GraniteGrok

The presentation states that it will rely heavily on inquiry-based learning and constructivism, two methodologies that are proven failures at the elementary and high school level. University of Virginia professor Robert Tai and Harvard University researcher Philip Sadler have done a study which appeared recently in The International Journal of Science Education. It states that inquiry-based learning is not the ideal way for all high school students to prepare for college science.

"The findings suggest that students with lower levels of high school mathematics attainment had greater success in college science when they reported more teacher-structured laboratory experiences in high school," Tai and Sadler report in their study, "Same Science for All? Interactive Association of Structure in Learning Activities and Academic Attainment Background on College Science Performance in the U.S.A." 

From my personal experience as a teacher, these "fad" methods also seem to hurt the less able children, the most. Is that what MVRSD wants? [See Structure More Effective In High School Science Classes, Study Reveals http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090326114415.htm]

In the presentation, it also states: "We want to develop the whole child and create lifelong learners with cultural awareness and the ability to compete in an increasingly competitive economy." But what does all that actually mean? Are parents able to translate this language into anything meaningful or is this just edu-speak intended to sound high-minded while clouding the agenda? The presentation lists a lot of educational skills that should already be implemented by any school. It also talks about giving students a "global perspective" but doesn't explain exactly what that means either. How can the district maintain control of the curriculum when it is required to adhere to the principles, policies, and mission of a group that administers their program from Geneva, Switzerland?

Schools, once they have committed to IB, are bound by IBO's "rules" and ideological mission. The contract between the IBO and IB schools is bound by the Geneva (World) Court.

In Bedford, the IB Diploma Program was implemented quietly. Most parents didn't know, but should be able to request a copy of the contract with the IBO. Parents in that town still have questions about its broad ideology. (See letters below) And so should the parents of MVRSD.

"We're living on a planet that is becoming exhausted," said George Walker, IB's former director-general. "The program remains committed to changing children's values so they think globally, rather than in parochial national terms from their own country's viewpoint." Many parents might be surprised to find that the goal of American education was anything other than imparting knowledge, skills and strengthening the principles of citizenship put forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Furthermore they probably didn't know that supporting those ideals was considered "parochial."

TOK, short for "Theory of Knowledge," is a philosophy course that proposes to challenge what kids know or think they know. Apparently this title came from a phrase that originated with Immanuel Kant and generally means "sowing the seeds of doubt." [See: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/russell1.htm]

It is urged that parents and school board members do more independent research on this program, specifically its values-based mission, its methodologies, overall philosophy and the rest of its stated mission, which is to promote the UN's Millennium Development Goals (redistributionist), and create acceptance for "global citizenship" and "global governance" under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UDHR does not protect rights as innate, as our own Bill of Rights does, but states instead that the rights and freedoms enumerated therein "may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, their premise is, what government gives, government takes away.

Our Constitution has been violated in many ways, but I didn't realize we'd ditched it in favor of the UN's vision of "global governance". While some may think it's perfectly acceptable to float the idea that national sovereignty is outdated, many might object. It definitely appears as an attempt to change attitudes about our current form of government.

IB is not the only program that promotes ideologies. In general, much American post-modern curricula replaces the teaching of historical facts with the teaching of attitudes and values about multiculturalism and world-mindedness. A review of science, and even math texts, reveals that sustainable development, environmental protection and social justice generally dominate.

Taxpayers should learn more before giving IB their stamp of approval. The IBO does not release materials for free, so it's hard to get copies of tests. But I have, and that is what prompted me to discover the political agenda embedded in the IBO's mission.

Please visit www.ibo.org and www.unesco.org (and click on the Education tab) to see what this is about, in their own words.

It's time that public education finds its direction from the bottom up -- the school board should be listening to the parents and taxpayers, and not be snookered into doing what some highly-paid consultants, "reformers", and snake-oil salesmen have told them.

Jane Aitken lives in Bedford and is a retired teacher with 35 years in the classroom.

Other letters:

IB is a Waste of Taxpayer Money
http://www.cabinet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/NS/20090320/BEDFORD05/303209982/-1/bedford05

Program Hostile to Some Religious Values
http://www.cabinet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/NS/20090320/BEDFORD05/903209927/-1/bedford05