MYP vs GCSE: What UK State School Heads Should Know Before Switching

Over the past decade, fewer than 10 UK state schools have adopted the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme, despite growing international recognition. Wellington Academy remains the sole state-funded MYP school in England. Meanwhile, approximately 680,000 learners sat GCSEs in summer 2024, making GCSE qualification the undisputed standard for UK secondary education (JCQ, 2024).

For a school leader weighing curriculum change, this gap raises a critical question: Is MYP a strategic investment or a distraction from core UK qualifications?

This article cuts through marketing and provides evidence. We examine the real costs, not IBO's glossy brochure figures, the staffing burden most schools underestimate, the authorisation timeline that catches many leaders off-guard, and the honest trade-offs between MYP's inquiry-based pedagogy and GCSE's content clarity. We're not arguing that MYP is "better," nor that you should stay with GCSE. We're arguing that the decision deserves rigorous analysis. Budget reality, staff capacity, parent confidence, and strategic fit all matter. This article provides the framework to decide clearly.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

The MYP Curriculum, What It Actually Is

The Middle Years Programme is a four-to-six-year curriculum framework designed for learners aged 11, 16, typically spanning Years 7, 11 in UK schools (IBO, 2024). Unlike GCSE, which organises knowledge around discrete subjects and terminal examination success, MYP structures learning around eight subject groups: Language and Literature, Language Acquisition, Individuals and Societies, Sciences, Mathematics, Arts, Physical and Health Education, and Design.

The MYP assessment model centres on four criteria: Criterion A (Knowing and Understanding), Criterion B (Applying and Analysing), Criterion C (Evaluating and Synthesising), and Criterion D (Using Language and Expression). These criteria are not points-based like GCSE grades; instead, they operate as rubrics scored across bands 1, 8, with each band anchored to observable learner behaviours. Schools conduct internal assessment on every unit; externally moderated projects (eAssessment) are submitted digitally to the IBO for moderation.

There are no terminal examinations in MYP. Instead, assessment is continuous and rooted in classroom-based projects, reflective writing, and practical tasks. This is a fundamental departure from GCSE, where the final exam typically weighs 50, 100 per cent of the grade. Learners in MYP also develop the IB Learner Profile, ten attributes including being "inquirers," "principled," "open-minded",which schools embed across the curriculum (IBO Curriculum Framework, 2024).

‍

How GCSE Works: A Refresher for Leaders

GCSE is the General Certificate of Secondary Education, the qualification sat by nearly all learners in England at the end of Key Stage 4 (typically Years 10, 11). The system uses a nine-point grading scale: 9 (highest), 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (lowest), with grade 4 officially recognised as "standard pass" and grade 7 as "strong pass."

GCSE assessment varies by subject but typically combines coursework or controlled assessment (ranging from 0 to 50 per cent, depending on the subject) with end-of-course written examinations. Mathematics, English Language, and English Literature carry heavy examination weighting (80, 100 per cent), whilst subjects like Science, Design Technology, and Drama balance coursework and exams. Schools can offer 16, 20 GCSE subjects, giving learners flexibility in specialisation.

GCSE carries significant cultural weight in the UK. Universities explicitly reference GCSE performance in A-Level entry criteria; employers recognise GCSE qualifications in vocational and apprenticeship pathways; and parents understand the grading system intuitively. The qualification is governed by Ofqual, the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, ensuring consistency and comparability across schools and exam boards (Ofqual, 2024).

‍

The Real Cost of Running MYP

This section addresses the question most senior leaders ask first: Can we afford this?

For a typical secondary school with 500 learners, first-year MYP costs break down as follows. The IBO charges an initial licensing fee of £15,000, 45,000 (depending on school size), plus an annual renewal fee of £8,000, 20,000. Teacher training consumes £20,000, 50,000 in year one when you factor in workshop fees (£300, 500 per teacher), cover for up to 40 staff members attending mandatory 1.5-day induction sessions, and travel. Curriculum development and resource acquisition, textbooks, digital platforms like Managebac, learning management systems, and assessment rubric templates, typically costs £10,000, 25,000. Optional consultancy support, useful for pre-authorisation curriculum design, runs £5,000, 15,000.

Total first-year investment: £58,000, 155,000.

