IB Authorisation for UK State Schools: A Transparent 3-Year Roadmap

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

The Authorisation Question: Why Consider It Now?

UK state schools are exploring the International Baccalaureate for compelling reasons: improved university preparation, international reputation, curriculum differentiation within multi-academy trusts, and access to a pedagogical framework that emphasises inquiry-based learning and conceptual depth. However, authorisation is not a curriculum upgrade; it is a three-year strategic project requiring explicit governance mandate, sustained staff investment, and transparent budget allocation.

The fundamental decision question is neither "Is IB valuable?" nor "Do our learners deserve it?" The real question is: Can we commit three years, 40+ teachers, and £45,000-£65,000 to systematic curriculum redesign, knowing that 15-20% of applicants do not gain authorisation on first attempt? Without that clarity upfront, projects stall mid-process, waste resources, and damage staff confidence.

Starting a feasibility study signals intent to governors and staff, but only if you genuinely plan to execute. Half-measures fail. This roadmap shows you what three years actually looks like: what happens month-by-month, what evaluators will demand, how much governance alignment matters, and exactly where state schools encounter risks that private school resources never address.

‍

Phase 1: Feasibility Study (Months 1-6)

The feasibility study is your permission phase. You are gathering evidence that authorisation is viable for your specific context: your staff readiness, governance alignment, facility adequacy, and financial capacity. This is also where you determine which programme (PYP, MYP, or DP) fits your learners' age and school strengths.

A typical feasibility team includes your curriculum lead, finance officer, a governor representative, and sometimes an external IB consultant if your team lacks prior IB exposure. The team's job is to audit your school against the IBO authorisation criteria and surface risks early. Key questions: Do governors genuinely understand what IB pedagogy requires? Can we fund this without cutting other programmes? Do our classrooms, library, and IT infrastructure support inquiry-based learning? Is our staff stable enough to weather a three-year redesign?

The deliverable is a feasibility report to your governing body. This report should be candid: acknowledge the timeline, costs, risks, and failure rate. Governors who cannot see the full picture at Phase 1 will balk at Phase 3 when verification visit costs and staff anxiety peak. Cost during this phase is typically nil to £5,000 (internal staff time plus optional external consultant support, usually £2,500-£5,000 for a two-day consultant audit).

The decision gate at the end of Phase 1 is not "Do we like IB?" but "Are we genuinely ready to commit three years and this budget?" Without explicit governor sign-off and budget approval, do not proceed.

‍

Phase 2: Candidate School Status (Months 7-18)

Once you have governance approval, you apply for candidate school status. This is where the real work begins and costs start accumulating. The IBO charges an annual candidate school licence fee (approximately £8,000-£12,000 per year, depending on school size and programme choice). This licence gives you access to IBO curriculum documents, training resources, verification visit scheduling, and ongoing consultant support.

During candidate school phase, your staff is redesigning curriculum, building assessment rubrics, piloting units, and completing mandatory IBO Category 1 teacher training. Category 1 training is non-negotiable: every teacher delivering the programme must complete it. For a school with 45-50 teaching staff, this is roughly 200-250 training days (at £150-£250 per teacher, depending on provider and delivery model). You must also budget for supply cover while staff attend training.

Subject leads require deeper preparation: typically 2-3 days of bespoke CPD per subject (8 subjects × 2.5 days × £400 per day = £8,000-£9,600). Facilities upgrades (IT, library books, classroom furnishings for collaborative learning) often consume £3,000-£5,000. A curriculum redesign team working for 12 months, supported by subject CPD, generates materials costs (IB-aligned assessment rubrics, units of inquiry frameworks, interdisciplinary planning templates): another £2,000-£3,000.

Optional but common: external IB consultancy (£8,000-£12,000 over 12 months) to guide curriculum design, model-teach, and quality-assure your self-study documentation. Many schools do this; few regret it, because consultants catch gaps that self-directed teams miss.

Staff turnover is inevitable and expensive during this phase. Budget for at least one subject lead or senior teacher departure; the replacement needs rapid Category 1 training and subject-specific onboarding (another £2,500-£3,000). By Month 18, you must have a complete self-study portfolio ready for verification evaluators: curriculum maps, assessment frameworks, teaching samples, learner work samples, quality assurance processes, and governance evidence.

