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?

kesstrel I found it via a trail of breadcrumbs started by a retweet into my feed about disbelief that an (unnamed) SENCO could say something like that.

Oh, OK. Thanks. I like your breadcrumbs imagery!

Have we had David Didau's take on it yet?

www.learningspy.co.uk/featured/does-dyslexia-exist/

Isn't it only the same as saying reading difficulties don't exist if we're saying that dyslexia=reading difficulty?

And I think it's already been pointed out on this thread that that isn't the case.

I'm no dyslexia expert but the name itself means difficulties with reading and that's how it is commonly understood.

I'm sure when you get down to the fine details you can have all sorts of arguments about what it covers but for a SENCO to say flat out dyslexia isn't real, that's just
Parents of children with SEN are well used to things like 'ADHD is just bad parenting' being thrown around so 'dyslexia isn't real' is going to make people wonder what other SENs she thinks aren't real.

the name itself means difficulties with reading and that's how it is commonly understood

I disagree that that's the main way it's understood. It's actually commonly understood as "having a condition", not just as having difficulties with reading (which could easily mean just needing more instruction/practice).

And the "having a condition" leads to too many people thinking that the answer must be special coloured lenses, etc., and that "many dyslexics" will never learn to read properly and will always need "adjustments". Which was precisely the claim that the SENCO's rather rash tweet was responding to. Now, that claim may turn out to be true, but it hasn't been proven yet, because reading instruction in English speaking countries has been so poor (and mostly still is, despite improvements).

kesstrel - reading instruction in English-speaking countries is patchy but the root cause of the higher incidence of dyslexia in English-speaking countries us the much more complex phoneme-grapheme correspondence in English versus most other languages.

Agreed, Bobochic. But how "many" dyslexics will never learn to read well, and will always need "adjustments" depends very much on whether or not they are taught using the methods that reading scientists have demonstrated to give the widest efficacy. And I would say that reading instruction is far worse than "patchy" in English speaking countries, I'm afraid.

There is a lot of excellent reading instruction in English. Even excellent reading instruction won't eliminate dyslexia among English speakers - just reduce it.

It will reduce it to a negligible level though.

There are very very few children who won't be reading and writing at an age appropriate level by the time they reach the end of primary with the right teaching.

Patchy would be an optimistic description of the state of reading instruction in England. Most teachers lack the appropriate training. And the teaching of spelling is worse.

And England is way ahead of the U.S., Australia and New Zealand.

It's actually commonly understood as "having a condition"

Well it comes under specific learning difficulties and describes the particular area that the student has difficulties with, beyond their level of intelligence.

But again, there is no agreement that dyslexia actually has anything to do with intelligence. That's another contentious issue. For example, brain imaging of poor readers shows different patterns than in good readers: but that difference is the same whether the individual has low or normal IQ. The big question is what is causing that different pattern. Is it caused by neurological differences, inappropriate instruction, or both?

What is "intelligence", though. It might just be having all the stars aligned - in which case dyslexia is unaligned star.

Right, so we've got experts arguing left and right what the term covers and who it affects and so on, then we've got Ms SENCO foghorning down the middle DYSLEXIA ISN'T REAL. No nuance, no caveats, no anything.

Not a great advert.

Kestrel - differences in MRI scans of dyslexic children have been found in 14 month olds.

(Obviously they didn't know at 14 months if they had dyslexia or not). So dyslexia has been proven to exist before reading instruction starts.

Salty Thanks for that! I wasn't aware that had been done. It will be interesting to see, as that work develops and is replicated, what impact has has on the views of the Julian Elliott side of the issue.

Personally, I've always been inclined to think that there is likely to be a neurological predisposition for at least some of those children needing much more practice than most, in order to internalise phonological correspondences, mainly because there is so much co-morbidity with other developmental disorders.

differences in MRI scans of dyslexic children have been found in 14 month olds.

True. But MRI scans have also shown that those areas are changed by reading instruction and intervention to become more normalised, increasing children's phonological processing ability at the same time.

The brain is a truly amazing organ.

True. But MRI scans have also shown that those areas are changed by reading instruction and intervention to become more normalised, increasing children's phonological processing ability at the same time.

I think the studies by Shaywitz have proven that phonological awareness interventions change the brains structure - not reading or reading instruction.

If a child has poor phonological awareness before they start school, a pure phonics program won't be enough for them. (For example Read, Write, Inc which I think includes no phonological awareness in it.) A pure phonics program may or may not teach them to read (depending on the severity of their dyslexia) - but it won't reduce their dyslexia.

And I also think the key words is 'more normalised'. I'm fairly sure the dyslexia is still there, and can be still seen in a MRI scan.

In this context dyslexia describes the brain using an inefficient pathway to read. If someone can choose whether to read or not - i.e. when they look at a word they don't read it automatically, only when they decide to read it - then they have dyslexia. Regardless of their reading age.

Fascinating chapter by chapter dissection of the first half of the Michaela book here, by Debra Kidd, who, incidentally has been blocked on Twitter by the SENCO

debrakidd.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/battle-hymn-of-the-tiger-teachers-a-review-part-1/

She makes the good point that everything that comes out of Michaela is self-congratulatory and adversarial. Not only 'We're great' but 'You're crap'. Kids apparently don't learn facts anywhere else. Kids come out of primary unable to add up. (Probably not around where Michaela is).

I'm getting the impression that Michaela teachers have read lots of books, lots of research, but they don't have the experience to filter that research through.

Hmm...I've read enough of Debra Kidd's online comments that I don't trust anything she says. And for her to be complaining about a group of teachers dissing other teachers, OR blocking other teachers on twitter, is hugely ironic.

Dipping into the book, I've found some figures on Michaela's cohort:

"55% of our kids are eligible for the Pupil Premium Grant, around 20% arrive with a ‘Special Needs’ label attached to them, 45% speak English as an additional language, 33% read at a standard below their chronological age, and 62% perform below the national expectation in Maths…"

"So far, our pupils on average are making two years’ progress in reading in one year, and on average they make double the normal progress in maths. Some pupils have made up to five years’ reading progress in one year."

I'm assuming she's talking about the SEN children, rather than the whole population of the school, although I suppose the latter is possible.

everything that comes out of Michaela is self-congratulatory and adversarial

I'm not finding that with the book at all.

You've got the book, haven't you kesstrel? Has she mispresented it in her blog?

The adversarial style comment is certainly true though.

To be honest, I'm not sure I can grit my teeth hard enough to be able to read what she's written about it. Like I said above, I've read enough of her comments below the blogs of people she disagrees with to have a very low estimation of the likelihood that she will treat the book at all fairly.

And no, so far I haven't noticed the book being "adversarial" in style. It's passionate, and it's clear they're excited about what they are doing. But there must be around 20 different people who've contributed chapters to the book, so perhaps some are more "adversarial" than others.
I've been dipping in and skipping around, but I haven't seen anything I've thought was especially eyebrow-raising. I'll keep a sharper look-out from now on, though!