Katherine Birbalsingh?

[GreatJehosephat]

She’s been popping up on tiktok for the last few days, and seems to be very divisive.

She appears to get amazing results, but then people point out she’s misrepresenting the truth as to who goes to her school, that they have far fewer children with SN, and can turn away children if they wish.

In rl she seems to be really polarised as well, so I thought I’d ask here and hope to learn more about her system and whether it’s cherry picked (as suggested) or if she has indeed created an amazing experience for her pupils.

My own opinion, based on the clips I’ve seen, is that the very strict rules would mostly be intolerable to any adult in a workplace and when you look at other academies who install strict rules it seems to impact heavily on the pupil’s mental health.
I believe there’s a place for such schools, and they work very well for some children, but I can think of plenty of children who need a different approach in order to produce a happy, productive population (in a way where people are mentally well enough to find employment - and we seem to be seeing a downturn in this and an upturn in young people being too stressed to do anything!).

I agree, she gets results for that cohort, but I think that’s where people have an issue with her system, because it simply wouldn’t work for many children.

Acadrmies have a huge problem with school refusal and managing out SN (not saying Michaela does this, because I don’t know), which can help them get great results, but doesn’t particularly help children who are being left behind in education.

@Ablondiebutagoody many children have no need for learning coping mechanisms, but plenty do, which is why so many children struggle with the rise in academies and the trickle down of academy behaviour policies, which arguably work for the children who don’t need them.

I think there’s definitely a place for schools like KB’s, but we currently have a lack of suitable provision for the children who cannot cope with that sort of system.

Not what I'm talking about though. I'm fully aware that some kids will amble in late with nothing more than a grunt as explanation (at best) /otherwise totally take the piss, that's not OK and there should be sanctions. I'm referring to scenarios that are totally out of the child's control, eg school bus breaking down and disagreeing with punishment in that situation.

I can't bear her personally. Seems awful. But...

I have a friend who is a HT nearby and who raves about Michaela outcomes for SEN kids particularly. She raves about a school environment which is all about calm and structure and that is not something that is put in place only for a few kids including those with autism but is embedded in the bones of the place, so that children with SEN don't feel that they are being treated differently.

I'm prepared to accept I don't know anything about it, but was interested by the gap between what I thought and my friend's more detailed knowledge.

Academies and free schools are different things- I believe about 80% of secondary schools in England are now academies. So stats about mental health in academies isn’t a reflection of academies vs any other schooling structure

I'm not from an ethnic minority, but personal responsibility is high on my agenda too, along with a work ethic and consideration for others. No bowing to religious mores in school either.

If I lived in the area, I'd choose it.

Everyone has an excuse about why they are late or don't have their equipment or aren't wearing correct uniform or really needed to raise their voice at that specific moment. There really isn't time to be verifying and/or judging them or getting into whether Daisy's excuse is more valid than Ahmed's from 2 weeks ago. Or whether Mrs X is more lenient than Mr Y etc. It needs to be black and white.

There should be more schools like hers. She seems very tough but her principles of calm, structure, discipline, responsibility are inspiring.

The best classes I've seen for SEN children are those that are calm with a clear structure and expectations.

Unfortunately at many schools now respect for adults is optional. I left education last term as I was so fed up of children having their education ruined by those who provided constant disruption. Not only is it horrible to staff, all of the other children looked depressed and SEN children struggled to regulate with the constant shouting out.

I agree, she gets results for that cohort, but I think that’s where people have an issue with her system, because it simply wouldn’t work for many children.

But it does work for many children. An entire school full. There will be some outliers, but for the majority it works.

It would work for my eldest. But I sincerely doubt it for my youngest.

So we need a selection of available schools - so that this with doesn’t suit can be taught - but there’s nothing wrong with Michaela.

Exactly. Sadly, adults lie about why children are late or off school. Adult life has unbending rules - you don't get to skip out on your electric bill because you forgot to switch the lights off. It's best that children learn rules are rules and that you earn respect by accepting a small punishment and not doing it again.

I think she’s got it right personally. In the 20 years I taught in mainstream schools I saw the introduction of the likes of restorative approaches, every behaviour is communication and trauma informed bollocks. This has led to a decline in standards and what students believe is optional respect and behaviour due to a reduction in consequences. The majority of classrooms are chaotic with teachers being verbally and even physically abused. These critical thinking classrooms and lessons people speak of on here are a thing of the past. Most students are completely disengaged with learning due to the constant behaviour disruptions and the only question they are remotely interested in asking is how many minutes it is until break/lunch. It’s interesting that people feel a stricter environment leads to a decline in mental health, I have seen the complete opposite. It is logical if students leave school thinking they can do whatever they want that they will have a hard time dealing with the demands and expectations of work/university.

