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.

St Helenas may have free school lunches but they have a below average progress 8 score and below average GCSE results, only 32% of their students get G5+ for GCSE English and Maths, they also have a reputation for poor SEN support and bullying not being effectively dealt with.

What country are you comparing to? The UK is far from the only country that has a thing for uniform.

I don't think it's massively important either way, except that if you're going to have it, it's a rule that you have to enforce.

Most other countries that have uniform are in countries that have very different educational systems to the UK (eg far east and developing countries). Many are ex-British empire/commonwealth (I think that school uniform has to be one of the most enduring British exports).

Most comparable countries to the UK don’t have uniform. Most of Europe doesn’t.

Uniform is a waste of money and time. Teachers should not have to spend their time policing it. And in a world where workplace clothing has become more relaxed British schools are still wedded to an outdated system of clothing.

St Paul’s Girls is totally irrelevant as it has a demographic that is nothing like any state school in the UK.

Finland. Most of Europe doesn't have uniforms, and Europe is more comparable to the UK than Africa and Asia (where most other uniform countries are)

A high rate of self selection/self exclusion, and relentless focus on an extremely limited curriculum.

But its demographic is similar to many private schools that also have uniform but still fail to outperform it.

And if the best school in the country can consistently hang onto that accolade with no uniform, it really does suggest that, everything else being equal, uniform is not necessary for academic success. As many European countries can also attest.

I love uniform and support the strict implementation of it.
I don't believe teachers have to earn respect, unless they are abusive. I think they deserve to be respected.
I have no problem with silence in corridors.
I have no problem with Michaela's homework requirement.
I have to laugh at the idea of British people teaching my children food tech when my own community has far better food culture. I can teach them how to cook, learn music, and sew. What I can't do is teach them Maths, English or Science.

I am not KB. But parents like me do exist.

Its great that parents can teach cooking, sewing etc. at home but not all parents can or will. There's many children out there growing up in homes where meals are takeaways or beige freezer food and no one is teaching them how to cook or what to cook, and then most of them will do the same with their families, resulting in generations of people with poor health due to poor diet taking up more healthcare resources which effects everyone. Far better to teach all children, even the ones who are lucky enough not to need it, home ec and health studies. And not like the food tech lessons I had for my gcse, where we pretty much only made cakes, and not very often either - only cooked one actual proper meal in the whole two years.

Well, it's a jolly good job i didn't accuse anyone of anything then, isn't it? You just didn't read my posts properly.

Nothing I've mentioned is hyperbole. Its happening to thousands of families up and down the country. Its interesting that you choose to use that word about someone who is simply setting the record straight about disabled children having legal rights, and also about them being failed by schools and the tactics that schools use to discriminate against disabled children.

Wow. Do you really not understand that not all parents want to or are equipped to teach the things that you are so proud of being able to teach your children?
A PP has already explained much more eloquently than I could about this being a vicious circle that needs to be broken.
Your superiority complex about your country’s food culture and your personal ability/willingness to teach your children things at home is not going to fix this issue for the many people who are in a different position.

Private schools also have a narrow curriculum, keeping the non-academic subjects as extra-curricular activities. The idea is that if you have a depth of knowledge of the core academic subjects it provides a wide basis for future study and careers, whereas studying non-academic subjects cuts off your options very early.

Also, practically every time you turn on the news there's someone lobbying for something to be taught in schools or a government initiative for something to be taught in schools. Whether it is toothbrushing or knife crime prevention or the dangers of drinking alcohol abroad, time given over to social issues is time taken away from academic progress. Some children somewhere are sitting through a physics lesson while others are having valuable time taken up being told that carrying knives is bad, even though the only possible way school will stop you becoming a criminal is giving you future prospects that you don't want to mess up.

The biggest difference is parental attitudes. So many parents don't bother to teach their children how to behave and some actively encourage them to misbehave. They don't provide any support for the side of education than requires enthusiasm and stability and discipline.

'some children somewhere are sitting through a physics lesson while others are having valuable time taken up being told that carrying knives is bad'
So you don't think schools should teach things like this?

'The biggest difference is parental attitudes. So many parents don't bother to teach their children how to behave and some actively encourage them to misbehave.'
But if schools aren't teaching, for want of a better term, social responsibility and how to be a decent citizen, then what happens to the children of parents like this?

No school is ever going to educate a person out of being a knife criminal by giving anti-knife crime lessons. The only possible way for schools to stop students from becoming criminals is to give them the hope of an alternative future before that rot sets in.