Ongoing annual costs are lower but non-negligible: annual IBO licensing (£8,000, 20,000), modest staff training and refresher workshops (£3,000, 8,000), and occasional resource updates (£2,000, 5,000). These figures represent a genuine commitment, not a one-time expenditure.

Critically, these are direct costs only. Indirect costs, increased administrative burden during authorisation, staff time spent on curriculum mapping, release time for curriculum design workshops, often exceed the direct line items. Wellington Academy, whilst not publicly disclosing exact costs, likely invested £300,000, 500,000 across its first three years in total implementation (independent school benchmarks, 2024).

‍

‍

Authorisation: Timeline and Hidden Requirements

Before any learner enters MYP, your school must be formally authorised by the IBO. This process is not quick.

The timeline runs 18, 24 months from decision to first cohort launch. The process begins with an Expression of Interest submitted to the IBO, setting out your school's rationale, leadership commitment, and resource plan. This is followed by a Development Visit, a week-long consultation with an IBO expert who reviews your curriculum design draft, assesses staff readiness, and identifies gaps.

Next comes the self-study document, a comprehensive 40, 60-page submission detailing curriculum mapping, assessment procedures, staff training schedules, resource allocation, and alignment to the MYP framework. Schools typically spend 3, 4 months on this document, often with consultant support. The IBO then schedules an Authorisation Visit, a two-day on-site assessment conducted by external examiners who interview staff, observe lessons (if pilot units are underway), review documentation, and evaluate readiness.

Within three months of the visit, the IBO issues a decision. Approximately 85 per cent of schools that enter this process receive authorisation (IBO, 2023), meaning success is likely if you've invested properly. However, the 15 per cent that are unsuccessful typically cite staff unreadiness, insufficient curriculum planning, or inadequate resource allocation, issues that should have been caught during pre-authorisation work.

Rushing this timeline is false economy. Schools that compress the 12, 18-month pre-authorisation window often face weak staff buy-in, incomplete curriculum design, and higher failure rates at the formal visit.

‍

Staffing and CPD: The Biggest Hidden Cost

If the financial cost surprises school leaders, the staffing burden absolutely blindsides them.

Every teacher delivering MYP must complete IBO-mandated professional development: an initial 1.5-day workshop (covering the curriculum framework, assessment model, Learner Profile, and inquiry pedagogy), followed by annual refresher training (0.5, 1 day per year). Workshop fees range from £300, 500 per participant. Supply cover to release 25, 40 staff for training costs £3,000, 8,000 per cohort per year (at current cover rates).

But fees and cover are only part of the story. Teachers trained in UK GCSE assessment, points-based, criterion-referenced, examination-focused, must cognitively shift to rubric-based internal assessment, project-based learning, and conceptual understanding. This retraining burden is psychological as much as technical. Many experienced teachers resist the change; some embrace it and leave for independent or international schools where MYP is more established.

Recruitment is another challenge. There is no significant UK pool of MYP-trained teachers. Schools typically recruit internationally or retrain in-service staff, a riskier approach. Retention of newly trained staff is a known vulnerability; teachers who become confident with MYP pedagogy often move to better-resourced independent schools or international schools offering higher salaries and smaller class sizes (Independent school HR benchmarks, 2024).

Wellington Academy's experience illustrates this. As the pioneering state MYP school, Wellington invested heavily in CPD, commissioned bespoke training, and built strong internal communities around the pedagogy. Even so, staff turnover in early years was significant, and ongoing CPD remains non-negotiable. A 500-learner school can expect per-teacher training costs of £2,000, 4,000 in year one (including fees and cover), dropping to £500, 1,000 annually thereafter.

‍

Can You Run MYP and GCSE at the Same Time?

Many school leaders envision a hybrid model: MYP Years 7, 9, then transition to GCSE Years 10, 11. This preserves option value: learners experience MYP's inquiry approach early, then "get serious" about GCSE. In theory, elegant. In practice, operationally messy.

Running both programmes simultaneously creates timetabling complexity that typically increases administrative burden by 20, 30 per cent. You manage two assessment philosophies: rubric-based (MYP) and points-based (GCSE). You offer overlapping subjects, for example, Science exists in MYP as a unified, interdisciplinary unit, but GCSE requires separate Biology, Chemistry, Physics qualifications. Do you teach Science as MYP in Years 7, 9, then pivot to triple-award GCSE in Years 10, 11? That risks content gaps or duplication.

