You are on page 1of 31

1NC Recruitment vs Camas LL

Topical plans must exclusively be actions by the federal Department of Education to
sanction or induce state or local governments.
CPJ 17 — Center for Public Justice, an American Christian think tank, 2017 (“How Are The Local, State
And Federal Governments Involved In Education? Is This Involvement Just?,” Available Online at, Accessed 09-17-2017)


Most of the day-to-day operation of schools takes place at the state and local level. However, when
Congress passes a federal budget each year, it sets aside enough money to fund about ten percent of
government-run schools’ operating costs. However, this funding nearly always comes with rules and
regulations. In order to receive the funding, schools must comply with various requirements from all
three branches of government, because Federal educational funding comes from taxation. In 2013, the
Federal government spent $72 billion on education, making it the third largest area of discretionary
For example, in 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires government schools
to test students annually in core subjects. This legislation, which was the most recent version (or
reauthorization) of the law that has provided K-12 funding to schools since 1965, introduced a
fundamental change to the existing law – it required accountability. Students in schools that perform
below their state’s established standards for more than two years must be offered free tutoring, after
school programs, or the opportunity to continue their education at a higher-performing government

In addition, schools that fall below standards for more than two years in a row may be required to
replace underperforming teachers, rework their curriculum, or restructure the internal organization of
the school, among other measures. Constitutionally, the federal government cannot force states to
comply with No Child Left Behind, but all 50 states cooperate in order to continue receiving federal
education funds.

The educational reforms passed by Congress are regulated and enforced by the federal Department of
Education. The U.S. Department of Education collects data on government-run schools, evaluates their
performance, suggests policy changes, and measures outcomes.

Vote neg to preserve predictable limits and a stable set of ground – there are infinite
education actors and mechanisms – makes the negative research burden impossible
and imprecise – also means no stable set of links or counterplan ground to DOE and
government, legal education reform
Topicality is a voting issue and competing interpretations is the best standard of
evaluation. A stable point of clash is crucial to productive debates and limits is the
most objective measure of stability.
The Department of Defense should prohibit military recruitment on primary and
secondary education campuses and revise recruiting manuals to refrain from
predatory recruiting practices.

The counterplan solves the entire case without increasing Department of Education

It’s mutually exclusive — USFG “regulation of primary and secondary education” must
be done by the DOE. The counterplan PICs out of this.
Carleton 2 — David Carleton, Associate Professor of PoliSci at Middle Tennessee State University who
has published extensively on gubernatorial politics, Ph.D. from Purdue, MA from Purdue, 2002 (“Chapter
17: Department of Education Organization Act,” Student’s Guide to Landmark Congressional Laws,
Published by Greenwood Press, ISBN 0-313-31335-0, p. 194)

The Organization Act itself is quite brief and straightforward. Congress declares that “there is
established an executive department to be known as the Department of Education,” to be
administered by a cabinet-level secretary “appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.”1 Much of the act consists of laying out the organizational structure and
administrative titles of the new department and of formally transferring legal responsibility for federal
education programs from existing departments to the new department.

The most telling parts of the act are Sections 101 and 103. In the former, Congress lays out an extensive
listing of findings to justify elevating the federal presence in education. The need for a federal
department is justified on several grounds: education is the right of all citizens, regardless of the state in
which they live; all U.S. citizens are guaranteed equal access to education, regardless of their state;
increasing technology and complexity demand management techniques that some states lack; and new
and expanded federal education programs have been disorganized and fragmented across multiple
administrative departments. In Section 103, Congress lays out guarantees to protect the roles of state
and local governments in education. The traditional and predominant roles of these governments are
reaffirmed, and the act explicitly states that it will in no way increase the authority of the federal
government in education or provide for federal control of state or local educational activities. The detail
and extent of these sections are a reflection of the significant concerns many people then had over the
creation of the department.

New DOE regulations were explicitly prohibited by Congress. The plan durable fiats
congress which re-empowers DeVos to issue new federal ed regulations.
Mathewson 17 — Tara García Mathewson, Contributing Editor to Education Dive—a publication
providing comprehensive coverage of business, technology, and culture trends in K-12 and higher
education, 2017 (“Federal action on ESSA may not change much for schools,” Education Dive, March
21st, Available Online at
much-for-schools/438185/, Accessed 10-14-2017)

ESSA became law with bipartisan support at the end of 2015, and the Department of Education, under
Obama, wrote regulations that briefly had the strength of law, some of which were announced in the
final weeks of the presidency. Congress’ action, allowed under the Congressional Review Act,
eliminated those regulations, leaving the Trump Education Department, led by Betsy DeVos, with
limited say in how states will have to interpret the more ambiguous elements of the law.

While the department can issue guidance on these topics — which Hyslop thinks it will be important to
do — the guidance will not have the force regulations did, and new regulations essentially cannot be
passed until the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is once again reauthorized.

DeVos will use this power to push through school choice. She can’t do it in the status
quo because Congress eliminated her regulatory power under ESSA.
Wolfe 17 — Christy Wolfe, Senior Policy Adviser for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools,
2017 (“How ESSA Regulation Protects Choice and Local Flexibility,” Education Next, March 1st, Available
Online at, Accessed

Creating a “safe place” for choice and flexibility

Regulations and guidance can create a “safe place” for forward-leaning state and local leaders that want
to align their federal funds with their own decisions—and dollars—by which to expand school choice.
ESSA offers much flexibility to states, but when faced with nebulous statutory language, state attorneys
and program managers aren’t necessarily inclined to sign off on bold new uses of the money that comes
from Washington. They often want to see some direct authority in statute or regulations. That’s partly
because the same fault lines that prevented agreement on issues in Congress (or the executive branch)
often exist in states as well. Vague statutory and regulatory language can impede choice by
empowering state decision-makers who are opposed to it. The Trump administration should look at
opportunities to “tip the scales” in these state-level debates, by clearly delineating just how expansively
the statute can be read.

Secretary DeVos can leverage regulations and guidance to ensure that ESSA is read as expansively and
flexibly as possible by doing the following:

1. Spell out flexibility for state educational agencies (SEAs) to contemplate accountability that looks
different in urban areas with many charter schools. ESSA’s flexibility coupled with the fact that some
cities now have fewer than half their schools within the traditional district can enable state leaders to
apply charter-style accountability to district-run schools. Consequently, all public schools in a city could
be held accountable via performance contracts held by an independent authorizer. This would, in turn,
allow state leaders to give district-run schools charter-like autonomy and create a single citywide
accountability system. (See Andy Smarick’s paper on this idea for the National Alliance.)
2. Allow and encourage states to leverage Title I’s 7 percent set-aside for school improvement to
replicate and expand high-quality charter schools to serve students otherwise attending low-performing
schools (i.e., those identified for comprehensive support and improvement). Without clear permission,
local education agencies (LEAs) and SEAs may be hesitant to use school improvement funds to open or
expand high-quality schools.

3. Support the use of Title I funds to turn around schools that feed into or out of struggling schools, not
just low-performing schools. Make it clear that strategies can integrate targeted support schools that
feed in or out of schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement. The comment and
responses section of the Obama Administration’s final ESSA accountability rules indicated this would be

4. Encourage states to implement Direct Student Services (DSS). Direct Student Services is an optional, 3
percent state-level set-aside in Title I that awards funds to LEAs to provide innovation to students. There
is a lot of potential in this broad authority, should states choose to take advantage of it. Chiefs for
Change has already done great work generating ideas for DSS’s potential. Secretary DeVos could
capitalize on those ideas and actively encourage the use of DSS, while providing guidance that illustrates
potential best practices and clarifies any ambiguous statutory language. She could shape DSS into a
program that fosters choice in a variety of ways:

• Providing specific guidance on how states can integrate and align their DSS program with their use of
the Title I set-aside for school improvement.

• Encouraging innovative strategies, such as micro-charter schools to provide school choice and access
to courses not readily available district-wide. Micro-charters are schools where individuals or an
organization receive a charter to open a very small school to test out new ideas on a smaller, less risky
scale. With micro-chartering, one or more classrooms or individual teachers could receive a charter to
provide course access to students beyond the walls of a particular school—or to incubate new charter
school models on a small scale before growing them.

• Requiring LEAs to be transparent and report the benefits they are furnishing to individual students, so
DSS isn’t simply a windfall for district bureaucracies.

• Clarifying a state’s responsibilities with respect to the high-quality tutoring provided through DSS.

5. Weighted student funding pilot. The Flexibility for Equitable Student Funding pilot gives districts that
use student-based budgeting new freedom to allocate Title I and Title II dollars to schools along with
state and local dollars. Allocating funds based on the number and characteristics of students that attend
a school, instead of more typical methods of district-based budgeting and funding personnel, has the
potential to facilitate public school choice by helping to ensure district schools of choice receive
equitable funding. Secretary DeVos should use her authority to simplify the application process for
districts wanting to take advantage of this pilot. Guidance to states can help remove any state imposed
accounting roadblocks that might further deter districts from participating in this pilot

6. Issue comprehensive ESSA school choice guidance. A comprehensive choice and ESSA guidance
package could connect the dots for SEAs and LEAs on all the authorities in the statute that could be
integrated into a comprehensive vision for school choice, and describe how they can work together:
Title I, DSS, Equitable Student Funding Pilot, Magnet Schools Assistance Program, Charter Schools
Grants, and the Student Support and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) grant. In addition, guidance can
address how to transfer funds between programs to support choice, using the “transferability”

7. Streamline and update Charter Schools Program guidance. Current Charter Schools Program guidance
needs to be revised to be consistent with ESSA. It should also take advantage of flexibility in the statute,
such as new freedom for schools receiving federal aid to implement weighted lotteries, as well as
language encouraging states to request waivers to tailor the program to their state.

