Jump to content
CoachMel

Common K's against Right to Education?

Recommended Posts

What are some common K's on right to education, and how do I answer them?

 

Thanks, 

 

Coach Mel

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine that there are any K's that are very particular to RTE.

 

A few generic link arguments that come to mind:

 

Neoliberalism/Capitalism - the Affirmative is honestly in the opposite direction since it increases the role of the state in the economy and tries to resolve inequality, but people could probably link it to your advantages or the way you frame the relationship between educational outcomes and economic success (in addition to the whole "you turn students into investments in the economy" thing). You'd answer it with standard evidence in addition to the no-link argument I was talking about above.

 

K's of Rights/Legalism - the reliance on the law and the establishment of education as a right being bad. I can imagine this going either a legalistic direction based on the exceptions to that law implicitly created or maybe a bio-politics/Agamben direction based on rights being used to decide who is included/excluded both from education and from the nation. You'd answer this by defending the validity of rights and the possibility for productive legal reform.

 

Settler Colonialism - maybe that the state providing a right to education assumes its legitimacy as a defender of freedom and equality in America, masking violence inside and outside of education done to Native Americans (and, further, the illegitimacy of the state). You should ask yourself and answer for yourself if the right to education extends to Native American students. This was actually pretty interesting for me to think about, and you can read about federal authority and tribal sovereignty (here). It seems like you link if you over-ride tribal sovereignty by imposing that responsibility for equal education funding and equality protections, etc. And then you also link if you exclude them because, you know, relegating them to poor, failing schools and creating a right to education for "everyone." I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this. I think the answer should again just be some defense of your method + plan is a good idea and helps people + standard answers to settler colonialism.

 

There are a lot of other generic K's, all of which I'm not going to go through. I'd just look through the major ones on Open Evidence, any obvious generics you can think of, maybe prepare against types of K like a word PIK or a discourse K and so on, and then prepare a good 2AC block to any K that you go against after that debate.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attached is what I came up with for an answer to Settler Colonialism.  The premise is that Native Americans are citizens and the right to education is extended to Natives.  If Natives have a RTE, then they are empowered to sue the BIE for the mismanagement and lack of resources to native schools.  In short, plan solves K b/c plan empowers natives.

 

On a different note, plan solves K b/c plan ignores the geopolitical boundaries that define district funding.  Plan redistributes money from wealthy districts and gives it to the poor districts where minorities are concentrated. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it is (hopefully it attached this time)

 

2AC Anwer to Settler Colonalism

 

1.     Native Americans are Citizens of the United States

This Date in Native History: On June 2, 1924, Congress granted United States citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. But even after the Indian Citizenship Act passed, some Native Americans weren’t allowed to vote because the right to vote was governed by state law.

Until the Indian Citizenship Act, some had married white men to become citizens, or served in the military. As the National Park Service says, the act was a move by the federal government to absorb Indians into mainstream American life.

2.     The 14th Amendment applies to all citizens and persons born in the United States.

 

US Const. Amend 14, Section 1; https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

3.     A right to education interprets the 14th Amendment to include education as a fundamental right, giving children right to sue when the educational system fails them.

 

Joshua E. Weishart, 2016, Visiting Associate Professor, West Virginia University College of Law. Reconstituting the Right to Education, Alabama Law Review.

