Neg
1NC
Shell
A. Uniqueness: Federalism is being rebalanced - Trump is currently reversing the educational policy federal-state dynamic, easing federal control over accountability and equity. Federal education policy wrecks the whole agenda.
Wong 17(Kenneth K. Wong, Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of Education Policy at Brown University. “Redefining the federal role in public education: The 1st quarter of the Trump “insurgent” presidency” Brookings. March 27, 2017. Accessed: June 23, 2017 COB)
Historically, equity has been a key justification for federal involvement in K-12 education. Since the civil rights movement and the Great Society agenda, federal education programs have been designed to promote equal educational opportunities for all students. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was part of the president’s War on Poverty. Since the presidency of Reagan, the federal government has broadened its focus to include performance-based accountability. The Trump administration is ready to reverse the federal-state dynamic on both equity and accountability, and the Trump White House has an opportunity to do so in the current political climate. First, the 2015 iteration of ESSA rebalanced federal-state relations by granting states much more control over school accountability and improvement strategies compared to the No Child Left Behind era. Second, the Republican-controlled Congress recently used the Congressional Review Act to further reduce federal authority under ESSA by repealing the “Accountability and State Plans” regulation published by the Obama administration. DeVos now has the opportunity to grant even more power to states as they implement ESSA. Third, the federal government may also choose to withdraw from some of the equity-oriented practices. DeVos is reviewing whether the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights will continue an effort that began in 1968 to collect biennial data on schooling opportunities and quality in public schools throughout the country.
B. Link: Establishing a curriculum framework is a state right- federal action undercuts federalism.
Thomson Reuters 17(Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm with operational headquarters in Manhattan, New York City. “The Roles of Federal and State Governments in Education” MT)
When it comes to matters of policy, the public tends to look to the federal government to lead the way, but the local governments actually determine educational policy. Early in our nation's history, lawmakers passed the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which is the basis for making education a function of the states. Each school district is administered and financed by the community along with that district's state government. School districts with higher socioeconomic levels tend to give more resources to their schools. Standards and quality of education consequently vary widely from state to state, town to town, and even district to district. However, federal and state government can still play some role in education policy, as this article explains. Federal Authority As stated above, the federal government has historically played a minor role in education, and in fact, the federal government did not issue any educational policy until the 1960s. The National Science Foundation published a report studying which educational techniques were effective that the Johnson administration used in its "Great Society" program. Federal involvement in education has only increased since then. The federal laws with the most impact on education concern: Equal access to education Safeguarding students' constitutional rights Safeguarding teachers' constitutional rights. Education is not exactly a constitutional right, like free speech and assembly, but it is an important enough interest to warrant constitutional protection. Students are therefore protected against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or disability, or ethnicity through the 14th Amendment. Every Student Succeeds Act The federal government also influences education by allocating funding only to those school districts that follow certain federal guidelines. Roughly three percent of the federal budget is spent on education as of 2017 - a small proportion, of course, but in many years this amounts to billions of dollars. Most of this money goes toward assistance programs for children with disabilities. The rest of the money is distributed to school districts under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The federal government plays a role in evaluating each school district by administering the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP), also known as the Nation's Report Card. Finally, federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education publish recommended teaching strategies and materials. States and local governments are free to adopt or ignore these recommendations as they see fit, although no funding will be awarded if the school district adopts these practices. State Authority The states are the entities primarily responsible for the maintenance and operation of public schools. The states are also heavily involved in the establishment, selection, and regulation of curriculum, teaching methods, and instructional materials in their schools. Consequently, each state has different standards and policies which may impact the quality of education offered. Each state's constitution requires it to provide a school system where children may receive an education. Many state constitutions also contain express provisions for creating educational curricula. Some state constitutions even empower state authorities to select textbooks and educational materials. Besides constitutional authority, state governments also have authority to legislate in this area, or they can authorize officials to establish, select, and regulate curriculum. State legislatures have also set mandatory requirements for students to graduate. In cases where state rules and regulations for courses do exist, they must be followed. Local school districts may, however, offer courses and activities in the instructional program beyond those required by state statute. Other states delegate more of their authority. They usually prescribe a model curriculum framework, allowing local authorities to develop their own curricula based on the general state goals.
C. Internal Link - The Philippines models US federalism – Duterte is currently moving away from a decentralized government but has no solid agenda yet – maintaining the current balance is key to avoid drastic measures and tyranny.
