Talk:IB Diploma Programme

Archive #7

Since this talk page is quite long, I propose we archive #s 1-17. This we way can focus on Uncle G's reading list (#18). I am trying to learn how to archive, but if someone gets to it before I figure it out, I will not be insulted! Thanks La mome (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've filled Archive 6 and will begin Archive 7 soon. If an easier method of archiving exists other than the laborious copy/paste/cut, please advise. Thanks.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Truthkeeper! La mome (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fees Section

I am still not happy with the Fees section, or what I would prefer to call the Application and Authorization section being stuck at the very bottom of the article after the very long recognition section which is only of interest to readers from the select countries listed (out of the 134 claimed). Application and Authorization applies to all schools, everywhere in the world and should appear higher up. I will not move it before anyone else weighs in, but at the very least, it should precede Recognition.ObserverNY (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since there do not appear to be any objections, it was moved and retitled. ObserverNY (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I have no objection to the move--I don't know where the best place is for that section, but this doesn't seem to be an entirely inappropriate location. Seems okay to me. I might suggest some small edits to the body of the text, per our discussions on your talk page. But I likely won't do that today.

Have you been following the discussion at the Group 3 Talk page? It may be appropriate for you to weigh in, since the edit in question is yours. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections to placement and new title "Application and Authorization." I like the addition of the mission statement and think that it should be placed directly after the introduction, since it further explains the aims of the organisation and programme(s). I think the new History of the DP section will become very long and subject to many revisions. Eventually it should be condensed and summarised and placed immediately after the application and authorization process, but before the recognition section. When I think of people "surfing" for information about the IB Diploma Program, I would think that they would be students, parents and teachers looking for information about the actual programme as it exists today, not the origins and development of the programme.

La mome (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I also thought that the inclusion of the Mission Statement was good. Great idea! Forgot to comment about that before, sorry! Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise no objections to either - I personally think the new location is a very logical placement - better than either of the two options we've tried before. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Organization

Fees: no objection to placement; but objection to inclusion as a source the IB School Application in the form of a MS Word doc. that downloads to the reader's computer. Suggest finding other source.

Mission statement: no objection to inclusion, but suggest different place. If included as a direct quotation only, then perhaps in a text box in the history section. If editors agree I'll format the textbox with the mission statement.

Suggest history placement remains as is, as articles typically follow a chronological flow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Application A (and B) are IBO's official "mandates" regarding teacher training in the application process and the only ones, to the best of my knowledge, that are available online to the public. Numerous .pdf documents are linked as references in the article and need to be downloaded onto one's computer as well, so I fail to see how your objection is reasonable.

I don't care where you put the IB Mission Statement. Move it around, put it in a box, circle it with peace signs, sink it to the bottom or plaster it at the top, makes no nevermind to me. ObserverNY (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Solution

Wanna make me go away for good? Please consider allowing a reference to TAIB http://truthaboutib.com/ somewhere within the IBDP article as evidence of "criticism" of IB in the U.S. Every fact that I would like to see included in the Wikipedia article is evidenced within TAIB. No need to restate them in the IBDP article. I make no money off the website, the administrators are not officially affiliated with any one religious or political group. If the reference is identified as a POV reference, ie: criticism, is it not legitimate and in compliance with Wikipedia policy? ObserverNY (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Many of the reasons why TAIB should not be included have been discussed on your own talk page and on earlier talk pages for the IBDP. I will not repaste them here. Ewen, TFOWR, Pointillist and possibly others kept removing it when you added it because, simply put, TAIB is not a valid source. Creating a section called "criticism of IB" to include TAIB as a reference does not change the fact that it is not a valid source. In the criticism of IB, one would expect to see links to educational journals or reports, not a biased blog, which is basically what TAIB is.

A better solution would be to try to work with people as opposed to alienating them and getting emotional when people make edits. Please don't use the IB talk pages for your own personal soap box either. You can "rant" all you want on your own talk page. Just some friendly advice.

La mome (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Several editors agreed that a section called Praise and Criticism would be acceptable. It is a FACT that a number of grassroots groups have sprung up around the United States to oppose IB. TAIB is just one site. You cannot deny the fact that there is opposition to IB in the United States, from some educational, religious and political groups. The main objection to TAIB being linked was that it was "anonymous". Such is not the case. I personally don't care if the sentence were to read: "In the United States there is a grassroots movement among parents and some politicians to oppose IB in American public schools." and then cite a whole bunch of references such as DeWeese, Quist, USPEIN, Ceopa, TAIB, EdWatch, the Utah Senate Site, the Georgetown admissions officer, etc.

Regarding one of your earlier statements: Being an IB teacher does not predispose one to bias, either pro or con. I beg to differ. You are employed to support IB policies and curriculum. You are financially and ideologically predisposed to being pro-IB unless you happen to be a rebel IB teacher seeking employment in a non-IB school. Your condescending language such as "rant" and "soapbox" is far from friendly. ObserverNY (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

veracity of claims

ObserverNY- Do you have any proof to support this claim?- "Just for the record, Sage Publications is owned by IB and while I am not suggesting that these references be removed, I am suggesting that all editors involved in working on the History section attempt to locate a few sources which are independent in their reporting on IB." La mome (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

From the assessment section--Student work submitted to IB for assessment grants IB the "non-exclusive charge-free, worldwide licence, for the duration of the statutory copyright protection, to reproduce submitted materials in any medium for assessment, educational, training and/or promotional purposes relating to the IB Organization’s activities, or to those related activities of which it approves."

I don’t see the statement that appears in quotes anywhere in the link that was provided. Also, licence [sic] is incorrectly spelled. I will go ahead and fix that, but I will also change the quote that is in quotes if it is not in fact a quote.

Cheers La mome (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Licence" is the UK/Commonwealth spelling. It's an OK spelling for this article, as the IBO is European. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized (or realised?!) that after I posted it. Same goes for programme and organisation. I am more concerned about the factual content of the quote, which sounds like the students do not retain copyright on their work which is not true and stated very clearly in the link that was provided. Could you verify that? Am I missing something?

Thanks La mome (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I think Noah Webster's greatest failing was that he didn't think global ;-)

I searched for "charge" in the IBO copyright FAQ, and it didn't show up, so I suspect the whole paragraph is a good-faith attempt to paraphrase. It's basically correct, except it omits what is arguable the most important part: "You hold the copyright in any work that you create using your own skill, intelligence or imagination" (italics from original source). My reading of both the controversial paragraph and the FAQ is that the student retains copyright, but grants the IBO permission to (anonymously) use the student's work. I'm not sure, but I think that's how my university did it, too. I don't know about A-level course-work or exams, however.

I'd suggest removing the quotes, or directly quoting from the FAQ (I presume fair-use allows us to do that). Either way we should include the part about the student retaining copyright.

How necessary is this paragraph, anyway? It doesn't strike me as particularly notable, and it's fairly technical - would the typical reader find it of interest? Would the article suffer if we removed it? If this is unusual - i.e. if AP, A-levels, etc retain copyright then I'd suggest considering keeping it. If it's fairly standard then I think there's a case for removing it.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am glad you brought that up. No, I do not think it is particularly notable. The article would not suffer if we removed it. If copyright is a question that other editors feel is of importance, then we can always add the link back in with a more accurate explanation, which is that the students retain copyright of their work as they do, I think, for other exams such as AP or A-levels.

