Britain's Strictest Headmistress

[purpleme12]

Did anyone watch this??
I'm interested to see if anyone likes this method of schooling

I watched it!

I'm not sure how I feel. There are some aspects I agree with in a way. The silent corridors thing seemed draconian at first but when they explained it's so you can't get bullied I was like ...okay yeah, I get that. I remember being bullied in the corridors so I probably would've felt safer.

I was always the well behaved child who was constantly exasperated with the teacher having to stop teaching to try to control the misbehaved kids, so in a way I think I'd like the peace at Michaela.

BUT I also think it sounds really oppressive. Exam results are not everything. Getting into Cambridge doesn't guarantee a happy life. I didn’t get straight As at school but I went to a uni to do a creative degree and I'm super happy now. And when I look back at my teenage years, I have lots of happy memories that don’t involve studying 10 hours a day and getting detention for losing my pen or not making eye contact with my teacher.

TL;DR I do appreciate what the school are trying to do but I think it's way too far in many aspects.

I also think whilst it clearly works for some children, there are others that would end up developing extreme anxiety from the pressure to conform and succeed that it would ultimately damage their mental health for years to come.

It was a Catholic primary school in the inner city. We were predominantly first generation born in England mainly Irish but also Polish, Italian, Spanish. There was a girl in my class who was from an English family. She was a novelty.

We lived in a very run down area, most of us didn't have bathrooms, most were from big families. In my class of 48 (one teacher no TAs) 24 of us went to grammar school. Most of the 24 went on to university or a poly, one became a top surgeon, one was a university professor, one became a sister at a famous children's hospital. It was tough but for lots of us it opened doors and I suppose we achieved what lots of parents aspire to for their children.

It did make me anxious at times but when we moved house when I was six there wasn't a space for me at that school, 49 in a class was obviously one too many. So I went to another school for a year where standards were lower, behaviour was terrible and I was terrified most of the time, I think nowadays I would have been referred for help as I got to the stage where I cried all day, my teacher had no patience with me. As soon as I started at the strict school I was my normal self again. So for me I think a very strict school where I knew what would happen, where hurting other kids just didn't happen made a nervous anxious me much happier.

I suppose we need a variety of schools so children can go to somewhere appropriate for them.

I should add that our teacher was very good about differentiation so I got the cane for getting a spelling wrong because she knew I was capable of getting 100%, at the same time a child in a lower group would get a reward for getting a spelling right as that was an achievement for them.

I don’t think it would work outside London. Kids aren’t going there just because it’s catchment, the parents are all supportive.

I work in Hampshire, we take the kids who live locally, there are 2 schools in our area, and some movement between them but essentially not a lot of choices. We have a quite liberal vibe, kids can dye their hair, older kids permitted to wear makeup, we’re ignoring year 11 in trainers at the moment, and we get excellent results, among top in the UK for progress. School my kids go to, again mostly catchment intake, super strict on uniform, detentions for minor infringements. Progress results there are really mediocre, similar catchments in terms of affluence.

Its down to experienced teachers and targeted interventions. My school have a lot of very experienced teachers because it’s a nice environment and the head is supportive. I also think success breeds success, I’ve worked in schools with high turnover and wouldn’t return to that type of environment.

London schools generally do well and part of that has to be better funding. Remember working as a SENCO in a MAT, in my Hampshire school we could get EP in 2.5 days a year and SaLT only if a child had an EHCP, London colleague had 6 days EP and SaLT half data week. Better provision for mental health services too.

There are more ‘normal’ schools in London doing amazing things, but they don’t make for exciting TV in the same way.

When was this on ? I've never heard of it

It was on on Sunday at 10.15
Itv.
So you can watch it on itv hub.
It's just a one off

I had to turn it off as I find it so annoying the way she misrepresents other schools to make hers look better. Eg. Making out that her school is the only school that would give a detention for homework not done. Other schools would say "There, there, you can't help it. We don't expect any better from you because you're poor."
Absolute rubbish

ah thanks @purpleme12

Watched it with dd (20) last night. She is dyslexic, dyscalculic and suffers from anxiety. She felt that the focus was on the poorly behaved pupils and that those that would be well behaved but were quiet and anxious would suffer badly. She likes structure but thought if she had gone there she would spend all her time terrified of getting a detention and her anxiety would be through the roof. I would like to see how they deal with kids with specific learning difficulties and those that are very shy / anxious.

