Talk:IB Diploma Programme

1. /Archive 1 March 2007-March 2008
2. /Archive 2 March 2008-May 2009
3. /Archive 3 June 2009

Cost

Hey guys - I added a Cost section. Please see if it meets with your approval. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

References 1 & 2 are questionable sources. With one exception, the other references are dead links, so, perhaps, not quite ready for publication. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not checked the sources - I'm guessing they've changed since Truthkeeper88 commented, because most of them (including the first two) are IBO docs now.

The section looks quite good. I'd suggest a couple of copy-edits:

• It mentions "step 1" but then doesn't use the phrase "step X" again; I'd suggest either labelling each step ("step 2:", "step 3:" etc), or losing the "step 1" label - keep the content, however. Sorry, that's a pretty minor point!
• More controversially, I'd suggest re-jigging the teacher training cost slightly - "Each session costs approximately $650 to $1,039 per teacher. The average total cost is $1,500 per teacher per session including travel, course guide booklets, and other expenses."

Apart from that I think the new section is great.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi - the first two were always IBO docs, I have no idea why the other links came up dead, they were live yesterday but I just repasted and hopefully they are all working now. I have no problem with TFWOR's language suggestions/changes. If for some reason these links don't work (all are from www.ibo.org), please feel free to replace, perhaps my html is incorrect. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The links came up dead when I tried to retrieve the titles for the ref syntax. I see they've been changed, so that's good.

Footnote 22 doesn't show teacher training fees.

According to the reference for footnote 22 the application fee is CHF 8640/GBP 3795 -- not quite USD 39,000!

In my view the long application documents aren't necessary, otherwise looks good. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper I hate searching for stuff in the IBO site, everything is buried and difficult to locate. But if you look at the fees link #22, you'll see it only mentions Application A. Well, you have to pay the same amount AGAIN for Application B, and the "continuation fee" is annual, so multiply that by at least two. I'll try and find the USD page again, but it really did add up to $39,500, which actually astounded me. I thought it was $17,000 plus the training costs! I think you meant Footnote # 21, re the workshops. I linked the list of training workshops and since the fees vary, you have to click on the individual workshops to figure out how much each one costs. ObserverNY (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ugh, how exhausting, just to try and find consistent info on the IBO site. Okay, here's what I just came up with:http://www.ibo.org/ibna/educators/documents/DiplomaApplicationProcessandFees.pdf According to this document, the fee IS $17,000 with an option to extend candidacy for a year for $5,000. I misread the other page which I still can't relocate to mean an annual cost of $7,000. Now, this is also interesting, on this page, the annual fee rose from $9150 to $9600 so I hope you don't mind if I fix that. ObserverNY (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I also removed Candorwein's addition that there are "fee reductions for IB World Schools". It was added without and I have seen no evidence of such. ObserverNY (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The document you've linked above is a good reference. Note the annual fees are for 2011, so the fee structure of 9150 USD appears to be current. I'll add the new reference. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhh, that is correct! So a school applying today can expect to pay that in 2011. Very good. Except, I don't believe there is anything that prohibits IBO from increasing that figure between now and 2011.;-) But already authorized schools will pay $9,150 in 2009. Gotcha. ObserverNY (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'd suggest the following fixes:

• remove possible copy violation (list of additional costs is unattributed and directly from the IB document)
• remove the school application documents because the application process (part A & B) is referred to in another reference.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. The list of additional costs is directly attributed to the IBO document. I don't care if you want to remove the application A & B docs, I just thought people would like to see what documentation a school must fill out. ObserverNY (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, the statements re: cost are referenced, but they've been copy/pasted directly from the document which should be avoided. As for the applications, I'll wait for consensus. I don't like documents downloading and cluttering the computer desktop; others may not mind. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a few comments, if I may-

1. The IB Diploma Programme is not sold. (Best to avoid the passive voice, no?) Schools apply to be authorised to offer the IB Diploma Programme. (The word programme implies that it is a package, not individual tests).

2. The entire training section is too wordy and could be summed up as follows: There are three levels of teacher training, averaging $1,500 per teacher per session, depending on the location. (The link just shows a list of training sites available. I am not sure the $1,500 average is accurate or verifiable). The training costs include registration, travel and hotel arrangements and other training materials.

3. The last part could read as follows: Some schools pay for the examination fees while others require the students to pay. Other costs are listed here- (link)

La mome (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

TK - I have no objection to paraphrasing the final line. Or would it be better if it was placed in quotations?

As to La Mome's comments, I will not respond to her as she has demonstrated her only purpose here is to disrupt and cause trouble.ObserverNY (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just a reminder:"One of the core etiquette policies on wikipedia is assume good faith. It's important not to make accusations of other editors without strong evidence. Regardless of whether you believe you may know an editor outside of wikipedia, they have as much right to edit as anyone else and you need to assume they are here to improve the project and resist from bringing along prejudices that may well be proven misplaced." --neon white talk 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

La mome (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding La mome's numbered points:

1. 'The IB sell the programme...' would re-phrase the line without the passive voice. I'm not sure what word would be more appropriate than 'sold/sell'? 'The IB franchise the programme...'?

2. The $1500 dollar average is probably a fair estimate but isn't explicitly supported by the references. That would make it original research and we should drop this figure. However, if you summarised the training section as you suggest, there might be no figure for the cost of training at all. Quoting some specific figures would be a good thing if we can't give an average.

3. The list is hard reading, but worth keeping in some form. The section as it stands is a good account of the costs a school would need to consider when budgeting for running IB programmes.

As for ObserverNY's comments, they certainly indicate that she assumes you are editing in bad faith. I don't think that's a constructive assumption (even if it was accurate, which I doubt) and even so, it would have been better just to think it, and not say it. I suggest the constructive thing to do would be for everyone to forget about it.

Ewen (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen-you tidied up the article quite nicely once again. Your edits are fine with me.

Cheers La mome (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - nice formatting - I respectfully submit the following 2 links as documentation for the $1,500 average cost per teacher: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3422403/Cost-Projections-for-the-IB-Middle-Years-Programme-Implementation-Non, http://school.uaschools.org/uaibhs/pdf/February%20IB%20Article.webarchive.pdf, ObserverNY (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The first link provides cost projections, which are estimates, about the Middle Years Program and there is no indication of the source. The second one has this line regarding training costs: "The training for each teacher runs between $1,200 and $1,500, and there is also an $8,000 annual fee once schools start the program." Between $1,200 and $1,500 is an average of $1,350. Neither supports your claim of an average of $1,500 per teacher. La mome (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? There is no difference in cost between the price of IBO training for MYP or DP or PYP, per teacher. It is perfectly valid documentation of a school's budgeting for the programme. Furthermore, since both documents pre-date 2009, the actual cost is propbably in excess of $1,500 per teacher, per session. Both support my claims. Ewen, weigh in please. ObserverNY (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Do we know for a fact that training costs are the same for MYP or DP? What is the name of the school that provided the documentation of projected costs? Costs are probably in excess of $1,500? How do we know for sure?

La mome (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the publications store cost which is entirely optional as all the materials are supplied by the OCC (IB Online Curriculum Centre). The annoying thing is, the person who has added this clearly doesn't know about the OCC. I suspect that there is a hidden agenda also as many of the other costs are spurious (like EE supervision). I suggest it is better to keep this section simply down to registration and on-going costs paid the the IB. Otherwise, whatever next? Payment to teachers for teaching it? Costs for heating and lighting and building maintenance? --Candy (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Candy. I was going to suggest removing these items on the "laundry list" for the same reason.Tvor65 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Ewen - nice formatting - I respectfully submit the following 2 links as documentation for the $1,500 average cost per teacher: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3422403/Cost-Projections-for-the-IB-Middle-Years-Programme-Implementation-Non, http://school.uaschools.org/uaibhs/pdf/February%20IB%20Article.webarchive.pdf, ObserverNY (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY"

The first reference doesn't seem to be attributable to anyone. Where does that come from? If it cannot be attributable to a reputable source then it appears to be invalid. The second source is about one school in the US. The IB is about thousands of schools world-wide. Surely, the whole issue of costs here has a US bias (and I would again suspect is driven by an agenda). --Candy (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose we condense and summarize the last part as follows: There are additional ongoing costs that may include: professional development; collaborative planning time; coordinator positions for the Diploma Program, Creativity, Action and Service, Extended essay and educational resources.

I chose the word “may” because: collaborative planning time may not cost anything if it occurs during common free periods; depending on the size of the school, the coordinators’ (IBDP, CAS & EE) positions could be executed by one person or absorbed by already existing positions (assistant principal, instructional supervisors, chairs or heads of departments) and as Candy pointed out, most materials can be found free of charge on the OCC for authorized IB schools.

La mome (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein I'm sorry if you feel IBO's verbatim language and portrayal of the costs associated with its product are US-centric (of course the fact that over 1/3 of IB schools are located in the US MIGHT have something to do with that) but it is what it is and you are attempting to edit a section which Ewen and I agreed quite nicely on. Your attempt to hide and obfuscate IB costs here on Wikipedia clearly shows a bias and agenda which is not positive when it comes to presenting accurate information about IB.ObserverNY (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

June 14 end

As per the source IB DP fees are:

• Application Part A fee
• Application Part B fee
• Annual school fee (includes subscription to online curriculum centre)
• Student Assement fees

Additional costs are difficult to quantify per the source, depending on existing resources, size of the program, etc. I'd like to see the statement re: planning in the cost section taken out because "planning" is ongoing whether a school is IB or not.

