Presenting the conceptual framework (THS)

5.4.1 An awkward dual economy (THS)

Reference is made to aspects of financial duality in findings on governance (see 5.3.3 Finance). This section focuses on how principals lead and manage structural and staffing dualities inherent in implementing IB programmes, however, it is acknowledged that governance and management engagement in these issues is symbiotic. Governors have responsibility to ensure the overall financial sustainability and prudence of the school, while limits imposed on the principal by budgetary constraints directly influence staffing capacity, and therefore organisational structure. Where participant comments refer to structural or staffing levels, this infers a perspective on finance, given their interdependence.

The phrase “dual economy” is used by THS on four occasions and reflects a predominant perception among participants that implementing the IB imposes additional requirements for schools, both financial and structural, which are not always easily managed. Other principals speak of a “resource juggling act” (BS), of the pressure there is on “the dollars [for]

staff….future staff changes” (MS), and the need to “query, at times, the amount of travel for workshops and everything else we have to send people off to do” (CS). A tension arises because “the training is horrendously expensive…[and] I just don’t think it’s worth it, but we have to do it to be credentialed” (THS). The principal who is arguably most overtly committed to the IB, SDS (see 8.3 Leadership actors and characters), is unfazed by the costs associated with “taking people overseas, or bringing presenters in for whole days” (SDS). St Donat’s School is

progressing towards being a three-programme school, so they “sent some people

overseas…visited [two other experienced IB schools], they saw what other teachers were doing” (SDS), reduced teaching loads in key leadership areas, and are “changing the curriculum

structures so that when we turn the [MYP] green light on, we’re ready to go” (SDS). These comments reflect the most explicit structural, staffing, and financial commitment of any of the seven participants.

Two participants, SS and GS, make no specific mention of the theme. This seems likely due to the two schools having very high ICSEA (Geneva School = 1172, Singapore School = 1158), plus a combination of site-based factors, shifting its focus into the background. Singapore School has a very strong academic profile, very large student population base, and long history with the IB, thus it is possible the ongoing financial costs associated with the IB are well embedded, resourced, and consequently uncontested. Geneva School, on the other hand, is scrutinising the value of the IB to its academic profile, a topic which dominates the interview. The question for the governing council of Geneva School is more whether the IB inquiry pedagogy is responsible for the declining results in literacy and numeracy. At no point in the interview is this postioned by GS as a financial issue for the governing council, but one of academic reputation.

5.4.2 Big, big picture people (SDS)

The presence of the IB impacts staffing in four key ways: costs associated with professional learning, provision of additional language learning, time release for teacher collaboration, and, in the case of DP schools, staff teaching across both the DP and their local matriculation credential. Six participants identify these as challenges, yet overwhelmingly state the IB is of great benefit

to students and thus the challenges are worth meeting. SS does not mention finance as a

challenge and the concept of the IB creating a “dual economy” (THS) does not appear to apply. The high quality of IB professional learning is widely acknowledged by participants, particularly the benefits of learning with colleagues across the globe. The ongoing shift by the IB to provide a greater range of professional learning in Australia is reported as a positive

development, but accessing this is still a source of inequity, and, consequently, is a particular impact for some participants. For example, the view that staff at Cardiff School embrace “their necessary participation in the workshops and the programmes and conferences” (CS) is in part offset by the admission that “we host the…I’m not sure what it’s called, it’s not a

conference…the workshop programme, anyway, we host that here in [this state]” (CS). It is easier to perceive staff “as being fully committed” (CS) to the IB’s professional learning expectations in a circumstance where proximity of the opportunity is so immediate.

By contrast, the impost is felt most keenly by the two government school principals and highlights an apparent sectoral resourcing difference. MS reports that professional learning costs are managed through cooperation with another local government IB school. The other school hosts professional learning and covers the costs, allowing “our staff…to go free of charge” (MS) (see 5.3.4.3 Constraints and restraints we experience in [the] public sector (BS)). MS also

reports the staff have “a really strong culture of PD” (MS) so much so that for a recent visit to an interstate IB school “I flew the entire staff…last year to look at their programmes, took the SSOs, everyone. I paid airfares, I paid transport to and from, they picked up their own

accommodation and their own living expenses” (MS). This particular frustration is compounded by a lack of understanding about the IB requirements by departmental bureaucrats. MS relates a situation where a new staff member is appointed to the school from within the bureaucracy, who

“is a qualified teacher, and they’re now on your staff permanently…[but] hasn’t been in the classroom for 26 years” (MS). The costs associated with training this teacher sufficiently to meet the professional expectations of Maryland School and the PYP are “a horrendous cost to us, as we’ve got to send them off for PYP training” (MS; see Table 2.8 for an example of such costs).