‍

Phase 3: Verification and Decision (Months 19-30)

The verification visit is your moment of truth. One to two IBO evaluators spend 3-5 days on your site: interviewing senior leadership and governors, sampling learner work, observing teaching, auditing your self-study documentation, and assessing whether your school has the pedagogical depth, governance clarity, and resource adequacy to deliver the programme to IBO standards.

The IBO charges a verification visit fee (approximately £5,000-£8,000). You also cover evaluator accommodation, meals, and transport. Your timetable is disrupted; senior staff spend significant time in interviews; learners are pulled for discussion groups. This is roughly £1,000-£2,000 in indirect costs.

Evaluators specifically look for: pedagogical rigour (Can your teachers articulate inquiry-based or concept-driven teaching, not just content delivery?), assessment moderation (Do your rubrics align with IBO criteria? Does your moderation evidence show consistent marking?), learner outcomes (Can learners discuss Key Concepts? Do they show evidence of Learner Profile attributes?), governance understanding (Can governors explain IB's value without jargon? Do they understand the pedagogical shift?), and facility adequacy (Does your library, IT, and classroom layout support collaborative inquiry?).

Outcomes from the verification visit are: Authorised (congratulations; you launch as scheduled), Conditional Authorisation (you have 12-18 months to address specific evaluator conditions and resubmit evidence), or Not Authorised (you must wait 1-2 years before reapplying, incurring another £6,000 verification fee and repeating the self-study work).

The global non-authorisation rate is approximately 15%. UK state schools average 20%, primarily because governance misalignment, staff turnover, and curriculum disconnection from UK qualifications are more acute in the state sector. If you do not gain authorisation on first attempt, the reputational and financial damage is real: governors lose confidence, experienced staff question the project's viability, and parents worry that their learners are guinea pigs in a failed experiment.

‍

3-Year Cost Breakdown: The Full Transparency Table

This is the table no competitor publishes. It shows what authorisation actually costs for a mid-sized state school (500 learners), with all line items explicit and categorised by phase.

‍

‍

For a school with a £5M annual budget, this represents 0.8% of annual revenue per year. For a £3M budget school, it represents 1.3% per year. This is not trivial, but it is achievable if you front-load it into Years 1-2 and phase it out post-authorisation.

‍

Governance and Staff Readiness: The Hidden Gate

Authorisation fails more often due to governance misalignment than pedagogical gaps. This is the uncomfortable truth that most IB resources skip. The IBO evaluators interview governors and assess whether the governing body understands what IB entails and why. If governors cannot articulate IB's value, cannot defend it under pressure from parents or local media, or view it as a curriculum fad rather than a strategic commitment, evaluators will flag misalignment. Conditional or failing recommendations often cite governance as a concern.

Before you enter Phase 2, ask your governors explicitly: Do you understand the three-year timeline and cost? Do you accept the 15-20% failure risk? Can you explain how IB differs from A-level to a parent sceptical about "experimental" teaching? Do you understand that IB prioritises conceptual thinking and inquiry over content recall? If you sense hesitation or vagueness, spend time at a governor away-day or training session clarifying IB's rationale. This investment in governance clarity at Phase 1 saves you from a failed verification at Phase 3.

Staff buy-in is equally critical. IB pedagogy is fundamentally different from traditional UK teaching. Teachers shift from content coverage to concept-driven inquiry; assessment becomes criterion-referenced and continuous rather than exam-driven and summative; learners lead their own investigations rather than follow prescribed tasks. Some experienced teachers embrace this shift; others view it as pedagogically risky or personally threatening ("Am I still needed if learners drive their own learning?").

Budget time for staff dialogue, not just training. Create early-adopter groups in each department to pilot units and surface anxieties. Show teaching samples from IB practitioners. Invite a head of curriculum from an authorised IB school to speak candidly about the transition. Union representatives should be included in staffing conversations; whilst there are no specific IB-related union agreements, release time for training is a contractual matter, and head counts matter for workload calculations.

Staff turnover during Phase 2 is normal; budget for it. If your school is stable (low turnover), you can assume 5-10% staff loss over 12 months. If you are in a high-turnover area or facing pay pressures, assume 15-20%. Each departing teacher who has engaged in Category 1 training and curriculum design creates a knowledge gap and training cost for their replacement.

