YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review 2008-2009

!
Contents

Section 1. Preamble

Section 2. Summary of staff responses from mixed departments group discussions

Section 3. Collated feedback from cross-curricular meeting

Section 4. Departmental feedback

Section 5. Recommendations/ challenges for implementation

Appendices

(a)Ideal 11-16 MS Criteria sheet

(b)Handout for individual teachers
(c) Group discussion handout
(d) Timeline

1
 Section 1. Preamble

In 2008, the school adopted a new strategic plan, with a central plank being
to “fully define and articulate middle school curriculum”.

Initially a steering committee was established with representation from all

subject areas. The committee’s task was to establish the process. The group
decided to establish an “ideal middle school curriculum” framework, which
later was changed to become the “ideal 11-16 years curriculum” framework.
This was done as we realized that a change in the middle school to adopt the
IBMYP would necessarily involve grades 9 and 10. The final form of the
framework was determined after drafts were sent to both individual staff
members and subject areas for their input.

In addition, MYP subject guides and current program documentation were

given to each subject area for them to consider the implications to their
curriculum and its delivery of adopting the IBMYP or adapting the current
model, which includes both HKC (core and domains) and the IGCSE.

The committee then prepared a presentation for a full MS/HS staff meeting
that outlined the essential nature of both models. Staff used the “ideal
framework” as a “dry run”. Wide ranging discussion on both models followed
this presentation.

The penultimate stage was the combined staff meeting, in mixed faculty
groups, assessing both models, using the framework rubric. Teachers were
asked to identify the strengths & weaknesses and obstacles to
implementation (irrespective of which model was preferred). This document
then, is the collation and synthesis of those findings.

2
 Section 2. Summary of staff responses from mixed departments group
discussions

The statements in this section were written by the steering committee to

synthesize the data that is collated in full in section 3. In the meeting where
this data was created, MS and HS teachers were placed in mixed
department groups in order to discuss the models and record the views
expressed.

Criterion 1: Philosophy

In terms of philosophy, there was a broad distribution of opinions from the

cross department groups. No groups selected the current model suggesting
that the current model’s philosophy does not fully fit the philosophy criterion.
The spread and creation of other options, splitting HKC and IGCSE, indicates
a lack of consensus and that these two elements have contrasting
educational philosophies. Opinion is obviously split as indicated in the
strengths of the current model P1, P2 and P3. Four of the ten groups felt that
the MYP best fits the philosophy criteria. However, three of the ten groups did
not select a model. Criteria P2, 13 & 15 have strong support for the MYP. P3
has strong support for the current mode.

Summary statement:

The responses on philosophy indicate that there was a strong feeling that
HKC and MYP were well matched to the philosophy descriptors and that the
IGCSE was a poor match.

Criterion 2: Assessment

Six of the groups felt strongly and one somewhat, that the MYP had a
consistent approach across the subject areas (A1). With the current model,
six of the ten groups felt strongly that A1 was a weakness. It should be noted
that teachers differentiated between the HKC component of the model &
the IGCSE. Here, two other groups felt strongly that A1 was a strength of the
IGCSE and two felt strongly it was a weakness of the HKC component.

Four groups felt strongly that the MYP had subject-specific criteria as a basis
for reporting & assessment
(A2). In terms of the current model, five of the groups felt strongly and two
somewhat that A2 was a strength and a further two groups felt it was a
strength, but only in the HKC component. Two groups felt strongly that it was
a weakness in the current model, but specified the IGCSE. One felt strongly
that the HKC was a weakness in A2.

3
Two groups felt strongly and one somewhat that the MYP had authentic
assessment (A3). Three groups felt strongly and one somewhat that A3 was a
strength in the current model. One group felt somewhat that A3 was a
weakness in the current model, and two differentiated between the two
components to say strongly the IGCSE was weak in this area.

Summary statement:

Generally teachers felt that the MYP fitted this criterion better than the
current model. No groups felt that the current model was best. Five felt MYP
was best, two could not reach agreement & three did not make a decision.

Specifically the MYP was viewed as offering a consistent approach to

assessment across all subjects, however implementation was seen as the key
to success. There is evidence to support that either some groups lacked
specific knowledge of assessment, including both authentic and reporting, or
they had not given their opinion.

