Re: Connecticut NAACP (was Re: hickok)

[ABurke5054@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/4/2006 11:06:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
campbellp@mail.montclair.edu writes:

...This also assumes that a  state department of education can 
single-handedly "take responsibility for  improving its schools." 

______________________________________________________________
I don't know what "single-handedly" means here, but improving  schools is the 
responsibility of the states.  They should take it.   That is precisely what 
NAACP is arguing in the Connecticut case.  If  states don't take 
responsibility for their schools, who will?  The  feds?  If Connecticut won't pay for its 
schools, should Alabama and  Misssisippi pick up the bill?  Sourth Dakota, 
maybe?  Forcing the  hands of the states is what NCLB is all about.  
 
the logic of the Connecticut NAACP is, "Better to violate civil rights  now 
and avoid the possibility of civil rights being violated later." Sadly, this  
is a clear reflection on the status of conversations surrounding civil rights 
in  this day and age. Not an unequivocal stand, but rather, "Let's make a  
deal."
 
______________________________________________________________________
NAACP argued in federal court that CT  should enforce the "letter and spirit" 
of NCLB.  Sounds pretty  unequivocal to me.  Your ridiculous assertion that 
NAACP is trading  the civil rights of children for 30 pieces of silver defames 
a noble  institution and reflects only howling hysteria and  staggering 
cluelessness
 
Art