CDL Core Files2017-2018
2017-2018 Chicago Debate League Core Files
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.
Researched by Nick Locke, Dara Davis, Xhoel Veizi, and David Song
Edited by Ali Sears and David Song
2017-2018 Chicago Debate League Core Files
English Language Learners Aff
Vocabulary
ELL 1AC
Contention One: Inherency
Contention Two: Harms to the American Economy
Contention Three: Harms of American Racism
Contention Four: Solvency
English Language Learners 2AC
2AC AT: Harms (Economy) #1 = “Job Market Strong”
2AC AT: Harms (Economy) #2 = “Latinos Already Bilingual”
2AC AT: Harms (Economy) #3 = “No Impact”
2AC AT: Harms (Racism) #1-2 – “Gentrification Turn”
2AC AT: Solvency #1 – “English-only works”
2AC AT: Solvency #2 – “Bilingual costly and fails”
English Language Learners Neg
1NC Harms (Economy) Frontline
2NC/1NR Economy #1 Extension – “Job Market Strong”
2NC/1NR Economy #2 Extension – “Latinos Already Bilingual”
2NC/1NR Economy #3 Extension – “No impact”
1NC Harms (Racism) Frontline
2NC/1NR Harms (Racism) #1-2 Extension – Gentrification Turn
1NC Solvency Frontline
2NC/1NR Solvency #1 Extension – “English-only works”
2NC/1NR Solvency #2 Extension – “Bilingual fails”
Charters Aff
Vocabulary
Advantage 1: Neoliberalism
1AC Critical Solvency/Plan
1AC Policy Solvency/Plan
Charters Aff 2AC
2AC Inherency Extensions
2AC AT: Neoliberalism #1 “Neoliberalism=Democratic”
2AC AT: Neoliberalism #2 “No Brink”
2AC AT: Neoliberalism #3 “Charter Checks Exist”
2AC AT: Neoliberalism #4 “Neoliberalism Inevitable”
2AC AT: Critical Solvency #1 “Charters Improve Education”
2AC AT: Critical Solvency #2 “Giroux Biased”
2AC AT: Critical Solvency #3 “No Practical Solvency”
2AC AT: Policy Solvency #1 “Charters Improve Education”
2AC AT: Policy Solvency #2 “Loopholes”
2AC AT: Policy Solvency #3 “Public Schools Fail”
2AC Policy Regulations Solvency Extensions
Charters Neg
1NC Neoliberalism Frontline
2NC/1NR Neoliberalism #1 “Neoliberalism Democratic” Extensions
2NC/1NR Neoliberalism #2 “No Brink” Extensions
2NC/1NR Neoliberalism “Charter Checks Exist” Extensions
2NC/1NR Neoliberalism #4 “Neoliberalism Inevitable” Extensions
1NC Critical Solvency Frontline
2NC/1NR Critical Solvency #1 “Charters Good” Extensions
2NC/1NR Critical Solvency #2 “Giroux Biased” Extensions
2NC/1NR Critical Solvency #3 “No Political Solution” Extensions
1NC Policy Solvency Frontline
2NC/1NR Policy Solvency #1 “Charters Good” Extensions
2NC/1NR Policy Solvency #2 “Loopholes” Extensions
2NC/1NR Policy Solvency #3 “Public Schools Fail” Extensions
Federal Funding Inequality Aff
Vocabulary
Plan Text
Advantage One: Racism
Advantage Two: Poverty
1AC Solvency
Federal Funding Inequality 2AC
2AC AT: Racism #1 “Police/Justice System is Worse”
2AC AT: Racism #2 “Funding isn’t Policies”
2AC AT: Racism #3 “Racism on Decline”
2AC AT: Poverty #1 “Wealth Improving”
2AC AT: Poverty #2 “Education Inequality Myth”
2AC AT: Poverty #3 “Government Assistance”
2AC AT: Solvency #1 “Poverty Undermines Education”
2AC AT: Solvency #2 “No Policy Change”
2AC AT: Solvency #3 “Regulation Harms”
Federal Funding Inequality Neg
1NC Racism Frontline
2NC/1NR Racism #1 “Racism in Justice System” Extensions
2NC/1NR Racism #2 “Funding won’t Fix Discrimination” Extensions
2NC/1NR Racism #3 “Racism Reducing” Extensions
1NC Poverty Frontline
2NC/1NR Poverty #1 “Poverty Declining” Extensions
2NC/1NR Poverty #2 “Inequality Myth” Extensions
2NC/1NR Poverty “Government Assistance” Extensions
1NC Solvency Frontline