Criterion 3: Teacher Support / Resources

Generally teachers felt that MYP fitted this criterion better than the current
model. No groups felt that the current model was best; five felt that MYP was
best, two could not reach agreement, and three groups did not state a
decision. Seven of the ten groups stated that the MYP was best in providing
appropriate resources and professional development opportunities (T1). Two
groups stated that the IGCSE component of the current model also strongly
met T1. Seven of the ten groups stated that MYP was best in providing
opportunities to interact with a community of schools and educators with a
common philosophy (T2).

Two groups strongly, and two groups somewhat believed that the IGCSE
component of the current model met T2 (however it was noted that these
opportunities are currently not often utilised). Six of the ten groups indicated
that timetable, physical space, and resources appropriate for middle school
students (T3) would present a challenge to implementing the MYP. Five of the
ten groups stated that the current model presented less challenges in this
regard, if the program was not to change, because all of these resources are
already in place for some aspects of the program.

Summary statement:

It is obvious that the teachers favour the MYP in relation to this criterion, but
adopting it will require additional technology, space, resources, training, and
PD, which could be costly.

4
Criterion 4: Structure

The group decisions and feedback show that views on structure were fairly
evenly split in the staff groups. Five groups couldn’t reach a consensus on the
model that best fits this criterion. Three groups selected MYP, two groups
chose the current model.

There seems more consensus that the structure of the MYP is a strength.
Groups differentiated between the structure of the current model, HKC and
IGCSE, to respond to most of the criteria. More weaknesses were identified
for the current model. Five groups identified the MYP as enabling vertical and
horizontal articulation in regards to skills, literacies and dispositions, and this
was clearly highlighted as a weakness of the current model. Five groups
considered the MYP provided a balance of subject areas, whereas a similar
number found this a weakness of our current model. Six groups identified the
MYP as having a clear framework of learning outcomes and is consistent and
documented. Three groups found this a strength of the current model. Four
groups identified the MYP place community service and co-curricular areas
as part of the structure as a strength.

The fact that MYP provides a continuum between PYP and DP was
mentioned several times in the comments.

Summary statement:

Although there was no clear consensus of which model fits this criterion best
in response to the question directly; more strengths were identified with the
MYP in relation to structure and framework, and more weaknesses were
identified with the current model.

5
 Section 3. Collated feedback from cross-curricular meeting

YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review Cross department group discussion and feedback :

Criteria (1) Philosophy

(c) Observations/comments: Philosophy

P2 for MYP depends on how well it is implemented.

P7 we try to do this, do we actually do this?

P10: More to do with the teacher than the curriculum/ MYP will take up teacher’s time
taking time away from pedagogy

P15: due to lack of library program but students at YIS are very good at project work.

HKC demonstrated educational innovation of YIS. The philosophies of both are valid
and are overlapping element.

HKC is meaningful, IGCSE is challenging and what is in between is varied.

IGCSC is that odds with the HKC philosophy on all accounts.

Overall, MYP HKC fit the philosophy, IGCSC doesn’t fit.

MYP has a strong resource base, more established.

General agreement is that the IGCSC is the part of curriculum that does not fit the
philosophy.

Years 9 and 10 student led very difficult to assess.

Difficult to choose on base of philosophy because this is abstract. Focus must be on

implementation of either program both philosophy or science.

(d) Which model fits this criterion best? MYP – Current Model – No agreement - both

The table below shows the group responses below to the above question, two groups created
their own options as shown. All members of the group had to agree to the selected option.
Blank means the group did not fill in a response to this question.

Current MYP No Blank Both HKC+MYP

model agreement (Not a (Not a
provided provided
option) option)

0 4 1 3 1 1

6
YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review Cross department group discussion and feedback :

Criteria (2) Assessment

(c) Observations/comments: Assessment

MYP and IGCSC could be done at the same time though.

Assessment’s policy gives consistency, need to ensure implementation across

departments. We have criteria but not every one uses it.

A3: Teacher dependent regardless of model.

MYP restricted and prescriptive (three teachers). Time consuming with paper work from
other “hearsay” from the other teacher

MYP 1 teacher think consistency is good.

With current model contrast between HKC and IGCSC is vastly different.
Either model require adoption of clearly defined subject specific criteria,
implementation is key to either approach.