Finally, to be precise the section should be titled "Fees" . Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I have no problem with you renaming the section Fees. However, under ongoing costs, 1. I believe Ewen's format looked a lot nicer 2. Once a school buys IB it becomes contractually obligated to its staff to compensate its teachers for these "new" duties. While this dollar/rupee/pound/Euro amount may vary in different parts of the world, indeed, may vary between two districts in the same US State,(and I noticed you also deleted the line which specifically stated that the ongoing costs may vary) it is a cost that districts need to allow for when preparing an IB budget and one which you cannot summarily dismiss. ObserverNY (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Those are not my edits. I added a ref tag which is a minor edit. cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I misread the history - it must have been LaMome. Funny, I didn't see consensus reached on those changes. I know I didn't consense. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That changes in the cost section as it appears now are fine with me. La mome (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I still object to the removal of the reference to the IBO Store which would provide readers with the ACTUAL cost of the course guides and other materials. Furthermore, Candorwein's claim that said information is available for "free" on the OCC can only be validated by violating IBO propietary passwords and therefore stands as hearsay. ObserverNY (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sure, you can go ahead and link the IB store---that is if it doesn't violate COI---wouldn't that be giving them free advertising? Access to the OCC is included in the application/authorization fees, which was clearly stated in the document that you linked, so it is not hearsay. All the necessary teacher resources are available on the OCC. They are available to the public via the IB store. So, it makes no difference to me whether or not you link the IB store.

La mome (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't like the link to the IB store for the following reasons:

• if a reader is interested in the additional costs they can follow the citations that will point to the IB store (thus the use of citations)
• having the link embedded in the text of the article is (almost) blatant advertising, and again unnecessary

The fees section is fine as is, in my view. cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, LaMome and myself agree that the Fee/Ongoing Cost section should stand in its present form without any further editing. Any objections? TFWOR? Tvor65? Ewen? Candy? AS IS. ObserverNY (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm happy with it as it currently stands. I'm a wee bit concerned at the "without any further editing" and "AS IS" comments, though - they seem to preclude editing in the future. When you click "submit" you agree that your edits can be edited "mercilessly", among other things. But the current wording is fine (possibly worth mentioning that fees are the same in all countries - since the fees are quoted in USD a reader might assume that this only applies in the US). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I regret the "as is." Meant "as is" for the moment (knowing the article is dynamic and not static). Yes, the fees should be indicated in ChF, GBP and CAD. I"m adding [this] ref that's quite clear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That was really addressed to ObserverNY, to be honest, and I'm probably reading too much into her comment anyway. I'm happy with adding additional currencies, but I'd be just as happy with just USD - provided it's noted that it applies internationally. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. "As is" is no more. Adding the relevant currencies is important, in my view. I've been busy elsewhere and not really paying attention here. Cheers.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY : Whether or not two people "nicely" agree to something doesn't mean it is correct or without bias. For those of you who seem to know nothing about the IBO let me put some simple information forwards about my "hearsay" evidence. Check the link on the IB web page for the information about curriculum materials. [1] I still see bias. You also state " (of course the fact that over 1/3 of IB schools are located in the US MIGHT have something to do with that)" This is an article about the DIPLOMA programme. Whether or not 1/3 are US schools is not a majority.

Also, please supply evidence that, "Once a school buys IB it becomes contractually obligated to its staff to compensate its teachers for these "new" duties". As it is contractual I expect to see the contract. --Candy (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy, where is the "contractual obligation" claim in the article? I assumed it would be in the Fees section or one of its sub-sections, but I'm not seeing it. My own fault - I've not been following the thread here as closely as I should. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

TFWOR - It's not in the article, Candy is referring to discussion which occurred after either she or someone else edited out the part about the IBC's 25% release time and EE/CAS supervision which I put back in (pre-as is). I suppose in communist countries they don't pay their teachers additional stipends for additional responsibilities, but Candy's request to see a U.S. teacher's union contract is out of line. I have hard copy proof of a former budget in my district that awards the IBC and additional $8,500, and the EEC and CASC an additional $3,500 each. I did not insert those amounts in the article because, as accuarately indicated, these amounts can vary, but that's an additional $15,000+ in an annual IB budget.

Also, obviously if someone has something pertinent and relevant to add to the section, that is permissible in the future. I was simply trying to reach consensus on the current wording of the Fee section to be allowed to stand without further fudging. ObserverNY (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ah, got it. Incidentally, I've added a line at the start of the section to clarify multi-currency payments. It might be worth checking the cite I've used (this one) as it's solely the annual fees page, and I'm using it to claim multi-currencies across all fees and costs. I realise Truthkeeper88 (?) has already added in non-US dollar fees (thanks!) but figured it was worth clarifying why, e.g., Swiss franc costs were listed. (There's also still part where only USD costs are used, so this covers that until other currencies are sourced). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

TFWOR That's fine. I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with whoever has been deleting portions of the Ongoing costs section without any discussion in this section! I'm having trouble following the history, it appears to be either Tvor65 or Candorwein, perhaps you can figure out who is sabotaging the process here. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Pondering of the day - I wonder why IBO doesn't accept the Euro? ObserverNY (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Oh, that's easy! Founded in Switzerland, hence the Swiss franc is the "One True Currency", and the euro is an evil usurper! No evidence to support that, but I think I've seen similar behaviour before with Swiss entities. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• grin* And here I thought it was because IBO wasn't being very internationally-minded. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sigh. Please read the edits. I am not asking to see a US teacher's contract. I was asking for evidence that was given by Truthkeeper in THIS section. I will quote it as some of you find it hard to follow the talk page. ::Truthkeeper - I have no problem with you renaming the section Fees. However, under ongoing costs, 1. I believe Ewen's format looked a lot nicer 2. Once a school buys IB it becomes contractually obligated to its staff to compensate its teachers for these "new" duties. There, I hope you can now see why I asked for evidence of a contractual obligation. Hence, that they must pay for the positions required. Secondly, I linked the OCC which states that the curriculum materials are freely available there. No one talked about violating OCC passwords. I don't know why someone wrote that. I think that the recent comment about communist countries is written out of ignorance. This is a talk page to improve the article not press someone's political point of view. Please remember this. Thirdly, the IB does not currently use the Euro because it was founded a long time ago when the major strong currencies were sterling, dollar and swiss franc. The euro is a relative upstart. --Candy (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy-good point about the OCC. Did you link that just here in the discussion or is it also linked in the IB Diploma Progamme article somewhere? I couldn't find it and I think it would be a good idea to link it. It doesn't violate any passwords and doesn't provide free advertising for the IB as in the case of linking the IB store. Cheers La mome (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what link to the OCC Candy is talking about unless it's a general overview, but the OCC itself is password protected and only accessible to officially authorized IB schools. Therefore it is not a public link appropriate for Wikipedia.

As to the Euro, it has been an official currency for seven years. Considering IBO is abandoning Cardiff and setting up shop in Amsterdam, one would think it would accept the currency of its soon to be new home base.

Thirdly, here in the U.S., the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) is one of the most powerful unions in the country and additional duties MUST be compensated as per contracts. Candy is apparently completely unaware of how public education works in the States. If she wants to prove that IB Coordinators in other countries don't receive additional compensation, happy hunting for a viable citation. Otherwise, IBO's representation that Coordinator positions constitute "ongoing costs" should stand. ObserverNY (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

La mome - it is only linked in this talk section (see above). The page states that the OCC includes(quote),

"IB publications for the three IB programmes (curriculum guides, coordinator notes, and teacher support materials) news items and important information discussion forums for IB teachers to communicate freely with other IB teachers teacher-generated resources—share your own resources with other IB teachers support areas for special educational needs, librarians, academic honesty and calculators online subject specialists (online faculty members) to answer curriculum and assessment queries a real-time chat facility (in the discussion forums)."

Observer NY - You are simply wrong. Follow the link and see that it is public. Could I bring your particular attention to following the discussion and assuming good faith (in that you don't assume I am incompetent or stupid - at least all the time ;) ) --Candy (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein I will admit I am wrong when I am wrong, however in this case, I am not. Here is the link to the IB OCC page: http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/occ/guest/home.cfm

In order to "see" any of the course guides the IBO sells, one must have a log-in. Your statement that such items are available for "free" is simply wrong. This is indicitive of IBO's lack of transparency for those who want to take a look at the syllabi BEFORE buying the IB cow. ObserverNY (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think the online shop is available to all. The OCC is a different animal.

Perhaps the costs for additional duties should be in the USA section, if it is disputed whether these costs are applicable globally?

I expect the IB will accept the Euro when it replaces the Pound Sterling...

I'm sure Candy has some idea of how public education works in the States. Knowing the various clauses of teachers' contracts isn't general knowledge!

Ewen (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Ewan, I have taught it California, Bermuda, England and Austria and I am a teacher and I have taught (and been involved with the pedagogy of) A levels, AP and IB Diploma. --Candy (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We share an Alma Mater too - so much on common! But this means that you should know whether teachers' contracts demand extra payment/time off for additional duties? Ewen (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ewen - The others agreed that linking the IB Store constituted free advertising for IB. Personally, I think the entire article is free advertising for IB, but that's besides the point. I agree that the IB Store link should not be included.

As to the OCC, Candy wrote: Secondly, I linked the OCC which states that the curriculum materials are freely available there. No one talked about violating OCC passwords. I don't know why someone wrote that. I was the one who mentioned the OCC being password protected. I have no idea what LaMome is "agreeing" with Candy on about the OCC.