I like her very much. I suspect that the children who go to her school are those whose parents are up for this sort of school.

I remember being utterly exhausted at senior school - not because the work was difficult but because of the endless low-level disruption. I would have found it so much more restful to have had orderly lessons and corridors where everyone knew that they had to behave themselves.

I think most children- and teachers- thrive with rules. A lack of boundaries actually makes them more anxious and depressed. Rules prepare them for a future where yes, most of us have to be on time, neatly dressed, respect those in higher authority, stop obsessing about our MH or anxiety or whatever, and just get the job done.

I think she's probably good at pulling the bottom end up, results wise, in deprived areas. Children living in chaotic homes with little structure/boundaries/aspiration at home will probably thrive on her very black and white regime of discipline and rules. However I suspect the effectiveness of that is linked to a pupil intake with a high volume of migrants from cultures who respect/value education, parents who are willing to adhere and support her system.

I dislike her narrow focus and gaming of results tables - no triple science, only 8 gcses, no music etc, results boosted by having those with a foreign language mother tongue sit a language GCSE in their mother tongue. Its a limiting approach for an able middle class British born pupil who won't benefit from contextual university place offers that overlook a reduced GCSE selection.

I should add - in general i think stricter discipline in schools is a good think. I think some of the most anxious pupils ha e become that way through childhoods spent desperately reaching for the rules and boundaries that make life feel safe and controlled and not finding them. If your parents and teaches don't behave like they are in charge your brain thinks you must be and on a basic level that's terrifying for a child.

I think as a public figure she is very polarising and goes out of her way to goad the left and enter into culture wars territory. As such she does her cause no favours. However, I think as an educator she genuinely cares for the kids and has high ambitions for them and has created a school environment where children can thrive - provided they do things her way. I just hope they do the work in years 12 and 13 to prepare the older kids for the transition into a less structured environment so that university, for those who choose it, doesn't come as a huge shock.

I agree that the group that would be limited by the Michaela approach would be the very bright middle class kids, who are capable of getting twelve 9's at GCSE, and who would be held hack by not being able to do triple science and then Computer Science or Philosophy at A Level.
I suppose some would argue that nobody needs to do these more obscure subjects, and if all schools followed the Michaela approach then nobody would be disadvantaged by the lack of choice. But I think on balance, her approach works better if there is another school in the area which can stretch the very brightest kids.

It’s about time someone got to grips with unruly badly behaved school kids and if she has to show tough love so be it .

Can't really see why people think it's wrong to expect children not to be late, wear the correct uniform, behave quietly and respectfully, not expect every food preference to be catered for, and to focus on the task at hand - learning. These are core life skills for the adult world which will have no time for your excuses and won't accommodate your feelings everyday.

Judging by the number of families who turn up 5-10 mins late to school every single day (same families, always coming in late as I'm walking home), its pure entitlement. Kids from those families would really benefit from someone consistently laying down the law.

“I agree that the group that would be limited by the Michaela approach would be the very bright middle class kids, who are capable of getting twelve 9's at GCSE, and who would be held hack by not being able to do triple science and then Computer Science or Philosophy at A Level.”

can you explain what this means? It sounds like you’re saying middle class kids are capable of more and therefore need more choice

It has a strong whiff of a sausage factory imo.

An exam mill is not necessarily an environment that sets children up for success in life, unless your definition of success is extremely narrow.

those people saying "oh it would never work for the SEN kids" fail to realise that for many SEN-related issues, it's the current, non-Michaela environment that is directly contributing to those issues.

She’s annoying.

Her school is giving a lifelong advantage to many of the children who attend. I find it bizarre that people critisise it, and her, on a point of principle, and then handwing about violence, poor behaviour and a lack of discipline in schools in the UK.

It's good for children and young people to have strict boundaries. They learn self-discipline and it gives them a sense of safety.

That learn by heart/rote learning might get them through GCSEs but is it setting children up to fail further down the line? Do they learn how to learn and also discipline?

Has her leadership been in place long enough to any sort of statistics? It would be interesting to see the longer term results of this style.