TSDC -- XO CP

1nc shells

1nc - stemText: The president of the United States should issue an executive order to <insert plan text> Executive action solves - spurs legislative and NGO collaboration - ESSA proves Executive Office, ’15 (The Executive Office of the President, December 2015, “Every Student Succeeds Act: A Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education”, http://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/archived-resources/ESSA_Progress_Report.pdf) CG; AD: 6/17/17Administration Action to Improve Education Under the Obama Administration, we’ve seen tremendous efforts to improve education from cradle to career, with substantial progress made. Quality Preschool: The Obama Administration has invested billions of dollars to help provide high-quality early education opportunities so that more children are successful when they enter kindergarten, and more than 30 states have boosted their own investments in early learning. Higher Standards: Today, nearly all students have access to higher standards than they did a few years ago. 48 states and the District of Columbia have taken action to hold allstudents to challenging academic standards that will prepare them to graduate from high school prepared for success in college and the workforce. Fewer, Better Assessments: The Obama Administration has supported states in their hard work to move America past the traditional multiple choice test and toward assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards and focused on critical thinking, problem solving, and writing. At the same time, the Administration is helping states and school districts to push back on unnecessary or low-quality tests and test preparation. Strong Teachers in Every Classroom: Every student needs and deserves a strong teacher, but minority and low-income students are less likely to have effective teachers than their peers. The Department of Education has launched a number of efforts to support great teachers and teaching, including proposed regulations that will strengthen teacher preparation, and the Teach to Lead initiative, created jointly with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, to help teachers to take control of their profession and their career paths. In addition, the Teacher Incentive Fund, Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant program, and updated teacher equity plans Excellent Educators for All are initiatives that support states and districts to train, attract, and keep effective educators in high-need schools. Competitive Programs to Improve Schools: President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative offered strong incentives to states willing to enact systemic reforms that would improve teaching and learning in America’s schools. Race to the Top was the most significant reform of public education in a generation. With an initial investment of $4 billion – less than 1 percent of annual K-12 education funding – Race to the Top catalyzed meaningful change for more than 10 million students and 700,000 teachers across over a dozen grantees, and for many more in states that did not receive funds. Race to the Top helped states increase their capacity to implement innovative solutions to improve educational outcomes by establishing high standards; supporting great teachers and leaders; using data and technology to improve instruction; and turning around the lowest performing schools – solutions that have since spread nationwide. Even in states that did not win awards, the work to develop an application and establish the conditions for positive change unleashed incredible initiative and creativity at the local level. Investing in Innovation: The Administration’s Investing in Innovation (i3)

program has helped develop a culture of evidence-based decision-making in public schools by expanding interventions that accelerate student achievement and that prepare every student to succeed in college and in their careers. The more rigorous the evidence an organization has supporting its intervention, the larger the grant award it can potentially receive. Originally, the $650 million i3 fund offered support to districts, nonprofit organizations, and institutions of higher education to research, replicate, and scale-up promising practices that improve educational outcomes. The Department awarded 49 grants in the competition, but nearly 1,700 applicants applied – by far the largest number of applicants in a single competition in the Department's history. Now, nearly 150 i3 grantees are working in every state in the country, impacting over 2 million students. 5 Creating Promise Neighborhoods: Since 2010, the Administration’s Promise Neighborhoods program has sought to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty by investing $270 million in more than 50 of our nation’s most distressed communities, representing over 700 schools. These efforts are helping to build a pipeline from early learning to high school and beyond for our highest-need students by creating comprehensive, wrap-around educational support services and strong, vibrant school environments. Moreover, 1,000 national, state, and community organizations have signed-on to support and partner with Promise Neighborhoods to ensure these initiatives are effective and long-lasting. More than Halfway to Reaching the President’s Goal to Prepare 100,000 Excellent STEM Teachers: In his 2011 State of the Union address, the President called for a new effort to prepare 100,000 STEM teachers over the next decade with strong teaching skills and deep content knowledg e . Answering the President’s call to action, more than 230 organizations formed a coalition called 100Kin10. These organizations have made more than 350 measurable commitments to increase the supply of excellent STEM teachers , including recruiting and preparing more than 43,000 teachers in the first five years of the initiative . In addition, in 2014 the Department of Education announced more than $175 million over five years in STEM-focused grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, which will support more than 11,000 new STEM teachers in high-need schools. In total, the President’s Educate to Innovate campaign has resulted in over $1 billion in direct and in-kind support for STEM education. Expanding Access to the Technology Students Need to Succeed and Cutting the Digital Divide in Half: Since President Obama launched his ConnectED initiative in 2013, we have cut the connectivity divide in schools in half. Now, 20 million more students have access to high-speed Internet, which they need in order to utilize modern digital learning tools. Today, 77 percent of school districts meet minimum standards for high-speed broadband, compared to 30 percent in 2013. More than 3 million students from all 50 states are also benefitting from the $2.25 billion in independent private sector commitments of hardware, digital content, software, wireless service, and teacher training commitments. And thousands of district leaders have received training to support their commitment to making their schools “Future Ready.” Making College More Affordable: Our historic investments in student aid for college, a far simpler Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), and the new College Scorecard are helping to give all students the opportunity to go to college by providing them with the right tools for success.

1nc - early college hs Text: The president of the United States should issue an executive order to <insert plan text> Executive action solves - spurs legislative and NGO collaboration - ESSA proves Executive Office, ’15 (The Executive Office of the President, December 2015, “Every Student Succeeds Act: A Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education”, http://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/archived-resources/ESSA_Progress_Report.pdf) CG; AD: 6/17/17Administration Action to Improve Education Under the Obama Administration, we’ve seen tremendous efforts to improve education from cradle to career, with substantial progress made. Quality Preschool: The Obama Administration has invested billions of dollars to help provide high-quality early education opportunities so that more children are successful when they enter kindergarten, and more than 30 states have boosted their own investments in early learning. Higher Standards: Today, nearly all students have access to higher standards than they did a few years ago . 48 states and the District of Columbia have taken action to hold allstudents to challenging academic standards t hat will prepare them to graduate from high school prepared for success in college and the workforce. Fewer, Better Assessments: The Obama Administration has supported states in their hard work to move America past the traditional multiple choice test and toward assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards and focused on critical thinking, problem solving, and writing. At the same time, the Administration is helping states and school districts to push back on unnecessary or low-quality tests and test preparation. Strong Teachers in Every Classroom: Every student needs and deserves a strong teacher, but minority and low-income students are less likely to have effective teachers than their peers. The Department of Education has launched a number of efforts to support great teachers and teaching, including proposed regulations that will strengthen teacher preparation, and the Teach to Lead initiative, created jointly with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, to help teachers to take control of their profession and their career paths. I n addition, the Teacher Incentive Fund, Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant program, and updated teacher equity plans Excellent Educators for All are initiatives that support states and districts to train, attract, and keep effective educators in high-need schools. Competitive Programs to Improve Schools: President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative offered strong incentives to states willing to enact systemic reforms that would improve teaching and learning in America’s schools . Race to the Top was the most significant reform of public education in a generation. With an initial investment of $4 billion – less than 1 percent of annual K-12 education funding – Race to the Top catalyzed meaningful change for more than 10 million students and 700,000 teachers across over a dozen grantees, and for many more in states that did not receive funds. Race to the Top helped states increase their capacity to implement innovative solutions to improve educational outcomes by establishing high standards; supporting great teachers and leaders; using data and technology to improve instruction; and turning around the lowest performing schools – solutions that have since spread nationwide. Even in states that did not win awards, the work to develop an application and establish the conditions for positive change unleashed incredible initiative and creativity at the local level. Investing in Innovation: The Administration’s Investing in Innovation (i3)

