Katherine Birbalsingh?

I wouldn't send my own children to her school if we lived next door. I think her ethos is unnecessarily strict and she gets these results by excluding anyone not towing the line - or putting people off from applying in the first place.

I've heard her speak about the strict adherence to uniform and say it is a necessity to delivering a good education - but most European countries don't even have school uniform and they all do OK. Focusing on periphery detracts from learning and anxiety and unhappiness have a negative affect on a student's ability to concentrate. Children are children and deserve to be able to enjoy school and come out as well rounded individuals.

Thank you, such a great answer.

Sure - but the Michaela school and its copycats (there's one nearby which we have avoided like the plague) would be a psychologically and physically terrifying place for my children. I'm so glad we have a choice where we live; sadly many don't.

I think she said on the documentary about her school that they encourage debate over lunches and have teachers sitting with the children to facilitate the discussions that will promote critical thinking.

Her school is exactly what some children with SEN need. Obviously it wouldn’t work well for all because no school does, even the specialist ones. Autistic children who have an Asperger’s type presentation would benefit from the calm atmosphere and clear rules and structure. Children who have delays or lower ability must benefit otherwise she wouldn’t have such great value added scores. Not all children with SEN need the same thing.

I don’t think you can complain about her approach not working for children with SEN when it’s not entirely true, and not every school needs to be the best for children with SEN anyway. There are other children to consider too.

Is she the one that makes children track the teacher with their eyes all the time?

This is part of a much wider debate in education that has been going on for quite literally decades.
In a nutshell, the question is should teachers be trying to teach "skills" like analysis, critical thinking, problem solving etc. or should they be teaching "content", mainly facts and context for those facts, plus accepted theory such as scientific theory.

KB is firmly on the side of teaching content. Which of course leaves her wide open to accusations of rote learning facts for passing exams.

I agree with KB. You can't think about stuff without knowing stuff. Trying to think (about anything) without millions of facts in your long-term memory is like trying to build a wall without any bricks.
The more you memorise, the better your memory gets, and the more connections your brain can make, increasing your general intelligence. The more intelligent you get, the more you can think critically and problem solve.

Yes, you can google what date was the "Field of Cloth of Gold". You can even google what is actually was, and get a summary.
But if you no nothing else about Henry VIII, France, monarchy, or that period of history, the summary you just googled won't mean much and you will be little better off.

The more facts you know, the more you understand about everything.

This is also the essence of "cultural capital". If someone at work makes a joke about Fagin and Bill Sykes, you will get the joke if you have read Oliver Twist, or at least watched a film of it. (OK, an unlikely scenario, but the joke or comment could be about a painting, an economic theory, a bit of science, an historical reference, or anything).
And more importantly, cultural capital is not just about understanding other people's jokes and passing comments, it is about having a "big picture" of the world and society we live in, built up of countless millions of facts. It is about living in a world that you understand.
If you don't understand anything beyond the small community and class you grew up in, your world will remain very small.

Obviously, to teach a content-heavy curriculum to children with attention spans degraded by their phones and used to constant entertainment requires a very high level of discipline to be enforced.

I admire her no bullshit,no fads,common sense approach and her obvious dedication to all the children in her care. I am of an age where schools used to be like this, stand up for staff and address them properly, manners and respect at all times and supervised moving around school quiet. Its old fashioned and it works,Katherine seems to have stripped back lots to foster this idea and I think it works. I would have no hesitation to send my kids there if I had my time again!

That learn by heart/rote learning might get them through GCSEs but is it setting children up to fail further down the line? Do they learn how to learn and also discipline?

Has her leadership been in place long enough to any sort of statistics? It would be interesting to see the longer term results of this style.

Her school is giving a lifelong advantage to many of the children who attend. I find it bizarre that people critisise it, and her, on a point of principle, and then handwing about violence, poor behaviour and a lack of discipline in schools in the UK.

It's good for children and young people to have strict boundaries. They learn self-discipline and it gives them a sense of safety.

She’s annoying.

those people saying "oh it would never work for the SEN kids" fail to realise that for many SEN-related issues, it's the current, non-Michaela environment that is directly contributing to those issues.

It has a strong whiff of a sausage factory imo.

An exam mill is not necessarily an environment that sets children up for success in life, unless your definition of success is extremely narrow.

“I agree that the group that would be limited by the Michaela approach would be the very bright middle class kids, who are capable of getting twelve 9's at GCSE, and who would be held hack by not being able to do triple science and then Computer Science or Philosophy at A Level.”

can you explain what this means? It sounds like you’re saying middle class kids are capable of more and therefore need more choice

Can't really see why people think it's wrong to expect children not to be late, wear the correct uniform, behave quietly and respectfully, not expect every food preference to be catered for, and to focus on the task at hand - learning. These are core life skills for the adult world which will have no time for your excuses and won't accommodate your feelings everyday.