HKC does not grade, science maths do. Weakness in current model is inconsistency.
HKC and other departments 9,10 IGCSE

MYP has well defined framework but it must be adhered to, potential is there and
implementation is key.
Clearly articulated vision and leadership needed.

Currently teacher’s creating rubrics, A1 major weakness of current model. MYP A2

framework of expectation. No agreement under current system. Nothing precludes us
from using authentic assessment. This is happening in some departments, this could
happen everywhere.

IGCSCE is seen as disadvantage.

We had to look at IGCSC and HKC separately in some cases.

MYP has consistency depending on implementation..

Unaware of MYP assessment practice.

7
(d) Which model fits this criterion best? MYP – Current Model – No agreement - both

The table below shows the group responses below to the above question. All members of
the group had to agree to the selected option. Blank means the group did not fill in a
response to this question.

Current MYP No Blank

model agreement

0 5 2 3

(e) If no agreement, what were main areas of conflicting opinion?

Concern about MYP rigor sufficient prep for IB and some discipline curriculum
coverage.

(f) Factors to consider for Implementation relevant to this criterion. (assessment)

F Parents UK want IGCSC

MYP and IGCSC could be done at the same time though.

F milestone plan in cooperating agreed criteria.

F budget for training new staff for new position? Whole staff needs to be aware/
train on IB articulations. Need to hire MYP teachers.

F teacher needs to develop assessment tasks based on criteria. Is there protection

from parents if we make mistakes? Training in MYP unit plus assessment creation

8
 YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review Cross department group discussion and feedback :

Criterion (3) Teacher Support/ Resources

(c) Observations/comments: Teacher Support/ Resources

T3 either philosophy should have middle school dealt with independently of high
school. Transition between classrooms should be minimized for middle school. T3 either
program would need to have space timetable and resources.

Display boards lacking MYP heavily into display. Current model primary and high
school staff have more access to T2 than middle school staff.

Technology component may not fit with current YIS facilities.

MYP very expensive, PD opportunities for MYP essential providing YIS pays for it.

Many resources are universal and relevant to either system.

Resources restrictions (e.g. IT and physical plant) would hold true in either model.
Good teacher resources for IGCSE but limited for languages.
HKC teacher resources do exist, but not under a common umbrella.
Will we require more money to support MYP P.D to meet IBO requirements?
HKC’s philosophy can be quite similar to IBO. It is implementation that may differ.

IGCSE T1/T2 Yes – But not many teachers take advantage of these opportunities.
HKC T1/T2 No – There is nothing available like this for teachers.

Budget for MYP workshops/inviting MYP trainers.

Time and energy.
Hiring new staff. New MYP teachers/ train current staff
Whole staff PD on IB continuum /articulation

MYP will have syllabus guidelines and standards for teaching. There is huge resource
base “OCC vs. HKC filling cabinet”

MYP has OCC and network of support. Particularly useful for smaller departments who
rarely have chance to share resource with other teachers.

9
(d) Which model fits this criterion best? MYP – Current Model – No agreement - both

The table below shows the group responses below to the above question. All members of
the group had to agree to the selected option. Blank means the group did not fill in a
response to this question.

Current MYP No Blank

model agreement

0 5 2 3

(e) If no agreement, what were main areas of conflicting opinion?

No groups entered responses for this question

(f) Factors to consider for Implementation relevant to this criterion. (Support/Resources)

Certain aspects and areas are well resourced and staffed. The timetable needs
attention with middle school’s students more of a priority.

Timetabling
Resources
Will we get the budget needed for changes?
School needs to budget for MYP PD
Space for technology class
Trainers needed, PD days, some of us may need to go to conferences
Resource library needs to be set up for all PYP/MYP/DP
What happened to the teacher resource library?
Resource coordinator needed?
PD needs to be done in relevance for the change to be effective

10
 YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review Cross department group discussion and feedback :

Criteria (4) Structure

(c) Observations/comments: Structure

S2 scheduling needs to be looked at (for b)

S5: link between HKC and IGCSE weak.

S7 and S8 dependent on the school and teachers not the model

S7 more movement towards MS specialists.