program has helped develop a culture of evidence-based decision-making in public schools by expanding interventions that accelerate student achievement and that prepare every student to succeed in college and in their careers. The more rigorous the evidence an organization has supporting its intervention, the larger the grant award it can potentially receive. Originally, the $650 million i3 fund offered support to districts, nonprofit organizations, and institutions of higher education to research, replicate, and scale-up promising practices that improve educational outcom es . The Department awarded 49 grants in the competition, but nearly 1,700 applicants applied – by far the largest number of applicants in a single competition in the Department's history. Now, nearly 150 i3 grantees are working in every state in the country, impacting over 2 million students. 5 Creating Promise Neighborhoods: Since 2010, the Administration’s Promise Neighborhoods program has sought to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty by investing $270 million in more than 50 of our nation’s most distressed communities, representing over 700 schools. These efforts are helping to build a pipeline from early learning to high school and beyond for our highest-need students by creating comprehensive, wrap-around educational support services and strong, vibrant school environments. Moreover, 1,000 national, state, and community organizations have signed-on to support and partner with Promise Neighborhoods to ensure these initiatives are effective and long-lasting. More than Halfway to Reaching the President’s Goal to Prepare 100,000 Excellent STEM Teachers: In his 2011 State of the Union address, the President called for a new effort to prepare 100,000 STEM teachers over the next decade with strong teaching skills and deep content knowledge. Answering the President’s call to action, more than 230 organizations formed a coalition called 100Kin10. These organizations have made more than 350 measurable commitments to increase the supply of excellent STEM teachers, including recruiting and preparing more than 43,000 teachers in the first five years of the initiative. In addition, in 2014 the Department of Education announced more than $175 million over five years in STEM-focused grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, which will support more than 11,000 new STEM teachers in high-need schools. In total, the President’s Educate to Innovate campaign has resulted in over $1 billion in direct and in-kind support for STEM education. Expanding Access to the Technology Students Need to Succeed and Cutting the Digital Divide in Half: Since President Obama launched his ConnectED initiative in 2013, we have cut the connectivity divide in schools in hal f . Now, 20 million more students have access to high-speed Internet, which they need in order to utilize modern digital learning tools. Today, 77 percent of school districts meet minimum standards for high-speed broadband, compared to 30 percent in 2013. More than 3 million students from all 50 states are also benefitting from the $2.25 billion in independent private sector commitments of hardware, digital content, software, wireless service, and teacher training commitments. And thousands of district leaders have received training to support their commitment to making their schools “Future Ready.” Making College More Affordable: Our historic investments in student aid for college , a far simpler Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), and the new College Scorecard are helping to give all students the opportunity to go to college by providing them with the right tools for success .

1nc - generic Text: The president of the United States should issue an executive order to <insert plan text>

Executive action solves - spurs legislative and NGO collaboration - ESSA proves Executive Office, ’15 (The Executive Office of the President, December 2015, “Every Student Succeeds Act: A Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education”, http://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/archived-resources/ESSA_Progress_Report.pdf) CG; AD: 6/17/17Administration Action to Improve Education Under the Obama Administration, we’ve seen tremendous efforts to improve education from cradle to career, with substantial progress made. Quality Preschool: The Obama Administration has invested billions of dollars to help provide high-quality early education opportunities so that more children are successful when they enter kindergarten, and more than 30 states have boosted their own investments in early learning. Higher Standards: Today, nearly all students have access to higher standards than they did a few years ago. 48 states and the District of Columbia have taken action to hold allstudents to challenging academic standards that will prepare them to graduate from high school prepared for success in college and the workforce. Fewer, Better Assessments: The Obama Administration has supported states in their hard work to move America past the traditional multiple choice test and toward assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards and focused on critical thinking, problem solving, and writing. At the same time, the Administration is helping states and school districts to push back on unnecessary or low-quality tests and test preparation. Strong Teachers in Every Classroom: Every student needs and deserves a strong teacher, but minority and low-income students are less likely to have effective teachers than their peers. The Department of Education has launched a number of efforts to support great teachers and teaching, including proposed regulations that will strengthen teacher preparation, and the Teach to Lead initiative, created jointly with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, to help teachers to take control of their profession and their career paths. In addition, the Teacher Incentive Fund, Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant program, and updated teacher equity plans Excellent Educators for All are initiatives that support states and districts to train, attract, and keep effective educators in high-need schools. Competitive Programs to Improve Schools: President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative offered strong incentives to states willing to enact systemic reforms that would improve teaching and learning in America’s schools. Race to the Top was the most significant reform of public education in a generation. With an initial investment of $4 billion – less than 1 percent of annual K-12 education funding – Race to the Top catalyzed meaningful change for more than 10 million students and 700,000 teachers across over a dozen grantees, and for many more in states that did not receive funds. Race to the Top helped states increase their capacity to implement innovative solutions to improve educational outcomes by establishing high standards; supporting great teachers and leaders; using data and technology to improve instruction; and turning around the lowest performing schools – solutions that have since spread nationwide. Even in states that did not win awards, the work to