8. Ensure that ESSA isn’t used to undercut state charter school laws. For example, clear guidance or
regulations are necessary to ensure that states don’t use the federal “teacher effectiveness” definition
requirements to layer on teacher evaluation requirements that are not otherwise in state laws.

9. Revisit certain ESSA accountability regulations—if they aren’t repealed by Congress. The National
Alliance for Public Charter Schools has identified specific issues in the accountability rules that would
potentially hamstring charter schools through additional regulation, such as new reporting

While the Secretary has the authority to rewrite or not enforce troublesome provisions in the
accountability rules, Congress may short-circuit that process and repeal the rules outright. A repeal,
however, could make it more complicated to implement choice-friendly regulations, given the
restrictions the Congressional Review Act would place on future ESSA rulemaking. I believe, however,
that much of what I’ve outlined here could still be accomplished via guidance if regulations are not

While the Department has already spilled a lot of ink describing how to use ESSA funds, there is very
little guidance for SEAs and LEAs that may want to take advantage of flexibility in the statute to use
those funds to advance school choice. Proactive choice regulations and/or guidance will give states and
districts the legal assurance they need to innovate and to provide more options to their families.

This collapses democracy — it causes segregation and decks achievement.

Weingarten 17 — Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, former
president of the United Federation of Teachers, received a B.A. from Cornell University’s School of
Industrial and Labor Relations and a J.D. from the Cardozo School of Law, 2017 (“AFT President: Betsy
DeVos and Donald Trump Are Dismantling Public Education,” Time, May 3rd, Available Online at, Accessed 09-29-2017)

One of President Trump’s first acts was to appoint the most anti-public education person ever to lead
the Department of Education. Betsy DeVos has called public schools a “dead end” and bankrolled a
private school voucher measure in Michigan that the public defeated by a two-to-one ratio. When that
failed, she spent millions electing legislators who then did her bidding slashing public school budgets
and spreading unaccountable for-profit charters across the state. The result? Nearly half of Michigan’s
charter schools rank in the bottom of U.S. schools, and Michigan dropped from 28th to 41st in reading
and from 27th to 42nd in math compared with other states.
Now DeVos is spreading this agenda across the country with Trump and Vice President Mike Pence’s
blessing. They’ve proposed a budget that takes a meat cleaver to public education and programs that
work for kids and families. After-school and summer programs — gone. Funding for community schools
that provide social, emotional, health and academic programs to kids — gone. Investments to keep class
sizes low and provide teachers with the training and support they need to improve their craft — gone.
Their budget cuts financial aid for low-income college students grappling with student debt at the same
time the Trump administration is making it easier for private loan servicers to prey on students and

The Trump/DeVos budget funnels more than $1 billion to new voucher and market strategies even
though study after study concludes those strategies have hurt kids. Recent studies of voucher programs
in Ohio and Washington, D.C., show students in these programs did worse than those in traditional
public schools. Further, private voucher schools take money away from neighborhood public schools,
lack the same accountability that public schools have, fail to protect kids from discrimination, and
increase segregation.

It’s dangerous in education when the facts don’t matter to people. But it doesn’t stop there. Schools
must be safe and welcoming places for all children, and that’s a belief shared both by parents who send
their kids to voucher schools and those who send their kids to public schools. But Trump and DeVos
have acted to undermine the rights of kids who look or feel different, and to cut funding for school
health and safety programs.

What Trump and DeVos are doing stands in stark contrast to the bipartisan consensus we reached in
2015 when Congress passed a new education law that shifted the focus from testing back to teaching,
pushed decision-making back to states and communities, and continued to invest funds in the schools
that need it the most. It offered an opportunity to focus on what we know works best for kids and
schools—promoting children’s well-being, engaging in powerful learning, building teacher capacity, and
fostering cultures of collaboration.

The Trump/DeVos agenda not only jeopardizes that work, their view that education is a commodity as
opposed to a public good threatens the foundation of our democracy and our responsibility to provide
opportunity to all of America’s young people.

Americans have a deep connection to and belief in public education. I see it every day as I crisscross the
nation talking to parents, teachers, students and community members about what they want for their
public schools. And it transcends politics. It’s one of the reasons we saw such a massive grass-roots
response to the DeVos nomination from every part of the country.

A recent poll by Harvard and Politico showed that while parents want good public school choices to
meet the individual needs of their kids, they do not want those choices pit against one another or used
to drain money from other public schools. In other words, the DeVos/Trump agenda is wildly out of step
with what Americans want for their kids.

It’s what I saw when I took DeVos to visit public schools in Van Wert, Ohio, last month. This is an area
that voted more than 70 percent for Trump, but people there love and invest in their public schools —
from a strong early childhood program, to robust robotics and other strategies that engage kids in
powerful learning, to a community school that helps the kids most at risk of dropping out stay on a path
to graduation. It’s what I saw at the Community Health Academy of the Heights in New York City where
the school provides a full-service community health clinic, in-school social workers, a food pantry,
parent resource center, and other services for parents and kids. And it’s what I saw this week at Rock
Island Elementary School in Broward County, Fla., where kids participate in robotics programs after
school, where there is a library in every classroom and a guided reading room where kids can build their
literacy skills. The great things happening in these schools are all funded by federal dollars and
threatened by the Trump/DeVos budget.

Many of those who voted for Trump did so because they believed he would keep his promise to stand
up for working people and create jobs. They didn’t vote to dismantle public education and with it the
promise and potential it offers their children. Now, the person who ran on jobs and the economy seems
intent on crushing one of the most important institutions we have to meet the demands of a changing
economy, enable opportunity and propel our nation forward. That’s one of the biggest takeaways
from Trump’s first 100 days.

Strong civic democracy key to solve existential threats.

Cole 16 — Jonathon R. Cole, John Mitchell Mason Professor of the University at Columbia University,
Former Chief Academic Officer, earned a Bachelor’s degree and Ph.D. in Sociology from Columbia
University, 2016 (Provost and Dean of Faculties) at Columbia University, 2016 (“Ignorance Does Not
Lead to Election Bliss,” The Atlantic, November 8th, Available Online at
bliss/506894/, Accessed 09-29-2017)

In short, as I’ve written in the past, the public’s limited knowledge—or even what the psychologist
William James called “acquaintance with knowledge”—is neither monopolized by the poorly educated
nor found only among certain social classes. This illiteracy has created a void that is easily filled by those
with anti-science, anti-intellectual, and demagogic leanings.

To immediately cite the absurd, one 2016 presidential candidate and former two-time governor of New
Mexico, Gary Johnson, had no idea what was going on in Aleppo, Syria, where a great human tragedy
involving the United States is unfolding before the world’s eyes. Moreover, asked by the commentator,
Chris Matthews, to name his favorite leader of any nation in the world, Johnson could not name one,
and after a pregnant pause said he was having an “Aleppo moment.” Along the same lines, Tony
Schwartz, who was Donald Trump’s ghostwriter for The Art of the Deal, suggests that Trump apparently
rarely, if ever, reads books of any kind, much less historical works. No wonder he turns out to be
woefully ignorant of history and science, or of the near-scientific consensus about global climate
change and our seeming determination to destroy our planet.

When this kind of ignorance reaches the level of presidential aspirants, it must give Americans pause.
Where does the ignorance originate? Why has it become so pervasive in the United States today? Can
the U.S. have meaningful elections if its citizens have a paucity of civic knowledge and history that might
allow them to make informed decisions? A significant part of the answer lies, I believe, in the failures of
the American education system.
Without addressing how to remedy this situation, consider some of its manifestation and possible
causes—a few illustrations of the problem as reported in The Atlantic in 2010:

 Americans were more able to identify Michael Jackson as the composer of a number of songs
than to know that the Bill of Rights was the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
 When asked in what century the American Revolution took place and whether the Civil War, the
War of 1812, and the Emancipation Proclamation preceded or followed the Revolution, more
than 30 percent of respondents answered that question incorrectly.
 And more than a third of Americans did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to a
trial by jury. Meanwhile, 40 percent mistakenly thought that it secures the right to vote.

Things have not gotten better more recently. In a study of historical knowledge carried out in 2015 for
the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), more than 80 percent of college seniors at 55 top-
ranked institutions would have received a grade of either a D or F. Here’s an overview of some of the
2015 results, which were based on standard high-school civics curricula:

 Only about 20 percent knew that James Madison was the father of the Constitution, while over
60 percent gave the title to Thomas Jefferson.
 More than 40 percent of college graduates did not know that the Constitution grants the power
to declare war to Congress.
 Roughly half of college students could not correctly state the length of the terms of members of
the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Finally, consider the eye-opening findings of a July 2016 ACTA study on the inclusion of American history
in the curricula of the leading colleges and universities in the United States. The survey found that only
about half of the students at the top 50 colleges and universities could identify the purpose of The
Federalist Papers, and only 22 percent knew that the phrase, “government of the people, by the people,
for the people” could be found in the Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. That these are questions many
Atlantic readers probably wouldn’t be able to answer confidently attests to the fact that the dearth of
historical knowledge is a matter of education and not intelligence.

