Download Promoting Teacher Support & Community Advertisement of IB in Georgia Schools: A Case Study and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity!
IBNA – The Primary Years
Programme Field Study
February 2009
Overview and Findings
Under a Contract with:
Education Policy and Evaluation Center
College of Education
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
UGA Project Evaluation Team: ¾ Dr. Jori Hall, PI, Assistant Professor, Department of Lifelong Education, Administration,
and Policy
¾ Ms. Tracy Elder, Project Coordinator, Education Policy and Evaluation Center ¾ Ms. Jana Thompson, Research Professional, Education Policy and Evaluation Center ¾ Mr. Scott Pollack, Research Professional, Education Policy and Evaluation Center
Table of Contents
- Overall Summary Report ……………………………………………………….……….…..
- Methods ……………………………………………………………………………..
- Procedures ………………………………………………………………………….
- Findings ………………………………………………………………………………
- Survey Results Report …………………..………………………………………………….…
- Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………………..…
- Appendix I: Evaluation Plan Proposal …………………………………………….
- Appendix II: Evaluation Instruments ……………………………………………….
- Appendix III: School Survey and Results …………………………………………..
team as well as issues that emerged that were not previously known. A case study report for each school is included in a separate section of this report. Individual interviews. A district level administrator and school level administrators from each school were interviewed. These interviews specifically targeted information related to IB implementation, support, and stakeholder involvement. Focus group interviews. To obtain in‐depth information about the perceptions and experiences of teachers and parents, the field research team conducted focus group interviews with teachers and parents. Classroom observations and document review. Classroom observations and the review of relevant documents were also part of the data collection process. These data collection activities provided rich supplemental data that informed understanding of the IB‐PYP implementation process. Procedures for Data Collection and Analysis Project team members developed the protocol for the onsite visits, which included a common set of data collection procedures and instruments to be used during the three onsite school visits to Georgia IB‐PYP schools. Following is a description of the data collection process for the onsite visits. Project Team Members A College of Education faculty member with research expertise in qualitative data collection and analysis as well as knowledge in IB‐PYP, Dr. Jori Hall, served as the Principal Investigator for this project. Professional staff from the EPEC included the Project Director, Tracy Elder, and two research professionals, Scott Pollack and Jana Thompson. Each project team member was assigned roles in this project to design data collection instruments, conduct survey research, coordinate the onsite school visits, develop site visit protocols and data collection processes, and coordinate field data analysis, and reporting. All four members of the project team participated in site visits and contributed to the development of a case study report for each school. The Project Director served as the lead researcher for all three site visits and was accompanied by one of the other project team members. Instrument Development Development of the survey and case study instruments was done by the project team members. Each instrument was divided into two main sections: the current implementation of the PYP and the authorization process. The current implementation section of each instrument was formed based on programme standards and practice with subsections including philosophy, organization, curriculum, students and their families, and overall implementation. The authorization process section addressed the three phases, including the feasibility study, trial implementation, and the IB team visit, as well as authorization process challenges. Survey items related to the authorization and implementation process were answered on a 4 ‐point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A don’t know option was provided for authorization process items. Respondents were asked if they were at the school during each phase of the authorization process; if they were not, then they were not asked the questions about that particular phase. Another question listed challenges a PYP school might face when seeking IB authorization with response options