Candy also wrote: I think that the recent comment about communist countries is written out of ignorance. This is a talk page to improve the article not press someone's political point of view. Please remember this. This was in response to my comment about additional pay for IBC positions in communist countries. I don't need to be lectured by her about being "ignorant" or putting forth a POV when my response was to her claim that teachers don't receive additional pay for IB duties. I tried to put it as delicately as possible. Namecalling is never in the best interest of consensus building. ObserverNY (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Namecalling is never in the best interest of consensus building. ~ObserverNY Coming from someone who called other editors "weenieheads" on this very page, this is kind of ironic, don't you think? Or have you learned your lesson now and changed your ways, ObserverNY?Tvor65 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY - Sorry ObserverNY. I didn't mean to be offensive. I just saw what I consider to be an ignorant statement. I thought I could comment on that without causing offense - after all, I wasn't directing it at a person but at the statement. I don't think I attributed it directly to you either.

On a different tack. Can someone supply a quote from the IB that positions of responsibility have to be paid. That's not my understanding and not what I have ever read in IB materials? (I thought I was asking for this before when I was referring to the "contract" that seemed to be misunderstood as a US teaching contract.) Thanks. --Candy (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Candorwien: It would be very odd if teachers took on additional work without some kind of compensation, wouldn't it? Either extra pay or reduced hours (and therefore extra pay for whoever covers those hours). This would need to be considered when budgeting for running the IBDP.

ObserverNY: The OCC does allow free access to materials such as course guides, so it's not relevant to a discussion of costs. Restricting access to the course guides before a school joins the IBDP is an issue, but not a cost issue. I'm not sure how schools would obtain these materials prior to a decision about joining the IBDP - does anyone?

Tvor65: Yes, it's ironic that ObserverNY raises the namecalling issue; but instead of dragging up past behaviour let's just be satisfied that people are adopting the right ideas ;-)

Ewen (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(copy edit x 3, fingers crossed this will post) Here's the post Candy's referring to, dated June 14:

" As per the source IB DP fees are:

• Application Part A fee
• Application Part B fee
• Annual school fee (includes subscription to online curriculum centre)
• Student Assement fees

Additional costs are difficult to quantify per the source, depending on existing resources, size of the program, etc. I'd like to see the statement re: planning in the cost section taken out because "planning" is ongoing whether a school is IB or not.

,Finally, to be precise the section should be titled "Fees" . Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 15, when I edited the currencies, adding (GBP/CHF/CAD), I deleted some text from the section, because in my view the section is too long, lifting from the source is a copy vio, and repeating from above, the additional costs are hard to quantify. Candy linked to the OCC June 15 which states that the OCC provides "publications" etc...so no need to pay twice for publications. In my view the fee section should indicate (as per the source) application fees, annual fees and assessment fees. These the are fees. The others are variable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - I appreciate the point about compensation but my issue is that when statements are made about extra costs this or extra costs that the issue is that these costs are contrived. In International schools often they start with small numbers of students and depending on the governance of the school the staff often have multiple roles and often are not always fully compensated. However, I wouldn't use this as an argument to remove the issue of compensation as it is my opinion. I have a right to ask for evidence that it is so universally done and to ask for evidence that the IB demand (extra money payments) it in their "contract". Otherwise, I have to assume that the statements were simply fabricated or assumed. I also add that compensation in extra payment is not always the model used but there is also release time (non-teaching time allowance). Or, a combination of the two. It is impossible to quantify as a "norm" throughout schools that offer the Diploma.

Which ever programme(s) a school offers will also mean extra costs depending on the school administrative support model (of which there are many). In some schools the Diploma Coordinator replaces the role of administrators who were there to support other programmes so that there is not necessarily a cost increase to the school. It just appears to me that the costing thing has got unnecessarily trivial and spurious and meant to make the programme sound horrendously expensive and undesirable because of this.

Quality programmes like A levels, AP and Diploma are all always expensive and a cost benefit analysis of each I have never seen (there are incidentals to any programme even if they are not mandated). Usually, the sort of baseline data required to see the effectiveness of any programme can only be done effectively over long periods of time with large enough sample sizes. This sort of data is hard to produce as is the user experience and outcomes (which are also difficult to quantify and are generally anecdotal). Schools, boards and districts are not usually interested in making comparisons between programmes because they would rather spend time and money in improving the effectiveness of the programmes they currently have running. The end result is that a lack of quality data means that comparisons of Diploma, A-Levels, APs, Abitur, Matura etc with respect to quality of the programme, outcomes and cost effectiveness are, imho, simply, on the whole, unsupported contrivances. They can only be compared with factual information.

As someone had pointed out, fees would be much less controversial and far more relevant to a reader. --Candy (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree, Candy; but it is clear that the IB charges are unusually high in some cases. Exam fees are high, annual fees are necessary, training is compulsory and exam papers are not free. I think it's significant and, if we keep it factual, isn't particularly biased against the IB. Like any good salesman, the IB don't go out of their way to advertise their costs either...

Ewen (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - The OCC is only "free" once a school has become an IB school and its cost is included in the annual $9,150 DP membership fee. For anyone who wants to peruse IB material PRIOR to spending $17,000 + training costs, the only option is to PURCHASE the materials through the IB Store. Candy didn't want the IB Store listed because she claimed that was giving "free advertising" to IBO, yet she is insisting that the OCC makes the same information available for free, which it does not! The only way a reader can ascertain the cost of the materials without submitting an application to IBO is through the IB Store. Again, I don't really care if the IB Store is linked or not, but it is an absolute fallacy to claim that the OCC is public domain when it states right on the page that I linked that it is PASSWORD PROTECTED. ObserverNY (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY Please stop saying things about me that are clearly untrue and unsupported. "Candy didn't want the IB Store listed because she claimed that was giving "free advertising" to IBO, yet she is insisting that the OCC makes the same information available for free, which it does not! " This is not true. I have not said this. Get your facts straight! I edited a section out about the store as it wasn't pertinent and there is no evidence that it is. That's all I did.

"The only way a reader can ascertain the cost of the materials without submitting an application to IBO is through the IB Store." This is also clearly YOUR assumption. An interested school could email the IB for more information or go to an interested school's introduction session or ask another IB school.

" .. only "free" once a school has become an IB school" not true. It is available before that. Your assumption again.

Let me also reiterate that the start page of the OCC does not need a login and has information pertinent to this document. This is all I am referring to. The further pages are password protected but the page I linked to clearly states what is within. You don't need to see what on the inside as the contents are written on the outside!!

I have to say I don't find you at all constructive ObserverNY. You seem to just pushing PoV time and time again, not reading comments and misquoting me. --Candy (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

HI Ewan. Just coming back on your last comment. The issue is the IB changes X amount for exam papers, X amount for this, has compulsory training for teachers (a pretty basic idea and if a person is teaching any curriculum without training we should be asking why they are not I think) and that traininng costs X amount. My issues with that are as follows:

1. I have no problem putting in the fees. They are public knowledge and on the IB website.

2. I have no problem with putting in compulsory training (with the caveat that the statement accurately refelcts what the IB states .. and there is a lot of guesswork and incorrect assumptions flying around on this discussion page).

3. I do object to the original research going on in the discussion and being entered on the page. This is against Wikipedia policy. This includes the work on training and how much it costs. It is repeatedly violating Wikipedia policy.

4. When you say the "IB charges are unusually high in some cases". It is not the policy of editors to make these judgments for Wikipedia. Remember that you need to compare like with like and that's really not possible because the different educational systems offer different levels of support and ways of doing things. As a person, you may consider these charges high. That's fine ... but we are supposed to be editing a document. in the most NPOV way we can.

5. Currently it is also clear that at least one current editor of this article has a conflict of interest which is non-constructive and is hindering the development of this article.

--Candy (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? You don't find me constructive? I don't find you constructive, either. I composed a factual Cost section and you've done nothing but nitpick, delete, argue, accuse and attempt to obfuscate facts. I'd say you're the one with the conflict of interest.

The page you linked which I presume is the same one I linked (I can't find yours in this mess), is an introduction. Period. There is NOTHING specific regarding standards or syllabi and NO CONTENTS are written on the outside! Go to the school's introduction session? LOL! You're kidding me, right? School's don't give an "introduction session" to parents until after they are authorized and the horse is in the barn! In my school's case, I made a summer appt. with the Asst. Supt. so I could "see" IB course guides and the textbooks they would be using. Oops! They didn't have them. So then I FOILed the History of the Americas course guide. It took 6 months for the district to produce it!! With AP, if I want to see what will be taught in the course, I can hop right online and pull up each and every course FOR FREE. On my own time, in my nightgown if I wish. I love how you assume that I (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't "need to see what's on the inside". Very IB authoritarian of you. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY You clearly don't want to enter into reasonable discussion. let me set you straight again (even though I have previously quoted what is on the OCC contents page - which is not password protected. You don't need to know standards and syllabi. What on earth is that to do with costs? I'm not kidding you. I just expect you to read and respond to what is written and stop fabricating material anf misquoting me (or more precicely misattributing my quotes. You could start with stop attacking me and start reponding to my statements. Let's, for example start with this one:

======

"Candy didn't want the IB Store listed because she claimed that was giving "free advertising" to IBO, yet she is insisting that the OCC makes the same information available for free, which it does not! " This is not true. I have not said this. Get your facts straight! I edited a section out about the store as it wasn't pertinent and there is no evidence that it is. That's all I did.

Where have I said anything of the sort. Stop this continual bombarding which makes me out to be disruptive and simply answer my response to your allegation. Or is it that you can't because you are just offensive and not constructive? --Candy (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

======

Where have I

Here is another link mentioning $1500 per teacher training costs: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:ZgvIZ9iBlYsJ:www.asainstitute.org/aae/manual/AAE-Grant-Purpose.doc+asainstitute.org+IB+teacher+training&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is NOT original research, this is an actual budgeting and in no way violates Wikipedia policy, but please note, I have not inserted it in the article as I'm sure you'll find SOMETHING else to object to. ObserverNY (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Written while ObserverNY was writing her piece above)

Candorwien: The IB insist on IB-approved training over and above any training teachers might have to meet their national standards, so it is a bit of an issue.