BS expresses similar frustration that even when IB training is delivered in Australia, it can be a financial impost:

We work on finding the money to keep sending our teachers to conferences and since the IB has agreed to run more conferences in Australia, usually they’re in [two other states], so it’s still a cost for us (MS).

There is also limited capacity for MS to raise additional funds at the school level as “just paying the IB admin fees is a huge stretch [for our parents], so, you kind of work on trying to manage all that” (BS). The constant shifting between enabling and administrative responsibilities inherent in CLT are arguably more pointed, in such circumstances.

The requirement to fund additional language learning is absent from the comments of all participants. This is quite an unexpected finding, given the extent to which this can impose financial obligations on schools. It may be that inclusion of the language requirement is already a feature of the pedagogical philosophy in participant schools, such as at The Hague School, where “for us the language requirements aren’t typically very difficult to meet and it’s a real strength for us” (THS). Nonetheless, the absence of commentary about the costs of additional language provision is quite striking.

Time is given for collaboration in all schools and is a significant factor in the way principals perceive its value to a vibrant professional culture in their schools. An NVivo word frequency text search for “collaboration” with grouping set to “with stemmed words” returned 41 instances. Importantly, no participant indicates collaboration is utilised because it is an

expectation of the IB, but because “teacher collaboration is key to [learning] success” (SS). For some, this has necessitated catalysing staff to shift their staff mindset about collaboration.

“Smaller groups who have been given time to collaborate” (SDS) are preferred over larger whole school or section/stage meetings, requiring some principals to work actively in shifting mindsets. At Maryland School, the principal and deputy principal (who is the PYP coordinator)

“actually…contrived who was in the groups” (MS), including senior staff, as a strategy to ensure collaborative planning time is used effectively. For THS, the shift is much greater because “a lot of people have worked in silos, not because they can’t work with each other, but because it never occurred to them to do anything else and no-one ever put them in a room and made them talk” (THS). The shift brings previously isolated colleagues together to “collaborate in terms of their teaching practice, learning from each other what they’re doing, how they’re thinking, and so on” (THS), although THS reports this is in its infancy and still meets with some resistance.

There is widespread provision of time built in to the “structure of the school day” (SS) to “meet as teams” (MS), and staff teaching loads are reviewed “to make sure that there is time for collaboration” (SDS). Bethesda School has “a late start on Wednesday morning for our students, and in that hour on Wednesday mornings” (BS) staff meet for collaborative learning and

curriculum development. St Donat’s School is philosophically and practically committed to a position where “our primary school staff have the same teaching load as our secondary teachers” (SDS), a sign to staff of the high value SDS places on time for professional collaboration.

Despite this variety of generous time provisions in evidence across all Phase One schools, GS, SDS, and THS report pockets of resistance among staff; all three use the phrase “buy-in” to express that some elements of their staff are yet to commit to these practices.

All three DP schools ensure teaching staff teach in both the DP and their local

matriculation credential. This is partly so “we do not end up with a culture where there is a sense there is a preferred option or the school is pushing one way or the other” (THS). This is a

challenge in The Hague School where traditionally some departments have teaching staff assigned to teach in one of the credentials only, a position THS is actively working to overturn. There is some resistance to this change because some “teachers are not necessarily hungry to take on the extra work and the discomfort” (THS) of expanding their teaching repertoire. Part of the rationale is that replacing niche credentialled teachers presents a strategic pressure which requires “a delicate process of having to push” (THS) some staff in that direction.

The case of St Donat’s School is worth further detailed case description, given it is the only school within the sample which recently introduced the IB and which is currently expanding its offering through the introduction of the MYP. Although Singapore School is currently in the process of authorisation for the MYP, its long history with the IB’s “shared philosophy and practice” (SS) generated “great impetus for both PYP and MYP [that] was led from the grass roots” [SS] of the teaching staff, in contrast to the experience of St Donat’s School. The example also offers valuable insight into one contemporary implementation of the IB, given the

magnitude of recent programme growth (see 2.6 A growing community: the IB in Australia). The decision to introduce the IB at St Donat’s School arose from the conviction of SDS that the local curriculum was inadequate to educate “children these days [who] live in a global world” (SDS). After researching a number of alternatives, SDS pursued the IB on the basis it is “based around problem solving, inquiry based learning, based around service…[and] not

shackled by content heavy syllabuses” (SDS). SDS led by example and was one of the first staff members to undertake IB specific training and attend regional conferences. From there, SDS

identified other staff members “who I thought were big, big picture people; they’re broad-

minded” (SDS). SDS disseminated material to them, followed by invitations to attend IB training workshops and conferences. This generated a “static of noise around what the IB looks like” (SDS) which grew in volume. It took “four or five years” (SDS) to build sufficient broad-based support and philosophical commitment before SDS judged it apposite to apply for authorisation. Once commenced, the process of embedding IB philosophy and pedagogy quickly evidenced self-organising CAS properties and “became infectious…because of the network that was out there who were so tuned in to bringing new schools into the club, or into the family or whatever you want to call it” (SDS).