none/a little/some/very/don’t know. The survey also included an open‐ended question that asked respondents to share any successful strategies used by their school to implement the PYP. The survey was based on another instrument that had been validated by extensive field research. In addition, a review of the survey was conducted by other educational researchers to assess the clarity of the instructions and the basic intelligibility of the items. Based on input from the other educational researchers, the questionnaire was refined by the research team. The research team deleted items and some items were reworded for further clarification to ensure that the measurement tool was consistent and that the respondents would share the same understanding of the questions. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the internal consistency for subsections. The overall Cronbach alpha correlation for the survey is .91. Preliminary survey data analysis informed the development of the individual interview and focus group interview instruments. Based on the analysis, interview instruments were adapted according to stakeholder group, as necessary. Interview instruments were also reviewed by other educational researchers and then revised by project team members. All field researchers involved in collecting qualitative data were trained to maximize inter‐rater reliability. Case Study School Selection Three schools were selected from the sixteen authorized PYP schools in Georgia for a two‐day, in‐depth visit to collect case study data. Selection was based on the following criteria: type and size of school system – small, medium, and large with two county and one city school system; demographics – one school predominantly African American, one school predominantly Hispanic, and one school predominantly white; and size of the community served by the school – metropolitan/urban, suburban/rural. Given the fact that there are no rural schools authorized as IB World Schools in Georgia, one school was selected from the smallest school system (only 7 schools). This school is largely made up of Spanish speaking students (69% Hispanic) with 10 other languages represented by the student population. The metropolitan/urban school selected was from the largest school system represented in the authorized schools (147 schools), located in the Atlanta area. The population at this school is very diverse with students from all over the world due to the influx of immigrants and refugees who come to this area of the state. The demographics of this school include 11% Asian, 53% Black, 2% Hispanic, 8% Multi‐Racial, and 26% White. The faculty also reflects the diversity of the student population. The medium size school system selected was from a school system in middle Georgia with 56 schools. The demographics of this school include 61% White, 25% Black, 8% Multi‐Racial, and 3% Hispanic. The community where this school is located is the home of a US military installation and many of the students are children from military families stationed in this Georgia community. Many of the teachers (90%) are white and are long time residents of the community. Data Collection The survey was administered online to sixteen Georgia PYP schools. These schools were notified about the survey by email. The email was sent out in November with an original cutoff set for survey completion by mid‐November. In mid‐November, project team observed that the participation rate was
Below are examples of documents that were reviewed during the visits.
- Documentation of feasibility study (work products, meeting agendas and minutes, participants)
- Sample communications with parents and community
- Professional development plan, including records of attendance
- Written goals, strategies, timelines
- Student/parent handbooks
- Student work samples, projects
- Records of student’s learning (report card)
- Products of professional development (strategic plans, lesson plans, rubrics)
- Meeting minutes, memos, emails, journals, logs
- Newsletters, announcements, memos, communications with parents
- Community support documentation (communications, services, publicity)
- Web‐site, newspaper articles Data Analysis Data collected from the survey and onsite school visits were analyzed across the subsections of the authorization process (the feasibility study, trial implementation, the IB team visit, authorization challenges) and current implementation (philosophy, organization, curriculum, students and their families, overall implementation). Frequencies and means were calculated for each survey item in an effort to make comparisons across items, as appropriate. Items in each subsection were averaged to create overall ratings. Individual case and a cross‐case analysis were conducted using data collected from the onsite school visits. Data triangulation was used to analyze case study data from individual schools to support the consistency of the data sources, comparing observational data to interview data and comparing the interview information from each person to that of another interviewee. The project team examined cases with the pre‐identified subsections in mind while remaining open to discovering new insights for the individual case and cross‐case analysis. This procedure was conducted multiple times to allow for the development of narrative description. Narrative descriptions were organized by subsections and included in the individual case study reports, as relevant. Individual case study reports are provided in a separate section of this report. Based on the survey and case study reports, recommendations for schools considering the PYP have been compiled into a report brief, which is also included in a separate section of this report. The remainder of this report presents summaries of key findings utilizing the research questions as a framework for synthesizing the survey and case study data collected. Survey data and exemplar respondent quotes are utilized to illustrate key findings related to the research questions.
