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

@drspouse - for children with SEN, more money for either 1:1 support or if appropriate small classes with people with similar problems (I realise that this may not work for some as it depends on the issue, but some kids may prefer not feeling like they are the only one struggling with x). Other vocational options alongside academic ones.

Good adult education especially for subjects required for employment. I’m not sure what else you can do for the families where parents encourage behaviour that disrupts other kids or don’t have time to help their child with behavioural issues. Maybe if you had unlimited money you could mentor those kids but not sure it will be v effective if you have different messages at home and in the holidays.

And much like faith schools, the parents have positively chosen the school

That’s not strictly speaking true. I read that in the first year, the school was not oversubscribed; and any child who wanted a place and was not accepted at a higher choice was offered a place. So the school wasn’t the first choice for many of this years GCSE cohort.

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.
Where is your evidence that state school children perform better at university than those from private schools? Genuine question, interested.

I wonder what other schools are thinking about this....

These aren’t rich children
I am aware of that. It was a metaphor.
They are rich in that their parents care about their education and they already have the right behaviour.

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.

While I would agree that they are unlikely to be rich children, I wonder how many are genuinely disadvantaged. The Ofsted says above the national average without further specifying. A lot of reports say it is in the inner city but since when was suburban Wembley the inner city?

While I would agree that they are unlikely to be rich children, I wonder how many are genuinely disadvantaged. The Ofsted says above the national average without further specifying. A lot of reports say it is in the inner city but since when was suburban Wembley the inner city?

The inner city is Westminster/St Paul’s. No disadvantaged kids there. Brent is a tough place to live for lots of kids.

I wonder what other schools are thinking about this....

There are a few teachers on this thread - I’m one, Hercule is...

I think most of us are interested in how they got the results and would be very happy if we could get similar for our students. But it’s not one size fits all.

They are rich in that their parents care about their education and they already have the right behaviour.

I see. Yes. Would that they were all so rich.

St Paul’s is no more inner city than Wembley, though I guess you couldn’t get much much more inner city than Westminster. Though, there must be loads of disadvantaged kids within reasonable travelling of the later!

I think most of us are interested in how they got the results and would be very happy if we could get similar for our students. But it’s not one size fits all.

Yes I’m also wondering that. While good discipline, high motivation and high attendance are likely to mean that all pupils will do better than if the opposite was the case, to get those really high grades would pupils not have to have the ability in the first place?

St Paul’s is no more inner city than Wembley.

I don’t understand whether you mean geographically or economically. They are very different places either way!

Brent is a tough place to live for lots of kids

How well do you actually know the catchment around Michaela and the catchment actually accepted by Michaela?

Talking about geography, obviously!

I suspect that for those who have poor behaviour and unsupportive families, having apprenticeships where they can work and do qualifications might help. Sometime kids/families don’t see the point in learning x because they don’t think they will use it. But if they work and see that to progress they have to learn x, there would be more motivation.

It does feel like some people on this thread are looking for any excuse for the success of this school to be due to factors other than high behaviour standards which are rigorously implemented, allowing teachers to teach.

Crap socioeconomic factors can’t be used as an excuse for children. Yes, it makes the schools’ job harder, but even more important for schools to get it right.

My question about the Michaela School is now it has had its first run of exam results and they are so successful, will it now look to run an academy chain? I can imagine the leaders of tough inner-city schools across the country are looking at the Michaela results and thinking how can they replicate them.

I' m not sure what else you can do for the families where parents encourage behaviour that disrupts other kids or don’t have time to help their child with behavioural issues.
I don't think there are many parents who actively encourage bad behaviour, but there are parents who have themselves been through a permissive, undisciplined state education and have no real concept of how to effectively parent their own children. Society as a whole needs to change, and I for one (a retired teacher) think that Michaela is getting it right and ought to be a model for education in this country. Lots of posters say, 'but it won't work for SEN children,' or 'what do you do with children who can't sit still' etc, but Michaela does manage these children effectively. I am 66 now and attended a state junior school where there were over 40 children in a class, and I can't recall any instances of children who were 'unable to sit still.' It was obligatory and no one questioned it.

How well do you actually know the catchment around Michaela and the catchment actually accepted by Michaela?

Very.

^Brent is a tough place to live for lots of kids

How well do you actually know the catchment around Michaela and the catchment actually accepted by Michaela?^

I think there was a post on one of the education boards when the school first opened where the poster had looked at the 4 nearest primary schools to Michaela and found them all to be high achieving. Of course any secondary will have a much wider catchment.

which are rigorously implemented, allowing teachers to teach

Allowing teachers to teach is great.
The maths results were very impressive - lots of 9s.

Even with great teachers, I wonder how that helps with actual ability in maths.

Being able to teach without worrying about behaviour is great. But you've still got children who come from a low starting point who suddenly get a lot of really high maths results. It does have implications for 'nature' vs 'nurture' in education.

I haven’t read the policy, but I think better behaviour policies, thoughtfully and competently enforced, are fantastic.

We should expect more from our kids.

I have a SN child and things like silent corridors would really help him. Chaos is very stressful for most SN kids imho, better rules = more inclusivity.

120 is a very small cohort, 600 to a school is very small. Is it easier to implement this with smaller numbers? I imagine so.

My DC has a pan of nearly 300 and it a similar size to other schools in the area.

A friend of mine does actually work there. They love it because it means that they get to teach their subject (which encourages critical thinking anyway), without dealing with constant disruption.

It is not a model that will work for everyone, but with everything there's an element of choice and if this school is nit for a child, then there are other options.

I'm a died in the wool leftie and work with lots of teenagers (SEN and not) but there's a definite deterioration in ability to listen, follow instructions and a complete lack of respect among some teenagers these days. All backgrounds, as some of the ones I coach are very middle class. There's also a feeling that they are entitled to receive coaching and it's not a privilege and I'm their servant to do as they demand, rather than the experienced sportsperson there to teach them skills. I do wonder how some of them will survive in the adult world - as an employer as well as a coach and member of society.

I don't think there are many parents who actively encourage bad behaviour,
Be a man!
Boys will be boys!
Stand up for yourself!
You need to get back at them!
Any of these sound familiar? To teachers?
They can't tell you what to do!