develop an application and establish the conditions for positive change unleashed incredible initiative and creativity at the local level. Investing in Innovation: The Administration’s Investing in Innovation (i3) program has helped develop a culture of evidence-based decision-making in public schools by expanding interventions that accelerate student achievement and that prepare every student to succeed in college and in their careers. The more rigorous the evidence an organization has supporting its intervention, the larger the grant award it can potentially receive. Originally, the $650 million i3 fund offered support to districts, nonprofit organizations, and institutions of higher education to research, replicate, and scale-up promising practices that improve educational outcomes. The Department awarded 49 grants in the competition, but nearly 1,700 applicants applied – by far the largest number of applicants in a single competition in the Department's history. Now, nearly 150 i3 grantees are working in every state in the country, impacting over 2 million students. 5 Creating Promise Neighborhoods: Since 2010, the Administration’s Promise Neighborhoods program has sought to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty by investing $270 million in more than 50 of our nation’s most distressed communities, representing over 700 schools. These efforts are helping to build a pipeline from early learning to high school and beyond for our highest-need students by creating comprehensive, wrap-around educational support services and strong, vibrant school environments. Moreover, 1,000 national, state, and community organizations have signed-on to support and partner with Promise Neighborhoods to ensure these initiatives are effective and long-lasting. More than Halfway to Reaching the President’s Goal to Prepare 100,000 Excellent STEM Teachers: In his 2011 State of the Union address, the President called for a new effort to prepare 100,000 STEM teachers over the next decade with strong teaching skills and deep content knowledge. Answering the President’s call to action, more than 230 organizations formed a coalition called 100Kin10. These organizations have made more than 350 measurable commitments to increase the supply of excellent STEM teachers, including recruiting and preparing more than 43,000 teachers in the first five years of the initiative. In addition, in 2014 the Department of Education announced more than $175 million over five years in STEM-focused grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant program, which will support more than 11,000 new STEM teachers in high-need schools. In total, the President’s Educate to Innovate campaign has resulted in over $1 billion in direct and in-kind support for STEM education. Expanding Access to the Technology Students Need to Succeed and Cutting the Digital Divide in Half: Since President Obama launched his ConnectED initiative in 2013, we have cut the connectivity divide in schools in half. Now, 20 million more students have access to high-speed Internet, which they need in order to utilize modern digital learning tools. Today, 77 percent of school districts meet minimum standards for high-speed broadband, compared to 30 percent in 2013. More than 3 million students from all 50 states are also benefitting from the $2.25 billion in independent private sector commitments of hardware, digital content, software, wireless service, and teacher training commitments. And thousands of district leaders have received training to support their commitment to making their schools “Future Ready.” Making College More Affordable: Our historic investments in student aid for college, a far simpler Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), and the new College Scorecard are helping to give all students the opportunity to go to college by providing them with the right tools for success.

solvency

solvency - stem Executive orders solve focus on STEM - Trump’s Inspire Act provesCarson, ’17 (Erin Carson is a tech industry writer for CNET, February 28th, 2017, “Trump signs laws to promote women in STEM”, CNET, https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-women-in-stem-tech-laws/) CG; AD: 6/17/17The White House just gave women in STEM a boost. President Donald Trump signed two laws on Tuesday that authorize NASA and the National Science Foundation to encourage women and girls to get into STEM fields. Those are science, technology, engineering and math. The Inspire Act directs NASA to promote STEM fields to women and girls, and encourage women to pursue careers in aerospace. The law gives NASA three months to present two congressional committees with its plans for getting staff -- think astronauts, scientists and engineers -- in front of girls studying STEM in elementary and secondary schools. The full name of the law is the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers Women Act, in case you're wondering where the acronym Inspire comes from. The second law is the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act . It authorizes the National Science Foundation to support entrepreneurial programs aimed at women.

Immediacy of the CP a catalyst for improved STEM education at all levelsKing, ’17 (Caroline King, Chief Policy and Strategic Officer, Washington STEM, Written Testimony to the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 3/15/17, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/031517-King-Testimony.pdf) CG; AD: 6/27Youth and adults in rural or other underserved communities are at an even greater disadvantage. While STEM skills are just as crucial in agricultural tech and the maritime industry as they are at Amazon, there’s limited opportunities for students to prepare and train in STEM. In Washington, for example, only 11 percent of students have access to computer science education, and many of the students without access are in schools not served by broadband or schools without educators trained to teach computer science or engineering. Strategic investments by our state in partnership with private funders have made some positive impact, but overall states struggle to adequately fund the STEM education and training needs demanded by our 21st century economy. Bold and swift actions are needed; federal investment is a vital part of the solution . Our state leaders in Washington, in both public and private sectors, recognize the need for a strong STEM education. We are fortunate to have demonstrated leadership from Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal, and Microsoft’s President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith, among others. A strong partnership with the federal government is crucial to ensure all of our students are prepared for the careers of the future . When the federal government invests in STEM education and workforce training in Washington, these funds make an impact far beyond the dollars themselves . Federal funds are catalytic . Strategic federal investments have helped jumpstart the creation of innovative new programs that accelerate the pace at which Washingtonians get trained for the good paying job available in our state. Federal funds have encouraged leverage and coordination of funds among state, local, philanthropy, and business investors. Again, these investments accelerate the pace, impact, and return on dollars spent for all investors, and, most importantly, they increase opportunity for our students. Federal funds increase access to STEM education for rural and

underserved communities. Rural communities often struggle to find private investment partners, particularly in economically depressed areas of our state. Federal funds provide the spark needed to make state and local dollars go further. Federal funds work across all areas of education – from early learning to K-12 to post high school career training. The following examples demonstrate the unique and significant role federal funds play in educating and training Washington’s future workforce.

CP is being asked for by states and would signal the Trump administration’s commitment to education -this can also be used as an internal to the prez powers net benefitAIP, ‘17 (American Institute of Physics, based on Senate testimony, “Senate Appropriators Spotlight STEM Education Funding,” 3/23/17, https://www.aip.org/fyi/2017/senate-appropriators-spotlight-stem-education-funding) CG; AD: 6/28At the hearing, educational leaders from different places in the U.S. testified about their experiences implementing programs funded by federal education grants, underlining the role of STEM programs as drivers of local economic growth and regional prosperity. Neil Lamb, vice president for educational outreach for the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, warned the subcommittee about a “‘leaky’ STEM workforce development pipeline”, and stressed that “with fierce competition from other countries seeking to overtake the U.S. position in achievement and innovation, sustained national support of STEM literacy is critical .” Imperative to fixing this "leaky” STEM pipeline, said the witnesses, is federal support for local STEM education program development . Sarah Tucker, chancellor of the West Virginia Council for Community and Technical College Education, spoke about partnerships with community colleges in her state that provide students with experiences in local industry as well as work-based learning opportunities for workers displaced from coal-mining. Caroline King, chief policy and strategy officer for Washington STEM, spoke about the state youth aerospace apprenticeship program which provides high school students with paid, on-the-job training for students in Takoma Public Schools. Others witnesses advocated for funding of various federal education programs, including components of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a major K-12 education law enacted in December 2015 that authorizes grants to the states for STEM education, among other activities. Larry Plank, Director of K-12 STEM Education for Hillsborough County Public Schools in Tampa, Florida, urged the subcommittee to fully fund ESSA Title IV grants, which support access to a well-rounded education and aim to improve the conditions for learning, as “[they] would allow high need districts to promote hands-on STEM learning … and integrate informal and formal STEM programs”, such as informal after school robotics clubs. Bipartisan support expressed for STEM programs Subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle expressed their overwhelming support for continued federal funding for STEM programs. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) commented that STEM will have a role in every field of work in the future, passionately declaring, I think we need to have a broader conversation about why basic STEM education should be increasingly become a part of our overall curriculum … because I can’t imagine any field of work in the next ten to fifteen years that won’t require people to be proficient to some degree on the use and application of technology. On a similar note, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) agreed that “STEM jobs are the future" and meeting the need for filling STEM jobs “is a real challenge and one that we have to meet if we are going to be competitive in this country.” Shaheen also reflected on her experience as an educator, praising Title IV Part A grants, which aim to support programs outside the classroom that engage students with STEM subjects. Administration may have different priorities for funding While STEM education has significant support in Congress, the Trump administration’s proposed priorities are under scrutiny . In February, President Trump signed