Findings
1. How does a school move from interested to candidate to authorized status? IB related activities Case study data indicate that issues related to district‐mandated school reorganization, changes in the surrounding neighborhood and wanting to improve the reputation of the school as primary reasons for a school’s decision to implement the IB‐PYP. Schools wanted a program that would attract and develop a diverse high‐achieving student body. Schools learned about the PYP primarily through IB literature and word of mouth: So we [principal and district‐level administrator] were discussing it [the PYP] and she said she had read an article, ‘IB for Peewees,’ and she sent it to us. And from that, that was my first knowledge of the Primary Years Programme. Important initial steps taken by schools to meet IB standards include seeking additional funds, applying for charter school status, meeting with various stakeholder groups, networking with other IB schools and sending teachers to IB workshops. Responses from one principal illustrate how schools learned about the IB and steps taken to start the process: This is an old established neighborhood…when we saw things changing and people leaving…we need something to make us unique…I didn’t want to be the magnet school that gets all the students coming to escape problems in their other schools… so in 2002, we started talking in faculty meetings about the PYP…we invited another IB coordinator to talk to us about it with us…then we were in transit. Internally/school related activities Schools encouraged teacher buy‐in mainly by networking with other schools that offer an IB programme and attending IB workshops. Schools typically sent teachers to the workshops in order to report skills and strategies back to the rest of the faculty. A majority of the survey respondents indicated that teacher buy‐in initially presented at least some challenge (59.5%) to the authorization process. Hiring teachers committed to the PYP philosophy and communicating words of support were other important ways schools established buy‐in for the PYP. The following is a response that demonstrates words of encouragement described by teachers: “We can do this together, we’re a team.” School building leaders (administrators, IB‐PYP coordinator) were largely responsible for pursuing and organizing the PYP authorization process. The majority of respondents (92.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that the school building leaders worked with teachers to deliver the trial implementation of PYP and worked with teachers to make sure the school ran effectively at the time of the IB team visit (95.2%). These school leaders were highly instrumental in spearheading a school vision, developing a plan of action and articulating these goals and plans to the school. This resulted in an understanding of the PYP, a commitment on the part of teachers, the use of new teaching strategies and increased collaboration among teachers. The following quotation denotes a common observation made by school building leaders about changes in teachers’ behavior during the authorization process: “teachers were walking together, supporting each other.”
Support during the Authorization Process In general, moving through the authorization process was reported as a relatively positive experience for schools. The majority of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that IBNA provided support during the feasibility study (87.5%), the trial implementation (80.5%), and the IB team visit (74.5%). Schools found the report provided by the IB team particularly helpful and supportive. The majority of survey respondents (90.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that the report provided useful information to the school. Case study data support this finding. For example, one district‐level administrator noted that the feedback about their PYP implementation was “clear and specific.” A PYP coordinator from another school stated that the feedback was “very affirming.” In addition, two case study schools reported the importance of district‐level support during the authorization process. Reported areas of support include granting charter school status, allowing increased autonomy, providing full‐time faculty positions (PYP coordinators, special area teachers), and funding both workshops and substitute teachers to support workshop attendance. Challenges to the Authorization Process Personnel at all three case study schools cited the lack of IB workshops for special area teachers (e.g. media specialists, counselors, physical education teachers) as a challenge. Schools cited workshops for special area teachers as critical to help them effectively deliver the transdisciplinary nature of the PYP. Other challenges expressed by case study schools include the need for better communication with the IBNA and additional assistance from the organization, particularly in terms of additional time with an IB consultant. Case study data indicate that every school was assigned an IB consultant soon after submitting Application A for candidacy. Because schools can engage in professional learning about IB and can attend IB workshops prior to Application A, becoming an IB candidacy school, each school may be developmentally at a different point on the continuum of understanding and readiness for IB‐PYP at the time of submission. According to teachers and administrators, this factor influenced how schools experienced the process of working with the IB assigned consultant. Two of the case study schools noted that if they were provided help prior to making Application A, they could have avoided some hurdles. A response from one principal illustrates this point when he reported that the school would have “done better” during the feasibility study phase with “more outside [IBNA] help.” Schools that attempt to write IB units and proceed with trial implementation prior to submitting Application A, do so without the assistance of a consultant, potentially making the trial implementation more challenging. However, if the school submits Application A early in the process of learning about IB, a consultant comes into the picture earlier and can provide support while the trial implementation is occurring. One school reported that they were able to utilize feedback provided by its IB consultant to prepare for the trial implementation, which helped to make their authorization process less challenging. Another school expressed that more support with interpreting the feedback from IBNA on Application B would have been appreciated to meet expectations for documentation during the IB team visit. At the very least, more detailed or specific feedback on Application B from IBNA would better prepare the school for the IB team visit.
