Nordic Education Academy.
Sample school · Demo International School

← How we operate

Demo International School · decision

Change the assessment planning requirement for Term 2

11 Sep 2026 · SLT weekly — moderation · Strengthen MYP unit planning quality · Curriculum

Why it was made

The change affected reporting in both programmes, so it was taken centrally rather than within the programme.

Values considered

Learning
We keep improving how we teach, and we model being learners ourselves.

A question worth considering: how does this decision reflect the values leadership chose to consider? SchoolOS does not judge whether a value was met.

How it was decided

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

The change affected reporting in both programmes, so it was taken centrally rather than within the programme.

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 Change the assessment planning requirement for Term 2
  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 we are seeing

Evidence recorded

Evidence has been recorded against this priority since the decision, though the agreed follow-through is not yet showing as complete.

  • Eight unit plans reviewed against the agreed programme expectations. Six met them in full. · Unit plan review — cycle 1 sample · 12 Sep
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 →

Expected process
OwnerMYP Coordinator
MethodDelegated authority
ConsultRelevant subject teachers
InformHead of School
Academic programme planning · Leadership Agreement 2026/27
Recorded process
OwnerHead of School
MethodIndividual authority
ConsultNot recorded
InformSubject teachers
Process variance

“Leadership Agreement 2026/27” records “Academic programme planning” as MYP Coordinator / delegated authority. For this decision, who decided is recorded as Head of School rather than MYP Coordinator; how it was decided is recorded as Individual authority rather than Delegated authority.

There are legitimate reasons to operate differently from an agreement. Recording which one applies turns this into organisational learning.

Intentional exception — Cross-programme impact required a Head of School decision under the boundary recorded in the agreement. Head of School · 31 Jul 2026

What followed

No follow-through was recorded against this decision. Recording it is what lets SchoolOS show whether a decision travelled.

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