Case Against 1st Team @klein

Case

No Solvency – Schools will violate law The plan can’t solve – parental, community, and religious pressures force schools to violate law Conrey, Editor of the Hastings Women's Law Journal, 2012 (Sarah, “Hey, What About Me?: Why Sexual Education Classes Shouldn't Keep Ignoring LGBTQ Students,” Hastings Women's Law Journal, 23: 85, Winetr 2012, n.p., RCU). States determine whether to make sexual education programs mandatory and they can also mandate certain content requirements. n41 As of 2010, twenty states and the District of Columbia require public schools to teach sexual education. n42 Alternatively, some states do not require sexual education, but permit schools to teach it. If a school does choose to do so, then the content of such classes is regulated. n43 For example, California does not require school districts to teach sexual education, but if a district does choose to teach sexual education then there are specific requirements including subjects to be covered, goals, training for educators and parental notice. n44 Within the individual districts, wide latitude is generally given as to which subjects to cover and how to structure programs. n45 These laws may not necessarily be indicative of the reality of the content of such classes. A 2003 survey of California school districts that choose to teach sexual education revealed that forty-eight percent of schools responding to the survey failed to teach the required topics, despite being legally mandated to do so by the Education Code. n46 In the California study, one quarter of schools did not have a districtwide program with respect to sexual education, meaning that the individual schools and oftentimes just teachers are left to create the curriculum as they see fit. n47 These circumstances create major oversight problems. n48 In implementing sexual education programs, school districts oftentimes cave to community pressure, resulting in violations of statewide education codes. n49 Religious groups, parents, teachers, school board members, and abstinence-only sex education supporters exert pressure on schools to change their curriculum. In one study, twenty-seven percent of schools that were pressured to alter their curriculums changed it, even though the [*91] change meant excluding information required by the state's education code. n50 Some states codify an acceptable level of parental involvement and influence over sexual education curriculums. Thirty-seven states require school districts to allow parental involvement in sexual education curriculums and thirty-five states and the District of Columbia allow parents to opt their children out of receiving instruction. n51

Doesn’t Cause Social Change Overturning no-promo-homo policies doesn’t solve McGovern, J.D. from Cornell Law School, 2012 (Ashley, “When Schools Refuse to Say Gay: The Constitutionality of anti-LGBTQ No-Promo-Homo Public School Policies in the United States,” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, Winter 2012, pg. 486, RCU). Invalidating no-promo-homo policies is only one step of many in the effort to protect LGBTQ youth from bullying and suicidality. While invalidating these laws will make a positive difference, the social message of inferiority and stigma that motivates anti-LGBTQ advocates to push for such laws will exist even if the policies are overturned.

The courts aren’t enough – a multi-faceted approach is key to solve McGovern, J.D. from Cornell Law School, 2012 (Ashley, “When Schools Refuse to Say Gay: The Constitutionality of anti-LGBTQ No-Promo-Homo Public School Policies in the United States,” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, Winter 2012, pg. 490, RCU). Although striking down no-promo-homo policies in the courts is a necessary step, and one that has yet fully to be realized, it is equally important to look beyond the courts, in order to address the culture of violence and degradation that contribute to the development of such policies. The only way to accomplish the arduous task of changing these cultural norms will be to use a multi-faceted approach, involving initiatives that advocate for change in policy, law, and education. This type of approach is the only way that the lives of LGBTQ people will be acknowledged as real and deserving of human respect and bodily integrity. Though the task is daunting, recent events have proven that this project is necessary, and that with diligent organizing and persistence, real change may be possible.