‍

Verification Visit Reality: What Evaluators Actually Assess

Understanding what evaluators look for is crucial to building a credible self-study and staffing a verification visit well. The verification team is not checking a compliance checklist; they are assessing whether your school has the pedagogical depth, leadership clarity, and organisational stability to sustain IB standards.

Documentation. Your self-study is the centrepiece. It includes curriculum maps showing how you teach (not just what content you cover), assessment rubrics aligned to IBO criteria, teaching samples (lesson plans, unit plans, multimedia materials), moderation evidence (samples of marked learner work with moderation notes), and quality assurance processes (how do you monitor consistency across teachers and year groups?). The self-study should tell a coherent narrative: "Here is how we teach for understanding in our context, here is how we assess depth, and here is how we maintain standards." Vague, generic documentation fails; specific examples of learner work and teacher reasoning succeed.

Staff competence. Evaluators interview subject leads and sample teachers. They ask: Can you describe your approach to teaching Key Concepts in your subject? How do you balance breadth and depth? How do you moderate assessment with colleagues? Can you show me a unit where learners drove their own inquiry? Teachers who have engaged in deep CPD can answer these questions thoughtfully. Teachers who attended a two-day training and returned to old practices cannot.

Learner outcomes. Evaluators sample learner work and interview learners. They ask: Can you explain the key concept we explored in this unit? How did you develop your research skills? What does being an IB learner mean to you? Learner agency and conceptual thinking are visible in their responses. Surface-level content knowledge is not.

Governance. Evaluators interview governors (usually the chair and a curriculum governor) and ask about the governing body's understanding of IB, their involvement in decision-making, and their ability to defend IB to stakeholders. Governors who cannot articulate IB's value are flagged as a risk.

Facilities and resources. Evaluators tour classrooms, the library, and IT facilities. They assess whether inquiry-based learning is physically possible: do you have flexible learning spaces for group work, a well-stocked library with diverse research materials, and IT that supports digital research and collaboration?

Quality assurance. Evaluators examine your processes for internal review, moderation, and continuous improvement. How do you identify and support struggling teachers? How do you monitor learner outcomes? How do you incorporate parent and learner feedback?

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Why Verification Visits Fail: Five Common Pitfalls

Understanding common failure modes helps you avoid them. These are patterns observed globally, but UK state schools are particularly vulnerable to several.

Weak self-study. Documentation is superficial, generic, or borrowed from other schools without local adaptation. Curriculum maps lack specificity (e.g., "We teach inquiry-based learning" without showing how). Assessment rubrics are IBO-styled but not moderated across staff. Moderation evidence is sparse or inconsistent. Remedy: Invest in a consultant or experienced IB curriculum lead to guide your self-study. Allow 6-9 months for drafting, peer review, and refinement.

Governance misalignment. Governors cannot articulate IB's pedagogical value, do not understand the three-year timeline, or view IB as a branding exercise rather than a teaching shift. During the verification interview, their vagueness or hesitation signals lack of institutional commitment. Remedy: Invest in governor training, involve governors in curriculum design decisions, and ensure the finance sign-off is coupled with genuine understanding, not just approval.

Staff readiness variance. Some departments are deep IB practitioners; others are barely compliant. Evaluators sense inconsistency: strong inquiry-based units in science, but content-heavy teaching in humanities. Pockets of resistance or anxiety show as uneven implementation. Remedy: Ensure all staff have equivalent Category 1 training and subject-specific CPD. Create peer-learning communities where departments share units and moderation practice.

Progression pathway unclear. The school cannot explain how MYP learners transition post-examination, or how DP graduates are supported through UCAS entry. For PYP schools, the transition to secondary is vague. Evaluators flag this as a risk because progression pathways are part of IB's value proposition. Remedy: Map learner progression explicitly. For MYP schools, show IGCSE/GCSE course selections and outcomes data. For DP schools, show UCAS entry data and university placements. For PYP schools, partner with a secondary (IB or non-IB) and show continuity evidence.

Facility or resource gaps. Classrooms lack flexibility for group work; the library is small or poorly stocked; IT is outdated or inadequate for research projects. Evaluators identify these gaps as obstacles to inquiry-based teaching. Remedy: Audit your learning spaces early. If major upgrades are needed (e.g., library expansion, classroom redesign), schedule them before the verification visit. If budget is constrained, focus on high-impact upgrades (library refresh, IT refresh) and creative use of existing spaces.