Again, an assumption. I'm sorry but this is a gross generalisation?

The actual cost of the training is hard to pin down and finding out has probably involved some original research. While satisfying to find out, you're correct to say those facts can't be included. It's not clear how far research should be pushed before it becomes 'original'. Including a link to a representative list of courses with costs? Calculating the average cost from that list? At some point we need to draw the line.

Look at the comparable programme sites ... let's say A-Level or AP. It would be fair to say that the IB demands certain levels of teacher training in the IB subjects compared to those systems (I'm not suggesting that these are appropriate world btw). Going further is OR becasue all we are out of the realms of being able to make reasonable training comparisons

I'm not making the judgement about high costs 'for wikipedia'. It's my personal observation and I've not added it to the article page. If there was a source which had researched the matter in a particular country, or globally, then it would be a different matter. I think we ought to include costs, though, and leave judgement to the reader.

Fees are fine. Costs are subjective I feel. perhaps this is wordage? One thing that is clearly missed out by the article as well is online courses. These are substantially lower than ones that involve travel. It's odd that no one has even mentioned these as eLearning is substantially cheaper than point presence. (The workshops are supplied by Triple A and are IB approved as training.)

I think that there has been some very challenging input to this article, but it has resulted in the article becoming better. There are many more referenced facts now, and not just referenced back to the IB but to independent sources. We need to watch matters such as giving undue weight to minority views but it's worth the work. What price freedom?

Agreed.

Conflict of interest isn't the right accusation, either. Certain editors have strong views and have stated them. Obviously they'd like the article to reflect those views, and the challenge is to ensure that their opinions are given their due place if they can be supported with verifiable sources.

Sorry., I have to disagree. Strong views are fine. When the strong views are PPOV there is a point I feel the editors need to take a chill pill.--Candy (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY: I suggest you read about synthesis to see what the problem is. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia is not the place to create a new/better understanding of a subject; it is just a place to summarise and collect our existing knowledge. Some of your research on costs has, in my judgement, overstepped the mark and become 'original research'. It's not bad research, or incorrect, but it isn't eligible for inclusion here.

Ewen (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen, what are you talking about? Everything was FINE after you originally reformatted it. I was FINE with it. TFWOR and Truthkeeper were FINE with it. They added the foreign currency stuff. FINE. They changed it to Fees. FINE. Even LaMome was FINE with it and quite frankly, I am FINE with it AS IT STANDS NOW. I am not insisting the the 1500 average be included, it states travel not included and costs may vary. But I would like you to take a look at all the excess Candy has inserted into the CAS section and be as equally discriminating in what should or should not be included. ObserverNY (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm talking about the costs section 8-)

Ewen (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

June 16 end

Candy I see that you keep removing the reference to stipends for CAS and EE coordinators/supervisors. You disputed that teachers are compensated for this additional workload, but as Ewen pointed out to you, as a former teacher in California, you must be aware that such is the case. In my district, those two positions are awarded an additional $3,500 stipend each - total $7,000 per year. Our IBC receives and additional $9,000. These stipends are over and above the teachers' salaries which are NOT factored in to the cost of offering IB. In the section from the IB source which reflected "supervision" for the EE and CAS which was eliminated, it is clear the IB REQUIRES these positions as part of the programme. If you refuse to include the original list as formatted by Ewen, then at least allow the inclusion of those positions to be mentioned in the ongoing costs section. Your refusal to do so appears to be a deliberate attempt to minimize and obfuscate the costs associated with IB.ObserverNY (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY Find me a citation from the IB that the IBDC must be paid position and I will agree with you. Otherwise, this is not a place for your or my "knowledge" or experience. It's as simple as that. --Candy (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

CandyThe official IB source that is listed in the article, the same one with the list which has been condensed mercilessly, states the following:

􀂃 The position of the Diploma Programme coordinator (at least 25% release time is recommended) 􀂃 The position of the CAS (community, action, service) coordinator So - I will give on the EE Coordinator, but clearly IB requires the creation of DPC and CASC "positions". The issue of compensation is between a district and its teachers, IB has no authority to dictate how much should be paid for these "positions" as it will vary based on the location. We have stated that these costs "may vary". I don't know who inserted the word "stipend", it wasn't me, personally I would prefer the exact IB language above included in the sentence and let readers determine for themselves by checking with their home districts whether creating teaching positions constitutes $0 or $10,000+ ObserverNY (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Comparison to AP

Tvor65 - If you insist on comparing IB to Advanced Placement, at least be accurate about it. AP is not a "Program". College credit at universities is awarded based entirely upon examination results. Although it constitutes "original research", less than 3% (I have revised this figure upwards from my original 1%) of all U.S. universities award credit for IB SL exams, whereas AP is recognized. ObserverNY (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

AP is not a "Program". Really? That's interesting because College Board itself refers to it as such (emphasis mine): "AP is a rigorous academic program built on the commitment, passion, and hard work of students and educators from both secondary schools and higher education. Since 1955, the AP Program has enabled millions of students to take college-level courses and exams, and to earn college credit or placement while still in high school." From http://professionals.collegeboard.com/k-12/assessment/ap.

Although it constitutes "original research", less than 3% (I have revised this figure upwards from my original 1%) of all U.S. universities award credit for IB SL exams. Would you care to share with us where this upper bound comes from? Have you checked with all US universities to verify their policies? Or perhaps you have done some statistical analysis to get this estimate? If not, then sorry, this cannot be called "original research", just a bogus number thrown around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvor65 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65

Hmmm, ok, I give. But then I don't want to hear any nonsense from IB supporters about how IB is superior because it is a "programme" and AP is just a bunch of individual courses/exams. Deal? ;-)

In another forum, an IB supporter arrived at a number of 69 universities in the U.S. after a Google search of "IB SL credit". That's not to say there might not be another handful, but that's the number she came up with after going through 35+ pages of Google. I was able to verify 30 of the claimed 69, but in the interest of cooperation, I'm willing to accept the 69 figure which represents less than 3% of the approx. 2,475 4 yr. institutions in the U.S. ObserverNY (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's all very fascinating, but unless you can provide a link from a valid source stating 3% of US universities give IB SL credit, then it will have to stand at "some," for reasons that were mentioned above. You may be willing to accept the 69 figure from an IB supporter from another forum, but that doesn't sound like a valid verifiable source to me.

La mome (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is, I didn't add that information to the article, however since IB supporters seem to want to continue to insist that "some" universities provide credit for SL courses and repeatedly compare IB as being "equal" to AP, schools, parents and students should be made aware that "some" constitutes a miniscule percentage of all universities and that IB SL courses are NOT considered equal to AP by MOST universities. ObserverNY (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The point is, your claim still remains unsubstantiated. Unless you can provide a link explicitly stating that the IB is inferior because credit for SL exams is awarded at less than 3% of US universities, then the “some” is appropriate. I don’t see why we need to continue this discussion.

As for which program is better, Princeton and Harvard don’t seem to favor one program over another as stated below:

http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/faq/secondary_school_credenti_1/

“How does Princeton regard Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate and other such course work? Is course credit given on the basis of test results? We encourage students to stretch themselves with advanced courses, and we don't favor one program over another. We use the results on these tests as guides for placement in Princeton courses and advanced standing (that is, accelerating progress toward degree completion). Learn more about advanced placement credits at Princeton.”

http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/international/faq.html#31

Does Harvard consider non-required test results, such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, Abitur or GCE A-levels? “Yes. We value predicted A-level and IB results along with any information that helps us form a complete picture of an applicant's academic interests and strengths. However, results from these examinations cannot substitute for our required admissions testing. All applicants must submit the results of the SAT I or ACT as well as three SAT II Subject Tests.”La mome (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed my comment here as I placed it in the wrong section. --Candy (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive #2

Can we archive sections 1-9 ("criticism" through "copied from article") as they date from May and appear to be inactive? La mome (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Job done! Ewen (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ewen! Next time, I'll try to figure out how to do it instead of asking someone else. I am slowly learning the ins and outs of editing. Cheers La mome (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

CAS

A while back someone who identified himself/herself as a student changed the CAS hour requirement from 150 to 180. I linked this http://www.ibo.org/ibaem/conferences/documents/JohnCannings.pdf where it clearly states a minimum of 150 hours during the course of 18 months. Cheers La mome (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm changing the CAS section as there is no 150 hour requirement. This was so until the current academic year but it changed. --Candy (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with eliminating what actually constituted a "standard" (150 hours) of some sort for one of the IB DP's "Core" requirements. It just goes to prove that the 3 Core requirements are the fluff and nonsense part of the DP. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY.- Perhaps read the changes before you add a comment? --Candy (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you made a small novel out of the CAS section, especially since IB students seem to be very proud of being able to "fake" CAS. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=903969 Way too much information. ObserverNY (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There's no need to be sarcastic, everyone!

The CAS section is getting a little long now that it's been updated. The new requirements seem a little harder to express concisely? I'd suggest using the specific page for more detail.

As an aside, it's useful having protagonists in different time zones isn't it? It gives people time to calm down and think before answering. It's a conscious effort to keep civil sometimes but we're managing it more often than not.