Pastoral care becomes complicated. Learners in Year 9 (final MYP year) face a transition decision: continue into MYP Years 10, 11 (a rare pathway), or drop MYP and enter GCSE. This creates anxiety for learners and parents worried about "losing" MYP investment. Exam hall logistics diverge: MYP projects are submitted digitally; GCSE exams are sat on specific dates with invigilators.

Most successful dual-pathway schools manage this by staggering roll-out: Years 7, 9 are MYP-only; Year 10 onwards, learners transition to GCSE or, if the school offers IBDP post-16, to full Diploma track. But this requires accepting that Year 10, 11 learners will not experience the full MYP advantage. Single-track implementation, MYP Years 7, 11, progression to IBDP at Year 12, is operationally simpler and aligns assessment philosophy throughout the secondary journey.

‍

University and Employer Recognition: Does MYP Count?

Here is the uncomfortable truth: MYP is not formally recognised in the UK qualifications framework.

GCSE is governed by Ofqual, which publishes comparability studies ensuring grades are reliable across exam boards and years. Universities reference GCSE performance explicitly in A-Level entry criteria. Employers recognise GCSE qualifications in apprenticeship and vocational pathways. GCSE is culturally understood.

MYP has no such official status. The IBO, a Swiss-registered foundation, publishes informally that MYP Grade 5 is equivalent to GCSE Grade 7, 8, and MYP Grade 6 to GCSE Grade 8, 9 (IBO, 2023). But this is not Ofqual-recognised, and universities are under no obligation to accept this mapping. In practice, many Russell Group universities do accept MYP as "equivalent" for entry purposes, but they often require learners to supplement MYP with GCSE results or to provide detailed curriculum evidence. Some universities ask for a detailed course descriptor or transcript rather than relying on the grade alone.

A-Level entry is a key tension. Most A-Level programmes require strong GCSE passes in cognate subjects. If your school runs MYP-only (no GCSE fallback), learners entering A-Level at Year 12 will have MYP credentials and IBDP-in-preparation transcripts, but not GCSE grades. Some universities are comfortable with this; others are not. This ambiguity is exactly why schools typically do not go "MYP-only" unless they commit to full IBDP post-16.

Employer recognition is clearer but less favourable. GCSE qualifications are understood by employers in every sector. MYP is invisible to most UK employers; apprenticeship schemes and vocational providers typically ask for GCSE passes, not MYP grades. If learners leave secondary school without IBDP and seek work, MYP provides no vocational advantage over GCSE.

For international mobility, the picture reverses. MYP is recognised globally by International Baccalaureate schools, international businesses, and overseas universities. But within the UK labour market, GCSE remains the gold standard.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Inquiry-Based Learning versus Content Coverage: The Pedagogy Trade-Off

MYP and GCSE embody different pedagogical philosophies, each with strengths and trade-offs.

MYP emphasises conceptual understanding and cross-curricular inquiry. A Science unit on "Energy" in MYP might begin with a real-world question: "How can a school reduce its carbon footprint?" Learners investigate renewable energy, thermodynamics, and material science, but within a purposeful context. The Learner Profile attribute "inquirers" is woven throughout. Assessment focuses on how well learners understand conceptual patterns and can apply them to novel situations.

GCSE emphasises content mastery and examination technique. Learners learn the periodic table, chemical equations, energy calculations, discrete knowledge needed for success on the final examination. Inquiry projects exist but are optional and depend on individual teachers. Assessment in GCSE is criterion-referenced to specific subject objectives: AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding), AO2 (Apply knowledge), AO3 (Evaluate), AO4 (Written expression, subject-dependent).

The trade-off is real. MYP's conceptual, inquiry-led approach develops deep understanding and transfer skills, learners can apply knowledge to unfamiliar contexts. But it can result in slower content coverage. Some learners find the ambiguity of open-ended inquiry cognitively taxing; they may underperform in assessments requiring explicit recall of factual knowledge. GCSE's content-focused approach ensures all learners cover the specification; clarity and scaffolding support lower-attaining learners. But it risks surface learning and poor transfer to new contexts.