Concern of alignment to IBDP

HKC has this ability and some IGCSE subjects

Differences exist between 6-8 and 9-10 because if IGCSE especially in relation to S6.
Both should require S7

We had to look at IGCSE and HKC separately in some cases.

We have PYP and DP therefore MYP may be a good fit.

It’s a continuum PYP to MYP to DP.

Are the outcomes of schools doing MYP in line with the aims? How do we ensure it
happens?

While MYP ensures a balance of subjects, it is not necessarily agreed that a balance is
an ideal situation. Good access to a variety of subjects yet some subjects may need
greater time allocation.

Good links/ articulation between PYP, MYP and DP.

IT/Computing 21st century absent from curriculum.

K-12 teachers have a challenge in meeting needs of both middle school/ high school
students.

11
 (d) Which model fits this criterion best? MYP – Current Model – No

Current MYP No Blank

model agreement

2 3 2 3

(e) If no agreement, what were main areas of conflicting opinion?

Conclusion about these criteria is not fair because it lumps HKC and 9/10 together
when they have been separated.
In either case the structure needs to be overseen, monitored and carried through.
Two members still feel that they need more information.

(f) Factors to consider for Implementation relevant to this criterion. (Structure)

No major change
Vital for MYP or our current model
More meetings
Need for more PD days and student free days
Needs to support curriculum planning with meeting time
Paperwork a worry
May have to compromise within timetable
May need more teachers to create more flexible integration of units
This could shift loads/periods taught per week

12
Section 4. Departmental feedback

Science

Curriculum Framework review discussion.

Following the recent meeting we discussed how we felt about this from
a Science perspective. The notes from this will be circulated for
approval. Some guiding questions were used for this

Can we implement MYP in grade 6-8? What will we need to do this?

There aren’t many changes and the assessment criteria already pretty
much match. This goes for philosophy and curriculum content as far as
we know.
To implement this we think a priority should be given to inter
department time for AOI, and that this should be arranged with care
and sensitivity to teaching sequences. Getting more knowledge in the
department through training should also happen sooner rather than
later. Discussion about hours spent in Science (and, I imagine, other
areas) is needed

Can we implement MYP in 9-10? What will we need to do this?

The simple answer is yes. This would give us a chance to refine the
program to make it a better preparation for IBDP. We would certainly
need some way to ensure that they are at least as well prepared for
the IBDP as they are now. Assessment criteria would need to be
introduced – this will likely happen this SY in line with the assessment
implementation timeline and we should keep a careful eye on the MYP
criteria in this process. The key to implementing this well at this level is
likely to be ensuring rigor and we should consider how this is done.
More understanding of the process of moderation is important

Do we gain anything from implementing MYP?

As long as it is not IBDP lite.

Do we lose anything when dropping HKC?

In grades 6-8 we feel that the progamme would be broadly similar
either way – so no big change here.

Do we lose anything when dropping IGCSE?

We lose exam practice but it is not necessarily felt that this is really all
that helpful anyway.
We have a lot of Pedagogical Content Knowledge related to the
IGCSE and we still use this?
(http://www.intime.uni.edu/model/teacher/teac2summary.html)
IGCSE forms the function of a Key Performance Indicator – would we
still have one?

13
What other questions do we have?
The process of implementation is important to ensure that all issues
have been considered. So far we seem rushed in this and it is important
that realistic timelines that can be kept to are used for this.

Social Studies

As you would be aware the SS dept as such deals mainly with Grades
9-12, hence opinions are based on little first hand experience of the
current middle school program in years 6-8. There is some concern that
MS students (6-8) do not receive enough subject specific knowledge or
skill development under the current model, until they enter the IGCSE
program in Grade 9. With that being said, an MYP framework would
not necessarily alter this. Just how subjects would be determined,
integrated or separated, I don't think has been discussed in detail. I
believe the department would be very hesitant about an integrated
approach throughout the entire middle years.

Generally the IGCSE is considered a rigourous program which has

merits in it prepares students well for the sitting of exams in the DP.
Again, an MYP program could certainly still incorporate the
development of those same skills. In terms of content, the IGCSE is very
content heavy which may be a disadvantage, especially as we are
attempting to cater for many students from non english speaking
backgrounds. The pace at which teachers need to move through
work, can make it more difficult for students to grasp concepts. An
alternate approach may better support students.

