5.3.1.2.1 The principal and staff 5.3.1.2.2 Governors as parents 5.3.2 School performance
5.3.2.1 Academic performance 5.3.2.2 Compliance and certification
5.3.2.3 It’s looking outside your local area (GS) 5.3.3 Finance
5.3.4.1 State and territory governance 5.3.4.2 Commonwealth governance
5.3.4.3 Constraints and restraints we experience in [the] public sector (BS) 5.3.5 IBO
5.3.5.1 The ideals are great…but the execution… (THS) 5.3.5.2 Areas that I think the IB have gotten into (CS)
5.3.1 Governors’ understanding
There is significant variance among the principals as to their perception of how well governors understand the IB. Some principals perceive their governors have very good and comprehensive understanding, others express their governors are positive toward the IB but describe their
understanding in generic educational terms, while one perceives governors have little meaningful understanding.
Three principals (BS, SDS, MS) indicate their governors have detailed and well articulated understanding about the IB’s inquiry pedagogy and international mindedness, including use of language directly from, or consistent with, IB documentation:
they’re really clear about all the facets of an IB World School, beginning
particularly with the values and the purpose, in terms of world peace and how we all contribute to that, and we are very passionate about the mantra, “others with their differences can also be right”, because one of our school values is harmony and international mindedness (BS);
if you asked many of them, they would have a deep understanding of it, but they would keep coming back to the international mindedness and the notion of being a global school, and kids being able to have much stronger learning habits and routines around the cross-curricular approaches and those sorts of things (SDS); They’d be very clear. They’d be able to…talk about the basic underlying
principles of IB…They understand the inquiry nature of it (MS). Two principals refer to more generic concepts that are not given further explanation:
they understand that an IB World School is one that offers a rigorous, well rounded curriculum with a world view. They understand that developing international mindedness is about global thinking and the skills to learn across cultures (SS);
they know it’s known for rigour. They know that it aims to have a global
perspective. If pressed, they might have a vague sense that it requires more than just doing exams, but a lot of them would not go much beyond that (THS); Academic rigour is mentioned as an important idea, although what this entails is not further detailed. As The Hague School is a DP school only, the rigour can be assumed to relate to its tertiary preparation context, indicated by additional reference to “more than just doing exams” (THS). No further clarification about rigour is given by SS; Singapore School is a two
programme school offering the PYP and DP, but currently in candidacy for the MYP. Only one principal (CS) specifically mentions that the IB is seen by governors as an alternate academic pathway, a point highlighted by repetition of the idea within the one sentence:
the key thing from our governors’ perspective is that we offer two pathways for our students, that we have a reasonably broad clientele academically and that we offer two different alternatives for them. That would be the major focus for them, rather than there being anything specifically around the international influence and the international possibilities that come out of it (CS).
A follow up question sought clarification about this emphasis, given all primary and lower secondary students at Cardiff School learn within the PYP and MYP frameworks:
Int: Given you have all students participate in the PYP and MYP, does that inform any of [the governors’] understanding of what it means to be an IB World School?
CS: I would say not.
This is surprising, as the school is the only three programme school in the sample. A more holistic integration of IB philosophy and language might reasonably be expected in a three
programme school, which is certainly the expectation of the IB (IBO, 2014c, 2017) and given the PYP and MYP are curriculum frameworks (IBO, 2009, 2014e, 2016b) into which local
curriculum is integrated for all students enrolled up to the conclusion of Year 10 (MYP Year 5). The repetition of credential alternative, combined with a negative response to the clarifying question, likely indicates a particular emphasis in that school on matriculation achievement, which can be evaluated on the basis of DP results, in contrast to the ongoing learning progress of students across the PYP and MYP.