Research on cognitive load theory suggests that inquiry-based learning works best when learners have prior knowledge to draw on (Sweller et al., cited in educational psychology texts). In a mixed-attainment secondary cohort, some learners thrive with MYP's openness; others struggle without explicit structure. GCSE's structured specification provides this safety net.

‍

Why Wellington Academy Did It, And What They Have Learned

Wellington Academy, opened in 2012 in Wiltshire, is a rare example: a state-funded, mixed-gender secondary school authorised to teach MYP from Year 7 onwards, with full IBDP provision post-16. Wellington's decision to adopt MYP reflected explicit strategic vision: to offer learners an internationally-recognised, inquiry-centred curriculum and to differentiate within a competitive Wiltshire secondary landscape.

The school's early years were challenging. Parent and carer anxiety about "non-standard" qualifications was significant; many families feared that MYP would disadvantage learners' university entry. Wellington invested substantially in communication, hosting information events, publishing university progression data, and demonstrating MYP's rigour to sceptical audiences. By Year 5 (around 2017), roll growth stabilised, and parent confidence increased.

Staffing recruitment was difficult. Wellington recruited internationally, particularly from European IB schools, and retrained experienced UK teachers. Early staff turnover was notable, teachers attracted to MYP's pedagogy sometimes left for better-resourced independent schools. Wellington responded by strengthening induction, building collaborative communities, and embedding professional learning.

On outcomes, Wellington's results have validated the investment. Learners progressing from MYP to IBDP and then to university have performed well, with strong A-Level and university entry rates. University feedback suggests that MYP learners demonstrate stronger research and conceptual thinking skills than GCSE-trained peers, though this is anecdotal. Ofsted ratings have remained positive (Ofsted reports available publicly via the regulator's database, 2024).

The hard-won lessons Wellington shares with other schools considering MYP are clear. First, do not underestimate parent and carer communication; cultural trust in MYP takes time to build. Second, CPD is never finished; ongoing training is non-negotiable, not a one-time investment. Third, mixed pathways (MYP Years 7, 9, GCSE Years 10, 11) create more operational complexity than single-track solutions. Wellington's success partly reflects its commitment to full MYP-to-IBDP track, not hybrid approaches.

‍

The Decision Framework: Five Critical Questions

Before committing to MYP, ask yourselves these five questions honestly.

Question 1: Budget reality. Can your school afford £60,000, 150,000 in year one, plus ongoing annual costs of £13,000, 36,000? If your school is already financially stretched or cash flow is tight, MYP is a luxury you cannot yet afford. GCSE strengthening is a lower-cost alternative that delivers measurable impact.

Question 2: Staffing capacity. Can you release 25, 40 staff for mandatory training without destabilising teaching? Do you have confidence that trained staff will remain with the school, or are you worried about retention to international schools? If staff morale is already fragile, adding a pedagogical overhaul may backfire. Build trust in your existing curriculum first.

Question 3: Parent and carer community. Are families actively seeking alternative pathways, or is GCSE sufficient for your cohort's aspirations? If your community values GCSE's clarity and university currency above all else, marketing MYP will be hard. If you have a cohort seeking international outlook or independent learning experience, there is demand to service.

Question 4: Strategic fit. Does MYP align with your school's or MAT's strategic vision? Is international mindedness a priority? Are you seeking to differentiate in the local market? Are you aiming to recruit international learners or attracting families moving from international schools? If MYP is a tactical response to falling roll or a fad, it will fail. If it reflects genuine strategic direction, it has a chance.

Question 5: Contingency planning. If authorisation fails, or uptake is lower than expected, can you sustain a hybrid model, or will you pivot back to GCSE? Failure at the authorisation visit is costly (lost investment, staff morale); low uptake means you've invested heavily but serve only a fraction of your learner cohort. Map the downside risk.

If your answers are: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes, MYP is worth serious exploration. If you answer No, Unsure, or No to any question, GCSE strengthening is the safer choice.

‍

A 500-Learner State School Scenario: Three Pathways Compared

Consider a typical, mixed-attainment state secondary school with 500 learners, three forms of entry, mixed socioeconomic backgrounds, currently delivering all-GCSE qualifications. The school's progress measures are broadly in-line, but ambition is to increase aspiration and post-16 progression.