Legal victories not sufficient for social change Hochberg, Workers’ Rights Attorney, 2013 (Scott, The Harvard Law Record, “Disentangling Law and Social Change,” November 7, http://hlrecord.org/2013/11/disentangling-law-and-social-change/, 7-14-17, LNM) To the casual observer, law often seems like the perfect vehicle for social change. Every so often, a highprofile case validates an important constitutional right or protects a vulnerable group from state coercion. Consider some of the rulings from last summer: the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, and, though the future of her decision is unclear, a federal judge ruled that the stop and frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the rights of minorities in the city. A familiar narrative inevitably emerges from these moments: we endlessly praise the visionary lawyers who brought the case, as well as the progressive judges who finally saw the light. Chalk one up for progress! What’s next? But the reality is rarely so simple. A narrow focus on the headline cases and the handful of lawyers who litigated them distorts the full picture of the forces necessary to bring about these victories. It also oversimplifies the complex ways lawyers advocate for change.

Take stop and frisk. In August, a New York federal district court judge found that the policy was being applied unconstitutionally to minorities in New York City and directed a federal monitor to implement reforms. The ruling was undoubtedly a victory for the communities and legislators that vigorously opposed the policy for years. An appeals court panel recently stayed the decision and reassigned the case to a different judge, but it is unclear what effect this will have, as the soon-to-be mayor Bill De Blasio has signaled his intention to drop the appeal. Despite those recent developments, the stop and frisk ruling is one of the most notable recent examples of a social movement coming to fruition through the courts. Yet in law school we rarely discuss the constellation of forces – both within and outside the legal profession – that give rise to decisions like this.

Theory E-Spec 1NC A.

Our interpretation of fiat is that it is an assumption we agree to make. We don’t agree to aff assumptions that aren’t topical nor to ones we can’t debate against. B. They don’t specify their enforcement- the plan may be civil or criminal with unknown detterents and actors. The aff has to present evidence about that to make a prime facie case. C. That’s bad 1. We lose ground, without enforcement specified we lose specific links to DA’s, K’s, and case which discuss how law works since 90 percent of the plan is in the implementation. Richard Elmore 1980, public affairs at U of Washington, Polisci Quarterly v. 94 n.4 pg. 605 The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not selfexecuting. Analysis of the policy choices matters very little if the mechanisms for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In answering the question, “What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?” Allison estimated that, in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation. 2. They’re effectively fiating the object. If they don’t tell us what happens in the case someone doesn’t obey the plan it gives us the same ground as if we simply assumed to plan solves, which destroys negative ground since we can’t make solvency arguments so our strategy has to be based on impact turns which makes the neg lose against cases that ban racism or they have to run tricky CPs. 3. They don’t justify the resolution since they also ask we assume in the world follows the plan as a precondition to it being a good idea, since that’s extratopical and proves the resolution is insufficient since federal actions isn’t enough and it’s unpredictable for the neg. D. Vote Neg 1. They fail to affirm the resolution since they prove it alone isn’t enough 2. Voting aff deprives us of neg ground and kills fairness and education

TopicalityUnited States – 50 States “United States” means just the fifty states. Oxford Dictionary ND (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/UnitedStates) United States Syllabification: U·nit·ed States (abbreviation: US or U.S.) A country that occupies most of the southern half of North America as well as Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands; population 304,059,724 (est. 2008); capital, Washington, DC.

DA States solve best – local responsiveness and flexibility improve quality of education. Gregory and Kaufman 10 Erin R. Gregory Dean Kaufman Education and Federalism: The Role For The Federal Government In Education Reform, Education Law & Policy https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/290b/cdfdb2cc2cdab7c352063eaad7d9216d372e.pdf In an era where the United States is lagging behind in global education rankings, some blame the variance in state standards and the American model of allocating responsibility for education to the individual states.1 Distribution of responsibility across local, state and the federal governments is a hallmark of American constitutionalism. Even in an increasingly globalized world, the federal government has a place but allowing states and local governments to play the largest roles in providing and regulating education is the most effective way for American students to once again become competitive in the global market. Justice Stevens, in a dissenting opinion, lauded local control of education and offered several arguments in favor of a system primarily based on local control.2 First, decisions about education, and particularly exposure to “ideological cross-currents,” should be made by those closest to the children involved and familiar with the “culture of the community.”3 Second, the financial structure of school funding is such that schools should be able to shape their curriculums in response to local concerns.4 The people most directly responsible for funding local education will likely be the most invested in its outcomes and policies. Lastly, the desires of parents with respect to their children’s education should be respected and not delegated to politicians far removed from the community.5 These arguments, along with the consistent failure of the federal government to improve the current educational atmosphere, provide the foundation for a movement back to increased local control. A decreased role for the federal government, in the form of incentivizing innovative solutions to local and national education problems will provide the framework for a successful response to the United States’ declining global rankings.