The offering of the IB for market positioning is mentioned by two principals only (THS, GS). Governors of The Hague School are perceived to understand the IB is a “differentiator for us” (THS), but no explanation is given as to how that marketing differential is of particular benefit or is enacted. GS indicates the governors “saw [the IB] as a differentiator for our schools, from a marketing point of view” when it was first introduced to the school. GS perceives there is some understanding amongst governors that the IB is a “really thorough, holistic way of teaching young children” (GS), but overwhelmingly the perception is that “there is very little
understanding at a governance level. Very little” (GS).
The findings above indicate wide variation in how principals perceive governors
understand the IB and why their particular school offers its programmes. This prompted further analysis to to identify possible reasons for this variance. The sampling strata used for selection of Phase One participants was applied to analyse if variance of understanding might be related to the length of time a school has offered IB programmes, related to which programmes are offered, or a combination of both.
5.3.1.1 History and programme offering
This analysis investigates whether any relationships exist between governors’ understanding of the IB, the number and type of programmes offered, and length of authorisation; where a school offers two or three programmes (Table 5.1), the year of authorisation is for the earliest
programme offered. No particular pattern is evident across these data. Longevity as an IB school does not appear sufficient, of itself, to ensure governors have a good understanding of IB
philosophy, aims and pedagogy, neither does brevity appear an impediment. For example, the most expansive and articulate expression is attributed to governors of Bethesda School. The language used by the principal to describe governors’ understanding utilises language directly from the IB: “others with their differences can also be right” (BS), which appears in the IB Mission Statement (IBO, 2014c). Given that Bethesda School has one of the longest histories of offering the IB in Australia, this might suggest a good understanding of the IB among governors is related to that long history, yet this is not comparably evident with perceptions of governors from Singapore School and Cardiff School, two schools also with over 20 years’ history offering IB programmes. Governors from these schools are perceived to have only a general
understanding. By contrast, governors from St Donat’s School are perceived as having a good understanding, despite St Donat’s School having the shortest experience of Phase One
participants. The reference to “international mindednessand the notion of being a global school” (SDS) explicitly reflects the language of the IB Learner Profile, an essential component of IB pedagogy across all three programmes (IBO, 2014c).
There is also no pattern apparent regarding governors’ understanding and which programmes are offered. Those governors who have a good understanding come from a single programme PYP combined primary/secondary school (St Donat’s School), a two programme
Table 5.1. Governors' understanding by programmes and length of authorisation.
PYP and MYP primary school (Maryland School), and a single programme DP secondary school (Bethesda School). Conversely, governors with a general understanding are found in a single programme school (The Hague School), a two programme school (Singapore School), and a three programme school (Cardiff School). The two single programme PYP schools have completely different profiles: Geneva School has a history of eight years, but poor governors’ understanding, while St Donat’s School has good understanding yet only one year’s experience.
Some commonality appears related to a general level of understanding amongst
governors of three schools with experience in excess of 15 years: Singapore School (1991 – 27 years), Cardiff School (1995 – 23 years), and The Hague School (2000 – 18 years). It is possible that schools with significant IB history have governors who assume they possess a better
understanding than in reality might be the case. Further, there may be a complacency about how well their understanding is developed, compared with other examples of what might be optimal. By contrast, governors of Bethesda School (1989 – 29 years) appear to have the most clearly School Authorised Sector Prim/Sec/Comb PYP MYP DP Govs Und
Bethesda School 1989 G Sec +
Singapore School 1991 NG Com =
Cardiff School 1995 NG Com =
The Hague School 2000 NG Com =
Maryland School 2004 G Prim +
Geneva School 2008 NG Com -
St Donat’s School 2015 NG Com +
Note. G = government; NG = Non-government. Prim = Primary only. Sec = secondary only. Comb = combined primary and secondary. Govs Und = Governors’ understanding of the IB. + Governors have a good understanding of the IB, articulated coherently.
= Governors have a general understanding of the IB, articulated generically. - Governors have a limited understanding of the IB, poorly articulated.
referenced and articulated understanding of any school in this sample group, suggesting that factors other than longevity alone are needed to ensure governors develop and retain good understanding of IB philosophy, aims and pedagogy.