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?

I wouldn't be bothered by some of the teachers being unqualified. The only bit of my PGCE that taught me anything at all useful was the teaching practice bit. The university-based stuff was bollocks. And that was in one of the apparently most highly-regarded places to do a PGCE. Most of what you are taught is considered obsolete a few years afterwards anyway.

Do they publish numbers of how many are excluded/withdrawn from the school (i.e. those who don't or choose not to buy into to the system/drink the koolaid (delete as appropriate))?

Whilst the school system can accommodate this in an urban area, in a more rural area, with a single school for miles around, a cohort of determinedly non-compliant students/parents would make this much less workable. Plus, I meet young people from deprived coastal and rural areas with much lower levels of cultural capital than even the young offenders from inner London I come across.

I watched the video with the headteacher addressing the issue of replication and thought, that whilst passionate, she was rather superficial in her analysis. She ignores the fact that schools in London as a whole (even those not following her system) do much better than anywhere else. So clearly there are factors involved in the success other than her system.

So whilst I like some aspects of the project a lot, a proper controlled experiment comparing like with like ideally in coastal/rural deprived area (to remove the other London factors) would be much more helpful

It sounds truly horrible. Read this.

An interesting post here. The follow ups are also good.

teachlikeachampion.com/blog/visiting-judging-londons-michaela-school/

I'm confused. I just visited the maths department page and it has Bodil Isaksen listed as head of maths, then it says 'find out more about Ms Isaksen' and links to the staff list page with biographies, except she isn't on it, and Ms Quinn is listed as Head of maths. Except I follow Bodil on Twitter and I can't see anywhere that she has left Michaela.

Eolian could you please explain what you mean by 'cultural capital' in reference to an individual having it or not having it..?
I thought it meant something more general, more societal..

At the moment I suspect they are very proud of what they are learning, and of their newly acquired vocabulary

I'm not so sure. Based on the twitter convo and a couple of other things, I get the impression this is a style of writing that is being encouraged as a good model.

Is there any contextual information about the child that wrote that. I think we need to be careful about assuming that's the work of a disadvantaged child who was low attaining on entry without knowing that's the case.

That is weird, noble. I vaguely remember thinking her blog posts had got a bit more sporadic a while back, but don't remember seeing anything about her leaving either.

I have found out that 'Teach First Ambassadors are qualified teachers who have undertaken a highly competitive two-year leadership development programme which transforms exceptional graduates into effective, inspirational teachers and leaders.' from that page though.

BratFerrarsPony -

"The term cultural capital refers to non-financial social assets that promote social mobility beyond economic means. Examples can include education, intellect, style of speech, dress, or physical appearance."

I taught for a number of years in a private girls' school. The pupils definitely had 'cultural capital' as well as money. They were largely very well-spoken, self-assured, most dressed in an unmistakeably 'posh girl' style. They had an advanced vocabulary, were usually well-read for their age and had good general knowledge. They were accustomed to having conversations about serious subjects with adults and many were often taken to museums, plays, classical concerts etc. They all assumed they would go to university and have a 'proper career'.

Many of those things do not actually require wealth in order to experience them. However, they are things that are often far-removed from the sphere of experience of children from disadvantaged families.

I see, thanks,, I thought it meant something else...

lol you just cut and pasted that from wiki did you not?

Yup. I thought it summed it up pretty well!
I do think it's easy to underestimate the power of 'sounding like the right kind of person'. It must be very hard for a kid from a disadvantaged area or background to compete against the self-assured mc kids, never mind the über-confident public school types. One has to hope that university admissions people are good at seeing through the veneer.

When my DD was about seven I heard her say to Granny on the phone about something "I was most disgruntled." It doesn't make her any smarter than someone who said "I was p**ssed off" But it's clearly going to help with writing essays.

She ignores the fact that schools in London as a whole (even those not following her system) do much better than anywhere else. So clearly there are factors involved in the success other than her system.

This is a good point. I taught in Islington before I moved to where I am now and the amount of money thrown at London schools is phenomenal. If I wanted to take a theatre trip, tickets for most West End theatre can be had for £5 and transport for school visits is free on TfL. So I could take a class load (or more) to a show for a fiver. And if there wasn't money at home for that, the school could cover it, easily. We took the whole of year 7 to The Barbican one Christmas, and trips to the Almeida (walkable from the school) as well as into the West End were frequent. Where I am now, I took a theatre trip last week and it cost the kids £20 for a ticket plus the coach the 5 miles from school to the town where the theatre is. Lots of cultural programmes are only available to London schools. When I moved up here, I was shocked at how little there was on offer unless you had money to pay for it.

Exactly. My dc talk like that. They probably make people go a lot. We are very much not rich, but our interests and education (and probably our job) give our dc a reasonable amount of 'cultural capital' I guess.

Anyway, if Michaela manage to narrow the gap, in some ways at least, between the so-called haves and the have-nots, then good for them!

Gosh swampster that lunch isolation sounds truly mean.

It reminds me a little of that charity worker in london who everyone thought could do no wrong... until everyone realise she was doing no right either. Sort of cultish.

Oh God, I'd forgotten about the lunch isolation story.

