Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
by the laws of economics and empirical experience on how federalism works besta perspective known as fiscal federalism. Our second organizing principle is
choice. Much has been written and studied in this areacharters, vouchers, within-district choice among traditional public schools, and much morebut the idea of
choice, so powerful in our economy and other government enterprises including higher education, has rarely been examined in the context
of federalism and the appropriate roles of Washington and lower levels of government. One great virtue of a competitive systema choice system
offering lots of alternativesis that, even if no schools actually respond to the competition, the schools that are providing a
higher quality education Good schools will still have an advantage, the bad schools will lose students and money, and students will have options that
prevent them from being trapped in schools that are not serving them. Our analysis provides fresh insight by integrating federalism and
choice as the driving principles of change. Fiscal federalism argues that services are most efficiently delivered
if provided closest to the taxpayers/consumers receiving them and that competition among local
governments for residents/taxpayers will improve those services. We also know that education is a service that
can be undermined by excessive scale or at least by highly bureaucratized top-down control. Local control means that programs
and people can be much more easily chosen and deployed based on professional judgment rather than on formal rules set in Washington or even state capitals. But local
control in the sense of parental and taxpayer influence is undermined in the current system by special interests that
control school bureaucracies. The present arrangement of school boards, federal and state regulations, union contracts, teacher
licensing, and court orders is frozen in place and thus can resist or distort almost any new initiative. Further, the
ability of taxpaying parents of school-aged children to vote with their feet (leave school districts with which they are dissatisfied) is
severely constrained for 6 Koret Task Force on K12 Education low-income populations that are most likely to find themselves served by low-performing
schools. This lack of geographical mobility for large segments of the population undermines the competitive pressure that
low-performing schools and school districts would otherwise expect to face in the context of fiscal federalism. Vibrant,
open competition among the providers of education services for students and the funds that accompany them must go hand in
glove with federalism if our alternative proposal is to work. The absence of choice is why the ESEA state waiver actions taken by the Obama administration and
offered in ESEA reauthorization proposals are not consistent with our proposal. Simply devolving education authority from the federal government to the states through a
waiver mechanism or legislation puts us back under the governance model that motivated increased federal involvement in the first place. If states and localities are not
disciplined by a strong top-down accountability regime, they must be disciplined by something else or they will fall back into old habits. That something else in our proposal is
choice, that is, the ability of parents, armed with good information on school performance, to decide where they send their children to school. For the vast majority of families
with school-aged children, residential address determines the public school those children attend. The Choice and Federalism: Defining the Federal Role in Education 7 school
district assigns the child to a school, typically the one closest to the familys residence. This assignment policy has a strong effect on parents who want the best schooling
: a quarter of parents of school-aged children report that they moved to their current
possible
neighborhood for the school. Another 11 percent of families choose to pay for their children to attend private schools. Charter schools and homeschooling
account together for another 6 percent. Fifteen percent of school-aged children attend parent-selected public schools (i.e., schools to which the parents apply for their childs
enrollment). Thus more than 50 percent of parents of school-aged children have engaged in some form
of school choice, albeit primarily in the form of residential choice and private school tuition: two socially
inequitable means of determining where a child attends school. There is little doubt, based on the long waiting lists for
popular public schools of choice, that many more parents wish to exercise choice than are currently able to do so .
That poor families are least likely to be able to exercise choice means that the school districts that
serve those families are least subject to competitive pressure and least likely to change.
Extending school choice to every parent is central to our plan and critical to the success of any effort to replace
top-down accountability with local control. Further, that choice must be informed. Parents need reliable information on performance when choosing a school. In our view
assuring that parents have ready ac- 8 Koret Task Force on K12 Education cess to reliable information on the performance of schools is a federal function, one that in the frame
Student-based funding is critical to our
of fiscal federalism is unlikely to be taken on, much less carried out well, by lower levels of government.
package of recommendations. Funding must follow students and be weighted to compensate for the extra costs associated with
high- need students if schools are to compete for students and if parents are to be able to have a real choice.
This is key to fix a failing US education system-
That avoids a litany of impacts
Politics DA
Scholarship tax credits are key now- no deficits, and boosts GOP
credibility. Multiple impact warrants.
