Truth About IB

---

Greenwich Board of Education Update

Kay Wall     June 2, 2011

 

Ms. Sue Rogers, PTA Council president, recently published an editorial in the local media.  The main focus of Ms. Roger’s piece is to isolate and pin blame for the Superintendent’s resignation (which breaks his three-year contract) on two board members:  “If you can’t work with the rest of the board, step down…” She says, “Our problem is not Sid Freund, it is not IB…”

 

I disagree.  Yes, our school district has two problems, but they are not the two board members.  They are the combination of the unprofessional conduct of a Superintendent with his fixation on IB as the panacea for all school district problems, and a bipartisan majority that has rubberstamped everything he (or the prior Superintendent Sternberg) proposed, with little, if any, critical thought.

 

In addition, the “common denominator of PTA Council,” to use Ms. Roger’s term, is to function as a booster club for this superintendent, which serves to confuse many parents who just want straight answers to factual questions.

 

Sadly, in her editorial PTAC’s leader is using a classic community organizing model of deception:  1) do NOT focus on the real issue  - what education framework is best for our children, IB or something else?  

2) Instead, use the politics of personal destruction:  target and isolate your opponents, then demonize them repeatedly.

 

If this succeeds, then we in Greenwich will have “the debate hijacked by the BOE-PTA establishment,” as Lincoln Millstein puts it in his editorial that I have posted below.  Mr. Millstein is Senior Vice President at Hearst, which publishes Greenwich Time, among many other newspapers.  He is a Greenwich resident.

 

The only statement in Ms. Roger’s piece with which I agree is: “To the Board of Education: Every resident of Greenwich is watching what you do.”  Let’s hope the whole town pays attention to all of the facts and all points of view.  Mr. Millstein points out that the BOE-PTA establishment’s “efforts to generate sympathy for” …the Superintendent  “garnered only 780 ‘likes’ on Facebook and filled half of the 850-seat GHS auditorium (in a city of 65,000 residents.)”  That means many thousands of residents, the vast majority, either disagree with the BOE-PTA “establishment,” or they have not looked closely yet.  This is very important.

 

Now, back to the real issue, which the “BOE-PTA hegemony,” as Mr. Millstein puts it, does not want discussed.  Are the IB programmes appropriate for Greenwich Public Schools?  The questions surrounding this should be front and center.  As an introduction, read IB’s own words:

 

“International Baccalaureate school curriculum remains committed to changing children’s values so they think globally, rather than in parochial national terms from their own country’s viewpoint.”  George Walker, retired IB Director General

 

Let’s understand what is being said here.  Of course, we all want our children to understand the world around them.  It’s quite another to push our children into conformity with the one worldview agenda of IB, where thinking “globally” replaces your “own country’s viewpoint.”  

 

I don’t believe that most Greenwich residents, regardless of political affiliation, want our schools or teachers to proselytize our children in any dogma or agenda, let alone a “global” agenda. IB, among other things, seeks to subvert our constitutional principles with United Nations dictates and its “global values.”  In other words, I don’t believe most residents want schools that teach our children to turn away from American individual responsibility and national values. 

 

Which is where the demonization of opponents to IB comes in.  IB proponents try to sweep the actual academic results using IB, as well as its proselytizing content, under the rug by any means possible.  This includes the politics of personal destruction, the silencing of discussion and outright lies.

 

Let us be thankful that we have at least two Board of Education members who, even under these difficult conditions, are trying to do the right thing by our schools and Town, and analyze this program objectively and with diligence.

 

Kay Wall, Old Greenwich

Please see Mr. Millstein’s posting below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject: Greenwich Time

 

May 30, 2011 at 9:05 pm by Lincoln Millstein

Are you as tired as I am of sitting Shiva for the departed superintendent?

It’s time to move on and let the real conversation begin – about the future of our public schools – and doing it without having the debate hijacked by the BOE-PTA establishment.

Let’s remind ourselves that not a single member of those entities were chosen by us – the people. They were either hand-selected or self-selected. And their efforts to generate sympathy for the latter day Professor Harold Hill garnered only 780 “likes” on Facebook and filled half of the 850-seat GHS auditorium (in a city of 65,000 residents).

Worse yet, their efforts to publicly prosecute two BOE members who dared to ask questions did more harm than anyone could imagine to our schools. The establishment hates noise, friction and public dissonance of any sort. But elected officials who mis-read this orchestrated sturm and drang do so at their own peril.

There are many folks like Betty Bonsal of Riverside and others who think Professor Hill’s behavior was unprofessional and disgraceful. I hope, over time, those who truly are interested in the quality of Greenwich schools will prevail over those whose delusional views cloud the discussion.

First, let us agree on the facts. Anyone who is a serious participant in this discourse must educate himself or herself on the state of the union which is not good.