Cheers La mome (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course LaMome doesn't think it's particularly "notable". It's a shame she couldn't locate the exact phrasing in the IBO FAQ document I cited, but it was there. Allow me to explain WHY. First of all, up until about 4 years ago, IBO's legal language did not include the "you hold the copyright" phrase, it merely stated "all student work submitted to IBO for assessment becomes the absolute property of IBO." Yes, that's right. Shortly after I brought this to the attention of readers of the Washington Post, IBO changed the legal language. I have no problem revising the sentence or even creating a separate section for intellectual property, but I am VERY disappointed that the html that I worked VERY hard to get right has been wiped because LaMome didn't find the sentence "notable". I like TFOWR's suggestion to remove/reduce the quotation marks and I think it is important that students understand that once their work is submitted for assessment, IBO is free to use it in any manner it deems appropriate without obtaining further permission. ObserverNY (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Here is the link:

This is what it says: “What is the difference between my holding the copyright in a piece of my work and it being the property of the IB? You hold the copyright in any work that you create using your own skill, intelligence or imagination. When your school sends your work to the IB for assessment you retain copyright but give permission to the IB to use it as it needs. On the other hand, the physical item that is sent in becomes the property of the IB. This means that the IB has the freedom to dispose of paper scripts, three-dimensional artwork, tapes of music, and any other submitted candidate material, when it no longer needs it; it cannot store all items of candidate work indefinitely and needs to be able to periodically dispose of material to free up storage space. If you want any of your work back, you must ask your school to reclaim it through the enquiry upon results service. What does “giving a non-exclusive licence to the IB to reproduce my work” mean? You retain copyright of your material even when it is sent to the IB. However, the IB may need to copy it for examiners and moderators as part of the assessment process for your Certificate or Diploma. It also uses samples of candidate work to help teachers understand what the IB is looking for so that they can help students to better understand the course and prepare for examinations. A non-exclusive licence means that you give permission to the IB to do what it needs to do and that you can still do what you want to do with your work.” La mome (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, ONY is happy to remove the quotes. If the section is kept I'd also like to see it noted that the IBO doesn't retain the copyright as of present. I'd also prefer that we use the precise language the IBO use. LaMome, are you happy with that? ONY, are you happy with adding the part about no longer holding copyright? Are you happy with a verbatim quote? That leaves...

In the past the IBO did retain the copyright. Is this something we need in the article?

For what its worth, my instinct says that the IBO were lazy, and retained copyright because it made their lives easier (akin to a concern promoter warning attendees that video was being recording and they gave up all rights to any share of the video sales); and that the IBO changed their policy for PR reasons - not exactly A+ behaviour, but not E- either. This is WP:OR, so treat with caution.

So... is this a section that benefits the article? If so, why? If not, why?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To help everyone understand what the IB is talking about, here are some actual examples of the IB's use of student work that I've seen:

Extended Essay exemplars (examples of outstanding, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory work on the part of the (strictly anonymous!) student.

Internal Assessment exemplars (as above). <OpinionMode>Personally, I found these very useful the first time I ever tried to grade my students' IAs.</OpinionMode>

They might also be used in the mandatory training IB teachers receive. Here's how I've seen it done:

The presenter (ie. "teacher trainer") gives each of the assembled teachers a copy of a piece of student work. Each teacher then grades the work on their own, using the appropriate markscheme. Then the presenter shows how the work was actually graded and moderated (at all three levels). A discussion of why particular items were graded in a particular way follows. <OpinionMode>Again, I found this extremely informative.</OpinionMode>

I have no objection to including information about the copyright stuff, but I do think it should be put in perspective, if it's going to be included. Hope that helps. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug and TFOWR,

Sure, I'm an agreeable sorta gal. Work with me on the phrasing and citations. I really am flexible. Do you suggest a separate section on Intellectual Property? ObserverNY (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Semper Gumby! The only potential problem I see is actually putting it into perspective, since I'm unaware of any links to specific teacher training syllabi that would reference exactly how this stuff is used and, if we could find them, any valid reference would probably be short-lived (since these presenters update their teacher-training curricula as time goes on). My comments above are factual, but they're worthless in a WP article, since they constitute WP:OR. So this will be difficult to accomplish, if we want to do it right. I suspect that it can probably be done, but my only question would be, "is it necessary?"

If the consensus is, "Yes!" then so be it! But I should point out that, philosophically, I have no dog in this fight, either way. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we start with a look at the real policy and work from there? (Now I realize some may contest this source, but they ARE the REAL IBO Intellectual Property regs)

Article 3 - http://hcps2.hanover.k12.va.us/ahs/dept/IB/IBO_General_Regulations.doc I don't know that an "example" is really necessary to convey the policy. But I do think parents and students have the right to know that they don't get their work back and that IBO can do whatever it wants with it once it has been submitted. Let the readers decide whether this is something that is important to them, or not.

P.S. (I'm no Michael Vicks ;-))ObserverNY (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Re: Michael Vicks...heh! Yes, I get jokes. ;) CinchBug | Talk 00:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean this, don't you? http://www.ibo.org/documentlibrary/regs_ibworldschools/documents/DP_regs_en.pdf Your source seems to be a copied version of the IB document. La mome (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From the document I linked above: "5.2 Candidates retain copyright in all materials submitted for assessment purposes, but by submitting those materials, and subject to article 5.4, candidates thereby grant the IB Organization a non-exclusive, charge-free, worldwide licence, for the duration of the statutory copyright protection, to reproduce submitted materials in any medium for assessment, educational, training and/or promotional purposes relating to the IB Organization’s activities, or to those related activities of which it approves. Such licence shall become effective from 1 June following the May examinations and 1 December following the November examinations." Candidates retain copyright La mome (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, excellent, that's a much better source. I believe that articles 5.3 thru 5.6 also need to be summarized so the whole story is told. The fact that IBO retains the right to "change" student work (which can include audio/visual) and use it in any promotion that IBO sees fit, might give some parents pause for thought. ObserverNY (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree that parents and students should know that the students retain copyright and can request that their work be returned to them. I am glad you agree that my source is better. I still don't think any of this is relevant or worthy of such continued discussion or inclusion in the article. La mome (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

...and of course, there is section 5.4: "Under exceptional circumstances, a candidate may withdraw this licence for a specific piece of work, as provided in article 5.2. In such case the IB Organization must be notified in accordance with the procedure described in the current handbook. The candidate must submit a written notification to the school’s Diploma Programme coordinator who has the duty to inform the IB Organization by the due date. In these cases, the IB Organization will use the material only for assessment purposes." Shall we keep going, or shall we end it here?La mome (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

End it? Are you breaking up with me? Why, we've only just begun! But you'll have to wait till tomorrow when I have time to throw something together and then you can beat it with a stick to heart's content, (even though it isn't important to you). Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Stalemate