Why does this ignorance exist among even “elite” college students today? I’ll start by pointing out that,
according to the ACTA study, only seven of the nation’s top 25 liberal-arts colleges require history
majors to take a course on U.S. history (the report does not note the proportion of history majors that
elect to take a course in American history); the same is true of only four of the 25 top national
universities (such as the Ivies, Stanford, and the University of Chicago) and just 14 of the top 25 public
ones. If few of those who actually major in history are required to take such courses, it shouldn’t come
as a surprise that the results of surveys of the general student population seem remarkable. While
colleges often reason that these statistics are indicative of efforts to maximize the choices available to
students, these efforts apparently happen at the expense of knowledge about the history of the United

Turning to scientific and technological literacy among Americans yields perhaps even more startling
ignorance. The public must weigh in on critical ethical and moral issues—human cloning, genetically
modified crops, the production of greenhouse gases, to name a few—that require at least a modicum
of literacy in science and technology, knowledge that is infrequently found among the country’s citizens.
Consider just two illustrative findings:

 More than half of the adults questioned in a 2009 survey from the California Academy of
Science did not know that it took a year for the Earth to orbit the sun.
 In 2012, the National Science Foundation found that slightly more than half of surveyed
Americans said astrology was “not at all scientific.”

Of course, when it comes to civic affairs in the country, it’s possible that the evident lack of knowledge is
overwhelmed by other social and economic interests within the public. If individuals feel that they are
being excluded from the benefits of American prosperity—if they feel that there is little chance for them
or their children to rise in the world, that the government refuses to take action on matters that are of
great importance to them—they may vote on the basis of these interests. If so, then perhaps knowledge
of history, science, technology, and other matters that provide the population with critical-reasoning
skills and a basis for choice would be one of only many other factors influencing their decisions.

But it’s undeniable that the state of America’s education system, from the small classrooms in rural
areas teaching high-school students to the Ivy League universities educating the world’s future leaders,
is contributing to the country’s political state.

Take the way the U.S. treats its public-school teachers. Surveys and statements by public officials speak
to the critical need for a highly educated workforce—for the national economy as well as for individual
participation in American democracy. A 2013 Gallup poll showed, for example, that 70 percent of
Americans believed that a college education was very important—up from 36 percent when the survey
was first taken in the late 1970s. Yet the U.S. doesn’t pay teachers well compared with most other
professions, and it does little to sustain their motivation to continue as educators.

Consequently, many teaching positions are filled by people with limited classroom training or educators
who aren’t experts in the field they’re being hired to teach. In 1993, as I have previously written, the
science historian and former physics professor Gerald Holton noted that “we are losing 13 mathematics
and science teachers for each one entering the profession.” According to National Center for Education
Statistics data from the 2007-08 school year, roughly 70 percent of math teachers in high schools
majored in math, but only about 60 percent were certified in the subject; almost 30 percent hadn’t
majored in math, and only 16 percent of these were certified.

Which leads me to another phenomenon contributing to the widespread dearth of knowledge in the
country: the education system’s obsession, as I’ve found in my own research, with labeling youngsters
as scientifically “able” or “talented” at an early age. Most often this labeling is based upon how rapidly
students can obtain correct answers to questions when the answers are already known—not on how
they respond to the kinds of intriguing questions for which the answer isn’t known, the kinds that are
often key to gauging scientific talent.

Therefore, many of America’s very talented students come to believe that they have little aptitude for
science and engineering—eventually moving into professions far removed from the sciences. Many
never take a science course after they have completed the final requirement in high school—even
though the 20th century was distinguished by the extraordinary contributions of science and technology
to contemporary culture and the economic well-being of Americans. What they know about science and
technology must, then, come from various news and social-media sources and from whatever teaching
they may have received in American history during high school or in college.

If someone today is ignorant of science and technology—and of its implications for the average citizen—
it is likely to come from what he read or was taught through American-history courses. In the late 1990s,
I examined the content of a number of the leading American history textbooks used in high schools and
colleges. These books, which were authored by world-class historians, were almost totally devoid of
discussions of science. I contrasted space devoted to science and technology with that to contemporary
culture and the arts and found, as just one example, that much more discussion was devoted to, say, the
singer Madonna than to James Watson and Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of the DNA
molecule. The same was true when it came to scores of other scientific discoveries.

In fact, in these massive textbooks a few pages at most were dedicated to science—and when that was
the case, it was mostly to a brief discussion of the discovery of atomic power and the atom bomb. In this
great century of American science, a stranger would likely never know from these texts that science and
technology had played a central role in the growth of American society.

Have things in the textbook world changed since the 1990s? To answer this question, I’ve recently
reviewed, in a cursory fashion to be sure, the content of some of today’s leading high-school texts for AP
American-history courses as well as some widely used in American colleges (although the leading
schools rarely rely on textbooks). One of the most widely used and highly praised is The American
Pageant, by the renowned historians David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, and Thomas Bailey. This turns
out to be one of the most popular texts used to prepare high-school students for AP examinations; I
looked at the 13th edition of a couple of years ago.

It is a big, well-written book, covering all of American history. Because its range is so great, though, it’s
depth is limited. And it provides only scanty references to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and to science
and technology in the 20th century. A review of the nearly 400 pages devoted to the 20th century
reveals two pages devoted to scientists and engineers as “makers of America.” The information it
provides is good stuff: It notes that American scientists “have repeatedly made significant contributions
to the life of the nation”; it discusses, very briefly, the move to Big Science in America after World War II
and the role that research universities have made in those discoveries; it mentions the Human Genome
project and how industry along with universities spurred developments in communications and
information technology.

But it says very little about the thousands of discoveries that have been central to American economic
growth and well-being. In comparison to the space devoted to political events, social movements, wars,
crises of one kind or another, there is almost no attention to science and technology. This is a first-rate
textbook, but a student studying from it would gain little knowledge about American science and
technology and more specifically the thousands of discoveries made at America’s universities that have
had a critical role in shaping the nation—nor would they get a sense of the important aforementioned
ethical and moral questions that remain unaddressed.
This week’s elections show Dems have momentum- they’re capitalizing on the fact
that Trump doesn’t have a positive legislative achievement
Dinan 11-8 (Stephanie, “Democrats see momentum for midterms after stunning election victories,”
The Washington Times, November 8, 2017,
midterm-el/) PCS

Gun-control activists, Obamacare supporters, immigrant-rights advocates, environmentalists, gay rights

activists — every part of the Democratic coalition — claimed momentum Wednesday in the wake of
stunning victories in the off-year elections. And though no federal offices were at stake, the fallout could
reach deep into Capitol Hill, where Democrats said they’re newly energized in their battle against the GOP’s tax-cut bill, and warned
Republicans to heed the signs out of Virginia. Given a choice between a pro-Obamacare candidate in Ralph Northam
and a tax-cutting candidate in GOP nominee Ed Gillespie, voters picked Mr. Northam, who shellacked
Mr. Gillespie while posting the largest Democratic victory in the state in decades. “We just had a trial
run about whether a tax cut was appealing in a battleground state. The answer was no,” said Sen. Tim Kaine,
Virginia Democrat. Mr. Northam’s victory was just one part of an electoral wave. Democrats swept both of
Virginia’s other top state offices, made historic gains in the state House of Delegates, recaptured the
governorship in New Jersey, seemed poised to win control of the state Senate in Washington, and
flipped a number of high-profile executive jobs in suburban counties in New York. Most important,
Democrats said, was the battleground in those races: suburban areas that make up the key
battlegrounds where next year’s mid-term congressional elections are likely to be fought. Those are also the
places with middle- and upper-class taxpayers poised to lose some of their biggest tax breaks under the GOP’s tax-cut bill, even as they’ve
become increasingly comfortable with Obamacare nearly eight years on. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer ticked off a list of House
Republicans whose constituents would lose the generous state and local tax deduction under the GOP’s tax bill, saying they would be
“committing political suicide” if they backed the plan. “If you continue to try and eliminate the state and local deduction you’re going to kill
suburban legislators who are already in trouble because the suburbs don’t seem to like Donald Trump,” said Mr. Schumer, New York Democrat.
“As Clint Eastwood said, you want to pass this tax bill, you want to hurt the suburbs? Make our day. Make our day.” House Speaker Paul D.
Ryan, though, insisted those suburban families will end up ahead of the game with the GOP tax-cut bill, saying the loss of deductions is more
than offset by lower tax rates many of them will enjoy. He said the
problem voters were reacting to on Tuesday wasn’t a
too-expansive GOP, but a too-timid party that’s failed to deliver on the agenda Mr. Trump promised
voters. “What people want to know and see is that this Donald Trump presidency and this Republican
Congress makes a positive difference in my life,” Mr. Ryan said on the “Brian Kilmeade Show.” He flatly ruled out Republicans
distancing themselves from the president and returning to a GOP more tied to the Bush years. “We already made that choice.
We’re with Trump,” Mr. Ryan said. “We merged our agendas. We ran with Donald Trump.”