2. How is the Primary Years Programme (PYP) implemented? Successful Strategies for Programme Implementation Analysis of the findings across site visits and the survey data indicates six different categorizes of successful strategies reported by PYP schools in Georgia. The strategies cited are:
- whole school program immersion
- collaborative, transdisciplinary planning
- continuous training (e.g., IB workshops, faculty meetings, visits)
- resource development to support IB units
- increasing family and community involvement
- leadership to support implementation Whole School Immersion Whole school immersion implies that the school makes every attempt to surround the students and teachers with IB‐PYP. Evidence of the programme can be found everywhere. In each of the schools visited, the hallways and classroom walls provided evidence of this approach toward implementation. Visual displays of student work, student profile words, the IB units, and school‐wide projects promote the IB philosophy. During a parent focus group, one parent said that it was difficult to explain IB to others but added, “You see it.” On the survey one teacher highlighted the importance of making IB visible in the school and promoting the IB philosophy throughout the school day. In addition to visual displays, this teacher described the approach they use at their school, which is called “I see IB.” The staff records examples of IB qualities exhibited by students and the principal randomly draws a student to be recognized as well as the student’s teacher. The teacher stated that this strategy has “united us as an IB school.” A similar approach was noted at one of the site visit schools. At one school during morning announcements the principal talks about the profile word of the day and recognizes students who have demonstrated that trait. For example, a student who demonstrated “empathy” by helping the custodian clean hard to reach areas under the bleachers was recognized. Another common whole school strategy for ensuring integration of IB throughout the school is the expectation that the special areas teachers (art, music, PE, second language, ELL teachers, etc.) integrate the IB units into their instructional plans. Students encounter the current IB unit in all of their classes. The Spanish teacher at one school has established a microcosm of a community with its economic system to teach many of the IB principles and incorporates vocabulary and concepts from the current IB unit. The special area teachers typically have received the same training as the grade level teachers and meet with the PYP coordinator to plan how they will support the IB unit. Strategies for finding the time to meet for collaborative planning vary across schools and can be a challenge, but schools consistently saw involving all teachers as instrumental in implementing the IB‐PYP. Collaborative Planning All stakeholder groups interviewed at the site visits and 42.7% of survey respondents who provided strategies cited collaborative planning and having the time to plan as one of the most successful strategies for implementing IB‐PYP. Strategies for collaborative planning time typically included weekly grade level meetings during the school day facilitated by the PYP coordinator and periodic meetings across grade levels or the whole faculty. Each six weeks teachers at some schools come together for
be more family–oriented, with food served at all meetings and child care provided. The media center at One school uses a software program entitled Babble to facilitate communication with parents and the community. One of the site visit schools has developed the most extensive system for involving families and communities in the school programme. Multiple programs in the school are supported by nonprofit organizations, local colleges and universities, and volunteers and parents provide countless hours of volunteer time. A variety of strategies are used to provide translators to facilitate communication with families. Staff members, other parents, college students, and volunteers all help with communication. When calling a student’s family, the school always tries to communicate in the caregiver’s native tongue. Leadership The final category of successful strategies used by schools to implement the IB‐PYP is necessary on the front end. Support for IB by the school leadership, including the PYP Coordinator, was cited by every stakeholder group and by the respondents to the survey as one of the key strategies for successful implementation. At all three site visits, it was clear that the building level administrators were instrumental in the success of the programme. In two of the three schools visited, the PYP coordinator had been full‐time since early on in the authorization process and these schools had made much progress toward integration of the state curriculum, the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS), and in addressing the transdisciplinary nature of the IB‐PYP. The other school had a part time PYP coordinator who also had administrator duties for most of its PYP implementation. This school showed a marked difference in the progress made toward transdisciplinary teaching and use of the inquiry method of instruction, lagging behind the other two schools. The PYP coordinator was the most important person in the building for maintaining the focus on IB‐PYP. One school described this person as the “taskmaster” who keeps the teachers on task and focused. Others described the PYP coordinator as the person in the building who facilitates communication across grade levels and the special area teachers, including the media specialist; gathers resources to support units; finds answers to questions; observes in classrooms and meets with teachers to troubleshoot what she is seeing; is the keeper of the unit planners; and generally keeps the model going. Stakeholders communicated that someone has to keep an eye on the big picture of IB‐PYP implementation, and this is the primary role of the PYP coordinator. Challenges to Programme Implementation While there were not that many challenges to implementation of IB‐PYP mentioned during the on‐site visits, those that were consistently clustered in four areas:
- limited resources (i.e. time, materials and space)
- integration of GPS and the PYP curriculum
- the transdisciplinary nature of the programme
- district and state expectations Limited Resources Issues related to time and other resources to support the IB units were mentioned most often by all stakeholder groups. Time issues included having enough planning time for special area teachers to meet with grade level teachers; limited whole class instruction due to students being pulled out for services; and instructional time for the media center and the counselor.