2NC/1NR Solvency #1 “Poverty Prevents Education” Extensions
2NC/1NR Solvency #2 “Rural Poverty” Extensions
2NC/1NR Solvency #3 “Regulations Hurt Education” Extensions
2NC/1NR Solvency #4 “College Key” Extensions
STEM Aff
Vocabulary
Plan Text
Solvency
Advantage One: Hegemony
Advantage Two: Global Warming
STEM 2AC
2AC AT: Hegemony #1= “Squo Solves”
2AC AT: Hegemony #2-3= “Terrorism Turn”
2AC AT: Hegemony #4= “Heg Sustainable”
2AC AT: Hegemony #5= “No impact”
2AC AT: Global Warming #1= “Squo Solves”
2AC AT: Global Warming #2= “Timeframe”
2AC AT: Global Warming #3= “Tipping Point”
2AC AT: Global Warming #4= “No Impact”
2AC AT: Solvency #1= “States don’t adopt”
2AC AT: Solvency #2= “NGSS =/= Solve”
2AC AT: Solvency #3= “Not Enough Teachers”
STEM Neg
1NC Hegemony Frontline
1NC Global Warming Frontline
1NC Solvency Frontline
2NC/1NR Extensions
2NC/1NR Hegemony#1 Extension
2NC/1NR Hegemony #2-3 Extension
2NC/1NR Hegemony #4 Extension
2NC/1NR Hegemony #5 Extension
2NC/1NR Global Warming #1 Extension
2NC/1NR Global Warming #2 Extension
2NC/1NR Global Warming #3 Extension
2NC/1NR Global Warming #4 Extension
2NC/1NR Solvency #1 Extension
2NC/1NR Solvency #2 Extension
2NC/1NR Solvency #3 Extension
Topicality
Vocabulary
1NC Funding Equality Regulations Topicality
2AC AT: Funding Equality Regulations Topicality
2NC/1NR AT #1: “We Meet”
2NC/1NR AT #2: “Counter Interpretation”
2NC/1NR AT #3: “Topic Education”
2NC/1NR AT #3: “No Case Meets”
2NC/1NR AT #3: “Real World”
2NC/1NR AT #4: “Reasonability”
1NC English Language Learners Substantial Topicality
2NC/1NR AT #1: “We Meet”
2NC/1NR AT #2: “Counter Interpretation”
2NC/1NR AT #3: “Core of the Topic”
2NC/1NR AT #3: Precise
2NC/1NR AT #3: Overlimiting
2NC/1NR AT #4: Reasonability
2AC AT: English Language Learners T Substantial
1NC Charters Regulation Topicality
2NC/1NR AT: #1 “We Meet”
2NC/1NR AT: #2 “Counter Interpretation”
2NC/1NR AT: #3 “Common Phrasing”
2NC/1NR AT: #3 “Mixing Burdens”
2NC/1NR AT: #3 “Core of the Topic”
2NC/1NR AT: #4 “Reasonability
2AC AT: Charters Regulation Topicality
1NC STEM Its/USfg Topicality
2NC/1NR AT: #1 “We Meet”
2NC/1NR AT: #2 “Counter Interpretation”
2NC/1NR AT: #3 “Core of the Topic”
2NC/1NR AT: #3 “Overlimiting”
2NC/1NR AT: #3 “Contextual”
2NC/1NR AT #4: Reasonability
2AC AT: STEM Its/USfg Topicality
Extra Regulation Definitions
Framework / T-USFG
1NC
2NC o/v
AT: State bad
AT: Exclusion
AT: Reasonability
AT: Kills agency
AT: Predictability Bad
AT: K of citizenry
AT: Role of Ballot
AT: Fuels Neolib
AT: You silence us
T versions of Affs
Definitions
AFF AT: Framework / T-USFG
Counter-Interpretation
A2 Decision Making
A2 Predictability
A2 Fairness
A2 Limits
Military Trade Off DA
Vocabulary
1NC Shell
2NC Impact Extensions
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #1 “Military Spending High”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #2 “No Link”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #3 “Strikes Bad”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #4 “Impact Calculus”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #5 “Military InvestmentChina War”
Military Trade Off DA – Aff Answers
2AC
Federalism DA
Vocabulary
1NC Shell
Regulation Links
Funding Links
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #1 “Federalism Low”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #2 “Plan doesn’t’ decrease Federalism”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #3 “No Modeling”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #4 “Federalism Bad for Schools”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #5 “Impact Calculus”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #6 “Federalism Racist”
