Here are some facts about IB:

1) Compared to AP, IB will increase college costs for most students.

2) The IB diploma required TOK class is composed entirely of questions like, "When can it be right to disobey the law? Can suicide bombers be right?"

3) IB will not improve student performance.

4) IB's pedagogical method is one of constructivism and inquiry based learning to promote a specific ideology.

5) IB is extremely expensive.

6) Many schools drop IB, learn why at article below.

7) Some people have religious concerns with IB.

8) IB is an NGO of UNESCO (UN) and the goal is to promote the UN ideology.

9) At the elementary level IB is forced on all children in the school and the stated goal is to "develop attitudes," and to get students to "take action."

10) With IB, schools give up some local control to a Swiss organization.

11) AP is the best fit for gifted students.

12) When IB/AP classes are combined the IB material must take priority.

13) For the IB diploma students must complete 10 required classes in 11th and 12th grade.

14) IB is implemented in a deceitful way over and over throughout the United States. Once someone questions IB an open and honest discussion is never allowed, and the community becomes divided.

To find proof supporting all the points above read the entire article.

http://myinclinevillage.com/2011/07/31/what-all-parents--students-should-know-before-enrolling-in-ib.aspx

Being in a PYP school for 5 years now- I have yet to see anything promising- yes my kids no more spanish than I do but that is about it- U.S History is barely touched on and if it is - It must be compared from a global perspective- This program is scam and is making some very rich and dumbing down kids on a global level! I would never recommend this program - This is not the solution to save your schools- this is an agenda by someone Geneva- and parents you would have to be blind not to see at least one red flag in your child's classroom, desk, backpack- www.truthaboutib.com
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=11137067#editor/target=post;postID=502737092545759620

What colossal horse apples from Frank DiGeorge. And here I thought the John Birch Society was dead and buried; well, I guess not.

Anyone interested in much more objectivity than Mr. DiGeorge's canned example of paranoia rampant on a field of cow patties, can read responses by Jay Matthews, a noted education columnist, at the following web page: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class-struggle/post/ib-critic-versus-me/2011/10/11/gIQAC7xjZM_blog.html

There are many reasons to question the economic value of IB relative to AP, but his recitation of radical right nonsense is not part of any intelligent rationale.

Let's have an intelligent and objective analysis of the costs, and values, of each program.

The IB program is taking children with a basic mastery of cognitive skills and engaging them in an application of a human ecosystem – a global ecosystem – a global understanding. The rhetoric of the ultra, ultra, rightwing that demonizes the IB program is beyond comprehension. Do not let this backward ideology prevail, which will isolate the minds of children from the rest of the world.
We do not have IB in Elwood, the economies of scale make it very difficult to offer the program in such small high school, but I wish we could provide the opportunity for kids to engage in an IB program.

Now, if you want to debate a cost/benefit analysis comparing the IB and AP offerings that is a fair and intelligent debate. In the end, the IB may not be the best choice for Northport, but I would hope it would not be panned and eliminated because of the paranoia illustrated in some of the earlier posts.

I wish there was an application for my smart phone (like the sex offenders sites) that would warn me when people like Frank are in my neighborhood. Clearly he is a dangerous threat to our freedoms and what our country stands for. Frank, why do you people like YOU hate America and Freedom so much?

I think the debate (IB v. AP) is really part of a bigger one. That's to say, if our financial resources are more and more constrained by the mandated expenses inherent to the run away pension liabilities we face year over year, it is high time we face the fact that we are no longer able to offer all things to all people. It may be time to zero base the budget, take out all assumptions other than those which are manadated, and see what we can reasonably afford; not just in one year increments but in the context of those liabilities as they mature over time. My two cents as a frustrated member of a dwindling group of people bearing a disproportionate and increasingly unsustainable burden of the cost to support out schools.

One other thought: why "World Languages"? Why require a language at all? Why not make this an elective? I realize this is heresy because we have all bought into the notion that our kids NEED to be literate, to some extent, in a foreign language but if we really stop and think about it, why? The vast majority of us who labored through these classes as students in years gone by have gained little or nothing for our efforts. If a student wants to broaden their understanding of other languages and culture, go for it....just as any student who wants to learn Astronomy or further their studies in an Oceanography class. Otherwise, work on Math, Science, English and American History, Global as well, and call it at that as a starting point. Being able to speak Spanish, French, German, Japanese, Chinese or American Sign Languauge is all well and good but it is not at all essential by any stretch of logic.

