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?

Thanks. That's useful. We do use similar testing and tactics in our school. The weakest readers read aloud every day and it does make a difference. Clearly Michaela is doing some great things, though I am still cynical about some of it and the more I read the more I think it will only work if it starts from scratch - I don't think even their current head could go into an existing school and just change it overnight.

I'm not sure you can how you can really make that judgment from just the first 9 lines of an essay? (I'm assuming that's what you're looking at?).

A fair comment Kesstrel, I would have been interested to see the rest of the essay. Ontopof explained things better than I did - to me it just seemed forced and unnatural.

I'd be quite interested to find out how much of what Michaela and King Solomon Academy do is the same and how much is different. There do seem to be some similarities in attitudes, but I get the feeling that there may be different approaches.

You could have any philosophy and only work with supportive parents and probably do well....

With a majority of children who come from impoverished homes, and are significantly disadvantaged and behind? Where around half don't speak English as their first language? In a poor, rough area where there's a lot of pressure to despise school and academics?

The thing is, they aren't just aiming to "do well". They want all their children to be able to go to university if they wish to. That's what all the things they do differently are aimed to achieve. Whether they will succeed or not remains to be seen, of course.

HPFA I agree that it sounded stilted and awkward. What we don't know, of course, is what the pupil's writing was like when he started Year 7, or what it will be like when he leaves.

That essay opener is the Y9 equivalent of the hideous "as many 3A sentences as possible" writing my kids were encouraged to do in Y4, and have, thanks to better and less timorous teachers since, now largely outgrown.

I don't doubt it could extend to marvellous exam outcomes in Y11 (that kind of style over substance approach carried me right through to a shiny Oxbridge degree) - but to me, it says much more about a desire to satisfy an assessment system that's not fit for purpose than anything else. You're right, kesstrel, that's just the first nine lines of an essay... but blimey, given the introduction I couldn't be less interested in reading the rest. Because I know exactly what it will say.

I would be interested to know how much of this relies on the London elements of

1. much higher funding
2. PP kids tending to be the motivated kids of migrants
3. benefit cap shifting many people on benefits out of London
4. easier to source qualified staff

Could such a school work in Lowestoft or Grimsby? Or in a market town where everyone goes to the one school, regardless of whether they buy into the ethos?

This is an example of a Year 8 History essay taken from the school's website:
mcsbrent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Humanities.pdf

This is pretty much the standard of essay my Year 8 DD would write. She is able but certainly not G and T and attends a good comprehensive school with a mixed. So if this pupil started Year 7 with a low level of literacy it would represent pretty good progress! But it doesn't seem to quite justify some of the more excitable claims made about the school?

The essay reads like a student who has been trained to do a trick. I'd love to see their maths work.

Insert "demographic" after mixed.

Those notes on the history essay are so disingenuous!

"Could such a school work in Lowestoft or Grimsby? Or in a market town where everyone goes to the one school, regardless of whether they buy into the ethos?"

This is definitely the $65,000 question.

I don't doubt it could extend to marvellous exam outcomes in Y11 (that kind of style over substance approach carried me right through to a shiny Oxbridge degree)

Well, I think the point here is that the teachers at Michaela want to give their mostly poor, mostly ethnic minority and disadvantaged pupils the same chance at marvellous exam outcomes, and chance at a university degree, as their more advantaged and middle class peers. That's something they are very explicit about.

They want all their children to be able to go to university if they wish to.

But this is a nonsensical goal in a non-selective school. University is not a rite of passage: tertiary level academic study is only appropriate for those who have sufficient academic ability and interest. It is intended for those who are "above average" academically. In a non-selective school it's not possible for everybody to be "above average".

Similarly A levels (and BTECS which are accepted by university courses) are simply not appropriate for all kids. Great teaching won't change the fact that some kids aren't academic enough to do A levels.

But this is a nonsensical goal in a non-selective school. University is not a rite of passage: tertiary level academic study is only appropriate for those who have sufficient academic ability and interest. It is intended for those who are "above average" academically.

I think their goal is to ensure that as many as possible of their children end up having that "sufficient academic ability and interest". In a system where 50% go to university, I don't think that's unreasonable. What they are trying to do, I think, is to ensure that none of their disadvantaged children lose out because they haven't had that opportunity, due to disruptive classrooms, not very good teaching, peer pressure and bullying, and a culture of excuses - which is certainly something that happens to a lot of inner city children.

Multivac Those notes on the history essay are so disingenuous!

In what way? They read to me like the very similar notes you would see on an exemplar essay in a revision guide. I assume that's how they are using them?

Noble - I'd love to see their maths work.

Well, you could always go and visit! Apparently they're open to anyone who wants to come and have a look.

In a non-selective school it's not possible for everybody to be "above average".

Similarly A levels (and BTECS which are accepted by university courses) are simply not appropriate for all kids.

We need to be careful when writing off children as not academic. Particularly when we still have a largely fixed mindset about ability. It can't happen on a national level, it may be possible at a school level.

Obviously different factors come into play at secondary but certainly at primary it is possible for schools with very deprived intakes (outside London, largely white British, high levels SEN, 75% FSM) to get much better than average results (100% level 4, 60% level 5 under the old system). There's no reason why those pupils shouldn't be aiming for university if that's what they want.

There are many groups who are currently under-represented at university, and also groups who should have gone to better ranked universities. And there are many "middle class" kids at university who simply shouldn't be there, as they have no interest. So indeed the current demographics at university are skewed from what they should be.

But I would still say that it is not a sensible goal for everybody to aim for university, unless we plan to reduce the academic depth of university degrees. I would say this to non-selective schools in rich or poor areas. Both should be encouraging non-academic training where it is appropriate.

kesstrel part time chalkface teachers don't get to go on jollies at my school! I would love to go though, but I think it would be very unnerving. You know the uncanny valley where a robot that looks a bit like a human but wrong causes uneasy feelings? I feel a bit like that watching the videos!

The minute you say university isn't your goal for everyone, you have kids thinking it isn't for them. This lowers aspirations.

^This.

It's especially true for children who are already getting that message from home.

But saying that university is for everyone, and focussing all efforts on university, means that people don't know about alternatives e.g. apprenticeships, vocational training.

I live in the catchment of a very high achieving "non-selective" school. (Non-selective academically, but effectively partially selective by catchment.) Two third of kids come in at level 5+, more than 95% at level 4+, very few kids on FSM, generally supportive parents. In line with KS2 results, about 70% of kids go on to tertiary education. The support for the remaining 30% of kids is not good and kids who don't go on to A levels feel as though they have failed.

Ye Gods:

mcsbrent.co.uk/how-to-support-your-child-2/

Although I expect Keiara will go far in life....