真道並非authorized IB school, 高中無可能考到認可IB証書??????IB authorizatio

LungWai

I just checked with the IB organization [url=<click here>]http://www.ibo.org/[/url] website.

IB has 3 different programs:
Primary Years Program
Middle Years Program
Diploma Program

When I searched the searchable school directory, LOGOS is not in the list. Only the following 6 schools (CIS is allowed to provided both MYP and Diploma) are authorized to provide IB courses:

-------------------------------------------

School Directory - Results

The following 7 schools have been found.
To sort the results into a different order, click on the appropriate  symbol.



        
   Code
    Name
    Program
    Region
    Country
    Boarding
facilities
    Coed
    Legal
status

0637 Chinese International School  DIPLOMA IBAP HONG KONG-SAROC DAY BOTH  PRIVATE
5298 Chinese International School (CIS)  MYP IBAP HONG KONG-SAROC DAY BOTH  PRIVATE
0514 French International School  DIPLOMA IBAP HONG KONG-SAROC DAY BOTH  PRIVATE
7151 Kingston International School  PYP IBAP HONG KONG-SAROC DAY BOTH  PRIVATE
0638 Li Po Chun United World College of Hong Kong  DIPLOMA IBAP HONG KONG-SAROC BOARDING BOTH  PRIVATE
1206 Sha Tin College  DIPLOMA IBAP HONG KONG-SAROC DAY BOTH  PRIVATE
1225 Yew Chung International School - Hong Kong  DIPLOMA IBAP HONG KONG-SAROC DAY BOTH  PRIVATE

------------------------------------

Nor is LOGOS on the waiting list.

But I would not worry a bit.  The school is new, many new schools claiming to provide IB courses (like Australian International School) are not on the list also.  Since the application to become an IB provider school takes a lot of money, parents should not be too worried about this.  There is a saying goes like this: if the problem can be solved by money, that is not a problem.

LungWai

Well, if that is the case, this is quite different from what we heard from Mr. Yau.

Anyway, this can only reinforce his status of a super-salesman.

LungWai

Dear rst,

I do not mean to be rude, but your theory seems to be a little bit weird.

First of all, education is not a religion. We can study whether one teaching method is better than the other by using objective criteria and scientific method. There is no room for "信心". The old style 卜卜齋 and 八股文 have been superseded by other teaching methods. "有信心咪讀囉!" If an official from the EMB told you we should go back to 八股文 because "有信心咪讀八股文囉!", would you buy his concept?

Secondly, it is of course good to be happy at school. Who would not like their children to be happy anyway? But the priority has to be set first. Is happiness your ultimate priority for your kid? Or is happiness just a by-product of a well-balanced education that your child is having. If the former is the case, then you are right. But for many more parents, hardworking and other virtues are more important priorities to be set above "happiness". I will not send my child to a school to enjoy himself/herself, instead I will tell him "讀書時讀書，遊戲時遊戲". Many new concept schools have fallen into this trap. So to conclude this point, being happy at school is important, but to nurture virtues (including undergoing hardship) is the priority should we have to make a choice.

Thirdly, about "小小年紀, 能主動學習" is the basic property of children, there is nothing peculiar about that. I congratulate your child being so active in learning, and in fact this is the portrayal of all children of his/her age. You better have an open mind and talk more to the people around you to find out the proper development of young children. Should they become inactive in learning, then this is an indication of :1.Psychological; 2. Social; 3. Physical; 4. Familial problem (one or a blend of the above 4 factors).

I do not have my children studying at Logos, but the discussion here really pissed me off.

LungWai

書名 ：Help! For Preschoolers
This is a book for preschoolers. Please read the abstract below

--------------
書名 ：Help! For Preschoolers
HELP for Preschoolers (for ages 3-6 years) is a curriculum-based extension of
HELP: 0-3, and used by professionals with children who are "at risk," who may have developmental delays, or who are developing as "normal" preschoolers. It is designed to be used by those working in early childhood settings or by multi-disciplinary teams.

As a curriculum-based assessment, it covers 622 developmental skills for ages 3-6 years -- structured as a direct extension to the HELP skills 0-3. HELP for Preschoolers helps you focus on child strengths as well as needs, provides adaptations for assessing each skill, and promotes high expectations for all children.

Comprehensive -- covers 622 skills in the six developmental domains: Cognitive, Language, Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Social, and Self-Help.


Developmentally sequenced – each domain is organized into specific skills, starting at age 3 years and sequenced through 6 years in month-by-month increments.


Used by all staff involved in the assessment and planning of comprehensive services, e.g., classroom teachers and aides, special educators, therapists, early childhood educators, and psychologists. Promotes an integrated approach.


Focuses on the whole child – the importance of supportive environments and interactions, building on strengths and providing activities for working on specific needs.
The assessment procedures and the innovative instructional activities are easily used in classrooms and varied educational settings (individual, group, structured, observational, etc.) by both professionals and paraprofessionals.

The broad scope helps you plan inclusion strategies. The skill numbering and the Strand structure links directly to the Strand structure for the HELP 0-3 skills.


--------------------

You are right, the approach for preschoolers should be activity based.

But we are talking about primary school education!!  You are giving a counter example to what you preach!

Please clarify whether you are talking about LOGOS kindergarten (which I do not know of) or the LOGOS academy (which is a primary + secondary school).

And BTW,  my point is not whether activity-based learning is good or not.  My point is, as the title suggests, this approach is NOT IB based curriculum.