The Plan saves the GOP

Klein 17 (Alyson, “Is There an Upside for Democrats in DeVos as GOP's Face of K-12 Policy?,” 2/9,

Dem ocrat s could spend a lot of time fighting brand-new U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her initiatives over the
next few years, especially if she tries to make good on the $20 billion voucher initiative President Donald Trump pitched on the campaign trail. But her time in the

spotlight also has a big potential upside for them. For one thing, it
could energize Dem ocrat s and those who support their vision
to open their wallets and pound the pavement for local, state, and federal Democratic candidates. And that
energy would serve Democrats best where they may need it most right now: in rural, red states with Democratic
senators that are up for re-election in 2018. Democrats have 25 seats to protect in the mid-term election,
including 10 in states that President Donald Trump won, including Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. DeVos' favorite K-12 policy —

vouchers— won't do much good in those states , where students have transportation challenges just getting to regular public schools. (More
on that issue here.) And the vulnerable senators—all of whom joined their Democratic colleagues in voting against DeVos Tuesday—were more

than happy to point that out, setting up the DeVos nomination as an example of Trump betraying his most-
loyal voters. "The reddest part of my state are parts of my state where there are no private schools. Rural Missouri," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said
Tuesday as the Senate was wrapping up debate on DeVos. "In rural areas of this country, there are not private schools for parents and kids to choose. They would
have to drive miles." Republicans, McCaskill said, "are kicking in the shins the very voters that put them in power. And I
don't get that. I don't understand how you can give the back of your hand to rural America with this decision." Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., made a similar pitch in
this post on Medium, and said on Twitter that she had gotten nearly 3,000 anti-DeVos calls, including many questioning her qualifications, not just her positions.
And in this tweet, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., another likely 2018 GOP target, cited DeVos' lack of knowledge of education policy—and especially rural schools—as a
reason he voted against her. Both Heitkamp and Manchin were the target of ads by two conservative nonprofit groups, the Club for Growth and America Next,
urging voters to persaude them to vote for DeVos. And to be sure, DeVos has offered up virtual charter schools as a solution for families in isolated areas that want
to take advantage of school choice. But many rural areas don't have the broadband capability to make that work. And virtual charter schools have been plagued by
uneven—and often, dismal—academic performance, as an investigation by Education Week found. Notably, the two Republicans who ultimately opposed DeVos—
Sens. Susan Collins, of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska,—are both from rural states and have faced contested elections. And on the national level, opinion
polling doesn't show vouchers as a big winner, especially among Republican voters. In fact, vouchers have slipped in popularity, even as more states have embraced
choice. Less than half of Americans are fans of the policy, according to an August 2016 opinion poll by Education Next, a journal published by Stanford University's
Hoover Institution. Forty-three percent of the 4,181 survey participants—which constituted a nationally representative sample—said they support the idea of
vouchers, down from 55 percent four years ago. And vouchers for low-income students were more popular among Democrats than Republicans, the poll found: 49
percent compared to 37 percent. (More here in this great explainer by my colleague Arianna Prothero.) Jack Jennings, who spent three decades working for
Democrats on Capitol Hill, sees DeVos as a policy minus, but a potential political plus for his party. "The main advantage for the Democrats is that it clearly identifies
the Republicans nationally as committed to privatizing public education," Jennings said. That won't sit well with suburban parents whose
kids go to public schools, a key voting block for the GOP . "Democrats can tell those parents that the Republicans are only
interested in charter schools, of which there are not a lot in suburbia, and private schools, of which there are not a lot anywhere. Even Catholic schools in the cities
are declining." But David Winston, the president of the Winston Group, a Washington polling firm that works with GOP candidates, noted that Trump's win is

evidence that voters might be ready to take a chance on something different. " The electorate is willing to take some risks to change
the status quo because they feel that it isn't working, and that's going to play in her favor," he said of DeVos . But she will have to show
that her policies are actually improving student outcomes . "You need results," he said. Dem ocrat s though, already

appear to think they may hold the winning cards on the DeVos debate when it comes to mobilizing the grassroots
activists, if nothing else.

Filibuster-proof majority means the GOP expands offshore drilling---locks in warming

which causes extinction
Patrick Parenteau 17, professor of law at Vermont Law School, 1/3/17, “Will Trump Scuttle Obama's
Offshore Drilling Bans?,”

President Obama gave environmental advocates a Christmas present when he announced in late December that he was banning
oil and gas drilling in huge swaths of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. This action “ indefinitely ” protects almost 120
million acres of ecologically important and highly sensitive marine environments from the risks of oil spills and other industrial impacts.

President Obama acted boldly to conserve important ecological resources and solidify his environmental
legacy. But by making creative use of an obscure provision of a 1953 law, Obama ignited a legal and political
firestorm .
Republicans and oil industry trade groups are threatening to challenge the ban in court or through legislation .
They also contend that the Trump administration can act directly to reverse it. But a close reading of the law suggests that it could
be difficult to undo Obama’s sweeping act.
The power to withdraw

Congress passed the law now known as the O uter C ontinental S helf L ands A ct in 1953 to assert federal control over submerged lands
that lie more then three miles offshore, beyond state coastal waters. Section 12(a) of the law authorizes the president to
“withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.”
Starting in 1960 with the Eisenhower administration, six presidents from both parties have used this power. Most withdrawals were time-
limited, but some were long-term. For example, in 1990 President George H. W. Bush permanently banned oil and gas development in
California’s Monterey Bay, which later became a national marine sanctuary.

President Obama used section 12(a) in 2014 to protect Alaska’s Bristol Bay, one of the most productive wild salmon fisheries in the world. In
2015 he took the same step for approximately 9.8 million acres in the biologically rich Chukchi and Beaufort seas.

Obama’s latest action bars energy production in 115 million more acres of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas – an area known as the
“Arctic Ring of Life” because of its importance to Inupiat Peoples who have lived there for millennia. The order also withdraws 3.8
million acres off the Atlantic Coast from Norfolk, Virginia to Canada, including several unique and largely unexplored
coral canyons.

Why Obama acted

In a Presidential Memorandum on the Arctic withdrawals, Obama provided three reasons for his action. First, he asserted, these areas have
irreplaceable value for marine mammals, other wildlife, wildlife habitat, scientific research and Alaska Native subsistence use. Second, they are
extremely vulnerable to oil spills. Finally, drilling for oil and responding to spills in Arctic waters poses unique logistical, operational, safety and
scientific challenges.

In ordering the Atlantic withdrawals, Obama cited his responsibility to “ensure that the unique resources associated with these canyons remain
available for future generations.”

Market forces support Obama’s action. Royal Dutch Shell stopped drilling in the Chukchi Sea in 2015 after spending US$7 billion and drilling in
what proved to be a dry hole. Since 2008 the Interior Department has canceled or withdrawn a number of sales in Alaskan waters due to low
demand. Shell, ConocoPhillips, Statoil, Chevron, BP and Exxon have all to some degree abandoned offshore Arctic drilling.

Low oil prices coupled with high drilling costs make business success in the region a risky prospect. Lloyd’s of London forecast this scenario in a
2012 report that called offshore drilling in the Arctic “a unique and hard-to-manage risk.”

What happens next?

Critics of President Obama’s action, including the state of Alaska and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say they may challenge Obama’s order in
court, in hopes that the Trump administration will opt not to defend it. But environmental groups, which hailed Obama’s action, will seek to
intervene in any such lawsuit.

Moreover, to demonstrate that they have standing to sue, plaintiffs would have to show that they have suffered or face imminent injury; that
this harm was caused by Obama’s action; and that it can be redressed by the court. Market conditions will make this very difficult.

The Energy Information Administration currently projects that crude oil prices, which averaged about $43 per barrel through 2016, will rise to
only about $52 per barrel in 2017. Whether these areas will ever be commercially viable is an open question, especially since rapid changes are
taking place in the electricity and transportation sectors, and other coastal areas are open for leasing in Alaska’s near-shore waters and the Gulf
of Mexico.

The Royal Dutch Shell drilling rig Kulluk broke loose and ran aground near Kodiak Island in the Gulf of Alaska as it was being towed to Seattle for
winter maintenance in December 2012. This Coast Guard overflight video shows the harsh conditions along Alaska’s coast in winter.

Alternatively, Donald Trump could issue his own memorandum in office seeking to cancel Obama’s. However, section
12(a) does not
provide any authority for presidents to revoke actions by their predecessors. It delegates authority to presidents
to withdraw land unconditionally. Once they take this step, only Congress can undo it .
This issue has never been litigated. Opponents can be expected to argue that Obama’s use of section 12(a) in this manner is unconstitutional
because it violates the so-called “nondelegation doctrine,” which basically holds that Congress cannot delegate legislative functions to the
executive branch without articulating some “intelligible principles.”

However, one could argue that Obama’s action was based on an articulation of intelligible principles gleaned from the stated policies of the
OCSLA, which recognizes that the “the outer Continental Shelf is a vital national resource reserve held by the Federal Government for the
public.” The law expressly recognizes both the energy and environmental values of the OCS. Thus President Obama’s decision reflects a
considered judgment that the national interest is best served by protecting the unique natural resources of these areas, while at the same time
weaning the nation from its dangerous dependence on fossil fuels.

The section 12(a) authority is similar in some respects to the authority granted by the Antiquities Act, which authorizes the president to
“reserve parcels of land as a part of [a] national monument.” Like the OCSLA, the Antiquities Act does not authorize subsequent presidents to
undo the designations of their predecessors. Obama has also used this power extensively – most recently, last week when he designated two
new national monuments in Utah and Nevada totaling 1.65 million acres.

Some laws do include language that allows such actions to be revoked. Examples include the Forest Service Organic Administration Act, under
which most national forests were established, and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which sets out policies for managing
multiple-use public lands. The fact that Congress chose not to include revocation language in the OCSLA indicates that it did not intend to
provide such power.

What can the new Congress do?

Under Article IV of the Constitution, Congress

has plenary authority to dispose of federal property as it sees fit.
This would include the authority to open these areas to leasing for energy development . Members of
Alaska’s congressional delegation are considering introducing legislation to override Obama’s drilling ban. But Democrats could
filibuster to block any such move, and Republicans – who will hold a 52-48 margin in the Senate – would
need 60 votes to stop them.
On the other hand, Congress may be content to let President-elect Trump make the first move and see how it goes in court. If Trump attempts
to reverse the withdrawal, environmental groups contesting his decision would face some of the same obstacles as an industry challenge to
Obama’s action. It could be especially challenging for environmental groups to show that the claim is “ripe” for judicial review, at least until a
post-Obama administration acts to actually open up these areas for leasing. That may not occur for some time, given the weak market for the
oil in these regions.

