How the Politics of the United Nations is Delivered Through IB (Part Two)

In Part II of this series we deal with the ongoing problem of trying to get school officials to explain what IB is and does, and what actual value it adds to any educational program, as we continue to hear contradictory information about its role at BHS and MVSD. Please ask the NH Senate to support HB 1403 which will help shine the light of day on this program.

Bedford School Officials Still Don't Answer The "Question"

It was interesting to watch Bedford school officials  go to great lengths to demonstrate the "normalcy" of IB while avoiding the "big" question when they appeared with Kathy Benuck on her local television show "Tell it Like it Is".

The cost was discussed. It's a given that there's nothing of value added by IB that would justify any expenditure. The cost is $200,000 per year, per IB program which is not insignificant in a district like MVSD. The cost is a portion of  an already obscenely bloated Bedford school budget approaching $60M.

The following article supports my assertion that the education industry consultants are grabbing our tax dollars without any accountability.

The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act awarded $26.6 million to help some failing schools in Colorado. Reporter Jennifer Brown reports that $9.5 million of the $26.6 million fund has gone to "consultants."

http://www.denverpost.com/investigations/ci_19997418

The IBO is no different. It makes many claims of success of the IB Programme, and yet, there is no empirical data to support those claims. The IBO is part of this huge "education industry" — mostly self-appointed experts — who through their paid consultancies, peddle new wave fads to schools. Most are gimmicks.

We're not sure what Bedford thinks is the value-added of this program and we'd be shocked to think they deliberately want to deliver the IB mission. Otherwise, why else would they be willing to pay money to be known as an "IB World School" while they could be doing things that are not copyrighted without having to pay IBO for the privilege? (That's the "big" question that no one will answer).

Your Attitudes, Adjusted for "Internationalmindedness"

The word "internationalism" which is the only thing the IBO really cares about, was only mentioned once (very sheepishly I might add) by Chip McGee. He was never asked to explain what  he meant when he said that students would have the opportunity to compete in "the playground of internationalism ". Do you mean to tell us that students never studied other countries before? That they didn't ever study foreign languages? That we've never compared American students' test scores to those in other countries? And that BHS can't provide these things without paying Geneva Switzerland for the privilege?

On the Benuck show, a very long discussion ensued about what books the students were required to read in a literature course and what other activities they would do in that course. They assured the host that they create the curriculum themselves, and from what I could glean, the content matter was no different from what schools have used for years. What then is the IB's role in this as value added? Did they need to pay someone in Geneva for choosing the books they assigned?

What they aren't telling you is what is significant. Common sense dictates that the IBO does not need to be paid in order for any school to deliver ANY of the course work they described. The content they described is NOT unique. Did they buy these books from IB? Of course not.  They talked a lot about the "quality" of the "program" but we still have no idea what value IB adds to any curriculum that it would not normally have without IB. McGee kept referring to IB as a curriculum (as well as a program) but we've heard conflicting statements as to whether it really is, that is to say, does it dictate content, lessons, scope and sequence or is it  just a framework? A few minutes later he again said they write their own curriculum and IB dictates nothing, which Tim Mayes later confirmed. So we ask again, are we paying for "nothing"?

Are you still confused? You should be. Remember, MV claimed they would not use IB's materials, nor would they promote IB's mission — the one and only requirement it takes to become and IB World School. And they as well could not tell us what it was they had actually bought.

A visit to the MV lab rats website we mentioned in Part I confirms they ARE spreading the doctrine of the UN using UNESCO-provided lesson plan topics that promote the pet projects of the UN, and the IB materials, including biweekly charts for checks on children's' "attitudes". The attitudes are those that insure the mission is being undertaken. This is how they make sure the proper amount of "internationalmindedness" is sinking in. Some might say "internationalmindedness" simply means studying other countries and their languages, but to the IB, it is their buzzword for preparing our children for the planned society of the future, a global government in which children will no longer "breathe the poisoned air of nationalism".

Teacher Training and Methods

Teachers are trained to deliver the IB program. As part of the training they are taught how to use the "constructivist" method of learning. This method is not beneficial to students in the lower grades, especially the less able who need direct instruction. This training is not much different than what most of us experienced under reform mandates that were not necessarily IB, since the education scammers love to march in lockstep. Once again, why do we need to pay Geneva Switzerland to require that teachers use "constructivism" as a teaching method? There is no copyright on it.

