The previous section indicates there is great diversity across Australian IB schools. The concept of being an “IB World School”, the official branding by the IBO for authorised schools (IBO, 2015b), suggests an homogeneity not reflected in the profile presented in the previous section. Contextual factors of governance, school type, and number of programmes offered appear to be significant. Some variance is also evident when considered in light of socio-educational
advantage data published by the Australian Government (ACARA, 2019). These data are
considered in this section, which concludes with examination of costs schools incur by becoming and remaining an IB school.
Table 2.6. IB programmes offered by state and sector. Source: IBO (2018f).
NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS ACT NT TOTAL
G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG G NG PYP 17 29 25 2 12 7 26 5 2 5 4 2 43 93 MYP 11 1 10 2 10 9 4 1 3 1 14 38 DP 18 2 15 9 5 1 9 4 2 3 3 1 15 57 CP 1 1 1 1 2 TOTAL 46 32 50 12 20 18 44 14 5 11 7 4 73 190
Note. G = Government schools; NG = Non-government schools.
ACARA developed the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) to enable comparisons between the academic performances of similar school populations,
specifically on national assessments in literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN). It is “an indication of the socio-educational backgrounds of students” (ACARA, 2018a) and is calculated using data on parental occupation and education, geographical location of the school, proportion of students with a language background other than English (LBOTE), and proportion of indigenous students. It is scaled to a mean of 1000 and standard deviation of 100. Quartile distribution of student enrolment for each school is also published on MySchool, enabling comparative analysis of socio-educational advantage to be undertaken (ACARA, 2018a). Individual students whose background locates them in the 4th quartile are considered socio-educationally disadvantaged, while those located in the 1st quartile are considered socio-educationally advantaged (Dickson et al., 2017). Therefore, a school with a high proportion of its total student population in the 1st quartile is considered a highly socio-educationally advantaged community, while high proportions of the total student population in the 4th quartile represent a socio-educationally disadvantaged community.
IB schools in Australia are more present in highly socio-educationally advantaged communities, with even greater concentration of this advantage evident in non-government schools (Figure 2.3). In the non-government sector, six of eight states and territories have average 1st quartile distributions higher than 50%, with New South Wales (n = 26) at 65% and the Australian Capital Territory (n = 4) at 72%; in the Australian Capital Territory, all four schools are higher than 50%, with two over 80%. Eighteen schools have 1st quartile distributions higher than 80%, only one of whom is a government primary school in Victoria. Eleven of these schools have 4th quartile distributions of 0%, while the other seven have distributions of 1%. Seven out of eight states and territories have 4th quartile distributions lower than 10%. The exception is the Northern Territory, although there are only two schools in the sample, one of whom has over 30% of its students from remote indigenous communities.
There is a difference in ICSEA profiles between government and non-government schools. The highest ICSEA for a government school is 1180, compared to 1208 for the highest non-government school. Of the highest 20 government schools by ICSEA, 13 are primary schools offering the PYP, six offer the DP, and only one offers the MYP. By contrast, seven of the lowest ICSEA government schools offer only the MYP and three offer the DP. Only ten schools have an ICSEA under 1000, with the lowest being 928; seven of the ten are in South Australia, and one in each of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Victoria. This analysis supports criticism that IB programmes exist within communities which already benefit from socio-educational advantage (Dickson et al., 2017; Doherty, 2009, 2012, 2013; Doherty et al., 2012), particularly in contexts where socio-educational profiling may contribute to a drift among parents seeking enrolment for their children in schools perceived to be better performing (Rowe & Lubienski, 2017).
Figure 2.3. Total population of Australian IB schools – ICSEA by sector and state. Source: ACARA (2019).
One possible reason for disproportionate implementation of IB programmes within socio- educationally advantaged schools may be the costs required for candidacy, authorisation and evaluation, as well as annual recurrent fees. Ongoing costs for professional development can be substantial, especially in schools offering the DP. The PYP and MYP are both recognised by ACARA as meeting the requirements of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2018b), but differences exist across jurisdictions in content and assessment processes (Bagnall et al., 2015). Similarly, the DP “meets the specifications for ‘Senior Secondary Certificate of Education’ outlined in the Australian Qualifications Framework” (Dixon et al., 2014, p. 6), but significant differences are evident in content and assessment methodologies for Mathematics, Sciences, Language and Literature, and History. In addition, the compulsory elements of TOK, and the EE create professional development needs unique to the IB. Australian IB schools already provide
professional development to support the AC, so meeting IB professional development needs adds to a school’s recurrent costs.
A school seeking to implement an IB programme first applies to be a candidate school. The costs require significant financial commitment (Table 2.7). Depending on progress, the annual candidate fee can become quite an impost as it is payable each year of candidacy. The IB suggests the period of candidacy “typically takes between two and three years” (IBO, 2018a), resulting in minimum direct costs of AUD 24,724 for a school which requires three year candidacy. Throughout the candidacy phase, further costs are incurred because:
the head of the school participates in an IB workshop to become familiar with IB’s programmes, philosophy and authorization process (IBO, 2018c); and, the programme coordinator and other staff must attend specified IB-recognized professional development activities (IBO, 2018b).