In the meantime, this

decision is a fitting capstone for a president who has done everything within his power
to confront the existential threat of climate change and rationally move the nation and the world
onto a safer and more sustainable path .
Text: The United States federal government should
- stop the data collection of students in elementary and secondary schools for
recruitment and should not provide existing data to the Department of Defense,
especially on potential recruits’ race and ethnicity
- amend section 7908 to create an opt-in procedure and clarify local education
agencies’ responsibility to inform parents and students of the right to opt out
- require that military recruiter access refers to youth age 17 and above
- create readily accessible grievance procedures for recruiter abuses
- apply meaningful punishments to recruiters who engage in abusive, harassing, or
deceptive recruitment practices
- end the JAMRS database mining program
- require that all entry programs have prominent information and notice that there is
no obligation to enlist
- strengthen the penalty against recruiters who coerce recruits about the DEP and
other enlistment factors

Substantial reform of the military recruiting process solves – recruiting occurs in other
areas than education - their solvency advocate
ACLU 08 - ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, 5/13/08 ("Soldiers of Misfortune: Abusive U.S. Military
Recruitment and Failure to Protect Child Soldiers," published by ACLU, Available online at NC

The ACLU calls upon the United States Government to take immediate, meaningful action to bring its
policies and practices on military recruitment of youth; detention, treatment and prosecution of alleged child soldiers; and
consideration of the asylum claims of former child soldiers, into compliance with the Optional Protocol. Article 6(1) of the

Optional Protocol requires that “[e]ach State Party shall take all necessary legal, administrative and
other measures to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the
present Protocol within its jurisdiction.”9 Accordingly, the ACLU calls upon the United States to take the following measures to ensure
compliance with the Optional Protocol.

No Child Left Behind Act

• Eliminatethe military recruitment provision (Section 7908 of Title 20 U.S.C.) from the No Child Left
Behind Act entirely, in order to disassociate military recruiter access to youth and their personal
information from state education funding.

• In the alternative, reform the No Child Left Behind Act by building in safeguards that protect children
from military recruitment in violation of the Optional Protocol:
o Amend Title 20 U.S.C. Section 7908 to create an effective opt-in procedure, rather than an opt-out
procedure that places the onus on individual school districts to inform parents, and on parents and students to submit opt-out forms.

o Clarifylocal education agencies’ responsibility to inform parents and students of their right to opt out
of the provision of their directory information to military recruiters.

o Lessen the “stick” in this provision of the No Child Left Behind Act by removing the threat of loss of
federal education money to the state for failure of the school or the school district to provide recruiters
access and information.

o Explicitly state that military recruiter access refers only to youth age 17 and above.
Recruiter Abuse

• Create readily accessible grievance procedures for recruiter abuses.

• Applymeaningful punishments to recruiters who engage in abusive, harassing, or deceptive

recruitment practices, including recruitment practices that violate the Optional Protocol or Department
of Defense recruitment guidelines.

• End the JAMRS database data mining program. Return the military’s data collection power to levels set
forth in the Selective Service program, as detailed in the Selective Service Act.

• In the alternative, build in safeguards that protect children from military recruitment in violation of
the Optional Protocol:

o Requirethat the Department of Defense cease collecting information about youth under 17 for
recruitment purposes.

o Require that the Department of Defense give notice to every youth whose name is entered into JAMRS
recruitment databases that their information has been entered, and notify them of their right to opt out
and instructions on how to do so.

o Create a reporting requirement for the Department of Defense, requiring quarterly reporting to
Congress detailing the number of persons entered into the JAMRS database, sources of information,
process by which information is obtained, and monies spent on data acquisition.

o Require that all recruitment materials and advertisements printed, online, on television, and in other
media include prominent information on the opt-out procedure.

o Create a military “do not call list” that includes an online and telephone opt-out procedure.

o Prohibit the Department of Defense from collecting data on potential recruits’ race and ethnicity, and
prohibit the use of racially and ethnically targeted recruitment advertisements.

Delayed Entry Program (DEP)

• Require that all Delayed Entry Program materials include prominent notice that there is no obligation
to enlist and require DEP program participants to sign a statement that prominently informs signers that
there is no obligation to enlist.
• Create clearer, more prominent, and more readily accessible grievance procedures for recruiter

• Strengthenthe penalty against recruiters who coerce, lie to, or deceive potential recruits about the
DEP and other enlistment factors.
Text: The United States Supreme Court should rule that all persons have a
constitutional right to an adequate education in the United States using the adequacy
definition established in CFE v. State of New York. The United States Supreme Court
should rule that all military recruiting, training and curriculum in high school including
the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps in primary and secondary education
institutions violates the right to an adequate education in the United States.

Education challenges based on a “fundamental right” create system restructuring –

New York proves, and Supreme Court action is necessary
Salerno 7. Michael Salerno – graduate of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. “READING IS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EDUCATION.” Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal, Volume 5, Issue
509. Pages 534-36. <APY>

A question that arises in the adequate education context is: What is the nature of the relief a court can award if an adequate education
challenge is made? In its complaint, CFE
This question was addressed in a decade-long legal battle, culminating in 2003, brought by Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. ("CFE") against the State of New York. 185

alleged New York City's school financing system violated the New York Constitution's Education Article , which states, "The legislature shall provide for the maintenance

New York does not recognize a fundamental right to

and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated." 18 6 Although

education the court noted that a sound basic

arising from this provision, 187 the New York Court of Appeals has interpreted the Education Article to guarantee a sound basic education. 188 In CFE,

education comprises the quality of both the "input" and the "output" of the education system. '89

"Input" include finances teachers facilities

does not solely and instrumentalities funding is
, but also , "school and classrooms," " of learning.' l90 While

prerequisite to provide these other inputs inputs should be calibrated to student , equal fund distribution is not necessarily the goal; rather "

need. *..."'9 Since "sound basic education" implies a different responsibility than merely equalizing funding,
the court's remedy addressed more than finances. Having found that the state's education system did not provide New York City students with a "sound basic education," the court ordered the

The State [must] ascertain the actual cost of providing a sound basic
state to change its education system. In so ordering, the court stated the following:

education in New York City. Reforms to the current system of financing school funding and managing schools
should address the shortcomings of the current system by ensuring, as a part of that process, that every school in New York City would have the resources necessary for providing the

opportunity for a sound basic education. Finally, the new scheme should ensure a system of accountability to measure whether the reforms actually

provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. 192 Note that although funding is addressed (as it must be), equal emphasis is placed on the provision of other resources, such as the "inputs" discussed above, 93 and accountability for those participating in the education system. A
court can easily implement this remedy because its multi-faceted approach addresses not solely the
legislature's financing scheme, but also the duty imposed by a education clause. the United States state's 194 Again,

Constitution does not contain any education clause However that can be interpreted in any of the above fashions to find a fundamental right to education. , as discussed in Part I of

there need not be an explicit right-granting clause; the fundamental right can be implied. The
this Note,

Supreme Court has been reluctant to do so because of potential judicial overreaching into the
legislature's power to spend raised funds, and the perceived nature of education as the dominion of the
states. A refocus on an adequate education
ed emphasis to the output of would -which, regardless of whether education is a fundamental right, has always been a primary concern of the Court195 -

alleviate the concern The federal government's permeation of state education

judicial overreaching , as it did for the Pauley court.' 96

resulting from No Child Left Behind should alleviate the latter concern as well.
1NC – Framing
Reject their ethics framework - Prioritizing non- extinction impacts necessarily
discounts the lives of future generations and assigns them less meaning—that framing
is bad and should be rejected
Matheny, 07- Is a professor in the department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of
Public Health, Johns Hopkins University (Jason G., “Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction”; Risk
Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2007. NTT


An extinction event today could cause the loss of thousands of generations. This matters to the
extent we value future lives. Society places some value on future lives when it accepts the costs of
long-term en- vironmental policies or hazardous waste storage. In- dividuals place some value on future
lives when they adopt measures, such as screening for genetic diseases, to ensure the health of children
who do not yet exist. Disagreement, then, does not center on whether fu- ture lives matter, but on
how much they matter.6 Valu- ing future lives less than current ones (“intergenera- tional discounting”)
has been justified by arguments about time preference, growth in consumption, uncer- tainty about
future existence, and opportunity costs. I will argue that none of these justifications applies to the
benefits of delaying human extinction.

Under time preference, a good enjoyed in the future is worth less, intrinsically, than a good enjoyed
now. The typical justification for time preference is descriptive—most people make decisions that
suggest that they value current goods more than future ones. However, it may be that people’s time
preference ap- plies only to instrumental goods, like money, whose value predictably decreases in time.
In fact, it would be difficult to design an experiment in which time prefer- ence for an intrinsic good (like
happiness), rather than an instrumental good (like money), is separated from the other forms of
discounting discussed below. But even supposing individuals exhibit time preference within their own
lives, it is not clear how this would ethically justify discounting across different lives and generations
(Frederick, 2006; Schelling, 2000).

In practice, discounting the value of future lives would lead to results few of us would accept as being
ethical. For instance, if we discounted lives at a 5% annual rate, a life today would have greater
intrinsic value than a billion lives 400 years hence (Cowen & Parfit, 1992). Broome (1994) suggests
most economists and philosophers recognize that this pref- erence for ourselves over our descendents is
unjusti- fiable and agree that ethical impartiality requires set- ting the intergenerational discount rate to
zero. After all, if we reject spatial discounting and assign equal value to contemporary human lives,
whatever their physical distance from us, we have similar reasons to reject temporal discounting, and
assign equal value to human lives, whatever their temporal distance from us. I Parfit (1984), Cowen
(1992), and Blackorby et al. (1995) have similarly argued that time prefer- ence across generations is not
ethically defensible.7

There could still be other reasons to discount future generations. A common justification for dis-
counting economic goods is that their abundance generally increases with time. Because there is
diminishing marginal utility from consumption, fu- ture generations may gain less satisfaction from a
dollar than we will (Schelling, 2000). This principle makes sense for intergenerational transfers of most
economic goods but not for intergenerational trans- fers of existence. There is no diminishing marginal
utility from having ever existed. There is no reason to believe existence matters less to a person 1,000
years hence than it does to a person 10 years hence.

