IB Program- What is it? IB or AP?

[Anonymous]

Here's an interesting article about IB. On one hand, people often complain about the extent to which school curriculum is now mandated by state and federal officials, yet others are more than happy to simply turn over their children's education to the IBO's notion of what an "international education" should entail. It seems like a very top-down model with fairly overt geo-political goals.

http://www.channelingreality.com/Niwa/IB_unraveled_040610.htm

[Anonymous]

^^Oh yes, Vicky Davis, ms. Govern America, my-job-was-outsourced-to-India and keep-smart-grid-away-from-me proselytizer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument fails because the focus needs to be on the students that FCPS actually has, not the students FCPS wishes it had. If IB were going to draw people to schools, surely we would have seen this happen by now. But it hasn't, and most of the students who attend the schools with IB programs clearly would be better served by AP.

Huh? How do you know this?

IB courses can be taken WITHOUT committing to the entirety of the diploma. There is also an IB Career-related Certificate (IBCC) Program:

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/ibdiploma.shtml

So the costs of the IB coordinator are not solely for the students in the IB Diploma program but also for the students in IBCC as well as for students taking individual IB courses (much like students do, a la carte, for AP).

The whole point of IB at the high school level is the IB diploma and everything at an IB high school has to be organized around enabling students to pursue a diploma and making sure that, among other things, the IB school "develops and promotes international-mindedness and all attributes of the IB learner profile across the school community," and "provides for the full Diploma Programme and requires some of its student body to attempt the full diploma," etc. The IBCC is an after-the-fact add-on to keep IB schools that have abysmally low rates of diploma candidates forking over the annual fees and other money to the IBO.

The AP "a-la-carte" analogy fails because IB courses are more cumbersome (often two-sequences as opposed to one-year AP courses); moreover, even if they were no different than AP courses, it would still beg the question as to why we should pay more money for IB coordinators, training, annual school fees, and tests when AP costs less.

IB has been such a waste of time and money in FCPS. It strains credulity that FCPS won't listen to parents and kill it, even when people have repeatedly expressed their anger over getting redistricted to IB schools.

Where are the two-sequences courses in IBCC? I don't see this requirement listed.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/ibcc.shtml

You have to take two IB diploma courses and many of them have a two-year sequence.

IBCC has limited flexibility compared to AP/Academy offerings at other schools, and most of the schools that offer this have few IB diploma candidates. It doesn't seem worth the candle when you could take the same money spent on IB fees, coordinators, etc. and just provide the students with access to non-IB courses that deliver similar services at lower cost.

The only two-year course sequence I see for IBCC is for CTE courses. The IB Diploma courses do not need to be a two-year sequence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IB has been such a waste of time and money in FCPS. It strains credulity that FCPS won't listen to parents and kill it, even when people have repeatedly expressed their anger over getting redistricted to IB schools.

I feel like I am missing something. Honest question, no snark - if it is as much a slam dunk as you claim, why, with all of the budget problems FCPS has faced, hasn't IB been reduced to 1 or 2 schools? As you've presented above, it's a pretty straightforward argument - high costs, low participation rates (meaning negligible parental/staff resistance) , AP is probably better known and more popular...

If this is such obvious low-hanging fruit that is win-win for all involved, why hasn't it happened? What do Board members say? What's the inside scoop? There must be something, right?

Why not (and I definitely would not say scaling back IB is a win-win for everybody, just for the majority):

* There are a limited number of people familiar with both programs.

* The majority who prefer AP generally seek out AP districts and take no further interest in IB, whereas the much smaller number of students and families who like IB will defend it aggressively.

* FCPS allows liberal pupil-placement, so you can transfer from an IB school to an AP school (and some like the ability to arbitrage school boundaries by buying into a less-expensive IB school district and then pupil placing to an AP school in a more expensive district).

* FCPS institutionally does not admit mistakes or scrutinize the effectiveness of programs once they are in place.

* Significant numbers of parents at most IB schools live in low-SES communities where they are simply grateful that their children are getting a free education.

* Others will simply view criticisms of the IB program as an attack on their school and defend it, even if they personally would prefer AP if the matter were up for a fresh vote.

* Some parents like the fact that IB allows their children to attend a "school within a school" and, therefore, defend IB for that reason.

* The IBO gets an enormous amount of money from area public school systems and there are literally dozens of people in FCPS and the DC area who have a direct, vested interest in promoting IB (ranging from IBO officials at the 'IB Global Centre for the Americas" in Bethesda, Maryland to the dedicated "IB coordinators" at individual schools throughout the DC area).

* If you criticize IB as inefficient or wasteful, you are attacked personally.

* There are few School Board members who have a good grasp of the FCPS budget, and some Board members embrace the "feel-good" notions that IB espouses, such as creating "global citizens" and "lifetime learners."

* As IB is now installed at numerous schools, it is easier to claim that it's a success by pointing to whatever statistics can be cited in any particular year to suggest progress (whether it's a higher number of IB diploma recipients, a larger number of IB test takers, or a higher pass rate on IB exams) than to ask the tough "what if" questions (i.e., would most students at a school actually be better served by AP, or if the money spent on IB was spent instead to hire more teachers or offer additional classes).