Yes it would interesting to know more about things like that

Perhaps extreme but just goes to show what discipline and good parents on board can do.

Friend works in school kids throwing chairs telling teacher to fuck off parents aren't interested even laugh in some of the meeting can only guess how choses kids will turn out

I watched the programme and I have read her books. Yes, the school is strict, but the children are genuinely happy there, they don't feel oppressed.

I was impressed by the way the child Corliss started off by being somewhat 'naughty' such as being late, forgetting equipment etc, but soon settled down and worked well.

Katharine Birbalsingh points out that letting children get away with minor transgressions is failing them, and I totally agree.

I take the point that the parents all need to be on board with the school and support the children at home, and that there are many parents who either don't care, or can't, do this.

But the children of those parents wouldn't do any better in an ordinary comprehensive either.

The comment about Cambridge is disingenuous. Of course going to a good university can't guarantee happiness, but then nor does going to a sink school and coming out with no real qualifications.

The 'children seeming like robots' comments are unjustified too. I seem to recall that girls at Cheltenham Ladies' College are required to walk corridors in total silence too, and no one complains about their education.

Regarding he poster who pointed out the difficulties her child had, because of Chrone's disease, I do think that Michaela school would adapt in this situation so that the child would have proper access to a toilet. The school isn't totally devoid of understanding.

There ought to be far more schools like Michaela, and I have every respect for Katharine Birbalsingh. (I'm a retired teacher, who, in my time, was pretty strict but loved the children I taught).

I would be interested to visit the school and in particular, to know how they go about teaching French.

I can see that Michaela achieves excellent results for a certain kind of child, but I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole for my own daughter. I was the classic academic but slightly sensitive, anxious child and she shows signs of going a similar way. I would have been completely crushed by the regime at Michaela, and I want a school for DD that nurtures her creativity and imagination and encourages her to think critically and speak truth to authority if necessary.

I think, in our rush to champion these zero tolerance schools, we are forgetting that one size certainly doesn’t fit all; that not all kids, or even the majority, are naturally disruptive and in need of an authoritarian approach, and that there are many children who, for whatever reason (SEND, neurodiversity or simply a slightly sensitive, anxious nature) who simply wouldn’t cope in such a setting.

As someone who has also taught in a number of demographically challenging schools, albeit at primary level, I also agree that Michaela owes its success at least in part to a parent body that is engaged, values education and has willingly signed up to the zero tolerance ethos. I’d like to see them repeat these achievements in, for eg, a depressed seaside town, or deprived northern former mill town. How translatable is it really?

I think, in our rush to champion these zero tolerance schools, we are forgetting that one size certainly doesn’t fit all; that not all kids, or even the majority, are naturally disruptive and in need of an authoritarian approach, and that there are many children who, for whatever reason (SEND, neurodiversity or simply a slightly sensitive, anxious nature) who simply wouldn’t cope in such a setting

Your point is interesting. I agree that not all children are disruptive, but even one disruptive child in a class is a massive hindrance to the educated of the rest of the children, who lose out because the teacher has to spend a disproportionate amount of time on the one disruptive child.

Surely it's better for all the children that none of them is allowed to be disruptive.

As for the SEND and anxious children, most of them, I think, would benefit from the routine and structure of such a school as Michaela. Are these children better able to cope in a school where bullying and disruption is a daily feature?

Regarding The 'depressed seaside towns' and 'northern mill towns,' I see no real reason why a school like Michaela, which fosters ambition, and teaches children that they can achieve, shouldn't succeed in these towns. If Michaela can succeed in one of the poorest boroughs in London, they should be able to succeed anywhere else.

I found things like the shouting out of gratitudes and 2 clap thing ridiculous as were the detentions for what many would consider very minor misdemeanours.

