John Bald is a former Ofsted inspector. He is Vice-President of the Conservative Education Society.
It seems astonishing that Katharine Birbalsingh’s record-breaking GCSE and A-level results have attracted so much hostility. She and her colleagues have shown that far more children and young people can succeed at school than any of us have previously thought – and closed the gap that is statistically linked to social and racial inequality. They have done this, simply, by ensuring that teaching is closely matched to pupils’ learning needs, and by ensuring that as little time as possible is wasted through misbehaviour and slow movement around the school.
The reason for hostility is also simple. Her enemies do not believe that achievement, in the context of good personal development, should be the goal of education. They have an almost religious belief that social conditions force most of the population to take part in a game they cannot win. The practice of most schools since the 60s shows that they have a point. Children whose parents have not themselves succeeded in education have had an uphill struggle, usually ending in frustration and failure. Most attempts to tackle the problem, including Labour’s strategies, have collapsed. Birbalsingh’s has not. She has shattered their theories, and for that she will not be forgiven. Neither will the small number of education professionals who have defended her. Internet abuse is not pleasant, and I have had my share of it.
If we are to build on Michaela’s success, we must do more than imitate its surface features. “Britain’s strictest headteacher” is not the full story. Sir Michael Wilshaw was equally strict, as are many others now, but Birbalsingh combines these clear expectations with a very high level of care and personal support. To borrow a Labour phrase, “Every child matters.” This ensures that pupils understand the benefits of her approach, and make a personal investment in it. The teachers reinforce this commitment with constant encouragement so that the school is a happy place, which too many others are not.
Sanctions at Michaela are consistent, but moderate, which is essential if they are to be accepted. I experienced extreme strictness in a Glasgow infant school in the 1950s, enforced with straps made of heavy saddle leather, the effect of which was like putting your hand in the fire. Practice in some academy isolation units amounts to solitary confinement, with children copying from textbooks all day, whether or not they understand what they are copying. Staff in these units do not talk to children, but issue orders. This leads to truancy and loathing of authority rather than respect and understanding. That is not Michaela’s way.
The second key issue is the teaching. My previous article set out the problems caused by mixed ability grouping, which makes it almost impossible to match work closely enough to children’s learning needs, and is inconsistent with the evidence of brain research on how children learn. This is not a matter of educational theory, but of scientific observation, and it requires a rethink on everyone’s part. Previous pioneers of clear discipline, notably Sir Rhodes Boyson, were much clearer on behaviour than on teaching techniques, and another pioneering academy in which I worked was much more successful with its higher-attaining pupils than with those for whom learning was not straightforward. This reflects a damaging trend in teacher training, still controlled by progressives, where the emphasis has been on mixed ability and inclusion, with learning seen as a by-product rather than a goal. The result is that pupils with reading difficulties – as most with special needs are – are mostly taught by teaching assistants with limited – or no – training, while those best placed to teach them spend their time filling in forms and organising the work of less-qualified staff. When I held a similar position to the modern SENDCO, in the 1970s, I was expected to know as much as possible about the teaching of reading, and to lead on it. Each school needs someone in this role, and too few have such a person.
We are, of course, nowhere near a complete solution to our problems. Michaela is a small secondary school, located in a former office building. Both of these affect the activities and curriculum it can offer, a point seized on by its enemies to gaslight its success. An increasing number of children need alternative provision, some of it in on-site units, and our Party has a history of neglecting school buildings. Good work-related courses – not Labour’s fake ones – are also essential, as Lord Baker is correct in saying that academic work is not everyone’s cup of tea. But Birbalsingh and her colleagues have smashed what Michael Gove called “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. The progressives would like to put it back, and we must do what we can to stop them.