I do not wish to add another voice to this dissonant chorus by attempting to blueprint an entirely new edifice for the right. Rather, in this Article I deconstruct the right's present, much-maligned composition to gain clarity about the legal architectures that have already been conceived and operationalized. In so doing, I show how two strands of the right to education once thought to be diametrically opposed--equality of educational opportunity and educational adequacy--are interlocked through the right's forms and functions. Coding the right to education's forms only reveals part of its nature, however. n26 The form provides a descriptor of the right's "internal structure." n27 But to fit our ordinary understanding of what it means to have a legal right, we also need a descriptor of "what rights do for those who hold them," i.e., their function. n28 Leif Wenar identifies six functions--exemption, discretion, authorization, provision, performance, and protection--which, when paired with one or more forms, provide a complete description of the right's "complex 'molecular' . . . structure." n29 The practical implications of this description are quite serious because the right's forms and functions dictate the scope of judicial review and the remedial measures that courts can undertake. Put simply, they predetermine the right's potential strength and viability. My analysis in Part I concludes that the right to education held by children has taken the form of both a claim-right and an immunity. Where the two forms overlap--the protection function--the claim-right denotes a right to educational adequacy, and the immunity is one of equality of educational opportunity. n30 Although the protection function has not attracted much scholarly attention, the right has long been justified and invoked to protect children from political, economic, and social inequalities and more generally to protect their capabilities to be responsible, productive citizens. Broadly construed, such equality and liberty interests are underwritten by the equality and adequacy principles I explore further in Part II. At the core of the principle of educational adequacy is the notion that we must cultivate children's positive liberties. Whereas the distributive principle of equality of educational opportunity has been utilized to negate resource inequities and social inequalities. Despite the potential of adequacy and equality intertwined, n31 education clauses in state constitutions do not fix standards for their mutual enforcement, leaving the right to education vulnerable to the charge that it is judicially unmanageable. Disjoined, equal protection and substantive due process offer little recourse, each being jurisprudentially flawed: equal protection demanding substantive equality poses its own intractable manageability problems, rendering it inadequate. Substantive due process, as a noncomparative right, tolerates and potentially exasperates, objectionable inequities. Conjoined, the egalitarian principles of equal protection and the substantive demands of due process might overcome these flaws, but exactly how they can be integrated remains unclear, even after the Court's recent application in Obergefell v. Hodges. n32 I make no pretense that a grand unifying theory is viable or even desirable. Nevertheless, the right to education--an immunity-claim-right imparting a protection function vis-à-vis children's liberty and equality [*923] interests--presents a configuration that could make unifying substantive due process and equal protection more palpable. That union could, in turn, ameliorate the standards for enforcing the right to education. On the one hand, substantive due process advancing positive liberty interests reinforces the adequacy threshold from which resource inequities can be judicially measured and adjusted; on the other hand, equal protection can infuse equal educational opportunity principles in translating adequacy as a relational demand.

 

 

4.     Under our interpretation, Native students will have a right to bring an action against the BIE for mismanaging funds, underfunding schools, and not providing acquedate resources to the schools.

5.     BIE is mismanaged

Brenna 14, Why are Native Students Being Left Behind https://www.teachforamerica.org/one-day-magazine/why-are-native-students-being-left-behind