The best place to start is this website devoted to the pursuit of high quality public education in Connecticut. There, you will learn that in the most recent state standardized tests, two of Greenwich’s elementary schools – Dundee and New Leb – failed to out-perform their own 2009 results. Dundee is the “prized school” with the highly vaunted IB curriculum tauted by the current administration. Not a single Greenwich elementary school ranked in the Top 50 schools in outperforming its 2009 test scores.

You will also learn that the average percentage of 10th graders at GHS meeting state goals for reading, writing, arithmetic and science was only 71 percent and that the average percentage of hispanic students at GHS meeting those goals was only 41 percent.

And then there is the inconvenient issue of the achievement gap where Connecticut is the worst performing state in the United States and Greenwich is the second worst performing town in the state (West Hartford is the worst).

These are the facts facing us like a scar that won’t allow for an easy fix. The BOE-PTA hegemony can manipulate opinion, but they can’t run away from the facts. The sooner we have a real community discussion with a new superintendent who will commit to working with the richest town on the planet to deliver on its promise to children, the sooner we will heal our wounds. Demonizing the few school board members who ask tough questions at a time when we need tough questions is not going to get us there.

Professor Hill is taking his trombone case and leaving town. Let’s hope he leaves quietly.

 

 

 Lincoln Millstein is a senior vice president of Hearst Newspapers, which owns the Greenwich Time. He is a Greenwich resident. This blog is dedicated to improving the quality of life in Greenwich. The views are that of the writer solely and do not represent the Greenwich Time nor the Hearst Corp.

http://blog.ctnews.com/lincolnmillstein/?s=Harold+Hill&x=35&y=9

 

WAKE UP GREENWICH!

WHY?

The Greenwich Board of Education is forcing on the school system a curriculum that is costly, provides no added benefit to students, doesn’t improve test scores, doesn’t improve college admissions on any level, and takes the system in the completely wrong direction.

Two brave individuals have stood up against this and are outnumbered.  They need your help.

As it is known, The International Baccalaureate program has been at the International School at Dundee (ISD) for some 10 years at the elementary school level.  The current superintendant, Dr. Sidney Freund, has been rushing the IB program in sneaky and underhanded ways into the rest of the school system without parent’s input and debate.  Also, he refuses to produce the test scores from ISD.  He knows they are average to poor, yet he still wants to force the IB program on Greenwich.

Marianna Ponns-Cohen and Peter Scherr are the only ones who have had the courage to stand against political pressure to conform with the rest of the board.  They refuse to be rubber stamps like others in the past.  Dr. Freund, in a huff, has resigned and blamed Marianna and Peter for his actions.

Marianna pointed out that contracts for the IB program add millions of dollars of cost to the system.  Since the curriculum is pre-packaged, there is no need in Greenwich for curriculum developers.  Freund refuses to acknowledge this would be a wasteful duplication of resources for the public school system.  Other school systems that committed to the IB program have since rejected it.  Freund refuses to acknowledge and deal with what our town would have to do if we went down the same path.  More money wasted.  It becomes clear that Dr. Freund wants to install the IB program in all Greenwich public schools no matter what.  This is irrational and irresponsible conduct by our school superintendant.

If parents were given a quiz on what the IB program is and involves, they would flunk the quiz.  In fact, most members of the Board of Education as well as most teachers would also flunk.    That is the problem.  The fight over personalities has obscured the real fight over the IB program.  So, please come to show support for Marianna and Peter.  Support people who will not be arm-twisted by a dictatorial superintendant.

BE THERE:  THURSDAY, MAY 26^TH, 7 PM, GREENWICH HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM

Any Questions:  Please call Cort Wrotnowski, cell: 203-918-0957

Who Supports IB and Why:    No IB Vote Now

The Greenwich Board of Education may vote on February 24 to approve a major expansion of the International Baccalaureate (IB) programs in Greenwich Public Schools. Why is this being rushed through by the Superintendent and Board leadership without proper public notice, formal public input and rigorous Board review?

Who Wants IB?

 IB is a set of franchised teaching method/curriculum programs developed by a foreign-based entity, the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO), accountable to no one.

The head of the Greenwich teachers’ union has publicly expressed support for IB expansion in Greenwich Public Schools.  The Superintendent is an enthusiastic IB proponent from his New York days, as are his administrators.  Though asked by Board members, the Superintendent has refused to look into charter school alternatives or into making our existing curriculum more international or rigorous, if that’s a goal. 

What is the common thread?   The Superintendent, together with teacher and administrative union employees, share a common interest in promoting the public education bureaucracy and agendas. 

