Anyone got any opinions on the Michaela School?

[noblegiraffe]

My Twitter is currently full of talk about Michaela as the teachers there have released a book today and are holding a conference explaining what they do. It's a no-excuses school where kids walk the corridors either in silence or chanting Shakespeare, behaviour is expected to be perfect including no slouching. Everything possible is done to reduce workload of teachers - no marking in books, lessons are all joint planned and taught uniformly, no differentiation, they write their own textbooks.

Does anyone's kids go there? Anyone decide against sending their kids there? Does anyone know how it is viewed in the local community?

" The area isn't rich so presumably the rent is lower? "

There is nowhere with 'low rent' in London is there?

Cauliflower
I read somewhere that over 70% of school cost is teaching staff so all the things you mention are relatively marginal on aper pupil basis (and presumably things like vending machines bring in income, so would reduce cost)

hey have a narrower curriculum than most schools so no dance or drama or music or technology or food tech I don't think. That cuts out a lot of specialist rooms and teachers and technicians and equipment.

I did not know that. Is education in these areas not important? Certainly in my sons public school and the local comp they do all of those things because they are perceived to be part of a rounded education

Kestrel But what evidence do we have that the majority of those children (who mostly don't have proper diagnoses) are actually "SEN" in the sense of requiring special accomodation and lowered expectations? As opposed to just being expected to take responsibility for their behaviour, and guided by sanctions and encouragement to do so?

Why don't you try posting that on the SN boards and see what they think.

The narrow curriculum is my biggest issue with Michaela. Very little creativity.

I believe they get the same amount as any London school (although I could be wrong here). But one of the jokey comments in the book is about how they don't spend money on anything but teachers and books!

So no expensive high tech equipment, no top heavy management structure, no expensive consultants, no bought-in staff training in the latest fads...

They do have music in the curriculum, but not the others mentioned above. That's in the curriculum section of the website. I think it's a shame. No option to do dance or drama as an extra-curricular either.

Kesstrel

School labs, and tech rooms are rather essential unless you believe science and engineering can all be taught theoretically? Do they not have to at least comment on experiments at GCSE? Even if they just watch a video that require some tech.

If they do music do they have instruments? Or is it music appreciation and theoretical composition?

I don't think schools can afford expensive consultants or bought-in staff training any more, so that's not a saving that could be made by other schools. Ours is certainly all in-house these days, everyone lives in fear of being roped-in to give a session on 'gifted and talented' or 'literacy across the curriculum'.

Cauliflower - They do have music, and also art. Drama is incorporated into English to some extent, I believe. I don't know whether they are planning to extend this when it comes to GCSE.

Evil I was talking about the "Emotional and behavioural" SEN category, not specific diagnoses like ASD, Dyspraxia, ADHD, etc. My older daughter is dyspraxic. There are a lot of question marks over the "emotional and behavioural" category, and the best way to approach it. So I don't think it's unreasonable to look at an example like Darnell, and wonder how many other children labelled in this way are like him.

As I said above, plenty of children previously believed to be "dyslexic" by both teachers and parents, are actually now believed to have been failed by faddish and unevidenced teaching methods.

Yes - staffing is about 70% of costs. But breadth of subjects leads to higher staffing costs of both teachers and support staff.

And they have no option blocks at the moment - I don't know what plans they have for GCSE but they won't have a choice of language as all they teach is French. They don't have any creative subjects except Art I believe - no idea if they are going to teach that at GCSE. So that will become more expensive as those classes will never have 30 kids in each.

They do all their trips in 2 days in the school year so there is probably no cover implication.

A rounded curriculum is not their priority. It's narrow and deep. I wonder if Ofsted might have a problem with that.

The website states that all students will sit grade 4 music theory in yr 9. That seems ridiculous. No one needs grade 4 theory! Grade 5, yes. The info about music lessons isn't terribly inspiring - Y

Foundations

Written notation
Note naming
Introduction to keyboard skills
Music vocabulary
Rhythm

Pulse
Note lengths
Rests
Time signatures
Beaming and ties
Harmony

Scales
Intervals
Key signatures
History

The story of music
Listening and appreciation

I guess they're not learning to play the ukulele like the whole of yr 7 at my school are then.

Just read that they do teach music:

In Music, pupils learn to read music and play an instrument, and aim for Grade 5 theory by Year 10.

I don't think GCSE music will be an option. It's expensive.

Yes it's the maths of music really isn't it. Not creative.

Actually, out of the items I listed, I think top-heavy management is where most savings would come from. I can't remember what it is exactly, but schools employ an extraordinary number of managers these days.

Justice When I mentioned high-tech, I meant interactive whiteboards, laptops for all and various other expensive items of that nature.

Noble Ours is certainly all in-house these days, everyone lives in fear of being roped-in to give a session on 'gifted and talented' or 'literacy across the curriculum'.

Kesstel. You come across as pretty uninformed about SEN I'm afraid. We'll have to agree to disagree but 20+ years teaching tells me that children do have SEMH needs and being a bit stricter is unlikely to sort them out.

This narrow curriculum may also create another form of selection in that it won't be chosen by pupils wanting a wider range of creative/technical/practical subjects but only those wanting academic subjects. This is maybe fine in London with its wide range of schools in close proximity but would not work in single school areas. The school mentioned above in Corby does do a much wider range of subjects, presumably to ensure all local students are catered for www.brookeweston.org/Info/NewStudents/Downloads/new-students-2014.pdf

Actually, out of the items I listed, I think top-heavy management is where most savings would come from

They have a head teacher and 4 deputy heads, which is ludicrous for a school that small.

My younger daughter did the "creative" music curriculum at our local school, where children with little to no understanding of theory were expected to "compose". She hated it. I can't remember where, but I read that the music teacher there doesn't want children trying to "compose" until they understand more theory. It fits in with the general Michaela approach: the idea that genuine creativity is based on sound knowledge.

Compare Michaela's approach to music with that of Highbury Grove

No wonder their head is getting fed up with all the tweets about how amazing Michaela is!

All the "deputy heads" teach.

You might as well say that it's ludicrous for a much smaller primary school to have a head teacher and a deputy head.

Hmmm. I think that practical music needs to be prioritised. Learning music theory is all very well but you can't learn to play without picking an instrument up.

Actually, out of the items I listed, I think top-heavy management is where most savings would come from. I can't remember what it is exactly, but schools employ an extraordinary number of managers these days.

Do you have evidence to compare their management costs to those of other schools of comparable size (taking into account the narrowness of curriculum as that will remove the need for some subject leads)?

I wish that the school would produce some real data to prove their assertions rather than glorified marketing by anecdote? It makes me more suspicious than possible I should be

Yes the deputy heads teach. As does the one deputy head at my school. She teaches two classes 4 hours each per week. And gets paid a lot more than a standard teacher to do it.

It is not unusual for a deputy head to teach.

It is not unusual for a deputy head to teach.

Yes, that is the point I was making.

Justice I am just speculating about where they would save money to pay for more teacher time. I could well be wrong.

Yes, I agree that it would be nice to have more hard facts. Perhaps we will find out more via their Ofsted report