area but merely excellent overall.

Of course ‘merely excellent’ is still excellent. I put it that way because not everyone with those grades will be a star at university. Based on my experience with personal tutees, I would expect a percentage to struggle when discipline is relaxed and when they are expected to engage in debate with their tutors. I would also expect more than 2.6% to have their greatest aptitudes on the scientific side, and these are going unfulfilled.

Thus I don’t believe KB is interested in getting the best out of each student. She is very dogmatic.

I always say I can see the good she does, because I can see the results in the subjects they focus on are good and that provides a stepping stone for children. However like you said parental buy in is key, and that works in very specific contexts. In many deprived area, parents do no see education as a priority, and therefore automatically it is a different playing field. Also in other areas, parents prioritise a broader curriculum. While I understand why parents might send their children to Michaela, I would not want to send mine there. I want them to have a broader curriculum, to enjoy the arts, so know girls can do any subject they want, and as the parent to a ND child, it would not work for him. ( it may work for some all ND children are different!)

I think if anyone really thought it could be replicated elsewhere it would have been by now. But its success is due to its context, and I think really people know that. Also there are parts of the country where parent's don’t get a choice in school, would it be fair to limit children who did not chose it?

She is a professional contrarian; thrives on making headlines. Some of the things at the school I think sound great (for her intake) others really don’t. The entry requirements for Year 12 are higher than the majority of very academic independent schools. If you cherry pick to that extent, the A level results are a given.

I dislike her for many reasons but mainly because she believes one size fits all and it really doesn't and she thinks her way is the only way and she refuses to take criticism.
She has perpetuated gender stereotypes by saying girls don't like hard maths and she said parents should always side with the teacher whatever the child says.
She courts publicity and says controversial things for effect.

I never thought I would see people supporting the misogynistic JP going into schools on Mumsnet! What’s next Andrew Tate???!!!

Barry Smith is still all over Twitter. He also makes a fortune in consultancy.
Insists that SLANT style teaching is the only way to get good results. Which is ridiculous.

It’s not really replicable or scalable. It will be interesting to see what happens when KB is no longer involved.

The parental buy in is key I agree.

They may be deprived on some measures but they are over represented in the privileges of stable families with high aspirations.

I think the best thing about the school is the family lunch approach and the secular ethos.

I understand narrowing the curriculum is not going to work for everyone but it's a great strategy for improving results for the majority.

Also schools should be focused on teaching and not be the levers for solving all societies ills that politicians try to make them with endless interventions and add ons.

It would be great to see her methods applied in other areas to test them in different contexts.

Why wouldn't anyone want that given the incredible results?

Because she's mates with Jordan Peterson?? And he's bad because...he's bad you know!! Genius logic 🤣 🤣

She might struggle more in a truly deprived coastal or rural town, or some of the ex industrial and mining communities.

It was tried, the ex dep head of Michaela took over a school in Great Yarmouth.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/3031326-Well-we-wondered-if-Michaela-would-work-elsewhere-Great-Yarmouth-sick-buckets-and-mandatory-smiling

I'm not sure how it turned out, Progress 8 at the school is now 0 which is good compared to what it used to be, but Barry Smith is no longer the headteacher, would quite like to know what happened.

Agree she doesn’t select- if you watch the documentary about the school in itv you can see a family appealing not getting a place, and it’s the local authority dealing with the admissions.

however this is very key for me:

the demographic of Michaela parents won't be replicated everywhere. Its a diverse urban area with a high proportion of students from 1st or 2nd generation immigrant families. The culture around education is strong and parents will push their kids to study. You will not get this in a sleepy, typically british dormitory town in wiltshire

I grew up in the area and the underlying message is she’s taking impoverished children with no chances and giving them an education they wouldn’t otherwise get. To some extent this is true, as their progress 8 score is brilliant.

However there is something not quite right about the perception she gives of the demographic.

whilst Wembley does have a few large deprived estates it’s generally a suburban area with large (and very expensive) properties and lots of professional families.

It is highly ethically diverse, but in terms of areas in the uk you could be opening a school targeting poor kids, it’s not really an area that stands out as a priority for this.

there has been talk about opening a Michaela in Stevenage Hertfordshire and that’s another area that rings the same for me- some deprivation but hardly a priority area to be pulling neglected children out of poverty.

thats a long winded way of saying that it’s easily to say you’re helping children out of poverty in very well connected well located areas which are generally very prosperous locations. She might struggle more in a truly deprived coastal or rural town, or some of the ex industrial and mining communities.

I’m guessing she’s not teaching children that they can actually change their sex.

She’s probably teaching children how to take responsibility for their actions. How to do well and rise up in this world.

Probably why some left wing people / Labour faithfuls don’t like her.

As a neurodiverse teacher I can think of very little more hideous than being constantly tracked by students sitting up ridiculously straight (regardless of the fact that the heights of chairs and desks make it unbelievably uncomfortable to do so

Has she been hostile though? In the interviews I have seen it’s more the other way round

I think BP has quite rightly treated her in a similar way to other respected headteachers, but has also put scrutiny on her. As all other schools get. KB is used to being able to do what she wants, take the curriculum for example, other schools have been ripped apart from their curriculum but she has been allowed to do what she wants. Now she can’t and has to follow the same rules as others, she doesn’t like it.