Scenario A: Stay with GCSE (baseline). Existing curriculum, assessment system, and staffing continue. Investment: £0 upfront. Ongoing teacher development focuses on GCSE technique, exam success, post-16 progression mentoring. Parent confidence: high. University progression: clear pathways to A-Level, with explicit grade-to-university mapping. Learner choice: 16, 20 GCSE subjects, flexibility for different aptitudes.

Annual cost: near-zero capital; modest CPD (£5,000, 10,000). Outcome: reliable, culturally trusted, lower innovation risk.

Scenario B: Adopt MYP Years 7, 11 (full commitment). Introduce MYP to Year 7 cohort; roll out across Years 8, 11 over four years. Transition post-16 to IBDP (or A-Levels, though IBDP is more natural progression).

Year 1 cost: £58,000, 155,000 (licensing, training, resources, consultancy). Year 2, 4 annual costs: £13,000, 36,000. Total four-year investment: ~£180,000, 300,000. Staff training: 40 teachers, 1.5 days initial, ongoing annual. Parent communication: intense in years 1, 3, moderates by year 4 as track record emerges. University progression: ambiguous until IBDP results available (learners will have MYP credentials plus IBDP results post-18). Assessment burden: higher initially (rubric training), stabilises by year 3.

Outcome: strategic differentiation, inquiry-led culture, higher operational complexity, university recognition risk initially mitigated by IBDP pathway.

Scenario C: Hybrid pathway, MYP Years 7, 9, GCSE Years 10, 11. Introduce MYP to Year 7; Years 10, 11 learners remain on GCSE path (existing staff, existing qualifications).

Year 1 cost: £40,000, 100,000 (lower than full rollout because only Years 7, 9 staff need training). Annual cost: £8,000, 20,000. Operational complexity: moderate-to-high. Learners transition at Year 9; some continue into dual pathways, most drop MYP and enter GCSE. Staff must teach two assessment systems simultaneously (MYP in Years 7, 9, GCSE in Years 10, 11). Parent communication: moderate, explain that MYP is a "foundation" leading to GCSE.

Outcome: option value, lower upfront cost, higher timetabling complexity, diminished MYP benefit (full Learner Profile development truncated at Year 9).

Recommendation: Scenarios A and B are operationally simpler and more defensible to parents. Scenario C optimises cost but sacrifices coherence.

‍

Managing the Parent and Carer Communication Challenge

If you proceed with MYP, you enter an extended conversation with parents and carers. GCSE is culturally trusted in the UK; parents understand the grading system, the university progression pathway, and the competitive advantage. MYP is unknown, often perceived as "risky."

Your communication must be strategic and sustained. Before even applying for authorisation, survey parent and carer attitudes. Hold information sessions explaining MYP, the Learner Profile, inquiry pedagogy, and, crucially, how learners will progress to A-Level and university. Publish explicit equivalences (even if informal) between MYP grades and GCSE grades to demystify the qualification. Share case study evidence from Wellington Academy and other UK schools.

Anticipate three objections you will hear repeatedly. First: "Is MYP recognised by universities?" Answer: Yes, informally, with university progression clarified through full IBDP post-16. Second: "What if my child wants to change schools?" Answer: MYP is portable; other MYP schools will recognise the qualification, but switching to GCSE-only schools creates transition complexity. Third: "Isn't GCSE safer?" Answer: Not necessarily; GCSE is familiar, but MYP, fully resourced, develops deeper thinking and international mobility.

Build confidence through transparency. Publish progression data annually, which universities accepted your IBDP and MYP learners, what courses they chose, how they performed. Identify parent champions, particularly parents educated in international schools or those with global careers; they will advocate for MYP within your community.

‍

MYP Costs and Quality: A Caution on Shortcuts

Under pressure to reduce costs, schools sometimes cut corners on MYP implementation. Resist this urge.

IBO professional development is non-negotiable. Cheap, generic training does not build the conceptual depth teachers need. IBO workshops, whilst expensive, are calibrated to the curriculum framework and assessment model; they are not interchangeable with generic inquiry pedagogy courses. Skimping on CPD leads to weak implementation, lower assessment grades, demotivated staff, and eventual programme failure.

