Mission of IB
Dr. Ian Hill, Deputy Director of IBO, in his article, “Curriculum Development and Ethics in International Education,” given at the UN Disarmament Forum in 2001, http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art53.pdf , believes that the primary goal of IBO is the promotion of “world citizenship.”
International Baccalaureate is structured to change the attitudes, values, beliefs and behavior of its students to conform to the world government system.
What is world citizenship? The United Nations Earth Charter clearly defines its positions:
1. Earth worship (pantheism)
2. Socialized medicine
3. World government
4. Abortion on-demand
5. Education for sustainability including spiritual education in New Age/pantheism
6. Adoption of the gay rights agenda
7. Elimination of the right to bear arms
This is only part of the ‘agenda’ that is or will be imposed on the children at MVSD.
Do you agree that the UN’s agenda should be the overarching goal of education?
Two points: First, IB has withdrawn its endorsement of the Earth Charter, stating that “it no longer meets” its criteria that encourage students to become “active, compassionate and lifelong learners”. Exactly what in the Earth Charter prompted this withdrawal, I’m not sure, but simple honesty on the part of site administrators might warrant such an acknowledgement.
Second, having read the Earth Charter over (albeit quickly) twice, I missed any references to the positions you state as “clearly defined”.
It’s one thing to oppose a program of pedagogy/ philosophy such as IB on its merits. But when you resort to deliberate distortions and fabrications to make your case, what you demonstrate is how weak your claims are, and that they are driven not by a genuine concern for first-rate schools and students, but instead by ideology and paranoia.
So far as the Earth Charter itself goes, if one were truly interested in debating the principles espoused on their merits, you would not have used code words such as “gay agenda” and “abortion on demand”. Both of these, along with the other terms, may resonate with your audience, but have no direct connection to the charter. The intended effect of their use is not to enlighten, nor to inform, on the Charter or any of the host of issues it raises, but to simply preach to the closed-minded and the fearful. You offer only simple, largely fact-free and ideologically-driven answers to a host of complex and difficult issues that our children will confront eventually, especially if we ourselves lack the will to do so.
“IB has withdrawn its endorsement of the Earth Charter”.
This is like stating that you are making progress against cancer because you have removed a small eruption from the patient’s arm, when he has a grapefruit sized tumor in his lung.
Wanting ‘first rate schools’ is wanting schools that teach skills without infusing a foreign political agenda from a foreign club overseas.
As for words like “gay agenda” and “abortion on demand” being code words, they were intended to mean what they mean. Many teachers have a problem teaching any kind of sex-ed in schools and refuse to do it. Field trips to Planned Parenthood also indicate the presence of a political agenda and have no place in any school. Remember that it was MVSD teachers (and parents) who alerted others to the fact that this was going on in our schools, although teachers must remain anonymous in order to protect their jobs.
Whether they have a connection to the specific document or not, they are part of the political climate that prevails in such programs, which is easy to see by looking at IBO itself, and reading what its proponents say is the reason for the need to use it. We have heard every insane excuse from “the planet is heating up and humans are the problem”, to “Americans are 5% of the population but use 40% of the resources and they won’t be allowed do this anymore” to “we must have a higher authority and get rid of the nation state” (world government).
They have hoisted themselves on their own petards with these words you understand? Not to mention the abuse teachers who work in the publics schools have had to endure from the whole ‘reform’ movement in general.
Those who oppose this political agenda may be fearful but they are not closed-minded to want to defend the sovereignty of their own country against interlopers from an overseas club of socialist zealots.
We only offer simple, fact-filled information about this and other ideologically-driven agendas to enlighten the public about why their children are coming home with wacky ideas, no math skills, and are on top of it all, being asked to participate in ‘activism’.
It is highly inappropriate to ask our children to become ACTIVISTS on behalf of complex and difficult issues. Because sadly they are also being provided with a one-sided solution, a solution which is favorable to the goals and mission of the United Nations.
The UN agenda is that of Marxists and eugenicists. Neither Marxists nor eugenicists should be allowed to have access to public school children, especially when the US Constitution is not even allowed inside the school and teaching children about smaller government is not allowed either. This (American sovereignty) too is an issue we must have the ‘will’ to face, but don’t. Why?