State action leads to federal follow-on McGovern 11 (JD @ NYU Law (Shannon, “NOTE: A NEW MODEL FOR STATES AS LABORATORIES FOR REFORM: HOW FEDERALISM INFORMS EDUCATION POLICY,” 86 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1519, *1520, Lexis) Manna observes that federal

policy makers can "expand the federal education agenda by borrowing strength from state governments… . Frequently, this borrowing has coalesced with federal education initiatives designed to build capacity at lower levels of government." 162 Originally, ESEA built up state education authorities, creating "a continuing source of bureaucratic capacity from which future federal policy makers could borrow." 163 The history of NCLB lends further support to this processual reading. President Bush's proposal came on the heels of a decade-long adequacy movement across many states as well as a law in his home state of Texas that tied accountability to high-stakes testing. 164 To achieve its twin goals for education reform - global competiveness and equality of opportunity -

any federal program undertaking education reform must recognize the crucial role of states in building

up capacity at both levels of government to develop, test, and implement specific initiatives. Manna's political science perspective complements and elucidates Schapiro's overarching theory of polyphonic federalism. Conceived in such terms,

the symbiotic, capacity-building relationship between the federal and state governments is a manifestation of overlapping sources of authority from [*1549] codependent sovereigns. It also promotes the "innovation and resilience" 165 that is a centerpiece of Schapiro's normative analysis.

State education policies spill over to the federal level New York State Archives, 9 New York State Archives, Albany. “Federal Education Policy and the States, 1945-2009: A Brief Synopsis.” http://www.archives.nysed.gov/common/archives/files/ed_background_overview_essay.pdf In retrospect, Eisenhower’s comment appeared ironic, because his administration as president saw the most rapid expansion of federal aid to education to date, and nearly every administration after his— both Republican and Democratic—expanded the federal role in education. It will be useful, therefore, to survey the proposals of each succeeding presidential administration, examining the political, social, and ideological context that shaped its approach to education and identifying the most important legislation that arose in each period. Of course, each new piece of education-related legislation had its origins in the work of particular members of Congress, and these members of Congress, in turn, derived many of their ideas from local constituents in states throughout the country. In fact, the best way to understand the development of education policy at the federal level is often to study local issues in the states and districts of the senators and representatives who push particular bills or who hold leadership roles on key congressional committees responsible for education. As policy analyst Christopher Cross has observed, “Federal policy often follows state/local action.”9 In some cases, an innovative state-level program can serve as the model for a new federal program. In other cases, states and localities have jointly advocated for federal action where a nationwide educational need was most efficiently addressed at the federal level. In still other cases, state-level resistance to federal action or a widespread lack of state-level innovations can serve as the catalyst for new federal mandates or federal grants. In yet other cases, the origins of a federal program might lie in cross-state or even non-state activities such as the work of interest groups, lobbies, community activists, philanthropic foundations, or research organizations whose explicit goal is to build on (or overcome obstacles to) various policy initiatives at the state level. It will not be possible in this short historical overview to scrutinize the statelevel antecedents of every major piece of federal education legislation. It will, however, be possible to give a sense of the general evolution of a rapidly expanding federal role in schools since 1950.10 It will also be possible, besides following the activities of Congress and the presidency, to examine the involvement of the federal courts in public schools.

