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?

From the Guardian:

Birbalsingh said:

“Free school meals looks after the poorest. Even then we have all sorts of systems for people who really are in financial need, and I mean the real ones. I don’t mean the ones who are playing the system, trying to get other poor families to pay for their child’s food.”

The pupil highlighted by the Daily Mail had not been put in isolation, according to Birbalsingh, though the boy’s family dispute that. The pupil subsequently left the school at the end of the summer term.

Birbalsingh said the policy didn’t apply to pupils on free school meals – more than one in five of those attending the school near Wembley Stadium – or for those with money problems.

“We’ve got three families in the whole of the school where this is the case. They are all families who are betraying their children. One we are reporting to social services,” Birbalsingh said.

According to a teacher from another school who visited Michaela, the isolation entails pupils eating a packed lunch in a separate room while doing school work supervised by a teacher. “It was three or four kids sat in a classroom chatting with their teacher over a sandwich. No one seemed upset and all were looking forward to getting back to family lunch,” the teacher said.

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/29/headteacher-defends-policy-of-putting-pupils-in-lunch-isolation

Kestrel
I get what you are saying, but again, this is possibly another form of economic selection.

In an urban area you can cherry-pick the easiest of the so-called disadvantaged cohort (often motivated children of ambitious but poor migrants) by

1. long school hours (deters child carers)
2. uniform from single outlet (higher cost and no uniform grants nowadays)
3. unbending rules (deters disabled children who need reasonable adjustments to rules and those with difficult lives). Someone once said "difficult to do your homework on the day you are being evicted." Incidentally where is the kindness they claim to exhibit?

The headteacher claimed you could replicate it anywhere. In the single school locations, you cannot cherrypick students- society needs all children to receive an education.

So where is the evidence that the particular cohort of children they are educating would not be as successful in another London school?

I don't single this school out in saying this but It is very notable that there is little scientific rigour in determining success in education- it seems to be done by anecdote.

So, again, there are aspects of it I like (particularly the high ambition for their students). However, the ambition does not seem to extend to the real cohort of "disadvantaged" they profess to be reaching.

You cannot see the wood (ideas) for the trees (vocabulary) in that dreadful Y9 Dickens essay.

And the same goes for young Keiara!

One very striking thing about the school is how highly qualified all the teachers are in their respective subjects. It is going to be very hard to assess the impact of their methods (which I'm sure will be very high) from the impact of bright, enthusiastic specialist teachers. No struggling to recruit maths teachers. No string of supply teachers for science.

It would be great if that could be rolled out across the country. I suppose fewer teachers might quit if behaviour and workload were sorted.

I agree, noble. It's always very difficult to assess the impact of methods/materials versus bright, engaged and imaginative people (be they pupils, teachers or parents) on pupil progress.

Incidentally where is the kindness they claim to exhibit?

There are whole blogs and book chapters written about this: I don't think I'm up for trying to summarise it here. If I have time later, I will see if I can find a link.

The headteacher claimed you could replicate it anywhere.

I haven't seen her say that. Was it in her speech at their recent conference?

In the single school locations, you cannot cherrypick students- society needs all children to receive an education.

I agree with this. (I'm in a single school location that has let both my daughters down.) However, I also think that we should be providing more alternative provision for children who can't behave in the mainstream. Also, I believe that a lot of disruption and misbehavior at schools at present happens because it can, not because it would be impossible for [nearly all] pupils to control themselves with practice, rewards and incentives/penalties.

So where is the evidence that the particular cohort of children they are educating would not be as successful in another London school?

The evidence will come when they get their GCSE results, not before. If they are as stellar as predicted, it will be difficult to argue they would have been just as successful elsewhere, particularly given the low level start many of them have had.

However, the ambition does not seem to extend to the real cohort of "disadvantaged" they profess to be reaching.

As I said above, I don't think they are professing to be reaching a cohort of children who won't be supported by their parents. I think they are providing something to disadvantaged parents who are desperate for their children to succeed - something that those of us in more advantaged post codes take for granted. I could be wrong, of course, but I would want to see quotes.

