There is so much good sense in this article. Of course school culture is important, but that is the necessary condition so that students can be taught. Memorization is a wonderful tool for acquisition and retention of knowledge and a rewarding exercise of what the mind is capable. Teaching children to draw is contrary to the customary practice of selecting kids who can already draw well. And there are parallels to this in all areas of academic, artistic, and athletic skill. The school’s value is in teaching students what they don’t already know.
"...Michaela is known for its rigorous behavioral rules: silent hallways between classes, a strict uniform code, punishments for things like forgetting a pen." This sounds like a difficult environment for some disabled students, like those with ADHD. Do you know if the school works well for disabled students? Do they enjoy good outcomes?
When I visited Michaela, I asked Katharine Birbalsingh about their students with disabilities. Her answer was that they don't really think in those terms. So I guess there wouldn't be any data on that (I'm not sure if the government in England collects data on student subgroups the way the US government does).
There may well be some students for whom Michaela doesn't work well, but I think students with ADHD and other disabilities often benefit from a highly structured environment and explicit instruction that breaks complex skills and concepts into manageable chunks.
Michaela is a neighborhood school serving the predominantly low-income families who happen to live in the catchment area. We can assume at least natural proportions of students with ADHD, anxiety, etc. in their student body. Michaela students consistently self-report being happy and proud of their school, and they earn some of the best GCSE scores in the country. Why is it so unthinkable that consistent enforcement of high expectations would be *good* for students? I'm constantly amazed by the power of the romantic, "student-centered" (i.e. permissive and infantalizing) educational paradigm. All over the internet and in personal conversations, I find educators who can't believe what the Michaela school is doing despite the overwhelming evidence. It's like the miasmists of the 19th century refusing to believe in germ theory.
I have taught for 26 years in a relatively affluent suburban school district (12 years in upper elementary and 13 years in middle school). What I have seen in the past 15 years is a move towards the top levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy while avoiding the base of the hierarchy, along with a push for lots of student choice. The results are kids who create low level work, have difficulty answering text-based questions, and do not understand what respect looks and sounds like in different settings.
The point that discipline and hierarchy may be useful to, but are not in themselves means for, learning is so important and so missed by so many. Similarly, though you don't emphasize it, the fact that PROGRESS is measurably good in Michaela is the point that very, very few in education policymaking really care about. A test (and ours are, in fact, pretty bad) is largely only useful as a measure against other test takers, and including the test taker's previous tests. Seeing an individual student improve their test scores is significant evidence that the student is gaining academic skills and abilities. In a broad way so is progress by class against other schools' progress by class. But those bigger measures get harder to gather useful data from as so many factors can be held up as the "reason" for the improvement.
One point missed and not at all insignificant is the point that Erik Loomis, over on Lawyers Guns and Money makes pedantically and combatively, but never mistakenly: in America, a "good" school is a white school. That plays out in many ways, but at a fundamental level, the more white students, the "better" the school will be in testing measurements and in parental belief. There are a lot of ways to unpack that, and even problematize the generalization, but it is a line no one ever wants to cross and so it remains, like whiteness, an unmarked category.
I think the problem most US educators have with memorization is that it tends to stop there. Those who clamor for more "traditional" education usually place high value on memorization, touting things like spelling and memorizing the multiplication tables. Along with things like penmanship and strict discipline traditionalists see memorization as the foundation of learning. However, even the traditionalists consider critical thinking to be the goal of learning.
Some of the best schools in the US are Montessori, which tend to be inquiry based learning. I'm not convinced that either memorization or inquiry is a superior foundation, although there is good reason to think that neither approach is preventative of critical thinking. We simply don't have a good answer for what is the best way to teach children.
So much to ponder in this article! One thing that stood out to me is the idea that everyone has a different idea on what makes a good school--As long as different people have different ideas of what they from school, schools will look different. I wish I could visit and view not just the children who have positive experiences but all of them and not just academics but a feel for how all children are thriving in that environment. My gut is that some children would thrive in an environment with 'rigorous behavioral rules: silent hallways between classes, a strict uniform code, punishments for things like forgetting a pen'. and others would not and why...
Thanks! Always interesting when new people visit Michaela and sure enough political levels and school leaders here make exactly the same mistakes when they try to copy due to growing behavior issues.
I’ll put a link to this on my website collection of links - Sunday at 9 am local time - and together with the YouTube video with Joe Kirby where he talks about their “booth camp” training.
There is so much good sense in this article. Of course school culture is important, but that is the necessary condition so that students can be taught. Memorization is a wonderful tool for acquisition and retention of knowledge and a rewarding exercise of what the mind is capable. Teaching children to draw is contrary to the customary practice of selecting kids who can already draw well. And there are parallels to this in all areas of academic, artistic, and athletic skill. The school’s value is in teaching students what they don’t already know.