One Overarching, Federal, One-size Fits all policy fails in the context of education – States should be able to craft education policy to their needs Rich, 13 Motoko Rich, 2-9-2013, "Debate Over Federal Role in Public School Policy," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/education/debate-over-federal-role-in-public-school-policy.html //GH Critics have argued that the Obama administration has been too prescriptive in these waiver requirements, and that a new education law should leave most decisions about schooling up to states

and districts. Dictating education policy from Washington can engender unintended consequences. At the Senate hearing, Education Secretary Arne Duncan noted that 19 states had “dummied down standards” under the No Child Left Behind law. Critics also say the law has compelled educators to teach to the tests and set off a spate of cheating scandals. In addition, huge gaps remain between the performance of poor and minority children and more affluent and white children. And while some states have raised scores on reading and math tests, others have shown little progress. “Even with the rigor of No Child Left Behind, the difference in improvement by the states is vast,” said John E. Chubb, the interim chief executive of Education Sector, a nonpartisan policy group. “The federal government has not found the right tools as yet.” Photo Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, says the states should be allowed to set their own public school policies. Credit Mark Humphrey/Associated Press In one respect, the Obama administration’s waivers have actually loosened federal pressure by allowing schools to show that students are improving over time rather than requiring that they all hit an absolute benchmark. In testimony before the Senate committee, Mr. Duncan said the waivers encouraged states to experiment and use other measures of progress, like graduation rates. “The federal government does not serve as a national school board,” Mr. Duncan said. “It never has, and it never should.”

Federal Control ruins education Policy – the CP solves WRI,7 World Resources Institute, “CLIMATE POLICY IN THE STATE LABORATORY How States Influence Federal Regulation and the Implications for Climate Change Policy in the United States”, 2007, http://pdf.wri.org/climate_policy_in_the_state_laboratory.pdf //GH The laboratories model may also help explain how state accountability models expanded to the federal level. On the one hand was evidence that federal spending and programs had failed to improve the performance of disadvantaged students and that the performance of mainstream students had deteriorated. On the other hand, a high-profi le study of state National Assessment of Educational Progress results suggested that states with standards and testing, such as Texas and North Carolina, were able to raise their test scores higher than the scores in other states. Although the federal policy drew its inspiration and design from state reforms, this by no means guaranteed that it would refl ect the states’ policies. In fact, even in those states that had standards and tests in place, there were few consequences for schools that failed to perform well. While building on state models, the NCLB went well beyond the states’ own programs, imposing signifi cant new intergovernmental burdens and tensions in state education programs. Eventually the enthusiasm for a new national commitment to education reform championed by the governors soured when the partnership refl ected in the Charlottesville summit was transformed into a centralizing federal policy initiative, replete with regulatory constraints on and mandates for states accepting federal funds. During the implementation of the NCLB, the intergovernmental community has become increasingly concerned about federal standards and insuffi cient funding. Opposition to the law has been most pronounced among those states (such as Virginia) that had most aggressively adopted standards-based reforms. Even during the development of the NCLB, local offi cials opposed national regulation; teachers’ unions opposed testing; and conservatives opposed the omission of vouchers. State offi cials protested that the law did not give the states enough federal money to meet the educational goals. In 2005, the National Education Association and school districts in Michigan, Texas, and Vermont fi led suit against the federal government, claiming that the NCLB was an unfunded mandate. And the state legislatures in Utah, Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Maine prohibited their states from spending any of their own funds to implement NCLB (Janofsky

CP Plan Text: The Federal government should enchorage the 50 United States to pass Policy, laws and education for policy, law, and education.

State statutes solve best – address the root cause and stand up to constitutionality issues Aaron, J.D. from Rutgers Law School, 2015 (Ryann, “OUTING ANTI-GAY TEACHING IN SCHOOLS: HOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL SUCCESSES OF CONVERSION THERAPY BANS PROVIDE VIABLE ARGUMENTS TO DEFEND BANS ON HETERONORMATIVE EDUCATION,” RUTGERS JOURNAL OF LAW & RELIGION, Summer 2015, pg. 617, RCU). Recognizing that stigma and prejudice against LGBT students can lead to increased risks for suicide and mental health issues, a state may want to protect students from this harm in the school environment. This could be accomplished by enacting a statute that bans harmful stigmatizations in course material by teaching that homosexuality is morally wrong or socially unacceptable. Upon a showing of harms from anti-gay teaching, a state can argue that its interest is sufficient to overcome alleged constitutional violations of free speech, free exercise of religion, and other claims. Particularly helpful and persuasive in its constitutional defenses will be the holdings from recent circuit court decisions upholding SOCE prohibition statutes in California and New Jersey. Although the courts used different rationales and levels of review, both statutes overcame constitutional challenges that they infringed on free speech rights, free exercise of religion rights, and the rights of parents to raise their children. Because the harms and government interests are so similar, strong arguments can be made from those cases to significantly bolster constitutional defenses, whereby states can protect minor citizens from harmful anti-gay educational teachings.