It would be great if that could be rolled out across the country. I suppose fewer teachers might quit if behaviour and workload were sorted.

Absolutely. And you might also get more high-quality applicants attracted; at the moment, I'm sure a lot of talented people are being put off (including by their teacher parents, who warn them not to enter teaching whatever they do!).

Which I guess is why Michaela have put so much emphasis on ensuring that their teachers' workload is reasonable, and they can have evenings and weekends for themselves.

One thing about the teacher workload issue - the teachers write their own textbooks. That's a huge workload there. They've designed their own curriculum. Another huge job. There will be ongoing benefits in workload reduction but at some point someone has put in hundreds of hours of work in - and they haven't even started GCSE yet. Who will be writing those textbooks and designing that curriculum, and when?

I suspect a lot of this was only possible because they've had shed loads of spare time due to having 1-3 year groups, and not because they've got a decent marking policy. I could leave at 5 every day if I was only teaching Y7-9. A lot of workload is generated by exam classes.

I don't think they have said what sort of contact hours their teachers have.

I haven't seen her say that. Was it in her speech at their recent conference?

Yes in a video of a book launch she claimed you could do it in a coastal area or Yorkshire (not sure why there?)

It is very interesting that you leap into assuming that children that I suggested would be deterred would be "disruptive" or "misbehave". I mentioned child carers, those being evicted, and many disabled children could also have difficulties in such a school. Again it is the lack of decent academic research and analysis that raises some alarm bells.

Justice thanks, I'll have to have a look at her speech, then.

It is very interesting that you leap into assuming that children that I suggested would be deterred would be "disruptive" or "misbehave".

I disagree that I did that. I prefaced my comment about behaviour with the word "also". It's a separate point.

Like I said above, I don't think the school could be extended to everywhere, and I haven't argued that.

With regard to disabled children, I commented earlier on that the environment in this school would probably be quite beneficial to many children with ASD, who would benefit from the quiet, the order, the lack of bullying, and the clear expectations and routines. But rural areas with only one school to choose from would probably make it impossible to replicate this school wholesale where only one school is viable.

Again it is the lack of decent academic research and analysis that raises some alarm bells.

Actually, their teaching methods are based on a great deal of research by cognitive psychologists, such as Dan Willingham and a number of others. The deputy head, Joe Kirby, describes some of it on his blog.

In my opinion, their methods are far more research-based than those prevalent in the majority of schools. Things like groupwork, investigative learning, project based learning, differentiation, etc have no really reputable research behind them. That's one reason why we see so many fads come and go in our schools: VAK (visual/aural/kinaesthetic) learning styles is a good example. University education departments seized on this with enthusiasm, disregarded the lack of evidence for it, taught trainee teachers about it, and it became mainstream. Now those same education departments are having to back away from it (and not all of them have) because it has pretty much been disproven by research.

I agree that writing textbooks and designing a curriculum are a huge workload. But if incoming teachers have already thought long and hard, while working in previous schools, about what they would like a curriculum and textbooks to look like, a lot of the workload may already have been completed before arriving at Michaela.

Got to go. Kesstrel, may I say I have really enjoyed discussing this with you and the others. It does show Mumsnet at its best

Justice Thanks! I agree about Mumsnet at its best...

Noble I have a feeling that the Senior teaching team take responsibliity for the textbook writing, and that they signed up for the job aware that they would be doing this.

Jess Lund (not on the senior team) comments on one of the pages you showed a photo of:

"We can leave school before 5pm, and take no work home. As a result, we needn't work at weekends or during holidays. Where we choose to do so, this is more a function of being a new school: we are setting up curriculum and infrastructure for the next few decades."

She is certainly implying it's voluntary there. Also, a lot of teachers talk about how the "creative" aspect of designing resources and lessons is one of their favourite parts of teaching; I think someone mentioned it on here. It'd certainly be a lot more interesting and less boring than marking.

This is quite a good blog about by a maths teacher who started at Michaela this September, by the way:

mathagogy.wordpress.com/2016/10/08/starting-at-michaela/

Bobochic, I believe this the godawful Yr 9 opening.

