What does Katharine Birbalsingh do different?

[User2346]

I can’t say I like her but I am intrigued as to how she gets the results which are remarkable.

I know the model of zero tolerance etc but this is copied in a lot of academies without the resounding success.

Is there something different with the teaching methods? Is there an element of selection weeding out children with SEN and EHCP’s?

I would love the perspective of parents who have their DC at the school.

Absolutely. My DM -Scandinavian farm girl from when her country was poor and post war - taught me cooking at home, including a lot of traditional recipes. She taught me how to knit, embroider, make clothes for my toys and then myself, and how to repair textiles. I hated Textiles at school as I could do way more than what was on the curriculum.

She's now friends with a lot of Polish first gen immigrants - their kids go to Polish school on a Saturday and learn a lot of 'creative' things there relating to their culture.

What they have in common is they don't think Dance is a proper GCSE, it's a hobby. And definitely not a secure long term career. And TBH they are right about that, how many kids that do dance/drama actually end up with careers in it?

Their kids grow up knowing that it's important to get a job that pays decent money, so big emphasis on STEM. My DM was very focussed on me going to a school where girls did science.

Interesting points. Our GCSE Textiles group, in a mixed school, is 100% girls.

My DM specifically chose a girls school so I wouldn't be the only girl doing science.

Come to think of it, I didn't think much of Food Tech either as I could already cook.

Which is strange really when you consider that the majority of fashion designers I’d hazard a guess are male.

As well as this, they often have a more “hands off” approach to parenting. The kids are usually more independent and have more of a “can do” attitude.
There are downsides to this too, of course, where parents don’t always know what their kids are up to or where they haven’t been able to excel or enjoy hobbies that need parents to take them too.

Practical subjects are exactly what some people need in order to be employable. Not everyone is able to do well in academic subjects and can easily be turned off school if that's all they get to do, but with practical subjects they might find something they really enjoy that can become a career. Where I am we have good vocational schools after comprehensive for those that prefer practical subjects (they still do the academic subjects but more time is spent on the practical side of their career) to academic.

Students don't magically become engaged and well behaved (and many aren't here) but I think they all benefit from a broad curriculum, including the more academic students.

No, secondary moderns were dumping grounds for those who couldn't get into grammars. These schools are for every single child, no school gets to choose not to follow the national curriculum here, and all children have an equal right to a decent broad education, and can then decide how they prefer to narrow down (academic or vocational) at 16.

True. Every year, though. Only girls.

In an ideal world, of course you are right, @Natsku . But many schools in the UK are dealing with appalling behaviour and unwilling parents. Katharine Birbalsingh’s approach is so very successful (not just exam results, which are beyond successful), it must be worth looking at.

Yes but intake aside, secondary moderns focused on less academic subjects and grammars the academic route. The result of the comprehensive system was always going to be creative subjects are sidelined. There is just not a space not the budget for most comprehensive schools to be able to offer subjects that a minority of a the school can cater for (textiles is a case in point).
even at my child’s private school, only 10% of the year did music gcse. Most of the year were not interested.

If you want a system that for certain children to have a greater creative freedom you have to create specialist schools that aren’t comprehensives. Otherwise these system we have where the focus will be on English/maths and sciences will prevail

My apologies! Crossed wires on my part. Mercia pupils do their homework at school.

Perhaps it is. Its also worth looking at other approaches that don't require narrowing the curriculum and taking away opportunities.

I'm talking about schools that have a fairly equal focus on both academic and creative/practical, not ones leaning more one way or the other (until 16+, when young people know much better where their strengths lie), and these subjects aren't for the minority but for everyone until the last two years, which makes the resources worthwhile (and not every school here has the space or resources, so schools cooperate and share - my DD's school doesn't have a wood/metal work room so students go to the primary school for those lessons. With cooperation between nearby schools it would save a lot of money - one school could have work/metal work, another food tech, another textiles, another music etc.)

And that all sounds amazing but on a practical level, having children moving between schools which aren’t necessarily close to each other isn’t going to work. Timetabling everyone in is going to be another nightmare. When schools are literally just trying to get a huge amount of children to pass their GCSE’s (bearing mind a third failed them) this just isn’t going to work.

Perhaps it should be increased in primary schools then instead, where there isn't the pressure of GCSEs. Give them a good grounding in practical subjects there, then when choosing secondaries they might have a better idea of what's important to them and choose accordingly. Or in areas where they have middle schools then middle school would be a good age for it.

Since when has a UK State school ever offered a "broad, balanced education"?

My single sex grammar school in the 70s was a cramming machine for the public examinations. Nothing more.

You are living in fantasy land and obviously have no clue how schools are run etc. It would be an administrative nightmare to do this plus who pays for the transport?

Most do music and many have a year 6 production. Many also have after school clubs on offer which cover things like dance and drama.

but again, only so many hours in the day and the schools are focused on getting the children out being able to read and write. Many don’t even achieve this. My children passed all their timetables very week as I made sure they knew them. Some children were still on 2 when Mine were on 12. I think you don’t understand the massive spread in ability in children and each teacher has to teach them all together. If you advocate the clever children being segregated and getting to do all the ‘fun’ stuff because they are ahead then that’s fine but I don’t think that would be very popular with the other children’s families

For primary school level they don't need such complex resources so shouldn't need to split between different schools and anything small enough to be transported easily like musical instruments and sewing machines could be a shared resource between schools that are at school A one week, school B the next etc. rather than the children travelling (that would only work at secondary level - here they just walk or bike between the schools, no transport needed, but of course you can't let primary school age children do that, at least not in the UK)

Primary schools already have music lessons etc though. It's in the curriculum.

You can't compare Michaela to a primary school!

These all sound lovely ideas- honestly. But for the cost of doing that I promise you the school will decide to hire one more TA to support the children who are struggling to read.

Do you think Secondary children could walk or bike between schools? Seriously?
So, that would be time consuming - how much of the lesson would be missed?
Also, I'd hate to do that risk assessment, crossing roads etc.
Plus some teachers would have to walk with them for supervision.
So. Expensive, difficult, risky, and a waste of staff time.

Definitely don't advocate it only being for the 'clever' children, that would not be good or helpful.

If primary schools are struggling to teach children to even read and write then the current way that schools work clearly isn't working and drastic change is needed (obviously not talking about my idea here, I mean changing how they are teaching or drastically increasing special ed support or holding children back until they reach the necessary standards).

That's understandable, that is a bigger priority of course.

Looking at my new cohort, there seem to be more children with ADHD and ASD than ever before. In some classes, it's more than half. This is probably down to more diagnoses happening, but it really is concerning.