Michaela School and behaviour - AIBU

[herculepoirot2]

AIBU to think that you might read this behaviour policy and think it is authoritarian and unnecessary, but to also think that, with results four times better than the national average, these people might have a point about the benefits to young people of being expected to work hard and behave well?

mcsbrent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Behaviour-Policy-11.02.19.pdf

I think there is a lot more to Michaela than “strict”. Their relentless high expectations, focus on kindness and absolute focus on learning being an amazing thing are as much a part of the exam success as the strictness, IMO.

Exactly. I think it speaks for itself that this approach has worked for them. Yes, more evidence is needed before we categorically declare this the approach that works for most children, but I am certainly edging towards that position.

This is the ofsted report

This makes interesting reading - especially the “personal development and welfare” section - it answers some of the questions about whether they are creating robots of young people who can take on the world.

I agree that more evidence is neede, because there are surely schools out there who get great results without this very draconian approach (I went to a selective private school and it was no where like as strict as this).

I also think comparing to NI or Scandinavia, which are far more monocultural, is pretty pointless. We know that monocultural societies get better results. We are not a monocultural society in England so what are people suggesting? That we should return to that?

Regarding critical thinking, I have seen in a number of threads people who have colleagues who have gone through Far Eastern schooling who on paper are as bright as can be but have really fallen down when required to think outside the box. Luckily this school doesn’t sound quite that bad.

I read an article a while back about what education systems create the most enquiringly minds and those which regard teachers with very high regard are right up there and that sounds like something this school is getting right.

However, is till do have concerns with how these kids will get on after school. We know that at uni state school kids do better than the spoon-fed private school children. I’m not sure that Michaela children will fall into the first bracket.

It also states that the school has a higher proportion of disadvantaged pupils than the national average, a similar proportion of pupils with SEN, and fewer pupils leaving part-way through their education than at other schools.

I agree that more evidence is neede, because there are surely schools out there who get great results without this very draconian approach (I went to a selective private school and it was no where like as strict as this).

Do you see, though, that achieving such results when you can select on the basis of income and intellect is a different way of achieving the same thing? This school does it through its policies. Your school did it by not taking disadvantaged students.

@Namenic I was wondering if the staff to pupil ratio has been high at Michaela for the last few years,

It would have been very high to begin with as they grew the school from Y7. So these children started in a school of 120 pupils. If there was one teacher for each subject, that would have been an amazing pupil teacher ratio. I think there is an obvious advantage in just starting with just the new 11 year olds in that this would be their only experience of secondary school, so whatever the rules, that would be their normal. With the added bonus of no older children to be a bad influence.

Yes. To me it makes a nonsense out of many schools being called comprehensive - they’re anything but. This school will suit some children and would utterly fail others. But it’s meant to be a comprehensive, for all local children.

However, is till do have concerns with how these kids will get on after school

I think the school’s clear push on oracy skills will go a long way to ensure the children are fine. They are giving them the tools to effectively access the world. Oracy is one of the single biggest “gaps” between advantaged and disadvantaged children.

It would have been very high to begin with as they grew the school from Y7.

It would certainly have been high. I actually think this is one of the things Government needs to address. Classes of 34 kids and teachers with 2 hours of PPA need to be considered as obvious examples of bad practice in education, rather than the norm.

But it’s meant to be a comprehensive, for all local children.

It is. All local children are free to apply. They appear to be choosing not to, allowing those children who do apply to flourish.

@CecilyP - good point about higher staffing. But @CassianAndor I think the class sizes are likely to be bigger than private schools. It’s sad that at least 1 teacher per subject is seen as ‘luxury’ with a year group of 120. I was v lucky to go to a good selective private school with a year group of 60 and class sizes of 15-20 up to gcse.

To me it makes a nonsense out of many schools being called comprehensive

Why?

@CassianAndor - my DH went to a state comprehensive. He didn’t feel he learnt much there as they didn’t give him things that challenged him (relatively high intelligence). Were they catering to his needs? Is it comprehensive or catering to many people in the middle?

Bad behaviour in class didn’t help his education either.

Bad behaviour in class didn’t help his education either.

This breaks my heart. I recently taught a lad who disrupted EVERY lesson without fail. No SEN. He passed. Many of his classmates didn’t. He didn’t deserve it.

So the great results could easily be due to the staff: student ratio and nothing to do with the behaviour policies.
And parents will be choosing the school for their children who will cope with this behaviour policy - so more likely to be calm, quiet children - not children like my DS who couldn't avoid fidgeting if his life depended on it.
And much like faith schools, the parents have positively chosen the school (and parents whose own education was lacking can also be very invested in their own children's education) so the parents have already given their own children a leg up. I know there are still a lot of parents who just send their child to the nearest school, the catchment school, or the one they went to themselves, with no real thought to what your child would suit.
So the school has great ratios, children who are calm already, and invested parents.

Looks like a bog standard behaviour policy? I’ve worked in a few schools and is pretty much typical.

So the school has great ratios, children who are calm already, and invested parents.

Yes. Parents who are invested in their children being calm and obedient,
teachers who can teach. Guess what? That works! There is no alchemy going on here.

So how do we get education to work for:
Children whose SEN means they struggle to be calm.
Children whose homes are not calm and whose parents actually value aggression/talking back.
Schools that are not so lucky to have so many staff?
Because otherwise this is just making the rich richer.

We had to walk to the left hand side of the corridor in single file, we stood to greet anyone entering our class, we only spoke when we had raised our hand and been given the go ahead by the teacher. And probably many other rules I’ve forgotten that would sound horrendous to anyone who never experienced it. But it was a school full of mutual respect. No-one would be shouting at anyone up a corridor. Not another pupil not a teacher shouting at a pupil. Class time was learning time no-one was in any doubt about that. As soon as teacher entered that was it. Shut up, eyes front, chat later. It was (still is) an excellent school and produces great results year after year. I feel very lucky to have been able to attend it. I feel really sad and angry for children I hear about on MN who are having to deal with 30 hours a week of chaos and very little actual schooling

I hear you. Similar experience. We knew the rules. We could talk in the corridor but not boisterous talking. Walk on the left. Stand up when a teacher comes in. No shouting out in class. I can't remember how it was imposed - we just knew. It could have been due to the selection process and we knew that if we misbehaved, we were out of that school.

I have no doubt that my school has the same policies some 30 years later. In my case, a selective school with calm behaviour must help with results.

This school is not selective. I would love to see how they teach so a pupil is not 'bored' and can't do their work so they play up.

Because otherwise this is just making the rich richer.

These aren’t rich children. These are disadvantaged children having their disadvantage removed by being offered an educational environment comparable to what the richest children expect to receive.

Education needs to work for everyone. For me, and I know many will disagree, that means schools that are adapted to what different children need and will respond to.

This is their admission policy. They take from their local area. It’s not a rich area at all, but it will be interesting to see if the school affects house prices....

Exclusion for parents misdemeanours? Is it a private school? As that's not allowed in the Exclusion guidance for academies and maintained schools.

Other than that, it's not my cup of tea.

It seems to have very few white working-class boys, a particularly poorly performing group, we’re told. Interesting to see whether this would work with them too.

It seems to have very few white working-class boys, a particularly poorly performing group, we’re told. Interesting to see whether this would work with them too.

That’s the area as a whole, though.

And yes, it would be interesting. For me, the more interesting question is, if it doesn’t, why?