Discounting could be justified by our uncertainty about future generations’ existence. If we knew for
certain that we would all die in 10 years, it would not make sense for us to spend money on asteroid de-
fense. It would make more sense to live it up, until we become extinct. A discount scheme would be
justified that devalued (to zero) anything beyond 10 years.

Dasgupta and Heal (1979, pp. 261–262) defend discounting on these grounds—we are uncertain about
humanity’s long-term survival, so planning too far ahead is imprudent.8 Discounting is an approxi- mate
way to account for our uncertainty about sur- vival (Ponthiere, 2003). But it is unnecessary—an analysis
of extinction risk should equate the value of averting extinction at any given time with the ex- pected
value of humanity’s future from that moment forward, which includes the probabilities of extinc- tion in
all subsequent periods (Ng, 2005). If we dis- counted the expected value of humanity’s future, we would
count future extinction risks twice—once in the discount rate and once in the undiscounted expected
value—and underestimate the value of reducing cur- rent risks.

In any case, Dasgupta and Heal’s argument does not justify traditional discounting at a constant rate, as
the probability of human extinction is unlikely to be uniform in time.9 Because of nuclear and biological
weapons, the probability of human extinction could be higher today than it was a century ago; and if
human- ity colonizes other planets, the probability of human extinction could be lower then than it is

Even Rees’s (2003) pessimistic 50-50 odds on hu- man extinction by 2100 would be equivalent to an
annual discount rate under 1% for this century. (If we are 100% certain of a good’s existence in 2007 but
only 50% certain of a good’s existence in 2100, then the expected value of the good decreases by 50%
over 94 years, which corresponds to an annual discount rate of 0.75%.) As Ng (1989) has pointed out, a
constant annual discount rate of 1% implies that we are more than 99.99% certain of not surviving the
next 1,000 years. Such pessimism seems unwarranted.

A last argument for intergenerational discount- ing is from opportunity costs: without discounting, we
would always invest our money rather than spend it now on important projects (Broome, 1994). For in-
stance, if we invest our money now in a stock market with an average 5% real annual return, in a
century we will have 130 times more money to spend on extinc- tion countermeasures (assuming we
survive the cen- tury). This reasoning could be extended indefinitely (as long as we survive). This could
be an argument for investing in stocks rather than extinction countermea- sures if: the rate of return on
capital is exogenous to the rate of social savings, the average rate of return on capital is higher than the
rate of technological change in extinction countermeasures, and the marginal cost effectiveness of
extinction countermeasures does not decrease at a rate equal to or greater than the return on capital.

First, the assumption of exogeneity can be re- jected. Funding extinction countermeasures would
require spending large sums; if, instead, we invested those sums in the stock market, they would affect
the average market rate of return (Cowen & Parfit, 1992). Second, some spending on countermeasures,
such as research on biodefense, has its own rate of return, since learning tends to accelerate as a knowl-
edge base expands. This rate could be higher than the average rate of return on capital. Third, if the
proba- bility of human extinction significantly decreases after space colonization, there may be a small
window of reducible risk: the period of maximum marginal cost effectiveness may be limited to the next
few centuries.

Discounting would be a crude way of accounting for opportunity costs, as cost effectiveness is probably
not constant. A more precise approach would identify the optimal invest-and-spend path based on
estimates of current and future extinction risks, the cost effec- tiveness of countermeasures, and market

In summary, there are good reasons not to dis- count the benefits of extinction countermeasures.
Time preference is not justifiable in intergenerational problems, there is no diminishing marginal utility
from having ever existed, and uncertainties about hu- man existence should be represented by expected
val- ues. I thus assume that the value of future lives cannot be discounted. Since this position is
controversial, I later show how acceptance of discounting would af- fect our conclusions.

War outweighs and re-entrenches structural violence

*No root cause for war – prefer specific scenario

*War fuels structural violence

*Resisting war creates conditions for positive peace

Horgan 12 (John Horgan, Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of
Technology, 2012, The End of War, Chapter 5, Kindle p. 1600-1659)

Throughout this book, I’ve examined attempts by scholars to identify factors especially conducive for peace. But there
seem to be no
conditions that, in and of themselves, inoculate a society against militarism. Not small government nor big
government. Not democracy, socialism, capitalism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, nor secularism. Not giving equal rights to women or
minorities nor reducing poverty. The contagion of war can infect any kind of society. Some scholars, like the political scientist Joshua Goldstein,
find this conclusion dispiriting. Early in his career Goldstein investigated economic theories of war, including those of Marx and Malthus. He
concluded that war causes economic inequality and scarcity of resources as much as it stems from them.
Goldstein, a self-described “pro-feminist,” then set out to test whether macho, patriarchal attitudes caused armed violence. He felt so strongly
about this thesis that he and his wife limited their son’s exposure to violent media and contact sports. But by the time he finished writing his
522-page book War and Gender in 2001, Goldstein had rejected the thesis. He questioned many of his initial assumptions about the causes of
war. He never gave credence to explanations involving innate male aggression—war breaks out too sporadically for that—but he saw no clear-
cut evidence for non-biological factors either. “War
is not a product of capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate
aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these influence wars’ outbreaks and outcomes,”
Goldstein writes. “ Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other injustices.” He admits that all his
research has left him “somewhat more pessimistic about how quickly or easily war may end.” But here is the upside of this insight: if there are
no conditions that in and of themselves prevent war, there are none that make peace impossible, either. This is the source of John Mueller’s
optimism, and mine. If we
want peace badly enough, we can have it, no matter what kind of society we live in. The choice is
ours. And once
we have escaped from the shadow of war, we will have more resources to devote to other
problems that plague us, like economic injustice, poor health, and environmental destruction, which war
often exacerbates. The Waorani, whose abandonment of war led to increased trade and intermarriage, are a case in point. So is Costa
Rica. In 2010, this Central American country was ranked number one out of 148 nations in a “World Database of Happiness” compiled by Dutch
sociologists, who gathered information on the self-reported happiness of people around the world. Costa Rica also received the highest score in
another “happiness” survey, carried out by an American think tank, that factored in the nation’s impact on the environment. The United States
was ranked twentieth and 114th, respectively, on the surveys. Instead of spending on arms, over the past half century Costa Rica’s government
invested in education, as well as healthcare, environmental conservation, and tourism, all of which helped make the country more prosperous,
healthy, and happy. Thereis no single way to peace, but peace is the way to solve many other problems. The
research of Mueller, Goldstein, Forsberg, and other scholars yields one essential lesson. Those of us who want to make
the world a better place—more democratic, equitable, healthier, cleaner—should make abolishing the
invention of war our priority, because peace can help bring about many of the other changes we seek.
This formula turns on its head the old social activists’ slogan: “If you want peace, work for justice.” I say
instead, “ If you want justice, work for peace. ” If you want less pollution, more money for healthcare and
education, an improved legal and political system—work for peace.

Predictions are accurate and key to effective policymaking – low probability isn’t a
reason to reject our research
*Most don’t know basics/complexities

*hide behind lack of knowledge, psychological defense

* bad predictions about future (they are optimists, we default experts)

Shepard & Kay 12 - * Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, **Department of

Management & Organizations and Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University (Steven,
Aaron, On the Perpetuation of Ignorance: System Dependence, System Justification, and the Motivated
Avoidance of Sociopolitical Information, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2011 American
Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 102, No. 2, 264 –280,

Individuals are often confronted with information that they do not know how to comprehend or
evaluate, even though this information can be of critical importance to the self (or society as a whole). In the case of
energy, nearly 40% of respondents in a Public Agenda (2009) survey could not identify a fossil fuel. Nearly one third
could not identify a renewable energy source and incorrectly believed that solar energy contributes to
global warming. This lack of knowledge should be of concern to these individuals, as 89% of respondents
worry about increasing fuel costs, and 71% worry about global warming. The economy serves as another example.
Approximately half of surveyed adults did not know what an increase in gross domestic product meant and
thought that “money holds its value well in times of inflation” (National Council on Economic Education, 2005). Worse
still, in a national survey of American adults, 54% of respondents did not know what a subprime mortgage was (Center for Economic and
Entrepreneurial Literacy, 2009), despite the fact that the subprime mortgage crisis was a significant contributor to the economic recession that
began in 2008, and almost certainly affected some substantial portion of those surveyed. In short, it is apparent that a
solid grasp of the
basics (let alone the complexities) of these domains elude many people, and there appears to be a
discrepancy between how much people know about social issues and their importance and relevance to
one’s day-to-day life. Energy and the economy represent just two self-relevant domains that people can feel uncertain about, both in
terms of how they operate at a societal level and how people should act on them. This kind of unfamiliarity can be problematic for day-to-day
functioning, and can also be psychologically stressful. Epistemic uncertainty compromises our ability to predict the
future (Hogg, 2007) and our ability to act and engage in relevant issues. Furthermore, actions that are made
under these circumstances are at an increased risk of being inappropriate or costly (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger,
& Kruger, 2003; Maki & Berry, 1984; Sinkavich, 1995). Research has powerfully illustrated that a lack of knowledge in domains such as
energy and the environment can lead to bad decisions and erroneous beliefs that hinder a society’s ability

to create change in domains that require it (Attari, DeKay, Davidson, & Bruine de Bruin, 2010; Larrick & Soll, 2008). The need
to manage uncertainty, therefore, has been identified as a critical motive that determines behavior (Hogg, 2007; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996;
Neuberg, Judice, & West, 1997; van den Bos, 2009). How do people react, then, when they find themselves unfamiliar or unknowledgeable
about a specific domain? Logically, one
might imagine they would simply try to learn more , thereby making themselves
familiar and knowledgeable. A considerable amount of research, however, suggests that people often engage in more
psychologically defensive, and less workintensive, processes when confronted with uncertainty (Hogg, 2007;
Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; McGregor, Nash, Mann, & Phills, 2010). Drawing our inspiration from system justification theory, we propose a
novel way in which this defensiveness may manifest itself. Feeling
unknowledgeable in the context of broad social issues, we contend,
may breed a unique form of psychological coping— one that holds the potential to powerfully
undermine individual action. Namely, feeling unknowledgeable should instigate feelings of dependence
on those who manage the system (i.e., the government) and, in turn, increase trust in the government
and the status quo, which can then be protected by the intentional avoidance of the issue at hand. The
logic underlying each of these links is explained below.
1NC – SQUO Solves
Status quo is getting better – recruiters were retrained and re-credentialed.
Martinez 13 (Luis Martinez, “Military to Retrain Sexual Assault Prevention Staff,” ABC News, May 14,
credential-all-sexual-assault-prevention-coordinators/, Accessed 9/14/2017, Kent Denver-jKIM)

