The Second Meeting on the Student Handbook

This meeting was pretty low key. We continued going through the handbook -- but most of the issues with it were in the first half, which we had discussed (to death?) in the last meeting. Much of the second half was straight out of the Indiana school law, so no amount of discussion was going to change that!
We had a conversation about how to define "modest clothing" -- I think it ended up going nowhere, though. I don't recall any specific verbiage being changed.
There was a highlight of the meeting as we drew to the end: the school administration was going to collect input from the student government association, as well as any student who wanted to comment, so students will have a voice in this as well. Now, whether that voice will make an impact on the final version is yet to be seen, but at least they will be heard.
One interesting thing occured, though: Before the meeting I sent the participants a copy of the cell-phone policy we had worked on in my EdTec class earlier in the semester, because I thought it would be of interest to everyone. When we got to that point in our discussion, one member of the group proceeded to send text messages while we were talking to prove it could be done without anyone being aware that someone had a cell phone. So, the students will have to continue to keep cell phones in lockers because everyone seems to think they aren't responsible enough to have cell phones on their person without using them. I wonder, now, if every student who wanted to keep a cell phone on his/her person would sign an agreement to not use the cell phone during class time, if said students would violate that agreement. I keep believing high school students CAN be responsible -- but maybe I live in an idealistic world.
So, my two-week experience in re-writing a student handbook left me feeling that there is little a parent can do to change the way a school treats its students unless you were to undertake a full examination of the philosophical underpinnings of said school -- and that wasn't going to happen in this situation (although I did suggest it!). And, I suspect that wouldn't happen without something else occurring to instigate a feeling of need.
On a related subject -- a co-worker has spent the last year in India volunteering at a rural school, and one of his recent posts sounded a lot like NCLB complaints: here's the link http://www.amarkumar.net/ (March 5 post). I thought you might like to read it!

Educating for Freedom?

A headline (Budget Cuts Harm Curriculum) caught my eye as I was about to start this blog. Deeper Holes in Public Education
Another headline earlier in the week noted that the federal government is thinking about cutting the E2T2 budget (the funding for increasing technology in public education) Bush budget again would cut E2T2 .
An article I read this week talked about the philosophical difference between general education and vocational education. General Education v. Vocational Education
So, where am I going with all of this?
How do these ideas and policies affect what we are doing in education? Are we educating to increase the freedoms of our citizens? Are we really providing expanded educational opportunities for everyone, or are we ending up limiting their choices? My daughter pointed out this week that the primary problem with NCLB is the concept of "left behind." At what point is someone left behind? Think about runners in a race. Is the person in second place being left behind, or the person in third place? What about the runners in the middle? How do you encourage someone to achieve at their best if it means someone else can't meet the same standard? Who decides who is being left behind? Do we lower our standards? Do we discourage high-achievers? Where do we draw the line?
I am reminded of something that relates to my religious beliefs -- I believe that prior to this earth life there was a discussion about who would be the Savior. Christ said he would go. Then Satan said he would go, and he would make sure everyone passed the earth-life test, and returned to heaven, but he wanted God's glory if he did. God said he would send Christ. Satan rebelled, and a war in heaven ensued, in which 1/3 followed Satan. The point of this is, the war was fought over the concept of whether it is right to force people to succeed -- our agency as humans was at stake.
Are we fighting this same war with NCLB? I keep asking myself if that is what the bottom line is. Of course, someone who doesn't share my religious beliefs might not have this same perspective....but, do we have the right to force someone to pass school? We have the obligation to provide equivalent opportunities for anyone who wants to succeed to do so -- and I think that is the good intent of NCLB -- but what about the not so good intent that seems to have developed because the government says if you don't do it, we'll punish you? How much control do we really have over learning? We can teach -- but will the learner learn? Isn't that what NCLB is telling us to do: force the learner to learn? Does this provide additional educational opportunities for everyone, or force everyone into a standardized mold where we cut off vital parts if you don't happen to fit the mold? That sounds like slavery to me. A free people should not tolerate it. So, what do you think? Are our educational policies helping or hurting our future freedom?