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?

Well, yes, it would definitely help if primary school would do it effectively. There's so much that gets missed by children that can't read properly by 11, that I'm not sure it is possible to completely catch up to fluent and prolific readers. The gap is too big by then.

Kesstrel I don't think I'' being hostile. I am genuinely interested in the school and, as I expliained above, particularly in how it deals with certain things. The very fact that you took my comments so personally suggest something other than a passing interest. I am perfectly capable of researching the school's perspective, though it's hardly going to be objective. My twitter timeline is full of Michaela this weekend.

My biggest question remains the same - could this be adopted by other schools or do you have to start from scratch with an empty building?

But there's something about Michaela that leaves me a bit cold

My feelings exactly. I think these children will get great exam results from the school and of course that's going to give them lots of options in life. But I'd hate DD to go somewhere like this. I feel pretty uneasy about saying "this school is right for poor kids but not my own precious darling", especially as I'm always accusing grammar school fans of saying the same thing about secondary moderns!

Evil

The very fact that you took my comments so personally suggest something other than a passing interest.

You're surprised that I 'took it personally' that you asked me (and no one else) if I was one of the 'evangelical teachers' at the school?

And I never claimed that my interest was casual or "passing"; as I said in response to your question, I am very interested in what they are doing, and I hope they succeed.

I've actually been very interested for a long time in social justice issues with regard to education; it started nearly 20 years ago when, as I mentioned to Rafas above, I began to follow the phonics 'debate', and discovered that the children most at risk of reading failure from unevidenced 'whole language' teaching methods are disadvantaged children and children with disabilities.

I never doubted that you were genuinely interested in the school, and I'm sure you are, as you say, perfectly capable of researching the school's perspective. However, there may be other people reading this thread who don't have the time to do that, who might like to hear about it here. If nothing else, I think it facilitates discussion to have a different viewpoint being presented. .

Here is one of the Michaela modern language blogs that suggests that average Y7 and Y8 pupils have learnt French to a significantly higher standard than I had achieved by Y11, in the top set of a grammar school:

mcsbrent.co.uk/french-27-02-2016-but-what-would-ofsted-say/

And here is a fun video of Michaela in action produced by a French TV company:

frenchteachernet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/michaela-community-school-on-french-tv.html

If they really have cracked MFL teaching in a comprehensive school (and I don't have any personal connection with them, am just interested) that would be an achievement worth taking notice of.

Hmm, I've just come from watching Humans to watching that video and am reminded of the synths. Another thing that springs to mind is The Demon Headmaster who hypnotised all the kids into perfection (remember that book?).

It's a bit weird. Unnatural? I don't know, it must be exhausting for the kids to keep up.

Very interesting video- a clear insight into how it works in practice.

Like I said above, as an MFL teacher in the state system, with all the known difficulties, and barriers, I still wouldn't fancy taking up a job there. Its not for me.
I like my students to have a healthy dose of real life, I like getting to know them. Didactic teaching is not my bag.

I'm not authoritarian enough, I think.

The link to the head's speech I posted upthread where she gave the reason for streaming not setting was interesting. She said that streaming meant that the students were with the same group all day every day which helped to form a strong group identity where members didn't want to let the others down. My DH called it 'weaponised peer pressure'. Certainly a lot of thought has gone into the psychology of obedience.

But it still doesn't quite explain to me how it works. I watched the video and I read the blog. And nowhere does it explain how children reading complex texts turns into understanding or how the understanding is taught. So it would be fascinating to actually see a Y7 French lesson.

When the teacher says he doesn't know what 'progress' is that sounds unnecessarily rebarbative. We all know that progress means moving forward (progredior) and obviously he believes his pupils make progress otherwise there wouldn't be any point in his teaching them. So it sounds to me a little over the top self-satisfied which is disconcerting.

Yep, talk about protesting too much.
It's like that scene from Bottom - 'we don't use gas because, er, we don't know what it is! What is gas?'

