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?

Yes, Tourette's is the obvious example. I don't see why Michaela would necessarily be unwilling to accommodate a child with the condition, however. The pupils are so focused on paying attention and good learning behaviour that they would probably find it easier not to be distracted than children in most other schools.

The silence in the corridors isn't some kind of holy rule. It's to prevent teasing, jostling, and fights, to keep the children in a focused frame of mind, and because the corridors are very narrow. They expect silence because they know all the children currently attending the school are capable of it; that doesn't mean they wouldn't make an exception for a genuine physical incapacity.

I've taught several children with Tourette Syndrome and they have never disrupted the class. It is a mostly misunderstood condition and in a quiet classroom environment would pose no problem at all- I wouldn't have thought they would be disruptive. I have found students to be incredibly empathetic and understanding about it.

Tourette's is only one of a number of examples of SN that may be contra-indicated by a rigid system like the one at Michaela. I would be wary of whether the system is all or whether they are willing to make reasonable adjustments, and if so what these are. They aren't in evidence in any of their publicity.

I think silence in the corridors is a good idea.
The corridors in my childrens school were like a savage free for all, with people running and shouting. One boy ran up behind my dd , put his hands on her shoulders, and started jumping up and down shouting in her ear. She gave him a sideways swipe to get him off, quite forgetting she was holding a pencil...
The next thing I have a call telling me that my dd 'has stabbed a boy', and the HOY really hammed it up.
If they had just had a simple rule about how to behave in the corridor, then none of that would have happened.

Just had an interesting discussion about this with a friend. He said 'if authoritarianism is good enough for posh kids, it should be good enough for poor kids'. So silence in the corridors is only acceptable if private schools do it too, otherwise it's control freakery.

Can only speak for the private schools I know, but they don't expect silence in the corridors. Good behaviour yes, but not silence.

Has anyone seen any stats for on entry attainment for their cohort?

I've seen vague statements about 'some children can't' and 'many children can't' but nothing that actually states how low attaining this cohort is supposed to be.

Ive just asked my son which his private school's rules on conduct in corridors is and he said they can talk, just "not run, kick and hit people- behave like in classrooms". That all sounds reasonable and unauthoritarian.

I don't have a problem with silence, though could raise some practical problems for newcomers who are lost. Do they write and hold up signs?

Private school students rarely come from poor and disadvantaged homes, or from chaotic primary schools where poor behaviour is rife. They don't need special measures so that every second of learning counts, in order to help them catch up. Which is the reason behind not all the rules, according to the school.

So what's the suggestion? That if the behaviour in corridors isn't set as strictly as marching in silence that they'll suddenly descend into chaos?

I wonder how they would deal with a child like DD2 - on paper she's exactly the kind of teacher-pleasing, rule-abiding, parent-supported student that any school would love to have. Except she has a variable medical condition that kicks in without warning, causes physical disruption in a classroom, and means that she couldn't guarantee to be able to spend two hours a night on homework. Extreme example I know, but I haven't seen how that kind of student's needs are catered for. Or is it likely that we'd be advised the school couldn't meet her needs and we should look elsewhere?

Fascinating discussion though, all of my DDs would have loved the focused attention (and lack of low-level disruption) and the emphasis on learning for the sake of learning, but would really struggle with what seems like a lack of space for creative thought.

aagh, missed several pages, ignore if already covered . Off to catch up

kestrel
Do we know, as a fact, that the students at this school come from the sort of homes or primary schools you describe?

What do the feeder school heads make of this kind of assertion? All "chaotic where poor behaviour is rife" -really?

They don't need special measures so that every second of learning counts, in order to help them catch up. Which is the reason behind not all the rules, according to the school.

I think 'according to the school' is key here. Assuming the quote upthread about children mostly coming from the immediate vicinity of the school is correct, I'm not convinced the intake is quite as behind as people are assuming.

Certainly their surrounding primaries do have a more disadvantaged than average intake with a higher that average number of students with EAL. They also have higher than average results at KS2, including for disadvantaged children.

So what's the suggestion? That if the behaviour in corridors isn't set as strictly as marching in silence that they'll suddenly descend into chaos?
They've said they get the children to walk in silence partly because the corridors are very narrow, and they don't want to have to deal even occasionally with the sort of situation Brat's post above yours described. In a normal school, especially in rougher areas, it's all too easy for a fight to kick off because someone's been jostled accidentally, or is in a bad mood, or because corridor "banter" goes sour. Anyone watching "Educating Yorkshire", for example, will have seen that.

If one of your top priorities is maximising learning time, it makes sense to try to avoid that kind of disruption.

How does silence in the corridors mean that every second of learning counts? I suspect that for children with sensory difficulties it would actually get in the way of learning if they can't have a few moments of release between lessons.

How on earth do you know the size of the corridors? Seriously.

I guess a major advantage of being in a city is that you can quite reasonably have schools with a wide spectrum of approaches to teaching/learning.

I'm not sure how my dd would get along in Michaela, but I think there are aspects of it she'd find very helpful from what I've read here, and I can think of friends' dc who I suspect would be the same (quiet, orderly, very clear and unchanging rules and expectations). I know often when she's come home despairing I've felt that she'd have found school much easier in my day when desks were in rows, with gaps between them, there was minimal group working, much more chalk-and-talk etc.

It's not necessarily a bad thing is it in a populous urban area if a school suits some children but not others? Obviously in a rural area a more middle-of-the-road approach is better because it's going to cater to the largest number of children.

I can't think of a school that doesn't have rules about corridor behaviour.

Do the kids actually get time during the day to talk to each other about non-prescribed topics?

I believe there may be a small amount of time at lunch. I don't know if this is also supervised by an adult though.

It does explain the lack of bullying.

wouldhave because they then arrive ready to learn.

It is so dangerous to have chaos in corridors- so many nasty accidents happen in corridors between lessons. You would be shocked at the things that can happen.

Evil

I don't. I prefaced my statement with the words "They've said".

I think, having looked at the timetable that someone gave a link to yesterday, that they have half an hour free time at lunch, but there are always teachers around. There was some mention of playing basketball in that time during the bit I quoted about Darnell, and I remember somewhere else in the book talking about the pupils teaching the teachers to dance during that period.

The silence in the corridors isn't some kind of holy rule. It's to prevent teasing, jostling, and fights, to keep the children in a focused frame of mind, and because the corridors are very narrow.

Sadik I know often when she's come home despairing I've felt that she'd have found school much easier in my day when desks were in rows, with gaps between them, there was minimal group working, much more chalk-and-talk etc.

That's exactly how I feel about my younger daughter. She (and I) kept expecting it to get better as she moved up the schools, but it never really did.

It's not necessarily a bad thing is it in a populous urban area if a school suits some children but not others?

Agree with this.