2NC/1NR Hegemony Impact Module
Federalism DA – Aff Answers
2AC Answers
1AR “Federalism=Racist” Extensions
States CP
Vocabulary
1NC Charters States CP
2NC/1NR Solvency Extensions
1NC Funding Equality States CP
2NC/1NR Solvency Extensions
1NC ELLs States CP
2NC/1NR Solvency Extensions
1NC STEM States CP
2NC/1NR Solvency Extensions
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #1 “50 State Theory”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #2 “States Fail”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #3 “Double Bind”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #4 “Perm”
2NC/1NR AT: 2AC #5 “Spending DA”
States CP – Aff Answers
2AC Answers
1AR Spending DA Extensions
Classroom K
Vocabulary
1NC Shell
Links--Schools
Links—Economic/Government Regulations
Links–Hegemony
Links-English Language Learners
2NC/1NR: Impacts-War
2NC/1NR Impacts: Structural Violence
2NC/1NR Impacts: Turns the AFF/Destroys Education
2NC/1NR AT #1: “Framework”
2NC/1NR AT: “Link Turn”
2NC/1NR AT: “Perm”
2NC/1NR AT: “Impact Calculus”
2NC/1NR AT: “Cede the Political”
2NC/1NR AT: “No Internal Link”
Classroom K – Aff Answers
2AC Answers
English Language Learners Aff
Vocabulary
English-language learners, or ELLs, are students who are unable to communicate fluently or learn effectively in English, who often come from non-English-speaking homes and backgrounds, and who typically require specialized or modified instruction in both the English language and in their academic courses. (
English as a Second Language (ESL): A program of techniques, methodology and special curriculum designed to teach ELL students English language skills, which may include listening, speaking, reading, writing, study skills, content vocabulary, and cultural orientation. ESL instruction is usually in English with little use of native language. (
Sheltered English Instruction – ELLs are taught academic content in English by a content licensed teacher. However, the English language used for instruction is adapted to the proficiency level of the students. While the instruction focuses on content, sheltered English instruction also promotes English language development. (
Structured English Immersion – ELLs are taught subject matter in English by a content licensed teacher who is also licensed in ESL or bilingual education. The teacher is proficient in the first language of the student. Students may use their native language for clarification, but the teacher uses only English. No ESL instruction is provided in this model. (
Transitional Bilingual Education – ELLs receive academic instruction for the their first language for part of the day. For the remainder of the day, they receive ESL taught traditionally, with the focus on language, plus some mainstream classes. As English proficiency increases, instruction through the first language decreases. The program lasts 2-4 years.
Two-Way Immersion/Dual Language – a native English-speaking group and a non-English group (e.g. Spanish speakers) are both taught academic content in both languages for an extended period of time. Both groups develop academic proficiency in both languages. (
ELL 1AC
First, our PLAN: The United States Federal Government should mandate that any state receiving grant funding under the Every Students Succeed Act will use the funds for Dual Language Immersion classes in elementary and secondary education classrooms.