Apart from Department of Defense schools, schools for American Indian students are the only ones in the country operated and totally funded by the federal government under treaty agreements that promise federally-supported schooling in perpetuity in exchange for tribes giving up lands (which are not subject to property taxes and generate no tax revenue to support schools). And no group of students in America fails to graduate or achieve proficiency at such disproportionate rates. (Editor’s Note: This article ran in the Fall 2014 edition.)The failure of the U.S. to deliver on its treaty obligations to educate American Indian students first came to light in 1928, when the 847-page Merriam Report documented the disastrous effects of federal policies that forced American Indian children into boarding schools. These schools imposed manual labor and worked to eradicate students’ “Indianness” by teaching that their cultures and languages were inferior. In 1934, the Indian Reorganization Act, or “Indian New Deal,” granted self-determination rights to tribes that extended to education and later created new funding streams for schools on and off reservations. But 35 years later, a Senate report declared a near-total lack of high-quality education on reservations, calling Indian education “a national tragedy.” This was followed by the National Academy of Public Administration report in 1999 that condemned the management of schools in tribal areas by the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the U.S. Department of the Interior; then by the Bronner Report in 2012, citing poor coordination among all the offices in the Interior Department responsible for Native education; and then by a Government Accountability Office report in 2013. The GAO found the Interior Department’s Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) had so mismanaged schools that it had given them permission to use assessments that failed to meet federal requirements because the BIE “does not have procedures that specify who should be involved in key decisions.” “If we had systems of schooling in Indian country that were primarily locally and tribally controlled, would that mean different outcomes for kids?” Angelina Castagna From the standpoint of scale, improving Native students’ education would seem manageable. Of the nearly 50 million students in American public schools, just more than one percent, or around 700,000, identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian (though only American Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages are federally recognized, with tribes maintaining a historical treaty trust relationship as sovereign nations within the United States). But the smallness of Native students’ numbers (divided among 566 federally recognized tribes with 170 indigenous languages) is directly tied to the lack of drive to reform systems. To most Americans, the educational and social issues that challenge Native students in rural villages, homelands, and reservations are invisible. And when it comes to creating the conditions for reform—by reorganizing federal agencies or redistributing power in tribal communities where control of government jobs sometimes equals control of the economy—the political reward is minimal, while the potential fallout is immense. The vast majority—93 percent—of Native students don’t go to the schools cited in those reports. They attend other public schools on or near reservations or in cities away from their home reservations. Contributing to low achievement and lack of opportunity in these schools is that many fail to collect all the federal Impact Aid, Title VII, or supplemental federal Johnson-O’Malley funds to which they’re entitled. This stems not just from Congressionally-imposed funding cutbacks, but also from federal agencies undercounting Native kids, or from Native families failing to self identify because they’re unwilling to face bias, uninformed of their rights, or not enrolled in any federally recognized tribe. The BIE supports 183 schools on 64 reservations in 23 states. Some 59 are operated directly by the BIE (teachers and leaders are employees of the federal government) and 124 are operated by local tribal school boards and superintendents under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988. Nationwide, BIE-funded school buses—like this one outside of the St. Francis Indian School on the Rosebud Reservation—travel nearly 15 million miles each year across rural terrain. A shortage of federal funds means BIE schools can be on the hook for as much as $100,000 in gasoline and maintenance expenses. Kristina Barker. The approximately 48,000 students who attend the BIE-operated or tribal grant schools underperform Native students in other public schools. In one study of fourth graders, BIE students on average scored 22 percentile points lower for reading and 14 points lower for math than American Indian students attending public schools. Like almost all isolated rural schools in America, BIE schools struggle to attract and keep qualified teachers and principals. But the problems that make it hard for these schools to attract talent go deeper, to their structure and finances. To begin with, the principals of these federally- supported schools must navigate Byzantine, overlapping BIE regulations to execute the most basic functions, such as purchasing textbooks and school lunches. This gets in the way of “focusing on their primary mission of instructional leadership, a federal study group reported to the Department of Interior. The same study group noted that tribally-controlled schools are funded by the federal government at just 67% of their administrative costs, leaving principals to dip into instructional budgets to cover those. Many of these schools are in such extreme states of disrepair—with leaking roofs and walls, asbestos, mold, and aging bus fleets traveling roads that become impassable in bad weather —that the backlog repair bill for the 68 highest-risk facilities is $1.3 billion. Some 60 percent of schools also lack the bandwidth or computers to support online learning and assessments, with most dependent on outdated T1 connectivity. Language classes are critical to the culturally responsive instruction that many Native educators believe is key to better student outcomes. At the Native American Community Academy in Albuquerque, New Mexico, middle and high school students can take Navajo, Keres, and Lakota (shown here). Brian Leddy Since the 1970s, tribes have advocated passionately for their rights as sovereign nations to control and operate their own schools and teach their languages and culture—to be as accountable to their tribal nations as to states and the federal government. That change may be imminent. This past summer, the Obama administration released a blueprint for reform that lays out a vision for the BIE to turn over control of schools to tribal nations. Under the blueprint, the Department of the Interior and the BIE would eventually stop operating schools, as would local tribal councils. Instead, the BIE would become essentially a school support organization that would fund and support tribal nations to run their own schools. As an example, the Navajo Nation would take over the operation of all 66 schools now run by either the BIE or local tribal school boards. Whether this can potentially break the cycle of dysfunction depends partly on whether Congress appropriates the funds to bring schools up to 21st-century standards and creates the conditions to attract and develop talent, particularly from within Native communities. It also depends on local and national tribal leaders navigating the balance of local and national control. Many local tribal councils have been criticized for how they spend school funds and practice patronage hiring in communities where schools are among the few stable employers. “Anyone who knows Indian country would say that certainly happens, but at the same time, corruption and unethical things happen everywhere, and that’s part of the story that’s not told,” says Angelina Castagno, who does research on indigenous education and teacher preparation in the College of Education at Northern Arizona University. “That contributes to the standard narrative and deficit perspective that says indigenous people and communities are somehow inherently inferior or have more problems than other communities, instead of focusing on the structural problems in many communities.” Scholarship by Castagno, as well as colleagues who coauthored a report on promising practices in Native education for the BIE, indicates that tribal leaders are correct to assert that better outcomes for students rest on culturally responsive teaching and Native language immersion. In a study of the K-5 Puente de Hózhó (PdH) Public Magnet School in Flagstaff, Arizona, for example, Teresa McCarty and Tiffany Lee found that PdH students equaled or surpassed their Native peers in English mainstream schools. And in recent years, PdH has ranked among the district’s top-performing schools. “If we had systems of schooling in Indian country that were primarily locally and tribally controlled, would that mean different outcomes for kids? We have lots of research that says yes,” says Castagno, who conducted a research review with her colleague Brian McKinley Jones Brayboy for the American Educational Research Association. “But until it happens on a large-scale basis, it’s hard to say with any certainty.”