In segment two, twenty seconds hadn't passed before Tim Mayes used the expression "best practices". More edu-babble to confuse the clueless.  See this link if you want to translate this and many other bits of "eduspeak" that might have had you confused before: http://www.illinoisloop.org/whatswrong.html

You might begin to recognize some of these phrases and will be better able to challenge their meanings. As a teacher I heard them all.

When Benuck said she understood that teachers must update their skills, little did she know that IB "training", and indeed most training today for teachers, is not about updating skills but about injecting social engineering and globalism into subject areas. After all, before the students can be indoctrinated, the teachers must all be as well. It starts by demanding they use fuzzy methods that promote groupthink.

As a teacher who routinely underwent training and retraining under  the Delphi Technique, I saw that globalism, collectivism, egalitarianism, redistributionism, political correctness, activism, and more were the dominant themes. Not a word about honing my math skills as I would have liked.

Read more about Constructivism: http://www.mvsd-ib.org/ib/2012/04/10/why-constructivism-didnt-help-mvsds-failure-to-meet-ayp/

Connection to UNESCO Denied

We have already proven that there is indeed a "formal connection between UNESCO and IBO", which McGee predictably denied, although he quickly added that there was a "partnership". (That's not a connection?)

IB is indeed an NGO of Unesco: http://ngo-db.unesco.org/r/or/en/1100014533

Here is the actual statement from their own documentation:

"The IB has been recognized as a NGO of UNESCO since 1970 and currently has the status of "formal consultative relations as a network" with UNESCO. IB representatives participate regularly in UNESCO meetings and comment on UNESCO proposals in education. Some projects have received UNESCO funding — see Cambodia and Nigeria in the list of partnerships (126 kb, PDF) and exchanges with governments and inter-governmental organizations (IGOs)."

http://www.ibo.org/partnerships/governments/documents/gacgovs-completelist_003.pdf

School officials also told of the long and arduous process of applying and being accepted to be an IB World School, and yet, still claimed that IB had little control over their school or what they would do in it. Do they expect us to believe this double talk? Why then would any school bother with such a costly, complicated, and difficult process, in order to qualify — to do what? Doesn't the existence of this process automatically tell us there are NUMEROUS requirements to fulfill above and beyond just being able to pay the fees?  And just what are those requirements? They would have us think there were none.

School Board member Scott Earnshaw said he felt they needed some type of program, if not IB, to challenge the kids. How wonderful it was, he explained, to see them so excited about learning.  But how concerning is it that Bedford can't challenge kids without paying some foreign entity (which according to Bedford doesn't tell them what to do anyway)? Do you see that there is something very strange about this? Again, Earnshaw failed to answer the basic question; what is the value-added of this program? We've asked at school board meetings. The question was never answered. We haven't seen what it is. They can't or won't describe what it is. Because let's face it, it doesn't exist. The real purpose of IB, which they refuse to address, has already been exposed and it's there whether they want to talk about it or not.

The UN Agenda is Still Key to the IBO

United Nations edicts and programs have infiltrated every aspect of our society. Nowhere is this more evident than in education. The IBO makes no bones about the fact that their ONLY REQUIREMENT is that you agree to inject their brand of internationalist philosophy into your teaching. Why have these school officials failed to address this?

Here is a survey that one parent in Hot Springs, Arkansas was required to fill out. Note that it barely mentions academics and is only concerned with the "mission"?

http://www.mvsd-ib.org/ib/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/IB_Mission_Survey.pdf
 
We came away from this show with no better understanding of what IB is and does for our money.  We still don't know how these folks can justify this add-on program when they seem to be telling us that on the one hand, they had to work hard to qualify as an IB school, but yet, IBO has nothing to say about what they do...  

A good program is not dependent on IB and can be taught without having to pay a foreign club in Geneva Switzerland for the privilege. There is no copyright on the process, the methods, the books, or anything else it takes to provide a good program.  It is looking more and more like Bedford is indeed paying for the privilege of indoctrinating students into the philosophy of the UN, by way of IB... If they are NOT, they would seem to be violating their terms of service with the IBO.

Do you remember the fad that had everyone buying a Pet Rock?

What is a pet rock? It's something you bought just to say you had it. But in essence you paid for something you could have picked up off the street — for free, with the only difference being that the pet rock you buy had a smiling face painted on it...
 
Please ask your NH Senators to support HB 1403. It may not help get rid of a every scam coming from the "education industry", but it will at least help shine the light on this one.