Because the IB‐PYP curriculum relies on the inquiry method of instruction, a wealth of support materials is necessary to properly implement the programme. Schools consistently report that acquiring and maintaining adequate instructional materials to support the IB units, which constantly change, is an ongoing challenge. One school has the additional challenge of meeting the diverse needs of a population made up of students from over 30 different countries. Adequate space was a tremendous problem for one of the schools visited. A teacher pointed out that project‐based work required workspace to complete, storage space for project supplies, and display space once the product is complete. This school did not have adequate wall space in the classrooms and hallways to display student work. One teacher shared her frustration that, with the combination of state’s expectation that curriculum objects are posted and IB’s expectation that profile words and themes are posted, no room was left for student work. Integration of GPS Integration of the state curriculum with IB units was a challenge shared by all teachers and administrators based on data collected during school visits and from survey responses. However, 90. percent of the survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their schools have developed strategies to integrate PYP and GPS. The GPS is content‐specific with facts, names, and dates that students are expected to remember when tested on the state‐mandated assessments. The international perspective of the IB curriculum is not content‐specific but rather concept–focused, with connections made to context. Teachers find it a challenge to meet the state expectations of teaching the GPS facts and dates while honoring the global focus of IB. Teachers shared many examples of this challenge, but also gave examples of how certain GPS have been well integrated with IB. Those schools that have been at this longer seem to be adjusting, but still see this as an ongoing challenge, particularly in certain content areas such as math. One teacher admitted that she strays from the unit planner to teach specific information and skills because of the pressure to prepare students for the state assessment. Schools occasionally include stand‐alone units to insure coverage of GPS. Another distinction between GPS and IB‐PYP pointed out by both teachers and administrators at one school is the “rigidity of GPS and the fluid, process‐oriented approach of IB.” They see these as philosophical opposites and have had trouble reconciling the two. Survey respondents rated aligning PYP and GPS as the most challenging aspect of the authorization process. As noted above, GPS is more content‐oriented, focusing on facts and skills that students are measured in the required state tests. IB, on the other hand, tends to focus more on the process of learning and acquiring higher‐order thinking skills. IB schools must serve two masters. While these concerns are specific to Georgia, all schools have national, state and/or local requirements they must meet. The challenge is meeting the requirements of both at the same time without doing twice as much work. Transdisciplinary Nature of IB Curriculum On top of the challenge to integrate IB and GPS, teachers also are faced with IB’s expectation that instruction be transdisciplinary. Most school reported starting with social studies and science integration in unit development and moving to reading and language arts. Math consistently was reported as the most challenging to integrate. Again, schools with more experience with IB were doing a better job with achieving transdisciplinary teaching. School personnel shared that achieving transdisciplinary teaching is a step‐by‐step process and one that does not happen overnight.
process was also suggested by some. IB could post a list of schools or persons interested in mentoring and a bulletin board or place on the website for schools looking for a mentor to post their needs. Consultative Support Some schools do have additional funds for hiring consultants during the authorization process. The PYP coordinator at one school stated she would like to see IBNA produce a list of consultants/experts who could be hired by schools to provide onsite training in specific areas. Another administrator stated that having the names of consultants who are geographically located near the school would be helpful. This has multiple advantages, including familiarity with state curriculum and requirements, decreased travel cost, and ease of access. Numerous interviewees requested more time with the IB consultant and more feedback along the way. As one PYP coordinator pointed out, “the amount of time between Application A and Application B can be a long time and just making a progress report with limited feedback doesn’t help advance your efforts.” She was looking for more specific, corrective feedback. Another school leader felt that the official period of time the school works with an IB consultant should start earlier in the process and the amount of time should be increased. The school that participated in the IB World study highly recommended that all schools receive this level of feedback periodically, both during trial implementation and after authorization. Training Several types of training were suggested by those interviewed. Special area teachers (e.g. counselors, media specialists and language teachers) stated that they had attended the workshops offered by IB but found them to be not specific to their roles in the school. Specialized training, or at a minimum mentoring with a person in a like role at an authorized school, would help these professionals to implement the IB‐PYP and increase their buy‐in to the programme. One district level administrator expressed the desire for IB to provide specific training for district level personnel who are responsible for supporting IB. Communication with IBNA Several school leaders interviewed recommended that IBNA improve communication with schools during the authorization process. Specific and detailed feedback in response to Application B, particularly about the documentation necessary to support the application, would better prepare schools for the authorization visit. Additionally, in larger school systems where multiple schools may be going through the process simultaneously, IB should be sensitive to the timing of the notification of the outcome of the IB authorization visit. It can be awkward for schools in the same district to be notified at different times; it implies differences in effort and implementation that may not actually exist.
