• image seven

Global Literacy Model 2009-2010 - Moving from International Baccalaureate to 21st Century Learning

The idea for combining language immersion with the International Baccalaureate Organization Primary Years Program (PYP) emerged first at Denver International School (DIS) where some of GVA founders developed a successful language immersion pilot program for Mandarin Chinese. While DIS evaluated the PYP, it did not pursue implementation. None-the-less, it was decided early on in the planning for Global Village Academy (GVA) that we would combine language immersion with the PYP. The understanding was that the PYP would reinforce the international character of the school and provide a harmonizing pedagogy across language villages (i.e., Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, etc.) While there was some disagreement over the fundamental identity of GVA in terms of IB and language immersion, it is clear that our fundamental orientation is language immersion with IB secondary. That is not the case with the typical IB PYP school in which IB is primary and second language learning is secondary.

This is reinforced by the fact that most PYP schools use a Foreign Language Experience program (FLEX) (two 30-minute classes a week), while almost all the rest use a Foreign Language in the Elementary School program (FLES) (up to 30-minutes a day). IBO does not provide meaningful guidance regarding second language learning. The IBO publication, Report on Questionnaire Feedback: Additional–language Learning and Teaching in the PYP concludes, “PYP schools are providing additional-language in a variety of ways. There seems to be little uniformity with regard to starting age, the amount of time spent, frequency of sessions, or grouping students for additional-language instruction.” IBO’s Primary Years Programme publication, Learning additional languages in the primary years: A review of the research (January 2002, 25 pages, 32 works cited) states, “The recommendation of regular, brief (30 minutes or slightly less), intensive daily lessons preferably integrated with other subjects can serve as a practical guide for PYP schools to fit the additional language into the timetable.” As above, this is the basic FLES model. Very few IB PYP schools use immersion like GVA.

As GVA has sought to implement the IB PYP, we have encountered a range of issues that have forced us to reconsider the effectiveness and appropriateness of IB PYP for GVA.

  1. While IB offers a PYP workshop entitled Teaching for intercultural understanding and global perspectives the main element that makes the PYP international is the teaching of a second world language. As noted in the brochure describing the PYP, “An authorized PYP school is expected to provide for the teaching of an additional language other than the school’s language of instruction in order to support the international perspective of the curriculum.” And elsewhere, “The PYP aims to develop this international sensitivity through the key questions derived from the concepts and through the content of the written curriculum, such as the requirement that all students receive instruction in a language other than the language of instruction of the school, starting by the age of 7 at the latest. One of the goals of exposing children to languages other than their mother tongue is to provide an insight into and an appreciation of other cultures, and an awareness of other perspectives.” Ironically, a world language and not the PYP curriculum provides the international foundation for the program.
  2. IBO does not support the standards-based requirements that exist in America as a result of No Child Left Behind, nor does it address the accountability issues implicit in CSAP. While a significant amount of effort at GVA supports immersion in a second world language, this is outside the scope of state mandated assessment and accountability. Our focus/performance on reading and writing in English as well as mathematics and science must be high in addition to our proficiency goals for second language acquisition.
  3. While IBO uses an inquiry-based pedagogy, it is not unique to IBO and can be implemented without IBO. Further, IBO requires that each of the six thematic units per year integrate six subject areas, while our model is to use inquiry-based thematic units to focus on social studies and science.
  4. IBO expects that a single teacher will deliver the academic program to a class. This is simply not possible with an immersion model, which is why we have two teachers per grade level per language village: one teaching the world language using immersion (including academic content) and the other teaching in English. Academy International, a charter school in Colorado Springs, was the first school in the US accredited for PYP. Their primary world language model uses FLES, but they also have an immersion option similar to GVA. They were criticized for using two teachers per class in their immersion option to implement PYP. Further, as stated above by IBO, 30 minutes a day of intensive instruction is a practical guide to fit the additional language into the timetable. This obviously conflicts with GVA’s immersion model which ranges from 100% in Kindergarten to 50% in third grade and above.
  5. Our priority for professional development does not align well with IB. Their expectation is that IB professional development has the highest priority. Further, IB professional development is very expensive. At a minimum, each teacher must take Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 workshops. Since these are generally not available locally, teachers must travel to sites where they are offered. The total cost per workshop averages about $1,500. For 20 teachers, the cost would be $90,000. Based on our mission, our professional development priorities are focused on language immersion, core subjects like reading, writing, and mathematics, and technology. IB is fourth in terms of professional development priorities for GVA. (Note: The IB PYP professional development model consists of a total of 23 workshops.)
  6. The IB PYP involves other significant costs to pursue and maintain accreditation, including an IB Coordinator. While we understand the necessity of this position, our educational needs will be better served with an instructional coach to work with our teachers to build overall instructional capacity. Another key need is curriculum development to support language immersion. These strategic investments are critical to the mission of GVA and take precedence over PYP.
  7. When our teachers have attended PYP workshops and explained our educational program, the PYP workshop instructors routinely question why we are implementing PYP and language immersion.
  8. It is clear that our parents choose GVA for their children because of language immersion. While they value an international environment, that environment can be achieved more effectively and with greater synergy without IB PYP.

Given the above, the value of IB PYP to GVA is negative because of cost; ambiguities involving alignment with language immersion and Colorado accountability standards; and limited value added. The Board of Trusteesrecommends thatGVA replace IB PYP with our own Global Literacy model.

Board action to support this transition will need to be reviewed with APS, and will be conditional until approved by the APS. March 18, 2009