I have to assume the commenter is in agreement with world government therefore. I have never heard a refutation of this, ever.
Here is a sampling of what the UN’s agenda is regarding sex and children: http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-15/un-may-recognize-sex-rights-for-ten-year-old-children.html
Mr. Currie,
Perhaps you should take greater care in reading the reference materials we present as evidence of IBO’s internationalist agenda with it’s promotion of “sustainability” and redistribution of wealth. You are so hasty to dismiss our position that you admit you can’t even give “mission” documents careful consideration.
While the entire green, socialist document is offensive to our national sovereignty on SO many levels, the following is THE most offensive:
10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.
Bzzzzzzzt! Sorry, Mr. Currie. THAT is anti-American, anti-capitalism and unConstitutional.
What “prompted” IB’s removal of Mr. Ian Hill from The Earth Charter’s educational forum was EdWatch’s exposure of IBO’s connection and support of the Earth Charter. It was more “advantageous” for IB politically to label EdWatch “fundamentalist right-wing Christians” and to mock them than to admit that prior to being “outed”, IB was an unabashed supporter of the Earth Charter.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikeSigh…So the “entire green, socialist document is offensive to our national sovereignty on so many levels…” and the promotion of “human development in an equitable and sustainable manner”… is “anti-American, anti-capitalism and unConstitutional.” Really? On whose say-so? Yours?
You make sweeping claims regarding the Constitution, capitalism, and what it means to be an American. I’m sorry, but I don’t share your particular interpretation of these 3 concepts. You might wish to have sole claim to understanding them, but you don’t. And I truly doubt that most Americans, when they have all the facts in hand on ANY given issue, will really have much in common with your crabbed, fearful, and twisted views on the issues of the day.
“So the “entire green, socialist document is offensive to our national sovereignty on so many levels…” and the promotion of “human development in an equitable and sustainable manner”… is “anti-American, anti-capitalism and unConstitutional.” Really? On whose say-so? Yours?”
We say it’s a political view, and it is, and furthermore, the children are being asked to take action on it. This is fundamentally wrong. It might be YOUR view, but it is not OURS.
“You make sweeping claims regarding the Constitution, capitalism, and what it means to be an American. I’m sorry, but I don’t share your particular interpretation of these 3 concepts.”
Fact is, the Constitution was not meant to promote Marxism…
“You might wish to have sole claim to understanding them, but you don’t.”
Again we understand that it is not to promote Marxism, interventionism or redistribution of the wealth overseas….
“And I truly doubt that most Americans, when they have all the facts in hand on ANY given issue, will really have much in common with your crabbed, fearful, and twisted views on the issues of the day.”
I should not even address the name-calling. It proves nothing. Nothing is twisted about wanting the public schools, for which WE PAY DIRECTLY, to stop LYING to parents, all while claiming the high road and that they are teaching ‘values’. Is lying a “UN Value”?
At the risk of writing something that is likely a complete waste of time, since it’s clear there is no interest in honest dialogue here, in an echo chamber of half-baked assertions that repeat the same nonsense found at other such sites,I do feel compelled to respond. Your laughable response to my post reads like a robo-response, or a parody of nearly all the arguments opponents muster regarding IB.
You illustrate my assertions regarding the close-minded, fearful, and paranoid beliefs that undergird the opposition to IB. There is little factual in your post–only vague references to out-of-context quotations stashed amid a liberal sprinkling of far-right buzz words designed to inflame, not enlighten.
Your claim that “the U.S. Constitution is not allowed inside the school” is a complete fabrication regarding the district. Neither am I aware of any field trips to Planned Parenthood from MVSD. Nor do I think it likely that ANY teacher in the district who does not like the program would be fearful of losing her/his job. But I would expect any teacher working in the district who strongly dislikes the program to present more cogent and reasoned arguments for her/his positions than those half-baked assertions displayed above.
Finally, while we are about 5% of the world’s population, I think the correct figure regarding the resources the United States uses is about 20%–not 40%. And your comment about global warming/climate change–that “the planet is heating up and humans are the problem” being an “insane excuse”, betrays a staggering depth of willful ignorance about an issue on which 97%+ of climate scientists are in agreement.