Contention One: Inherency
American schools continue to focus on English-only instruction without true bilingual education, which dooms us to a society and a workforce that only speaks English
Gándara & Acevedo 2016(Patricia, a research professor of education in UCLA’s Graduate School of Education, and co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, Sylvia a business consultant with 20 plus years of experience developing and implementing successful strategies for emerging markets in technology and in education. Both Gándara and Acevedo serve on the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. Acevedo is chair of the Early Childhood Subcommittee of the WHIEEH; Gándara is co-chair (with D. Cardinali) of the K-12 Education Subcommittee, June, REALIZING THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF A MULTILINGUAL WORKFORCE, , DD)
21ST CENTURY GLOBAL ECONOMICS Though the United States is the largest market in the world, the workforce largely speaks only English. And this is not by accident. U.S. schools have increasingly turned away from educating students in more than one language. 2 The result is that immigrant languages are lost at a more rapid rate today than in the past. 3 Relatively few students in the U.S. have access to bilingual or dual-language programs, despite the ever-growing demand.4 Even when schools provide some kind of bilingual program for English learners (students who already have a head start on bilingualism), the majority of schools see the native language only as a bridge to English, not as a subject in its own right. Once students have a command of the English language that is sufficient to survive in an English-only classroom, most programs for English learners “transition” students and the native language fades into the background, possibly lost entirely by subsequent generations. As Secretary of Education John King recently noted: “We have a growing body of research that makes clear that students who are bilingual have advantages, not only in their literacy development, but in the development of problem-solving skills and other areas of cognition. What we see now is that bilingualism is a gift that we can give to our students and to our communities. And that is a powerful shift in our historical perspective on bilingualism... We know that our competitiveness as a country depends, in part, on advancing. A language graveyard? The evolution of language competencies, preferences and use among young adult children of immigrants. In T.G. Wiley, J. Sook Lee, & R. Rumberger (eds). The Education of Language Minority Immigrants in the United States. pp. 35-71. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 4 Garcia, A. (2015). What the rising popularity in Dual Language Programs could mean for Dual Language Learners. Retrieved April 13, 2016 from Economic Advantages of a Bilingual Workforce June 2016 3 that goal.
The current law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, provides resources for English learners but fails to provide the federal direction needed for accountability
Pompa, 2015( December, Delia Pompa is Senior Fellow for Education Policy at MPI’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy where her work focuses onresearch andpolicy analysis related to improving educational services for immigrant students and English Language Learners (ELLs).She has had a key role in shaping federal education policy through her positions as Director of the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs in the U.S. Department of Education, and as Executive Director of the National Association for Bilingual Education. Ms. Pompa came to Washington, DC to serve as Director of Education for the Children’s Defense Fund after serving as Assistant Commissioner for Program Development at the Texas Education Agency. Her previous experience as Executive Director for Bilingual and Migrant Education in the Houston Independent School District and as a bilingual classroom teacher and instructor to prospective teachers at the graduate level has anchored her work.)
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which is on the way to the President’s desk for his signature,includes important policies that recognize the needs and diversity of English Learners (ELs) in an effort to close the ongoing achievement gap between them and other students. The bill, which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also crucially maintains accountability for how ELs are achieving—a hallmark of the last reauthorization, known as the No Child Left Behind Act.
Given ESSA’s overall thrust of reducing federal authority in education, however,ensuring that EL needs are met will be complicated by the fact that education agencies in 50 states and the District of Columbia will be interpreting the new mandates and perhaps implementing them differently.
