IB's Theory of Knowledge course, hereafter referred to as TOK, is a mandatory component of the IB Diploma Program. Before the details of this "philosophy" course are explored, it is important to know that authorized IB schools are required to make scheduling of the Diploma Program central to operations and that the TOK course MUST be offered, even if there are fewer full Diploma students than a Board of Education's minimum class size policy dictate. Proponents of IB have argued that a school may open TOK classes to non-Diploma students. While this is true, what IBO doesn't tell you is that the school is not only required to establish an internal assessment committee to review the students' final papers as IB's external assessors are prohibited from doing so but also that non-DP students who take the course will not be recognized for it on an IB transcript.
According to the IBO website, "IB puts everything in perspective". But WHOSE perspective? That is the question. Delivered from the perspective of secular humanists, is it fair to ask minors to put aside religious and family values and rely solely upon the opinions of philosophical atheists such as Neitszche and Kant to determine what correct knowledge is?
Below you will find nine .pdf's obtained from the Bedford School District in New Hampshire regarding its IB TOK course. TOK is a mandatory component of the IB Diploma. TAIB urges anyone battling IB in their public school district to print out those sections of these documents which constitute a direct assault on a student's religious beliefs and demand the removal of IB from public schools. Special thanks to Ann Marie Banfield for her diligence in obtaining these documents.
In these documents, you will learn how IB teaches students that relativism is the allegedly correct and more intelligent way of knowing. TAIB has received several e-mails from IB students echoing the Relativist claim that "history is written by the victors". You will see that this is a direct quote from one of the "resources" utilized in the TOK course.
Supporters of IB will scream, carry on and call in the ACLU if anyone dares to try and introduce a course on Intelligent Design, but it appears that being able to present ID from only Hume's perspective and to immediately discount such a belief as foolish is just peachy. Hypocrisy, thy name is IB.
The philosophy of IB - one person's view from the inside
IBO is more ideological than educational.My concern lies in the fact that a single worldview is given to IBO teachers (all IBO teachers must attend conferences such as this) as necessary instruction in their respective IBO classes.
It is a shame when education in skills and thinking is replaced by the presentation of a single worldview. Indoctrination cannot, in a society which truly aspires to individual liberty, be substituted for education.
"In authoritarian and totalitarian societies schools exist to indoctrinate students in the orthodoxy of the state. In a democracy, by contrast, we teach students how to think, not what to think. In other words, in a free society the very purpose of education is to open students’ minds and encourage future citizens to figure out what conclusions to draw by themselves. It is not the purpose of a democratic education to force-feed students opinions on controversial issues that the teacher deems ‘politically correct’."
In Mein Kampf, for instance, Adolf Hitler stressed "the importance of winning over and then training the youth in the service ‘of a new national state.’
The government school system would be the means to the end.
"When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ he said in a speech on November 6, 1933, "I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’" And on May 1, 1937, he declared, "This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."
The irony of values-based curriculum instruction is not wasted on this observer, for as a nation, we have spent the last sixty years trying get rid of the teaching of solely one set of values, attempting to clearly delineate, for example, the boundary between church and state. Yet, under the guise of global citizenry, IBO now does the exact same thing, preaching a gospel of its own values, its own religion.
IBO operates with the stated goal to develop global citizens, taking stands on everything from environmentalism to international diplomacy to population control.
At my training, in a subject as seemingly objective as Calculus, I was encouraged to fill my curriculum with word problems that demonstrate an underlying agenda for the program – declining animal populations, the dangers of pollutants, global warming, etc.
IBO as a whole ascribes to the tenets of the Earth Charter, at one point even giving its full endorsement to this political movement.
IBO also has strong ties to groups like the United Nations and several of its subsidiaries.
Thomas Jefferson noted, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." In other words, it is morally wrong, even "tyrannical" for a program such as IBO to be in the public school systems, paid for by those who fully disagree.
It is unethical for public education to support curriculum that promotes a single worldview to the exclusion of others. In order to be informed citizens, students must be taught to think analytically and logically, as opposed to merely parroting ideas. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, support the International Baccalaureate Organization, which favors the indoctrination of students at the taxpayer’s expense.