Cndi 2017 – Title I finance Affirmative

Fed Key – Oversight

Federal oversight key to solve inequality.

Robinson 15 [Kimberly J. Robinson (Professor of Law @ University of Richmond, J.D., Harvard Law School), “Disrupting Education Federalism”, Washington University Law Review Volume 92 Number 4 2015]

A federally-led effort to ensure equal access to an excellent education should include federal monitoring of state progress. Such monitoring would provide federal accountability for state progress, thus helping to foster improvement.2 39 Oversight also would enable the federal government to identify states' needs for research, technical and financial assistance when the states fail to seek it. Effective federal monitoring and oversight of a national effort to ensure equal access to an excellent education is also one of the missing components of the current education reform agenda. This federal monitoring should focus on a collaborative enforcement approach to resolve any disputes between the federal and state governments regarding how states achieve this goal. In a 2007 article, I proposed a collaborative enforcement model for a federal right to education and I envision this Article's theory adopting a similar model.24 0 Under this collaborative approach, the federal government would establish a periodic, reporting obligation on state efforts to ensure equal access to an excellent education. 24 1 State reporting would describe progress on achieving this goal, identify any impediments to progress, and offer potential plans for reform. Input also would be sought from education reform organizations, civil rights groups, and citizens so that the federal government would have a full picture of state efforts.242 A panel or commission of experts would review this information.

Fed Key – Accountability

States fail – lack of accountability – empirics disprove their experimentation arguments.

Robinson 15 [Kimberly J. Robinson (Professor of Law @ University of Richmond, J.D., Harvard Law School), “Disrupting Education Federalism”, Washington University Law Review Volume 92 Number 4 2015]

Although education federalism undoubtedly reaps some of the benefits that it is designed to accomplish,72 the current approach does not consistently yield the benefits that it is supposed to secure. For instance, education federalism has been praised for its ability to allow the state and local governments to serve as "laboratories" of reform. However, research reveals that in the area of school finance reform, most of the changes have been fairly limited in scope, and that the reliance on property taxes to fund schools remains the prevailing method for local funding of schools. This method has continued despite the Supreme Court's 1973 call for school finance reform in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez: The need is apparent for reform in tax systems which may well have relied too long and too heavily on the local property tax. And certainly innovative thinking as to public education, its methods, and its funding is necessary to assure both a higher level of quality and greater uniformity of opportunity.74 Even when plaintiffs have prevailed in litigation that sought to reform school finance systems, most states typically have maintained the same fundamental and unequal structure for school finance.75 Additionally, in a substantial majority of the states, funding inequities between wealthy and poor districts and schools persist.76 Only fourteen states provide more funding to districts with high concentrations of poverty than those with low concentrations of poverty,77 despite consistent research that low-income students require more resources for a successful education than their more affluent peers.78 The 2013 Equity and Excellence Commission report confirms this lack of additional funding to students who live in high poverty concentrations and notes that substantial reform is needed because, apart from a few exceptions, states fail to link their school finance systems to the costs that they would need to invest to educate all children in compliance with state standards.79 Given decades of reforms that have not made consistent and substantial inroads on these challenges, the states are not serving as effective "laboratories" for school finance reform. Education federalism also is supposed to yield an efficient and effective education system. However, the education system regularly falls short of achieving these goals.so The substantial percentage of poorly educated students inflicts substantial costs upon the United States, resulting in numerous inefficiencies. 8 For example, as I have noted in 82 prior scholarship, increasing the high school graduation rate could save the nation between $7.9 and $10.8 billion annually in food stamps, housing assistance and welfare assistance. The nation forfeits $156 billion in income and tax revenues during the life span of each annual cohort of students who do not graduate from high school.84 This cohort also costs the public $23 billion in health care costs and $110 billion in diminished health quality and longevity.85 By increasing the high school graduation rate by one percent for men aged twenty to sixty, the nation could save $1.4 billion each year from reduced criminal behavior.8 6 Given this research, ineffective schools inflict high costs upon the nation-costs that it cannot afford as it wrestles with predicted long-term growth in the deficit and significant, yet declining, unemployment. 87 Local participation in the governance of school districts also is quite low. The growing federal and state influence over education has led some scholars to contend that "local control" no longer exists within American education and, in fact, it has not existed for quite some time. 88 Education federalism also has led to varying levels of local control for different communities, with low-income and minority communities oftentimes experiencing the least local control. In low-income communities, community participation regularly can yield little influence due to the lack of political power and financial means of residents.89 Low-income citizens also cannot influence local or state governments to enact favorable policies and reforms when these governments lack the funds for implementation.90 Parents also do not enjoy an unfettered ability to choose their child's school.91 Although the quality of schools certainly influences where many families purchase homes, low-income families typically lack the financial ability to choose the best schools because such schools are zoned for more *92 expensive housing options. Local participation in the governance of school districts also fails to yield the accountability that it is supposed to secure. Research reveals that local participation in school board elections and governance can be quite limited.93 Typically, no more than ten to fifteen percent of voters participate in school board elections.94 School board meetings also oftentimes experience low citizen attendance.95 Even the structure of many school board meetings limits public discussion and often public discussion does not influence board decisions.96 Research also has found that many who support the concept of locally controlled school boards do not understand the functions of school boards or support the school boards in their communities.9