Rood 16(Steven Rood, representing the views of the Asia Foundation. “Finding federalism in the Philippines” East Asia Forum. October 1, 2016. Accessed: June 30, 2017 COB)
It’s all happening in the Philippines these days — a raging war against drugs, an ‘independent’ foreign policy that may fracture relations with the United States, and the prospect of hosting Miss Universe (and ASEAN) in 2017. But the proposed constitutional revision to shift from unitary to federal government has remained a steady background issue. Hardly a day goes by when there are not ‘federalism 101’ dialogues discussing its pros and cons. The Philippine Congress is currently busy passing the 2017 budget but as 2016 comes to a close they will be turning their attention to constitutional change. This is all due to the convictions of one man: President Rodrigo Duterte. Advocacy for federalism has its centre of gravity in the Mindanao region. From the perspective of a Davao — the region’s largest city — Manila is overbearing. In Mindanao, federalism is seen as a way of satisfying the aspirations of its local Muslim population by adding to the powers that have already been devolved to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Federalism was discussed briefly in the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, but was rejected due to fears of fragmentation. As part of the post-dictatorship thrust towards democracy, a degree of decentralisation was instituted under the 1991 Local Government Code, which introduced local-level responsibility for health, environment, social services and agriculture. Some have argued that local governments have not fulfilled these mandates. Others have suggested that insufficient power and funds were devolved in 1991. By the end of the decade, arguments were being made that federalism was the next step in bringing democracy to communities throughout the country. In 2005, then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo convened another Constitutional Commission and appointed Jose Abueva as chair, a leading federalism advocate. But the Commission’s recommendations did not include federalism. Instead it recommended an indefinitely long process of instituting ‘autonomy’ in different areas. Opposition from the Commission’s members and elected provincial politicians stymied the move. Following this the focus of the debate shifted to instituting a parliamentary system of governance rather than the current presidential form — this may have been a maneuver to secure another term for Macapagal-Arroyo who was the president at the time. Advocates of a shift to federalism often pair it with a desire to change to a parliamentary form of government. But this is unpopular with the average citizen. Surveys have repeatedly found that Filipinos want to vote for their leaders instead of having members of the legislature decide who heads the executive branch. Surveys also show that while there is little knowledge about federalism among the population, people generally favour greater autonomy of regions and localities. This vague endorsement by citizens is unsurprising given that even their elected leaders seem uncertain on the topic. In an interview, Duterte argued for a federal parliamentary system, similar to that seen in Singapore and Malaysia. But he also added that the Philippines could look into adopting the model used by the United States. Singapore, as an island-state, is not federal. The US is federal but also presidential. And while it is true that Malaysia has a parliamentary government with federalism, it is described as centralised. As the national legislature begins to consider ways to amend the constitution — possibly after another round of recommendations — Duterte’s direction of change is not at all clear. This lack of purpose can be seen throughout much of Duterte’s administration. It is perhaps best to describe the President as a populist, whose ‘thin-centred ideology’ does not provide detailed answers. His economic team announced early a standard ten-point program to accellerate growth, but also put leftists in charge of the labour and agrarian reforms. In terms of the environment, Duterte was sufficiently taken by the passion and reasoning of an anti-mining activist to name her head of the department. But he then hired a pro-mining colleague as her undersecretary in charge of the Mining and Geosciences Bureau. One of the main motivations for federalism, at least in Mindanao, is the belief that it will help meet the legitimate demands of Muslims in the Philippines. But Duterte has failed to convey any clear future direction for the issue, sometimes saying that passing the failed Bangsamoro Basic Law would be a template for federalism and sometimes saying that federalism would solve demands for a better rule by Philippine Muslims of their own affairs. All this activity begs the question of whether federalism is a good idea for the Philippines. It is a complex process with many doubters. A shift to parliamentary governance would leave the Philippines in uncharted territory — political scientist Gene Pilapil points out that this has never happened in any country during peacetime. President Duterte has repeatedly stated that the Philippines is at war with crime, so he certainly believes drastic measures are necessary.
D. Impact: Modeling stronger federal control pushes Duterte even further right, inciting government infighting between parties despite peace talks and extending martial law, destroying the civil and human rights of his citizens.