Mr or Ms. Mulligan's unfortunate myopic view about languages is scary to this former global banking executive (and, for those who like to deflect by attacking, my time was from1969 through mid 2000, when banking was still an honorable profession).

American students run the risk of being left further and further behind in the global marketplace and we need to be wary when someone wants to reduce our global understanding, including an ability to speak languages other than English.

Now, I will not make an argument for all languages, as some are highly useful and others are little more than an academic exercise, but I would like to see more and more students learning Mandarin Chinese, and Spanish, and Portuguese, and Russian, and at least some students learning Indochinese languages, and perhaps some from the Indian Subcontinent and the Middle East.

Undoubtedly some may argue that you can get by with just English, because more and more people in business have learned or are learning to speak English. Well, yes, you can "get by" as I certainly did, but being able to speak some of the language of your host country, or of the key business people that you meet in mutual travels, is a good way to earn respect from them.

Aside from that, learning a language also includes -- if it is done right -- a certain amount of learning about cultures, and that is also critical to success in the global marketplace.

Jerry: I congratulate you on your distinguished career as a banking executive and I don't doubt for a minute that knowledge of a foreign language and culture was a true benefit. That said, riddle me this: can anyone out there honestly say with the conviction of their wallet that paying for our children to learn Spanish, or any other language for that matter, beginning, in many cases in grade school, has any reasonable return on that investment? I submit that the answer is emphatically, NO. Again, if learning a Language is something a student has a proclivity for and he or she is likely to benefit from it then by all means, make that available appropriately, at the COLLEGIATE level.

Learning languages is most effectively done as early in life as possible. Those who will be best educated in a foreign language will begin learning that in primary education, not secondary, and certainly not college.

If you want a sham, then argue against paying for language training in K-12, and instead put that off until college.

The K-12 result will be less costly education and perhaps -- though I doubt it, given the sleazy disinformation and sleight of hand coming from State legislators and governors for decades -- lower property taxes.

The end result, however, will be less informed students who will become less effective members of the business community and the US armed services, and that means a less effective America.

These arguments for false savings seem nothing more than the destruction of our future as a nation.

@ Dan Ciccone
Although I agree that a college core curriculum will have a"language component", the fullfillment of that requirement is not dependent on what a student's language experience is at the high school level, although it may make it easier if a student has high school experience with a foreign language. Now if a student chooses to major in a language, well I would think that a high school transcript with rigorous courses in language does make a difference to seek admission to what you call a "competitive" college.

And now for the my real question...what do you mean by "competitive?" And based on your definition, how does the design of high school program differ for a non-"competitive" college compared to the program of a "competitive" college? I believe that at least 90% of the high school students do attend college, which includes attendance at 2 year institutions. Do you know what percentage of students attend a "competitive" college, as you define it? And assuming that percentage is in the minority, should a high school program be geared to that minority? Just asking!

Dan,
I agree that SAT score requirements for college admission have risen and thus makes it more "competitive" for students to gain admission to the college of their choice because of the "competition." But based on your last response "Imagine having a high school program that could not give children an opportunity to go to the best universities in the Country.", are you implying that a high school program should not only have a college ready curriculum that supports the vast majority of students who don't attend the "best" universities in the County, but also the small minority who do attend the "best" universities in the County? Again, I do not know what your definition of "best" is. (are you using U.S. News ranking system or some other ranking system? Top 5, top 20, state, private, or what?) And that begs the question, where does public education draw the line for unmandated programs (research based, IB vs. AP debate, offering "college-bearing credit" courses at the high school level as examples) that may serve the few who enter the "best" universities in the Country at the expense of the many who may not need these specialty programs or courses to enter the college of their choice, but need a high SAT score, a decent class average, financing, etc.)? This is not a debate of the stats you indicate above, but a debate of what is the best curriculum (not just HS) that makes the vast majority of students "college ready" and effective contributors to society?

My statement was a direct response to your two questions: “Do you know what percentage of students attend a "competitive" college, as you define it? And assuming that percentage is in the minority, should a high school program be geared to that minority?”

