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.

Challenging Bridget Phillipson is fine. Going on a rant and accusing her of being a Marxist is not.

it doesn’t matter to many people. I know this goes against the grain of Mumsnet lore and wisdom. But there are great swathes of people who manage to have perfectly successful and happy lives without them. My sister is a DI in the police force. She never passed gcse maths. She has a degree but no maths gcse.
my son doesn’t need gcse maths to do his job.
People who work in factories and shops and pubs and cleaners and street cleaners and entrepreneurs and business owners and self employed tradespeople. Plenty of them don’t have a maths GCSE.

But shouldn't the assumption be that kids should achieve maths, rather than writing it off as unimportant. That attitude is why we have fairly low levels of functional numeracy and literacy in large sections of the population. She sets a standard whereby the assumption is that each child will achieve m+e ie high aspirations.

It only works when there is a choice of schools though. Import the system to a rural area in a school with the only 6th form for miles, and all you are doing is limiting choices and not stretching the very brightest kids.

Obviously because 1 size fits all doesn't work however I live in a rural area and our choice of state secondary schools have abysmally low outcomes + behaviour. Most parents if given the choice would choose Michaela style school over the current offer.
The point is that parents who actively choose Michaela know what they are subscribing too.

She was asked a question and gave an honest answer according to her own experience and the research.

Should the question not have been asked? Should she have lied?

I can’t imagine why a 15 year old would be put off doing physics a level because of what she said. I would have thought her own teachers, parents and peers would have more influence.

Obviously it is great to aim for a whole cohort passing maths and English but nationally this will never be 'allowed' as the pass percentage is now norm referenced rather than criteria referenced, so roughly the same proportion of every cohort is allowed to pass each year.

It is frustrating when politicians say 'we need to aim for higher number passing GCSE core subjects' when they prevent this to stop grade inflation.

Exactly. In fact it really calls into question KB’s intelligence as she clearly doesn’t know what a Marxist is!

I think the whole idea that the only reason girls don’t go into stem is because of sexism is dead. Obviously sexism has been a factor historically, but even in highly egalitarian contexts women choose stem less than men do.

The white working class does the worst in education. I know of a Michaela-style school that does brilliantly in a white, working-class, rural context. Interestingly, as the school is just the catchment school, parents don’t really have a lot of choice about sending them there. Many families do not value education and often they hate the school. But it gets far and away the best results in the area despite having the most difficult cohort.

Firstly, what's wrong with being a Marxist? Secondly, Phillipson is not a Marxist.

I think she perhaps means 'cultural Marxist'. Another disputed term... and I don't want to put words is anyones mouths or incorrectly interpret what they said.

Because the education complex hates underprivileged minority children being successful. They are meant to remain as failures so they can keep their programmes and conferences and funding and teeth gnashing going. She makes them look bad because the children in her school achieve results that they see as unacceptable. People will start to think the kids they fail to educate should be getting good results too.

"You give the impression of having an unreasonable and unwarranted dislike of academies and free schools, blinded by a Marxist ideology."

is what Birbalsingh said in her letter to Phillipson. Something about wanting branded ties, which is actually fine, the Labour policy makes additional allowances for branded ties.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-problem-is-the-education-secretary-trying-to-solve/

I'd love her trust to take over our shitty local secondary and for the education blob to implement her culture and standards in many many schools. Give it 50 years and it would transform our country.

Well, if it walks like a duck....

Don't be silly.

Yes she doesn't treat her pupils as victims which is clearly unforgivable.

How many GCSEs do they usually do?
I notice that for Sixth Form, you need eight 7s (and 8s in your chosen subjects).
If they are doing eight GCSEs to that level, it's quite impressive.

Would not be the school for me or my kids, I disagree with her politics (and Jordan Peterson) but so long as people have a choice not to send their kids there, then I think it's a great opportunity for families.

She's definitely controversial though, so OP, YABU.

A current thread on MN is about the reasons teachers give for their job being unbearable. The main ones are behaviour and parents’ demands. KB seems to have control of both of these issues. There are swathes of unhappy teachers and disruptive pupils whose lives would be transformed by working or studying at a school like Michaela.

I should have clarified, I was talking specifically about the restricted range of subjects.

But what's the point of offering a range of subjects when kids aren't passing the 5-6 core ones eg M, E, Sciences + 1 x MFL etc? Getting good passes in those are what enable kids to progress to the next stage (whatever that might be). The local state secondary around here has an approx 20-30% achieving 5 x grade 5+ GCSEs each year. That means 70% of kids coming out don't have sufficient GCSEs for them to progress but yeh they get offered a wider range of subjects but to what end?

The system is set up so that a significant number of students won’t get that level. No matter what we do. The exams are not criteria referenced. There will ALWAYS be failing students under the current grading regime. Always.

Yes approx 30%, not 70%!

Those who say that Michaela gets those amazing results because they select their intake and do fewer GCSEs are being unfair (or perhaps biased). From what I've heard about the teaching (for maths in particular), the curriculum is incredibly well thought-through. The school started from scratch which I think gave them a lot of time to make sure everything was sequenced properly, methods were standardised and followed on from what had been taught before.

The school is also set up to maximise learning time. The routines mean that far less time is lost to fannying around getting to lessons, getting equipment out, endlessly repeating instructions to kids who haven't paid attention etc etc.

I know kids would do better in my school if they had to march in silence to their next lesson instead of hanging around chatting to their mates. An unbelievable amount of learning time is lost due to lateness. However, I also know that we would not be able to implement silent corridors in my school because our parents wouldn't stand for it, they are extremely resistant to anything authoritarian.

The problem I see is that (and to be fair this is not just a Michaela issue) there seems to be little understanding that different subjects are different.
English isn’t linear in the same way that Maths learning can be and attempts to make it so have cost student numbers at A Level and beyond.
It’s the total regimentation, ideology of the leader, and anti-family policies for staff that really put me off though