Nordic Education Academy.
Sample school · Demo International School

← How we operate

Demo International School · decision

Introduce fortnightly peer review rota for MYP unit plans

25 Aug 2026 · SLT weekly · Strengthen MYP unit planning quality

Why it was made

Audit showed inconsistent criterion alignment across subject groups.

How it was decided

How might this improve the school?
Why we made this decision

Audit showed inconsistent criterion alignment across subject groups.

Leadership rationale · Recorded with the decision
How it might help

Leadership influence on student outcomes runs through teaching quality; leaders need enough grasp of curriculum and assessment to support the work credibly.

Research basis · Teaching & Learning
What we would expect to see, in order
  1. The decision Introduce fortnightly peer review rota for MYP unit plans
  2. What we would expect first Teams plan, review and moderate together as agreed, rather than separately.
  3. What would change in practice Consistent, criterion-aligned unit plans across all subject groups.
  4. What students would experience More consistency in what is planned, taught and assessed across the teams this decision touches.
  5. The impact we intend Subject teams consistently produce coherent, criterion-aligned MYP unit plans using agreed programme expectations.

A plausible pathway, not a prediction. Each step would need to happen for the next to follow, and SchoolOS cannot say that this decision caused any of them.

What should happen first
  • Publish peer review rota · MYP Coordinator · 4 Sep
  • Confirm subject leads for moderation · MYP Coordinator · 10 Sep
The school's own follow-through on this decision
What we are seeing

Practice change emerging

The follow-through is happening, and evidence has been recorded against this priority since the decision.

  • Eight unit plans reviewed against the agreed programme expectations. Six met them in full. · Unit plan review — cycle 1 sample · 12 Sep
  • 14/32 units fully criterion-aligned. · Unit plan audit summary · 26 Aug
School evidence recorded since this decision
Why does SchoolOS suggest this pathway?

Several sources in the SchoolOS corpus speak to this mechanism. Research shapes the questions SchoolOS asks; it does not say what will work in this school.

Leaders who stay close to what is taught, and how, shape what students experience more than those who manage teaching from a distance. Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe (2008) — Ensuring quality teaching · framework effect size Effect size reported in the source leadership framework — not a prediction that improving a SchoolOS status raises achievement by the same amount.
Leaders need enough grasp of curriculum, teaching and assessment to support the work credibly. Marzano et al. (2005) — Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment · correlation Correlation from a meta-analysis of school leadership. Correlational, not causal or additive; not a predictor for an individual school.
Staffing, supporting and monitoring teaching is core leadership work, not administration. Leithwood et al. (2008) — Managing the instructional programme · practice framework Core practice described qualitatively; not an effect size.

How SchoolOS works →

Recorded process
OwnerNot recorded
MethodNot recorded
ConsultNot recorded
InformNot recorded

No decision right is linked to this decision, so no expected process is compared.

What followed

Organisational memory — what was decided, why, by whom, and how.Demo International School