I don’t really understand what ‘progress’ means

Since he put it in scare quotes, and the title of the blog is"But what would Ofsted say", I read that as referring to Ofsted's notion of 'progress'.

This is from a different blogpost of his, which perhaps makes what he meant a bit clearer:

I was talking to a lovely, keen, young teacher earlier this week and she said she’d been told that she needed to work on, “Pace, progression and checking for understanding.”

I hate words like that! What does any of that actually mean? It’s so “teacher speak”! It’s so, “let’s self-flagellate”, so “I’ve heard this from “expert observers” so it must be true”. That’s not to criticise the super keen teacher who said these words. It’s the dreadful nit-picking, “mean anything you want it to mean” nomenclature of observations that does my head in! Grrrrrr!....

So let’s have a look at what these words might actually mean.... ...Progression? God knows what that means! At one point it was crazy, meaningless NC levels that, in MFL certainly, straight-jacketed kids and teachers alike. Progress? You tell kids stuff, they practise stuff, they memorise stuff, they then own the stuff you’ve taught and they can draw upon it at will. The more stuff you teach, that they remember and re-use, the more “progress” they make. Is it any more complicated than that? I don’t think so.

mcsbrent.co.uk/french-16-05-15-pace-progression-checking-for-understanding/

I think there's a 'smug and self-satisfying' filter. Any blog or tweet that doesn't contain appropriate smugness gets sent back.

Will be interesting to see what happens when these kids get to university and have to do more self directed study.

I'd (genuinely) like to see students from Michaela and School 21 debating "This house believes that learning should be noisy".

TBF I don't believe learning should be noisy. It can be on occasion, but mostly it needs to be effective. And edutainment and noise doesn't always mean effective learning takes place.

Yes, Rafals - that's why I'd like to see the debate, and why I chose the title. There are arguments to be made on both sides, and I'd be interested to see which team of students would make those arguments most articulately, confidently and ultimately, effectively.

Will be interesting to see what happens when these kids get to university and have to do more self directed study.

I find it hard to believe the school's founders haven't taken that issue into account, although I suppose it's possible. We don't know what their plans are for the GCSE and A level years; it won't necessarily be the same as their approach to Key Stage 3.

I'm a bit baffled as well. I support attempts to minimise low-level disruption so everyone can learn but I am worried about schools that insist on silent walking through corridors. And chanting?! they'll have a special greeting next!
There's a very interesting debate on 'no excuses' culture on YouTube and the Michaela teacher makes good points about how excuses can lead to children missing out on education. However, John Tomsett, in reply, makes a compelling point that the experiment in charter schools in the U.S.hasn't worked in the way claimed. He says research found sanctions were disproportionately/inconsistently meted out to SEND students and in terms of race. The other point, from his own extensive experience, was that the most significant impact on behaviour comes from parental attitudes towards school. So, Michaela has an advantage - it's a small school, it's a free school and parents signed up to the ethos. I can see the attraction but if you compare it to large, diverse schools where some parents may be far less engaged with education, to put it mildly, the no excuses culture runs up against challenges. Apparently, Tomsett says American research also showed it was detrimental to attainment among white middle-class kids, but I don't know the research nor the reasons why, and there may be quite different factors.
I am not dismissing what they do, nor their good intentions, but they are drawing broad conclusions from a rather special case on the basis of a self-selecting intake.

Mhm, interesting video but the head teacher past (one hour on the video) she is pretty intense..... a bit scary...

She sounds a bit like some tyrant tbh. I belief in good discipline but wow.... am a bit speechless at how convinced she is of her own style. I am torn between feeling great respect and a bit ...

My lessons were pretty didactic and it was often boring as hell. I learned much better and was more engaged hone lesson were more open and set the what was being learned in a broader context. Maybe it's not for everyone e.g. all learning styles.

I am fascinated by the discussion about this school; ironically because it seems so different to my son's school (which is a long established public school of the type it is suggested the Principal wishes to emulate).