Fed Key – Uniformity

Federal action is key to uniformity.

Kahlenberg 11 (Richard D., senior fellow at the Century Foundation, “National Education standards are helpful”, The New York Times, 7 April 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/7/21/who-will-benefit-from-national-education-standards/national-education-standards-are-helpful, Accessed 2 July 2017, JY)

The educational logic behind national standards has always been strong, but the politics have been difficult, as some conservatives assert the importance of local control and some liberals oppose the testing that comes with strong standards. Now, thankfully, the political momentum has shifted in favor of common standards as cash-starved states seek federal support from an administration enthusiastic about uniform standards. Years ago, the legendary teacher union leader and education reformer Albert Shanker backed national standards, noting that virtually all the nations that beat us on international assessments had in place uniform standards of what students should know and be able to do. Particularly in America, he pointed out, given the mobility of the population, students suffered when they moved between jurisdictions with different sets of standards. Shanker asked, "Is an understanding of the Constitution or the way to write a decent paragraph more important for students in some communities than in others? Should children in Alabama learn a different kind of math or science from children in New York?" Since Shanker's death in 1997, the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act further underlined the incoherence of having a patchwork of 50 different state standards -- with differing content and different levels of performance expected. Interestingly, uniform standards is one area where teachers' unions and the education reform community can come together. While some wary that a strong system of uniform standards will rob educators of their creativity, leaders of the American Federation of Teachers have long backed a solid set of well-articulated standards because it makes a teacher's job more manageable. And while state standards are often weak and incoherent, providing little guidance to teachers, a strong set of common standards would free teachers from both writing the script and performing it. They could, like actors, focus on interpretation and delivery. Of course, there will be disagreements over the content of common standards, but other societies -- those that continually outperform ours -- show its possible, through democratic debate, to reach consensus about what children should learn in school.

State action results in a patchwork that creates more inequality.

Henderson 12 (Wade, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, “Equal access to education: the federal government must step up”, The Washington Post, 25 March 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/equal-access-to-education-the-federal-government-must-step-up/2013/03/25/ba8d0492-9557-11e2-ae32-9ef60436f5c1_blog.html, Accessed 2 July 2017, JY)