The Tristan Bunnell article was a good source for the criticism of the IB DP as it's published in a journal.
In my view we've reached a stalemate, and any meaningful editing has become impossible for IB DP.
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, the Tristan Bunnell article is password protected by Sage Publications - unless you linked it somewhere and I missed it. If so, my apologies and please re-link so I may peruse. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As to a "stalemate" - any particular point? You have jumped all over the map from History to objecting to Application A as a reference, to the Fordham Report (Section 3 edit) to Islamic History to Praise and Criticism. I don't see how you can simply declare "stalemate" regarding any future edits of the IBDP article. It would be nice if Uncle G would weigh in. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I worked on the History section. You deleted my edits, which is fine, but not worth doing the legwork if the edits will be deleted without good cause. So I stopped (although would prefer to continue.) Asked to give an opinion on the placement of the Fordharm report I did as a courtesy to the person who asked. It's not possible to edit the article in any meaningful way unless you agree to the specific edits, the specific sources, and the specific placement of the edit. As such, either you and you alone edit these IB articles, or an edit war ensues as did today here, or statements such as this so the only recourse is to step away. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You said feel free to edit. I gave good cause for removing the Asia section, did I not? How was here an edit war? LaMome deleted a reference I inserted, I never reinserted it, the whole thing was a discussion, not an edit war. Apparently I am not free to make any edits without your specific agreement, specific sources or placements either. Please feel free to step away, you are obviously not seeing recent events with a clear head. ObserverNY (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

proposal to move sections

I propose to move the mission statement to the top, after the introduction and the "history of IBDP" sections to near the bottom, just before the "recognition section." I mentioned in an earlier post that I think the History section will undergo many revisions and is (in my opionion) the least relevant and interesting aspect of the DP. Thoughts? La mome (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The mission statement seems to be the IBOs view of the present, and the history section explains how we got there. I'm a history graduate, so I'm slightly biased towards "history", but my preference is for the status quo. This isn't a strong preference, however, and I wouldn't argue against a consensus for the change. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care where you put the mission statement as stated above, however moving the History section to the bottom is absolutely unacceptable to me. It makes encyclopaedic sense to leave it where it is. ObserverNY (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think that the History section would be well-placed somewhere near the top of the article, as it seems logical to me. I wouldn't think that it necessarily needs to be the first section (though I don't oppose that), and I agree that the Mission Statement could logically precede the History section. Regardless, I would think that the History section should be somewhere fairly close to the top.

However, I agree with La mome that the History section will likely be a heavily-edited (and contentious) section here. In fact, I've suggested this before. It's quite difficult to make "History" objective. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you and LaMome are "predicting" a heavy editing and contention over the History section, (unless both of you have serious edits already in mind). Truthkeeper removed his/her last paragraph, don't know why, I had no objection to it. I think it reads fairly well right now. ObserverNY (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, no, I have no "edits planned." As I previously stated, I don't presently intend to contribute to that section and suspect that this will be a contentious topic, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper Nice work on the IB Mission statement box and keeping the article in chronological order!

Re: Assessments - I haven't gotten to composing the copyright reference yet, but I noticed something else that is absent from the section and feel is important. IB students, whether Certificate or Full Diploma, are required to take the final exams, it is not an option as it is with AP. This could serve as a lead in to the copyright reference. Ex: IB students are required to take the IB exam at the end of the course. Once student work is submitted to IBO for assessment..... Your thoughts?

Re: CAS - the addition of the Fox reference seems to only repeat what is said in the opening sentence.

Re: the McKinney/fundraising statement from IB World, I can look up the pg. numbers tomorrow (it's my daughter's birthday and we're expecting about 50 20-25 yr olds here later, yeehah!)but I don't recall if any particular authors were attributed to the two sections I pulled from. ObserverNY (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, with regards to this remark of yours (quoted below):

"I noticed something else that is absent from the section and feel is important. IB students, whether Certificate or Full Diploma, are required to take the final exams, it is not an option as it is with AP."

This is not the case. In some school districts, students are awarded a "weighted" credit (like bonus weight) for taking advanced, Honors, IB, AP, Cambridge, etc. courses, resulting in the possibility that a student could have a GPA greater than 4.0. These districts may withhold the weighted credit if the student does not take the IB (or AP, etc.) exam, but there is otherwise no way to require students to take the exam. That students cannot be forced to take the exam is particularly important in districts where students must pay for IB and AP exams themselves.

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 13:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug With all due respect, IB's requirement for IB students to take the end of the course IB exam has nothing to do with weighting of GPA in individual schools. Forcing the students to take the exam and IB's somewhat less than accommodating fee reduction policy is an issue, in the United States, perhaps not elsewhere in the world. I will hunt for exact citations from IBO, but I know that Jay Mathews has made reference to this fact and considers it one of the other reasons that IB is "superior" to AP. In cases of financial need, he expects the district or other sources to supplement the student exam fees.ObserverNY (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, if a student wants to be awarded his/her IB Diploma or certificate for a course, then it is true that they would have to take the exam and fulfill IA requirements (or Diploma requirements, if that is what they seek). But there is no practical way to make a student take the exam--if a student doesn't want to take it, then he/she can simply not show up for the exam. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 13:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And of course if a copyright reference is included, it would clearly say, "Students retain copyright..." La mome (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When the copyright sentence is re-added to the Assessment section, it will clearly reflect the entire policy and not one selective phrase in bold. ObserverNY (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug Please take a look at this FAQ from IB : http://www.ibo.org/ibna/educators/diploma_faq.cfm#h Please note that nowhere does it say a student MAY take the IB exam. It says a student can't take the exam if they aren't in an IB school, but the key word is "WILL" when referring to the timeframe for HL and SL exams. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, to repeat my comments from above:

...if a student wants to be awarded his/her IB Diploma or certificate for a course, then it is true that they would have to take the exam and fulfill IA requirements (or Diploma requirements, if that is what they seek). But there is no practical way to make a student take the exam--if a student doesn't want to take it, then he/she can simply not show up for the exam. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 13:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While the IB does indeed want every student taking the course to take the exam, there is no practical way to make this happen. Earlier this year, due to anticipated budgetary problems, we expected that we would not be able to pay for students' exams in May 2010. Thus, we were aware that, in the fall of 2009, we would not be registering students for the exam who either were unable to afford it or decided they didn't want to take it.

Again, it is possible to say, "You are required to take this exam!" But there is no practical way to enforce it (except for districts that can refrain from awarding weighted credit). Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug Well this poses quite a conundrum, does it not? The article is primarily about the IBDP, not individual Certificate courses. Therefore, if one is to "register" as a full DP Candidate, one is required to take the DP exams in order to achieve the Diploma. If a school is not paying the $129 registration fee and steering students away from the full DP purely for budgetary reasons because the final exams are required for the DP, that seems highly discriminatory to force the student into less "challenging" courses simply because of money. That's a tsk tsk in my book. ObserverNY (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I don't understand your reference to "steering students away from the full DP" or "forc[ing] the student into less 'challenging' courses." Who said that?

Simply put, in order to be awarded an IB Diploma (or a course Certificate), then of course the student would have to fulfill all internal and external exam requirements, as well as DP requirements (except for those seeking only a course Certificate).

But if a student decides that he/she doesn't want to take the exam, then they don't take the exam. Of course, this would mean that they don't get their IB Diploma or Certificate.

Is that what you're looking for, some statement to the effect of: "In order for a student to be awarded an IB Diploma, that student must fulfill all internal and external exam requirements for each course taken." If so, okay, I suppose we can put that or something like it in the article, but I'm not sure it's necesary. Is there any reason to suspect that a student might expect to get their IB Diploma without taking the course exams? That wouldn't seem to make much sense to me.