WASHINGTON - After a second sex crime scandal in the military in the past week, Defense Secretary
Chuck Hagel ordered that all the Pentagon's sexual assault prevention coordinators and military
recruiters be retrained, re-credentialed and rescreened.
The unprecedented move comes a week after the Air Force's sexual assault prevention officer was arrested for allegedly groping a woman. The lieutenant colonel in charge of the Air Force's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Office was arrested for the alleged sexual battery of a woman in a parking lot near the Pentagon.

The Army on Tuesday announced that the coordinator of a sexual assault prevention program at Fort Hood, Texas, is under investigation "for pandering, abusive sexual contact, assault and maltreatment of subordinates." He has
been suspended from all duties while his case is investigated by the Army's Criminal Investigative Command.

The Pentagon last week released new statistics showing a 6 percent rise over the past year in the number of reported sexual assaults to 3,374. The report estimated that another 26,000 sexual assaults went unreported in the
military last year, an increase from the estimated 19,000 the year before.

The incident at Fort Hood involves a sergeant first class who was serving as an equal opportunity adviser and coordinator of a sexual harassment-assault prevention program in a battalion belonging to the Army's 3rd Corps
headquarters, which is based at the Army post located in eastern Texas.

In a statement, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said Hagel was informed of the Fort Hood
allegations yesterday.

"I cannot convey strongly enough his frustration, anger, and disappointment over these troubling
allegations and the breakdown in discipline and standards they imply," Little said.
Hagel met with Army Secretary John McHugh and directed that the case be fully investigated and "to discover the extent of these allegations, and to ensure that all of those who might be involved are dealt with appropriately. "

Furthermore, "to address the broader concerns that have arisen out of these allegations and other
recent events, Secretary Hagel is directing all the services to re-train, re-credential, and re-screen all
sexual assault prevention and response personnel and military recruiters. "

Even without school recruitment, the military will still sufficiently meet quotas. Their
evidence cites malls and recruiting offices, which they don’t solve.
Goodwin 2 (David Goodman is a contributing writer for Mother Jones, “No Child Unrecruited,” Mother
Jones, 2002,, Accessed
9/15/2017, Kent Denver-jKIM)

Educators point out that the armed services have exceeded their recruitment goals for the past two
years in a row, even without access to every school. The new law, they say, undercuts the authority of
some local school districts, including San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, that have barred recruiters
from schools on the grounds that the military discriminates against gays and lesbians. Officials in both
cities now say they will grant recruiters access to their schools and to student information — but they
also plan to inform students of their right to withhold their records.
1NC – Circumvention
No capacity or will for enforcement and loopholes outweigh the aff
Vergari 12 --- associate professor in Education at State University of New York (Sandra Vergari, “The
Limits of Federal Activism in Education Policy”, Education Policy. Accessed through Sage Journals)//ET

Policies often change during implementation. This is due to practices and political demands of policy
Policy Implementation

implementers and responses from policy makers and administrators who rely on others to implement policies (Fuhrman, 2004; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1983; McLaughlin,
1987). The federal government relies on states and localities to implement federal education policy. Across federal
policies, state administrative discretion exists along a continuum of almost no discretion to substantial freedom. Federal programs such as Social Security disability benefits reflect a strong preference for uniform implementation.

Federal education policy

States enjoy more freedom when implementing other programs so long as they comply with basic features of the enabling legislation and regulations (Nugent, 2009).

implementation is shaped by interests and capacities of agencies and administrators at all three levels
of government . The federal government has often lacked both capacity and will to enforce its education
policies fully . Although the federal role in education has expanded, staffing at the U.S. Department of
Education has not .2 In cases where states and districts are not complying with federal regulations, it may
be difficult morally and politically for the federal government to withhold funds since doing so may
impact innocent students. The extent to which states and school districts implement federal education policy in a
robust manner also varies according to their political interests and technical capacities . The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB) has emphasized changing not only state policies but also relationships between states and school districts. In relying on states to influence districts and

schools, NCLB reflects an assumption of “far more powerful and competent state education governance
than exists” (Fuhrman, 2004, p. 145). Weak implementation in a given state may be due to lack of will, inadequate
capacity, or both. If state agencies are not effective implementers of federal policy it is difficult for school districts to “get it right” (Cross, 2004, p. 154). As experienced implementers of federal education
policy, state and local officials have special claims to knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of a given policy. These circumstances make it difficult for federal officials to ignore state assertions about a policy and give
states power in their interactions with the federal government (Nugent, 2009). In the case of NCLB, state and local officials engaged in aggressive lobbying of the federal government. States offered vigorous resistance to threats to
their legal, fiscal, and administrative interests during the initial implementation of NCLB. Yet the federal government needed state and local cooperation to implement NCLB effectively. Thus, state and local resistance to various
components of NCLB provided leverage in securing bargains and waivers from the federal government (Dinan, 2008; Nugent, 2009; Shelly, 2008). The preceding discussion leads to the following claims: (a) implementation of federal
education policy requires state and local cooperation, (b) a state may lack will and/or capacity to hold its school districts accountable for robust policy implementation, (c) in the face of federal threats to state fiscal and
administrative interests, states act to protect their interests, (d) when states do not like a federal policy but want the attached funding, they may do the minimum necessary for compliance, (e) state and local experience and
knowledge pertaining to education policy provide bargaining power in negotiations with the federal government, and (f) states are not at the mercy of the federal government and can often change the original shape of federal
education policy during implementation. Next, I examine recent cases of education policy implementation that support these claims. State and Local Responses to Federal Activism Today’s Cabinet-level U.S. Department of
Education (ED) is just over three decades old. A product of heated political struggle, ED was created by Public Law 96-88 in 1979 and opened its doors in 1980.3 Congress recognized state legal interests and concerns about the new
department by including several provisions in Public Law 96-88. The law declared congressional intention “to protect the rights of State and local governments . . .” and that establishment of the new department “shall not increase
the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.” The law also prohibited
the U.S. education secretary and other ED officials from exercising “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school
system . . .” (Pub. L. 96-88, § 103).4 Controversy over the balance of governmental power over education policy during the struggle to establish the Cabinet-level ED has endured to the present day. The Goals 2000: Educate
America Act of 1994, Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, and NCLB each include sections specifying limits on federal power.5 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Both individually and collectively, states and localities have taken
various steps to protect their perceived interests under NCLB. A great deal of action occurred in 2005.6 For example, the National Conference of State Legislatures 20 Educational Policy 26(1) (2005) raised questions about the
constitutionality of NCLB; and, Utah adopted a law permitting state officials to give priority to state academic standards over federal ones and to avoid implementing NCLB provisions that cost the state money.7 The first case fits
Nugent’s category of a universal state interest and the collective action focused on protecting states’ legal authority. The Utah case is an example of a state acting individually to protect its administrative and fiscal interests.
Additional events in 2005 included two federal lawsuits over NCLB implementation and costs. A suit brought by the State of Connecticut challenged NCLB’s testing requirements and alleged costs to the state. The plaintiffs lost as
the case made its way though the federal court system. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld dismissal of Connecticut v. Duncan in 2010 and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2011. However,

the appeals court also indicated that the state could pursue some of its claims through the venue of
administrative proceedings .8 The second lawsuit was filed by the National Education Association (NEA), nine
school districts in three states, and NEA affiliates in 10 states. The plaintiffs argued that the U.S. education secretary was violating an alleged

prohibition on unfunded mandates in NCLB by requiring states and school districts to comply with NCLB
mandates in the absence of sufficient federal funding to pay for the compliance. The plaintiffs lost as the case made its way through
the federal court system and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2010.9 States and localities have been more successful at protecting

their fiscal and administrative interests by exploiting NCLB loopholes and

Even if trump doesn’t reverse the aff, he can just not enforce it
Goldstein 2016 Dana Goldstein -- author of The Teacher Wars. She contributes to Slate, the New
Republic, the Marshall Project, and other publications. “Will Trump Overhaul Public Education?”
Last week, President-elect Donald Trump announced a strongly ideological pick for secretary of education: Michigan philanthropist Betsy DeVos. Unlike the current secretary, John King, or the
previous one, Arne Duncan, DeVos has never led a state education department or school district. As an advocate and donor, she has been committed to the concept of school choice, not
necessarily as a driver of improved student achievement—she has supported for-profit and virtual charter schools, as well as private school vouchers, all of which have disappointing academic
track records—but to choice as a good in and of itself. DeVos is also a social conservative. She and her husband, Amway heir Dick DeVos, have funded anti–gay marriage and anti–affirmative
action efforts. If she is confirmed, which is likely, she will inherit a department that spends $68 billion per year. As I wrote last week, DeVos will certainly try to direct federal education dollars
toward vouchers that parents could use at any school, private or public. However, the work of the Department of Education is much broader than that, encompassing a number of areas, from
school discipline to campus sexual assault to pre-K, where DeVos has essentially no record. Trump will have the opportunity to appoint at least seven other high-level officials to the