Your inability to acknowledge there is even the slightest validity to any of the points I raised betrays you. Those who cannot stick to the facts, and debate an issue honestly–whether that issue is IB, or climate change, or something else, instead resort to fear, name-calling and straw-man arguments–not to mention outright falsehoods, to do their work. When facts and the truth aren’t enough, distortions and lies are the chief tools of the true believer, who has the real hidden agenda.
“… since it’s clear there is no interest in honest dialogue here…”
Really? We are being honest in that we don’t see our children having to be subjected to your world view, the UN’s world view, or anyone’s world view while in the process of learning to read and write and do math. We see our children being taught facts and how to do things, as they are, not as you wish them to be.
If these are “half-baked assertions” then you’d best take it up with http://www.ibo.org, and the literature and materials that are proliferated directly from that group to the teachers and students. These are their assertions that we are protesting.
“You illustrate my assertions regarding the close-minded, fearful, and paranoid beliefs that undergird the opposition to IB.”
Your arguments are based on nothing but name-calling, in response to opposition to your political views being promoted in our classrooms.
Kids should NOT be forced into activism on the world’s problems – problems which they cannot possibly fully understand at their age. They should not be burdened with such things at grade 3, when getting their homework done is big enough. That is the ‘fearful’ part… knowing children at this age don’t have enough knowledge or experience under their belts to know whether they are being led… and used for political mules. Shameful.
“Your claim that “the U.S. Constitution is not allowed inside the school” is a complete fabrication regarding the district.”
It was merely one of many examples of numerous attempts to donate US Constitutions to schools, unaltered, and in the form that is supposed to be followed to this day, but which were refused for the very shallow reason of who it was that was donating them even though they were citizens of the United States and taxpayers in the district. That’s a very real fact. Yet, we complain about a foreign entity like the UN running our schools, and to you that is not a valid complaint?
“Neither am I aware of any field trips to Planned Parenthood from MVSD.”
Another example of something that has happened in a school right here in NH, a very real indication of education fraught with the progressive agenda.
‘Nor do I think it likely that ANY teacher in the district who does not like the program would be fearful of losing her/his job.”
You’re talking to one right now who did, in his district, because he simply wanted to teach without political indoctrination and without leaving the kids without a real teacher, not just ‘facilitator’ of the manipulatives.
“But I would expect any teacher working in the district who strongly dislikes the program to present more cogent and reasoned arguments for her/his positions than those half-baked assertions displayed above.”
There is nothing ‘half-baked’ about who is running the show for IB. The fact that you don’t see that foreign involvement and the promotion of the UN’s agenda as a ‘cogent reason’ to be concerned is troubling to us and shows that your mind is closed to anything else. Since when did education depend on some foreign club of mostly socialist countries who want other countries to disregard their nation status for more direction by them and the UN? You do not see this as a serious intrusion? Whew.
“And your comment about global warming/climate change–that “the planet is heating up and humans are the problem” being an “insane excuse”, betrays a staggering depth of willful ignorance about an issue on which 97%+ of climate scientists are in agreement.”
If you want to think that it is your right. 31,000 scientists and people with mere common sense agree that the earth has been around for millions of years and has gone through heating and cooling cycles scores of times without the benefit of human presence. Also that you are willing to ignore the fact that UN-employed scientists were willing to fudge the numbers and ‘hide the decline’ is troubling as well. But arguing political differences is not the point. It’s whether ANY politicization of our children’s education should be allowed to happen — a subject which you keep ignoring in favor of trying to emphasize that your views are the only views that are correct. This in and of itself indicates that you ADMIT there is a politicization going on at all.
Finally, you ought to do some reading about Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller, two of the world’s wealthiest oil magnates and why they create the climate change HOAX in the first place. Isn’t it the least bit troubling to you that the Rockefeller fund and others like it are what fuels groups like 350.org ? Your knowledge of this is so limited, it’s as if you have accepted it blindly like some religious zealot. Indeed they have made this climate change issue into the UN’s religion… and why? All for control.
“Your inability to acknowledge there is even the slightest validity to any of the points I raised betrays you.”
