Anonymous wrote:
[Up]
IB is a wonderful program if implemented correctly. But it takes resources and time to do so - hiring qualified teachers, training, and such. Another key difference is IB is a structured PROGRAM (vs. AP's course specific approach) meaning students have to take certain courses/meet certain criteria. People who do not understand the IB view this as "rigid" or "not very flexible"...etc. IB is goal is to produce well-rounded students.
The problem is schools are jumping into IB without proper planning, resources, or understanding. It's not the program that's problematic, it's the implementation.
It seems to me that the advanced diploma offered at AP schools shares the goal of producing well-rounded students. This concept is hardly unique to IB, but, of course, it would be just like the IB boosters to try to suggest that it is. PP, you make it sound as if students at AP-based schools can take whatever they like, and the fact is, there are specific requirements: a specific amount of math, science, foreign language, etc. to produce a well-rounded student.
As for IB implementation, I think there are plenty of highly qualified teachers in this area. However, it's pretty impossible to install the IB program here the way it is in Europe. American schools are not organized by grades 4-8 and 10-12 like the IB program is. There are also SOLs (or Common Core) requirements that need to be met by American schools that can be at odds with IB goals. This is not the fault of any individual American state or school district. The IBO seems all too happy to take the money of the U.S. school systems, but not at all willing to make changes to its program that would make it easier for U.S. schools to implement it.
As a result, IB programs are a waste of money for U.S. schools. And if Fairfax Co. is looking for ways to save money, scrapping IB would be a great way to do it.