Either model has advantages and disadvantages and both are

considered philosophically sound. The implementation of either would
more likely be the determining factor of success for either approach.

Visual Art

Members of the Visual Arts department are really keen on MYP, and we
also like the Technology aspect too.

There are lots of the reasons supporting this, and of course implications.
Whichever way we go, we are hoping that the balance issue is
seriously addressed.

Some relevant comments:

“If MYP were to be introduced in MS, the future of the VA and the
delivery of the Technology component would require serious
consideration. To develop an effective cross-curricula strategy, the

14
delivery of at least some of these creative projects would need a more
planned and structured approach.”

“As the current MS system disadvantages students in the Visual Arts,

and it does not deliver the students the 'balanced' educational
experience, (described in the YIS mission statement), regardless of the
outcome of current debate regarding the implementation between
MYP and the HKC, this issue needs to be addressed. “

“To facilitate this, YIS students need to be offered a broader range of

creative opportunities, particularly design and technology orientated.
This is also an important consideration if the school does adopt the
MYP. The Technology component could play a significant part in the
future development of the Visual Arts Department. “

Mathematics

Mathematics Department response to 11-16 Curriculum Review.

Philosophy
There was strong agreement that MYP promoted internationally and
environmentally minded global citizens, as well as facilitated a
consistent and holistic approach to learning. There was conflict about
the philosophy itself and some felt that a constructivist approach
advocated by MYP slowed down the learning process and caused loss
of time and rigour in mathematics.

Assessment
It was agreed that MYP had the most consistent approach to criteria
based assessment. There is already good work going on in the
mathematics department using authentic assessment. It was felt by
some members of the department that IGCSE was a world wide
qualification that helped students gain entry into universities. The lack
of external examinations at the end of MYP was seen as a drawback.

Teacher Support/ Resources

Teachers agreed that MYP would provide professional development
needed to develop courses and resources. This was seen as positive by
some faculty and negative by others as MYP needs money resources
and teacher time. Currently we develop our own resources in years 6-8
and IGCSE provides a prescriptive syllabus. It was felt that we would
need common planning time if we went ahead with MYP. There was
one faculty member who thought we should plan together regardless
of the program.

15
Structure
It was acknowledged that MYP would ensure balance across subject
areas and provide a consistent framework for a documented
approach to learning. Community service has been introduced as a
middle school activity this year, so MYP is not necessary for this to occur.

Other thoughts and opinions

Demands of MYP has caused problems in other schools. MYP is a tailor
made philosophy compared with the off the peg IGCSE. MYP enables
tailor made year 10 courses that would dovetail into IB. Very
demanding implementing MYP. Staff need lots of PD and time to do all
the implementation work required. The school is currently doing well
academically and MYP could cause this to shift. Most of the maths
department like the IGCSE at Years 9 and 10.

HKC

Response from HKC department reflecting on HKC class.

HKC well aligned with philosophy criteria used for MS curriculum review
HKC Assessment practices continue to evolve and flow smoothly from
grade 5 practices but not necessarily into grade 9.

In terms of teacher support/ resources HKC has invited and hosted

experts over the years which provides exceptional PD opportunities for
teachers and unique learning experiences for students at the same
time. Also used by wider school community. Approach is to have
experts visit school.

Structure: Differentiation has become more difficult with three teachers

(as opposed to four). HKC framework provides the structure for co and
extra curricular experiences e.g. PACT, community service, field studies,
field trips etc.

HKC on MYP (These views were expressed by individual teachers and

not necessarily held by all members of the HKC department)

Conceptually there is a strong overlap between the HKC conceptual

framework and the areas of interaction of the MYP.

Much of the research that underpins the MYP and HKC is similar.
Influenced by similar educational ideologies.

We don't need an outside organisation to tell us what a good middle

school is, we can create it for ourselves

16
HKC on IGCSE (These views were expressed by individual teachers and
not necessarily held by all members of the HKC department)

the IGCSE exam focus is a good preparation for the grade 12 exams

the IGCSE content is useful but there may be too much to cover

concern expressed about the amount of learning time that is lost with
mock exams and exam leave within the IGCSE

IGCSE provides a good transition into high school for the students

Modern Languages

MYP viewed as positive, seems it would give consistency across the

board especially what assessment is concerned.

