To not understand why Katharine Birbalsingh is so controversial

In don't agree she's a massive dick. She's controversial and has created a school in a clear-headed way. She doesn't care who she upsets because she's so sure she's right. In academic terms, the school is a success. Bridget Phillipson has made herself look foolish in being so hostile to her.

It's mainly because she's an absolutely massive dick, and anyone who spouts faux 'oh why is she so controversial' rubbish isn't much better

Two of my neighbour's children go to a school modelled on Michaela and that also get excellent results, being ranked second to Michaela on Progress 8 (Michaela is first). It's in the leafy suburbs of the city, in a purpose-built building, and is oversubscribed by 70%. Initially, I was horrified by the restrictive nature of its methods, especially tracking the teacher for each second of every lesson. Since then, I've changed my mind and identified things that would probably make a positive difference in all secondary schools - silent corridors, no smartphones, family lunch with pupils serving and clearing away. I can also see that flawless behaviour enables teachers to teach. Despite all that, I understand that one of the children next door is given numerous detentions every week. That's been the case for three years, so clearly his behaviour is not improving.

As to Birbalsingh, she is a disruptor, in a good way, but sets out to antagonise.

They are also very restrictive in terms of what subject combinations students are allowed to do - all geared towards combinations that are extremely complimentary making it easier for the students to score highly.

I think she takes advantage of a community where many don't speak English as a first language to put a load of bright kids through only 7/8 GCSE's.
In any other school parents would not be happy with a capable kid not having the opportunity to take triple science, and the typical 9-10 GCSE's, and the local community would know that usually taking only 7 GCSE's is something more typical for students struggling academically. I think because many of the parents are 1st generation immigrants they perhaps don't realise their kids are missing out here.

Its denying some kids the opportunity to meet their potential by studying a broader range of subjects.

And it's doubly annoying because Ofsted seem to turn a blind eye to this at Michaela where any other school would be questioned as to why students weren't studying a broader curriculum and being presented with opportunities that meet their capabilities.

I would not send my children there because I don't want them only doing 7 GCSE's when they are capable of more

I just need to know she’s a supporter of JP to know everything I need to know about her.

For those of you that have never heard her speak, here's a recent interview that will give you her views on education.

Yup. It’s not elitism. The A Level offer is considerably narrow than my own school for instance.

So are you judging her entirely on her results, without actually knowing anything about what she says or how she gets those results?

This. She’s high on the attention and for some reason needs the validation of being controversial ( aka a ‘truth teller’).
Genuine game changing people are often quiet, get on with the job, empower those around them and don’t seek personal credit. But that’s boring. Innit?

Also a very good point about their results being boosted by home languages
This happens in lots of schools and not unique to Michaela. It will be noticeable in north London where 50%+ are EAL but in my rural school 30+ years ago, a British girl who lived in Netherlands for a while was entered for a Dutch GCSE. Schools will always be looking for ways to up their league tables with minimal effort.

As @WhereAreWeNow says and the statistics from @0ohLarLar show, KB is hugely anti STEM, at a time when

firstly, the UK desperately needs to up its game in STEM

and

secondly, a career in STEM is a proven way to improve one’s economic prospects

This opportunity is largely foreclosed for Michaela pupils with only 2.6% electing individual sciences at GCSE.

Furthermore, amongst the presumably tiny cohort (see @0ohLarLar ’s post) who take A level Physics, only 16% are girls as opposed to a national average of about 23-24%. KB says grandly that she sees no need to encourage girls into science, but her distaste is tangible; one would think that science is something stuck to the bottom of her shoe.

The list of A level subjects is very small. Excluding Computer Science, Geology, Sociology, etc, is borderline understandable: one can do these subjects at university with A levels from the list; however pupil enthusiasm would seem to suffer.

But the only MFL on offer is French and there is virtually no Arts training. All of this is packaged as elitism when in reality I suspect it is budget (and profit) driven.

I didn't know that about separate science- I knew the lower number of GCSEs. For some courses at some universities, that is limiting their options, and arguably also putting them at a disadvantage if they wanted to do science A-levels elsewhere. It's interesting that she pushes such a narrative in terms of increasing student's life chances, but isn't putting as much focus on sciences, which offer a very broad range of opportunities across careers in the UK.

