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've pointed out that, because they have to have fair selection criteria, they can't select only conformist kids. So when non-conforming kids end up there, they are likely to have a very miserable time and may well end up being moved out.

I was about to say, “Well, it’s entirely possible that only the conformist kids go there.” And it is. It’s a famously inflexible place, and most families will have other choices.

But then I thought about that word “conformist”, and I thought, hold on, they’ve chosen to go there, knowing the rules. If they break them because they are “non-conformist”, they can’t say they weren’t warned.

I have no problem with school policies that exclude wilfully defiant people. It isn’t fair on the other children when they are forced to put up with them.

according to people here (and I do not agree in all cases but it is true in some) children with learning disabilities can’t stop turning round, can’t keep still, can’t be “obedient”. In other words, to comply with the law we have to let them disrupt the education of others

No, they will have difficulty, particularly if, as happens all too often, their needs haven't been met in the past. You can't magically switch off the effects of SEN overnight. However, if you (1) provide properly for their needs and (2) exercise normal tolerance and reasonable adjustments the system can work in everyone's interests - not just the interests of non-SEN children. There are a number of schools which manage to make that principle work.

Plus, it's not necessarily an issue of being disruptive. Having the wrong type of shoes disturbs no-one's education, but it's one of those issues that will get you into trouble at Michaela. Would it really hurt to vary the zero tolerance rule so that, say, children with sensory problems can wear whatever shoes they are comfortable with?

Surely there's a halfway house between walking in silence and sheer chaos? Or between getting demerits for scratching and out of control clowning and banter in class. I think its just a load of gimmicky rubbish.

Plus, it's not necessarily an issue of being disruptive. Having the wrong type of shoes disturbs no-one's education, but it's one of those issues that will get you into trouble at Michaela. Would it really hurt to vary the zero tolerance rule so that, say, children with sensory problems can wear whatever shoes they are comfortable with?

Not at all. But if you read their SEN policy they are clear that they do make reasonable adjustments.

We will have to agree to disagree on the rights conflict issue.

They are challenging the status quo by choosing to attend the school. It is atypical, the status quo in the majority of secondary schools is as many teachers and students know, not like this.

Surely there's a halfway house between walking in silence and sheer chaos? Or between getting demerits for scratching and out of control clowning and banter in class. I think its just a load of gimmicky rubbish.

I agree that they seem a little bit strict. I would be happy with the silent corridor rule. It’s easier, quicker and more pleasant for everyone. I don’t care if kids scratch their hands. I do care if they are not listening.

I have no problem with school policies that exclude wilfully defiant people. It isn’t fair on the other children when they are forced to put up with them

But what about the children who aren't wilfully defiant? At schools like Michaela you can find yourself constantly in trouble for minor infringements that you find incredibly difficult to avoid due to disabilities. You may not be excluded, but you may find yourself in a situation where you are constantly in detention or isolation, you are constantly missing lessons and falling behind and it all becomes a vicious circle - so that ultimately you end up moving anyway. In effect, that is what rigid discipline policies are designed to achieve: they don't have to exclude children formally, they just drive them away. Nice for the children left behind, potentially disastrous for the ones on the wrong end. There's a nasty taint of "Damn you Jack, I'm all right" in all of this.

But what about the children who aren't wilfully defiant? At schools like Michaela you can find yourself constantly in trouble for minor infringements that you find incredibly difficult to avoid due to disabilities.

I agree that it is problematic and I would like to understand more about their approach to this. But being “non-conformist” isn’t a disability. It is just choosing not to follow the rules.

There's a nasty taint of "Damn you Jack, I'm all right" in all of this.

And although part of me agrees with this, part of me applauds this school for providing an unapologetic chance for students who can behave well and treat each other well to achieve to their potential. It is my view that inclusion - as admirable as it’s goals are - often punishes these children.

*its

It’s Brent. There are many other choices of school within commuting distance. You choose the right school for your child.

Their admissions process is they do it by lottery. Literally pull names from a hat.

Tbh I don't think a lot of parents would apply if they were completely against the school policy and ethos. They either apply because it suits their child or because that's what they want for their child. If it turns out to not be what the child needed, it's not exactly the school's fault is it?

It's all there for parents to read . I wouldn't send my child there because I know she wouldn't thrive. Succeed , yes. Thrive, no.

I've just noticed that they have 0.4% of children with EHC Plans, against a national average of 4.4%. That's a pretty major discrepancy which isn't accounted for by having greater numbers on SEN support. You have to question whether it is because they seek to avoid taking children with EHCPs and SEN, or children with SEN get driven out, or because they're not making and supporting EHCP applications adequately.

If it turns out to not be what the child needed, it's not exactly the school's fault is it?

In a comprehensive school, it pretty much is.

I went to visit Michaela last academic year. I was full of scepticism and a bit WTF having read their - deliberately- inflexible sounding behaviour policy.

It was fucking awesome. Really, really amazing. There was so much learning going on, teachers had the space in lessons to differentiate properly - and SEN support comes initially through quality first teaching remember.

The thing that jumped out most though was how completely proud every single child was to be part of that community. They adore their school.

And it wasn’t a “set up” visit. I shadowed a teacher and had free rein to talk to whoever I wanted.

I’m really pleased for them - they completely deserve these results (which are on a par with selective private schools)

Many, many of the children have chaotic and difficult contexts, so the consistency they experience there is an invaluable lesson in how life can be different. I’ve attached an excerpt from the ofsted report about SEN students.

What's that extract from? An inspection report? Or just a mission statement?

It’s from the OFSTED report, Rain - I thought I said that.

I wonder how many permanent exclusions there are at this school?

”It’s Brent. There are many other choices of school within commuting distance. You choose the right school for your child.”

You could say the same for faith schools but that causes a right ruckus on here...

Next September though, the school will have pupils in all year groups and therefore revert to lagged census funding. I wonder if that will affect the decisions that are made and quality of education on offer when budgets have to be managed like any other academy on lagged funding.

Faith schools are not the same at all - children can only get in because of the actions of their parents.

I think there are many people who are ideologically opposed to the ethos of the Michaela school, because it doesn’t fit in their nice, left-wing world view, whereas you can’t really argue with the success of this school.

The is an interesting article from Tom Bennett about his visit to Michaela

My DS has ADHD and very poor motor skills. While he is only in primary school, he'd both be anxious about breaking rules AND be completely unable to stop himself from breaking them. He'd be managed out faster than you can say "demerit", thus raising their exam averages.

@MoltoAgitato
School admissions are problematic in general. In my area which is real mix of very low income families to very high income families, only the children of high income families go to the good schools as their parents can afford the properties in catchment.