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?

If you look at their attendence policy (on their website) it actually says that they expect pupils to attend school even if they feel unwell. My school once had to close because so many staff caught the norovirus so may not be the wisest advice. The rest of the paragraph is pretty gobsmacking as well. Apparently you will be denied a sucessful, fulfilling life if you don't get 5 or more gcses at C or above!

Sarah A lot of "I don't feel well" at that age just means "I don't want to go to school", and obviously they are trying to discourage that. But parents will use their judgment, regardless, in practice.

Apparently you will be denied a sucessful, fulfilling life if you don't get 5 or more gcses at C or above!

Well, I suspect many ethnic minority poor children growing up in Brent will find exactly that. It's different if you have parents who can go to bat for you, support you in further training, rescue you when you get into trouble financially, etc.

No doubt they could have phrased it better. But most middle class parents would be extremely worried about their child's future if their child didn't achieve 5 GCSEs.

The approach to discipline seems to be the same as the approach to academic work. It appears to be encouraging mindless following. Rote learning can be a precursor to learning and understanding, but people need to question - they need to question both rules and concepts. It seems to me they will need to adapt this approach by the time these children get to their interviews for 'top universities', as disagreeing with someone and holding your own are very important in independent thinkers.

Academic success is not the only possible avenue to a successful life. Some parents may actually follow the the attendance policy and send ill children to school. This school enforces "no excuses" but apparently the leadership is excused from having to articulate these dictats / absolute policies in a safe, nuanced or logically sound way - they don't even need to make any excuses themselves and can do what they want... until ofsted arrives

Uncomfortable to read and potentially unhealthy. I really hope the reality on the ground is more reasonable than it sounds.

550+ posts in, and (as far as I can recall - sorry if I missed it), not a single post from a parent with a child at the school yet? Would be nice to hear from some - so if you're lurking, please share your views!

Kesstral Then it should say that before keeping a child home make sure that they are actually ill and encourage good attendance. No one should be attending school if they are genuinely ill, how do you think illnesses spread? I think it is another way to discourage certain types of children attending the school. If you had a child with genuine health issues would you choose Michaela?
I also don't like the inference that less academic pupils won't have a fulfilling life. There are many paths to happiness and academic success is only one.

Kesstrel - ds2 is always forgetting equipment - his school has a zero tolerance approach to it - he knows exactly how to get out of any punishment for it (and indeed has never been caught).

I hate boot camp schools though - think they're hugely misguided.

Incidentally his school has started asking parents to send their boys in when they're feeling ill as well. It's insanity.

Ds3's school rings you once attendance is below a (high) figure & has a sensible, gown up conversation about it.

Studies have shown that pupils who attend less than 95% fail to get 5 A*-C grades at GCSE

What all of them? Surely this is nonsense. Studies might show a correlation between poor attendance and low achievement, but 'poor' would be much lower than 95%. Like my neighbour who was told her DS had already had the equivalent of his 6 weeks summer in time off. In targeting that sort of parent is it really wise to tell conscientious parents to send their sick children in to school?

Cecily - ds1's special school is meant to maintain 95% attendance. It takes the most disabled children in the area (SLD/PMLD school) & students are sometimes in hospital/sleeping off seizures/whatever. It makes a mockery of the idea that the govt (ofsted? whoever?) introduced the 95% target to benefit children. It also makes it very difficult for some families to access holidays (too busy in school holidays) - which if you are not expected to survive to adulthood some may see as more important than school.

That sounds like madness, Devilish. The people who set these targets sound devoid of common sense. I hope the school can be as accommodating as possible despite the pressure.

Studies might show a correlation between poor attendance and low achievement

I think there's a fair bit of wriggle room between correlation and causation here. But I believe it's been one of those Ofsted-checklist things for a while so IME schools tend to have a more hyperbolic line on this, rather than one with more reason and nuance.

The school can't be seen to be accommodating cecily because as piqueaboo says it's looked at by Ofsted. Their attendance figures (esp at this time of year) are often low - largely because the students are ill or in hospital.

Common sense has left the world of education.

Most recent news I spoke that Michaela has closed its doors to visitors after issues with people asking inappropriate questions of students.

I am outraged on their behalf that students were put in that position but st the same time, given the amount of courting of publicity the school does and how it's answer for everything is "visit", what did they expect?

I saw

Budget of £12.7 million and 120 pupils

We have 1500 pupils and a budget of £7 million......

Wow how have they got such a big budget? Would explain the extra attention and less work for teachers! I'd be up for that without the bootcamp approach!

Lucycat What is your source for that?

It's in their financial documents on their website - p22 Not sure where all that money comes from though...

Sorry make that p24

Lucycat Thanks. I had a look - the amount you refer to falls under "restricted fixed asset funds" and looks to me like it represents the value of the building and land. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with operating costs, which are shown elsewhere.

It's all very open: financial report here

It is a school with plenty of money, especially given the number of children. Interesting that the wages bill for the 19 members of paid staff means that the pay is nothing special - particularly when you subtract the 80,000+ the HT is on.

I'm impressed with the comment in the financial report (page 8):

"Nationally, pupils are expected to make 2 sub levels of progress per academic year. At Michaela, they make three times more progress than expected in English and Maths."

6 levels of progress every year, no mention of "on average", "approx." or even "almost". So what level would that put the high ability DCs at now if they were in the first year intake?

On the basis of this claim alone, it will be interesting to see their first set of GCSE results.

That would put a high attaining child at A* GCSE by the end of yr 9. Impressive

EvilTwins Sat 17-Dec-16 12:19:34 That would put a high attaining child at A GCSE by the end of yr 9.*

Looks like the year 10 & 11 teachers will have an easy ride of things then. Either that or they will be ripping their hair out trying to manage expectations.

The school certainly is an interesting experiment.

6 sub levels in a year is not a ludicrous claim for children who, for example, come in with a low level of literacy and make really good progress. But to sustain that over three years for all students is a daft claim. That's 18 sublevels or 6 full levels over KS3. A child with an "old" L5 on entry would be at L7 by the end of yr 7, a GCSE B at the end of yr 8 and an A* at the end of year 9. It also means even a child starting at L3 would be at a GCSE C at the end of yr 9.

Exactly, Evil. It's not unusual for children on reading interventions to make those sort of gains in a very short period of time. It's what I would expect to happen because those sorts of interventions are supposed to close the attainment gap. But it is ludicrous to suggest that that level of progress will be sustained or will happen to most children.

Mind you levelling is a very inexact science and easy to get wrong if you are inexperienced. I don't suppose there's been any independent moderation of those levels.