| HomeschoolingResourceCenter.org Home | Log In | Join | Search | About Us | Contact Us |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Important Issue Revised September 1, 2009 |
|||
As homeschoolers, we do not train up our children in a vacuum. We function within a society that pushes a specific educational system geared toward developing future leaders and influencing culture. Currently, there are three major trends in education that homeschoolers need to be aware of. Not surprisingly, the three trends are inter-related.
The IB webpage reports that there are currently 745,000 students at 2,715 schools in 138 countries. Of these schools, 1,032 are registered in the United States; 173 at the Primary Level, 319 at the Middle School Level, and 670 at the Diploma (high school) Level. They can be found in major cities, in the suburbs, and in rural America. Chances are, there's one near you. In my own community, which most people would consider an example of a relatively conservative small town, the local high school is now an IB school - despite the fact that most of the citizens have no idea what that means. Or what their children will now be learning – and not learning. Incidentally, in many cases, tax dollars are being used to subsidize this curriculum.
Brief Historical Background The IB program began in the 1960s in Switzerland, as the International School of Geneva. The head of the school, Marie-Therese Maurette, outlined the framework for the program in a pamphlet prepared for UNESCO (the educational arm of the United Nations) entitled, Ways of Teaching Education for Peace. Do They Exist? The ways do exist, she wrote, but there must be a deliberate, planned intervention to develop students accordingly. For example, she suggested that everything possible be done to minimize the concept of nationality in order to encourage students to develop a picture of the whole world. Fast Forward to Today The International Baccalaureate is a non-governmental organization of UNESCO and has collaborative relationships with the Council of Europe and the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie. The IB's connection with UNESCO leads to the integration of its educational goals into the IB curriculum. Ronald Reagan pulled the United States out of UNESCO, a move that was reversed by George W. Bush. What does this connection mean? In 1999, UNESCO announced that the IB curriculum would promote human rights, social justice, the need for sustainable development, and address population, health, environmental and immigration concerns.
"The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect. To this end the organization works with schools, governments and international organizations to develop challenging programmes of international education and rigorous assessment. These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right." Right about what? In fact, one of the major thrusts of the IB curriculum is multiculturalism. This ideal teaches that there is no absolute right or wrong. The concept is known as constructivism (a key element of a postmodern worldview). Constructivism says that each culture, ethnic group, nation, or any other subset of the population (e.g. political conservatives or Christians) develops its own set of constructs or truths that fit them, but don't necessarily fit everyone else. In other words, all truth is relative. There is no such thing as justice, morals, ethics, or inalienable rights. Only what those in power say is just, moral or rightfully yours at that point in time. When proponents of the IB curriculum come to a community, the major advantage they cite is the “fact” that it will prepare students for a global marketplace by training them to think globally rather than parochially. In other words, the curriculum does not emphasize learning about one's own history, culture, or values, and in many cases teaches that national sovereignty is a negative force in the world. The UNESCO pamphlet on globalism (1949) clearly states that children should be taught “those qualities which provide the foundation upon which international government must be based if it is to succeed.” Which international government? The same “precedence” of international law that – according to the majority of the US Supreme Court justices – undermines our own American laws as set forth in the Constitution?