IGCSE; clear to the students what needs to be studied, easy for

teachers to follow, but too exam oriented, too much time lost on
mocks and at end of year.
The first language IGCSE does not fit the IB well. The FL IGCSE is ok,
although not very authentic.

No matter what system is put in place, we strongly feel that students

should be able to continue to opt for two languages through grade 10.

Physical Education

Meeting Minutes for Dec.10/2008

Discussion on current MS model vs MYP

We are worried that the MYP may be similar to the PYP. At the moment we
are being bogged down with trying to fit lessons into their vocabulary and
planners which does not seem to have any direct benefit to teaching or
learning. There is such a push for inquiry that if followed completely skill
development would certainly suffer.

Prescribed assessments and planners may not necessarily be the best fit
for our school and may not reflect best practice in our subject.

A major worry is increased talk time (by teachers and students) and less
action time as this seems to be a trend within the PYP and yet goes
against the philosophy of all PE training courses.

17
Does MYP allow for the link between PE curriculum and the Athletic
program which ideally feed into one another?

With our experienced staff why do we have to be dependent on an

outside organization to provide us with a framework. Our department is in
favor of developing our own program for the entire school which provides
a good scope and sequence for all grades and is progressive from
bottom to top. We also feel that the inclusion of more PE for kids is essential
to their well being. This would include theory lessons to educate our
students about their bodies and a healthy lifestyle.

Student Support Services

In Student Support Services, we believe that we will do our best to

adapt our support structures to suit either curricular framework model,
and that whichever direction the school moves, we will aim to develop
a 'homegrown' system that best fits the needs of the students. This
support system will continue to evolve alongside the curriculum
framework as it develops, and we will continue to collaborate with
classroom teachers in helping students to scaffold their learning.

Within the MYP, we can see how teaching of EAL students using explicit
assessment criteria and at different levels within language B could be
very effective, and the uniformity of approach and assessment across
the whole of the Middle School would help all learners, and those with
learning differences in particular. Having the Approaches to Learning
area of interaction running through the whole curriculum should
provide students with more consistency between subject areas, and
make collaboration between support teachers and subject teachers
easier.

The decision-making based PSHE curriculum currently taught within the

Vitalic section of HKC can easily find a place within the Homer Faber or
Health and Social Education area of interaction. The current 4 unit
OPHEA (Ontario Physical and Health Education Association) model can
be adapted or expanded as appropriate to accommodate changes
in approach or replaced by another similarly articulated curriculum.
The core content that comprises the current PSHE curriculum is highly
consistent with other models so any changes required should be
relatively easy to implement. With regard to PSHE, the MYP's use of
inquiry and associated reflection is extremely compatible with the
approach we have been using. As those aspects become more
consistent at YIS through either refinement or change, it will increase
the impact of our program for the students.

18
The development of the Community and Service area of interaction
throughout MS will ensure that the activities carried out are grounded
in the classroom, but have real world context, and should have a
strong positive effect on the CAS program that follows in HS.

English

Middle Years Feedback – English Department

MYP

The three people who have experience of the MYP were divided. One
faculty member had great misgivings about how the programme can
be put into practice, whilst others others feel it offers a strong
framework for effective curriculum development. It was therefore
discussed that the implementation of the MYP has a significant baring
on its effectiveness.

Strengths:
-Some feel that MYP helps create independent learners and is more
consistent with the philosophy of the Diploma.

-some think the interdisciplinary aspect is a strength

-We have developed our current grades 6 – 8 assessment framework

very much in line, but not exclusively, with MYP assessment, so the
transition to MYP would be smooth; however, the current grades 6 – 8
assessment framework could equally be adapted to other
programmes.

Reservations:
-interdisciplinary planning has to be real, as contrived links or excessive
planning could distort the nature of our subject.

-academic rigour could also be affected through the focus on Areas of

interaction and trying to fit in interdisciplinary planning

-the view was expressed that it doesn’t prepare students for the rigour
of the diploma; others think the rigour of our programme is up to us,
regardless of the framework

HKC / IGCSE
* a mixed response to these programmes. The strengths of, and
reservations about both programmes were discussed.

