It’s nice to see the International Baccalaureate program in the news. Wait, what?
Sometimes Findory finds articles I really do want to read. That’s why I keep going back there for my random news. Like this article, “Pa. County School Board Cuts IB Program“. It’s brief (sadly) but contains a truly remarkable excerpt expressing the Zeitgeist for those of us in the audience who are intimately familiar with the IB program.
This remarkable excerpt is (emphasis mine):
The Upper St. Clair school board voted 5-4 Monday to cut the International Baccalaureate Programme, whose curriculum some school board members have alleged is liberal and anti-American.
Looking for more information I found the Pittsburgh Tribune Review’s discussion last week on the matter to be more enlightening (emphasis mine):
“We support students learning about the rest of the world. We object to the focus on global citizenship,” [Julie] Quist said. “Unfortunately, international education has come to mean global citizenship. That undermines American citizenship and that sense of sovereignty.”
Anyway, last night they did vote to give IB the axe with the motion argument that “IB programs clearly violate local control.” On the plus side, it appears enough parents in their district are up-in-arms to cause a tremendous ruckous. At least the IB program there didn’t die to thunderous applause.
25 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Yeesh..
I, for one, am thoroughly disgusted.
Still mad
School Board
Can I spam their butts, please? Damnit.
The parents (and students, but we all know how much power *they* have) seem pretty incensed, from that article at least. Maybe that lawsuit will actually do something.
Maybe that school will see a mass exodus of students to one of the other local IB schools. That’d show those 5 school board idiots some “local control”.
Oh, and I hate to spam you with replies, J.C., but that was a dastarly way to sneak a reference to a crappy movie into your post. I’d almost forgotten about it, too. >P
On what grounds could they file a lawsuit? I’m all for voting in new school board members if IB matters that much to you, but a lawsuit? That’ll end up being a waste of time and money.
My experience with IB is not nearly as positive as you guys. True I dropped it after Sophomore year, so I was still in pre-IB. When I moved up to VA, all my IB classes got bumped down to regular coarses. I lost nearly .5 to my GPA because they weren’t weighted anymore. So in my eyes, IB is inferior to AP.
The school system screwing you over has nothing to do with the quality of the IB curriculum.
If I had taken AP coarses instead of IB, I would have kept my weighted grades. AP is superior to IB in the sense that AP is more widely recognized. In other aspects talk to somebody who’s taken both and can compare the two.
Well, seeing as how IB kids at Choctaw took AP classes as well, I think we can compare the two. And I’ve never heard of a college that accepts AP credit but not IB credit - college entry and success therein being the standard by which AP and IB should (ideally) be measured.
The conclusion I draw from your story is not that IB is inferior to AP, but that your Virgina high school is inferior to Choctaw. ;P
Well actually, Furman winds up accepting more AP credit than IB credit in a rather dastardly way. You can get credit for AP 4’s and 5’s, but you can only get IB credit for 6’s and 7’s and even then, only on higher level exams! So I came in with credit for all three AP exams I took, but for only one of my IB exams. I think they should re-evaluate, but like Mrs. Kane always said, it really is “all in the process!” really.
I have lots more to say on the subject, but I will put it here.
My response here: http://e-heidi-liz.livejournal.com/112635.html?thread=447227#t447227
The long and short of it: IB isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It’s probably not even half.
IB is what you make of it. Like anything else in life. It is merely an opportunity.
…but Flynn is indeed correct that teacher quality is possibly the most vital component.
Haha, suckers. I walked out with more than a year of classes already completed. Take that, conservative private schools!
Perhaps I’m somewhat biased in this sense also since UF has the largest number and largest percentage of IB diploma holders in the world.
Oh, and IB didn’t make me elitist. Computers made me elitist. And video games like Populous, where I played god to little digital lifeforms.
Here’s my elitist reply to that: IB got you ahead at UF; it got me INTO Furman.
And yet my degree is from a school which is internationally reknowned as a place where you can go to :
Furman has those pesky teaching standards which get in the way of becoming a truly world-class institution.
Remember, “you can’t make an omlete without killing a bunch of undergraduates with a Traditional Mandarin-English dictionary.“
*laughs*
I’ve been a bit late, but here’s my view.
IMO the size of the program is what got it into trouble. Some Little Johnny in it went and showed his parents something like the awkward question mentioned as an example in the article, and that got his parents mad, and they went and commiserated with some other parents, and then letters went out to the conservative board. In this case, I think the IB people went a little over the top with the question for an American audience. Some parents don’t want anything even vaguely resembling proper family values taught to their kids by schools, they insist on having that responsibility and jealously guard it. I happen to agree with that; it wouldn’t surprise me if a few somebodies in this situation happened to feel that this was an indirect way to get the gay marriage topic into the classroom, and it’s always awkward when political discussion occurs in classes where it’s not supposed to. Questions of indoctrination pop up.