State statutes solve Aaron, J.D. from Rutgers Law School, 2015 (Ryann, “OUTING ANTI-GAY TEACHING IN SCHOOLS: HOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL SUCCESSES OF CONVERSION THERAPY BANS PROVIDE VIABLE ARGUMENTS TO DEFEND BANS ON HETERONORMATIVE EDUCATION,” RUTGERS JOURNAL OF LAW & RELIGION, Summer 2015, pg. 587-588, RCU). No promo homo laws codified in sex education statutes can be found currently in the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. 39 While some are more subtle than others, the most blatant are those in Alabama and Texas that emphasize the teaching of homosexuality as an unacceptable lifestyle and a criminal offense despite the invalidation of their sodomy laws by the Supreme Court in Lawrence.40 Attempts have been made to repeal the no promo homo sex education laws in Texas in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011.41 The 2011 attempt ended with the

matter pending, and the bill was never revisited.42 Much of the discussion by the opponents of the bill involved concerns over keeping the state’s “policy statement” regarding homosexuality.43 Representative Coleman, the author of the bill, suggested several times that if backing off on the education amendments would help advance the repeal of the sodomy statute (the one invalidated in Lawrence) he would be willing to do that.44 However, nothing came of that offer. Thus, sex education statutes in Texas and Alabama continue to require that public schools emphasize to their children that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle.45 Not only do such laws contribute to a stigmatization of LGBT students, but bullying and harassment in schools enhance the homophobic educational atmosphere. 46 Some defenders of LGBT students are critical of educators and school administrators asserting their unwillingness to step in and stop bullying exacerbates the LGBT bullying problem in schools.47 Moreover, some attribute the prevalence of antigay prejudice in schools directly to teachers claiming that they themselves “harass, misinform, and unfairly punish gay students.”48 Although some schools may have gay-straight alliance organizations and antidiscrimination/anti-bullying policies, schools would also benefit from a state statute focusing on anti-gay teaching to eliminate or reduce the wide-spread homophobic attitudes in schools. 49

Implementing state legislation modeled on California’s FAIR has a positive impact on all students to provide non bias, well rounded education Tiffany Pham Copyright (c) 2016 The School of Law Texas Tech University Texas Tech Administrative Law Journal Summer, 2016 Texas Tech Administrative Law Journal 17 Tex. Tech. Admin. L. J. 347 Currently, Texas is one of eight states that promotes No Promo Homo laws. n278 These laws emerge from three different codes: the Administrative Code, the Education Code, and the Health and Safety Code. n279 Although these codes essentially regulate different aspects of sex education, they all [*375] equally affect the state's sex education curriculum. n280 While Texas does not require sex education, school districts intending to teach sex education and health must promote abstinence as the best policy. n281 Along with the promotion of abstinence, Texas has codified statutes that expressly require teachers to ignore the problems of LGBTQ youth, which consequently has a negative effect on their education, and social and personal lives. n282 To create a more inclusive environment for LGBTQ youth, Texas should implement acts modeled after California's FAIR and Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Acts. n283 Alternatively, Texas can create a less biased approach to sex education instruction by amending the Administrative Code, the Education Code, and the Health and Safety Code and removing discriminating sections that marginalize being gay and promote abstinence as the only means of contraception. n284 Such amendments would ensure students receive a well-rounded education that includes instruction about marginalized groups and their roles in history and medically accurate and age-appropriate instruction on sex education, free from bias. n285