ESSA has many strengths with respect to the nation’s approximately 5 million English learners in K-12 classrooms. (The term English Language Learner, or ELL, has long been used; ESSA uses English Learner, or EL.) The most far-reaching, change requires that states include English language proficiency in their accountability frameworks under Title I, the provision that governs accountability for all students. Previously, accountability for growth in language proficiency was limited to Title III, which provides resources to ELs. The change gives ELs a higher profile in accountability systems and reflects their growing importance in overall student achievement because of their increasing numbers.Placing ELs in the law’s primary achievement and accountability framework will be of obvious and particular importance for states and districts with the largest concentrations of EL students, such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois. The legislation also provides critically needed support for EL services and performance in states with scattered or smaller numbers of EL students, where their central place in accountability systems should ensure that their outcomes are regularly scrutinized.
In another significant change, states are now required to have a standardized process for classifying students as English learners as well as a standardized statewide process for how ELs exit special services (or how they are reclassified). Up to now, many states have had a hodge-podge of EL entry-and-exit criteria across districts within a state, resulting in inconsistent assessment of needs and provision of services for students. Under ESSA, the entry and exit of ELs from services will be consistent at least within states, thus allowing educators to better serve students with high rates of mobility and making the definition of an English learner consistent across the state.
The legislation also alters the exclusion of ELs from standardized tests. Previously, even though ELstudents were required to take the math assessment, states could exclude these results (as well as those from the language arts assessment) from their accountability framework during the students’ first year in U.S. schools.ESSA adds a second option: EL students who are recently arrived would not be required to take the English language arts test, and states would not be required to include ELs’ English language proficiency scores in their accountability system. In the second year states would use a growth measure for reading and math that would be included in their accountability systems. A growth measure indicates the amount of positive change from one year to the next whereas proficiency scores are a measure of a particular point in time. Using a measure of growth allows states greater flexibility in demonstrating the progress ELs are making without having to include actual proficiency scores in their systems of accountability. In the third year and thereafter, assessment scores must be included in the same way as for all other students.
After much debate, the legislation allows the inclusion of former ELs in the EL subgroup for accountability purposes for up to four years. This change expands the two-year allowance provided for in Department of Education-issued regulations for the last several years. Including former ELs in the EL subgroup allows states and districts to present a more robust picture of how well their EL students are progressing after meeting exit criteria. However, by including former ELs, overall scores for the subgroup will rise and may mask the performance of current ELs. EL advocates are expected to urge states to carefully monitor achievement for current ELs and to address any downward trends in performance as soon as they are noted.
In a nod to growing diversity in the EL population, Title III will now also require states to disaggregate English learners with a disability from the EL subgroup to provide a clearer picture of progress for both groups. This change responds to a growing concern that ELs with a disability very often do not receive adequate services. States are also required to report on the number of ELs who have not attained English proficiency within five years of identification as an English learner. Identifying these long-term English learners could provide educators insights into the effectiveness of instructional programs.
Despite ESSA’s focus on the needs of English learners, there are challenges and potential pitfalls for these students’ advocates. There is no longer a single federal accountability system; there will be more than 50. The federal role in education has been critical to safeguarding the civil and educational rights of English learners, minority students, and those with disabilities, and it is important to ensure that gains in federal law are not lost in state and local accountability plans. That will mean an increased need for broader and deeper dissemination of what research has yielded about EL students. In the absence of strong central direction for accountability plans, it will also mean engaging all groups that have a stake in the success of English learners to ensure robust monitoring of how these students are faring academically.
Contention Two: Harms to the American Economy
Demand for bilingual employees is growing in the United States
New American Economy, March 2017(The Partnership for a New American Economy brings together more than 500 Republican, Democratic and Independent mayors and business leaders who support immigration reforms that will help create jobs for Americans today. The Partnership’s members include mayors of more than 35 million people nationwide and business leaders of companies that generate more than $1.5 trillion and employ more than 4 million people across all sectors of the economy, from Agriculture to Aerospace, Hospitality to High Tech and Media to Manufacturing. Partnership members understand that immigration is essential to maintaining the productive, diverse and flexible workforce that America needs to ensure prosperity over the coming generations, 2017, Demand for Bilingual Workers More than Doubled in 5 years, New Report Shows, DD)