Does anyone have an opinions on IPC compared to PYP in terms of:
1. Student success.
2. Teacher satisfaction with curriculum, resourcing, planning, assessment, workload.
3. Projected future of both programs.
How does IPC compare to PYP?
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: How does IPC compare to PYP?
IPC is so vague and PYP so check-box heavy that it's hard to make an accurate comparison. Implementation of each is also a critical factor. Either program poorly run will be garbage and either well-implemented can be great.
My experience is that PYP is better by far because all those stupid check boxes offer you more opportunity for structure. But ultimately good curriculum implementation and good teaching are far more important than which curriculum you use. PYP has the benefit of being tied to the DP for a unified label (and having unified language with things like the learner profile, etc. is helpful). So there's that.
My experience is that PYP is better by far because all those stupid check boxes offer you more opportunity for structure. But ultimately good curriculum implementation and good teaching are far more important than which curriculum you use. PYP has the benefit of being tied to the DP for a unified label (and having unified language with things like the learner profile, etc. is helpful). So there's that.
Response
IPC is a knockoff of PYP, in so far as its inquiry based learning. PYP is far more prescribed and for many primary ITs/DTs its very different in practice than the typical stranded discreet subjects are. IPC also doesnt have the deep global ethos that PYP and IB has. IPC is generic, very flexible and adaptive inquiry based learning that can be adapted to any type of school environment, and its a lot cheaper than PYP is.
1) Theres more of a learning curve for students in PYP if they dont start out in PYP. Its different moving from lower primary and even EC though PYP, then it is for a year 5 or 6 PYP student whose dropped into it from another curriculum structure. Its difficult to compare successes because while PYP is very prescribed, IPC can look very different. There are also implementation issues for both programs. ITs can get frustrated with PYP, and give up on it only doing PYP on paper, and its not uncommon for ISs with PYP to go along with this, at least in between authorization visits. IPC has a definite lack of structure that really means it can be anything or nothing. There are primary ITs who have IPC and aside from having a binder and a box somewhere they dont use or implement IPC. As a result its difficult to really give you an idea of how successful they are. My position is that PYP done well in practice works very well after an adjustment period, I would say that poorly implemented PYP isnt PYP at all, and thus isnt fair to judge it as unsuccessful. In regards to IPC, well run and organized primary classrooms are successful, regardless of the use of IPC, and if IPC is part of that learning environment than its successful when the classroom is already successful. I have not seen IPC fix anything in a primary classroom.
2) PYP is a lot of work and its very different work, bubble planers are a pain even to practiced PYP practitioners. The lexicon at times can be overly wordy and burdensome. Its very structured and very integrated, and it takes real time to get good at it, or at least planing with PYP by design. Many ITs early in PYP, take what they were going to do and than add titles, and categories and pepper the lesson with the various learner profile and concept terms so that it looks PYP and group lessons together to meet some semblance of the theme. It takes 2 years of practice before PYP ITs are proficient. Even then PYP is more work.
IPC can be anything you want as long as you understand what inquiry and student centered instruction and delivery is. Its little more than asking how can the students do more and the IT do less.
PYP assessments are more involved and center around Exhibition which is basically a year long project demonstration which can be a lot of work for 11 year olds and ITs who have to mentor it along the way. IPC assessment looks like any other assessment you might do.
Both programs have plenty of materials and resources that an IS can spend coin on. For PYP resources for ITs is mostly in the form of consultants and workshops. There isnt a PYP for dummies instruction manual. IPC doesnt either but its a lot easier to fake IPC than PYP.