into law two bipartisan bills that promote the advancement of women in STEM fields. These two laws direct NSF and NASA to encourage and support more women entering the STEM workforce and becoming entrepreneurs. However, the administration’s budget plan released last week proposes a $9.2 billion, or 13.5 percent, cut to the Department of Education’s budget, reducing or eliminating programs for teacher professional development, after-school and summer enrichment programs, as well as programs that assist disadvantaged students in secondary schools prepare for college. Earlier this year, the Physical Sciences Education Coalition, an AIP-chaired advocacy group, sent a letter to President Trump stressing that "training in the physical sciences is essential to the nation for a highly-productive workforce , health economy, and strong security," and recommending that the administration support STEM-related programs outlined in ESSA. The STEM Education Coalition sent letters to both President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos asking for support of federal funding for ESSA, particularly for Title IV Part A. The coalition is concerned that the proposed cuts would decrease the effectiveness of ESSA, which passed with bipartisan support. Now congressional appropriators will need to decide if sustained funding for STEM education is going to be one of their priorities for fiscal year 2018.

Federal leadership is indispensable---no other level of government can solve Schneider, ‘13 (Steve Schneider, Ph.D., Senior Director, STEM Program, WestEd, “Raising the Bar: Reviewing STEM Education in America,” Hearing before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education (Committee on Education and the Workforce), 4/10/13, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg80235/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg80235.pdf) CG; AD: 6/28

Continued federal leadership for addressing barriers in STEM education is essential.7 STEM education has been a continuing federal priority since the Soviet-era launch of the first satellite, Sputnik. If for no other reason than the constantly accelerating changes in science, technology, engineering and mathematics around us, federal efforts will likely always be needed to spur parallel innovations to keep STEM education contemporary. At this moment, specific needed federal efforts include: (1) Continue to fund rigorous research and development in STEM that can : • develop fundamental new understandings of how students learn STEM; • create and promote rapid dissemination of leading edge STEM teaching and learning innovations, including technology innovations, that mirror developments in the fast-moving fields of STEM; and • assess the effectiveness of educational products and teaching practices in STEM for the learning of diverse students. (2) Foster efforts that create a larger, better STEM teacher workforce through: • producing more STEM teachers, and promoting a diverse teacher corps reflecting that of the student population; • providing induction for beginning STEM teachers in a way that launches their career-long learning about how to advance student learning in STEM, and • providing continuous, contemporary professional development of all STEM teachers so that they can provide our nation’s youth with the most current understanding of STEM and develop the mind sets needed for innovation. (3) Continue and expand highlighting STEM as a priority in all education funding programs , not just STEM funding programs, whenever appropriate.

solvency - early college hs CP jumpstarts federal confidence and bolsters NGO investment Klein, ’16 (Alyson Klein is a reporter for Education Week. She covers federal policy and Congress and reports on stimulus programs and ESEA/No Child Left Behind, “Federal Grants Boost N.C.'s 'Early College' High School Push”, EDWeekley, March 22nd, 2016, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/03/23/federal-grants-boost-ncs-early-college-high.html) CG; AD: 6/20Such results earned Breakthrough Learning further federal confidence—and funding: a $20 million "scale up" grant, also through the i3 program, to help the organization grow. Breakthrough Learning is the first program nationally to progress from the "validation" stage, which is for programs that have moderate evidence to back up their approaches, to the scale-up level, which is for proven projects that are ready to go big. The funds will enable the nonprofit, which was started in 2003, to extend its reach in North Carolina and also to bring the program to Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Those states are doing a mix of early-college and comprehensive high school approaches. And, as it does in North Carolina, Breakthrough Learning will provide outside coaches to focus staff members on its six "design principles," which are aimed at helping schools improve teaching and better tailor instruction to individual students. It also helps train "college liaisons," who facilitate much of the dual-enrollment work. "Being awarded this kind of grant makes me feel like there are others in Washington who think that education is a pursuit worth experimenting [on]," said Laurie Baker, the senior director of New Schools Rural Initiative. "It implies this: 'We believe in you, go forth and be the pioneer. And we take that really, really seriously.' " The i3 program was created under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and aimed at helping to investigate and expand promising district-level practices. Its successor, the Education Innovation and Research program, was enshrined in the Every Student Succeeds Act, the latest update of the main federal K-12 law. Districts in the four states that signed on to participate in Breakthrough Learning's scale-up grant are just beginning their work. Mississippi opened its first early-college high school in partnership with Breakthrough Learning this school year. The Golden Triangle Early College High School got nearly 120 applicants for the first 9th grade cohort—twice as many as the school had space for. Starting a school—even on the campus of a community college that's eager to partner—isn't easy. But visits to successful sites in North Carolina have helped, said Jill Savely, the director of the school. Most of the schools she and her team toured "have been in operation for eight, 10, 12 years," she said. "They have their own identity, they've already made their mistakes. They've shared with us those challenges. We haven't really had to start from scratch."

