Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 4

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)

arbitary break

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)

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

"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

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

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

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

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)

arbitrary break

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

arbitrary break

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

arbitrary break

(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)

arbitrary break

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)

ObserverNY You have still not responded to the fact you have quoted me as talking about the OCC giving "free advertising". However, I have said nothing of the sort. La Mome made this comment. Have you read my earlier comment or are you just ignoring your mistakes. IT makes me feel you are uncommunicative and avoiding correcting your own mistakes. Thanks. --Candy (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I was adding section breaks Candorwein's comment above is hard to find, so I'm indicating where it is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

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)