Really, AP is just as good as IB; gets the same objective accomplished, which is “SHINY thing to put on college application.” Let’s the college know that yes, you really do work hard, yes, you really would bend over THAT far, and of course there’s the credits. And I imagine it will be defended by all the other parents as such, as in if my kid doesn’t finish out in the program and get his proper award, his college application will look bad. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall JC saying some of the classes run two years. It’d be awkward if you just finished your first year in it then got dumped out. It’d be less awkward if you happened to finish, but still icky if the program is canceled; it’s credibility goes down.
IB should steer clear of this sort politics in its questions. Yes, I know, they’re Europeans in Geneva, but this ought to be a good enough warning to them all. In all honesty, if this thing goes into court, the district will probably end up keeping IB on account of not wanting to pay for defense against a class action suit. That and their offical pretext for axing the program is hilarious. No local control… What a joke. But you know, this is just another reason to dodge the American public school system anyway, get the country onto private school vouchers.
Tempest: “…and it’s always awkward when political discussion occurs in classes where it’s not supposed to. Questions of indoctrination pop up.”
Not supposed to? Why shouldn’t students be introduced to politics in the classroom? The only other option is being intorduced to it in their parents’ homes, where they will certainly be “indoctrinated” into their parents’ political views rather than having a (hopefully) neutral, open discussion of logic and cultural values in an academic setting. In the classroom, the students will have a better opportunity - and here I touch on the heart and highest goal of the IB program - to learn to form their own educated opinions. And before you argue that high school isn’t an academic setting, visit an IB classroom and you will see otherwise.
Tempest: “IB should steer clear of this sort politics in its questions.”
Why?
I second that. I believe that one of the main purposes of education is to make us into citizens of the nation and of the world, capable of making informed decisions on matters political, economic, social, whatever. And even if students are introduced to these issues by their parents, there is all the more reason to use then in the classroom where they can be exposed to a variety of positions and learn to debate the pros and cons of each viewpoint in a fair and well-informed manner.
Yes, Carmen, not supposed too. Correct me if I’m wrong, but political discussions aren’t supposed to come up in English class, or Theory of Knowledge, whatever that is. They’re supposed to be confined to classes like Politics and American Government, or at most American History, where there’s an understanding that different viewpoints will be aired. There’s a place for everything, and everything should be in its place IMO. That question on marriage and gender relations run the very real possibility of triggering that, particularly if someone starts talking about gay marriage. And it’s like I said above, most parents jealously guard that responsibility for bringing up their children with certain moral values. IB should steer clear of this sort of politics in its questions because that caused this very problem you’re seeing now: people want the program canceled. People are all kinds of pissed on both sides and now attorneys are getting involved, and the IB program makes no clear gain. To me, it’s pretty damn simple: don’t make waves for the hell of it, make sure you’re actually going to gain something. And if you claim that the international types are ignorant of conditions in the US that caused this, then fine! I covered that too; in this case it’s their wake up call. Christianity has been insulted and degraded for a while in this country: Nativity scenes that were traditional for years have been taken down because a bunch of atheists didn’t like them; it’s now the holiday season rather than Christmas season; even some judge in a backwater district can’t put up a copy of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom without causing a flock of ACLU gestapo to come storming in there and demand he take it down. You’d think they were on some holy mission to save us from something, except the something is a piece of paper on the wall that most people in the courtroom don’t care to look at all that much. It makes people touchy, touchier than they normally are, and the point is you don’t step on toes unless there is something to gain from it.
A “citizen of the world”? In that case, I agree with the education council member. If IB truly does have in its mission statement the objective of making “world citizens,” then I’m all for dumping it. “Citizens of the world” are people who give the United States equal consideration with other countries of the world. The problem comes where political leadership in other parts of the world consist of thugs and dictators. Excuse me for being such a jingoist, but I want the United States to be given top consideration in the world, rather than equal consideration with charming countries like Sudan, or Libya, or communist China, or Iran, or I believe have all had turns recently running the UN Human Rights Commission. The UN is supposed to be the ideal of what world citizenship might mean, and look what a cesspit it is, taking bribes from Saddam Hussein and so on. World citizenship? I don’t think so, that’ll never beat American citizenship.
As I said, the point isn’t to stifle this kind of debate, the point is to not try and look like you’re sneaking it in someplace where it supposedly isn’t. Ask these kinds of questions in your polics or sociology class, not elsewhere, and don’t try to go turning Americans into “world citizens.” That’s just asking to get suckered by somebody on the international scene.