Federal action is critical to solidifying early college institutions - federal changes necessary Moltz, ‘9 (David Moltz is a reporter for InsideHigherED, “Promoting Early College”, Insidehigered, March 26th, 2009, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/26/echs) CG; AD: 6/30Nancy Hoffman, director of the initiative, suggested that the federal government could make a few minor changes to encourage the proliferation of this model around the country. Among other things, she suggested that restrictions on who can receive Pell Grants be lifted so that some high school students could be eligible. Currently, high school students do not qualify for these federal dollars. Hoffman suggested that they be made available to high school students who demonstrate that at least half of their course load is for college credit. She also suggested that the federal government adjust its method of calculating four-year high school graduation rates in a way that does not discourage secondary schools from adopting “early college”

models. Currently, she noted that many secondary schools will not consider offering this model because most students will have to remain for a 13th grade to complete either their associate degree or earn more college credit, skewing their federal graduation rate.

solvency - generic CP fosters federal-state partnerships on education that solve the aff best Executive Office, ’15 (The Executive Office of the President, December 2015, “Every Student Succeeds Act: A Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education”, http://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/archived-resources/ESSA_Progress_Report.pdf) CG; AD: 6/17/17Building on Administration Action: Where the Every Student Succeeds Act Fits In Under NCLB, schools were given many ways to fail, but very few opportunities to succeed, by forcing schools and districts into one-size-fits-all solutions, regardless of the individual needs and circumstances in those communities. The Obama Administration acted to fix that, and ESSA cements that progress. Taking Action When Congress Did Not: In 2011, President Obama announced the first comprehensive plan to NCLB through executive action -- a voluntary waiver program that enabled states to gain flexibility from the law’s specific mandates in exchange for state-designed plans to set high standards; re-shape accountability systems; and support the evaluation and development of effective teachers and principals. These actions built on the comprehensive blueprint for reform the Administration laid out in 2010. President Obama noted that the problems with NCLB “have been obvious to parents and educators all over this country for years. But despite the good intentions of some, Congress has failed to fix them.” 8 Federal-State Partnership: In 2012, joined by Governor Bill Haslam (R-TN), President Obama welcomed leaders from ten states to the White House to announce the first round of waivers approved under his Administration’s executive action to offer Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility. To date, over forty states have met this challenge and developed state-driven solutions through ESEA flexibility that expect college- and career-readiness for every student, use multiple measures to differentiate schools for rewards and supports, focus resources on comprehensive, rigorous interventions in the lowestperforming schools, and ensure that all lowachieving students have the supports they need to catch up to their peers. Since being approved for ESEA flexibility, these states have implemented critical reforms leading to fewer low-performing schools; a narrowing graduation gap among minority and white students; and increased focus on meaningful professional development for teachers, principals and superintendents. Cementing Progress: ESSA builds on the state leadership and innovation unleashed through implementation of ESEA flexibility by continuing to allow states to define goals, set multiple indicators for measuring school success, determine how to differentiate schools and recognize progress for all students and subgroups, and design and implement interventions where students are struggling – especially in the bottom 5 percent of schools, schools where subgroups are under-performing, and high schools with high dropout rates. ESSA cements the progress made under the Obama Administration ESEA waivers program. Not only does ESSA cement progress already made, it embraces much of the vision the Administration has outlined for education policy since 2009:

Executive action spurs legislationKagan, ‘1 (Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School and current Court Justice, 01, Elena, “Presidential Administration,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 114, No. 8, June, p. 2293-2312) CG; AD: 5/15/15It is not surprising, given these changes in the political landscape, that a President would turn to administration - a sphere in which he unilaterally can take decisive action. The more the demands on the President for policy leadership increase and the less he can meet them through legislation, the greater his incentive to tap the alternate source of supply deriving from his position as head of the federal bureaucracy. ¶ Administrative action is unlikely to provide a President with all he could obtain through legislation:

Congress, after all, has set bounds on administration through prior statutory enactments. But as compared with legislative stasis, administrative action looks decidedly appealing. More, administrative action has the potential to spur legislative action by calling public attention to Congress's failure to act on the relevant issue.

net benefits

net benefit - politicsUnilateral actions avoid the politics DA – three reasonsMoe & Howell, ‘99 (Terry M. Moe, William G. Howell, Howell is a graduate student in political science at Stanford University , Moe is a professor of political science at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institutionhttp://home.uchicago.edu/~whowell/papers/UnilateralAction.pdf, ) CG; AD: 6/17/17The president’s base of independent authority, in fact, is enormously enhanced rather than compromised by the executive nature of the job: First, because presidents are executives, the operation of government is in their hands. As an inherent part of their job, they manage, coordinate, staff, collect information, plan, reconcile conflicting values, and respond quickly and flexibly to emerging problems. These activities are what it means, in practice, to have the executive power, and they give presidents tremendous discretion in the exercise of governmental authority. The opportunities for presidential imperialism are too numerous to count. When presidents feel it is in their political interests, they can put whatever decisions they like to strategic use, both in gaining policy advantage and in pushing out the boundaries of their power. Second, because presidents are executives, they have at their disposal a tremendous reservoir of expertise, experience, and information, both in the institutional presidency and in the bureaucracy at large. These are critical resources the other branches can never match, and they give presidents a huge strategic advantage—in the language of agency theory, an information asymmetry of vast proportions—in UNILATERAL ACTION AND PRESIDENTIAL POWER 855 856 PRESIDENTIAL STUDIES QUARTERLY pursuing the myriad opportunities for aggrandizement that present themselves in the course of governmental decision making. Third, and finally, there is a key advantage that is often overlooked. Because presidents are executives, and because of the discretion, opportunities, and resources available to them, they are ideally suited to be first movers and to reap the agenda powers that go along with it. If they want to shift the status quo by taking unilateral action on their own authority, whether or not that authority is clearly established in law, they can simply do it—quickly, forcefully, and (if they like) with no advance notice. The other branches are then presented with a fait accompli, and it is up to them to respond. If they are unable to respond effectively, or decide not to, presidents win by default. And even if they do respond, which could take years, presidents may still get much of what they want anyway.

Executive orders shield politics the president acts without using up capitalHowell, ‘5 (William G., Presidential Studies Quarterly, Ph.D., university of Chicago, “Unitlateral Power: a Brief Overview”, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5050927/Unilateral-powers-a-brief-overview.html) CG; AD: 6/17/17

The actions that Bush and his modern predecessors have taken by fiat do not fit easily within a theoretical framework of executive power that emphasizes weakness and dependence, and offers as recourse only persuasion. For at least two reasons, the ability to act unilaterally is conceptually distinct from the array of powers presidents rely upon within a bargaining framework. First, when presidents act unilaterally, they move policy first and thereby place upon Congress and the courts the burden of revising a new political landscape. If they choose not to retaliate, either by passing a law or

ruling against the president, then the president's order stands. Only by taking (or credibly threatening to take) positive action can either adjoining institution limit the president's unilateral powers. Second, when the president acts unilaterally, he acts alone. Now of course, he relies upon numerous advisers to formulate the policy, to devise ways of protecting it against congressional or judicial encroachment, and to oversee its implementation (more on this below). But in order to issue the actual policy, the president need not rally majorities, compromise with adversaries, or wait for some interest group to bring a case to court. The president, instead, can strike out on his own. Doing so, the modern president is in a unique position to lead, to break through the stasis that pervades the federal government, and to impose his will in new areas of governance. sThe ability to move first and act alone, then, distinguishes unilateral actions from other sources of influence. Indeed, the central precepts of Neustadt's argument are turned upside down, for unilateral action is the virtual antithesis of persuasion. Here, presidents just act; their power does not hinge upon their capacity to "convince [political actors] that what the White House wants of them is what they ought to do for their sake and for their authority" (Neustadt 1990, 30). To make policy, presidents need not secure the formal consent of Congress. Instead, presidents simply set public policy and dare others to counter. And as long as Congress lacks the votes (usually two thirds of both chambers) to overturn him, the president can be confident that his policy will stand.