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug One last comment before I get to work, you said: Earlier this year, due to anticipated budgetary problems, we expected that we would not be able to pay for students' exams in May 2010. Thus, we were aware that, in the fall of 2009, we would not be registering students for the exam who either were unable to afford it or decided they didn't want to take it. A student may have decided they didn't want to take it because they couldn't afford it. Apparently you work in a district where AP/IB exam fees were picked up by the taxpayers and that resource has since disappeared. To "not register" students who may have wanted to take the full DP because of their socio-economic status, is discriminatory and elitist. Mine is a wealthy district where the students pay the fees, so this is not an issue, but for an organization whose goals are to "encourage students to take the full DP" and "provide access to people who are socio-economically disadvantaged", it certainly seems to be a contradiction of goals if the only option to "opt out" of the IB final exams is to have the student avoid the most "rigorous" program the school offers. ObserverNY (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to get at. In the event that our district was unable to pay for IB or AP exams, then the students would need to pay the fees themselves. Provided that a student taking the course was to pay the fees, then we would "register" them through IBIS (or "register" them for AP exams, if the student was in an AP course).

But students who didn't, or weren't able to, pay the fees wouldn't be denied access to the courses. Rather, they would still be taking the courses and learning the material. They just wouldn't be able to earn IB course Certificates or the IB Diploma, nor any of the various AP Scholar distinctions awarded by the College Board.

We were beginning to look at a variety of ways to come up with the money to pay the fees, including fundraisers and so forth. Happily, however, the budget issues were worked out and the district will be paying IB and AP fees for the students.

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug Okay, the keg just arrived and I'm SURE there must be a Wikipedia policy against posting while intoxicated but let me leave you with this thought - the IB student "registration" fee must be submitted to IBO at the beginning of 11th Grade, WAY in advance of the separate exam fees for the actual exams. The College Board has no such "registration" scheme and only "registers" students for the actual exam two months before the exam is given. The registration fee IS the exam fee. This is a HUGE difference. The "product" being offered and "most recommended" by IBO is the full Diploma. A student shouldn't expect to spend their final two years of high school taking IBDP courses for the pure personal satisfaction that may come from whatever it is they may or may not learn. Students enroll in the full IBDP because their guidance counselors tell them that colleges will look at it as the "gold standard" and the "most rigorous" option available. This is only an issue in American public schools. So by advocating the IBDP in this manner, to say, "Well Johnny, I know you really, really want an IB Diploma and it could possibly award you sophomore status at a university and save your parents a year's worth of college tuition, but we're sorry, if you can't afford the exams now, just be happy with all of the wonderful knowledge you will learn" is well......well, discriminatory and elitist. Do you see where I'm coming from? Again, this is not an issue in private schools where parents accept the terms of tuition in advance. But in the public school arena, where all students are guaranteed equal access to public programs, denying students the opportunity to earn the IBDP on purely financial grounds is wrong. While your school may have "found" new porkulus money to pay the exam fees this year, it doesn't make the issue go away in districts where the entire responsibility for exam fees rests on the student or where an administrator may be feeling "stingy" and want to limit access to the IBDP. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I really don't see what the timeline for registration has to do with anything. If your claim that the IBDP is "discriminatory and elitist" is based on the fact that students have to pay for their exams and the DP registration fee, then that makes AP no less "discriminatory and elitist," only less expensive. By extension, any college or university that requires students to pay for books, tuition, and other fees is also "discriminatory and elitist," since not every student is able to get all the financial assistance they may need to attend.

For the record, no, I consider neither IB nor AP to be "discriminatory and elitist."

As for your claim that guidance counselors refer to the IB Diploma Programme "as the 'gold standard' and the 'most rigorous' option available," I'm sure some counselors do say things like this, but I don't know any of them and would suggest that making generalities of this sort isn't helpful. The counselors and teachers I know all realize that students stand to benefit from taking both/either IB and/or AP courses. While the possibility of earning college credit and thus saving some of the cost of college is understandably attractive to students and parents, this aspect of IB and AP is not as important to me--as a teacher--as is what they learn in the courses. I'm always pleased when students do well enough on the exams to earn college credit, but "having my students earn college credit" is a tertiary goal for me, at best.

Regardless, this isn't a discussion forum and I think we're losing the bubble here.

Enjoy your party. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, just came from deep in WP:MOS and WP:SECONDARY for information on an article I'm beginning to rewrite. According to the Manual of Style (MOS) an author should be attributed in the text if an entire sentence is quoted, and according to policy of sources, the use of secondary sources is preferred. I added the Fox quotation to the CAS section to validate the material with a secondary source. Although the use of in-text attribution can become bulky, it is the acceptable method.
As for the source you added and I tagged: it's fine if there isn't an author (although there should be one). It's an article so set it up with a cite article template and fill in as many of the fields you can.
As for the question about taking the exams, students sit exams if they want the DP, but they don't have to sit exams. Am deep in another article, but when I surface and if I have time, I'll see whether any primary/secondary sources address the issue of exams. Enjoy the birthday party! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, happy birthday to your daughter! Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to ObserverNY and Cinchbug. This is not a forum for a discussion of the comparison of AP and IBDP. Thanks. --Candy (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

IBarms.org

Advice is sought as to the proper placement of information regarding ibarms, should it be in the DP article or the overall IB article? http://www.ibarms.org/_assets/_pdf/iBCommunityTheme.pdf http://www.ibarms.org/index.htm ObserverNY (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Robert Leach quote

I know Truthkeeper is especially fond of this Robert Leach quote, but personally, I've never heard of the guy and the quote itself is stilted and awkwardly worded. I move to eliminate it altogether. If you want to quote the "founder" of IB, then find something from Alex Peterson, the first Director General and namesake of the Peterson Lecture series or just shorten up the section. ObserverNY (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Robert Leach quote is from the text Uncle G wrote weeks ago. Feel free to remove, as was suggested here in one of La mome's comments, and here in my comment. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm "especially fond of this Robert Leach quote". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - My apologies, I guess I misread your comment at IB talk where you said: Also, is it worth considering moving some of the history from the DP to here as IB began with the DP?...snip...Oh, one other thing (which should go on the IB DP talk page) I agree the Leach section can go from the history there. meaning I thought you meant the Leach quote could go from here to there. No prob. ObserverNY (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Where did IB's Mommy and Daddy Go?

Um Truthkeeper? You didn't just "delete redundency" and "fix the flow", you completely wiped the opening paragraph in "Early Development" which I had also brought over to International Baccalaureate to create History. Now if you want to add more to the History at International Baccalaureate, that would be delightful but I must protest to your removal of Mummsy and Papa here. ObserverNY (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No reason to have redundant text on both pages, so I deleted the identical paragraph that ObserverNY copied to the parent article, as well as the mission statement, which now, appropriately, lives on the parent article. In my view, the International Baccalaureate is the appropriate page for the inception of the organization/organisation, and for the mission statement that applies to all three programs/programmes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I find it absolutely astonishing that after the battle you, LaMome and Tvor65 waged over the placement of the Programmes section on the International Baccalaureate article that now, all of a sudden, you've had some sort of epiphany and it occurs to you that the parent article is about the organization. I actually think the parent article looks quite good, why? Because there is no separate section on the Programmes in the parent article!!! I do think it's a shame that the Mission Statement in the blue box does not appear in EITHER article now, but so be it.ObserverNY (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

History: Funding

According the annals the following grants were awarded to launch the IB:
Unesco = $10,000;
Twentieth Century Fund = $75,000 (1965);
Ford Foundation = $300,000 (1966)
The statement here that the IBDP was funded by Ford & Unesco should be rewritten to reflect the Ford grant was substantially more than the UNESCO grant, and to include the 20th Century Fund grant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The "annals"? According to here: http://www.acei-hkm.org.hk/Doc/IB%20Background.ppt , UNESCO gave $40,000 along with contracts for meetings, conferences and development, the Shah of Iran gave $100,000, the Ford Foundation gave $200,000 to IBO in 1968, but also gave $385,000 to UNIS and ISES from 55-66 (and aren't they both just another branch of UNESCO?)Btw, I find it fairly amusing that the Ford Foundation was created by Edsel Ford. IB, the Edsel of education.... LOL! You want to include more? Be my guest. But be sure to include the Shah of Iran as his grant was bigger than the 20th Century Fund's.ObserverNY (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think we've already established that your "source" is not accurate. Where is the publication date for the powerpoint presentation? Who was the author? What is acei-hkm and how it is an authority on IB?

