Katherine Birbalsingh?

Wish I could send my DS to one of her schools.

The Left hate her because she exposes their cynical sponsorship of failed identity grievance politics.

Why have academies not brought the revolutionary changes they were supposed to? The idea was to remove them from local authority control and set them on the path to excellence. It's an idea that's largely failed. Why? Because the entire teaching profession is captured by the same failed ideologies that plague local education authorities and academia.

Here are the words of Katharine herself:

'At Michaela, we positively embrace small-c conservative values which millions of people, including so many of our families and pupils, also value. Those values enable extraordinary academic progress.

'But they also promote a way of living, where gratitude, agency and personal responsibility, refusal of identity-politics victimhood, love of country, hard work, kindness, a duty towards others, self-sacrifice for the betterment of the whole, are fundamental to who we are.

'Multiculturalism works at Michaela not because we've emptied the identity space of the school in order to accommodate difference, but because we have a clear identity which anyone can sign up to, if they are willing to compromise.

'Ever since the idea of Michaela began in 2011, our detractors have railed against our strict rules and traditional values.

'Their patronising, paternalist, 'we know what's best for you' progressive thinking goes like this: ethnic minority families cannot possibly know what they want and have chosen and continue to choose for their children.

'Those choices must be made for them. We need to have the honesty to call that out. A deep-seated progressivist racism fuels the condescending belief that ethnic minorities cannot think and choose for themselves. It is what has allowed a particular kind of bullying identity politics to take such a grip of our country.'

I'm a teacher and it would be an absolute dream to teach in a school where there are no behaviour issues, the students all want to learn and you can crack on and impart your specialist knowledge as you are paid to do. There are some things I wouldn't like about her school (silent corridors sound weird) but there is plenty to like.

All parents claim to want this type of school - where there is no disruption to learning. Yet when people try to create this type of school, starting with enforcing the small things like uniform or equipment, the parents kick off. Every September without fail, there are stories in the press about how little Johnny has been sent home for wearing the wrong shoes, how is that anything to do with their learning etc etc. I always say what is the news story in "school enforces its own rules"? And if they don't, what is the point of having them?

Any learning would be a good thing! I was born and raised in another, poor country ( like most Michaela parents?) The things that seem strict to some are not strict to me.

I read Lucy Kellaway's book recently on teaching maths in an inner city school. Enjoyed it.But gosh the privilege! Not all of us can get into Oxbridge by barely studying and a clutch of Bs and Cs. Lucy herself says she wishes she had been a pushier parent when her son messes up his A levels. He eventually does way better, but other kids don't have the privilege of getting shit results and beinf rescued by parents.

I went to a non selective girls high school in the 70s and imagine that quite a lot of kids now would find it quite strict, uniform upheld, standing when teachers/headmistress walked in, discipline in the corridors, chalk and talk, lots of stuff. It was not unusual for the time and just normal to us.

However, it doesn't sound as restrictive and regimented as Michaela. There were eg basic rules about one way and no running in corridors (sensible when they are polished stone and you've got hundreds of girls going from lesson to lesson) but they certainly weren't silent. We had good teachers who were happy to have discussions in class that sometimes went very off topic but were valuable (I remember one who was not happy about the lack of sex education and had a very memorable "myth busting" session) There was a lot of emphasis on respect for yourself and others, assemblies about inspiring women (Marie Curie, Grace Darling, Mary Anning and Rosa Parks) This wasn't a wealthy area but I think most parents were on side and there wasn't a chasm between expectations at home and those at school.

I think there is a middle ground between what I've heard about Michaela and the sort of schools it is reacting against and in that middle ground there has got to be an element of nurture and care as well as structure and discipline, especially for those kids who are being failed by parents. How that can be achieved now I'm not sure but the will and the resources have to be there.

No I hear you re long discussions in small classrooms, that was an unrealistic ideal (for most schools). I was talking about rote learning with the overt aim of getting through exams and whether it's better to be pragmatic about that. Or, try and include literacy analysis and critical thinking. Interesting to see whether people get through the first stage of education onto solid things and then develop complex thinking skills, or whether these are important early and rote learning is a bad habit.

Katharine Birbalsingh started a school in a deprived part of London, and gets astounding results - I believe her “value added” scores are among the best in the country. Before sending your child to the school, you need to sign up to the rules, most particularly that it’s a secular school (she has a lot of Muslim pupils), and that the rules over uniform and behaviour will be followed. The school is rigorous and she believes in what might be considered old fashioned academic values - but the children seem happy, they get good results, and she has transformed the lives of many of her pupils.

Show me any mainstream state school which does any of this? There simply isn't space in the curriculum and most teachers spend majority of lessons doing behaviour management. Your wants are admirable but unrealistic in current education climate

I think this is an interesting chicken and egg point with limited resources and time to teach critical thinking and capture attention spans.

I'd love to see small classes having philosophical chats or going into the fine detail of their set texts and really getting to the bottom of understanding them. But they won't. Not for a lot of kids anyway.

I wonder whether ex pupils are likely to become better thinkers, managers, workers, students, creators etc in their lives going forwards once they have those basic results to move onwards in interesting ways, or whether they will take on board the lesson that 'path of least resistance' is the way when it comes to thinking of solutions. I'd see that as a fine balance.

When it comes to schools, I personally think variety is more than just the spice of life, it’s absolutely essential to inclusion. If schools are all different, then a child who cannot manage in one school has the chance of trying something different and succeeding in the next.
Schools that are all the same mean that some children are excluded from the entire education system.

Michaela is not for me, I dislike her ethos, but it will appeal to others, and as long as I have options that suit me too, live and let live.

You can visit the school OP, meet the students, and see for yourself.

OP, which rules of hers do you think would be unacceptable to adults?

It's an "unselective" school but I imagine it will only accept pupils who had it listed as one of their 6 choices.
If it wasn't on a choice list they won't be allocated it.
If it was under subscribed and a local child didn't get any of their 6 choices then they might get allocated there - but as far as I know it isn't under subscribed.

Her school gives them the GCSE results they need in order to have choices and be able to progress in life. Some of these kids would have otherwise ended up with very few options after school. That's a success

She sets the kids who leave her school up for success in life. That should never be a bad thing!

Not sure that she does. The teaching methods are very prescriptive, with the children essentially being provided with stock answers and stock essays which they're expected to regurgitate on demand. It doesn't teach them to think for themselves, which has the distinct danger of leaving them at a major disadvantage in adulthood.

You're dead right about it being intolerable for adults. Why do we think children deserve such poor treatment in the UK? Rhetorical question...

Feral schools are also a huge problem, but no one seems to know how to even start tackling them.

But she does, that’s the point.

But they work hard to put off those who won't enhance their league table results, e.g. by failing to meet SEN or even to recognise them, and by excluding others.

I would have no issues sending my kids there. I don't agree with her on many things, but I suspect we would agree on most things. I like discipline, good results and emphasis on education and respecting teachers.

So you really know nothing then.
Suggest you read up on her, not from The Grauniad, and see how she changes the life chances of many kids!
Are you aware of the crisis in education at moment eg behaviour, violence, sexual assault etc? Read up on all of that then come back and tell me which school you would prefer your precious child to be at!

Yes, she runs a very strict school. Everything I have read about it sounds awful.

Do you know anything about her or her school in the slightest??

Gobby grifter. I suspect her good results are mostly due to pushy parents selecting the school and the children with special needs heading off somewhere else.

Exactly. We have to worry so much about whether our children are safe in school, their actual education is a secondary issue.Some schools are psychologically and physically terrifying places.