19
Strengths
-some think the IGCSE offers academic rigour due to the need to
adhere to the aims and objectives of the course through teaching the
content, and the benchmark of an external, internationally recognized
exam. The view was expressed that without the need to work towards
an external exam, some programmes may not prepare students well
enough for the IBDP.

Reservations:
-IGCSE is inconsistent in philosophy with the Diploma and HKC
programs.

-concern was expressed that the HKC is not consistent with other
domains in some areas and perhaps not rigorous enough preparation
for Years 9/10.

Conclusion
The discussions were full of conflict (in a constructive way) and no
consensus was reached on any point really. The views in regard to the
MYP are very different and depend, to a great extent, obviously, on
people’s backgrounds and experience.

-some people have little or no knowledge of the programme in

practice and base their opinions on theory and what they have heard.

-some people’s experiences with the programme have been very

positive and they feel that the MYP structure, especially with regard to
assessment and inter-disciplinary learning, would help YIS students have
a more rigorous and meaningful learning experience.

-one faculty member had a negative experience of the programme

and found that the focus on interdisciplinary learning led to less rigour
so far as individual subjects were concerned, resulting in a kind of
extended elementary school programme. The necessity for inter-
disciplinary planning and the need to focus on AOIs often became
very contrived and the outcome was a less meaningful learning
experience.

Performing Arts

The collection of views from the Performing Arts department:

20
[ the first person is in place of naming one of the Dept.]

a. I think the MYP will suit what we do.

b. I cannot see how the MYP works not having DONE it.
c. I am concerned at the potential paper work of MYP.
d. The philosophy stated in our doc. seemed slanted in favor of MYP.
e. The ARTS can be subjective yet wide. In creating Assessment Criteria
we may box ourselves in.
f. The word CREATIVITY is in our mission [I think] but not in the IB list of
aims.
g. I am scared of everyone doing the same [ task, theme, unit ] {see
item e.}
h. Will a sub-committee choose a UNIT that is tough to articulate in
music or drama?
i. If we go to MYP it will be a useful career enhancer.
j. Do we have a philosophy that will encourage all 3 of the: soloist,
small group & ensemble?
k. How do we make sure we don't bring the Elementary curriculum too
high up the grade levels?
How do we blend from one to the other? Expression at the expense of
Exam.
l. Drama IGCSE is a rigorous exam and useful, though not compulsory,
for IBT.
m. The product is often just as important as the process in the Arts.
n. A lot of what we do in Drama [ creative, social, ensemble] is well
suited to the MYP. Much of it was composed in anticipation of any
moves in the IB direction.

21
 Section 5. Recommendations/ challenges for implementation

From both the departmental and mixed faculty responses some common
themes emerged regarding the future implementation of the 11-16
curriculum at YIS. Points 1 and 2 were raised irrespective of the model
chosen. Point 3 was more of a concern with regard to the MYP.

1. Meeting and curriculum development time

The need for the next stage of curriculum development to be supported by

the necessary and appropriate opportunities for teachers to meet and plan
collaboratively was highlighted.

2. Timetable

The extent to which our current timetable supports the students and
teachers in delivering the ideal 11-16 curriculum was another issue that was
raised by faculty in departments and in the mixed faculty groups.

3. Paperwork and documentation

Concerns were expressed by several groups that a large increase in

paperwork and documentation may be required if we adopted the MYP.

22
Appendix (a) Criteria for ideal 11-16 curriculum

23
 Appendix (b) Individual Handout

Individual Response for YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review

MS/ HS teachers,

Completing the attached task will help you prepare for the important
curriculum review meeting on Tuesday the 27th January in the HKC at
3.40pm.

You will need to refer to the attached ideal 11-16 curriculum sheet in order to
complete the task.

The review is now named the 11-16 curriculum review to ensure it is clear
that we are looking at curriculum options that affect grades 9 and 10, as well
as grades 6, 7 and 8.

In the meeting, teachers will be in cross-curricular groups discussing the two

models that James MacDonald presented to us on the 18th of November. The
purpose of the meeting is to discuss these options and then feedback to the
steering committee the views of the groups. There will of course be differing
opinions, therefore recording these points of difference will form part of the
feedback, as well as the ideas that were agreed upon.

Teachers who feel their ideas were not well represented in theses discussions
will be able to forward their views to the steering committee to be considered
as part of the review process. It is then the job of the steering committee to
review all the information it has gathered to produce a document to forward
to SALT that describes the views of the faculty on the curricula considered.