You have just proven my point once again. The matter is not whether your political agenda is different from mine, and I won’t agree to it, that’s an obvious given. (And likewise, your inability to acknowledge the validity of my point betrays YOU) It’s a question of why it is even a problem? It is a problem because you have no qualms about imposing that political agenda, with the help of some foreign entity, on MY CHILDREN, in the schools for which I PAY.
“Those who cannot stick to the facts…”
Which brings me to the matter once again of your lying. If you cannot stick to the facts, why should we trust our children with you and your foreign program? For example, the parents were told that MVSD would NOT be using IB materials or enforcing the IB mission statement and yet this is exactly what has been going on for 3 years. Why have you not addressed the question about your lying?
Also, in a public meeting, parents asked what you were actually then paying for, if this lie about not using materials or promoting the mission of the program, a main requirement of the program by the way, were true? (We know the answer, but would like to hear it from you)
It would seem that if what you were doing was correct or even legal, you would not have to lie about it.
Remember it is not your money that goes to pay for teachers salaries, school buildings, and yes, programs that are adopted.
We are not lying about what we see happening in our childrens’ classrooms. We are looking at materials, statements, requirements from the organization itself. and simply do not like it, nor even think it is legal. We have the right to protest it.
Your school district’s officials… what are they hiding?
Remember it’s not a question of what your OPINION is, it’s a question of whether your OPINION and ONLY your opinion should be taught as gospel to our children. The problem could be solved if facts were taught and children were allowed to think and come to their own conclusions.
Since you brought up the issue of global warming here are some facts:
– Man’s time on earth is miniscule compared to the total age of the earth
– Earth has gone through many heating and cooling cycles long before man was present on earth
– Children should be allowed to KNOW those facts, should they wish to come to some conclusion about global warming
– Children should NEVER be required to come to a conclusion, let alone should they ever be asked to agree with any certain conclusion, for the purpose of having them take ACTION on them, in ways we typically know as POLITICAL ACTIVISM – yet that is just what this program does.
If children want to believe global warming is only caused by humans and not the sun, and not the normal cycles of the earth, that’s all fine too, so long as you don’t ask them to DO anything about it. It would seem that this would be a fair and a-political way to teach. When they become adults, they will decide for themselves if they want to do anything about it.
IB is not about being fair or a-political, but about promoting the UN’s agenda, which is POLITICAL. Literacy is a barely even mentioned in their goals. To think you would deny these things that they have clearly stated, is laughable.
Well, the audience that you speak of Mr. Currie, is one made up of parents, moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas, and caregivers who have been completely stonewalled by a group of people that claim, “Every year we have gotten what we have asked for in the budget.”
We don’t have the $39 million some odd dollar budget in our households, but we do know our children and what our children need. IB is not what our children need.
When representatives from your district tell people that you won’t be using the IB curriculum, they lie. They have used the framework, assessment criteria, and reference materials for three years running.
IB is a pedagogy, a complete, and in their terms, inclusive, program. Therefore, submitting the application and fee, the administration has accepted the terms by which the IBO operates. It is all in the application, black and white.
That being said, many, many, people in this district are confused, rightly so, about what is going on with their children’s education. The manner in which the district protects it’s information regarding IB and curriculum framework is curious. What do you have to hide?
I am particularly concerned with something I came across when IB sent students forth to celebrate Water Day. Under the heading IBO Global Engage, IB implores teachers, parents, and students to find ways to celebrate clean water. A noble cause. After researching IB Water Day Celebration the link suggested I read more about Sustainable Development on this link; http://www.unwater.org/. This is a UN website. AND THEN IT BROUGHT ME TO THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN UNESCO AND THE EARTH CHARTER:
New UNESCO Chair on Education for Sustainable Development and the Earth Charter
The Earth Charter Center on ESD in collaboration with the University for Peace are hosting a new UNESCO Chair.
See it for yourself.
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/
Parents want to know what is going on, and why the district is behind such an organization such as IB.
As long as you are going to argue global warming as science, seems that new studies show it’s fiction.
Oceans started warming 135 years ago, study suggests…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46927677/ns/us_news-environment/