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court created an unmitigated disaster for our nation's school children when it ruled on the case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. The 5-4 decision allowed Texas to fund school districts on the basis of locally raised tax dollars, confining children in poor communities to underfunded schools. It was a triumph of states' rights over human rights, holding that education was not a fundamental right under our Constitution and that citizens could not sue in federal court to when states underfund their schools. This has led to decades of expensive, drawn-out litigation in most states on behalf of students, parents, and poor communities thirsting for better schools. Rodriguez's legacy runs counter to the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and in Brown v. the Board of Education in 1954, guaranteeing high-quality public education to all children on equal terms. The result is nothing short of a national crisis. Since Rodriguez, educational attainment in the United States has become even more inextricably tied to social outcomes like employment and earnings, incarceration, and civic engagement. Yet as a result of inequities like persistent race- and class-based achievement gaps, unacceptably low graduation rates, and more than a million student drop outs each year, millions of people have become trapped in perpetual unemployment and underemployment. We know for a fact that educational outcomes are linked to resources, yet Rodriguez continues to thwart the possibility of a national solution to a nationwide problem. Even though the vast majority of courts have made it absolutely clear that state funding systems violate students' rights to public education, states have been unable or unwilling to remedy the violations. In fact, resistance to court orders on requiring greater equity in school funding is perhaps the one political position that has been uniquely bipartisan over the years. In Colorado, a trial court ruled in 2011 that the state's public schools were both inadequately and inequitably funded. The judge ordered state officials to fix the problem. Despite this ruling, Governor Hickenlooper and a bipartisan group of public officials rejected the court order, took no leadership to craft a solution, and now litigation has resumed. A few weeks ago in Texas, a district court judge held that the state's public school funding system is "arbitrary, inequitable and inadequate" under the Texas constitution. This victory follows a series of similar court decisions in Texas since Rodriguez. But Governor Perry immediately appealed the decision, which will likely have little impact on the education students receive in Texas. In Kansas, the courts ordered the legislature to fully fund its inequitable public education system. Instead of complying with the order, the legislature proposed a constitutional amendment to block the courts from ruling in school finance cases. This state-by-state, zip code-by-zip code approach fails to ensure that all children get the education they deserve. It jeopardizes the nation's ability to compete in the global economy and threatens its guiding principles of justice, fairness, and equality. History makes clear that simply following the practices of the past will not lead us to the outcomes we clearly need as a nation. Despite right wing calls for more local control and so-called "states' rights," the inconvenient truth is that the federal government must be able to step up and assume a greater role in providing equitable funding to schools. The legacy of Rodriguez is a messy patchwork of state policies that underfund schools in poor communities, resulting in a child's zip code having primacy over a Constitutional guarantee of equality under the law. For the last forty years, state-based solutions have failed our kids. Without an established national right to education, we risk seeing more of the same over the next 40 years.

Fed Key – Political Will

States fail – lack of political will

Robinson 15 [Kimberly J. Robinson (Professor of Law @ University of Richmond, J.D., Harvard Law School), “Disrupting Education Federalism”, Washington University Law Review Volume 92 Number 4 2015]

Throughout this nation's history-even acknowledging state reforms of education and school finance-the states have not taken sustained and comprehensive action to ensure that all students receive equal access to an excellent education."'5 Redistributive goals and equity concerns are simply not consistent state priorities for education.1 6 Indeed, the 2013 report from the Equity and Excellence Commission found that: [A]ny honest assessment must acknowledge that our efforts to date to confront the vast gaps in educational outcomes separating different groups of young Americans have yet to include a serious and sustained commitment to ending the appalling inequities-in school funding, in early education, in teacher quality, in resources for teachers and students and in governance-that contribute so mightily to these gaps.l1 Furthermore, intrastate reforms cannot address significant and harmful interstate disparities in funding." 8 The limited scope of many reforms also reveals that the United States has lacked the political will and investments in enforcement to adopt and implement the type of reforms that would make equal access to an excellent education a reality.'" 9 Given this generally consistent failure to undertake comprehensive and sustained reform, the United States should not expect different results from a system that has failed to ensure equal educational opportunity for many generations of schoolchildren.120 Instead, an assessment of how education federalism could be restructured to support a comprehensive national effort to achieve this goal is long overdue.Part II.F will explain why further expansion of the role of the federal government as the guarantor of equal opportunity represents a more fruitful avenue for reform than state level reform.