Ewen (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Protagonist? Moi? Not a propagandist? Oh that's good, I must be moving up the evolutionary scale. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Candy-The changes you made to the CAS section are fine with me. I think there still is a guideline of a minimum of 150 hours, but as you have said, there is more of a focus on the learning outcomes. La mome (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi la Mome. FYI. The quote from Section 1 page 6 of the guide I referenced is' "This focus on learning outcomes emphasizes that it is the quality of a CAS activity (its contribution to the student’s development) that is of most importance. The guideline for the minimum amount of CAS activity is approximately the equivalent of half a day per school week (three to four hours per week), or approximately 150 hours in total, with a reasonable balance between creativity, action and service. “Hour counting”, however, is not encouraged." --Candy (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To all -

The entire CAS section can be reduced to the following and cut out all of the IB flowery jargon:

CAS

Main article: Creativity, Action, Service

CAS is an acronym for Creativity, Action, Service. Students are required to engage in three roughly equally balanced areas of unpaid activities involving social or community work (Service), participation in sports or physical activities (Action), and initiative in creative or artistic activity (Creativity). The guideline for the minimum amount of CAS activity over the two year programme is approximately 150 hours in total. "Hour counting”, however, is not encouraged. [12]

CAS performance and records are documented by the student using official forms (CAS/AEF Forms) which are retained by the school. CAS/CP forms are submitted to the IB regional offices by 1 May and 1 November. If the Diploma Programme candidate does not complete the requirement within two years, the Diploma will not be awarded, even if all other requirements have been satisfactorily met. [13]

There was redundant/conflicting information re 18 mo/2 yrs and also re non-completers. I would like consensus on the above section, please. ObserverNY (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Candy--I can't seem to open the #12 link for CAS. ObserverNY--What flowery jargon? You cut out the part about the learning outcomes, which is the essence of CAS, not forms and hours. La mome (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

La Mome - You can't open a book reference! It's the CAS curriculum Guide published by the IBO. My understanding is that original sources are quite valid as material in Wikipedia. --Candy (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy--I had no idea (obviously)---thanks for pointing that out! Good to know. So, we can cite the guides that we can access either through the OCC or purchasing at the IB store. Can you take a look at the changes I made in the EE section and add the citation for the current EE guide? I am new to this and have problems citing sources. Cheers La mome (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - My proposed revision for the CAS section does indeed cut out what you call the "learning outcomes" but what I call IB subjective rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims. The aims of CAS are to develop students who are reflective thinkers who understand their own strengths and limitations; who identify goals and devise strategies for personal growth; who are willing to accept new challenges and new roles and are aware of themselves as members of communities with responsibilities towards each other and the environment; who are active participants in sustained, collaborative projects and enjoy and find significance in a range of activities involving intellectual, physical, creative and emotional experiences. This entire passage is full of biased adjectives that are unsubstantiated with any specific sources outside of IB's salespitch. "Reflective, find significance, personal growth, enjoy, new challenges, creative and emotional experiences" - a link to the CAS guide like the EE guide can provide anyone who is interested access to reading these "aims" instead of cluttering up the article with IB educationese. I posted a link in this section from students who claim CAS is a "joke" and how they successfully "faked" the requirement. If you want to leave that section in, then I recommend you locate a source which substantiates the claim. Of course, then I expect to be allowed to include the student opinion which contradicts your claim.

-)ObserverNY (talk) 12

11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - This is not the place to discuss CAS, people who claim to have cheated in their academic studies, the academic integrity of particular students but to discuss improving the article in an encyclopedic way. This is also not a bargaining area or place of tit for tat. --Candy (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein - It's not? Gee, I would have thought a sub-section titled CAS on the discussion page would have been the appropriate place to discuss the CAS portion of the article, but if you can point me to a more appropriate arena, I'm all eyes. Otherwise, I am still awaiting feedback re: my proposed revision to the section as posted above. Since you were the one to insert the flowery "aims" of the component, either defend them with a source which quantitatively confirms IB's "aims", or agree to the revision which factually and more succinctly describes the design of the component. ObserverNY (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since when are you calling the shots here, ObserverNY? I happen to think the CAS section is fine the way it currently is. Others can speak for themselves but I haven't seen anyone else here object to the current wording. You may not like the aims part, and that's too bad, but it accurately describes the goals of the program according to the IBO. Some students will always find a way to game the system and cheat; this does not mean most do, nor does it make CAS and its goals any less meaningful. Candy is right, quit using this discussion page as a platform for your propaganda. I have yet to see any edits of yours that have actually improved the article. Tvor65 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Candy means here is not the place to discuss approval or disapproval of CAS, but to discuss how best to incorporate CAS in an encyclopedic manner. A couple of suggestions to tighten the section: consider moving the sentences re: CAS form submission to the CAS sub-article; consider reworking very long sentence #2. Because the reference is titled "For students graduating in 2010 and thereafter" (in other words students beginning year one of DP now or in the fall), the CAS section must reflect current CAS requirements, aims, and philosophy, with which I agree. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper. "Because the reference is titled "For students graduating in 2010 and thereafter" (in other words students beginning year one of DP now or in the fall)" ... Just to clarify, I understand this to mean students currently in year one of the programme in the Northern Hemisphere (just coming to the end of their first year) and all subsequent students (until the guide changes). I'm "on the run" atm but happy for you to try out some changes to see how it looks and others respond if you want to. (Nothing ventured nothing gained). :) --Candy (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi ObserverNY You can either tag the part you are not happy with for a cite or delete it. I will, however, when I have time in the next few days, put an appropriate cite on. You've read the WP guidelines so you know what is appropriate. --Candy (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

CAS hours can always be falsely reported anyway. I know a few classmates who did precisely 0 YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So true, YellowMonkey. However, IB advocates seem to think CAS merits a mini-tome's worth of description in the article. Since they finally put the IB language in quotes, I'll not fight it any further. Intelligent people can sift through the IB rhetoric and discern the truth. ObserverNY (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Verification

Much of the above conversation can be avoided by adhering to WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCE. Regarding fees: ObserverNY found a good source for fees. However, the document only needs summarisation. Anything not supported in that document (teacher training, IB coordinator, online curriculum centre) must either be referenced (via a different source) or not included in the article. Regarding WP:SOURCE : each source must be assessed as per source policies and requirements. Also, when adding references/sources it's helpful to add a page number in long documents such as the one that's currently linked in the EE section. I'll clean up ref syntax as needed to add to the quality of the inline citations and footnotes in the article. In my view sticking to the policies makes everything much less murky. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Truthkeeper. So, if I understand correctly, the OCC homepage should be included as it is mentioned in the document on fees, but obviously not clear as to its purpose and rights to access for some people. The teacher training costs vary from school to school, so assigning a random average is not accurate. I think the OCC home page should be linked after "educational resources" and the last line should read as follows: "Additional ongoing costs will vary and may include teacher professional development at IB workshops, the position of the Diploma Programme coordinator (at least 25% release time is recommended), Extended Essay supervision, educational resources and postage for examination mailings[32]" The IBC does not have to be a teacher and can be an administrator who assumes the duties of IBC. 25% release time is recommended---not required. La mome (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you came to that conclusion about including the OCC page, Truthkeeper never mentioned OCC ObserverNY (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

PS--the document in the EE section is an outdated EE guide. This violates copyright as all guides are found on the OCC (password protected) or at the IB Store. The EE section needs some serious updating. La mome (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - It (IB EE guide) is posted on a school's website and if it violates "copyright" then the onus is on the school, not Wikipedia. Furthermore, you have no proof that any portion of the EE requirements have changed and therefore it cannot be "outdated". ObserverNY (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

For example, re: teacher training, I chose this random document. The hotel cost is stated, as are transportation and food costs. One could add all the costs based on such a source and come to a conclusion: but it's a tricky business. How much does the plane ticket cost? Does the attendee need airfare? Does the attendee need hotel accommodation? Will the attendee arrive late or early? Too many variables make using such sources problematic. The source currently linked to teacher workshops has no cost/fee in the document, so it should be replaced with another.

Regarding OCC: the online curriculum centre is mentioned in this document and thus there doesn't seem to be a problem to use the link Candy provided on June 14? or June 15?.

If the reference in the EE section does not adhere to the policies for WP:SOURCE then it's best to avoid using it. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Either Candy or I will post the reference for the NEW EE guide, unless you would rather do that yourself, ObserverNY? Linking the reference to the hardcopy of the guide does not violate copyright, according to Candy. La mome (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, without the discussion it would have flown below the radar -- but I've pulled this source to add currency info for consistency and noted the source is only for IB North America. In my view, the source must reflect the subject of the article, i.e. International Baccalaureate, rather than one specific region. Perhaps there's another source? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - Since IBO claims that its programmes represent an "international standard", it shouldn't matter whether the documentation was issued for IBNA or the Asia-Pacific region - the "programmes" and elements thereof, are supposed to be the same. ObserverNY (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HI ObserverNY. I seem to be unfamiliar with the IB claiming that its programmes "represent an "international standard"". Could you supply the source of your quote so I can read and consider what you are saying please? I'm also confused as to why a parochial comment should be accepted as an internationally encompassing comment because it is about an international organisation? From my own recent experience KFC is pretty horrible for me in Cairo but I find it excellent in Shanghai. Do you think either of my experiences should be taken as representative of all KFC franchises around the world? I don't. So, in order to help me understand what you mean could you explain how your comment above should relate to the entire IB Diploma programme? Thanks. --Candy (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Candy - the following is an official IBO "action kit" for educational leaders which addresses all three IB programmes globally: . On page two you will find the following: The three programmes help schools to: Add international perspectives to their academic offerings - Measure teaching and learning against an international standard . I can also provide you with numerous press releases which tout the same, but I thought you would prefer an official IBO statement. ObserverNY (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It would have surely made more sense to have said that it allows a standard to be applied internationally. --Candy (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy - With all due respect, the only reason we are discussing this is because Truthkeeper questioned the citing of an IBNA document vs. one which represents IB globally. I am presenting the "action kit" as evidence that IBO represents its three programmes as "a measure of teaching and learning against an international standard", that international standard being the IB programmes! Ergo, a Vade Mecum for EE or CAS by IBNA should be absolutely the same as a Vade Mecum for the Mid East or Asia Pacific or Europe. You said you were "unfamiliar" with IBO claiming its programmes "represent an international standard". While the implementation of IB programmes in various schools may indeed vary greatly based on the quality of the teachers and administrations just like the various cooks at the KFC's you have visited vary in quality and talent, both organizations work off of an "original recipe". It is IB's "original recipe" that I seek to accurately portray in the Wikipedia article. IB is topheavy with rules and regulations, we haven't even addressed the student's intellectual property which IBO claims "absolute control" over once a student has submitted work to IBO for assessment. Transparency, or lack thereof, is something which I may want to add a section on. I'll have to think about it.. ObserverNY (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflicts) Hi ObserverNY: I asked about this source because, for consistency, the article should indicate each currency for the various fees, but the IB North America source only shows USD amounts so it's useless for other currencies as a source. Do you know whether another source exists showing the annual fees in each currency? If so, we'll replace sources; otherwise we'll leave as is for now. Cheers.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY-The Handbook of Procedures (no longer called the vade mecum) is issued from Cardiff. There is no such thing as one from IB Americas (no longer IBNA) and one from each of the other regions. Truthkeeper clarified nicely why the fees document was pulled, so I hope you understand now what the article needs in terms of referencing documentation of costs. I am curious to see the proof you provide that IB (no longer IBO) has absolute control over intellectual property. I hope you will post it here before you try to incorporate it into the article, along with your thoughts on transparency, to avoid embarassing yourself any further.