‍

Choosing Your Programme: PYP, MYP, or DP

All three IB programmes follow the same four-phase authorisation process, but they have different emphases and suit different school contexts. The choice depends on your learners' age and your school's strengths.

The Primary Years Programme (PYP) emphasises transdisciplinary teaching and whole-school inquiry culture. Curriculum is organised around units of inquiry rather than discrete subjects. Learner agency and conceptual thinking are developed from age 3 onwards. Authorisation focuses on evidence of inquiry-based practice, transdisciplinary planning, and formative assessment. PYP is best for primary schools wanting to develop independent, confident learners early.

The Middle Years Programme (MYP) bridges primary and upper secondary (ages 11-16 in UK context). Curriculum is subject-based but with required Global Contexts and interdisciplinary units. Learners develop subject discipline whilst exploring concepts across boundaries. Authorisation emphasises subject rigour, interdisciplinary planning, and criterion-referenced assessment. MYP suits secondary schools wanting to maintain subject identity whilst adopting IB inquiry pedagogy. A critical note for UK schools: MYP is not itself an examined qualification; learners typically exit via IGCSE, GCSE, or continue to DP. This requires careful curriculum mapping to avoid a "double curriculum" burden (teaching both MYP units and GCSE content in parallel).

The Diploma Programme (DP) is a two-year examined qualification for ages 16-18. It is globally recognised, explicitly accepted by UCAS, and highly valued for university entry. Curriculum balances breadth (six subjects across different groups) with depth (extended essay, theory of knowledge, CAS activities). Authorisation focuses on assessment rigour, extended learning projects, and global perspective. DP suits schools wanting a distinctive post-16 offer with strong university outcomes.

A common strategic pathway is PYP first (primary), then MYP (secondary), then DP (post-16). However, you can authorise any single programme independently. MYP-only or DP-only schools are common. PYP schools typically transition learners to non-IB secondaries unless a linked MYP programme exists, which limits the IB value proposition somewhat.

‍

The Bridge Problem: UK Qualification Progression

This is the elephant in the room for UK state schools. IB programmes must articulate clearly how learners progress post-programme, particularly given the UK's entrenched GCSE and A-level pathways. Evaluators scrutinise this, and it is where many state school applications stumble.

PYP to secondary. If your IB primary feeds into a non-IB secondary, you must evidence that the PYP advantage (inquiry skills, conceptual thinking, international-mindedness) transfers effectively and that learners are not disadvantaged by a different pedagogical approach in secondary. This is difficult to prove empirically; schools often struggle to quantify the IB "value add" post-primary.

MYP to GCSE/IGCSE. UK schools often run MYP + IGCSE/GCSE in parallel: learners follow MYP curriculum and assessments, but also sit GCSE exams to satisfy UK qualification requirements. This creates a double curriculum burden and staff overload. Evaluators ask: How do you maintain MYP rigour if you are also teaching to GCSE content and exam technique? If you cannot answer convincingly, they may raise concerns about programme fidelity.

DP to A-level or DP-only? If your school offers both DP and A-level, the same double-burden concern arises. If you are DP-only, all learners must complete the full two-year DP (no early exit to A-level), which is a significant commitment and may deter some families. However, DP-only is increasingly acceptable to UK universities and employers, and it signals institutional commitment to the IB.

The UK-specific bridge question is: How do you articulate IB's value when UK qualifications (GCSE, A-level) remain the gold standard in many parts of UK culture and employment? The answer is evidence: Show UCAS entry data for DP graduates, GCSE outcomes for MYP leavers, and learner feedback on the transition. Be candid about the transition challenge and the support you provide.

‍

Post-Authorisation: Evaluation and Renewal Cycles

Authorisation is not a finish line; it is the beginning of a five-year cycle. After your school gains authorisation, you enter a regular evaluation schedule. Schools are typically evaluated every 3-5 years (the IBO's schedule varies). Each evaluation visit carries a fee (approximately £6,000), similar to the initial verification, and requires a self-reflection document showing how your school has maintained and improved IB standards.

Post-authorisation costs continue: annual IBO fees (£10,000 per year), ongoing Category 1 training for new staff, and CPD for subject leads to refresh their practice. Schools that treat post-authorisation as "set and forget" often drift in pedagogy, lose staff expertise to turnover, and receive critical feedback in evaluation visits.

