Feb. 7, 2025 - The Never-Ending Cycle of Change: How Professional Development Fatigue Stifles Teacher Growth in International Schools

Having spent over 25 years working in international schools and 10 years in Ontario, I have been heavily involved in curriculum reform in both settings. In Ontario, I worked on implementing large-scale curriculum changes, including integrating new assessment models and revising social studies and humanities programmes to align with evolving educational priorities. In international schools, I have overseen the transition to updated IB frameworks, adapted IGCSE structures, and implemented AP programme refinements, often navigating overlapping accreditation requirements and professional development initiatives. I have served as a teacher, programme director, IB examiner, and high school principal, overseeing curriculum implementation and reform at multiple levels. My work has spanned IB, IGCSE, and AP curricula, and I have engaged in professional development as a participant and a facilitator.

From this vantage point, I have seen how international schools, particularly those following U.S.-based accreditation models, are caught in an exhausting cycle of perpetual change. Unlike nationally regulated systems where ministries of education, teacher unions, and long-term planning processes ensure stability, international schools are often at the mercy of administrators, accreditation bodies, and external consultants who introduce constant shifts in pedagogy, assessment, and professional development (PD) initiatives. The result? Teachers are expected to continuously adapt without being given the time to master or refine their craft.

How Often Do Top Education Systems Review Their Curriculum?
The frequency of curriculum and assessment reviews varies significantly among high-performing education systems. Unlike national curricula that undergo structured, long-term reforms, international schools are often subject to rapid and frequent changes driven by external organisations, accreditation bodies, and pressures to stay “cutting edge.”

The Perpetual Professional Development Trap and the Administrator Conveyor Belt.
International school educators can be trapped in a constant loop of professional development (PD) initiatives that prioritise trend-driven teaching strategies over sustained, evidence-based improvement. Compounding this instability is the never-ending conveyor belt of administrators, each bringing their pet projects, educational philosophies, and assessment approaches. Unlike state or nationally controlled systems—where laws, departments of education, and teacher unions curb administrative agencies from making wholesale and potentially uninformed changes—international schools often grant administrators sweeping influence over pedagogy, frequently forcing teachers to adapt to new initiatives before previous strategies have had time to take root.

As a high school principal and IB programme director, I have seen multiple iterations of curriculum reform, each introduced with great enthusiasm but abandoned before implementation could be refined. Schools rush to adopt the latest educational philosophies—whether inquiry-based learning, flipped classrooms, or AI-assisted instruction—without considering long-term viability. This not only exhausts teachers but also diminishes the quality of teaching as educators are continually expected to reinvent their approach.

The Business of Professional Development: A U.S.-Driven Industry
One of the key drivers of the perpetual reform cycle in international schools is the influence of the U.S.-centric professional development industry, valued at over $18 billion annually. Research has shown that much of this industry operates as a profit-driven enterprise rather than a means of sustainable, research-based professional growth for educators. Studies indicate that the effectiveness of many PD initiatives is often questionable, with limited long-term impact on student outcomes. Yet, schools continue to invest heavily in workshops, conferences, and consultant-led training sessions. The international school sector, heavily reliant on U.S.-based accreditation bodies, has absorbed this model, perpetuating a cycle where PD becomes a financial commitment rather than a pedagogically meaningful process. Professional development is a multi-billion-dollar business in the United States, driven by independent consultants, educational firms, and keynote speakers who market the latest pedagogical trends as must-have solutions.

Because most international school accreditation bodies—such as the Council of International Schools (CIS), Middle States Association (MSA), and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)—are based in the U.S., their professional development models are often exported to international schools without consideration of local educational needs or sustainable pedagogical approaches.

Schools are often pressured to adopt the newest methodologies, such as socio-emotional learning, competency-based grading, or digital-first teaching strategies before adequate research has demonstrated their effectiveness. The constant cycle of training sessions, certification programmes, and workshops places significant financial and time burdens on educators, leaving them overwhelmed rather than empowered.

Accreditation Cycles and Their Additional Strain on Teachers
Adding to this burden is the layer of accreditation reviews conducted by organisations such as CIS, WASC, and NEASC, each with evolving standards and expectations. Until recently, these bodies operated independently from curriculum providers such as the IB, Cambridge, or College Board. This meant that schools could undergo IB verification or review while simultaneously preparing for an entirely separate accreditation visit with different criteria and expectations.

For teachers, this creates another level of disruption. Just as they adjust to curriculum changes, they must also adapt their teaching to meet evolving accreditation requirements, which often include new policies on assessment, differentiation, and student well-being. Since accreditation reviews operate on their cycle—usually every five to ten years, with interim reports required more frequently—teachers constantly revise documentation, adjust assessment strategies, and demonstrate compliance with shifting benchmarks.
Unlike national education systems, where curriculum and assessment changes are centrally coordinated, international schools must manage multiple, sometimes conflicting, expectations. The pressure to align with accreditation mandates while keeping up with IB, IGCSE, or AP curriculum revisions exacerbates teacher workload and contributes to professional fatigue.

The Impact of Constant Change on Teachers
This cycle of continuous reinvention negatively affects educators in several key ways:

• Lack of Mastery: Effective teaching requires time for teachers to develop expertise in instructional strategies, curriculum content, and assessment methods. When these constantly shift, mastery becomes impossible.
• Creativity Suffocation: True educational innovation flourishes within a stable foundation. When the framework is continuously shifting, teachers become risk-averse rather than experimental.
• Professional Disillusionment: Teachers enter education to make a meaningful impact yet engage in an endless loop of surface-level training sessions that fail to produce long-term improvements.

Closing Thoughts and Future Considerations
The current model of constant curriculum change, trend-driven professional development, and overlapping accreditation demands is unsustainable and counterproductive. International schools, accreditation bodies, and the IB must shift their focus from perpetual reinvention to sustained, meaningful educational development. Stability—not constant change—allows teachers to innovate, master their craft, and ultimately provide the best possible education for students.

If international schools are to become leaders in global education truly, they must abandon the ‘shiny object’ syndrome and commit to pedagogical depth over perpetual disruption. In achieving this goal they need the support of such bodies as the IBO and accrediation bodies who for too long have abused their roles within intentional schools by forcing such schools to be in perpetual change without having the time to imbed changes.

---