La mome (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I suppose the entire article on IBO must be deleted and rewritten since NONE of the original IBO/IB terminology/legal organization is valid, eh?

Truthkeeper I guess I misunderstood you because your comment followed LaMome's reference to the EE citation. No, I don't have another reference at this time, sorry. Perhaps you might want to include a monetary conversion site? ObserverNY (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(trying again) I've cleaned the fees/cost section and sorted out the references & sources. Currently no source has been provided to cite application fees in currencies other than USD so I've left as is for now. The workshop source does not provide fee information so I've pulled it for now. Yes, in fact, I referred to the source in the cost flying below the radar, but not to worry because it's all sorted out for now. (Here's hoping I can post without an edit conflict) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper I have added an IB workshop link which addresses every region and every currency. The cost of the workshops can be determined by clicking on each individual workshop. I feel that the way you minimized and obfuscated this cost by eliminating the "$595 to $1039, not including travel and course materials" (which is by far the greatest cost to schools that buy IB), is not being entirely honest. Furthermore, IB teacher training is NOT an option, it is a requirement as spelled out in the Application forms which is why I changed "may be" to "are". ObserverNY (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY--what on earth are you talking about? Could you please fill in the gaps where your line of reasoning leaps from one document not being current to the entire article being deleted and rewritten?

La mome (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You're the one nit-picking over IBO vs IB, IBNA vs. IB Americas, it seems to me that if you want to be so picayune then the article titled "International Baccalaureate Organization" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Baccalaureate should be retitled or pulled. ObserverNY (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - With respect, it seems much of your information is out-of-date and you misuse what you do have in order to PPOV or make grandiose suggestions such as renaming this article or rewriting it. Please try to be constructive in improving this article. Thanks --Candy (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Teacher Training & ongoing costs

Hi ObserverNY. I made an interim edit to the cost section until a verifiable source is located. Must an applicant school send all teachers and administrators to training, or only those who have not previously received IB training? This document states, on page 6, that an applicant school shall Register a vanguard of teachers/administrators to attend IB workshops for teachers new to the DP which, in my view, is more precise. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper. That's a great source. I would like to direct your attention to pg. 12 which states: Continuous training & conferences - As detailed above, schools need to provide for continual professional development for Diploma Programme teachers and administrators beyond the initial training stage. So whether a teacher has previous IB training in another district (highly unlikely, but I suppose a remote possibility), they are still expected to partake in ongoing training. So in your example, let's say a teacher is hired who had Level I IB DP training. Wouldn't that teacher then be required to get Level II and Level III? I do believe the school is also required to send representation to the annual IB Conferences in July for their region which is a hefty expense. (you know, those IB love-fests where the DG's get to bash me for standing up for individuality and national sovereignty?) ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Perhaps another member in the discussion group has a clear answer? Check the region -- which I think is Africa and Europe. I'd venture if the region has a preponderance of International Schools, then why not hire a fully IB trained staff member? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - If a school is seeking authorization for IB, most of its teachers are already on board and therefore MOST of its teachers would not have had IB training. If the school happens to have an opening and happens to be able to hire a teacher who already had IB training, that's great, but insignificant in the overall cost of teacher training merely reducing the cost by $1,500-$1,800. This figure is negligible when a school is spending an average of $60-80,000 a year to train its teachers. ObserverNY (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hi ObserverNY - You seem to be stuck entirely in the idea that this article is IB Diploma in the USA. I feel you need to take a broader perspective.

You would need to substantiate your claim about a school being required to send representation to the annual IB conferences. Hefty is a weasel word as well. Try not to use these as they don't support arguments.

I can see where you are pushing for a teacher to go to different levels of training. I think that you should be glad that an organisation supplies differentiated training based on teacher experience. All too often it is one size fits all. To my mind you lose credibility by pushing this "training is expensive" issue because you seem to be massaging the limited data you have to "prove" something beyond the scope of this article.

Truthkeeper - If a school is seeking authorization for IB, most of its teachers are already on board and therefore MOST of its teachers would not have had IB training. I don't see what you are trying to say here tbh ObserverNY. You make two assumptions. The first is that most of its tecahers are already onboard (which has one of those weasel words again). How do you arrive at this statement and can you verify it? Or are you just making it up? Secondly, that MOST of its teachers would not have had IB training is another big assumption in the same vein as the first. Also, please refer to it as DIploma Training or DP Training. IB training is ambiguous as it refers to all three programmes.

(you know, those IB love-fests where the DG's get to bash me for standing up for individuality and national sovereignty?) ;-) I see you are trying to be funny. However, I don't know what a love-fest is, a DG is, why they would be bashing you (I'm certain they don't read Wikipedia and have better things to do than discuss its edits or editors) ? Better you don't explain, just try to keep to the discussion please? --Candy (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A DG is a Director General. I was referring to George Walker and his plenary speech from 2005 in which he attacked me based on Jay Mathews' representation of my views in his book Supertest, Chapter 45. I will search for official IB language which requires an IB school administrator to attend the annual conference. It exists, I just haven't searched for it yet. IB regularly monitors my website http://truthaboutib.com/breakingnewsopinions.html and online comments so I wouldn't be surprised if Tvor65 actually works for IB. I have provided you with my real identity, I am not hiding behind an anonymous moniker. Whatever my opinion of the IB program is, it has nothing to do with the presentation of facts in the article. A fact is a fact.

I'm not going to explain to you what a "love-fest" is, nor do I appreciate your condescending attitude. I am not the one who sells three levels of 3 day IB training, IB is. It is not my fault that in many cases, IB training is not held anywhere near the location of the IB schools and involves airfare, hotels, meals and rental cars in addition to the IB fee. It is a fact. Go through the list of IB workshops. This expense affects countries all over the world, not just the U.S. Now, IB has just this year created online training. I have no objection to adding a line which references this new option. ObserverNY (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY. It seems you have put a lot of issues and admitted that you are biased against the IB on the table. This only reinforces exactly how your comments read. However, I am not here to attack or defend the IB. I am trying to do my job as an editor. If you keep on saying things that don't make sense to me I will question them - you do want me to try to understand what you are saying don't you? I don't use the phrase DG and this is the first time I have read it. I know who George Walker is. I don't care about and issues between you and him as I don't think it applies to this article. If I even knew what DG meant why would I think George Walker? He's not the Director General of the IB! If you think that asking for clarification is condescending then you are not going to get on with many editors in Wikipedia.--Candy (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein It doesn't matter whether I love or hate IB, that is completely irrelevant. The purpose of the Wikipedia article is to present accurate facts. The entire issue regarding the DG arose when I initially was trying to have TAIB included as a link and established my identity. I have no control over whether you remember that discussion or not. It was not your question about what does a DG stand for that I found condescending, but rather: "Hefty is a weasel word as well. Try not to use these as they don't support arguments". Hefty is a perfectly legitimate adjective and I don't appreciate you calling it a "weasel" word. Your implication is that I am a weasel for using it, and I find that highly offensive.

Truth cannot be biased. Facts cannot be biased. However, omission of pertinent facts or presentation of only those facts which make something look good is bias. ObserverNY (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY It really would help if you went and read the Wiki guidelines and explanatory pages. Then you would know that "weasel words" is a normal phrase used throughout Wikipedia to describe the use of language which gives undue emphasis with out supporting evidence. --Candy (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If I had used adjectives such as onerous, outrageous, prohibitive, budget-busting, userous etc, in the article, then your application of the term "weasel word" would have been appropriate. The word hefty, meaning "of considerable size or amount", is accurate, not inflammatory, and is most certainly applicable in the discussion portion of the article. If I had inserted the word "hefty" into the article, then your directions to me could be considered perspicacious, but since I did not, I merely consider them picayune. Please respond to my comment to you regarding the IBC and CASC positions instead of lecturing me about Wiki guidelines.ObserverNY (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Click on this policy WP:WEASEL to read about the usage of weasel words on Wikipedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - Do I need to say, "DUH"? I read the "guidelines". They refer to the use of "weasel words" within the context of an article NOT as related to an editor's language on a discussion page. If you read the discussion here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_words you will also note there appears to be lack of consensus on the guideline itself in addition to objections to those Wiki editors who choose to toss out this particular phrase as Candy did. ObserverNY (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Certificates

I would like Tvor65 to please stop vandalizing the Certificate section in which it was stated "IB Certificates are grade reports which reflect the final grade (1-7) a student earns upon completion of the course and exam." This is NOT an opinion, this is a FACT. Tvor65's obsessive desire to conceal this FACT shows that he/she is not operating in good faith by repeatedly deleting a fact without discussion.