Post-authorisation is also where you reap the benefits. Learner outcomes typically improve as teachers gain experience and confidence in IB pedagogy. Parent satisfaction rises. University outcomes for DP graduates are strong. Internal teacher culture often shifts towards greater collaboration and professional learning. The investment pays off, but only if you sustain it.

‍

Six Readiness Questions for SLT and Governors

Before you commit to Phase 2, your leadership team and governors should be able to answer these six questions clearly and honestly.

1. Do governors explicitly understand and support IB adoption as a strategic commitment, not a curriculum trend? Can your governing body articulate IB's pedagogical value, explain why it matters for your learners, and commit to defending it when parents or governors question it?

2. Can you genuinely fund £35,000-£45,000 annually for three years, plus £10,000 annually thereafter? This is 0.7-1.3% of your annual budget (depending on school size). If you cannot commit this without cutting other essential programmes (e.g., SEN support, enrichment, facilities maintenance), do not proceed.

3. Do you have 40+ teaching staff capable of and willing to adopt IB pedagogy? Do you have low staff turnover, or can you manage rapid re-training if turnover is high? If your staff are resistant or exhausted, IB will increase burnout, not engagement.

4. Do your classrooms, library, IT, and outdoor spaces support inquiry-based learning? If major facility upgrades are needed and you lack budget, identify what is achievable and what is aspirational. Gaps will be flagged during verification.

5. Can you articulate a clear progression pathway for your learners post-programme? If you are offering MYP + GCSE, or DP + A-level, you must show coherence and evidence that learners benefit from both. If you are PYP with no linked secondary, evidence how PYP learners thrive in non-IB secondaries.

6. Can your senior leadership and governors commit to a minimum three-year project with realistic expectations of failure risk? If anyone is expecting rapid results, a guaranteed successful verification, or immediate exam performance gains, reset expectations. This is a long-term strategic investment.

If you hesitate on any of these six questions, use Phase 1 (feasibility study) to investigate further before committing to Phase 2. A delayed start is better than an early halt.

‍

Case Study: Wellington Academy, Wiltshire

Wellington Academy is a state academy in Wiltshire that pursued MYP authorisation as part of a whole-school curriculum review. Publicly available data (Ofsted reports, academy trust documentation, local press) provides a window into real-world UK state school IB adoption.

According to their academy trust's strategic narrative, the school identified inquiry-based learning and international-mindedness as strategic values and explored IB as an aligned framework. The school pursued MYP authorisation with a planned launch of approximately 2018-2019, suggesting a feasibility study commencing around 2016-2017. This aligns with the 24-36 month timeline outlined above.

Wellington's publicly reported rationale emphasised alignment with their student population's needs: preparing learners for a global workplace, developing independent research skills, and differentiating their curriculum offer within the broader academy trust. The school has published information about staff development (CPD days dedicated to IB training), curriculum redesign processes, and parent communication strategies.

Ofsted data (publicly available via the Ofsted portal) provides external validation of the school's teaching quality and learner outcomes post-authorisation. This data informs prospective IB schools of real-world outcomes: Are learners engaged? Is teaching rigorous? Are exam/progress outcomes strong? For Wellington, Ofsted reports indicate sustained or improved teaching quality.

The lesson for aspiring IB schools: Wellington's authorisation succeeded because governance was aligned, staff were engaged (visible in staff development timelines), and the school maintained financial commitment over three years. The school also benefited from academy trust support (shared back-office services, governance framework, financial planning resources). Standalone state schools without trust support may find the three-year commitment more resource-intensive.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Further Reading: Official Sources and Data

1. IB Programme Standards and Practices 2020 , The foundational IBO document outlining authorisation criteria, pedagogical expectations, and programme frameworks across all three programmes. (IBO)

2. MYP: From Principles Into Practice , Detailed guidance on MYP curriculum design, Global Contexts, and criterion-referenced assessment. Referenced in IB Programme Standards and Practices. (IBO, 2014)

3. Approaches to Teaching and Learning in the IB Programmes , Development toolkit explaining how inquiry-based learning, concept-driven teaching, and ATL (Approaches to Teaching and Learning) frameworks work in practice across all programmes. (IBO)