However I would like to see our schools have some sort of consequences for inappropriate behaviour. We have classes where children's learning is being disrupted on a daily basis by a few who choose not to behave. They are virtually running riot around the school, in and out of classes causing disruption as the doors still have to be open all the time.

Our LA does not exclude in these circumstances - only if a weapon is brought into school.😪

I haven't watched it, but I've read quite a bit about the school. I'm a teacher and I understand why this kind of regime would be attractive to some people, given the awful problems with behaviour in schools. But what is needed is more special schools, more power to suspend and permanently exclude, more staff to supervise internal exclusion, behaviour officers (police) in schools which need them. None of that will happen though.

I have (very able, well-behaved) dc in a school where the behaviour is going to the dogs in a big way. I still wouldn't send my children to a school like Michaela. They would be miserable.

But it wouldn’t work in a depressed seaside town because it would be the only school and so wouldn’t have 100% engaged parents, it only works in a large city where parents have a choice. What would happen to the kids with PDA or SLCN, the kids who’ve experienced trauma and genuinely can’t regulate their emotions? The kids with autism or learning disabilities? Of course we do need high quality special schools, but parents have a right to send their children to mainstream schools if they wish and we should be aiming for inclusive education.

We can’t just be excluding kids who struggle with behaviour expectations, because consequences of exclusion are catastrophic.

As for the SEND and anxious children, most of them, I think, would benefit from the routine and structure of such a school as Michaela.

Some would. Some very much wouldn't, I think.

We can’t just be excluding kids who struggle with behaviour expectations, because consequences of exclusion are catastrophic.

Sometimes 'struggling with behaviour expectations' is code for 'behaving like a hooligan because they can'. I'd exclude those kids without a second thought. The others absolutely need help, but they would benefit from the removal of the non-struggling troublemakers.

What would happen to the kids with PDA or SLCN, the kids who’ve experienced trauma and genuinely can’t regulate their emotions? The kids with autism or learning disabilities?

Katharine Birbalsingh explains her philosophy on this. She points out that labelling children is used as an excuse, to justify poor expectations.

The school takes pupils from disadvantaged families, some of whom will have experienced trauma in their lives, but in school, they are expected to concentrate on their work, regardless of their home background.

I appreciate the fact that children with learning disabilities would not thrive in such a school, but schools necessarily cater for the majority of children, not the minority who have learning disabilities.

Such children, and children who genuinely can't regulate their emotions, in my view, would benefit most from specialist education, and I also appreciate that this is sadly lacking in the UK.

I thought it was great. I'm a big fan of hers. Having worked in high schools I can see it wouldn't always work unless you have full backing of the parents. But they appear to have that which makes such a massive difference to the children and to the staff.

Whilst it would be very lovely for both staff and other students to simple make the trouble makers 'disappear' from lessons I'm afraid that your suggestion of excluding them without a second thought just is not possible. Where are those excluded students going to go - they have a right and a legal requirement to be educated somewhere.

The old Pupil Refferal Units (Prus) in my area were closed down years ago to save money. The ones that exist are very few and far bewteen - if my school was lucky we might get two students ina year - from a school of well over 1500 students with quite serious behaviour issues 2 places a year came no where close to meeting our needs. Those studants who did get a place would only have it for a few months there and then we would have to have them back. They rarely came back any better behaved than when they left us. The other option is to do a transfer with another school - if you have other schools close enoguh to you. What this means is that one set of badly behaved students gets swapped for another. Rarely did this help - often it just made things worse as the 'swapped' studnts enjoyed the notorioty and jostled to be noticed by staff and their new peers, usually with yet more disruptive behavior.

Michaela schools work, as pps have said, only in places where parenst have a real choice of schools. the parents who send their children there are fully onboard. Schools outside of cities and big towns are usually the only choice - so they have students coming in by default. If a parent does not stand with the school the it is damn near impossible to get the studnt to behave if they choose not to.

Katharine Birbalsingh explains her philosophy on this. She points out that labelling children is used as an excuse, to justify poor expectations.

But being neurodivergent isn't a label, it's a complex medical need that has to be considered in an educational setting. Saying she expects as much of them as anyone else is all fine and good, but they have to actually be doing something to support the SEN children.