La mome (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, LaMome. YOU speculated that it wasn't a valid source. The ACEI http://www.acei.org/ appears to be an established association that is actually independent of IBO. The powerpoint was produced in 2003 (see the date stamp on the document). P.S. - there are no "authors" on www.ibo.org financial information. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And if the HKM part is confusing you, that refers to the Hong Kong-Macau branch of ACEI: http://www.acei.org/ACEIHKMExchangeProject.doc ObserverNY (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The PowerPoint was produced in 2003 by whom? I can't find it on IB's site.

http://www.acei.org/ACEIBYLAWSDRAFTFEB09.pdf

“Section 2. Objective. The objective of ACEI is to advance the professional interests of its Members…”

Their objective is to advance their own professional interests?! That is noble of them!

http://www.acei.org/index.html

“ACEI is a global community of educators and advocates who unite their knowledge, experience, and skills to share information, explore innovation, and advocate for the rights of the world's children.”

Hmm, sounds to me like they are trying to be IB’s competitors.

Why would they have an “IB” PowerPoint linked to their website, when as far as I can tell, the IB does not have that PowerPoint linked to theirs?

La mome (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, have downloaded the ppt from Hong Kong Association for Childhood Education. According to the report, Unesco funds for 1960s and 1970s totaled $40,000 (including funds for meetings). As I was reading about the 1960s and the startup of the program, I'd suggest using the number that's available on the secondary sources for the mid-sixties. The Ford Foundation amounts match; however according to this ppt. there was a grant prior to the $300,000 grant, bringing up the total funding. The 20th century funding matches the secondary sources (the author may have used those sources). The Shah of Iran funding occurred in the 1970s (pre or post revolution -will have to read again) and worth consideration, but first let's nail down 1960s and startup period. As all of this information exists elsewhere in valid secondary sources, I see no reason to add downloadable and redundant ppt. to the article. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper -

1.The article is not "redundant", it is a valid secondary source and some of the information is more extensive than the IB info. It "confirms" the UNESCO $40,000 but lists other names as well. The ACEI report states the Shah gave money in the 60's and 70's.

2. WHAT other valid secondary sources? The only sources I've seen are from IB.

LaMome - OMG, you mean IBO has an exclusive on advocating for the rights of children? I had no idea! Please provide a valid source for that claim. And LaMome, just because the IB doesn't have something on its own website, doesn't make that something not valid. Stuff disappears off the IB website every day. Perhaps IB didn't want anyone to know some of the names in that report, eh? ObserverNY (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Exactly what "report" are you talking about? The PowerPoint with the IB logo all over it, with no author, but linked to the ACEI site in Hong Kong? Exactly how are you going to reference that? Is it IB or ACEI-HK? As far as I can see, and I think this is what TK is saying, there is no new information in that PowerPoint that hasn't already been mentioned in other primary, secondary and tertiary sources. That's why it's redundant. Not to mention, umm, bogus. If it doesn't mention Maurette, the "mother of IB," then why are you even considering it as valid? I didn't claim that IB had exclusive rights on advocating for the rights of children. I said that it appears that ACEI is competing, or at least trying to compete, with IB.

La mome (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A valid secondary source is a peer reviewed journal or book, etc. as defined in WP:Sources. A ppt report is not on the list. The ppt is primary because the organization described in the article (the IB) is also (apparently) the author of the document. In my view we are using too many primaries in these articles. None of the secondaries I've read are published by Sage to which you object, although any work that goes through peer review/editing/copywriting is obviously preferable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I guess I don't know which secondary sources you are referring to. Would you be kind enough to link them here so there is no confusion about what you are referencing? ObserverNY (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It appears to me that ALL of the articles in the IB series have seriously abused WP:SELFPUB in terms of citations. This is part of the reason the articles are under constant dispute as they appear "unduly self-serving". Let me also add that "peer-reviewed" documents, when the "peer" is an IB teacher or IB employee also shouldn't be considered valid. Therefore, Hill, Fox, Bunnell - all disqualified. Bagnall? Seems good. So what to do? Remove all IB citations and place next to the statements? I'm all for allowing a handful but in light of WP:SELFPUB, having a preponderance of IB citations seems wrong. ObserverNY (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes. Exactly. We need to consider the following and reach consensus:

• re-read Uncle G's suggestions.
• re-read Uncle G's response re: how to evaluate sources & whether Hill, et. al are acceptable here.
• decide where to use the IB as source, i.e number of schools etc.
• decide where to delete existing sources that might be unacceptable
• ask for help if necessary.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper - I'm going to be upfront and tell you right off the bat I don't have time to read the 4 or 5 books that Uncle G suggested, although a couple of them sound interesting. I think yes, IBO can be used to cite the exact number of IB schools, the number changes quite often up and down, but they should be the primary source for that sort of statistical data. I reject Ian Hill as a credible, unbiased source. His "job" with IBO is to promote IB, and definitely falls under the category of "self-serving".As to the rest, use your discretion. I certainly don't have the energy to try and re-cite sans ibo sources these articles, too much of headache. But it does bring to mind the line from the WP:SELFPUB that if there aren't enough secondary or tertiary sources to document an article, perhaps there shouldn't be an article at all! ObserverNY (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I was suggesting re-reading Uncle G's posts, which I may not have made clear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other talk page, when we were discussing the role of Harlan Hanson in the creation of IB, HA and ONY brought up two things: primary sources can be used if secondary sources back up what is being said and the NY Times would be an acceptable secondary source.

This is what I found when I did a search on the NY Times for International Baccalaureate:

Geneva International Test May Become Passport to World Schools

A new examination, the international baccalaureate, has been set up here to provide ... The sponsors of the international baccalaureate hope that it will ...March 14, 1972

Diploma for the 'Top of the Top'; International Baccalaureate ...

Getting to this day has been torture, she tells two dozen fellow candidates for the International Baccalaureate diploma before they are ...June 21, 2003

About Education; A European-Style Curriculum Program Is Making ...

It is the International Baccalaureate program, begun almost a decade ago in ... `Senior Slump Less Obvious' The International Baccalaureate, which fills a ...November 9, 1977

Mission in Yonkers: An International Degree Program

The program, administered as part of the Yonkers School District's magnet program, was developed by the International Baccalaureate Organization, ...April 11, 1999

STATE OF THE UNION: EDUCATION; More Training Is Seen as Key To ...

President Bush's proposal, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, to increase the ranks of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate teachers in ...February 2, 2006 - By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

Peace studies take off

... residential school offering an international baccalaureate diploma, ... including the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo and the Center for ...October 14, 2008

So, I don't think we need to start deleting sources and information. I think we need to add sources that back up what has already been said. And add new information from sources that are valid and verifiable.