Fed Key – Budget Cuts

States fail – too many cuts.

Leachman 16, Michael Leachman is Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy division of the Center, which analyzes state tax and budget policy decisions and promotes sustainable policies that take into account the needs of families of all income levels.Most States Have Cut School Funding, and Some Continue Cutting, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/most-states-have-cut-school-funding-and-some-continue-cutting

Most states provide less support per student for elementary and secondary schools — in some cases, much less — than before the Great Recession, our survey of state budget documents over the last three months finds. Worse, some states are still cutting eight years after the recession took hold. Our country’s future depends crucially on the quality of its schools, yet rather than raising K-12 funding to support proven reforms such as hiring and retaining excellent teachers, reducing class sizes, and expanding access to high-quality early education, many states have headed in the opposite direction. These cuts weaken schools’ capacity to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs. Our survey, the most up-to-date data available on state and local funding for schools, indicates that, after adjusting for inflation:  At least 31 states provided less state funding per student in the 2014 school year (that is, the school year ending in 2014) than in the 2008 school year, before the recession took hold. In at least 15 states, the cuts exceeded 10 percent.  In at least 18 states, local government funding per student fell over the same period. In at least 27 states, local funding rose, but those increases rarely made up for cuts in state support. Total local funding nationally ― for the states where comparable data exist ― declined between 2008 and 2014, adding to the damage from state funding cuts.  While data on total school funding in the current school year (2016) is not yet available, at least 25 states are still providing less “general” or “formula” funding ― the primary form of state funding for schools ― per student than in 2008. In seven states, the cuts exceed 10 percent.  Most states raised “general” funding per student slightly this year, but 12 states imposed new cuts, even as the national economy continues to improve. Some of these states, including Oklahoma, Arizona, and Wisconsin, already were among the deepest-cutting states since the recession hit. 820 First Street NE, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20002 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] www.cbpp.org 2 As common sense suggests, money matters for educational outcomes. For instance, poor children who attend better-funded schools are more likely to complete high school and have higher earnings and lower poverty rates in adulthood. 1 States cut funding for K-12 education — and a range of other areas, including higher education, health care, and human services — as a result of the 2007-09 recession, which sharply reduced state revenue. Emergency fiscal aid from the federal government helped prevent even deeper cuts but ran out before the economy recovered, and states chose to address their budget shortfalls disproportionately through spending cuts rather than a more balanced mix of service cuts and revenue increases. Some states have worsened their revenue shortfalls by cutting taxes.

Shifting of federal funding responsibility to the state level burdens low income residents.

Lav and Leachmen 17 (Iris J Lav and Michael Leachmen., Lav has taught public finance at Johns Hopkins University and George Mason University, and has served as a commissioner on the District of Columbia Tax Revision Commission. In 1999, she received the Steven D. Gold award for contributions to state and local fiscal policy. The award is jointly given by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Tax Association., Michael Leachman is Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy division of the Center, which analyzes state tax and budget policy decisions and promotes sustainable policies that take into account the needs of families of all income levels., 3-13-2017, "At Risk: Federal Grants to State and Local Governments," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/at-risk-federal-grants-to-state-and-local-governments)mo

State and local governments do not have the funds to replace the magnitude of funds that could be lost through cuts to mandatory and discretionary spending. Many states are experiencing revenue shortfalls this year, and struggle in most years to find adequate revenues to support services. In all likelihood, states and localities will be forced to scale back or eliminate services and programs for families, seniors, and people with disabilities, rather than raise their own funds to continue the programs at their current level. Moreover, even if they did raise some taxes to continue fully funding some affected programs, low-income residents would bear the consequences. State and local tax systems are, on the whole, regressive (that is, they fall harder on lower-income residents than on high-income ones). Shifting responsibilities for funding services from the federal government, which has a progressive tax system, to states and localities would increase the burden on many of the same low-income people who would be at risk of losing services.