Knowledge versus Thought Processes IB position papers show how the IB curriculum and another trend in education – federal standards – are related. That is, in addition to the “coincidence” that many of the standards being pushed by the Obama administration directly parallel the IB curriculum. These position papers declare that the IB curriculum is different from traditional approaches to education in that the emphasis is NOT on direct instruction in facts, computational skills, and historically learned knowledge. “Most national educational systems at the moment encourage students to seek the truth, memorize it, and reproduce it accurately. The real world is not this simple. International education has to reconcile this diversity with the unity of the human condition.” In other words, there is no set of essential facts or knowledge that students should learn, let alone memorize. Instead, they are to be taught how to think and problem-solve. Examples of this approach to education are the whole language fiasco, the new “fuzzy math” that shuns knowing math facts and being able to do arithmetic, interpretive history (where events and documents must be reinterpreted and “evolved” to fit modern times), and evolutionary science that shuns cut and dry classifications and the “laws” of science. To make sure that IB schools understand and implement the stated goals, the IB philosophy mandates what students should be like in their attitudes, values, and worldview as citizens of the world by requiring and monitoring students to perform as the “Learner Profile” dictates. The dictates cover ten broad – and very subjective – character traits: inquirers, knowledgeable, thinkers, communicators, principled, open-minded, caring, risk-takers, balanced, and reflective. While these sound like noble traits, keep in mind that these deal with how students should think and act rather than what academics students should know. And while many unsuspecting parents could probably agree with these traits, how they are defined is unclear. Yet another major “advantage” that proponents taut is the rigorous, accelerated nature of the curriculum that equips student for success in college and the workforce – an objective reached through vigorous and numerous assessments to ensure progress. These are not direct tests of standardized knowledge or information, but an assessment or evaluation of how well the student can parrot the curriculum. What exactly is tested? That's unclear. But in an address to the Chief Examiner's meeting in October of 2004, the General Director, George Walker, lamented the fact that the United States, in response to September 11th, lost a “unique moment in history, when a particular response could change the world forever.” The desired response: no retaliation but rather a move to “mobilize the forces for peace throughout the world.” Incidentally, there was no equal lamenting of the loss of innocent lives, including women and children. Only the acknowledgment that “something unprecedented had happened; something that was outside our normal range of understanding.” A subsequent slide show presentation on the IB website explains the curriculum's “theory of knowledge” (notice knowledge is not facts and figures, but a theory or construct) with the following (slide #17): The Learner Profile: A Shared Set of Values Freedom Fighter or Terrorist? Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. (Mahatma Gandhi) Whenever two good people argue over principles, they are both right. (Marie Ebner von Eschenbach) The point of the presentation is that an American may define someone as a terrorist, but a member of Al-Qaeda will view that same person as a freedom fighter. According to the IB curriculum, there's no difference. There is no such thing as a terrorist. That's IB, Not Us! These examples are just a few of the many cases that could be cited here. But the typical response to concerns that the IB curriculum is anti-American and undermines the traditional values of most American families, is that these are examples from the IB program and not the particular schools. Such supporters point out that schools can write their own curriculum. Technically, that is true, but only to the extent that what is written follows the mandates of the IB system. The statement from the satirical novel Animal Farm comes to mind: all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others. All IB schools must sign a document that says they will support and encourage the IB standards and practices, and follow certain stipulations. Those stipulations include the principles defined in the IB mission statement and the learner profile. There must be “close connections” with the “beliefs and values” of the IB program. Allen Quist, in an article for EdWatch entitled, “The International Baccaluareate Curriculum,” brings up an interesting point. “This heavy emphasis additionally raises the question: Is IB primarily about education? Or is it more about indoctrination?” Homeschoolers need to know the answer to that question because this same emphasis on beliefs and values – and those beliefs and values only – is what is being pushed in the federal standards and in the design of the community service programs. This is the intellectual and cultural environment that we and our children will live in. History Repeating Itself, Once Again Back in the 1930's, a group of individuals, under the guiding hand of John Dewey, came together to write the Humanist Manifesto. It, too, lamented the parochial mentality of most Americans, their adherence to free enterprise, and stubborn insistence upon limited government. The signatories realized that the only way to change the American mindset was to begin with the educational system. Even though this would take time, they saw it as the most effective means of changing the values and beliefs of the nation toward socialism. They began by transforming the curriculum of the nation's major teacher colleges, and then bit by bit worked to change educational standards through the teacher unions. As a result, their socialistic agenda was sublimely incorporated into the programs and curriculum, including the “new math” and the “new whole language” initiatives. They were careful to word the changes in such general and positive language that the vast majority of people thought the moves would give their children a boost up in the modern manufacturing-oriented economy. Sound familiar? The results speak for themselves. As the outgoing General Counsel of the NEA, Bob Chanin, admitted this past summer, the NEA's effectiveness is “not because of our creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our position, it is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.” Power to do what? To develop an educational system that cares about our children and nurtures them? Apparently not. To develop an educational system that teaches our children concrete knowledge, skills, and how to learn? Apparently not. It seems these lofty goals are outmoded for the global, technological age. Instead, the focus – then and now – is the power to indoctrinate children and their families into the beliefs and values of an international organization whose stated goals are anti-family, anti-Christian, and anti-American.
|
