CP

They basically touched nothing at all on the CP, all they said is that new funding
is vital, but cross apply marshall 11 from the 1NC equity, there have been
decades of pumping funding into the education system with no effect at all so
funding is not key so extend arocho 14 that the counterplan uses mechanisms
such as that in the minimum drinking age act that create negative incentives
that are proven to work
and
The counterplan solves the case by conditioning federal education funding on
state adoption of more equitable school finance system, it resolves status quo
issues of local-property-tax and unsuccessful litigation
Arocho, 14 Joshua Arocho is a J.D. & M.A. Candidate at the University of Michigan Law
School & School of Education. (Joshua Arocho, Inhibiting Intrastate Inequalities: A
Congressional Approach to Ensuring Equal Opportunity to Finance Public Education, 112 Mich.
L. Rev. 1479, LexisNexis, SRA)

They say perm do both but is literally impossible, we cant give states funding,
and take funding away at the same time this is completely contradictory
They say perm to the plan then the CP and perm do the CP then the plan, group
these two arguments, neither can solve because you cant pump funding into
the system, then withdraw it from them, nor can you do the other way around
because then youre just back to where you started and made no progress
 FED
The disad outweighs and turns the case, the plan undermines federalism and
states rights in the US, extend Roberts 15 that US federalism is modelled
globally and the plan destroys that and extend calabresi 94 that federalism
solves war. The plans withdraw from the federal process will destroy
international modeling and cause global conflict that turns the case. Since they
effectively conceded both their impacts which Ill touch on later in the speech,
this is an obvious vote for the negative our impact is global war which far
outweighs their structural violence impacts on equity which theyre conceded
anyways
They say that federal involvement increases and that the plan would increase
state control and innovation, but
The plan undermines states rights and leads to worse education, turns case
Hess 2015 Director of Education Policy at the American Enterprise Institute
Frederick M and Andrew Kelly, "More than a Slogan," Sep 15,
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/09/15/5-reasons-federalism-in-
education-matters

"Federalism," a dry term that many only dimly remember from an intro class in American
government, has taken on an outsized import in education policy and politics today. Democrats
like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are pitching hugely expensive "free college" plans as a
move toward a "new federalism," in which hundreds of billions in conditional federal outlays
would be used to entice states to spend more and obey new federal rules. Those plans have a
lot in common with Obama administration proposals for more federal spending on pre-K.
Influential education advocates have denounced the House and Senate proposals to reform the
testing and accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind as a "retreat" from the
expanded, post-NCLB federal role. And Republican governors running for president are being
asked to explain how their accomplishments at the state level would translate to the Oval
Office.

Those seeking to do more and more of the nation's education business in Washington fail to
recognize that federalism has its own unique strengths when it comes to education. Now, those
arguing for a larger federal role have reasonable points to make. Some states do have a history
of ignoring failing schools or doing too little for disadvantaged students. It is also true that states
can ignore federal inducements in order to go their own way (though that's easier said than
done when non-participation comes with a giant price tag).

The response to these concerns should not be shallow sloganeering around the virtues of
limited government, but a competing vision of how to order our community affairs and an
explanation of why, at least in the American system, the federal government just isn't well
suited to govern education. Anything less makes it all too easy for liberals, and even well-
intentioned moderates, to dismiss federalism as an inconvenient obstacle to be overcome
rather than an asset to be embraced.

Federalism matters for at least five reasons.

It's a matter of size. Education advocates suffer from severe bouts of Finland and Singapore
envy. They tend to ignore that most of these nations have populations of 5 million or so, or
about the population of Maryland or Massachusetts. Trying to make rules for schools in a nation
that's as large and diverse as the U.S. is simply a different challenge.

It aligns responsibility and accountability with authority. One problem with tackling education
reform from Washington is that it's not members of Congress or federal bureaucrats who are
charged with making things work or who are held accountable when they don't. Instead,
responsibility and blame fall on state leaders and on the leaders in those schools, districts and
colleges who do the actual work. The more authority moves up the ladder in education, the
more this divide worsens.

It steers decisions towards the practical. No Child Left Behind promised that 100 percent of
students would be proficient in reading and math by 2014. President Barack Obama wants to
ensure that all students can attend community college for "free" though most of the funds
would come from states. It's easy for D.C. politicians to make grand promises and leave the
consequences to someone else. State leaders must balance the budget and are answerable to
voters for what happens in schools and colleges; this tends to make them more pragmatic in
pursuing reform.

When policymakers are embedded in a community, as mayors and state legislators are, there is
also more trust and opportunity for compromise. That kind of practicality might disappoint
firebrands eager for national solutions, but it's a better bet for students than the wish lists and
airy promises of Beltway pols.