Fed Key – Empirics

Empirics go aff – federal record is far more successful.

Robinson 15 [Kimberly J. Robinson (Professor of Law @ University of Richmond, J.D., Harvard Law School), “Disrupting Education Federalism”, Washington University Law Review Volume 92 Number 4 2015]

Others may contend that the United States should rein in the growing federal role in education. In some ways, this criticism points to the failures of past federal initiatives as evidence that the federal government's role in education should be curtailed. Most recently, some scholars condemn the shortcomings and implementation of NCLB and RTTT.2 65 Undeniably, the federal government has undertaken a variety of unsuccessful education reforms. 2 66 Yet, an established track record in education over the last fifty years has given us ample evidence to identify the strengths and weaknesses of federal education policymaking. My theory intentionally builds upon identified federal strengths in innovative and progressive ways. In particular, the theory builds on the foundational premise that in the face of inconsistent and overwhelmingly ineffective state reform, the federal government enjoys a superior and more consistent reform record on issues of educational equity.2 67 Education scholars Charles Barone and Elizabeth DeBray confirmed this superior track record in stating that: Over the past half century, Congress has most frequently sought, and in most cases successfully enacted, sweeping changes to federal law when (1) a segment of U.S. Society was judged as having been denied equal educational opportunity and (2) states and municipalities were unable or unwilling to remedy those inequities. In education, as in other areas, like voting rights or retirement security for seniors, this has unquestionably been its most important and powerful role.26 8 My theory builds upon this superior record in proposing a theory for disrupting education federalism that can guide the United States toward equal access to an excellent education. In making the federal government the final guarantor of equal access to an excellent education, my proposed theory would strengthen the relationship between growing federal influence in education and greater federal responsibility for accomplishing national objectives. This transformation would greatly improve upon the nation's current cooperative federalism framework for education. 269 Today, although the federal government invests in education, this investment is quite limited relative to state and local investments. 2 70 By increasing its demands while limiting its contributions, the federal government has been able to avoid shouldering a substantial portion of the costs and burdens associated with accomplishing the nation's education goals while still enjoying the ability to set the nation's education agenda and demand results.271 In contrast, my proposal would establish a much closer and more effective marriage between federal influence and responsibility.

Fed Key – AT: Local Control Good

Local control and experimentation arguments are flat out wrong – states still suck.

Robinson 13 [Kimberly J. Robinson (Professor of Law @ University of Richmond, J.D., Harvard Law School), “The High Cost of The Nation's Current Framework for Education Federalism”, 48 Wake Forest L. Rev. 287, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7030/bb98e4535c7e3d354fa0e4229818bfa3f907.pdf]

Education federalism in the United States traditionally embraces state and local authority over education and a restricted federal role.l Even as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ("NCLB")2 expanded and transformed the federal role in education, the tradition of state and local control over education influenced key provisions within the statute.3 Some praise the nation's longstanding approach to education federalism-which this Article defines as an emphasis on state and local control over education and a limited federal role-for its ability to foster local control of education, encourage experimentation, and promote a robust competition for excellence in education. 4 This approach to education federalism also is praised for how it enables local communities to respond to local needs and promotes accountability.5 The current structure of education federalism resembles the relationship between the national and state governments, and like that relationship, it seeks to capitalize on an array of viewpoints and methods regarding the most effective approaches to education. 6 Although the nation's current approach to education federalism undoubtedly generates some benefits, it also tolerates substantial inequitable disparities in educational opportunity both within and between states. 7 The reality of local control of education for many communities means the ability to control inadequate resources that provide many students substandard educational opportunities. s The opportunity divide in American education continues to relegate far too many poor and minority schoolchildren to substandard educational opportunities.9 These communities are left behind in the competition for educational excellence. lO In addition, high-poverty schools, particularly those within urban school districts, regularly yield the worst academic outcomes. H These disparities in educational opportunity hinder schools from fulfilling some of their essential national and institutional goals. Schools serve indispensable public functions within a democratic society: they prepare students to engage in the nation's political system in an intelligent and effective manner and transmit the fundamental societal values that a democratic government requires. 12 The nation also relies on its public schools as the principal institutional guarantor of equal opportunity within American society by serving as a mechanism to ensure that children are not hindered in attaining their dreams by their life circumstances,13 Americans depend on schools to address the societal challenges created by social and economic inequality rather than creating the extensive social welfare networks that many industrialized countries have implemented.l4 The disparities in educational opportunity that relegate many poor and minority students to substandard schooling have hindered the ability of schools to serve these functions. Indeed, rather than solve these challenges, low graduation rates and substandard schools cost the United States billions of dollars each year in lost tax and income revenues, higher health care costs, food stamps, and welfare and housing assistance, to name a few of the costs.l5

