CT, NCLB, NAACP

[ABurke5054@aol.com]

What astonishing double-talk.  You are claiming that NAACP does not  support 
something it explicitly supports. NAACP's own words  in its petition to the 
Connecticut court were:
 
"..Intervenors seek to protect  their interest in Connecticut’s  full and 
complete compliance with the letter and spirit of NCLB.  They seek to secure the 
enhanced  educational opportunities and outcomes that Congress intended when 
it approved  NCLB with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2001.  These tangible 
benefits will be impaired  if Connecticut succeeds in its  campaign to avoid 
its responsibilities under the Act."

 
The rest of the NAACP argument scathingly rejects your absurd statement  that 
Connecticut is not trying to evade its responsbililties.  NAACP says  that is 
exactly what Connecticut is trying to do.
 
NAACP has reservations about NCLB, as well it should.  But to  argue as you 
do that NAACP would support NCLB, even if it  thought it were harmful to 
children, as a cynical ploy to protect other funding  streams, ignores NAACP's own 
words and strikes me as incredibly  disrespectful and distorted.
 
Art
 
_____________________________
 
    *   To: ARN-L List <arn-l@interversity.org>  
    *   Subject: Re: Fw: hickok  
    *   From: Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>  
    *   Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:29:20 -0500 
 
____________________________________
Burke: "If Connecticut wants  to shortchange its parents and children, 
people, in 
say, Vermont should pick  up the bill? . . . This is precisely the argument 
that the NAACP 
rejected so  scathingly in arguing in federal court that Connecticut should 
quit 
its  whining and evasions and take responsibility for improving its schools." 
 

---

Connecticut's NAACP is concerned that the "unfunded mandate"  argument used 
by the state of Connecticut in its lawsuit against the federal  government 
might undermine other "unfunded mandates," particularly the 1964  Civil Rights 
Act. Dennis C. Hayes, the general counsel at the National  Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People’s Baltimore headquarters said  in a 2/8/06 
Education Week story that allowing Connecticut to opt out of such a  critical part of 
the federal law would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging  policymakers 
elsewhere to do the same. “If we view No Child Left Behind in terms  of civil 
rights, then we are concerned about a state begging to be excused from  
participating or complying with an act intended to help disadvantaged people,”  he 
said. (http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/02/08/22conn.h25.html?  
querystring=Connecticut&levelId=1000&levelId=1000) 

However, this  is no way suggests that the Connecticut NAACP supports NCLB. 
Like the national  NAACP, which signed the Joint Organizational Statement on No 
Child Left Behind  (NCLB) Act (_http://www.fairtest.org/_ 
(http://www.fairtest.org/)   joint%20statement%20civil%20rights%20grps%2010-21-04.html) in 
opposition to  NCLB, the Connecticut NAACP is critical of NCLB. "This unusual 
alignment for the  civil rights organization . . . does not represent full support 
of the No Child  Left Behind Act." (http:// 
www.cccr.org/images/NCLB_PressRelease.pdf) “If you  want to get at the table, you have to choose a side,” 
Connecticut NAACP State  Conference President Scot X. Esdaile said. “On this 
particular issue—not on all  the intricacies of the law—we choose to stand on the 
side of the federal  government.” (_http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/_ 
(http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/)  2006/02/08/22conn.h25.html?  
querystring=Connecticut&levelId=1000&levelId=1000) 

According to  its press release (_http://www.cccr.org/images/_ 
(http://www.cccr.org/images/)  NCLB_PressRelease.pdf), the  Connecticut NAACP feels that 
"the richest state in the nation should be working  to help the poorest children 
have the maximum capacity to succeed with qualified  teachers and other 
resources." Esdaile said, “The bottom line is, the concerns  with No Child Left 
Behind shouldn’t be used as an excuse to not provide equity  in education to these 
children, and they deserve a seat at the table.”  

In supporting the federal government in this case, the Connecticut NAACP  
compromises the civil right of minority children to a free, high-quality  
education in order to forestall any possibility of the "unfunded mandate"  argument 
encroaching on other civil rights laws. So a civil rights organization,  the 
parent of which is vocally opposed to the law, sides with the law in an  effort 
to preserve civil rights. But in so doing, violates the civil rights of  the 
children it ostensibly serves. 

What more evidence could you ask for  of the corrosive, caustic effects of 
this perverse law, a law that turns parents  against teachers, teachers against 
administrators, administrators against state  officials, and state officials 
against the federal government. In this case, a  civil rights organization ends 
up compromising its own mission and purpose to  defend its mission and 
purpose. 

The Connecticut NAACP is justifiably and  understandably upset with the 
educational achievement gap and the extent to  which minority children have been 
ignored. But how much sense does it make to  side with the Bush administration, 
a group of people who willfully neglect the  relationship between poverty and 
educational outcomes and who concentrate  exclusively on school reform in an 
effort to close the gap? As Rothstein,  Berliner, et al, have argued, poor 
children go to school poor and come home  poor. Nothing that happens at school 
changes this. Yes, these kids can learn.  But why not do everything in our power 
to level the playing field so that what  happens at school is complemented, 
not offset by, what happens at home? The  Connecticut NAACP supporting the Bush 
administration in this lawsuit guarantees  one thing: the educational 
achievement gap will remain just as wide and will get  wider. 

In its lawsuit, the state of Connecticut is not whining and  evading its 
responsibility. It is simply recognizing that accountability applies  to everyone, 
not just teachers and schools. 

---
Peter  Campbell