Re: Connecticut NAACP (was Re: hickok)

[ABurke5054@aol.com]

You spent an hour on this double-talk?  Abbott  and Costello did "Who's on 
first?" better and that's all you're doing  here.  NAACP said it prefers the 
letter and spirit of NCLB to  Connecticut's Scrooge act.  What could be clearer 
than that?  Spend a  few more hours spinning the name of the guy on second and 
report  back. 
Art In a message dated 6/5/2006 6:55:47 PM  Pacific Standard Time, 
campbellp@mail.montclair.edu writes:




I called  the Connecticut NAACP this  afternoon and spoke for half an hour to 
one of the attorneys handling the case  for the NAACP. He was clear, 
forthright, and unequivocal in one thing: the  NAACP does not support NCLB. He 
discussed the way the story had been spun by  the media and how regretful this was. 
He also made it clear that the NAACP was  certainly not a supporter of the 
Connecticut department of education. At  the end of the day, the NAACP wants to be 
part of the conversation regarding  the future of children. To get a place at 
the table, they had to pick a side  in the debate. They could not side with 
the state because they feel the state  is not doing enough for children. He 
said again and again that filing the  motion to intervene on behalf of the 
federal department of education was not  done as a sign of support for the Bush 
administration or NCLB. At the end of  the day, they chose to side with the feds 
because the feds were seen as the  lesser of two evils. The NAACP hopes for an 
agreement to be reached that will  make a real difference for children. They 
contend that neither the state  of Connecticut nor the Bush administration is 
committed to the  education of children, especially poor and minority  children.