This Curriculum Could Help Students Compete In A Global World. So Why Aren’t More Schools Adopting It?

Learn about International Baccalaureate and Common Core from the experts.

We came across this opinion piece This Curriculum Could Help Students Compete In A Global World. So Why Aren’t More Schools Adopting It? by someone named Jackie Sizemore.

We don’t know who the writer is or what qualifies “Jackie Sizemore” (@sizemorepov) to write about IB with any sort of authority, but it seems she has her signals crossed. Could some people be so unaware of what IB is and does, and what its mission is, that they think it’s not political, as she has stated?

Clearly the roots of IB having been the United Nations (an ad hoc voluntary non-governmental organization that has grown into a beast that seeks to be the sole governmental authority for the planet) ought to tell anyone what kind of political bias it contains.

And now it’s just out in the open as to what it is trying to accomplish with our students. “My kids are doing well” some will tell us. But that is not the question. It is what they are being taught that is dangerous.

From the start, the author’s statement “…most American schools are not currently preparing students to think and live in a global world” will give you a hint as to where the bias lies.

Respecting differences is something that is taught to students by any teacher, especially when it comes to stopping bullying on the playground. No programs are needed as this is simply in the course of a day’s work. But this is often used as an excuse to turn students against their own country’s governmental organization, and to deny its sovereignty.

Take for example the Civics Ed book “We the People and the Constitution” that is often used in conjunction with the IB program. This book denies the very existence of the Second Amendment and suggests that the United Nation’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) document might have advantages over our constitution. Note that the UDHR, which seeks to be a substitute for the Constitution, proclaims that only it can give or take away rights, not that they are endowed from birth.

The article declares that “The program began ‘as a universal curriculum, enabling the best educators in the world to develop an academically vigorous and ethically oriented curriculum absent of any government influences,’” but that is hardly the case.

Take for example the IB course “Theory of Knowledge”. This is based on Marxist philosophy. A wealth of information can be found supporting the origins of this philosophy. Teaching students to question their ideological assumptions is certainly political.

And despite claims at the outset of the article that IB is ‘non political’, “according to Chancellor Spahn, the IB curriculum was ‘designed to be immune from nationalistic tendencies and biases to emphasize the importance of global thinking and learning in global contexts.’” So there you have it. IB seeks to de-emphasize a country’s sovereignty, and that citizens need to be absorbed in the one world way of thinking, including government. And while the claim is that IB prepares students better for college, AP courses are generally recognized by most institutions, but not all give credit for standard-level IB exams.

Then we read this bombshell of an admission: “Still, with the resurgence of sentiments like “America first,” teaching a global perspective in schools is crucial for American students entering an increasingly connected world. Educators at every level are responsible for preparing students for the world that is and the world that will be, and the idea that restricting national borders, the right to protest, or decreasing global humanitarian involvement will somehow “Make America Great Again” is flawed logic that erases the infinite ways the U.S. has benefited from serving as the melting pot for ideas, cultures, and people from all over the planet.”

The suggestion that students who might feel a loyalty to their own country, who are aware of the benefits of its Constitutional Republican form of government, and who would somehow be unable to support trade with other countries, or who would be unwilling to socialize with people from different national backgrounds, is outlandish.

Finally, the assertion that “K-12 education should include more than just core subjects; it should create the space for students to reflect on the world and the kind of global citizen they hope to be” seals the deal on the real goal of IB; which is to make students into global, not national, citizens.

In sum, this article perpetuates the same old myths about the effectiveness of IB, and awards it the same accolades that it does not deserve. It confirms that the agenda is indeed political.

Read more at: http://www.mvsd-ib.org/ib/