Executive orders don’t trade off with political capitalWarshaw, ’6 (Shirley Anne, Prof of Pol. Science @ Gettysburg College, “Administrative Strategies of President George W. Bush” Extensions Journal, Spring 2006, http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/extensions/spring2006/Warshaw.pdf) CG; AD: 6/17/17However, in recent administrations, particularly since the Reagan administration, presidents have often bypassed Congress using administrative actions. They have opted for a strategy through administrative actions that is less time-consuming and clearly less demanding of their political capital. Using an array of both formal and informal executive powers, presidents have effectively directed the executive departments to implement policy without any requisite congressional authorization. In effect, presidents have been able to govern without Congress. The arsenal of administrative actions available to presidents includes the power of appointment, perhaps the most important of the arsenal, executive orders, executive agreements, proclamations, signing statements, and a host of national security directives.More than any past president, George W. Bush has utilized administrative actions as his primary tool for governance.

Executive orders don’t require lobbying of congress.Sovacool & Sovacool, ‘9 (PhD, Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, Benjamin Sovacool and Kelly Sovacool, 2009.. “Preventing National Electricity-Water Crisis Areas in the United States,” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law , 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 333.) CG; AD: 6/17/17Executive Orders also save time in a second sense. The President does not have to expend scarce political capital trying to persuade Congress to adopt his or her proposal. Executive Orders thus save presidential attention for other topics. Executive Orders bypass congressional debate and opposition, along with all of the horsetrading and compromise such legislative activity entails. 292 Speediness of implementation can be especially important when challenges require rapid and decisive action. After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, for instance, the Bush Administration almost immediately passed Executive Orders forcing airlines to reinforce cockpit doors and freezing the U.S. based assets of individuals and organizations involved with terrorist groups. 293 These actions took

Congress nearly four months to debate and subsequently endorse with legislation. Executive Orders therefore enable presidents to rapidly change law without having to wait for congressional action or agency regulatory rulemaking.

net benefit - prez powers Congressional and executive power are zero-sumHowell, ‘3 (Professor of government at Harvard, William Howell, 2003, Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action, p. 101) CG; AD: 6/17/17The unilateral politics model identifies the basic, and sometimes counterintuitive, dynamics of presidential policy making. The model explains why presidents unilaterally set policies that a majority within Congress may oppose. It specifies how changes within Congress (caused generally, though not exclusively, by elections) translate into either an expansion or contraction of executive discretion to act unilaterally. And it clarifies how these powers enable the president not only to set policies that Congress on its own accord would not pass, but also to undermine congressional efforts to enact laws that the president opposes. We repeatedly return to a basic theme about systems of governance defined by their separated powers: executive power is inversely proportional to legislative strength. Presidential power expands at exactly the same times when, and precisely the same places that, congressional power weakens. The occurrence is hardly coincidental. Indeed, the forces operate in tandem, for it is the check each places on the other that defines the overall division of power.

Any deviation from the unitary executive undermines prez powers. Calabresi, ’95 (Associate Professor Northwestern School of Law, 95, Steven Calabresi, 1995.. “Some Normative Arguments for the Unitary Executive,” 48 ARK. L. REV. 23, Lexis) CG; AD: 6/17/17I began this section by saying that I would show why it is at least as important that there be a unitary presidency as that there be a strong presidency. I think the groundwork has now been laid for defending that claim. Any deviation from the principle of unitariness in the executive structure immediately opens up a crack into which the state and local pressures described above will tend to insinuate themselves. The minute some portion of the executive is cut free from the President and the national electoral constituency which he and he alone represents, it tends to become swallowed by the state and local political pressures that drive the congressional committees and subcommittees. Deviations from executive unitariness thus necessarily hold the risk [*66] that different regional concerns will attach themselves to the disassociated interest, especially if it somehow seems important to their region. Thus, an "independent" Defense Department would likely be a target of opportunity for members of Congress from a state with a lot of defense spending or with voters who care strongly about the military. An "independent" Federal Reserve Board will be a target for members of Congress who represent large financial interests, and so on. Any deviation, however slight, from the Framers' organizing principle of executive unitariness will be filled by regional, anti-national concerns.

Executive orders increase presidential power Risen, ‘4 (Clay, Managing editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, M.A. from the University of Chicago “The Power of the Pen: The Not-So-Secret Weapon of Congress-wary Presidents” The American Prospect, July 16, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_power_of_the_pen) CG; AD: 6/16/16

In the modern era, executive orders have gone from being a tool largely reserved for internal White House operations -deciding how to format agency budgets or creating outlines for diplomatic protocol -- to a powerful weapon in defining, and expanding, executive power . In turn, presidents have increasingly used that power to construct and promote social policies on some of the country's most controversial issues, from civil rights to labor relations to reproductive health.

XOs create momentum for a new administrationCooper, ‘2[Cooper, Gund Professor of Liberal Arts at the University of Vermont and was the first recipient of the Charles Levin Award given by the American Society for Public Administration and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration ‘2]Phillip J. Cooper, Gund Professor of Liberal Arts at the University of Vermont and was the first recipient of the Charles Levin Award given by the American Society for Public Administration and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. By Order of the President: The Use & Abuse of Executive Direct Action pg.69 University Press of Kansas, 2002 Executive orders can also be used to hit quickly with policies aimed at important problems, providing a strong and immediate sense of momentum for a new administration. These messages are sent to reassure an administration’s supporters that the issue positions for which they campaigned are going to be acted upon. In the case of symbolic order, which are often used for this purpose, the reward can be given to allies without a serious commitment of political resources in Congress, legal resources in administrative rulemaking, or financial resources in Congress, legal resources in administrative rulemaking, or financial resources associated with building really substantive programs . They also serve to send a message to potential adversaries that the administration is truly in charge and moving. Those seeking to mobilize opposition in such conditions find themselves reactive and defensive. (69)