Sorry, I think you mistake my meaning. By “world citizen” I don’t mean to place all countries on a level playing field, and you bring up good examples of irony on the UN Human Rights Commission. I only mean that we should be aware of global events and that we ought to give a damn about what happens in other places and have a clue about why it happens because sooner or later, in some respect, it will likely affect us - whether “us” is the U.S. or the “Western World” or some of our allies or even the whole world. If you’d rather put that into your definition of a good American citizen, knock yourself out. But this is how I think IB interprets the idea of a world citizen - not as people who revere the thugs and dictators of the world.
As for the other point, there is absolutely no reason civil debates shouldn’t occaisionally come up in places other than goverment or sociology classes. Biology needs to address the debate that surrounds topics such as evolution (n.b. NOT to say that intelligent design deserves a place in schools; it simply isn’t science). Rehashing historical debates allows students to understand why both sides acted as they did - and perhaps how the debate may be similar to some current day issue. Studying a controversial book in English allows issues to be raised and questioned in a controlled, academic environment - just as much as discussing them in politics or sociology. What does the author think? How do various characters feel? Do you agree that they are in the right? Its ability to raise uncomfortable questions is one of literature’s greatest assets.
Well, just as a note, world citizens are typically defined as people who don’t believe in the concept of nation-states, instead viewing themselves as “citizens of the world” with all their obligation going to the world rather than their country. You might wish to consider changing your use of that term, because it doesn’t square with the standard currently understood definition. I would say your definition better fits the term “well informed.” In my opinion, world citizenship makes the US out no better than anybody else, including the tyrants, and that’s just not right.
As I said above, everything should have a place and be there. In the case of biology, the evolution debate couldn’t go anyplace else because it was so central to the subject, so it ended up going into court as State of Tennessee v. John Scopes, and sundry other cases. How does marriage and gender relations relate to Theory of Knowledge or English? It certainly isn’t a direct relation that I can see. It seems to me a poorly phrased question involving the political issues on the subject, or a sneaky question on the subject depending on your interpretation, and that’s what got it into trouble, that and not being asked in the right class with the right context behind it. Hence we’re back to my original assertion, which was that this was all caused by some people angry with what seemed a stealthy attempt to debate on gender relations and marriage, which are two subjects that parents like keeping their monopoly over as part of bringing up their kids right. In the social and political classes this question would might even encounter complaints, but it would probably be tolerated as a viable social issue. Not in English class though. There’s a reason why they tell you to stay away from hot topics like abortion when you write your essays for AP. It’s the same reasoning.
Literary analysis is just all gooshy anyway, and what you say there doesn’t matter to anybody. Throwing out non sequiters in that subject qualifies as original thinking from what I’ve seen, so that doesn’t even really count as serious debate IMO. My AP English teacher finally told me that water always signifies rebirth because I kept questioning conventional interpretations of it all, and that made MUCH more sense than the proper analytical process. I’ve always been more interested in historical primary sources and secondary sources for debating history anyway, rather than fictional literature. Besides, historical debates are just that — historical. So, no one feels pressure to conform, because generally, it’s an issue that’s already “settled.” It’s more academic in that it doesn’t mean anything in the context of modern values and politics to most people, so it is thus much safer ground. Also, since few people know their history anyway, there’s fewer people to get mad.
Short answer:
1. Gender relations are pertinent to English when you study a work that discusses gender relations in some form.
2. Did anyone say that the question did come from an English or ToK class?
3. This is the part where we stop discussing literary analysis because we’re just going to go around in circles. I can’t convince you, you can’t convince me. You’d rather play it safe and not make people mad. I want to air all viewpoints with the idealistic impression that somehow it will create people who are more open-minded than you.
Response:
1. I’m not a fan of the subject; there’s not much I can say that won’t be blatantly colored by personal opinion. I have no interest in that subject at all.
To me, there is no compelling gain for IB, therefore they shouldn’t do this, therefore I don’t approve. As it is, all that happened is a bunch of attorneys got involved and will make lots of money, and nothing will probably change. Is that a desirable outcome? If you’re going to do something like this in the courts to make a free speech or debate fight, do it right: make the question really inflammatory by asking straightway about gay marriage or whatever, not vague like this one. Don’t go tiptoeing around the issue, which is what the question seems to do.
2. I’ve talked with JC over this offline, and he told me that is the most likely place the question could have come from, so I went with the expert opinion.
3. I’m perfectly fine with making people angry, there just needs to be a good reason involving benefits to the action.
My bottom line is that practically speaking the thing seemed very poorly handled, and that always leaves a big negative impression on me. I’m perfectly open-minded, otherwise I doubt I’d be able to get along with people at all, but the flip side to that is that I’ll say “such and such sucks” if I think it sucks, and I can get pretty vocal and direct when I think that’s the case. Being open-minded is different from refusing to criticize.
I think it is pretty stupid to look at it that way. You are right about the “Writing ignorant opinions” part. But somestimes…..its better to keep things to yourself.
[just to let you know]