I interpreted your question as asking if there should be advanced level coursework that provides opportunities for entrance to top tier universities considering that is a minority of all children in high school. I am not going to list top tier, so don’t ask. However, it does not take much to think about what schools are more, or most competitive in their standard of acceptance based on well-roundedness and academic proficiency.

Are you saying that public schools should draw a line on rigorous programs that are not part of the State mandated curriculum? I do not! However, I will grant you that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the taxpayer to keep up with a diversified program that provides an appropriate challenge and opportunity to all children.

There is a developing K-12 Common Core Standard curriculum mandate being crafted by the NYSED that is supposed to improve college and career readiness. I believe this action alone speaks volumes that the commissioner of education believes there is a gap between the mandated school curriculum and college and career readiness. Is that enough for our local communities? As a community, do we want to provide high-level opportunity for all students?

I would take Dan's response a bit further. The future of America's students, in an increasingly global marketplace, depends upon how solid (rigorous, if you prefer) an education they will get.

My opinion, based upon observations as well as what is published by regional & national education reporters, is that America's students are being outpaced by those in many foreign nations, & not just within the highly industrialized ones.

At a time of decreasing State resources, combined with an absurd property tax cap that allows to be left in place numerous costly mandates from the same State, along with antiquated labor relations practices, among them the Triborough Amendment, which leave most districts at the mercy of teacher unions because district & BOE hands are tied behind their backs while unions retain very large contract cudgels, the ability of districts to provide a superior education to its students is like trying to row a small boat into an oncoming tsunami.

We can either continue absurdly generous pay packages for everyone, or we can redirect some of that largesse into changes to our education model with enhanced curriculums & top-quality educators.

Naysayers representing the interests of the protect-the-benefits-of-the-most-senior-teachers crowd, will probably say "how are you going to get those so-called top-quality educators to join up, when you are restricting pay and benefits."

The answer, to that, of course, is differentiated pay.

Allow me to get back to the heart of my concern. It is not about language requirements, though I still contend this has become a totally over done issue. My central point is that we simply cannot afford to continue to "drink the cool aid" that is offered up year after year by the "it's for the kids" crowd who spend more and more to support a failing and unsustainable financial model. By this I mean that we really do need to reset the table and zero base our budgets. In doing so we will bring to the light of day, for all the public to see, how bloated our budgets have become supporting outrageous union demands, cradle to grave benefits, step increases and the like. If we were to do something bold like this and then project things out beyond one year, I truly believe parents/tax payers would wake up, see how absurd things have gotten and reign things in. Would that we could offer all things to all people. We can't given the cost structure we have all aided and abetted these many years. This brings us to today. Let's get serious, go back to the drawing board, stop drinking the cool aid so to speak, reset the table and question everything; starting with these absurd unions that are holding our kids hostage in our "union free school school districts".

Once we zero base budget, throw out the unions once and for all, and re-establish control of our schools, we can then address funding the programs that are essential first, the "nice to have" next, and ensure our children have a superior education and are competitive at whatever level they are suited for. There is something dreadfully wrong with a financial model that says it takes $23,000/student to educate them in a crumbling, drug ridden infrastructure that is a reality all over Long Island including Commack, Smithtown, and Northport. We need to wake up and rise up in defense of our children and their future.

Good grief! I don't know where Mr or Ms Mulligan gets his/her information, but let's establish some facts rather than sniffing the glue that might be creating such hallucinations:

(1) You can't "throw out the unions," friend; like it or not, their right to exist is protected by law;

(2) There are good things that unions do (protecting worker rights), and there are bad things that they do (like protecting mediocrity and the "good enough" philosophy), so you need to differentiate between the good and the bad, and figure out a LEGAL (hate to throw that requirement at ya', pal, but this is a democracy, and not a fascist state) way to reform this system;

(3) "crumbling, drug ridden infrastructure"....what the @*%# are you smoking to create that bit of absurd extremist manure? Are there drugs in some areas, sure, but is it predominant in the three communities you mentioned, hell no! But, your approach seems to be to attack in the broadest possible way, without regard to truth, rather than deal with all of this in a true intellectual way.

Somehow I fear that dialogue with you will not produce any intelligent results, but I hope that I'm wrong and that you will surprise me, and others, with a more temperate and intelligent analysis.