La mome (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Right off the bat, one of LaMome's NYT references is incorrect - Bush's State of the Union Address NEVER MENTIONS International Baccalaureate. http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current&code=bush_admin&year=2006 ObserverNY (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Huh. Why did they put that in the article, then? Very weird. In any case, this speech by former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings does mention IB. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'll also post here the NYT obit on Elisabeth Fox which eliminates her as a biased and WP:SELFPUB source: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/26/classified/paid-notice-deaths-fox-elisabeth-libby-nee-grey.html ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Elisabeth Fox' essay was originally published at Harvard and then republished in a book with an editor (Mary Hayden), therefore her essay does not constitute a selfpub source or a primary source. It's a valid secondary source. However, when I first read her essay I did not know she had been affiliated with IB, so to some extent that affiliation simply drives the decision making process in terms of evaluating her information (or Hill's or anyone else's). As Uncle G stated, there's no reason for Fox (or Hill) to misrepresent the history of the IB, and as the essay was initially published in a academic journal, she'd abide by academic conventions. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, Harlan Hanson's involvement with IB, or more specifically, the founding of IBNA, has been confirmed by a non-IB source and makes a reference to yet another non-IB source (in fact, a College Board source: Freeman, J. (1987) The International Baccalaureate. The College Board Review. No. 143, Spring. 4 -6.) Didn't we already talk about that? Regards, • CinchBug • 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We also talked about not giving undue weight to one early "initiator" over others, Cinchbug. Pushing Harlan Hanson and AP representation over all other "initiators" and using an IB "pioneer" (Fox) as the "source" for that citation is simply POV and wrong. ObserverNY (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Consensus?

Do we have consensus from all editors regarding the following points:

• removing secondary sources?
• using multiple primary sources to "prove a point" which is WP:OR?

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like clarification on what you mean by primary and secondary sources. If there are numerous primary sources to support a statement that aren't WP:SELFPUB I see no reason why that should be a problem. I'm guessing you are coyly referring to my recent addition of two additional primary sources to support the statement that SOME schools...blah blah blah, which someone had previously changed to "ONE" school. You want to reduce it to two cites and leave the "Some", I have no problem with that. But you don't get to diminish the statement by reducing some to one and then claim citing more than one source is POV or WP:OR Sorry. ObserverNY (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Edit conflict)

I'll repeat what I said before. I am interested in improving this article by adding more details and valid, verifiable sources. Fox and Peterson were not only “historians,” writing about the History of IB, they were also part of that history (although, aside from her obit, I haven't seen Fox mentioned anywhere else as a pioneer.) The point is, when we are talking about how IB came about and evolved, I think we need a combination of primary and secondary sources. The MSF (Doctors without Borders) article has only 22 out of 88 sources that are not listed as coming from MSF. As I have said before, if what Peterson, Walker, Fox, and Leach say about the History of IB, without praising or criticizing it, is echoed in other sources, then those sources should be added, without taking away other sources.

As for the "Capitalism Magazine" source...where shall I begin? Just because the guy works at Stanford does not make him a credible source on IB here. Why are we adding more to the recognition part of the article anyway? Praise/Criticism is inherently pushing POV by nature. And Aikentimes.com--or whatever it was called--is that considered credible, reliable, verifiable? Is it a "mainstream newspaper” as mentioned in WP:SOURCES?

So, I suggest we remove “Capitalism Magazine” and “Aikentimes” as they are questionable sources-- (a “fad” that’s been around for over 40 years?), not NPOV, not mainstream newspapers or magazines, supporting a minority view. “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.”

La mome (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. But if you are going to remove Capitalism Magazine then we must remove TIME magazine as it is well established that TIME and Newsweek are left-wing rags. ObserverNY (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There can be no comparison between Time, an established publication, and an online magazine publishing opinions from a certain POV only.Tvor65 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop the Hanson Nonsense

Now you want TWO references to Hanson? Ridiculous! Who are the other educators? You don't get to single out Hanson and mention Advanced Placement without mention of all of the Europeans and diplomats who helped "initiate" the program. Seriously, are you people so blind to your biases that you can't see how unreasonable you are being?ObserverNY (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec)I can live with two cites and "some". Three cites does get very close to original research.

As for the sentence about the American educators, I've added an additional source and will add another. There is a phrase in the sentence that's a direct quotation, so if the Fox source is removed I'd ask you to reword the entire section. Also, as you noted above, it's quite time consuming to read the material. I've scanned about 600 pages or more, and had started to go through the material again with more attention. Obviously there were more than American educators involved and obviously that should be noted; hadn't quite gotten to the point of matching names to nationalities, but will do so time permitting, or perhaps somebody else can have a look and do so. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that singling out Hanson could be seen as pushing POV (of course, I'd have to say the same for your inclusion of the quote from Thomas Sowell). So how about also naming Benjamin Bloom? He's also in the Hayden book as an early supporter of IB and he's a rather noteworthy American educator. Regards, • CinchBug • 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - I had tried to include a quote from Tom DeWeese in addition to Sowell but apparently he wasn't scholarly enough for these folks. You'll note that a Wiki article already exists on Thomas Sowell, I didn't have to go create one. Btw, thanks for clearing up my misconception about IB registration fees being for ALL IB students, not just full DP as I had thought. I had seriously underestimated the cost schools must spend annually on IB by a good $20-60,000 a year, depending on the size of the school and have corrected the information on my site accordingly. Of course, no one in here will allow the real costs of IB to be featured in the article. ObserverNY (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I had added Bob Leach to the text, had four windows open on my screen to add others, when poof! it disappeared. I've asked for a 3O again. Pulling edits before they're complete is bad form. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I apologize for deleting the double reference to Hanson which included Leach. It just seemed pretty obnoxious to me that after all this discussion about WP:WEIGHT that you would try and have not one but TWO sentences on Hanson. I have no objection to you adding Leach. Please add the ACEI link as the citation.

Tvor65 & LaMome - Just stop. Your aggressive POV editing is uncalled for and malicious. ObserverNY (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, I'm going to comment on this edit. I don't know much about Elisabeth Fox so I can't really say, but I don't understand why she's not a reliable source. Observer, you may want to take your complaints about her to WP:RSN and have someone there chime in on it. As to the Hanson thing, in the above edit, it seems pretty silly that he's mentioned twice in two paragraphs. We have:

• "Among the US educators, Harlan Hanson, of the College Board Advanced Placement Program was an early advocate of the IB Diploma Programme who helped secure the Ford grant.[11]"
• "Harlan Hanson, of the College Board Advanced Placement Program was an " early advocate" of the IB Diploma Programme.[12][13]"

Do we really need to give him that much WP:WEIGHT? Just one mention would suffice, I think. If there are a few other people who were particularly instrumental at the beginning, I think it would be okay to include them so as to balance out the weight. And as a side note, I agree with Observer's edit: don't whitewash this article by blanking out criticisms. One aspect of NPOV is to give both sides of the argument. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think TK was editing right after me and did not see that I already reinserted Hanson's stuff. that's why it has appeared twice. Then, of course, ONY wiped her edit. I agree that we should add others to balance.