I feel that the school was really over a barrel with the issue of that child's parents refusing to pay for lunch. No parent is forced to send their child to the school. They have a policy of "family lunch", of healthy food (something that not all their children are guaranteed to get at other meals), served by the children in a way that promotes responsibility, that they feel is important.

Plenty of schools wouldn't bother to provide the sandwich and fruit in these circumstances, and just let the child go hungry.

What I guess I am asking is what should they have done? Paid for the pupil's meals out of the school's budget? [what lesson does this send to other children/parents about fairness/taking responsibility?] Had the child eat a packed lunch or the school-provided sandwich and fruit provided in the same room as the others? [would s/he have felt comfortable or embarrassed about this? wouldn't other children have viewed it as unfair that they too couldn't bring a packed lunch with their preferred foods? ] Never had the family lunch policy in the first place? [and lose out on the benefits mentioned above?]

Entire 60mins in isolation is a bit more than just having a sandwich and fruit instead though isn't it? It's penalising the child which is so wrong.

Is the school only open to those who can afford cooked meals too.... I thought it was a poorer demographic?

Entire 60mins in isolation is a bit more than just having a sandwich and fruit instead though isn't it? It's penalising the child which is so wrong.

I'm not saying they didn't call it wrong, just that it's not as straightforward as some would argue. IIRC, the school said the main problem was that the parent was simply ignoring their requests for a discussion/meeting about the issue. Yet she seems to have had no problem discussing it with newspapers . Part of the problem with us making judgments is that confidentiality prevents the school itself publishing the full details of their side of the story.

Is the school only open to those who can afford cooked meals too.... I thought it was a poorer demographic?

The poorest children are eligible for the Free School Meals programme. My impression is that the school's position is that if other parents whose income isn't low enough for FSM are prepared to contact the school and discuss the issue, they might be able to come to a temporary arrangement. The problem was that this parent wasn't doing that, and wasn't responding to attempts to contact her. (I'd have to check if I'm remembering this correctly, though).

I would just add that I think the underlying 'big" issue here is really whether or not schools should be doing "No Excuses" discipline. They would argue that this is good for the child, and good for their self-discipline and academic achievement. But there's no doubt that if a parent isn't prepared to support the school, then their child will end up penalised in various ways. For example, some schools give detentions for not coming equipped with pens etc. But if a parent refuses to provide the pens, or money for the pens, then that child will be unfairly penalised. Same issue over uniform, cleanliness, arriving at school on time, all sorts of other issues.

I remember a teacher blog about their school's policy of providing free pens, rather than requiring children to bring their own. They ended up scattered all over the floor, snapped and broken, with children repeatedly demanding replacements. Not really effective in building personal responsibility.

I think you are incorrect when you say the parent refused to pay lunch money. The reports in the papers state

"Ms Kelly, an unemployed care worker, said she had already paid the money by the time she received the letter, but her 12-year-old son was punished regardless.

The single mother said she was in the process of registering for the free meals scheme when she received the written warning, and hoped to reclaim the money paid."

Given the delays by Benefits Agency/Job Centre plus in processing benefit claims (which both provide an income and trigger entitlement to free school meals) there is often a period of nonpayment of lunch money (and many schools will bridge the gap).

At best it sounds like a breakdown in communication between school and parent. But I have real concerns about a child being given a sanction for something they can have no control over. That is not teaching responsibility; that is just sending a message out saying we don't want children who are so poor that a period of no money coming in will impact in any way on the school.

If one was more cynical the school is practicing a form of indirect selection (effectively only schooling the children of more "responsible" families), which somewhat undermines the claims about the success of their methodology.

Justice The trouble is, the reports in the papers you quote are only giving the parent's point of view. If she was applying for free school meals, why didn't she respond to the school's attempts at contact, in order to tell them so? (By "refusing" I didn't mean directly telling them "I'm not going to pay" btw - I meant not paying and not responding to the school's attempts to contact her about not paying.)

which somewhat undermines the claims about the success of their methodology.

I don't think the school is claiming their specific model would be successful everywhere for everyone. I think they make it pretty clear that for it to work, you need parents who will support the school's efforts. What I saw one of the teachers say in a tweet yesterday was that other schools could possibly make use of some elements of what they do. That doesn't necessarily have to refer to the behaviour system; they are also using fairly radical teaching methods as well.

Plenty of schools that have extremely good results really only do so because of where they are situated in the postcode lottery. This school is simply aiming to get similar extremely good results with a much less advantaged cohort, but one whose parents, like the parents in high-achieving postcodes, will support the school. They don't claim they can work miracles if children's parents don't support them.

Their website says you have to pay upfront when registering for free school meals and they will pay back!! So someone entitled to fsm doesn't even have option of bringing lunch in while waiting for money to come in.

At a compulsory £2.50 a day ( image 2 kods so £5 - £25 a week.) That's a lot when you're not quite entitled to fsm, but an awful lot to find while in the process of applying for fsm

So someone entitled to fsm doesn't even have option of bringing lunch in while waiting for money to come in.

As I said above, from what I read at the time I believe the school is aware of that problem, and is willing to accommodate it. The issue in this case was that they repeatedly contacted the parent about the problem in order to discuss it with her, and she did not respond.