This is a serious issue that deserves a well-reasoned, and not well-hyped, approach.

Forgive the inflamatory rhetoric in my earlier posts. With respect to Jason's comment re: the legal rights of workers to organize. I quite agree. It is legal. Is it necessary? Questionable at best. That said, let's call for de-certification. That is the legal remedy to free our children and tax payers from a construct that is strangling progress. "Union free school district" my foot. Is it reasonable to think that doing the same thing over and over again, increasing taxes on an already overburdened and dwindling number of payers, and choking down yet another "contract" that reinforces the concept of mediocrity, will get us the results that our children so desperately need? I have spent a lot of time with our teachers and administrators and find most to be absolutely wonderful people who themselves are trapped in a system that they freely admit, in closed circles, cannot be sustained. If only we could re-engineer this system from the parents and children's perspective, zero base our budgeting so we can see where all the skeletons are, and cast off the shackles which bind us to a cost structure that is collapsing. I have lived all over this country and can tell you from experience that our costs here are outrageous, unsustainable and ruinous to those who must bear them. The collapse is coming. To those who refuse to see it I say.....keep enjoying the cool aid while it lasts.

Oh, and the comment about crumbling infrastructure and drugs.....take a look around you at the buildings and ask the kids about the drugs. Again, take the blinders off and ask the question....where is our money going?

As a relative new comer to this area I am appalled by the seeming acceptance of the status quo. The incremental, baby step approaches to the stark problem at hand, coupled with an apathetic throwing up of the hands which says "the is no fat" and "the union is the union" is a recipe for continued failure, Just because this is what it has had been forever doesn't mean staying the course is right and proper. Doing relatively the same thing year after year and expecting a different result is a fools game. I am calling on my fellow citizens to say "enough"! We are broken and need a bold re-thinking of solutions. There is a better way forward and "we" do not have a lock on providing the best education in this country. Most public school systems, in the aggregate, to better than we do for a lot less money. Wake up and smell the apathy. Say "no more" and mean it.

@ dan.
I believe for the most part we are on the same page. However, I now believe that offering the most or best opportunities are not what public school should do, but rather instill in a mandated program the rigor necessary for college and career readiness. Offering specialty programs have to be limited and be subject to continuous re-evaluation. As an example you indicate that the IB program is expensive and wish that Elwood would be able to offer it, but its economies of scale prohibit it. Should the decision to offer an opportunity be about the denominator? Or should the opportunity be about the academic value it provides and the interest level in that opportunity? I totally get it that the cost of a school program is cheaper as more participate and as the tax base increases. If that is the reasoning to follow, then every big school district would have loads of opportunities for its students, making it comparable to a university. And we know that is not the case because it is too expensive to do so. Opportunities pad the payroll and related benefits and could become entrenched regardless of their worth. If an opportunity is expensive and there is no significant value to or interest by the majority, then it should not be offered.

Perhaps the LI system needs specialized high schools that offer elite or specialized programs with competitive admissions, rather than duplicative programs across all districts. With that model costs could be limited without sacrificing opportunities. Regardless, I believe that good students will make their opportunities happen regardless if a public school provides it.

By the way, anyone can read about the initial report of Elwood's CFBAC, and plans for further work by the committee, as reported by Debbie Sullivan of Patch:
http://northport.patch.com/articles/elwood-citizens-finance-committee-makes-recommendations

It's a good example of how an open relationship between a BOE, and the residents of a school district, can lead to a more candid and more productive dialogue to benefit both taxpayers and students.

Just as we in Elwood learned from other school districts, through observation from 2001 through 2009 by attendance at other school district's BOE meetings, and by consideration of productive features found in some districts (and avoidance of some obvious errors observed in a few), and had change enabled by incorporation of a reform-minded Board of Education in 2003 with the election of two trustee candidates committed to reform (not destruction, but true reform) joining two open-minded trustees already on the BOE, other school districts on LI can do the same.

Why, they could even learn some things from lonely little Elwood, which is far from perfect, but much better than it was in the 1990's and early 2000's. Continuous improvement, or Kaizen in Japanese (whose auto industry basically educated the rest of the world to that concept), is the only way to stay at the top of your game.

Once you're convinced that you have done everything you need to do, you are setting yourself up for slipping down towards the bottom.