I am totally fine with mentioning criticism; in fact, we already have two references from newspapers about it. What I am not fine with is using unreliable POV sources such as "Capitalism Magazine".Tvor65 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was mid-edit when the edit was deleted. There are two sources which mention Hanson. Now I don't know which is which and whether the text matches the source, and I don't really care. Somebody else can read the books, format the sources, edit the sentence, and decide where to place it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about questioning Capitalism Magazine; it does have a longstanding article here, though it's up for AfD now. I don't really think it's a fringe thing, though, but I could be wrong. But yes, I would like to see better sources. Got anything, ONY? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article by Thomas Sowell is only available for purchase from the Hoover Institution at Stanford. It is also available at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022604.asp, http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2004/02/26/parents_with_backbone, and http://eddriscoll.com/archives/001057.php. So if Capitalism is so offensive to you, perhaps you would prefer the finance.townhall citation? ObserverNY (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Then change to one of those. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - You have a serious problem. Leave the Sowell reference alone. Can you not read what HA wrote? ObserverNY (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just to let everyone know, this article is currently undergoing an edit war. 3RR has been violated by two editors, so I'd advise everyone to calm down a bit. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

HelloAnnyong,

Please read this:

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2004/02/26/parents_with_backbone

This is what Sowell says:

“It also has a left-wing hidden agenda, as so many other fad programs do. One of the program's supporters gushed that it teaches students "how to think globally" and "how to make us part of the world."

One of the parents critical of the program put it quite differently. She said it "promotes socialism, disarmament, radical environmentalism, and moral relativism, while attempting to undermine Christian religious values and national sovereignty."

None of this is new. This kind of indoctrination has been going on for decades, and the kind of thinking behind it goes back a hundred years, when education guru John Dewey began promoting the idea that schools should be instruments of "social change."''

And you don’t consider that to be an extreme POV? The article is not being whitewashed, it’s being high-jacked by someone who is trying to push her/his POV.

La mome (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't really think that's extreme POV. There are lots of people out there who believe that. How many times has Obama been called a socialist in the past six months? How many people homeschool their kids 'cause they don't want them to learn crazy left-wing liberal stuff or whatever? Either way, we're not using the source to say that IB is causing the fall of Western civilization; it's only being used to say that it's a fad program. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting point. IB is verboten to homeschoolers, unlike AP. Hmmmm. ObserverNY (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HelloAnnyong, personally, I always consider a person to have questionable objectivity when they throw out tags like "left-wing" or "right-wing" (or "ultra-conservative," as in case of Tristan Bunnell). And the notion that IB is a "fad program" seems pretty silly and already refuted, considering how long it's been around and that it's continued to grow. But I don't object to including Sowell--in fact, I didn't object in the first place, I simply said it could be seen as pushing POV, which it almost certainly is. But if we're going to include opinions here, then we also get POV, by definition. It's a package deal.

But I can see your point. Sounds okay to me. Regards, • CinchBug • 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is an edit war and 3RR is being violated, then that should be reported. It seems someone could use a time-out.

La mome (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Warnings have been issued, and the warring has ceased. If it starts up again, though... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception

The praise/criticism stuff really did not belong under "Recognition" since that section was mostly about university recognition. So I have created a new section called "Reception". Right now, however, it is rather US-centric, so info on the reception in other countries may be needed to balance things out.Tvor65 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not too over-weighted. Looks like we need to include the Fordham Report! ObserverNY (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, describes IB as "one of the endless series of fad programs that distract American public schools from real education in real subjects" and "indoctrination"." Seriously? I didn't know that schools could become distracted. Isn't being distracted from "indoctrination" a good thing? Please define "real" education and "real" subjects. Where are the facts in this "editorial"? I think we need to include that study about ultra-conservatives and political objections to IB, since all of the sources listed under the "political objections" section come from ...ultra-conservatives.

I think it's odd that the NY Times would be considered acceptable as a source for Harlan Hanson's participation in the founding of the IB program, yet is considered a "left-wing rag," along with Time magazine for other points.

La mome (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I left your NYT cite. You reworded the statement to paraphrase the article and removed the erroneous information. I helped you along with that. See how nice we can work together? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

LaMome - It might do you some good to listen to Dr. Thomas Sowell speak as well as read some of his books. He is a well-credentialed scholar and economist, an elegant orator, and his opinion is notable. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. It doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. It is WP:BALANCE. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

p.s. - and I do like a nice straight pole. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TVOR65 - Your dual attempts to start an edit war here and in IB are unacceptable. Look up the definition of "reception" before you arbitrarily wipe out my edits without any discussion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

We could keep the source, but change what we include in the IBDP article, which would be more appropriate to how the IBDP is received in the UK-giving more balance to the article.

"The IB diploma is now regarded as more academically challenging and broader than taking three or four A-levels."

"Government ministers have lauded the qualification and in 2006 provided £2.5m so that every local authority in England could have at least one centre offering sixth-formers the chance to do the IB."

This line about the move could be added in the "history" section---more appropriate in the IB organisation article rather than here.

The Amsterdam base will be one of three global centres for the IB by 2020. The others are Washington and Singapore.

La mome (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - please don't split the discussion between the two articles. Please see my recent reply to Cinchbug at IB. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And LaMome, I'm sorry, but yours was an unacceptable edit to the exact same section that is undergoing deep debate in IB. Why would you do that? ObserverNY (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hanson Unresolved

I had requested that the sentence regarding Harlan Hanson either be reworded and cited to include other notable "IB initiators" OR that the sentence be removed. In the spirit of civility, I will not remove the sentence until someone weighs in and either improves the sentence, or agrees to its removal. However, if no one responds within 24 hours, I reserve the right to edit out the HH reference without a gazillion accusations being thrown my way. ObserverNY (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please restore my edit, as I noted on the other page. Then I'll add the other members of the team. No reason to re-read the books, make the notes, etc., until the edit is back in place. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - the Hanson edits were convoluted, there were two of them, and I don't want the responsibility of attempting to merge the double attempt at listing Hanson in the article. If you want to keep him as a reference, then please go through your own edits and restore balance. If I recall correctly, Leach, (and I could be wrong but I think it was just his last name), was mentioned as an afterthought.ObserverNY (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'll take a look at it tomorrow and recraft the reference, provided we can all agree to be patient. As I suggested earlier, Benjamin Bloom would be another "initiator" and he's rather notable (at least among educators--I find it highly unlikely that any teacher in the United States could get a teaching license without having learned about Bloom's Taxonomy). Regards, • CinchBug • 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was not mentioned as an afterthought. I carefully crafted an edit on the very day you admitted to not having sufficient time nor the inclination to read the sources. Mid-edit, as I was adding material from the sources it was deleted. I'm having difficulty with a slow connection at the moment; but to delete an edit and then demand the resulting mess be rewritten is really asking a lot of your fellow editors. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ralph W. Tyler as well. Cinchbug, you don't have to fix it. I'll do it. But, allow me to express the fact that it takes time to set up some material and to have it summarily deleted and then demanded it be re-instated is not conducive to collaboration. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

TK, yes, Tyler, too. He was Bloom's mentor, if I remember my outside reading correctly, and I seem to recall that one or both of them had something to do with the Ford Foundation funding (or one of the other funding sources). I agree with you about the frustration of setting up all the material only to have it immediately removed, and I'm ready to give you some measure of assurance that your work won't be summarily dismissed or deleted. Rather, we'll all have the opportunity to comment and discuss revisions, as necessary.