Department of Education, who in turn will hire dozens of political appointees. What could happen to President Obama’s legacy on
education, which emphasized civil rights and school accountability? What can the Trump administration
do on its own, and what would require action from Congress? The most radical outcome would be a federal government that vastly increases
profit-making opportunities in public education while declining to investigate discrimination in schools. But what is actually likely to happen? To game out the possibilities, I spoke to two

experts with deep knowledge of how federal education policy is crafted. Mike Petrilli is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a center-right education think tank, and from 2001
to 2005 he worked for the Department of Education under President George W. Bush. Andrew Rotherham is the founder of Bellwether Education Partners, a nonprofit consulting firm, and

both said that many of Obama’s education

worked for President Bill Clinton from 1999 to 2000 as a special assistant for domestic policy. They

priorities could be easily reversed, since they were accomplished through executive regulation and
letters of guidance, not legislation. And even if Trump and DeVos don’t take decisive action to overturn
Obama regulations, those measures could end up withering on the vine. (“You can ignore some
regulations,” Rotherham says. “That happens a fair amount. One option is atrophy.”) Here, policy area by policy area, are some of the
possibilities: The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights: This office drove President Obama’s efforts on campus sexual assault and student

discipline reform, and it is here where we can expect to see the biggest and fastest policy shift. During the campaign, Trump surrogate Carl
Paladino, a New York Republican and former Buffalo school board member, singled out the Office for Civil Rights for ridicule, calling it “self-perpetuating absolute nonsense.”

Washington Republicans have discussed shutting the office down or moving it to another agency. Obama used
a broad interpretation of Title IX, a federal anti–gender discrimination law, to investigate how more than 200 colleges handled accusations of sexual assault. The Department of Education
directed colleges to use a lower standard of proof—“preponderance of the evidence” instead of “clear and convincing evidence”—when determining whether a student was guilty of sexual
misconduct. Congressional Republicans and even some liberals concerned with the rights of the accused have opposed Obama’s efforts, and there is no evidence that Trump or DeVos
disagrees with these critics. The new administration could await the outcome of a pending federal lawsuit that could invalidate Obama’s approach. A more proactive option would be for
DeVos to write a letter of guidance to universities, telling them that Obama’s interpretation of Title IX no longer applies. Rotherham says he’ll be watching how aggressively the administration
deals with LGBTQ issues in education, such as whether transgender students can use the bathroom of their choice, a right Obama sought to protect. If Trump takes early executive action to
limit transgender rights, it could mean Vice President–elect Mike Pence and other social conservatives in the administration are wielding a lot of influence. “We’ll see what faction is really
driving things,” Rotherham says. “It’s been a war between the real ideologues and other folks.” The Obama administration was deeply concerned about the overuse of punitive school
discipline strategies, such as suspensions, expulsions, and physical restraint. In 2012, for the first time, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights published national data that showed
how widespread these tactics are and how children of color are disproportionately punished. Under a principle known as disparate impact theory, the department told school districts that
racial inequities in discipline would be interpreted as potential evidence of discrimination and could trigger federal investigations and lawsuits. “Almost surely, the new administration will just
undo that,” Petrilli says. Trump ran as a law-and-order candidate, a stance usually associated with support for more punitive school discipline. Under Obama, the Department of Education also
worked to collect new data on bullying, including how often religious minorities and LGBTQ students are targeted. It is unlikely Trump and DeVos would emphasize such efforts. “There’s a

While DeVos and Trump may not

statutory requirement to do the civil rights data collection, but the details are up to the administration,” according to Petrilli.

shut down the Office for Civil Rights, it is easy to imagine it becoming a much quieter place over the next
four years. Career and technical education: On the campaign trail, Trump said, “Vocational training is a great thing” and lamented, “We don't do it anymore.” He promised to “expand
vocational and technical education” in his first 100 days in office. DeVos’ husband, Dick DeVos, is the founder of a charter high school whose theme is careers in the aviation industry. Here
there is a rare opportunity for bipartisan action, uniting Congress and the executive branch. The Perkins Act provides more than $1 billion annually to career and technical education programs,
and it is due to be reauthorized. Both Democrats and Republicans are eager to pass a bill. “I think there is a lot of potential for this to get done quickly,” Petrilli says. “It would be a nice sign of
the ability to govern.” Vouchers: To enact his $20 billion school voucher plan, Trump would need to find an enormous pool of federal money. He’s never said where the funds would come
from, but existing Republican voucher proposals show $15 billion of it flowing, annually, from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Vouchers are a unifying issue across the
Republican Party. They are beloved by home-schoolers, who could use vouchers to pay for online classes; businesses that own for-profit schools, which could accept vouchers as tuition; and
religious conservatives, who want government funding for parochial education. DeVos is affiliated with all three camps. Still, there is a major political obstacle to Trump’s plan. Congress
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2015 and did not include vouchers. The law is now called the Every Student Succeeds Act and represents a rare bipartisan
achievement of President Obama’s second term. Getting to consensus was a long slog for lawmakers. To enact Trump’s voucher plan at the scale he envisions, Congress would need to crack
open ESSA and relitigate it, a process for which there may be little appetite, even among Republicans. There are two other options for securing a smaller tranche of federal funding for
vouchers. The first would be to ask Congress to appropriate new money for the effort, through new legislation. The second would be for Congress to pass a law providing tax credits that
families could use to pay for private school tuition or home-schooling costs, a strategy Pence used as governor of Indiana. At least one other member of Trump’s inner circle seems to favor tax
credits as a social policy approach. The Ivanka Trump child care proposal was based on income tax credits, which would disproportionately help the middle-class and affluent. “Tax credits for
education are not a good way to help the poor,” Rotherham says; many families in poverty do not pay income taxes, so they would not be eligible. School segregation: Social science shows
that children learn more in racially and socio-economically integrated classrooms. After downplaying the problem of school segregation for its entire first term and much of its second term,
the Obama administration changed course this year. The president requested funding from Congress for a school desegregation program called Stronger Together. (This was also Hillary
Clinton’s campaign slogan. Congress did not cooperate.) In addition, Secretary of Education King announced that when considering applications for federal grants, the Department of Education

Conservatives tend to talk about desegregation as social

would weigh whether schools and districts had plans to diversify their classrooms.

engineering, and the Trump administration will almost definitely end the department’s nascent
overtures in this area. How? “They could just not make similar grants going forward,” Petrilli says. Pre-K: Under President Obama,
the federal government used stimulus and ESSA funding to help states expand access to public pre-K and improve its quality. Still, between one-third and one-half of American 4-year-olds
remain unenrolled in preschool. Trump’s transition website promises to “advance policies” such as “high-quality early childhood.” As governor of Indiana, Pence expanded state-funded
preschool, while DeVos has essentially no record on the issue. For the Trump administration to increase access to pre-K, Congress would need to appropriate new money. But Washington
Republicans, chief among them Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, are skeptical and have proposed deep cuts to Head Start, the only existing federal pre-K program. “You can certainly find
Republicans at the state level who are supportive of expanding pre-K, but it costs serious money, and it’s going to be hard to find serious new money with the current Congress,” Petrilli says.
Higher education: President Obama racked up several huge victories on college policy. In 2010, he signed a law that reduced the role of for-profit middlemen in the federal student loan
business, allowing the government to offer low-interest loans directly to students. That legislation also increased loan forgiveness and income-based repayment for borrowers. Separately,
through his “gainful employment” regulations, Obama shut down hundreds of predatory for-profit colleges whose alumni had a track record of failure on the job market. Congressional
Republicans see these changes as unwanted intrusions on the free market. Congress would need to pass a new law to repeal the 2010 loan reforms, and although Trump campaigned
promising to ease student loan burdens, it’s difficult to imagine him caring much about the role of the financial industry in educational lending. Likewise, the new executive branch, led by the
founder of Trump University, could draft laxer regulations governing for-profit colleges, renewing their access to federal funds. “It seems like a safe bet that Betsy DeVos will have a very
different attitude toward for-profit colleges,” Petrilli says—after all, in K-12 education, she has sought to expand the role of for-profit schools. “Will she be hawkish on quality control? We just
don’t know.”

The fed gov doesn’t have the capacity to enforce

McGuinn 15 --- associate professor of political science and education at Drew
University. (Patrick McGuinn, “Schooling the State: ESEA and the Evolution of the U.S. Department of
Education”, Russell Sage Journal for Social Science. Volume 1 Issue 3, December 2015.

Nonetheless, ongoing administrative capacity deficits within federal, state, and local education departments
present a formidable challenge to the current ambitious education reform agenda. The ED has long
lacked the staff, resources, and technical expertise to provide sustained supervision and guidance of
state compliance with federal education programs. Although its programs and grant expenditures have grown dramatically in the past thirty years,
the department itself has not. As its website notes, “In fact, with a planned fiscal year 2010 level of 4,199, ED's staff is 44 percent below the 7,528

employees who administered Federal education programs in several different agencies in 1980, when the Department was created”
(U.S. Department of Education 2012). Ironically then, the department's push to expand states’ administrative capacity to implement

education reform may ultimately be undone by the lack of adequate administrative capacity at the
federal level.