Also a very good point about their results being boosted by home languages- FWIW I do think doing a gcse in a language you speak is worthwhile, because at least you have a bit of paper to prove your abilities! Do they really not teach Spanish, though?

She can't literally pick the children she takes, or set entry requirements, except of course at sixth form, which is normal.

But I believe her school does a lot of what is considered "social selection", where some students are filtered out because the school is not the right fit for them. This doesn't necessarily mean a better or worse intake, but it does likely mean a very homogeneous intake, which means her policies can be a bit more "one size fits all".

For example, the school doesn't put that much focus on the arts and many arts subjects aren't available at GCSE. For some families, this is a deal breaker, and they would choose a different school. That's normally fine in London, where most people do have some school choice. That's less ideal in a rural town where you are the only secondary school in a reasonable commute- a lot of parents would complain, for starters!

She thinks her model would work everywhere- as someone who teaches in a rural school with a quite different approach (which still gets decent results and positive progress etc), I don't think her model would work for us- because we can't be socially selective, we couldn't narrow our curriculum as much as she does, and students with SEN who wouldn't fit at her school (and there are some, whatever people say) have to come to us regardless, and we have to accomadate them.

Superbly missing the point!
I clearly stated that if your child was passionate about an creative arts subject you wouldn't send your child to Michaela.

I’m 70/30 against.
In her favour, she thinks outside the box, she clearly cares and wants to take direct action to achieve tangible outcomes for young people who in these areas. Visitors, parents and students are impressed with what they see.
On the other hand, I find her personally not someone I could take to. I feel she’s too ideological, which can be linked to intransigence, rigidity and unwillingness to accept other viewpoints. I feel there are elements of her claims that are disingenuous. Whilst I am sure, as she says, that Michaela isn’t selective, behaviour expectations are clearly stated so students who can’t/wont conform will either not apply, or leave. I also feel strongly that her very political and often angry public appearances are unbecoming of a school head. She seems to be able to say some quite breathtaking things and there be no come back for her.
I’ve read many Michaela school reviews by parents and pupils over the years and seen a spread of opinion. I remember one review in which the parent said their child had left as it made their child depressed. Many reviews praised the school.

Exactly. She likes to preach a lot about how strict she is but from what I know of other local schools from DS' friends I don't see how Michaela is more strict than others.

What are the strict policies that Michaela has that other schools don't? My kids go to another new north London academy (also outstanding, quite a different cohort though) and that is quite strict (no smartphones allowed at all, uniform/equipment/homework violations punished first time without exception etc) - would be interested to know what the difference is.

TheOriginal, that is wonderful. Good for your son 😊 You should be so proud of him and of yourself.

Some people don’t seem to understand that a child being good at and succeeding in a subject - any subject - makes it more likely that they’ll achieve higher all round. It boosts confidence, self-esteem etc.

As others said, she actively courts controversy with her choices to go on controversial podcasts to discuss emotional topics and bring controversial guests into her school.

There is also controversy that the plan that was approved for her free school does not match at all what is going on there, particular around KS4 options and number of GCSEs. The original had a far more typical, broader education. Many free school change from their original vision as reality of local context comes in, but the strong contrast and lack of discussion around those changes (she presents an image of being very single minded and not changing) has some questions around it.

Then there is the court cases she and the school have been involved in, social media stuff...

That parents can choose not to send their child there or that some people agree with her doesn't change that she's surrounded by controversy, some of her own making.

Had to Google her.

She had a misquote written on her wall and really didn’t like it when it was pointed out to her.

I couldn’t teach there. I value my freedom as a teacher. And I would be freaked out by the regimented way they have to behave in class. I also couldn’t teach in any school that does SLANT. I physically couldn’t do it.

Still at least, she is very clear she doesn’t want teachers like me so I know not to apply. The lack of green in the school grounds would also do my head in. But I’m spoilt with where I am.

Of course English & maths matter but if a child excels at drama, their self esteem is very important too.

In what world does maths + English not matter? That's the exact point KB makes, for the majority of kids getting good grades in m+e are the foundation for the rest of their lives.
If her school doesn't suit specific children then presumably as a parent, you wouldn't send them there??
The kids in her cohorts are inner city, often ethnic minority who are frequently let down in the state system.