impact - prez powers Strong executive powers are critical to restrain federal spending Calabresi, ‘95 (Steven G, Associate Prof, Northwestern U School Law, Arkansas LR, Lexis) Now imagine a whole Congress of such officeholders, all of whose careers depend in significant part on their ability to get back more for their small electoral constituency than their constituents pay in. The net result is a collective action problem in which every member of Congress's career depends on an ability to be ever more creative in funneling federal resources back to their constituencies while imposing the cost in federal taxes, borrowing, or regulation on someone else's constituency or on the nation as a whole. The collective action problem exists because most of the constituencies might be better off with less largesse and lower levels of taxation, borrowing, and regulation. But no member of Congress will dare vote for this absent an effective mechanism of collective enforcement for fear that other members of Congress will cheat and will continue to steer national pork to their local interests. The only official with any incentive under our present electoral structure to stop this game is the President who is (along with the Vice President) our only nationally elected official. 33 Representing as he does a national electoral college majority, the President at least has an incentive to steer national resources toward the 51% of the nation that last supported him (and that might support him again), thereby mitigating the bad distributional incentives faced by members of Congress. In fact, most modern presidents probably see their potential electoral base as comprehending up to 60% of all voters 34 and perhaps as many as 90% of all state electoral college votes. 35 Moreover, elections over the last thirty years suggest that virtually every state in the nation is in fact in play in these contests. Thus, the President is our only constitutional backstop against the redistributive collective action problem described above. [*36] Now how does this fact bear on the quite different fact that because of a change in circumstances since 1937 the federal government has grown exponentially in wealth and power? Well, in brief, the huge increase in the amount of federal largesse has greatly exacerbated the collective action problem created by the congressional electoral system. It has transformed members of Congress into constituent service agents whose raison d'etre is to recover for their constituencies as much federal largesse as possible, even if the end result is only to set off a race with other members of Congress that ultimately intensifies the growth in the size of the federal pie thereby requiring ever higher levels of constituent service. The only practicable way out of this situation is to strengthen presidential power and unitariness. 36 The essential ingredient to combating the congressional collective action problem is the President's national voice, because he, and he alone, speaks for the entire American people.

Failure to hold the line on spending ensures deficits destroy the U.S. economy Ornstein ’04 (Norman, Resident Scholar / AEI, Roll Call, 7-7, Lexis) Today’s budget deficit is 4.2 percent of our GDP. That’s a large but not [an] alarming number – [It’s] a figure that, by itself, could be sustainable indefinitely without deeply damaging the economy . But any realistic projection of the revenue base that we can use to cover these future obligations shows a dismal future - one in which the deficit balloons to almost 16 percent of GDP by 2030, and nearly 29 percent of GDP by 2040. That is not merely unsustainable. It’s downright catastrophic - the equivalent of a suitcase nuclear bomb set off in the middle of our economy. All of this is occurring while we blithely go about cutting the tax base and adding funding for a host of other problems, including homeland security, defense, the environment, education and highways - just to name a few that get overwhelming support from Congress and the American people. Our debate about “fiscal discipline” focuses

overwhelmingly on the tiny share of the budget that is in discretionary domestic spending. Cut it all out and we still have staggering obligations and huge future deficits. Conflict Royal, ‘10 (Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense Jedediah Royal is the Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises?”, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215) CG; AD: 6/20Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. 'Diversionary theory' suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect . Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force . In summary, recent economic scholarship positively

correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

blocks

at: cp is unconstitutionalExecutive actions like the CP are constitutional and were done and supported by Obama Executive Office, ’15 (The Executive Office of the President, December 2015, “Every Student Succeeds Act: A Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education”, http://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/archived-resources/ESSA_Progress_Report.pdf) CG; AD: 6/17/17Executive Summary A core element of strengthening the middle class is building stronger schools. Over the past seven years, President Obama has invested more in our schools, provided flexibility from onesize-fits-all mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act, and supported school reforms across the country. Today, as President Obama signs the Every Student Succeeds Act, he is releasing a report that summarizes the progress the country’s schools have made since 2008, including: Adopting higher academic standards in nearly every state, putting our schools on par with their international competitors and our children on track to graduate from high school ready for college and career. Reaching the highest high school graduation rate on record at 81 percent, with the highest gains among students of color. Investing billions of dollars in high-quality early education to help our youngest learners succeed. Reaching more than halfway to the President’s goal of training 100,000 excellent STEM teachers, ahead of schedule. Expanding access to high speed Internet to 20 million more students. The legislation that President Obama will sign today, which Congress passed with strong bipartisan support , will help our schools build on this progress. Specifically, it will: Ensure states set high standards so that children graduate high school ready for college and career. Maintain accountability by guaranteeing that when students fall behind, states target resources towards what works to help them and their schools improve, with a particular focus on the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools, high schools with high dropout rates, and schools where subgroups of students are struggling. Empower state and local decision-makers to develop their own strong systems for school improvement based upon evidence, rather than imposing cookie-cutter federal solutions like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) did. Preserve annual assessments and reduce the often onerous burden of unnecessary and ineffective testing on students and teachers, making sure that standardized tests don’t crowd out teaching and learning, without sacrificing clear, annual information parents and educators need to make sure our children are learning. Provide more children access to high-quality preschool, giving them the chance to get a strong start to their education. 2 Establish new resources to test promising practices and replicate proven strategies that will drive opportunity and better outcomes for America’s students.

at: cp gets rolled back No risk of override, would have to Congress rarely overrides unilateral actionsHuder, ‘15 (Joshua Huder is a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, earning a PhD at University of Florida in American politics "DHS dispute: Why Congress rarely curtails presidential unilateral actions (+video)," 2-23-2015, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0223/DHS-dispute-Why-Congress-rarely-curtails-presidential-unilateral-actions-video,) CG; AD: 6/17/17Institutional power is more of an academic topic. Nonetheless, it has enormous ramifications. The current immigration debate is a great example of that. Despite the rhetoric around the Department of Homeland Security funding debate, America has never had a dictator president – the current president included. However, the fight for power in the separation of powers (i.e. How big should the presidency be?) is real. The DHS/immigration debate is an interesting look into that struggle. Much of the modern presidency’s power stems from the type of actions we are observing in the immigration debate. Reinterpreting existing law, exercising discretion on the many responsibilities under the purview of the executive branch, or writing orders and directives, presidents have ample opportunity and authority to reshape national policy unilaterally. These actions pale in comparison to actually creating law, as Congress does, but they are important nonetheless. And while Obama’s immigration action falls within precedents set by former presidents, Congress is well within its constitutional rights to correct presidential overreach. However, Congress rarely curtails presidential unilateral actions. There have been several attempts but few are successful. The best attempt was the 1974 Budget Control and Impoundment Act, establishing the modern budget process. After Nixon impounded congressionally appropriated funds, Congress established processes and deadlines to take back budgetary control. It also established a reconciliation process that could circumvent filibusters to restore budget harmony. That process could be used to respond to executive actions if those actions fail to follow congressional intent As we see today, even Congress’s most powerful tool cannot address executive action. It would take some creative legislative drafting in order to use reconciliation to reverse Obama’s immigration action, which prohibits provisions that have no budgetary effect. Which means today’s congressional stalemate boils down to one of two possibilities: either Republicans cannot use reconciliation to reverse Obama's executive actions or – because the reconciliation process only allows a limited amount of bills per year – they plan on using it for another purpose. This is the problem Republicans currently face. They cannot circumvent the supermajority requirements of the process. Even if they could, there is no guarantee Republicans could find a Senate majority once the symbolic nature of the cloture vote was removed from the scenario. Should three moderate or border Republicans join Sen. Dean Heller (R) of Nevada in blocking the bill, Congress’s response would still be deadlocked. Historically Congress’s power has been hampered by its own processes and the political realities of forging majority coalitions. It’s often very difficult to pass bills through both chambers. It’s particularly challenging to find majorities to challenge unilateral executive actions that fall within the previously accepted scope of executive authority. It’s nearly impossible to find a supermajority to do that. Without a Watergate-like scandal, where illegal actions clearly occurred, Congress rarely has the ability to tame America’s 80-year tradition of expansive executives. The ambiguity of Article II means that presidential power is open to interpretation, which is another way of