It leaves room for varied approaches to problem-solving. One of the perils of trying to "solve"
things from Washington is that we wind up with one-size-fits-all solutions. No Child Left Behind
emerged from a wave of state-based efforts to devise testing and accountability systems. Those
state efforts were immensely uneven, but they allowed a variety of approaches to emerge, yielding the opportunity to learn, refine and reinvent. That's much more
difficult when Washington is seeking something that can be applied across 50 states.

It ensures that reform efforts actually have local roots. The Obama administration's Race to the Top program convinced lots of states to promise to do lots of things. The results have been predictably
disappointing. Rushing to adopt teacher evaluation systems on a political timeline, states have largely made a hash of the exercise. Free college proposals make the same mistake; they depend on states and
colleges promising to spend more money and adopt federally sanctioned reforms, an approach that seems destined to frustrate policymakers' best-laid plans.

To be sure, local control has its downsides. Local school politics tend to be dominated by interests like teachers unions. School boards are often parochial and shortsighted. And the federal government is uniquely
positioned to do some jobs that states can't, like providing a national bully pulpit to spotlight problems, funding research and promoting interstate transparency.

The feds also have opportunities to take on the dominance of entrenched local interests by playing a "trust-busting" role. Federal recognition of alternative approaches like charter schools, nontraditional teacher
licensure programs and innovative postsecondary programs can challenge incumbents' privileged market position. Federal funding is another trust-busting lever; wherever possible, reformers should ensure that

Rather than write prescriptive rules that all schools must

public dollars flow to students and families and empower them to choose.

obey, trust-busting gives local problem-solvers an opportunity to change politics and policy from
the bottom up.

But the feds are not well equipped to fix schools. More to the point, getting Washington
involved undermines the many benefits of state-driven reform in our federal system. Limiting
the federal government's role in education isn't a slogan, it's a way to ensure that American
education is both accountable to the public and dynamic enough to meet today's challenges.

They say our link is false but extend Roberts 15 that federal intervention
crushes federalism they read no warrents on this claim they just say that our
link is false so youre going to prefer us on the fact that we actually have
evidence

There was a huge concession made on this flow, they conceded calabresi 94
that federalism solves war, this means that they concede to our impact and this
flow goes neg
 Solvency
All they said on solvency is that our K-12 card has no warrants but it definitely
has warrants so extend Barnett and Lamy 13 saying that it is factors like
neighborhoods and family life that cause inequality before the K-12 years there
was no actual answer to this card beside, they have no warrents so we prove
that their plan is garbage and you cant grant them solvency
 Equity
There were some huge concessions made on equity first is marshall 11 that
there have been decades of pumping funding into the education system
without any result at all, this proves that their plan cant solve because funding
yields no result
Next is lindseth 17 that progressive funding already exists in 2/3 of the states,
this proves that their plan is already partially in effect and with no effect so
extend lindseth because it proves their plan is the status quo and nothing is
being solved
Last they conceded to Hanushek 3 that over 50 years of statistical analysis
prove that funding and the quality of education arent at all related, this is a
massive concession because weve proved now that their plan is predicated off
of bunko theory that is empirically denied so the plan cant solve
Next is the line by line
They say K-12 education can solve and that our card is ridiculous but give no
reason as to why our card actually has no warrants so extend Barnett lamy 13
that family structure, neighborhoods, and other pre K factors are what decides
a childs fate before kindergarten even starts
They say their conditions arent vague but their conditions are terrible weve
asked them in every cross ex since the 1AC what specific formulas that their
plan mandates, every time theyre unable to answer this simple question
meaning that they obviously have no actual solvency mechanism and are just
flooding families with taxpayer dollars, crossing their fingers, and hoping that it
will make it difference, youre going to prefer our evidence specifically lindseth
17 because it shows that this type of funding exists in the status quo and with
no effect so their plan has no solvency

Also they didnt even extend their impact on this flow meaning that they
concede their own impact and you have to default to a negative ballot on the
DA.
 Competitiveness
On competitiveness, they conceded in their 2AC that were losing
competitiveness but only to our allies, so extend walt 12 that losing against our
allies means theres no impact on this flow because were not going to war
against our friends, also extend artigiani 12 that alt causes like war and the
military outweigh this card went completely conceded so they cant solve for
competitiveness because other factors are always going to trigger their impact
Also extend OECD 10 saying that there is no evidence that links the education
system to the economy this too went conceded and this is a major concession
because it proves that literally nothing they do does anything, youre going to
prefer this evidence because it comes from in international forum on
economics including 35 member countries and is the most reliable source to
evaluate these kinds of studies.