"...Michaela is known for its rigorous behavioral rules: silent hallways between classes, a strict uniform code, punishments for things like forgetting a pen." This sounds like a difficult environment for some disabled students, like those with ADHD. Do you know if the school works well for disabled students? Do they enjoy good outcomes?
When I visited Michaela, I asked Katharine Birbalsingh about their students with disabilities. Her answer was that they don't really think in those terms. So I guess there wouldn't be any data on that (I'm not sure if the government in England collects data on student subgroups the way the US government does).
There may well be some students for whom Michaela doesn't work well, but I think students with ADHD and other disabilities often benefit from a highly structured environment and explicit instruction that breaks complex skills and concepts into manageable chunks.
Michaela is a neighborhood school serving the predominantly low-income families who happen to live in the catchment area. We can assume at least natural proportions of students with ADHD, anxiety, etc. in their student body. Michaela students consistently self-report being happy and proud of their school, and they earn some of the best GCSE scores in the country. Why is it so unthinkable that consistent enforcement of high expectations would be *good* for students? I'm constantly amazed by the power of the romantic, "student-centered" (i.e. permissive and infantalizing) educational paradigm. All over the internet and in personal conversations, I find educators who can't believe what the Michaela school is doing despite the overwhelming evidence. It's like the miasmists of the 19th century refusing to believe in germ theory.
The money line: “No, we just teach them how to draw.”
In too many US schools, nobody’s teaching.
I have taught for 26 years in a relatively affluent suburban school district (12 years in upper elementary and 13 years in middle school). What I have seen in the past 15 years is a move towards the top levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy while avoiding the base of the hierarchy, along with a push for lots of student choice. The results are kids who create low level work, have difficulty answering text-based questions, and do not understand what respect looks and sounds like in different settings.
The point that discipline and hierarchy may be useful to, but are not in themselves means for, learning is so important and so missed by so many. Similarly, though you don't emphasize it, the fact that PROGRESS is measurably good in Michaela is the point that very, very few in education policymaking really care about. A test (and ours are, in fact, pretty bad) is largely only useful as a measure against other test takers, and including the test taker's previous tests. Seeing an individual student improve their test scores is significant evidence that the student is gaining academic skills and abilities. In a broad way so is progress by class against other schools' progress by class. But those bigger measures get harder to gather useful data from as so many factors can be held up as the "reason" for the improvement.
One point missed and not at all insignificant is the point that Erik Loomis, over on Lawyers Guns and Money makes pedantically and combatively, but never mistakenly: in America, a "good" school is a white school. That plays out in many ways, but at a fundamental level, the more white students, the "better" the school will be in testing measurements and in parental belief. There are a lot of ways to unpack that, and even problematize the generalization, but it is a line no one ever wants to cross and so it remains, like whiteness, an unmarked category.
I think the problem most US educators have with memorization is that it tends to stop there. Those who clamor for more "traditional" education usually place high value on memorization, touting things like spelling and memorizing the multiplication tables. Along with things like penmanship and strict discipline traditionalists see memorization as the foundation of learning. However, even the traditionalists consider critical thinking to be the goal of learning.
Some of the best schools in the US are Montessori, which tend to be inquiry based learning. I'm not convinced that either memorization or inquiry is a superior foundation, although there is good reason to think that neither approach is preventative of critical thinking. We simply don't have a good answer for what is the best way to teach children.
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions.
So much to ponder in this article! One thing that stood out to me is the idea that everyone has a different idea on what makes a good school--As long as different people have different ideas of what they from school, schools will look different. I wish I could visit and view not just the children who have positive experiences but all of them and not just academics but a feel for how all children are thriving in that environment. My gut is that some children would thrive in an environment with 'rigorous behavioral rules: silent hallways between classes, a strict uniform code, punishments for things like forgetting a pen'. and others would not and why...
Thanks! Always interesting when new people visit Michaela and sure enough political levels and school leaders here make exactly the same mistakes when they try to copy due to growing behavior issues.
I’ll put a link to this on my website collection of links - Sunday at 9 am local time - and together with the YouTube video with Joe Kirby where he talks about their “booth camp” training.
And concerning Swedish school choice, if I should add anything it’s this https://tankesmedjanbalans.se/den-bortglomda-marknadsforskolan-en-nationell-sakerhetsrisk/
Marcus is way better than me in explaining the situation here.
There is a translate button at the bottom if you scroll down.
What is the essence of good teaching? I have identified five "pillars" of good teaching, with suggested questions that every teacher should ask themselves. Go to my blog about this for insights into the five pillars: at https://www.lifelonglearninged.com/blogs/the-five-pillars-of-teaching-success-with-five-sets-of-questions-every-teacher-should-ask-themselves