Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

English

This article compares the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme (IBPYP) as implemented at three schools in the USA. The author hypothesizes that the schools each offer a unique form of the program based on the respective context and capacity to implement the IBPYP. The author found consistency among the faculties in their explanation of key components of the program. Variation existed in the implementation of these concepts. The author concludes that this variation is due to the different contexts of implementation and to the ambiguity inherent in the IBPYP.

French

Cette étude compare la mise en oeuvre du Programme primaire (PP) de l'Organisation du Baccalauréat International (IBO) dans trois établissements scolaires aux États-Unis. L'auteur émet l'hypothèse que chacun d'eux propose une forme unique de ce programme basée sur leur contexte respectif et leur capacité à le mettre en oeuvre. L'auteur a découvert une certaine cohérence dans les explications que le corps enseignant de chacun de ces établissements donnait des éléments clés du programme. Il existait toutefois des différences dans la mise en oeuvre de ces concepts. L'auteur conclut que ces variations sont dues aux différents contextes de mise en oeuvre et à l'ambiguïté inhérente au PP.

Spanish

Este estudio compara cómo tres colegios en Estados Unidos implementan el Programa de la Escuela Primaria (PEP) de la Organización del Bachillerato Internacional. La hipótesis del autor es que cada colegio tiene una forma propia y única de ofrecer el programa, en función de su contexto y de su capacidad. El autor observó coherencia en la explicación de los componentes clave del programa dada por los docentes de los tres colegios. También observó diferencias en su implementación de estos conceptos. El autor concluye que estas diferencias se deben a los distintos contextos de implementación y a la ambigu¨edad inherente al PEP.

Keywords

IB implementation PYP

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ALEXANDER, R.J. (2001) Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Malden, MA: Blackwell .

ANDERSON-LEVITT, K.M. (2002) Teaching Cultures: Knowledge for Teaching First Grade in France and the United States. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press .

BRUNER, J.S. (1966) The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .

COHEN, D.K. (1990) ‘A revolution in one classroom: the case of Ms. Oublier’ . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12: 327-345 .

DUFFY, G. AND ROEHLER, L. (1986) ‘Constraints on teacher change’ . Journal of Teacher Education 37: 55-58 .

ELMORE, R.F. (1983) ‘Complexity and control: what legislators and administrators can do about implementing public policy’, in L. Shulman and G. Sykes (eds) Handbook of Teaching and Policy, pp. 342-369. New York: Longman .

FULLAN, M. AND STIEGELBAUER, S.M. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change, 2nd edn. New York: Teachers College Press .

GREEN, T.F. (1994) ‘Policy questions: a conceptual study’. Education Policy Analysis Archives. Available at: epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v2n7.html (accessed 1 September 2005).

HERSEY, M. (2004) Presentation at IBPYP Workshop, Houston, TX, 22 February 2003.

10.

INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE ORGANIZATION (IBO) (2000) Making the PYP Happen. Geneva: International Baccalaureate Organization .

11.

IBO (2002a) A Basis for Practice: the Primary Years Programme. Geneva: International Baccalaureate Organization .

12.

IBO (2002b) School’s Guide to The Primary Years Programme. Geneva: International Baccalaureate Organization .

13.

LIPSKY, M. (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation .

14.

McDONNELL, L.M. (2004) Politics, Persuasion, and Educational Testing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .

15.

McLAUGHLIN, M.W. (1990) ‘The rand change agent study: ten years later’, in A. Odden (ed.) Implementation, pp. 43-55. New York: State University of New York Press .

16.

MUNCEY, D.E. AND MCQUILLAN, P.J. (1993) ‘Education reform as revitalization movement’ . American Journal of Education 101: 393-431 .

17.

OGAWA, R.T. (2003) ‘The substantive and symbolic consequences of a district’s standards-based curriculum’ . American Educational Research Journal 40: 147-176 .

18.

OLSEN, B. AND KIRTMAN, L. (2002) ‘Teacher as mediator of school reform: an examination of teacher practice in 36 California restructuring schools’ . Teachers College Record 104: 301-324 .

19.

PEARSON, P.D. (2004) ‘The reading wars’ . Educational Policy 18: 216-252 .

20.

SCHONFELD, A. (2004) ‘The math wars’ . Educational Policy 18: 253-286 .

21.

SHULMAN, L.S. (1983) ‘Autonomy and obligation’, in G. Sykes (ed.) Handbook of Teaching and Policy, pp. 484-504. New York: Longman .

22.

SNYDER, J. , BOLIN, F. and ZUMWALT, K. SNYDER, J. , BOLIN, F. AND ZUMWALT, K. (1992) ‘Curriculum implementation’, in P.W. Jackson (ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum: A Project of the American Educational Research Association, pp. 402-435. New York: Macmillan .

23.

SPILLANE, J.P. (2004) Standards Deviation: How Schools Misunderstand Education Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .

24.

SPILLANE, J.P. AND ZEULI, J.S. (1999) ‘Reform and teaching: exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms’ . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21: 1-27 .

25.

STIGLER, J.W. AND HIEBERT, J. (1999) The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press .

Variations on a theme

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References