What's the threshold for reasonability? If an interpretation and/or aff logically make sense, like ours does, they should be allowed.
How is creating new standards and conditions not creation of something new?
The standards expand preexisting curriculum.
What does the world of the perm look like?
Aff and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt: We implement the entirety of the aff and then also do your alt minus the reject the aff part, pretty much
Do both: This one is pretty similar. Implement the entirety of the aff, engage in the class struggle, and transition to democratic Marxism.
Where in your Labio evidence does it indicate that arts and humanities allows us to break away from capital? Labio talks about how arts and humanities are labeled as hobbies and leisurely pursuits because STEM is whats perceived as economically successful. Later in the card it talks about how society's capitalist perception of education is what has caused that. STEM is enhanced because that's how we keep our economic machine up and running, while arts and humanities are cut because government and business interests can't profit off of them. The card also talks about how focus on STEM over the arts and humanities leads us to sacrifice personal autonomy and happiness in the name of money and productivity.
Can you give me a line out of your evidence that says that there is already enough STEM focus?
Walker 12: "the decade-long focus on reading and math have clearly taken their toll on the availability of arts instruction"
Metla 15: "many schools in poor neighborhoods are considered low-performing, they face an intense pressure to meet Common Core standards through math and English language tests."
Martinez-Fernandez 12: "We need more engineers and scientists. That has become the mantra of promoters of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in education. There is nothing wrong with such a rallying cry, except that investment in STEM education usually comes at the expense of HAS (humanities, arts, and social sciences)."
Labio also talks about STEM focus in the status quo. All of these lines serve to indicate that we're over-focusing on STEM fields now, which definitely means we have a more than sufficient focus.
Where in either peices of your Robinson evidence does it say states will opt out?
Neither of the cards here explicitly say states will opt out, but it talks about how states empirically reinforce inequalities among low-income and minority schools. This at least shows that given the choice, states would take advantage of the opportunity to do that some more. And allowing them to opt out definitely gives that that opportunity.
Where does your first Robinson evidence does it explain how the UQ overwhelm the link? The first Robinson card provides a list of things states and localities would maintain control over, which is the uq overwhelms the link argument. Specifically education governance, school finance, school assessments and graduation requirements, administration, management, maintenance. Just a long list of stuff that states still have power over post-aff.
Where in your second Robinson evidence does it explain how ed fed spills over?
Other way around, educational federalism doesn't spillover. This card specifically isolates that there are multiple types of federalism, like environmental law and healthcare policy. It also explains that federal involvement is critical to ensuring equal access to an excellent education, and that states and local governments still have autonomy in those other fields.