The approach my son's school takes is much more about teamwork and collaboration; experimentation; debating; self directed learning;, promoting research and evaluation techniques and self-motivation. It is definitely less quiet.

Admittedly, there are fewer discipline issues than many state school would have and is selective.

I would also be interested in other people's view on the curriculum (on their website) because the science one seems very unambitious (to me as a layperson). They emphasise learning knowledge before experimentation and there seems to little consideration in learning skills like applying the scientific method and scientific enquiry (it maybe that this is a demand of the National curricula so not specific to this school so please clarify)

User

ironically because it seems so different to my son's school (which is a long established public school of the type it is suggested the Principal wishes to emulate)

I'm not sure the headteacher wishes to "emulate" any particular private school's set-up; what it says on the website is:

Michaela brings the values and advantages of a private education to young people of all backgrounds by providing a highly academic curriculum and strong discipline.

The phrase I've seen used is "private school ethos". So children are expected to behave well and to work hard, and told that they should expect to attend university; the school is designed to create a culture where their is no 'stigma' attached to doing these things, or to valuing learning and academic achievement.

As you say, the school is not selective, and many of the intake are disadvantaged. That means that they are starting from a significantly lower level of achievement then your average cohort entering a selective private school in Year 7. So the intent behind the strong discipline is to ensure that every available minute of learning time is used, in order to allow the children to catch up.

I also read lots of M teacher blogs and follow on twitter- there is a fine line between "these are our great ideas! It is working for us!" And a sneer of "your way is stupid! It won't get results!".

Tough to know if it is sustainable, able to be replicated, and indeed if it should be.

Discussing this recently with another teacher, she opined that it would never work as a take over, it would have to be built from the ground up. I wonder if this will make it unappealing to chain academy bosses, and actual could be the best thing for it, as we won't see watered down 'almost but not quite' versions popping up everywhere.

If the only way to do it is to strip out the creative problem solving , self directed learning, debating, research, teamworking etc when do they get to learn those skills (in my opinion all as important as facts)?

If the only way to do it is to strip out the creative problem solving , self directed learning, debating, research, teamworking etc when do they get to learn those skills (in my opinion all as important as facts)?

I'm not sure that's an accurate characterisation of what their approach is. For example, they have family lunches, where a group of children sits with an adult and they discuss/debate a particular different topic every day. Also, The top cohort of the school is only in Year 9. We have no idea what they plan for Years 10-13. Given that the head is herself an Oxbridge graduate, I doubt she has overlooked the need for the pupils to get to grips with self-directed learning, research etc.

As far as "creative problem solving" goes, there is a growing school of thought among cognitive psychologists and (some) educators) that this is not a 'transferrable skill' that can be specifically taught. Basically, they argue that you need significant knowledge of a particular subject before you can start solving problems in a creative way. I believe Michaela staff argue that having read the research, they believe they need to concentrate first on providing a strong foundation of knowledge.

Also, they don't just teach 'facts'. They do a huge amount of fiction reading during the day, in form time, for example, in order to give children experience of widely diverse literature, and all the imaginative experiences those books contain, as well as improving their reading fluency and vocabularies.

Fascinating. I'm very intrigued by this. Although some aspects of it sound a bit extreme, lots of it appeals massively to me. It sounds from the comments in that article upthread that the students are far from being uninspired automatons with no creativity or soft skills. Before students can be properly creative or critical thinkers, they need input and knowledge, which in regular state schools is seriously hampered by dreadful behaviour and ever-changing OFSTED-generated nonsense.

I'd like to know how they manage to achieve their perfect behaviour though. Since it says they don't just chuck out kids who misbehave. I'm all for a zero tolerance approach to bad behaviour, but how exactly do you achieve it?

Eolian how exactly do you achieve it?

This is an interesting blogpost that gives some idea: pragmaticreform.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/bootcamp/

But they also have a big head-start, of course, in that the school is over-subscribed, and they won't admit anyone who won't agree to abide by the school rules.