If parents don't teach a child social responsibility then schools have zero hope of teaching that child social responsibility. All that will happen is that the children who don't need to be socialised will be penalised by having valuable time taken away from their academic education to be frittered on advice they don't need.

Not all kids are best suited to an 'academic education'. Many kids aren't traditionally academic, but can and do still benefit from school and contribute positively to the school culture.

I suppose the question is what is the role of a school? Is it possible (desirable?) to have a school teach things that the PP thinks is her job as a parent? A school cannot be all things to all people - my heart always sinks when someone says that XYZ should be taught in school because it means that something else will have to be cut from the curriculum.

Yes. Ultimately parents do have to take some responsibility for their children. Perhaps children who are known to social services (or something like that) should be recommended for an additional program? Not sure what I really mean by that but as you say, time given up to teach stuff than many children will learn at home (and should) is time spent away from the academic education school should be about.

Which comes down to was the system better then we had grammars/ secondary moderns?

Was the problem with that system simply the unfairness of the section procedure at age 11 but actually the idea of having academic and lesser academic schools has merit?

I thinking does but basing the pathway on a test done at 11 seems flawed to me. But at least back in those days there was a lot more adult education on offer for those who came off the academic route earlier.

They can go to other schools, surely, if they think Michaela is harsh or restrictive or miserable? Why should all schools be the same when all kids aren't the same? Many kids are perfectly happy wearing polyester uniform- 🙄- working hard and believing that grades matter. Why do parents who are not happy get to dictate policy for all schools?

I would love for a Michaela parent to come on here and tell us how the school is..

Well she doesn't say that - Michaela is non selective and takes the pupils it's given by Brent - including those with SEN. This is a link to their SEN policy and the named SENCO. https://michaela.education/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/SEN-Information-Document-2024-Signed.pdf

Their intake is very mixed - 25% are eligible for free school meals, some are SEN. She STILL gets results that surpass many private schools.

The argument is she puts off potential parents by being honest about the ethos of the school and parents have to think hard about whether or not it is the right school for their child, SEN or not. Parents of SEN children are more likely to be put off and therefore selectiveness by the back door. I personally have no issue with this myself as why would you send your children somewhere that isn’t right for them and is too small a school to be able to give the level of support needed but others think this is unfair and schools should accommodate everyone regardless and should bend the rules for certain students

I don’t think there will ever be consensus on this issue. Some people believe schools should be completely homogenous and every child gets the same experience and the same subject offering and others believe they should all be different with parents being able to select the school that is right for their child.

Well numerous people on this thread have said that (in their opinion) the school does not cater well enough for SEN pupils, whom they suggest need more of a free-for-all environment.
So they can decide then to send their SEN children elsewhere.
But what they prefer is that Michaela change their methods that have been very clearly beneficial for many pupils to a non/uniform etc place to sit their own child with ‘sensory’ issues.
So typical of the issues were have in schools of entitled and demanding parents wanting the whole system to bend to their own child, rather than understanding that the school has to cater for other children’s needs as well as their own…

And how are the practical lessons to be delivered when - in some schools - behaviour is so poor that the lesson becomes unsafe because the badly behaved kids start attacking each other with a saw / flicking boiling water at people? I have been looking round secondary schools and was struck by the teachers at the grammar school explaining how great it is that their kids actually get to do experiments in most Chemistry lessons and how that is not the norm in other schools.

I too am a huge advocate of a broad curriculum but can see from the responses on this thread the challenges of delivering it - all because pupils can’t be trusted to behave themselves. It is profoundly depressing how in so many different ways the bad behaviour of the few - who cannot be expelled - ruins the school experience of the many. The answer is surely to remove the few into a separate school/PRU and allow the many to flourish.

@EsmaCannonball "Private schools also have a narrow curriculum, keeping the non-academic subjects as extra-curricular activities. The idea is that if you have a depth of knowledge of the core academic subjects it provides a wide basis for future study and careers, whereas studying non-academic subjects cuts off your options very early."

Independent schools (and the better state schools) provide a very broad curriculum at GCSE: art, music, drama, sports, triple science, multiple languages - none of which KB's school provides. Pupils aren't permitted to do more than 7 GCSEs at her school and many subjects simply aren't a possibility. The range of subjects in the sixth form is equally narrow.

While the school clearly works for those pupils who choose to go there, and who's parents wish them to focus on a very narrow, academic curriculum, it would not work at all in an area where you have no choice but to go to your catchment/local school (i.e. anywhere outside of big towns and cities).