Re: Fwd Hickock

[ABurke5054@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/5/2006 8:54:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
monty@fairtest.org writes:

Several times a week Art has commented on the NAACP  involvement in the CT 
suit. One might have the impression that the NAACP has  become a staunch 
defender of NCLB. Not true. ...
 
The primary stated reason for their intervention is a  concern that if CT 
wins, it will open a door for attacking a wide range of  other civil rights 
provisions as being "unfunded mandates."  



___________________________________________________________________
This is at best a half-truth.  Of course NAACP does not want  Connecticut to 
wiggle out of its responsibilities to improve its  schools.  Of course NAACP 
does not want to see the door opened to  allow states to wiggle out of other 
responsibilities.  And of course NAACP  has reservations about NCLB.  I don't 
think that any other law in American  history that aimed for such fundamental 
changes got it exactly right on the  first try.  But in petitioning the CT 
court, NAACP did not qualify its  support for enforcing the provisions of NCLB.  In 
fact, it said,  "..Intervenors seek to protect their interest in 
Connecticut's full and complete  compliance with the letter and spirit of NCLB."  
 
Petitioning to enforce the "full and complete compliance with the letter  and 
spirit" of a law that you find fundamentally flawed and harmful to  children 
is an inconsistent and irrational position.  The better  explanation for 
NAACP's support for the law is that they find in it more to  like than  dislike.    
         
 
Art