Judging by the number of families who turn up 5-10 mins late to school every single day (same families, always coming in late as I'm walking home), its pure entitlement. Kids from those families would really benefit from someone consistently laying down the law.

It’s about time someone got to grips with unruly badly behaved school kids and if she has to show tough love so be it .

I agree that the group that would be limited by the Michaela approach would be the very bright middle class kids, who are capable of getting twelve 9's at GCSE, and who would be held hack by not being able to do triple science and then Computer Science or Philosophy at A Level.
I suppose some would argue that nobody needs to do these more obscure subjects, and if all schools followed the Michaela approach then nobody would be disadvantaged by the lack of choice. But I think on balance, her approach works better if there is another school in the area which can stretch the very brightest kids.

I think as a public figure she is very polarising and goes out of her way to goad the left and enter into culture wars territory. As such she does her cause no favours. However, I think as an educator she genuinely cares for the kids and has high ambitions for them and has created a school environment where children can thrive - provided they do things her way. I just hope they do the work in years 12 and 13 to prepare the older kids for the transition into a less structured environment so that university, for those who choose it, doesn't come as a huge shock.

I should add - in general i think stricter discipline in schools is a good think. I think some of the most anxious pupils ha e become that way through childhoods spent desperately reaching for the rules and boundaries that make life feel safe and controlled and not finding them. If your parents and teaches don't behave like they are in charge your brain thinks you must be and on a basic level that's terrifying for a child.

I think she's probably good at pulling the bottom end up, results wise, in deprived areas. Children living in chaotic homes with little structure/boundaries/aspiration at home will probably thrive on her very black and white regime of discipline and rules. However I suspect the effectiveness of that is linked to a pupil intake with a high volume of migrants from cultures who respect/value education, parents who are willing to adhere and support her system.

I dislike her narrow focus and gaming of results tables - no triple science, only 8 gcses, no music etc, results boosted by having those with a foreign language mother tongue sit a language GCSE in their mother tongue. Its a limiting approach for an able middle class British born pupil who won't benefit from contextual university place offers that overlook a reduced GCSE selection.

I think most children- and teachers- thrive with rules. A lack of boundaries actually makes them more anxious and depressed. Rules prepare them for a future where yes, most of us have to be on time, neatly dressed, respect those in higher authority, stop obsessing about our MH or anxiety or whatever, and just get the job done.

I like her very much. I suspect that the children who go to her school are those whose parents are up for this sort of school.

I remember being utterly exhausted at senior school - not because the work was difficult but because of the endless low-level disruption. I would have found it so much more restful to have had orderly lessons and corridors where everyone knew that they had to behave themselves.

I think she’s got it right personally. In the 20 years I taught in mainstream schools I saw the introduction of the likes of restorative approaches, every behaviour is communication and trauma informed bollocks. This has led to a decline in standards and what students believe is optional respect and behaviour due to a reduction in consequences. The majority of classrooms are chaotic with teachers being verbally and even physically abused. These critical thinking classrooms and lessons people speak of on here are a thing of the past. Most students are completely disengaged with learning due to the constant behaviour disruptions and the only question they are remotely interested in asking is how many minutes it is until break/lunch. It’s interesting that people feel a stricter environment leads to a decline in mental health, I have seen the complete opposite. It is logical if students leave school thinking they can do whatever they want that they will have a hard time dealing with the demands and expectations of work/university.

Exactly. Sadly, adults lie about why children are late or off school. Adult life has unbending rules - you don't get to skip out on your electric bill because you forgot to switch the lights off. It's best that children learn rules are rules and that you earn respect by accepting a small punishment and not doing it again.

I agree, she gets results for that cohort, but I think that’s where people have an issue with her system, because it simply wouldn’t work for many children.

But it does work for many children. An entire school full. There will be some outliers, but for the majority it works.

It would work for my eldest. But I sincerely doubt it for my youngest.

So we need a selection of available schools - so that this with doesn’t suit can be taught - but there’s nothing wrong with Michaela.

The best classes I've seen for SEN children are those that are calm with a clear structure and expectations.

Unfortunately at many schools now respect for adults is optional. I left education last term as I was so fed up of children having their education ruined by those who provided constant disruption. Not only is it horrible to staff, all of the other children looked depressed and SEN children struggled to regulate with the constant shouting out.