However, adding the sentence about how Certificate students don't have to take TOK or do the EE is ridiculous and unnecessary. They don't have to get their driver's license either, now do they? TOK and EE are listed as core components of the full Diploma. Adding that sentence under Certificates is completely unnecessary. ObserverNY (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This is a statement of the obvious. Everybody knows what a certificate is. Maybe we should also define what a "student" means? Really, stop being ridiculous. You are the one continuously vandalizing the article and someone who is clearly obsessed with it.Tvor65 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that I have explained repeatedly when I edited why I did it, whereas you just keep inserting the phrase back, not bothering to explain why. You are clearly obsessed with inserting this trivial statement which adds absolutely nothing to the article and sounds kind of stupid. As for certificate students not having to satisfy the other requirements, this is actually an important piece of information, as some people do assume that everyone taking IB classes must also participate in CAS and do EE. Mind you, this was not even something I wrote but I agree with whoever wrote it that it belongs in the article. So far, you seem to be the only one unhappy with it.Tvor65 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Tvor65, everyone does NOT know what an IB Certificate is. The clarification that an IB Certificate is a grade report (which is issued whether one passes or fails the course/exam, but THAT is stating the obvious when one has already included the 1-7 range, any moron can figure that out because it is previously stated that IB considers a '4' as passing) and not something one would think one would only obtain if they PASSED the exam/course. You have no justification for removing that sentence. ObserverNY (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict) Oh, okay, everyone BUT YOU always knew what it is. But now you know as well - so you have no justification to put it back in. Here is a definition for you from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/certificate:

cer·tif·i·cate (sr-tf-kt) n. 1. A document testifying to the truth of something: a certificate of birth. 2. A document issued to a person completing a course of study not leading to a diploma. 3. A document certifying that a person may officially practice in certain professions. 4. A document certifying ownership.

Clearly, both first and second definitions are applicable here. People all over the world get certificates of participation in various events and courses (not to mention birth and marriage certificates) - what's the big deal? Tvor65 (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The source used to verify the statement about the grade reports is this document. A search of the document shows only one sentence about certificate students: "All students are encouraged to follow the full Diploma Programme. Those who fail to satisfy the entire set of requirements or who elect to take fewer than six subjects are awarded a certificate for examinations completed." Any statement in the article has to be verified via a source, so the wording, currently as is in the article should be different, or a different source found. BTW -- when a pdf document like this source is used, providing page numbers is required. Cheers. It's taken two edit conflicts to post the above statement. Will respond the newer posts separately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper Hmmm, I understand your reference to what IB "says" regarding "All students being encouraged to follow the full Diploma", but that is simply a lie when it comes to most American IB schools. Only the tiniest percentage of students are full DP in general public HSs. Surely you don't dispute the fact that an IB Certificate is a grade report? It is NOT presented that way to American parents. In most non-IB cases, you don't get a certificate or a diploma if you FAIL the requirements! Heck, you can't get a Death Certificate if you're still alive or a Birth Certificate if you have an abortion! Instead, an IB Certificate is billed as an "honor" or at the very least, "something worthy of recognition". If, which it is, nothing more than a "certificate of participation no matter how badly you participated" (now THAT's a POV!)then can we please just state it in a factual manner without POV so that people understand it for what it is?

P.S. - Nice flags. ;-) I'm not so crazy about that TOK chart though, it makes the page look unbalanced and gives extra weight to TOK in the article. ObserverNY (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What a load of nonsense! What about the definition above ("a document issued to a person completing a course of study not leading to a diploma") you find so hard to understand? It is very common in the US for students to get certificates of participation in a competition (one does not have to win anything) or completion of a course of study (which has nothing to do with "passing" an exam) - all that is required is to participate or to complete the course (in this case, take the exam and get a grade). Whatever personal misunderstanding you may have had (which is rather bizarre, I have to say), it does not mean most people interpret it the way you do. So please stop vandalizing the article by inserting this nonsense.Tvor65 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, again)

I added the flags, but not the TOK chart.

As for the certificate, another opinion (such as Candy's or Ewen's or La Mome's) would be helpful. I don't quite understand your reasoning, and keep in mind, anything in the article has to be verified.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll e-mail Ewen to get him to pop in on this point. I'm not sure what you don't understand but let me attempt to clarify. In a regular U.S. HS course, if you fail the course/final exam, you don't get a "certificate" - you get a report card. You either have to repeat the course the next year if it is a core requirement, or you don't receive credit for it. You don't get to graduate HS with a regular diploma for "participating", yet failing. Without clearly stating that an IB Certificate is an actual grade report issued by IB, the "assumption" by every parent that I've ever spoken with is that a student only gets an IB Certificate if they PASS the course/exam. I will search for other documentation of this fact, but it is a fact which people like Tvor65 clearly want supressed because it lays bare some of IB's bloviated rhetoric surrounding its programmes. One really isn't a "Certificate Candidate" if they get a Certificate automatically, as long as they pay the exam fee. Every student who takes a stand-alone IB Certificate course is a Certificate Recipient, even if they scored a 1, 2 or 3. This is in contrast to the term "Diploma Candidate" which is legitimate because there are students who don't EARN the IB Diploma and don't make it into the category of Diploma Recipients. ObserverNY (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

From the IB Vade Mecum:pg. 6 http://hanover.k12.va.us/ahs/dept/IB/IBO_General_Regulations.doc - "Certificate Candidates will receive a certificate indicating the results attained in individual subjects." In the past, you have objected to using verbatim language, therefore I see no reason why inserting 1-7 to clarify those are possible results would be a problem. Clarifying that the Certificate is a grade report, is supported by this statement. ObserverNY (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Actually, I think La mome first pointed out that the sentence is stating is obvious, as per the article history:

(cur) (prev) 00:19, 17 June 2009 La mome (talk | contribs) (38,557 bytes) (→Certificates: "Certificate is a grade report" is stating the obvious---do we have a source---or is this really necessary?) (undo)

Tvor65 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... By definition (see above), certificate and report card are the same thing in this context. US students and their parents are in fact very familiar with the concept of a certificate as they get those all the time. ObserverNY, as usual, is making an issue where there is not one in order to push her POV.Tvor65 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Grade report and report card are North American educational terminology. You won't find them outside the US except in International Schools that follow a US curriculum. Best not use them. --Candy (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Candy. I want everyone to understand why this is an issue for me. IB schools in the United States are deliberately misrepresenting what IB Certificates are. In school generated IB handbooks or FAQs, parents and students are told that students must PASS the IB exam in order to receive an IB Certificate: pg. 10 - http://www.sanjuan.edu/files/47160/IB%20Handbook.pdf This is simply untrue. The Certificate is issued by IB, regardless of whether a student passes or fails the exam. I am open to the sentence being changed to: "An IB Certificate is issued to a student at the end of the IB course/exam regardless of the score" or something similar, but I feel it is incumbent upon Wikipedia to accurately portray IB's definition of a Certificate. Cheers ObserverNY (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - I am fine with the sentence as follows: "An IB Certificate stating the final grade (1-7) is issued to students upon completion of each Diploma course. [21] I removed the word "successful" as it is an unnecessary descriptor and because failure does not equal success. ObserverNY (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm happy with that change too ObserverNY. However, although I understand your annoyance with possible misrepresentation by US schools of the Diploma Qualifications we cannot enter into changes in this article because it is out of the role of our jobs as editors. The source you cite is clearly one which does not represent the current information delivered by the IB and is quite out of date. If you have a problem with what the school is representing and you are certain that you are correct then you could politely email the Head of the School or someone on the school board to point out where there may be potential inaccuracies. I noted that the document was created and last modified in August 2007 - the Diploma has changed considerably since then (for many reasons but also because of the curriculum review cycle).

I also have to be clear that the terminology being used to discuss the DIploma Programme must be quite precise otherwise it becomes nonesense. You say above that: The Certificate is issued by IB, regardless of whether a student passes or fails the exam. However, this is not what happens. A student who sits a DIploma subject and fulfills all the requirements of the subject (for instance that submits a portfolio of Art work for Art and has done the necessary amount of science practical work) and sits the exam - regardless of the outcome of the exam - will receive a Certificate with their grade. There is no pass or fail of certificates. So, students do not "pass or fail examinations". However, (and I need to check this) I believe that if they fail to submit certain necessary parts of the work (and this may mean not attending one or more exam) they will not receive a certificate. The only thing that students pass or fail is the Diploma itself. --Candy (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy - I am glad we have been able to reach consensus on the line in Certificates. I agree with you 100% that students are issued an IB Certificate, "regardless of whether a student passes or fails the exam" -- "there is no pass or fail of Certificates". That was exactly the point of the clarification. However, students do pass or fail the exams, it is so stated in the article that IB considers a '4' passing. ObserverNY (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY. Which article are you referring to that mentions pass or fail of certificates and a 4 is a pass? I don't know of one. If you are referring to the sanjuan.edu document it is not from the IB and therefore not a valid source. --Candy (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy I was quoting your response to me, not any article when I said I agree 100% that students are issued an IB Certificate "regardless of whether a student passes or fails the exam". Those were your words. Please see above. As to the '4' being considered passing, in the article, under Diploma Conditions, right above Certificates, it states: IB considers a 4 a passing grade, however a student may earn the IB Diploma and still have 1 HL failing grade and 2 SL failing grades. While IB may award a Certificate regardless of the score, certainly colleges use the IB '4' as the 'passing' standard equivalent to an AP '3' when basing their credit policies for advanced exams. ObserverNY (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY.

