The continuum squeeze: DP pressure on an MYP year 5
Riverside Academy is a PYP and DP World School with 96 students in MYP years 1–5 and 14 MYP teachers, most of whom also teach DP. In September the DP coordinator circulated a memo proposing three changes to improve "continuum alignment": (1) from January, year 5 science and mathematics classes begin weekly 90-minute DP-style timed exam practice, replacing one criterion-based task per term; (2) the year 5 interdisciplinary unit is cancelled because "three weeks of content is lost"; (3) MYP reports add a predicted DP grade out of 7 so parents can "see where their child is heading". Two year 5 teachers support the memo; the MYP coordinator is uneasy. Three parents have already emailed asking why a student with level 6 in every MYP subject is "only" predicted a 5 at DP. The school's mission statement foregrounds international-mindedness, inquiry and student agency, and the next programme evaluation is in two years.
1. Evaluate the DP coordinator's three proposals against IB requirements and MYP principles. What would you approve, refuse or renegotiate, and on what grounds?
Read the worked answer
Proposal 1 - replacing criterion-based tasks with timed DP practice. Refuse as written. MYP levels rest on continuing evidence against the four subject-group criteria; a year collecting one task per term cannot support a defensible level, and MYP objectives (conceptual understanding, investigating, communicating) are not DP assessment objectives. A single diagnostic DP-style task per term can be added - it is genuinely useful for transition - but it cannot displace criterion-referenced assessment.
Proposal 2 - cancelling the year 5 interdisciplinary unit. Refuse. The programme expects at least one interdisciplinary unit in each year, involving at least two subject groups. The synthesising it demands is the capability the DP later rewards (extended essay, TOK, cross-disciplinary IA links). The response to time pressure is redesign - a tight two-week unit around a sharp interdisciplinary question - not deletion.
Proposal 3 - a predicted DP grade on MYP reports. Refuse on the report, permit in a separate conversation. MYP levels describe achievement against MYP criteria; a DP prediction uses different objectives, different boundaries and different evidence. Printing both on one document invites parents to read the MYP level as a forecast.
Decision. The underlying concern - transition - is legitimate; the mechanisms are wrong. Approve a transition strand: formative DP-style tasks, a redesigned IDU, and a clearly labelled year 5 DP pathways evening. Ground the refusal in the school's own mission language about inquiry and agency: this is a philosophy argument, not only a compliance one.
2. Write the substance of the reply to the parents who ask why a student at MYP level 6 is "only" predicted at 5 in the DP. What should the school do and not do to support transition?
Read the worked answer
What to explain. An MYP level is criterion-referenced: it reports where the student is against four MYP objectives at that point in time, using evidence from that year. It is not a percentage, a rank, or a forecast. DP grades are generated from different assessment objectives, external examinations and internal assessment, with their own boundaries. A level 6 in MYP mathematics means the student consistently meets all four MYP criteria well; DP HL mathematics may require fluency and abstraction not yet taught. The correlation between the two is real but too loose to be a prediction, and offering one creates false precision that parents will later hold the school to.
What the school should do. Publish DP subject prerequisites in MYP language (for example, "level 5 or above across all criteria in MYP mathematics is recommended before HL"). Offer low-stakes exemplar DP tasks so students experience the demand. Use MYP eAssessment results, where taken, as an external reference point. Run a joint MYP–DP evening where DP teachers explain assessment objectives. Draw on personal project, service as action and ATL profiles as evidence of DP-adjacent skills such as research and self-management.
What it should not do. Convert MYP levels into DP grades, or place DP predictions on an MYP report. If a prediction is given verbally, it must be labelled as an informal professional estimate with stated limits, not a school position.
3. What leadership moves would build genuine continuum coherence within one academic year, given that most teachers work across both programmes?
Read the worked answer
Coherence is built through shared professional learning and shared artefacts, not through a memo.
- Joint unit-level work. Pair one MYP year 5 unit with the corresponding DP unit in each subject group, and ask teachers to map where MYP objectives, ATL skills and DP assessment objectives actually connect. The output is a one-page "continuum map" per subject, owned by teachers rather than imposed.
- Reciprocal observation. DP teachers observe one MYP inquiry lesson; MYP teachers observe one DP seminar or IA feedback session. The conversation afterwards should focus on what students are asked to do, not on ranking.
- A transition strand with named owners. One DP-style formative task per term, one redesigned IDU, one pathways event - each with a named coordinator and a review date.
- Protect the non-negotiables. State publicly, and in writing, which MYP requirements are not negotiable (criteria-based assessment across all four criteria, an annual interdisciplinary unit, the personal project, service as action) so that individual departments cannot trade them away under exam pressure.
- Use the mission in decisions. When a proposal squeezes inquiry, the coordinator should name the mission principle at stake, which makes the discussion about values and evidence rather than about compliance alone.