3) I dont see either program going away, IPC is probably always going to be a generic knockoff of PYP. PYP will likely win out in independent curriculum, they have the critical mass of practitioners and they have the coin. What i dont see is PYP becoming a replacement for the traditional literacy/numeracy curriculum and programs you see globally. I dont know how to say this and not sound incredibly elitist and racists, but PYP works well when you have a bright, cheerful, ponytail wearing IT and a classroom of affluent white kids who are not constrained by mandated benchmarks dictated by some regulatory authority. The goal of primary education is getting kids to read, reading grants access to the rest of knowledge and higher curriculum. There are a lot of disadvantaged and struggling DSs that have a hard time just doing that to any type of acceptable level. They really dont have the resources time and energy to get kids to hold hands in unity for all humanity. When you have a kid whose only food is going to be a DS provided pop tart in the morning, DS lunch (shingle of cheese pizza, salad, apple half and a cookie) and who might get 2 slices of white bread with a slice of processed cheese and bologna in between for dinner, whose parents are always working, who at 11 has to take care of his younger siblings, and then take a classroom of those kids together, PYP doesnt work so well in meeting either the ideological or regulatory goals. It spends too much time and resources on "Disney values" and not in getting children to lower secondary reading on grade level and not hating maths.
1) Theres more of a learning curve for students in PYP if they dont start out in PYP. Its different moving from lower primary and even EC though PYP, then it is for a year 5 or 6 PYP student whose dropped into it from another curriculum structure. Its difficult to compare successes because while PYP is very prescribed, IPC can look very different. There are also implementation issues for both programs. ITs can get frustrated with PYP, and give up on it only doing PYP on paper, and its not uncommon for ISs with PYP to go along with this, at least in between authorization visits. IPC has a definite lack of structure that really means it can be anything or nothing. There are primary ITs who have IPC and aside from having a binder and a box somewhere they dont use or implement IPC. As a result its difficult to really give you an idea of how successful they are. My position is that PYP done well in practice works very well after an adjustment period, I would say that poorly implemented PYP isnt PYP at all, and thus isnt fair to judge it as unsuccessful. In regards to IPC, well run and organized primary classrooms are successful, regardless of the use of IPC, and if IPC is part of that learning environment than its successful when the classroom is already successful. I have not seen IPC fix anything in a primary classroom.
2) PYP is a lot of work and its very different work, bubble planers are a pain even to practiced PYP practitioners. The lexicon at times can be overly wordy and burdensome. Its very structured and very integrated, and it takes real time to get good at it, or at least planing with PYP by design. Many ITs early in PYP, take what they were going to do and than add titles, and categories and pepper the lesson with the various learner profile and concept terms so that it looks PYP and group lessons together to meet some semblance of the theme. It takes 2 years of practice before PYP ITs are proficient. Even then PYP is more work.
IPC can be anything you want as long as you understand what inquiry and student centered instruction and delivery is. Its little more than asking how can the students do more and the IT do less.
PYP assessments are more involved and center around Exhibition which is basically a year long project demonstration which can be a lot of work for 11 year olds and ITs who have to mentor it along the way. IPC assessment looks like any other assessment you might do.
Both programs have plenty of materials and resources that an IS can spend coin on. For PYP resources for ITs is mostly in the form of consultants and workshops. There isnt a PYP for dummies instruction manual. IPC doesnt either but its a lot easier to fake IPC than PYP.
3) I dont see either program going away, IPC is probably always going to be a generic knockoff of PYP. PYP will likely win out in independent curriculum, they have the critical mass of practitioners and they have the coin. What i dont see is PYP becoming a replacement for the traditional literacy/numeracy curriculum and programs you see globally. I dont know how to say this and not sound incredibly elitist and racists, but PYP works well when you have a bright, cheerful, ponytail wearing IT and a classroom of affluent white kids who are not constrained by mandated benchmarks dictated by some regulatory authority. The goal of primary education is getting kids to read, reading grants access to the rest of knowledge and higher curriculum. There are a lot of disadvantaged and struggling DSs that have a hard time just doing that to any type of acceptable level. They really dont have the resources time and energy to get kids to hold hands in unity for all humanity. When you have a kid whose only food is going to be a DS provided pop tart in the morning, DS lunch (shingle of cheese pizza, salad, apple half and a cookie) and who might get 2 slices of white bread with a slice of processed cheese and bologna in between for dinner, whose parents are always working, who at 11 has to take care of his younger siblings, and then take a classroom of those kids together, PYP doesnt work so well in meeting either the ideological or regulatory goals. It spends too much time and resources on "Disney values" and not in getting children to lower secondary reading on grade level and not hating maths.