Unless they are planning to spend years 10 & 11 unteach what they've spent the last 3 years teaching, I doubt it's going to get any better before they have to sit exams.

this explains the that should say.

Rafa that really looks like them teaching style over substance and no, it won't help them in their GCSEs. My DD1 is in Yr11 and one of the things they are being taught (which is absolutely about jumping through the hoops and learning exam technique) is how to make their points in ways which are correct, concise, complete and relevant. Adding a load of word salad is going in the wrong direction.

Ugh. So no thinking for yourself then?

Ok, I've just read this blog about the rise of authoritarianism in schools, it's long but worth it:

disidealist.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/the-new-authoritarianism/

An excerpt:
"As a parent, my values are not necessarily the same as your values. For example, I know some parents (or those who claim to speak for parents) argue that top of their list of priorities from a school is exam results. Perhaps they believe – erroneously in my view – that schools determine exam results, rather than being a relatively minor influence. But that’s a different point. Their claim is that everything which happens in a school is justified by exam results. If that means a draconian approach to the clothes the students wear, the size of their rulers, or the way they walk the corridors, then so be it.

I disagree.

I would rather my children were not taught mindless obedience at school. I want them to understand the difference between the necessary surrender of one’s agency for the benefit of others (not shouting in class to disturb others’ learning), and the pointless control over issues which have no impact on others (how you walk between lessons is nobody’s business but your own as long as you’re not late and you don’t kick anyone on the way). I want them to question authority, not blindly obey it. I am appalled by collective chanting of slogans, which I associate with horrible dictatorships. If I had to choose between a child who had a happy time at school and made friends, and one who did not, but got a higher grade (yes, I know it needn’t be a choice, but my children would not be happy under the sort of control-freakery practised in some extreme cases), I would, without reservation, choose happiness and friends."

Actually, I had a conversation with my top set Y7s today about Michaela - a kid was slumped in their chair so I told them about the school where that would get a demerit as would not looking at the teacher, not being silent in the corridor etc. They were horrified and were saying how many detentions they would get. I then said that these kids were using every ounce of their school time to learn and when it came to it, would probably get better exam results. And a Y7 replied 'yeah, but we'll have friends'.

Yes, noble - thank you for finding and sharing that. This:

"You are there to serve your community. Not a part of the community you happen to like and which agrees with you. Not the easy bits of your community. Not just those who vote one way or the other. All of it. Your community is not there to serve you"

captures, I think, what has been troubling me about Michaela - and for that matter, about School21. And a whole bunch of other, undeniably inspiring, schools. I read a blog earlier that blithely asserted that Michaela doesn't 'boot out' kids who don't comply, but rather, it's the case that parents who don't totally buy into the ethos withdraw their children. Which, I guess, is possible if you live within easy travelling distance of a dozen or so secondary options; not so much if you are based rurally. And the blog from the maths teacher, where he talks about how it's such a 'gift' to teach there - to teach compliant, receptive kids who want to learn and achieve. Well, yes, of course. But, y'know, that other kind need an education, too...

I don't know. I'm turning this one over and over at the moment. Ultimately, though, it's yet another bloody London-centric debate, isn't it? Regardless of what the head says about her approach working everywhere.

The school near me got into the news for putting children into isolation for wrong size of their ruler.... (hence my curiosity about this type of school.) I wouldn't want to teach there or send my child there. Agree with the above few posts.

What I like about the idea of the authoritarian approach is not that I want my child to be taught mindless obedience, because in fact my child is obedient at school. I like the idea of my obedient child not having hours a week of her education disrupted by other people's disobedient children.
It would be lovely to think that the 'less obedient' children are just free spirits unfettered by draconian rules, wanting to contribute their thoughts and challenge pointless and dogmatic regulations which restrict their burgeoning independence. But we all know that most disobedience in class is not that at all. It's rudeness, apathy, a lack of consideration for others and a total inability to take responsibility for your actions or your achievement (or lack thereof). And that's just from a parent's point of view. As a teacher it's even worse.