* Any discussion of cost-cutting measures typically gets drowned in a sea of comments about other programs or initiatives that also cost money; in response, FCPS's traditional response has not been to cut the "low-hanging fruit," but instead to put on the chopping block, at least in the first instance, those programs that parents most want to preserve (music, sports, language instruction) in order to trigger calls for a greater transfer from the Board of Supervisors. Then, if FCPS still needs to cut costs, it is easier for FCPS to just fire teachers than cut a program that someone, somewhere likes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument fails because the focus needs to be on the students that FCPS actually has, not the students FCPS wishes it had. If IB were going to draw people to schools, surely we would have seen this happen by now. But it hasn't, and most of the students who attend the schools with IB programs clearly would be better served by AP.

Huh? How do you know this?

IB courses can be taken WITHOUT committing to the entirety of the diploma. There is also an IB Career-related Certificate (IBCC) Program:

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/ibdiploma.shtml

So the costs of the IB coordinator are not solely for the students in the IB Diploma program but also for the students in IBCC as well as for students taking individual IB courses (much like students do, a la carte, for AP).

The whole point of IB at the high school level is the IB diploma and everything at an IB high school has to be organized around enabling students to pursue a diploma and making sure that, among other things, the IB school "develops and promotes international-mindedness and all attributes of the IB learner profile across the school community," and "provides for the full Diploma Programme and requires some of its student body to attempt the full diploma," etc. The IBCC is an after-the-fact add-on to keep IB schools that have abysmally low rates of diploma candidates forking over the annual fees and other money to the IBO.

The AP "a-la-carte" analogy fails because IB courses are more cumbersome (often two-sequences as opposed to one-year AP courses); moreover, even if they were no different than AP courses, it would still beg the question as to why we should pay more money for IB coordinators, training, annual school fees, and tests when AP costs less.

IB has been such a waste of time and money in FCPS. It strains credulity that FCPS won't listen to parents and kill it, even when people have repeatedly expressed their anger over getting redistricted to IB schools.

Where are the two-sequences courses in IBCC? I don't see this requirement listed.

http://www.fcps.edu/is/aap/ibcc.shtml

You have to take two IB diploma courses and many of them have a two-year sequence.

IBCC has limited flexibility compared to AP/Academy offerings at other schools, and most of the schools that offer this have few IB diploma candidates. It doesn't seem worth the candle when you could take the same money spent on IB fees, coordinators, etc. and just provide the students with access to non-IB courses that deliver similar services at lower cost.

The only two-year course sequence I see for IBCC is for CTE courses. The IB Diploma courses do not need to be a two-year sequence.

Right. So you can jump through some hoops, with fewer options than you'd otherwise have, and end up in the same place, just within an IB framework that costs more money. FCPS already has some excellent Academy programs and they do not depend upon IB at all.

[Anonymous]

Why not (and I definitely would not say scaling back IB is a win-win for everybody, just for the majority):

* There are a limited number of people familiar with both programs.

* The majority who prefer AP generally seek out AP districts and take no further interest in IB, whereas the much smaller number of students and families who like IB will defend it aggressively.

* FCPS allows liberal pupil-placement, so you can transfer from an IB school to an AP school (and some like the ability to arbitrage school boundaries by buying into a less-expensive IB school district and then pupil placing to an AP school in a more expensive district).

* FCPS institutionally does not admit mistakes or scrutinize the effectiveness of programs once they are in place.

* Significant numbers of parents at most IB schools live in low-SES communities where they are simply grateful that their children are getting a free education.

* Others will simply view criticisms of the IB program as an attack on their school and defend it, even if they personally would prefer AP if the matter were up for a fresh vote.

* Some parents like the fact that IB allows their children to attend a "school within a school" and, therefore, defend IB for that reason.

* The IBO gets an enormous amount of money from area public school systems and there are literally dozens of people in FCPS and the DC area who have a direct, vested interest in promoting IB (ranging from IBO officials at the 'IB Global Centre for the Americas" in Bethesda, Maryland to the dedicated "IB coordinators" at individual schools throughout the DC area).

* If you criticize IB as inefficient or wasteful, you are attacked personally.

* There are few School Board members who have a good grasp of the FCPS budget, and some Board members embrace the "feel-good" notions that IB espouses, such as creating "global citizens" and "lifetime learners."

* As IB is now installed at numerous schools, it is easier to claim that it's a success by pointing to whatever statistics can be cited in any particular year to suggest progress (whether it's a higher number of IB diploma recipients, a larger number of IB test takers, or a higher pass rate on IB exams) than to ask the tough "what if" questions (i.e., would most students at a school actually be better served by AP, or if the money spent on IB was spent instead to hire more teachers or offer additional classes).

* Any discussion of cost-cutting measures typically gets drowned in a sea of comments about other programs or initiatives that also cost money; in response, FCPS's traditional response has not been to cut the "low-hanging fruit," but instead to put on the chopping block, at least in the first instance, those programs that parents most want to preserve (music, sports, language instruction) in order to trigger calls for a greater transfer from the Board of Supervisors. Then, if FCPS still needs to cut costs, it is easier for FCPS to just fire teachers than cut a program that someone, somewhere likes.

This actually makes the most sense. If you can see the program has a small cohort that is very interested, then it should be designed to serve that small group by focusing it in one or two schools in the county. The reasons above are all logical and I would be the first to change my mind on the IB issue if someone who supported the program put together such a cogent response.

My fear is that there is so much boondoggle and lobbying and refusal change by the county that these poor schools are stuck with a program that is, at best, marginally useful to a tiny population at the cost of the large, needy population of students. That's such a shame.