Curriculum resources matter. Textbooks specifically designed for MYP, digital platforms like Managebac that scaffold internal assessment, and learning management systems that support project-based workflows are expensive upfront but essential. Using GCSE textbooks adapted for MYP will not work; the conceptual scaffolding is wrong.

Authorisation failure is not a rare edge case; it is a real risk if due diligence is skipped. Schools that rush the pre-authorisation phase, cut consultancy support, or fail to secure genuine staff buy-in often face adverse authorisation decisions. The cost of failure, lost investment, staff demoralisation, reputational damage, far exceeds the cost of doing it properly the first time.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

What if You Choose GCSE? Strengthening Your Curriculum

GCSE is not a static, rote-based qualification. It can be taught with rigour, depth, and inquiry.

Many excellent schools use GCSE as the foundation whilst embedding inquiry projects, cross-curricular links, and conceptual thinking. A school might keep GCSE's subject clarity and examination structure, which learners understand, whilst adding unit-based inquiry projects, collaborative learning, and real-world application. This approach costs far less than MYP adoption (perhaps £10,000, 20,000 annually in resources and CPD) whilst still developing deeper thinking.

GCSE also has structural advantages. The qualification is trusted by parents, universities, and employers. Learners understand the grade-to-outcome mapping. Teachers are abundant; no recruitment challenges. Progression to A-Level is clear and well-supported by examination boards. If your school is not positioned for a radical curriculum overhaul, GCSE strengthening is a pragmatic, high-impact choice.

Consider also: does your school have the leadership capacity to manage a 24-month authorisation process, secure board and trust approval, retain trained staff, and sustain ongoing commitment? If the answer is uncertain, GCSE enhancement is a better fit.

‍

Further Reading: Official Sources & Data

The sources below are primary materials and official publications, not aggregators or marketing sites:

1. IBO Middle Years Programme: Curriculum Framework (2024). The definitive curriculum document outlining the eight subject groups, assessment criteria (A, D), and inquiry philosophy. Available at ibo.org/programmes/middle-years-programme/.

2. IBO Middle Years Programme Guide to School Authorization (2024). Step-by-step documentation of the authorisation timeline, requirements, and assessment criteria. See ibo.org/programmes/middle-years-programme/authorisation-and-evaluation/.

3. UK Department for Education: Key Stage 4 Curriculum and GCSE Regulations. Official specification of GCSE subject content, grading, and statutory framework. Available at gov.uk/dfe (curriculum section).

4. Ofqual Regulatory Framework: GCSE Qualifications (2024). Ofqual's governance of GCSE standard-setting, comparability, and quality assurance. See analytics.ofqual.gov.uk/ or the main Ofqual publications portal.

5. JCQ GCSE Statistics (2024). Annual release of GCSE candidature, pass rates, subject breakdown, and gender analysis. Search JCQ GCSE statistics at jcq.org.uk.

6. Wellington Academy, Wiltshire: Ofsted Inspection Report (2023). Public inspection report available via Ofsted's school inspection database at reports.ofsted.gov.uk. Search "Wellington Academy, Wiltshire."

7. ASCL/NFER Secondary Curriculum Briefing Series (2024). Research and briefing papers examining curriculum design, assessment models, and implementation challenges in UK secondary schools. Available at nfer.ac.uk and ascl.org.uk.

‍

Free Resource Pack

MYP vs GCSE for UK School Heads

Essential insights and tools for UK State School Heads considering the MYP framework.

MYP GCSE Curriculum Design School Leadership Strategic Planning CPD Briefing Visual Readiness Checklist Quick Reference Guide

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 your understanding of the key differences and implications of switching between MYP and GCSE frameworks for a UK state school?

Not at all confident

Slightly confident

Moderately confident

Very confident

Extremely confident

To what extent do you believe your school's senior leadership team and governors are prepared for the strategic considerations involved in potentially adopting the MYP?

Not prepared at all

Slightly prepared

Moderately prepared

Well prepared

Fully prepared

At what stage is your school currently in considering or implementing a switch to or integration of the MYP framework?

Not considering it

Early research/discussion

Developing a proposal

Pilot/Partial implementation

Full implementation underway

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