Thanks,

John and Colin

24
Appendix (b) Individual Handout

25
26
 Appendix (c) Group handout

YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review Group ( )

2. Cross department group discussion and feedback

Philosophy: For this criterion, using your individual responses and the criteria sheet as a
basis, which descriptors does your group agree are strengths and weaknesses for the
models we are comparing?

(a) Strengths (a) Weaknesses

Current Model MYP Current Model MYP

Strong Strong Strong Strong

agreement agreement agreement agreement

Some Some Some Some

agreement agreement agreement agreement

(c) Observations/comments:

(d) Which model fits this criterion best: MYP – Current Model – No agreement

(e) If no agreement, what were main areas of conflicting opinion?

(f) Obstacles for Implementation relevant to this criterion.

Eg: Teachers may not agree with the philosophy adopted.

27
 YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review Group ( )

2. Cross department group discussion and feedback

Assessment: For this criterion, using your individual responses and the criteria sheet as a
basis, which descriptors does your group agree are strengths and weaknesses for the
models we are comparing?

(a) Strengths (a) Weaknesses

Current Model MYP Current Model MYP

Strong Strong Strong Strong

agreement agreement agreement agreement

Some Some Some Some

agreement agreement agreement agreement

(c) Observations/comments:

(d) Which model fits this criterion best: MYP – Current Model – No agreement

(e) If no agreement, what were main areas of conflicting opinion?

(f) Obstacles for Implementation relevant to this criterion.

Eg: Parents may take time to understand new assessment practice

28
 YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review Group ( )

2. Cross department group discussion and feedback

Teacher support/ resources: For this criterion, using your individual responses and the
criteria sheet as a basis, which descriptors does your group agree are strengths and
weaknesses for the models we are comparing?

(a) Strengths (a) Weaknesses

Current Model MYP Current Model MYP

Strong Strong Strong Strong

agreement agreement agreement agreement

Some Some Some Some

agreement agreement agreement agreement

(c) Observations/comments:

(d) Which model fits this criterion best: MYP – Current Model – No agreement

(e) If no agreement, what were main areas of conflicting opinion?

(f) Obstacles for Implementation relevant to this criterion.

Eg: Large budgetary implications for training of teachers in a new system.

29
 YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review Group ( )

2. Cross department group discussion and feedback

Structure: For this criterion, using your individual responses and the criteria sheet as a
basis, which descriptors does your group agree are strengths and weaknesses for the
models we are comparing?

(a) Strengths (a) Weaknesses

Current Model MYP Current Model MYP

Strong Strong Strong Strong

agreement agreement agreement agreement

Some Some Some Some

agreement agreement agreement agreement

Type to enter text

(c) Observations/ comments:

(d) Which model fits this criterion best: MYP – Current Model – No agreement

(e) If no agreement, what were main areas of conflicting opinion?

(f) Obstacles for Implementation relevant to this criterion.

Eg: Time for collaborative planning should be included in timetable

30
 Appendix (d) Timeline: YIS 11-16 Curriculum Review 2008-2009

TASK DATES
1
Introduction to MS Curriculum review process Sep. 23
2
Set up steering committee – meet and complete Sep. 23 to
Nov. 17
Departments discussing and analyzing curriculum models

3
Framework for ideal MS model sent out to staff to be Oct. 15
looked at in subject areas & feedback to Steer com.

4
Feedback from subject areas on ideal framework/MYP/ Oct 15
current model - strengths/weaknesses/challenges for onwards
implementation

5
Steer com to sift through feedback & finalise the Nov. 11
descriptors & assess suitability of models for presentation

6 Presentations on models to combined MS/HS staff

Nov. 18
Staff continues to assess models in subject areas –
strengths/weaknesses/challenges for implementation

7 Steercom meeting to organize groups for Jan 20 meet Jan 12

8
Whole staff in mixed faculty groups assess values of Jan 27
presented models

9
Steer com collates findings from staff Jan 27 – Feb 11

10
SALT consider findings & determines recommendation to Feb. 16
go to the Board.
11
SALT present report for Board to ms/hs staff Feb. 24

12
Board meeting to consider SALT recommendation March 3

31