SDS reports the school provided generously for staff release to prepare for

implementation, and reduced face-to-face teaching time in the primary section of the school for teacher collaboration. Presentations about the IB by key staff to the governing council helped consolidate support, which was further reinforced through ongoing reporting by SDS. This “constant reinforcement about the general principles, the Learner Profile, and all those sorts of things” (SDS) is seen as essential to maintaining the commitment of the governing council who provide the financial capacity to implement the IB successfully. This is strategically critical to the current phase of MYP implementation and the planned future DP implementation.

Yet from these positive beginnings, there is still work to be done. As part of due diligence prior to introducing the MYP, the school administered an extensive community satisfaction survey utilising a paid professional school consultancy. One item explicitly asked if staff felt there is merit in adopting the MYP. Primary staff responses were overwhelmingly positive as “100% of the people who responded from the Junior School said “this is a great programme and the kids will benefit”” (SDS). This was not the case among secondary teachers, indicating to

SDS that some “secondary school teachers [are] yet to be convinced. Most of them, yes, but a number, the jury is out” (SDS). SDS employed a strategy to develop and support critical

champions, “key people” (SDS) as advocates for the IB. Inclusion of the Languages department in this process is highlighted, given the compulsory nature of additional language learning required in the MYP beyond mandated state requirements.

The case of St Donat’s School appears positive, to this point. SDS has used personal modelling, articulation of a clear vision, patience, consensus building, and practical financial support to establish the PYP successfully. In person, SDS is dynamic in personality, engaging, and gregarious. It may be this success flows from a combination of personal enthusiasm, an extensive knowledge of the values of the St Donat’s School community, and an invitational approach to staff which is followed up with practical support and clear expectation. The long gestation period of research and implementation appears also to have helped the community adapt to the changes. It remains to be seen if this perceived success is replicated with

implementation of the MYP and the DP.

5.4.3 Presenting the conceptual framework (THS)

Responses to the impact of the curriculum vary according to which programme(s) are offered. The PYP is most straight forward, more challenge exists with the MYP, and the standalone nature of the DP creates structural dualities that some participants find challenging. There is no evidence of difference for multi-programme schools; the responses expressed in the previous sentence apply for each programme offered, regardless of the presence of other programmes. For PYP schools, the impact appears minimal beyond that already reported regarding time taken to align the PYP and local curriculum (see 5.3.4.1 State and territory governance).

All four principals offering the PYP report implementation exceeds requirements of their state and the AC, but it comes at the cost of staff time and stress. There is confidence the two

curriculum frameworks co-exist well, despite teachers “constantly mapping the two curricula to see that they are meeting [state reporting obligations]” (SDS) rather than “spending their effort and being very positive and enthusiastic about the IB” (SDS). There is concern for GS about how well Geneva School is “integrating our literacy and numeracy as much as you should into the programme” (GS) (see 5.3.2.1 Academic profile). GS does not believe this is an issue of the PYP per se, as “I know there are schools who do very well in NAPLAN and do well in the PYP” (GS).

The MYP has more “intricacies and challenges” (CS). Only two schools within the sample offer the MYP, although insights about its impact are also evident in the transcript of BS who withdrew Bethesda School from the MYP. As a primary school, Maryland School has limited exposure to the MYP as it delivers only two years of the five year programme range (IBO, 2016b). For both BS and CS, the priorities of the MYP, including its additional language requirements and relationship to local regulatory frameworks, are inconsistent with their local priorities. In both cases, the schools withdrew from the MYP (see 5.3.5.2 Areas that I think the

IB have gotten into (CS)).

For DP schools, aligning structural requirements alongside those of the local

matriculation credential is challenging. Along with the six DP subjects, “you’ve got to kind of manage your Extended Essay on top of that, and your Theory of Knowledge kind of floating in amongst there” (BS). This necessitates “two additional lines” (BS) in a timetable that “is less flexible” (THS) due to a “philosophy that every student needs to do this full range” (THS) of subjects; this, states BS, “is a complexity” (BS) not required by the state credential. State

curriculum structures also permit a greater level of specialisation, which is not permitted by the IB’s “generalist qualification” (THS).