School Survey Report
About two‐thirds of respondents (68.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that support for PYP is provided by outside organizations such as businesses and universities. Similarly, about three‐quarters (76.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that parents understand student expectations regarding the IB‐PYP. Taken as a group, these results indicate that respondents believe their schools are following the key principles of PYP. Means were calculated for each item in an effort to make comparisons across items. Items in each of the five subsections were averaged to create overall ratings. Each subsection had an adequate reliability rating to be considered as a coherent scale. All the categories had similar means, ranging from 3.17 for overall implementation to 3.30 for curriculum. In terms of the rating scale, the averages were slightly higher than the agree response, which would equate to a 3.00 average. Current Implementation Sections Mean Cronbach’s Alpha Philosophy (^) 3.28. Organization (^) 3.23. Curriculum (^) 3.30. Students and Their Families (^) 3.21. Overall Implementation (^) 3.17. Authorization Process Phases Slightly fewer than half (48.9%) of respondents were employed by their schools during the feasibility study, 60.1 percent during their school’s trial implementation, and 84.3 percent at the time of the IB Team visit. As with the previous section, the large majority of responses were positive, indicating that each of these processes was accomplished in the proper fashion. The only area with even a slight concern was school district support; 60.8 percent agreed or strongly agreed with this item in the feasibility study section and 58.2 percent in the IB Team visit section. The overall mean for items in the feasibility section was 3.21, similar to the averages in the current implementation section. The means for the trial implementation (3.42) and IB Team visit (3.44) items were higher, placing them nearly halfway between agree and strongly agree on the rating scale. Authorization Process Mean Cronbach’s Alpha Feasibility Study (^) 3.21. Trial Implementation (^) 3.42. IB Team Visit (^) 3.44. Challenges (^) 1.79. Authorization Process Challenges Respondents were asked to rate how challenging the authorization process was in a number of areas. A plurality said that support from school building leaders (33.4%) and student buy‐in (26.0%) were not a challenge at all. On the other hand, a plurality also said that collaborative planning time (34.2%) and
meeting both PYP and state accountability requirements (28.1%) were very challenging. Additionally, alignment of PYP and GPS (2.17) had the highest mean of all the items, indicating that this was the most challenging area. The average rating of all challenges was 1.79, which fell between very little (1.00) and some (2.00) challenge. Successful Strategies for Implementation The survey included an opportunity for respondents to share any successful strategies used by their schools to implement the PYP. A total of 131 (24.3%) respondents completing the survey entered a response to this item. The most frequently identified strategy was collaborative time with other teachers to plan and reflect on instruction (42.7%). The comments reflected that schools have used different ways to schedule the time together for teachers, but that it usually occurs during regular working hours and is often facilitated by the PYP coordinator. The following comments are representative of this category of answers: Collaboration is key. It is also important to have support from an IBO coordinator and from the district. Collaborative planning time is extremely helpful and an absolute necessity for successful implementation and ongoing success of the program. The collaborative planning times are probably the key to the success of implementing the PYP. Almost one in five (19.1%) of the comments about successful strategies referenced the support provided for IB by school administrators, including the PYP coordinator. Having a good full time PYP coordinator is key to a successful program. …We have administration that support the teacher ‐ parent cooperation and are always being considerate of all teachers and staff reflecting the PYP attitudes and profiles. …Our PYP coordinator works closely with teachers and helps provide many of the tangible signs, posters, etc., that are on display throughout the building. The same number of respondents (19.1%) highlighted the opportunities provided for professional development including attending formal IB training, conferences, visiting other IB schools, doing book studies and other learning opportunities offered to their staff members as a key strategy. Training, training, training! With experience comes knowledge and comfort.
1. teachers visit other PYP schools 2. staff meetings in which teachers learn how to implement certain ideas while participating in the same type of activity during the meeting 3. teachers attend IB Level 1,2,3 training 4. book studies by faculty members 5. "walk‐throughs" in which teachers visit classrooms that exemplify "best practices" All teachers are encouraged to attend training across the U.S. All faculty meetings center around PYP training