Permutation

Perm solves – federal funds effectively motivate state reform.

Robinson 15 [Kimberly J. Robinson (Professor of Law @ University of Richmond, J.D., Harvard Law School), “Disrupting Education Federalism”, Washington University Law Review Volume 92 Number 4 2015]

The federal government will need to provide financial assistance to states to support a national effort to ensure equal access to an excellent education due to the substantial cost of closing opportunity and achievement gaps. 2 25 This financial support for education would leverage the federal government's superior ability to redistribute resources among the states.226 This superior ability stems in part from the federal government's capacity to spread the costs of redistribution across a wider national constituency than state governments. In addition, business interests and the wealthy possess a greater ability to thwart redistribution at the state level than at the federal level because they can threaten to leave 227 a state. Past experience reveals that federal resources can be an effective means for influencing state and local education policy.2 28 The federal financial contribution should include both incentives and assistance to address opportunity and achievement gaps. Financial incentives will draw attention to this critical issue and motivate states that have resisted reform, just as incentives motivated reform through RTTT.229 Financial assistance also will expand the potential reform options beyond what states could implement with their own state resources and will supply political cover for politicians who support reform.2 30 The federal investment in efforts to ensure equal access to an excellent education could include funding mechanisms such as competitive grants and formula grants. Federal financial support for closing opportunity and achievement gaps will be essential for expanding state capacity to achieve this goal. A recent move in this direction can be found in President Obama's proposal to invest $75 billion in federal funds over ten years to ensure that all fouryear- olds receive a high-quality prekindergarten education. 3 In addition, President Obama previously created incentives for states to invest in early childhood education through the RTTT Early Learning Challenge by offering states the chance to compete for $500 million in discretionary grants if they expanded early childhood education to young children of low-income families.232 Such efforts represent an important first step toward closing the substantial opportunity and achievement gaps. However, a comprehensive effort to ensure equal access to an excellent education would need to invest federal resources across the full spectrum of opportunity and achievement gaps in elementary and secondary education. Federal support for a national effort to ensure equal access to an excellent education would not require federal funding for all of the necessary state and local reforms. Instead, the federal government should generously increase its contribution to education costs while continuing to share these costs with the state governments. The level of generosity of federal funding should be based upon the disparate capacities of states to close opportunity and achievement gaps. 2 33 Generous federal financial assistance would fund a larger percentage of the costs of reforms than had occurred with past education reforms.2 34 These past reforms typically failed to deliver the substantial funds that were initially anticipated when the laws were enacted.235 For example, one of many criticisms of NCLB was that the federal government covered very little of the implementation costs.236 Since increasing federal funding for ensuring equal access to an excellent education would simultaneously increase federal responsibility for achieving this goal, my theory would create a closer and more effective marriage between federal demands and federal responsibility as discussed below further in Part ILF.237 Additionally, a blend of federal and state funding will encourage greater efficiency than full federal funding.238 Shared funding should encourage both the federal and state governments to contain costs. If the federal government paid the full bill for any necessary reforms, the states might inflate the alleged costs of such reforms. Shared financial responsibility helps avoid such perverse incentives.