6.     A fundamental right to education enables Natives to sue the BIE for mismanagement.  The Supreme Court will look at the BIE’s actions under the guise of strict strutiny instead of rational basis.  Under a strict strutiny level of review, the Court will find that the BIE’s actions are not narrowly tailored to an important governmental interest, because there are less discriminatory alternatives.   Empowering Natives to take action to sue the BIE solves the settler colonialism K. 

2AC Anwer to Settler Colonalism.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2AC Anwer to Settler Colonalism

I think this is a good start, but I also think that a team making this argument would have a fairly easy time winning the K. Settler colonialism isn't just about whether or not the plan is good for Native Americans (although that is the way I framed it when I was talking about potential links) but about the way U.S. sovereignty itself is a power structure and a violation of indigenous autonomy. They'll say just because you "help" Native Americans doesn't mean you're not complicit in a broader structure. They'll say it's dismissive of the bigger theoretical issues in question. I'm going to put together a few other answers you could use.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2AC Anwer to Settler Colonalism

Okay. I've attached (hopefully) some answers that I think might work a little bit better for you in answering this argument. If the K is one-off, with no other arguments in the debate, you might need even more stuff to read. However, I think this'll do you okay in an average debate.

 

There are a few claims that the Negative will be making. If they win these claims are true, they probably win the debate.

1. Settler colonialism is the organizing logic of American life and politics. [Thesis].

2. Actions within the framework of settler colonialism legitimize it as said organizing structure. [Link].

3. The legitimization of settler colonialism is responsible for past, current, and future violence against indigenous peoples. [impact].

4. The only alternative to settler colonialism is some form of decolonization. [Alternative].

5. This is an ethical demand that comes prior to any particular policy or even the United States federal government itself. [Framework].

 

The story you want to tell in the 2AR against this K is that the plan is a good idea that's not mutually exclusive to the alternative. The net-benefit to the permutation is the 1AC. You're, of course, not going to impact-turn violence against Native Americans.

Respectively, you need to establish that:

1. Settler colonialism is flexible and contingent, not absolute and totalizing. [General].

2. Not every action taken by the USFG contributes to that power structure. [No Link].

3. Settler colonialism is not solely responsible for violence in America. [That Rana card that isn't that great].

4. Decolonization can occur simultaneously with political reform. [Permutation].

5. The consequences of policy actions should be weighed in relation to the K. [Framework].

2AC.docx

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the ones mentioned before, there are some that would be associated with other advantages. Critical turns to democracy modelling arguments such as democracy bad have been framed as critiques before. Also, you have the typical anti-blackness arguments which argue that education is inherently oriented against black people, and trying to reform inherently fails and ultimately gives us the illusion of solving inequality while not addressing the structural oppression underlying the racism that the aff tries to solve in the first place. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...