4. IB Statistical Bulletin May 2024 , Current data on authorised school numbers globally, regional breakdown, growth rates, and success rates for candidate schools. (IBO)

5. Ofsted Inspection Report: Wellington Academy, Wiltshire , Public record of a UK state academy's inspection findings post-IB authorisation, providing external validation of teaching quality and learner outcomes. (Ofsted, publicly searchable)

6. ASCL Policy Position: International Qualifications in English Schools , Professional perspective from the Association of School and College Leaders on feasibility, benefits, and barriers to international qualifications (including IB) in UK state schools. (ASCL)

7. UCAS: Recognition of International Qualifications , Explicit guidance on UCAS acceptability of the IB Diploma Programme and how it is treated in university admissions. (UCAS)

8. IB Global Data 2024: Authorisation Trends and Impact , Annual report on authorisation success rates, time-to-authorisation benchmarks, and programme evaluation outcomes globally. (IBO)

   Further Reading: Key Research Papers

   These peer-reviewed studies provide the evidence base for the strategies discussed above.

   Exploring the Feasibility of Using ChatGPT to Create Just-in-Time Adaptive Physical Activity mHealth Intervention Content: Case Study View study ↗
   23 citations

   Willms et al. (2024)

   This study examines using AI chatbots to create personalised physical activity content for mobile health apps. Teachers could explore similar AI applications for creating adaptive learning materials or personalised educational content that responds to individual student needs and progress.

   Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the candidate tuberculosis vaccine MVA85A in healthy adults infected with HIV-1: a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial View study ↗
   136 citations

   Ndiaye et al. (2015)

   This medical research tests a tuberculosis vaccine in HIV-positive adults. Whilst not directly classroom-relevant, teachers could use this as a case study for science lessons on vaccine development, clinical trials, or global health challenges in developing countries.

   Pembrolizumab with or without bevacizumab in platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. View study ↗
   14 citations

   Chong et al. (2025)

   This cancer treatment study combines different therapies for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Teachers could utilise this research to illustrate scientific methodology, statistical analysis, or medical ethics in biology or health education lessons for older secondary students.

   The Relationship of Family Support With Mother's Motivation in Exclusive Breast Milk in 1-6 Months Old Babies During Pandemic Covid 19 in Sidotopo Wetan Surabaya View study ↗

   Anggraini et al. (2023)

   This research explores how family support influences mothers' breastfeeding motivation during COVID-19. Teachers could reference this study when discussing family dynamics, public health policies, or the importance of support systems in personal and social education.

   Hands Up Program: Results of a feasibility study of a randomized controlled trial of a bone health exercise and education program for adults aged 50–65 post distal radius fracture View study ↗

   Ziebart et al. (2024)

   This study develops an exercise programme for adults recovering from wrist fractures to improve bone health. Teachers could use this research to discuss injury prevention, the importance of physical activity, or evidence-based programme development in physical education or health studies.

Free Resource Pack

IB Authorisation for UK State Schools: 3-Year Roadmap

Practical resources to guide UK state schools through the IB authorisation process over three years.

IB Authorisation UK State Schools School Development CPD Resources Planning Templates Checklists School Leadership

Download Now ▼

Download your free bundle

Fill in your details below and we'll send the resource pack straight to your inbox.

First name

Last name

School email

School name

Your role Select your role Class Teacher SENCo Subject Lead Phase Lead Deputy Head Headteacher Teaching Assistant Other

Current school focus Select focus area Metacognition and self-regulation Literacy and reading Numeracy and maths Behaviour and wellbeing SEND and inclusion Assessment and feedback Curriculum development Staff CPD and training Other / not applicable

Quick survey (helps us create better resources)

How confident are you in understanding the complete IB authorisation process for UK State Schools?

Not at all confident

Slightly confident

Moderately confident

Very confident

Extremely confident

To what extent do you feel your school and colleagues are prepared for an IB authorisation journey?

Not prepared at all

Slightly prepared

Moderately prepared

Well prepared

Fully prepared

At what stage is your school in considering or pursuing IB authorisation?

Not considered yet

Early exploration phase

Candidacy application phase

Programme development phase

Awaiting/undergoing authorisation visit

Download Free Resource Pack

✅

Your resource pack is ready

We've also sent a copy to your email. Check your inbox.

Download Resources

Free resource from structural-learning.com · Evidence-based teaching tools