Adults vs. Children: Follow the Money

There are two major Greenwich education unions:  for teachers and administrators.   Education unions, like other unions, support that which benefits their memberships. If, for example, a “reform” like IB helps reduce the unions’ accountability for student outcomes, when nationally there is a great push to make education unions more accountable, then that’s their priority.  The education unions’ priorities are to support their membership’s interests, oftentimes in conflict with Greenwich students’ best interests. 

Education “reforms” inevitably mean “throwing significantly more money” at the problem.  Look at any school budget during times of “reform,” and you will see millions of additional dollars spent.

More teachers and administrators are hired, then all require additional training, thus more time is taken away from classroom teaching.  Money is spent on more substitutes, when research repeatedly shows they have a detrimental effect on student learning.  Yet, we are always told that these “reforms” are for the good of our children, and that their purpose and focus is on “raising student achievement.”

This is not to blame the unions or our teachers.  The unions’ job is to promote members’ interests.

But, let’s look at the recent track record of our children in Greenwich Public Schools.  We have spent millions of dollars and untold man-hours on administrator and teacher training, curriculum alignment and coordination, especially in the past four years. 

Has it paid off?  In 2010, Greenwich ranked 46^th out of 166 Connecticut school districts as measured by the Connecticut Department of Education’s approved tests.  Objective measures of student outcomes show declines overall for several consecutive years in core academic subjects.

Reforms Result in Decreased Accountability

Historically, education “reforms” have allowed union educators to absolve themselves of responsibility for student results.  First, “reforms” change testing metrics and programs, thereby making comparisons over time more difficult. 

Second, when you shift the focus to outside programs, such as IB, educators can blame any undesired results as the fault of the outside programs, or the hiccups of their implementation.  

Third, in the case of IB “reform,” there is a very real criticism that IB’s focus is on questionable “values” (United Nations driven, not American) and teaching core academic subjects through this values prism.  For generations, student outcomes have been objectively measured with SAT and AP tests.   How does one measure IB’s promoted “values”?   New IB tests using value-based criteria are sent abroad for scoring.

Further, IB supporters try to claim that IB is not curriculum.  If it isn’t curriculum, why does IB have its own tests?  You don’t test students on  “frameworks” and “ways of teaching.”  You test students on curriculum knowledge.

In summary, education unions’ pushback to the national call for accountability is to support any reform, like IB, that makes accountability more difficult to measure.

IB: Massive, Expensive “Reforms” with No Proof

Undoubtedly, IB would involve the most massive and expensive secondary school education “reforms” to date in Greenwich.  Yet, incredibly, there has been no rigorous Board examination of IB’s implications and costs. For example, have they researched the many schools that have stopped their IB programs?  Have they determined whether American colleges have vetted IB tests as AP does?  (AP tests are normed against freshman 101 courses.) Have they prepared an itemization of all costs involved over time?

There are many known benefits to be reaped for administrators and teachers - the adults.

What about the children?  Does IB produce the results it says it does?   Where is the proof?  The Superintendent and Board have not educated us about the merits of IB for our children, except in anecdotal terms and glossy statements from IB “marketing” (IB’s word) information.  The school district has already faced much upheaval with multiple initiatives under each of the last three Superintendents.  Is IB really what is needed?  There is little room for error at this point.

Demand Accountability

The Board of Education should reflect the entire community’s will, not the Superintendent’s or any one constituency’s.  This is not about politics.  It’s about all Greenwich residents expecting the best education system for their Town.  This also is about the Board following its own protocol, requiring due diligence by elected Board members on behalf of Greenwich residents.

Please contact Board members.  Attend the February 24^th Board meeting at 7:00 pm at New Lebanon School to speak out – even if it is only a sentence or two. There should be no rushed vote to expand IB in our schools.

Kay Wall, Old Greenwich                                                                       February 2011

To the editor:

I read the opinion column "School board not sharing the story of IB" (Feb. 11) written by Bob Horton.

Mr. Horton raises a very good question early in his column. In reference to the International Baccalaureate program, he asks: Does it work?

The school district held IB presentations at Western Middle School in January 2010, October 2010, and January 2011; I attended all three sessions. At the first presentation, I asked Mr. Horton's question in my own way: If the IB program is so good, are they using it in Scarsdale, Chappaqua, New Canaan, Darien, and Westport?

The district's reply: I don't know.

At the second meeting, a WMS faculty member stated that in the fall of 2009 some faculty members of WMS visited about four middle schools outside of Greenwich that currently use the IB program. The purpose of the visits was to aid in their evaluation of the IB program. One of the IB middle schools visited was located in New Haven.

The presenter was then asked how the IB program affected the New Haven school's Connecticut Mastery Test scores? The presenter's response: I don't know.

Mr. Horton's question is simple and important. It must be answered in an honest and measurable way that is easily understood by all concerned. After that task is complete, I have about three or four dozen follow-up questions.

Bob Martin

Glenville