Of course, this will require all parties to play nice--and I'm optimistic that everone can do so and find consensus. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's make something clear. I didn't DEMAND that you improve the edit. I stated that I objected to its inclusion in its current state and that if no one "improved" it or made suggestions for improvement in 24 hours, I reserved the right to delete it. Likewise, TK can pout all he wants, but it is unfair to insist that I restore an edit I never wanted in there in the first place as it is not particularly notable in terms of the article. ObserverNY (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I've done what I can. Didn't realize that Cinchbug added the Bagnall ref as well. Some of the text in the sentence is a direct quotation, so for now all 3 refs will stand. When I have the time, I will re-read the books, re-list the names, and match names to nationalities, because there were others as well who deserve to be named. Trying very hard to take the high road, but the current state is the result of ONY's editing away what would have been a new series of sentences. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a start. I didn't know we "practiced" putting together copy in an article. The edits are in the history. But as an average reader, I would ask myself, "Who is Bob Leach? Is he just some US HS SS teacher or what makes him notable (as there is no Wikipedia article on him)?" Also, we need to add in the Shah of Iran as one of the initial funders. I'll do THAT if you want. ObserverNY (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, the edits are in the history. As you can see from what I've parked below, they are a mess. The trick is to match the text to the source. In this case multiple sources were used that had to be verified, checked, paraphrased and formatted which is difficult to do in one edit. When one is attempting to keep track of which is which in one's mind, while simultaneously referring to the source material with the intention of adding relevant explanatory text for the reader, and then having the initial edit deleted, to be accused of pouting, is just all a bit much. I too am human. Will spend the time to fix this mess tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone is so interested in including Bob Leach, the person who coined the phrase "International Baccalaureate" no less, then perhaps that someone should do some research and add it here, before another editing debacle ensues. The Shah of Iran was not an original intitiator, or founder, which is the section we are all working on now. Can we please try to focus? Once that's somewhat finished, then we can include the Shah, Bill and Melinda Gates and Texias IB Schools, while we're at it.

La mome (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Focus? You have the nerve to tell others to focus when you spent the entire afternoon yesterday leaping back and forth between this article and IB? The FOCUS is on whether someone or something is NOTABLE enough to be included in the article. Btw, Bill and Melinda Gates did a REPORT on IB that I have searched for for years, even wrote to their foundation, and was unable to obtain. They did NOT donate large sums of money to IB. However, I see Chavez's buddy Joe Kennedy gave money to IB last year. Care to go down THAT road, LaMome? Big oil and Nazi sympathizers in IB's past - you may want to be VERY careful how much "detail" you want to put into this section. ObserverNY (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Bringing into focus: http://www.acei-hkm.org.hk/Doc/IB%20Background.ppt despite LaMome's attempts to "debunk" this source as invalid, I hold that it is a legitimate source and one that shows the Shah of Iran's $100,000 contribution was in the 60's & 70's which would make him a significant "initiator".ObserverNY (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

We've already established that PowerPoints are not valid sources. By initiator, we mean founder, developer of the IB organisation or DP. It does not mean donor.

La mome (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Au contrare, LaMome. YOU declared that, no one else. Then you tried to claim that ACEI were IB "competitors" to which I say, what programmes are they selling? Then you challenged the date (2003). And I do believe the primary claim behind including Hanson was because he got Ford to contribute $300,000, no? Did I make that up? No, I didn't make that up.ObserverNY (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Re: coining of phrase "International Baccalaureate". You're kidding me, right? You see this as some kind of accomplishment? Putting the words 'international' (because the UN is international) and 'baccalaureate' (copied from the French Bac which pre-dates IB) together is noteworthy? ObserverNY (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict) LaMome, I'm unclear why PPTs would be invalid sources - I'd regard the publisher as the deciding factor, not the media. No comment on whether acei-hkm.org.hk is an acceptable publisher or not.

ONY, there's a world of difference between your Hanson/Ford example and the Shah of Iran case - in one case we're dealing with a fund-raiser (Hanson); in the other case we're dealing with a donor (the Shah). Ford (a donor) shouldn't be added, but there's no reason why Hanson or any other fund-raiser shouldn't be, assuming their overall contributions are significant.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oooo, you're such a little troublemaker, TFOWR! ;-) So riddle me this - the Ford Foundation IS currently listed as a donor along with UNESCO. It was in that sentence that I would propose adding the Shah. But Hanson, whose primary contribution was sweet talking the Ford Foundation into donating money, has his own separate recognition. You see how this entire "initiator" nonsense really gets murky? Do we list the names of all of the teachers at ISES who contributed to the development of the IBDP? Can anyone prove that Hanson had more input than say, Prof. Von Helzingburger (made up name)? Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Parking the mess

Parking this mess here until I have time to match text to sources. Please don't edit:

<ref name=Walker1>{{cite book|title=The SAGE handbook of research in international education|editor=Mary Hayden, Jeff Thompson, and Jack Levy|publisher=SAGE|date=2007|isbn=1412919711|isbn13=9781412919715|chapter=Challenges from a New World|author=George Walker|pages=409}}</ref> In addition, a number of educators from the United States such as Bob Leach were in involved with the developing the IB Diploma Programme during the experimental stage. [[Harlan Hanson]], of the [[AP Program|College Board Advanced Placement Program]] was an " early advocate" of the IB Diploma Programme and helped secure the Ford grant with [[Ralph W. Tyler]].<ref name=Fox1/><ref name=Peterson1>{{cite book |title=Schools Across Frontiers |last= Peterson|first= A.D.C.|authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2003|edition= 2nd |publisher= Open Court|location= |isbn=0812695054 |page= |pages=18-26 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=nTUjMNjNo3EC&dq=peterson+international+baccalaureate&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=AJVnSomID8KRtge16Z33Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11 |accessdate=23 July 2009}}</ref><ref name=Bagnall>{{cite journal | last = Bagnall | first = Nigel Fraser | title = The International Baccalaureate in Australia and Canada: 1980 - 1993 | journal = Ph.D dissertation | pages = p. 52 | publisher = University of Sydney | location = Sydney, Australia | date = Sep 1994 | url = http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/817/1/adt-NU20020624.142124whole02.pdf | accessdate = 24 July 2009}}</ref>
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More info to park here

Here’s what I did for homework last night, all from Schools Across Frontiers: Near the end of the book, there is a section titled “The People Who Made the IBO” and I pulled out the following names:

Desmond Cole-Baker

Page25:

Head of English at Ecolint from 62-64,

Head of School there from 64-67

Page 26-listed as Head of School at UNIS

Developed framework for what would later become the PYP

Page 286-Went to NY with Alec Peterson and Harpo Hanso to get funding

Page 287-Developed framework for what would later become the PYP

Roger Peel

Page 289-Professor of Spanish and Modern Languages at Middlebury College 1969-1982

DG of IB from 83-98

Development of PYP and MYP

New DP courses

Brought information technology to IB for communication, databases and support

Concerned with access to IB for children in developing nations

Gerard Renaud

Page 21Philosophy teacher at Ecolint

Page 290-DG of IB 77-83

Major role in development of MYP

(I think he also came up with the idea for TOK---but I am not sure)

In other parts of the book:

Page 17-18 Bob Leach, American Quaker, Chair of SS Department at Ecolint, had conference in 1962 with a group of teachers where the phrase “International Baccalaureate” was mentioned.

Pages 25-26 Frank Bowles and Ralph Tyler became council members in 1965

Page 27-list of original IB schools-Atlantic College, British Schools Montevideo, Ecolint, Goethe Gymnasium, International School Ibadan, Iranzamin (Tehran), Lycee International de St. Germain, Santiago College (Chile) and United Nations International School. (All are still IB schools except for Iranzamin)

We can discuss what we what to include and look for mention in other sources if we are relying too heavily on this one.

Anyone know how to put accents (diacritical symbols) in?

Cheers La mome (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You're an IB foreign language teacher and you don't know how to insert diacritical symbols? ñóúúÿàáâãäåèéêëìíîï ........translation: YIKES! ObserverNY (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY