To not understand why Katharine Birbalsingh is so controversial

[TemporaryPosition]

Just that. Am I being unreasonable in thinking the results she achieves at her school and start in life her students get which they likely otherwise wouldn't - is something to be celebrated and perhaps we should look to what's going wrong in schools which face the the same socioeconomic challenges but get far poorer results. Surely I'm not being unreasonable to wonder this.

I’m 70/30 against.
In her favour, she thinks outside the box, she clearly cares and wants to take direct action to achieve tangible outcomes for young people who in these areas. Visitors, parents and students are impressed with what they see.
On the other hand, I find her personally not someone I could take to. I feel she’s too ideological, which can be linked to intransigence, rigidity and unwillingness to accept other viewpoints. I feel there are elements of her claims that are disingenuous. Whilst I am sure, as she says, that Michaela isn’t selective, behaviour expectations are clearly stated so students who can’t/wont conform will either not apply, or leave. I also feel strongly that her very political and often angry public appearances are unbecoming of a school head. She seems to be able to say some quite breathtaking things and there be no come back for her.
I’ve read many Michaela school reviews by parents and pupils over the years and seen a spread of opinion. I remember one review in which the parent said their child had left as it made their child depressed. Many reviews praised the school.

Superbly missing the point!
I clearly stated that if your child was passionate about an creative arts subject you wouldn't send your child to Michaela.

She can't literally pick the children she takes, or set entry requirements, except of course at sixth form, which is normal.

But I believe her school does a lot of what is considered "social selection", where some students are filtered out because the school is not the right fit for them. This doesn't necessarily mean a better or worse intake, but it does likely mean a very homogeneous intake, which means her policies can be a bit more "one size fits all".

For example, the school doesn't put that much focus on the arts and many arts subjects aren't available at GCSE. For some families, this is a deal breaker, and they would choose a different school. That's normally fine in London, where most people do have some school choice. That's less ideal in a rural town where you are the only secondary school in a reasonable commute- a lot of parents would complain, for starters!

She thinks her model would work everywhere- as someone who teaches in a rural school with a quite different approach (which still gets decent results and positive progress etc), I don't think her model would work for us- because we can't be socially selective, we couldn't narrow our curriculum as much as she does, and students with SEN who wouldn't fit at her school (and there are some, whatever people say) have to come to us regardless, and we have to accomadate them.

I didn't know that about separate science- I knew the lower number of GCSEs. For some courses at some universities, that is limiting their options, and arguably also putting them at a disadvantage if they wanted to do science A-levels elsewhere. It's interesting that she pushes such a narrative in terms of increasing student's life chances, but isn't putting as much focus on sciences, which offer a very broad range of opportunities across careers in the UK.

Also a very good point about their results being boosted by home languages- FWIW I do think doing a gcse in a language you speak is worthwhile, because at least you have a bit of paper to prove your abilities! Do they really not teach Spanish, though?

As @WhereAreWeNow says and the statistics from @0ohLarLar show, KB is hugely anti STEM, at a time when

firstly, the UK desperately needs to up its game in STEM

and

secondly, a career in STEM is a proven way to improve one’s economic prospects

This opportunity is largely foreclosed for Michaela pupils with only 2.6% electing individual sciences at GCSE.

Furthermore, amongst the presumably tiny cohort (see @0ohLarLar ’s post) who take A level Physics, only 16% are girls as opposed to a national average of about 23-24%. KB says grandly that she sees no need to encourage girls into science, but her distaste is tangible; one would think that science is something stuck to the bottom of her shoe.

The list of A level subjects is very small. Excluding Computer Science, Geology, Sociology, etc, is borderline understandable: one can do these subjects at university with A levels from the list; however pupil enthusiasm would seem to suffer.

But the only MFL on offer is French and there is virtually no Arts training. All of this is packaged as elitism when in reality I suspect it is budget (and profit) driven.

Also a very good point about their results being boosted by home languages
This happens in lots of schools and not unique to Michaela. It will be noticeable in north London where 50%+ are EAL but in my rural school 30+ years ago, a British girl who lived in Netherlands for a while was entered for a Dutch GCSE. Schools will always be looking for ways to up their league tables with minimal effort.

This. She’s high on the attention and for some reason needs the validation of being controversial ( aka a ‘truth teller’).
Genuine game changing people are often quiet, get on with the job, empower those around them and don’t seek personal credit. But that’s boring. Innit?

So are you judging her entirely on her results, without actually knowing anything about what she says or how she gets those results?

Yup. It’s not elitism. The A Level offer is considerably narrow than my own school for instance.

For those of you that have never heard her speak, here's a recent interview that will give you her views on education.

I just need to know she’s a supporter of JP to know everything I need to know about her.

I think she takes advantage of a community where many don't speak English as a first language to put a load of bright kids through only 7/8 GCSE's.
In any other school parents would not be happy with a capable kid not having the opportunity to take triple science, and the typical 9-10 GCSE's, and the local community would know that usually taking only 7 GCSE's is something more typical for students struggling academically. I think because many of the parents are 1st generation immigrants they perhaps don't realise their kids are missing out here.

Its denying some kids the opportunity to meet their potential by studying a broader range of subjects.

And it's doubly annoying because Ofsted seem to turn a blind eye to this at Michaela where any other school would be questioned as to why students weren't studying a broader curriculum and being presented with opportunities that meet their capabilities.

I would not send my children there because I don't want them only doing 7 GCSE's when they are capable of more

They are also very restrictive in terms of what subject combinations students are allowed to do - all geared towards combinations that are extremely complimentary making it easier for the students to score highly.

Two of my neighbour's children go to a school modelled on Michaela and that also get excellent results, being ranked second to Michaela on Progress 8 (Michaela is first). It's in the leafy suburbs of the city, in a purpose-built building, and is oversubscribed by 70%. Initially, I was horrified by the restrictive nature of its methods, especially tracking the teacher for each second of every lesson. Since then, I've changed my mind and identified things that would probably make a positive difference in all secondary schools - silent corridors, no smartphones, family lunch with pupils serving and clearing away. I can also see that flawless behaviour enables teachers to teach. Despite all that, I understand that one of the children next door is given numerous detentions every week. That's been the case for three years, so clearly his behaviour is not improving.

As to Birbalsingh, she is a disruptor, in a good way, but sets out to antagonise.

It's mainly because she's an absolutely massive dick, and anyone who spouts faux 'oh why is she so controversial' rubbish isn't much better

In don't agree she's a massive dick. She's controversial and has created a school in a clear-headed way. She doesn't care who she upsets because she's so sure she's right. In academic terms, the school is a success. Bridget Phillipson has made herself look foolish in being so hostile to her.

Has she been hostile though? In the interviews I have seen it’s more the other way round

I think BP has quite rightly treated her in a similar way to other respected headteachers, but has also put scrutiny on her. As all other schools get. KB is used to being able to do what she wants, take the curriculum for example, other schools have been ripped apart from their curriculum but she has been allowed to do what she wants. Now she can’t and has to follow the same rules as others, she doesn’t like it.

As a neurodiverse teacher I can think of very little more hideous than being constantly tracked by students sitting up ridiculously straight (regardless of the fact that the heights of chairs and desks make it unbelievably uncomfortable to do so

I’m guessing she’s not teaching children that they can actually change their sex.

She’s probably teaching children how to take responsibility for their actions. How to do well and rise up in this world.

Probably why some left wing people / Labour faithfuls don’t like her.

Agree she doesn’t select- if you watch the documentary about the school in itv you can see a family appealing not getting a place, and it’s the local authority dealing with the admissions.

however this is very key for me:

the demographic of Michaela parents won't be replicated everywhere. Its a diverse urban area with a high proportion of students from 1st or 2nd generation immigrant families. The culture around education is strong and parents will push their kids to study. You will not get this in a sleepy, typically british dormitory town in wiltshire

I grew up in the area and the underlying message is she’s taking impoverished children with no chances and giving them an education they wouldn’t otherwise get. To some extent this is true, as their progress 8 score is brilliant.

However there is something not quite right about the perception she gives of the demographic.

whilst Wembley does have a few large deprived estates it’s generally a suburban area with large (and very expensive) properties and lots of professional families.

It is highly ethically diverse, but in terms of areas in the uk you could be opening a school targeting poor kids, it’s not really an area that stands out as a priority for this.

there has been talk about opening a Michaela in Stevenage Hertfordshire and that’s another area that rings the same for me- some deprivation but hardly a priority area to be pulling neglected children out of poverty.

thats a long winded way of saying that it’s easily to say you’re helping children out of poverty in very well connected well located areas which are generally very prosperous locations. She might struggle more in a truly deprived coastal or rural town, or some of the ex industrial and mining communities.

She might struggle more in a truly deprived coastal or rural town, or some of the ex industrial and mining communities.

It was tried, the ex dep head of Michaela took over a school in Great Yarmouth.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/3031326-Well-we-wondered-if-Michaela-would-work-elsewhere-Great-Yarmouth-sick-buckets-and-mandatory-smiling

I'm not sure how it turned out, Progress 8 at the school is now 0 which is good compared to what it used to be, but Barry Smith is no longer the headteacher, would quite like to know what happened.

The parental buy in is key I agree.

They may be deprived on some measures but they are over represented in the privileges of stable families with high aspirations.

I think the best thing about the school is the family lunch approach and the secular ethos.

I understand narrowing the curriculum is not going to work for everyone but it's a great strategy for improving results for the majority.

Also schools should be focused on teaching and not be the levers for solving all societies ills that politicians try to make them with endless interventions and add ons.

It would be great to see her methods applied in other areas to test them in different contexts.

Why wouldn't anyone want that given the incredible results?

Because she's mates with Jordan Peterson?? And he's bad because...he's bad you know!! Genius logic 🤣 🤣

Barry Smith is still all over Twitter. He also makes a fortune in consultancy.
Insists that SLANT style teaching is the only way to get good results. Which is ridiculous.

It’s not really replicable or scalable. It will be interesting to see what happens when KB is no longer involved.

I never thought I would see people supporting the misogynistic JP going into schools on Mumsnet! What’s next Andrew Tate???!!!

I dislike her for many reasons but mainly because she believes one size fits all and it really doesn't and she thinks her way is the only way and she refuses to take criticism.
She has perpetuated gender stereotypes by saying girls don't like hard maths and she said parents should always side with the teacher whatever the child says.
She courts publicity and says controversial things for effect.