These costs can be considerable, both in the candidacy phase and once authorised, with an expectation by the IB that schools fund “continuous training of their teachers” (IBO, 2018i). The standard registration fee for workshop attendance across the IBAP in 2018 is SGD 996, or, AUD 1,009; workshops scheduled for 2018 in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Bangalore, and Shanghai all list this standard fee (IBO, 2018g). International Baccalaureate Schools Australasia (IBSA) is now more proactive in providing IB training in Australia, reducing the need for schools to send staff members outside Australia to access IB accredited professional learning. During 2018, IB accredited training workshops are offered in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, and Brisbane. However, not all venues provide the same training, still necessitating interstate travel for many schools. For example, a series of leadership workshops are only available in Adelaide, and at a cost of SGD 1,250/AUD 1266 (IBO, 2018g).
Table 2.7 IB authorisation and annual fees, 2017-2018. Source: IBO (2018a, 2018b).
Fee Cost AUD11
Application for authorisation SGD 6,100 AUD 6,181
Candidacy annual fees SGD 6,100 AUD 6,181
Annual fee PYP SGD 10,130 AUD 10,265
Annual fee MYP SGD 11,945 AUD 12,104
Annual fee DP SGD 13,865 AUD 14,050
Note. SGD = Singapore dollars; all schools in the IB Asia-Pacific region are charged in SGD. AUD = Australian dollars.
Representatives from each school are also expected to attend annual regional conferences. During the period I served as an IB school principal, I attended annual IBAP conferences in Singapore (twice), Kuala Lumpur, and Melbourne. These conferences were also attended by the three programme coordinators and other appropriate senior staff, representing a major financial commitment in annual recurrent budgets.
Australian-based professional learning does not always provide the full range needed by IB teachers. Schools are therefore required, at times, to send staff internationally to access appropriate IB approved training, as “continuous professional development of IB teachers is a mandatory requirement” (IBO, 2018i). For example, in 2018, there are no scheduled workshops in Australia for courses in the DP Theatre course, my teaching discipline. Workshops are only available in Singapore (September 20-22, 2018) or Hong Kong (September 21-23, 2018) (IBO, 2018g). These dates also fall within published academic term dates across all Australian states and territories, either completely (Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia) or partially (Queensland, Victoria). As
well as international flight travel and accommodation, the timing of either workshop requires additional costs to provide coverage of timetabled classes during a teacher’s attendance (Table 2.8).
Annual costs to schools offering multiple programmes are significant, and the IB acknowledges this commitment through provision of discounted subscription costs whereby:
if a school offers two programmes…the school is given a 10% discount on the lowest single programme fee they would otherwise pay; if the school teaches all three programmes…the discount is 10% on the combined cost of the two lowest programme fees (IBO, 2018e).
Calculations for various programme annual fees are also provided (Table 2.7), and the school in which I worked as principal, a three-programme school, thus incurs annual subscription costs for 2018 of AUD 36,41912. No distinction on fees is made between schools which the IB classifies as private, who can set their own income levels and thus modify their income to cover the cost, and state schools, equivalent to Australian government schools (see explanation in 2.3 Schooling in Australia: fields of contestation) whose income is centrally determined.
Taken together, these expectations place significant financial obligation on schools which can create conflict for principals, given financial management is identified as a responsibility of the principal (see 2.4 Beyond hints and shadows: governance as a context of principals’ work). Newcombe and McCormick (2001, p. 184) identify “preparing the whole school budget and allocating financial resources to individual cost centres throughout the school”, including costs for becoming and remaining an IB school, as first order responsibilities. First order responsibilities are “broad policy or strategic decisions which establish a framework”
(Newcombe & McCormick, 2001, p. 183) for school operations. Costs incurred is clearly a site
Table 2.8 Estimated costs for attending 2018 DP Theatre workshop in Singapore. Source: Association of Independent Schools (NSW) (2017); IBO (2018g).
Item Cost (AUD)
Workshop fee 1009
Accommodation (X 3 nights)13 552
Flights14 885
Casual staff coverage (X 3 days @ AUD 427/day) 1,281
Total 3,727
of contestation within the field of IB schools. The dominating AC requirements are placed in tension with dominating IB requirements, and it is the principal who is charged with the
responsibility to fulfil obligations to both. For principals who would seek to jettison the AC (see Chapter 1: Background to the study), costs associated with its professional development may be considered better spent supporting the considerable costs of being an IB school. For principals who would prefer not to have the IB, the costs associated become a straightforward justification for a school’s withdrawal of an IB programme.
2.8 Eschewing homogeneity: in search of an Australian “IB World School”?