Casiño 17(Teddy Casiño, served as the party-list representative of Bayan Muna for 3 terms, from 2004 to 2013. Prior to his stint in Congress, he was secretary-general of the Bagong AlyansangMakabayan and a columnist for BusinessWorld. “After one year, Duterte veers ever more to the right” Rappler. June 30, 2017. Accessed: July 3, 2017 COB)
After a year in office, the first self-proclaimed Leftist and Socialist president of the Philippines has become more rightist and fascist than ever. Swept to office last year on the promise of sweeping changes, President Rodrigo Duterte and his government are proving to be a hindrance to the country's most urgent political and socio-economic reforms. Worse, with the recent declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao and possibly elsewhere, he is threatening to bring the country back to the Marcosian days of martial rule. Human rights catastrophe If there is any accomplishment that President Duterte can rightly claim his own, it's the deaths of more than 8,000 suspected drug users and pushers at the hands of the police, police assets and police-backed vigilante death squads. This was his campaign promise, and he is doing it with flair. The unbelievable frequency and impunity by which these extrajudicial killings (i.e. summary executions at the hands of state security forces) are committed have become the hallmark of his “war on drugs.” It is targeted mainly at the poor, who neither have the clout nor the resources to defend themselves from such an onslaught by the very government that is supposed to protect their rights. The drug-related killings have earned widespread condemnation from human rights advocates here and abroad. And by comparing himself to Hitler, Duterte has singlehandedly cemented his image on the world stage as a proponent of genocide and mass murder. Just like the EJKs of petty criminals in Davao City when he was then mayor, the killings due to the drug war cannot be directly attributed to President Duterte. He has never pulled the trigger or ordered the killing of specific individuals. But by giving his men the go-ahead to shoot drug suspects, repeatedly condoning the killings and assuring those involved of protection and even a presidential pardon, and with authorities under him failing or refusing to investigate or prosecute numerous cases of EJKs, then he becomes accountable. It's not only the poor drug users and pushers that get killed. In the last year, human rights groups have documented at least 55 extrajudicial killings of peasants and indigenous peoples suspected of being members or sympathizers of the New People's Army (NPA). Almost all victims were involved in land disputes involving large plantations or in campaigns to stop large-scale mining in their communities. Independent investigations almost always point to government soldiers or members of military-backed paramilitary groups as perpetrators. Whether drug related or counterinsurgency related, whether one or 8,000, such killings target the poor and are utterly condemnable. It represents the darkest side of the Duterte presidency. Peace talks on the brink In contrast, the resumption of the peace talks between the government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) can be considered the Duterte presidency's silver lining. His appointment of 3 NDFP nominees to his cabinet, the release of NDFP consultants involved in the negotiations, and his commitment to honor all previously signed agreements between the two parties have established much confidence and goodwill in the talks. The peace talks with the NDFP are key to his campaign promise of bringing peace to the whole country. The talks are meant to address the root causes of the 50-year old armed conflict. It's agenda includes the entire gamut of economic, social, cultural, political and constitutional reforms. Moreover, Duterte's background as a KabataangMakabayan activist and claims of being a leftist and socialist endears him well to the NDFP. There have been four rounds of formal talks in the last year, the most number of any administration. Major gains have been achieved in forging a substantial agreement on social and economic reforms, including a consensus on free land distribution as the key principle in agrarian reform. Drafts have been exchanged on political and constitutional reforms, and discussions started on the eventual cessation of hostilities and disposition of forces. Unfortunately, Duterte's insistence, on the prodding of his military and defense officials, on a bilateral ceasefire prior to any substantial agreement has snagged the talks. At this stage in the negotiations where no substantial agreement has yet been signed, the NDFP considers such a bilateral ceasefire agreeement as a virtual document of surrender and capitulation. As in previous regimes, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) want the rebels to enter into a ceasefire but insists on its right to operate in NPA strongholds and areas where the rebels operate. The rebels know that this is to their disadvantage and so insists that the talks proceed even as both sides fight it out in the battlefield. In previous negotiations, substantial agreements between the two parties – like the Comprehensive Agreement on the Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) and the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) – were negotiated and signed despite the absence of a ceasefire. As a compromise, the NDFP has agreed to entering such a ceasefire simultaneous with the signing of an agreement on social and economic reforms, hopefully within the year. But the security cluster led by former generals National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon and Defense Sec. DelfinLorenzana is against this. This was what basically caused the collapse of the 5th round of negotiations scheduled last May. But it is the issue of martial law that has put the peace talks in a most precarious situation. On the day that martial law was declared in Mindanao, Sec. Lorenzana identified the NPA as among the targets. This compelled the Communist Party to order the NPA to fight back through intensified offensives. Later, after the 5th round of talks had collapsed, Duterte said that he would order the arrest of NDFP consultants and negotiators. Although Lorenzana has recalled his statement and military officials insist that martial law is intended only to address the threat of ISIS-inspired groups, the National Interfaith Humanitarian Mission held in Mindanao last June 13-17 reported that under martial law, military operations and aerial bombings have increased in NPA strongholds and mass bases in the island. If martial law is extended and leads to massive human rights violations and the curtailment of civil and political rights, and if Duterte makes good his threat to arrest the NDFP officials, the talks might just reach a dead end.