saying that presidents’ unilateral power is mostly anything that Congress has not expressly prohibited. Given the inherent difficulties of lawmaking and the supermajority processes that have always existed in Congress, historically those prohibitions have been scarce. As Jon Bernstein points out, every modern president overreaches at some point. With a hamstrung legislative branch, that’s likely to continue.

Executive orders have the force of law:Oxford Dictionary of English 2010(Oxford Reference, Georgetown Library)

executive order

▶ noun US (Law) a rule or order issued by the President to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law .

at: perm do both 1.) perm links to the net-benefit 2.) perm is normal means - congress has the ability to overturn executive orders, the perm would just be them accepting it3.) no net-benefit to the perm4.) Severance – the CP is PIC out of the federal government – the aff uses all three branches – the CP is net less action because it only fiats one branch and excludes the Congress and president – the perm severs out of executive and congressional action which allows them to change the direction and implementation in the 2ac and no-link or disads and perm our CPs - reason to vote neg

at: perm do the cp Severance – the CP is PIC out of the federal government – the aff uses all three branches – the CP is net less action because it only fiats one branch and excludes the Congress– the perm severs out of executive and congressional action which allows them to change the direction and implementation in the 2ac and no-link or disads and perm our CPs - reason to vote neg

agent CPs good Agent CPs are good – framing issue – even if on most topics they are bad, they are critical to being NEG on THIS TOPIC. At worst reject the arg not the team.1. Key to neg ground – this topic is AWFUL for the neg – near infinite affs are being read on the topic and the disad ground is awful – generic CPs are the neg’s only chance.2. Key to rigorously test the aff – Debates over implementation are critical to the topic – they determine solvency and are the heart of the debate. Implementation is 90 percent of policymaking.Elmore, 1980[Richard Elmore, University of Washington Public Affairs professor, 1980, Science Quarterly, p. 606-8]The stakes involved in choosing an analytic approach are clearer when they are put in the context of current thinking about implementation. As the literature on implementation has accumulated certain issues have emerged that demonstrate the consequences both intellectual and practical, of seeing implementation either as a hierarchically ordered process or as a dispersed and decentralized process. Organizational Processes and Outputs The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysis that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices, matters very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In answering the question, “What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified? Allison estimated that, in the normal case, it was about 10 percent , leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation .9 Hence, in Nelson’s terms, “the core of analysis of alternatives becomes the prediction of how alternative or structures will behave over. . . time.”

But the task of prediction is vastly complicated by the absence of a coherent body of organizational theory, making it necessary to posit several alternative models of organization 7 Those policy analysts who are economists, impatient with the complexities of bureaucracy and the lack of precision in organizational theory, have tried to reduce implementation analysis to a simple choice between market and non-market mechanisms Schultze states the basic argument when he says that the “collective-coercion component of intervention should be treated as a scarce resource” in the formulation of policies, and that policymakers should learn to “maximize the use of techniques that modif the structure of private incentives,”8 Wolf furthers the argument, stating that the whole enterprise of implementation analysis can be reduced to a diagnosis of the pathologies of nonmarket structures, or as he calls it, “a theory of nonmarkel failures.” The simplicity of the argument is comforting, but its utility is suspect. It seeks to solve one type of organizational problem, the responsiveness of large-scale bureaucracies, by substituting another type of organizational problem, the invention and execution of quasi markets. There is little evidence to suggest that the latter problem is any more tractable than the former. One would hardly expect, though, that a detailed framework for analysis of organizational alternatives would emerge from an intellectual tradition that regards organizational structure of any kind as a second-best solution to the problem of collective action. 10 Defining implementation analysis as a choice between market and nonmarket structures diverts attention from, and trivializes, an important problem how tome the structure and process of organizations to elaborate, speci and define policies. Most policy analysts, economists or not, are trained to regard complex organizatiom as barriers to the implementation of public policy, not as instruments to be capitalized upon and modified in the pursuit of policy objectives. In fact, organizations can be remarkably effective devices for working out difficult public problems, but their use requires an understanding of the reciprocal nature of authority relations. Formal authority travels from top to bottom in organizations, but the informal authority that derives from expertise, skill, and proximity to the essential tasks that an organization performs travels in the opposite direction. Delegated discretion is a way of capitalizing on this reciprocal relationship, responsibilities that require special expertise and proximity to a problem are pushed down in the organization, leaving more generalized responsibilities at the top. For purposes of implementation, this means that formal authority, in the form of policy statements, is heavily dependent upon specialized problem-solving capabilities further down the chain of authority. Except in cases where a policy requires strict performance of a highly structured routine (for example, airline safety inspections), strong hierarchical controls work against this principle of reciprocity. To use organizations effectively as instruments of

policy, analysts and policymakers have to understand where in the complex network of organizational relationships certain tasks should be performed, what resources are necessary for their performance, and whether the performance of the task has some tangible effect on the problem that the policy is designed to solve Analysts and policymakers do not need to know how to perform the task, or even whether the task is performed uniformly; in fact, diversity in the performance of the task is an important source of knowledge about how to do it better.

4.) agent CPs key to check vague and small affs - gives the neg the ability to still compete, lack of agent cps short-circuits fairness and is not recprical because the aff can always pick the agent within the government

pics good pics are great: 1.) Strategic Thinking – It makes the aff think about every word/part in the plan text and how it is used2.) Forces better plan writing – the affirmative can write a plan to defend against PICs3.) Good for education: More real world – real policy making rules out parts of plan that are faulty or less strategic4.) Key to negative strategy – key for negative to strategically point out part of affirmatives plan that could be bad. If there are bad parts of the plan the negative should be able to remove them5.) Forces 2AC strategic thinking – forces the affirmative to attack all levels of the CP6.) Increases topic specific education – the CP examines the parts of the topic presented by the affirmative and removes parts that are bad