1. I believe that the statement : students are issued an IB Certificate "regardless of whether a student passes or fails the exam" are your words. I was quoting you. This means that you seem to have quoted me as the originator when in fact I was quoting you.

2. You say, As to the '4' being considered passing, in the article, under Diploma Conditions, right above Certificates, it states: IB considers a 4 a passing grade, however a student may earn the IB Diploma and still have 1 HL failing grade and 2 SL failing grades. Which article is this? Just give me the reference or link. There are lots of articles linked and I want to know which one you are referring to?

3. Furthermore, (continuing 2 above) the quote you may be using is possibly from the Diploma conditions. Let me reiterate. There is no pass or fail on a certificate as far as I understand from the IB (please show me a quote about certificates if you have one - NOT Diploma). There is a pass and fail on the Diploma. Failing the Diploma does not mean you pass or fail certificates. --Candy (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are exhausting me with your word games. When I refer to the article, I am referring to THE article we are discussing on the IB Diploma. I gave you specific directions as to where the line was located in the article. Since you seem to prefer directing me all over Wikipedia instead of reading back through our actual discussion, here is what you said: A student who sits a DIploma subject and fulfills all the requirements of the subject (for instance that submits a portfolio of Art work for Art and has done the necessary amount of science practical work) and sits the exam - regardless of the outcome of the exam - will receive a Certificate with their grade. There is no pass or fail of certificates. So, students do not "pass or fail examinations". However, (and I need to check this) I believe that if they fail to submit certain necessary parts of the work (and this may mean not attending one or more exam) they will not receive a certificate. The only thing that students pass or fail is the Diploma itself. --Candy (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC) - I was quoting YOU. So don't try and twist it around to absolve yourself of any responsibility for what you wrote. It is ridiculous beyond the pale to assert that there is no score which IB considers passing on its exams, be they taken as stand-alone courses or within the context of the full diploma. A '4' is passing. This of course, has nothing to do with Certificates as they are issued whether a student passes or fails the IB exam. ObserverNY (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Candy quoted in italics from your own words from your post (posted 12:04, 21 June) directly above hers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I see that part, but that was not the part of her quote that I quoted!This is a ridiculous back and forth. As far as I'm concerned, the wording in the Certificate section is fine. I agreed with her statement that "There is no pass or fail of certificates".-Candy but disagree with her statement which included a partial quote of my statement"So, students do not "pass or fail examinations".-Candy Capice? Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - stop calling me a HER. I have not revealed my gender. Please stop being sexist. --Candy (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! Oh brother, I mean sister, I mean, oh forget it, from now on I'll just call you IT. Is that PC enough for you? ObserverNY (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

>>ObserverNY You need to stop your personal attacks on me. You must assume good faith and treat me as an editor with respect. --Candy (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines

Suggestion: following WP:TALK is helpful to facilitate the discussion on the IB Diploma Programme talk page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - would you please recommend the proper procedure to follow when an editor repeatedly reverts changes in the article without responding to discussion on the changes on the Talk page? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yeah, like when ObserverNY repeatedly reverted the certificates portion to insert the obvious statement that certificate is a grade report before there was any discussion of this trivial fact on the talk page? Or when she keeps reverting the fees page to fit her idea of the costs, repeatedly disregarding the fact that schools do not have to have separate people serving as CAS or EE coordinators if (as is often the case) the DP coordinator takes on these responsibilities? (All IB is requiring is that someone supervises the program, including the CAS and EE parts of it - they don't care if it's one person, three or ten - it is up to each IB school how it distributes these responsibilities, so it is - what's the ObserverNY's favorite word? - ah, disingenuous - to keep inserting these as two separate coordinator positions as if every school is obliged to do it this way.) Oh, and most of the time she does not even bother to explain her edits in the little edit summary box, let alone on the talk page. I am so glad, ObserverNY, that you have decided to check what the proper procedure is for your actions. That's a first step toward recovery, and it's about time.Tvor65 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY As you don't seem to have read the WP:TALK then I will point out one place for you to potentially resolve your issue: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This is clearly marked inside WP:TALK. I have to inform you that following your recent comments to me and going back over page histories I find that the comments and edits you are making are not in the spirit of Wikipedia. You have revealed to me that you run a site advocating anti-IB viewpoints. That is your prerogative. But sadly, you seem to be under the impression that these views are appropriate here on this page. If you continue to be disruptive, antagonistic, lack good faith (you have now attacked me more than once with rude comments) and uncommunicative (you have not responded to several of my questions) then I will have to ask for more NPoV editors to come into this discussion. I am certain that they will not accept the way you have treated your fellow editors. Play nicely from now on please and there will be no need to do this. I assure you that this is an appropriate and common way to deal with editors who lack the civility to work towards the stated Wikipedia Common Goals. --Candy (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy - I certainly apologize if I failed to answer any of your questions or if you feel as though I attacked you. By the same token, there have been instances where you have attacked me and voraciously defended a pro-IB POV(CAS)without adequate citations or documentation. Let's move forward without insults or attacks. Tvor65 is an antagonist from another forum and arrived on the Wikipedia scene with the intent of causing trouble and trying to negate any additions I might make to the article. Based on our recent consensus on Certificates, I believe we can work together to improve the article. ObserverNY (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY. Simply please edit appropriately. That will be sufficient for me. Also, please tell me what evidence you need for me to back up any of my statements about CAS and I will supply it. Also, please stop poisoning the well against Tvor65 and calling me pro-IB. Assume good faith. This is not helping anyone to support your edits or opinions and is irrelevant to the discussion. Thanks --Candy (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy - The CAS section lacks a citation for the long second sentence which describes the "aims". ObserverNY (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The aims of the CAS portion of the program can be found in the CAS guide published by the IB: http://www.aacps.org/aacps/oldmhs/PDFs/Cas%20guide%202008.pdf (see p.5) Not sure what is the proper way to cite this guide but it's in there.Tvor65 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, this guide was already in the references, so I inserted the citation.Tvor65 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy, Tvor65 and Truthkeeper---For what it's worth, I like the recent improvements you have made to the IB DP page, inlcuding, but not limited to the addition of the flags, the TOK/EE matrix and the re-editing of the CAS section. I think the inclusion of the aims is important in capturing the true spirit of CAS. Cheers! La mome (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

UCAS tariffs/UK section

It would appear that the point awards on the UCAS table have changed for 2009. I don't want to mess up the html - but here is my source: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4360839/IB-Diploma-and-the-IB-Certificates-IB-Diploma-revised Would someone who is more adept at formatting please make the revision? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Okay, reading the UK section, it needs to be completely re-written based on the revised table. It can no longer be claimed that a 45 on the Diploma scores more UCAS points than the 6 A-Levels - they are now equal at 720. I would like to suggest that someone from the UK or thereabouts perform the edits because I will be accused of doing it with a POV.ObserverNY (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since no one responded, I inserted the new UCAS table with UCAS links for documentation. I did not touch the incredibly biased UK "overview" which touts the IB Diploma's expansion and denegrates the A-Levels, but fails to cite the political reasons (Tony Blair's IB push) for the dramatic increase in IB in the UK, nor the subsequent change of political opinion held by Ed Balls. The downgrading of the IB Diploma on the UCAS tariff for 2010 clearly reflects the shift in political opinion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The change in the UCAS tariff reflects no such thing. It's a relatively minor adjustment, not a wholesale re-vamp.

Ewen (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A better source is this one: UCAS tariffs and notes

Ewen (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - I believe that is the same source I used in the article, not the link above. Don't you consider the addition of the Certificate table and a 48 drop in the IBD 45 score significant? ObserverNY (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - we are editors. We have a specific purpose. You seem to have made a valid change. Just drop the political angle and get on with improving the article rather than trying to get some political mileage out of it. If you can't get with the idea of Wikipedia take a break please. --Candy (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy - as an editor, I see political proIB bias evident in the UK section. Perhaps I should highlight the particular sentences with ? I added the new table without touching the politically biased overview to allow editors from the UK an opportunity to take responsibility for that section on their own. Drop the condescending lecturing and show some intellectual honesty. ObserverNY (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - the Certificate table is interesting, as it compares IB Certificates directly with single-subject qualifications such as A-levels.

The 48-point drop is from 768 to 720 at the very top end of the grade scale. That's an adjustment of 6.7%. Not exactly enormous. At the other end of the scale the drop is from 260 to 240 - 8.3%.

Even with the drop, UCAS rate the IBDP as equivalent to three subjects studied at slightly-better-than-A-level standard, plus three subjects at slightly-better-than-AS-level standard, plus a core curriculum equivalent to a further A-level. Very few students would achieve this standard if they took an A-level programme. (When students do achieve this number of A-levels, it tends to make the news: [2]

Ewen (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace old table with new, unless the existing table is still relevant.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, it is relevant for 2009, but I would think those students have already applied long ago to university. However, based on the fact that on the new UCAS table, a 45 DP = 6 A's in A-Levels (720) I would like revisions on the language in the overview to include the removal of all the "more"s and "better"s. I can counteract each and every one of those "opinion" newstories with others that show contradictory evidence. Again, I am asking a UK editor to neutralize the narrative so that it does not attempt to portray IB as superior to the A-Levels. Also, there is no need to include the last sentence about TOK, CAS and EE not being in the A-Levels. ObserverNY (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY