Pap by any other name is still that...
.
.
When I most recently inquired as to the status of the so-called “International Baccalaureate Programme” (IB) and its implementation in my home town of Gilford, I was told that it had pretty much been shelved. This was certainly welcome news to those of us that have been concerned for some time about this latest fad about to be foisted on the town’s unsuspecting students.
For those not familiar with the subject, let me again recount how our friend Jane, a retired schoolteacher described it in a prior post on the subject:
“These are politically motivated programs devised by the United Nations and centered out of Geneva, Switzerland, geared more toward the acclimation of students as early as the age of 3 into the role of ‘global citizens’ subject to the rules of ‘global government’ as laid out by UN documents such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Earth Charter, and Agenda 21.”
“Like the Goals 2000 and the No Child Left Behind Act before it, IB schools attempt to instill an early acceptance of these UN ‘world government’ standards and defies local control. These teachings about governmental loyalties are directly contrary to our US Constitutional government and our country’s national sovereignty. These programs seem more about restructuring society and changing attitudes, than educating, and their founders are very up front about it. Even the tests children take would be graded in Geneva.”
And that’s not just simply the opinion of a lone teacher in the hills of New Hampshire. Early last year, Utah lawmakers decided against helping that state’s local schools pay for International Baccalaureate (IB) programs after one legislator called IB's philosophy anti-American.
“I’m not opposed to understanding the world,” Utah state Senator Margaret Dayton told members of the Senate Education Committee. “I’m opposed to the anti-American philosophy that’s somehow woven into all the classes as they promote the U.N. [United Nations] agenda.”
You can see why myself and others were relieved when we were told IB was off the radar in Gilford, not to mention the fact that this was simply more costs heaped on top of an already heavily-funded public education system. We must be sure we’re getting the maximum bang for the buck before throwing more good money for programs of questionable results, and on IB, when conducting a search of the Internet, you can certainly conclude that, at the very least, the jury is still out. At the worst (and, in my opinion, more likely), it is yet another failed educational fad.
“But Doug, what difference does all this make? You just said you were told it had fallen by the wayside for now.” Yes, but as we’ve come to learn when dealing with all things government, pay no attention to the words, and never take what is presented at face value. And, when it happens to be the educational sector of government, the double-speak often reaches new heights. “International Baccalureate Programme? No, we’re not pursuing that at the moment. We decided to just focus on more of what we’ve got going already, instead.”
Hooray for the school board! Finally, they understand. Focus on the BASICS. Er, not so fast. According to the minutes of their October 5th meeting, member Kurt Webber
“inquired whether progress had been made in presenting theory of knowledge/critical thinking classes.” He was told by the superintendant that “money exists in the budget ‘to do something in the area of additional A/P or theory of knowledge courses,’ but they have not yet been designed and implemented.”
Aside from the nonchalant reference to what sounds like leftover dollars burning the proverbial hole in their pockets, you might know what “A/P” or “advanced placement” classes are—and, believe them worthy of funds. But what is this “theory of knowledge” anyway? Back to the Internet I went to do a Google search and, lo and behold, guess where the first result brought me? Right to the International Baccalaureate Programme’s website, where I learned that
“The theory of knowledge (TOK) requirement is central to the educational philosophy of the Diploma Programme.”
Good thing we’re not pursuing IB in Gilford anymore, eh? We’re just going to implement the sum of its parts, apparently. That way, perhaps they can fool the public into swallowing something they’ve already expressed displeasure with. You just gotta love our school board and our well-remunerated superintendant—they NEVER give up, and NEVER take no for an answer. What persistence!
Here’s more on “theory of knowledge” from the IB website:
“It offers students and their teachers the opportunity to: reflect critically on diverse ways of knowing and on areas of knowledge; consider the role and nature of knowledge in their own culture, in the cultures of others and in the wider world.”
Additionally, it prompts students to
“be aware of themselves as thinkers, encouraging them to become more acquainted with the complexity of knowledge; recognize the need to act responsibly in an increasingly interconnected but uncertain world. As a thoughtful and purposeful inquiry into different ways of knowing, and into different kinds of knowledge, TOK is composed almost entirely of questions. The most central of these is ‘How do we know?’”
I don’t know about you, but one thing I do know is this: it sounds like nothing but pure pap to me. Why can’t we just teach the kids some basics, like math and English and science, for crying out loud?
Comments
Posted by: Jane | November 5, 2009 3:37 PM
Posted by: Jim J. Enright | November 5, 2009 9:03 PM
Posted by: Jim J. Enright | November 5, 2009 9:05 PM
Posted by: Lisa | November 6, 2009 8:43 AM