This would make a good plan/solvency -- "federal government should" recommendations in a balanced context.
1. The federal government should ensure that no student is denied the right to equal educational opportunity based solely on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, or other protected status. This role is rooted in the Equal Protection Clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board. Although the Court has continued to stop short of calling education a right under the federal Constitution, it argued in Brown that education is so important to functioning in a democracy that “where the state has undertaken to provide it, [education] is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”4 The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within the USDOE plays an important role in this effort to ensure that students’ civil rights are protected in the provision of education.
2. The federal government should provide compensatory funding to facilitate access to educational opportunity for high-need students, including, but not limited to, students living in poverty and students with disabilities. In addition to the national interest in protecting civil rights, the existence of a national interest in providing educational opportunity to children who would otherwise be underserved is now generally accepted. The government’s primary tool for promoting this principle is to distribute funds to students who would otherwise have more limiteed educational opportunities than others. Title I of ESEA and IDEA are primary examples.
3. The federal government should support education research and development, and the gathering and dissemination of information about the scope and quality of the nation’s education system, to inform policy and practice at the state and local levels. This principle is rooted directly, though only partly, in the importance of measuring the effectiveness of the federal government’s own programs in providing educational opportunity to high-need children and protecting civil rights. Research also plays a broader role by providing new knowledge about all aspects of education. This knowledge is what economists call a national public good, in the sense that research in any state can inform and benefit other states. In such situations, a higher level of government—the federal government—should step in to subsidize research and avoid under-investment by individual states. The same justification applies to the gathering and dissemination of national information about the country’s education system.5
4. The federal government should, in a manner consistent with both its unique advantages and limited capacity, support the development of conditions to promote continuous improvement of state and local education systems. The federal government is poorly positioned to dictate the details of state and local efforts to improve their schools. It can, however, foster the conditions for educational improvement through capacity-building to provide guidance and support local education systems. A focus on providing clear information about successful practices and the understanding to learn from mistakes are necessary components of a federal strategy. The ultimate goal of these supportive federal activities should be having school systems nationwide pursuing goal-directed continuous improvement.d educational opportunities than others. Title I of ESEA and IDEA are primary examples.
edit: look there's even a sick politics DA link turn.
We believe these principles and recommendations should garner widespread support. Written by a bipartisan group of scholars and policy advisors, they are rooted in the most compelling historical federal efforts in education, recognize the growing social and economic value of education across the country, and align with principles that Democrats and Republicans alike have long embraced.
Edited by TheSnowball, 18 April 2017 - 11:27 AM.
This cross-ex is taking too long.
Kafka 25 (Franz, Novelist, Translated by David Wyllie, "The Trial", 1925) //Snowball
K. was informed by telephone that there would be a small hearing concerning his case the following Sunday. He was made aware that these cross examinations would follow one another regularly, perhaps not every week but quite frequently. On the one hand it was in everyone’s interest to bring proceedings quickly to their conclusion, but on the other hand every aspect of the examinations had to be carried out thoroughly without lasting too long because of the associated stress. For these reasons, it had been decided to hold a series of brief examinations following on one after another. Sunday had been chosen as the day for the hearings so that K. would not be disturbed in his professional work. It was assumed that he would be in agreement with this, but if he wished for another date then, as far as possible, he would be accommodated. Cross-examinations could even be held in the night, for instance, but K. would probably not be fresh enough at that time. Anyway, as long as K. made no objection, the hearing would be left on Sundays. It was a matter of course that he would have to appear without fail, there was probably no need to point this out to him. He would be given the number of the building where he was to present himself, which was in a street in a suburb well away from the city centre which K. had never been to before.