By Peter Murphy, 4/12, 2017. Peter Murphy is vice president for policy at the Invest in Education Foundation. The
Washington Times; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/12/education-reform-can-be-accomplished-by-gop/
Republicans in control in Washington have to decide whether to exert themselves on a range of issues to improve the economic and social conditions
for millions of Americans or merely tinker at the margins with small-potato approaches. When it
comes to education, the Trump
administration and Congress have a historic opportunity to immediately improve the educational
landscape and lives of countless children from financially needy and working-class households by including a
scholarship donation tax credit in tax reform legislation under consideration this year. For decades, Republicans have
been preaching that the federal bureaucracy and forced conformity to traditional public education models wont
solve the education crisis, particularly for Americans in need. But theyve never delivered a national solution that moves the
needle. A stronger charitable tax incentive to offset income and corporate taxes would encourage
private donations to private scholarship funds and exponentially expand the pool of K-12
resources available to students. This would help families of limited means provide the
educational opportunities they need for their children something upper-income families take for granted. Using the
federal tax code this way would be seamless and simple. It would not affect or reorder existing federal education
funding, including Title I and other programs, nor would it impede states and school districts ability to
improve public education. Scholarship organizations exist now to help families access school options beyond the district public school
assigned based on residence. A federal scholarship tax credit should encourage charitable donations to
scholarship-granting organizations that empower families to have a wide range of schools to attend. The Childrens Scholarship
Fund based in New York City provides nearly 24,000 K-8 student scholarships either directly or in partnership with organizations across the country so
that students can attend the non-sectarian or religious school of their parents choice. Similarly, Catholic dioceses across the country operate, or partner
with, scholarship entities to financially enable students Catholic and non-Catholic to attend its schools. The reach of scholarship
funds
remains minimal compared to the need for quality educational options. When the Childrens Scholarship Fund
opened its doors in 1998, the parents of 1.25 million children applied for only 40,000 available scholarships. And while 17 states currently
have a scholarship donation tax credit, only four Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona are sizable enough to have an
impact. When discussing education reform, President Trump often refers to the problems plaguing large urban school districts that shortchange
their mostly low-income African-American and Latino students. Enacting a federal scholarship tax credit would increase the
financial capacity of scholarship-granting organizations and encourage new ones to spring up.
This would bring tangible and immediate educational benefits to thousands of children in need in every state, not
just those in troubled urban districts. The kinds of families who would potentially benefit from K-12 scholarship programs met recently at a parent
forum at the Immaculate Conception School, a Catholic school in the South Bronx where the poverty rate is more than double the national average.
Parents like Leslie Lombardo talked about the positive impact of scholarships and the larger need: With more scholarships, students can attend these
schools and have a stronger education, leading people out of poverty. Another parent, Jessica Santiago, a senior court clerk, added that her childs
Catholic school in the Bronx is a family environment, and I just wouldnt feel safe sending him anywhere else. Trey Cobb, a teacher at Mt. Carmel
Holy Rosary School in East Harlem, said, I see kids go from the [housing] projects to [public] school everyday and I know they would be way better off
with us, but a lot of them cant get there because they dont have the funds. Republicans
(and Democrats, for that matter) need to
listen to these parents. There are countless more such scholarship moms (and dads) whose children would benefit from a
federal tax credit scholarship program. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos expressed earlier this month in her speech to the Brookings Institution that
We must shift the paradigm to think about education funding as investments made in individual children, not institutions or buildings. Shes right. A
scholarship tax credit would do just that. Its a move that would signal congressional Republicans understand
that better, quality education and lifting people out of poverty go hand in hand. Indeed, education policy from the
federal level needs to finally be about empowering real people in the near term not sometime in the distant future laden with still more federal
mandates and dollars trickling down to bureaucracies and school districts. How Republicans proceed on educational opportunity either will help
thousands of families like the Santiagos, or again result in vapid, unmet promises. Its up to them.
Federalism DA
The counterplan maintains state autonomy and solves federal
overreach
Peter Murphy 3/9, 2017, Peter Murphy is vice president for policy at the Invest in Education
Foundation Special Report Trumps Pursuit of 50-State Scholarship Tax Credit Deserves
Applause https://spectator.org/trump-500-state-scholarship-tax-credit-education-273926-2/
On the Left, the opposition is naturally led by the two national teachers unions. This opposition is not intellectual,
but rather the dying gasp of a public monopoly that opposes giving parents an increased ability to choose an
option beyond the grip of the unions. The teacher union opposition is knee-jerk. They simply oppose any
school choice initiative that allows lower-income parents greater freedom to choose a private school, whether a
voucher, a school-choice block grant, education savings account, or increased tax incentive for scholarships. On the Right,
some simply oppose any federal education initiative, with some favoring the elimination of the U.S. Department of
Education altogether. Blocking any federal role in educational standards or curriculum decisions may have merit, but
scholarship tax credits are a 50-state solution they should be embracing. The Heritage Foundations Lindsey Burke
fears that a scholarship tax credit will lead to federal regulation of private schools. But nonprofit scholarship funds already benefit
from the charitable deduction, without this overreach. There is no reason to believe that increasing this incentive for
donations to scholarship funds by moving to the higher tax incentives of a dollar-for-dollar tax credit will
change the regulatory structure at all. Heritages Burke also warns that a scholarship tax credit would come at the
expense of state and local control and policy experimentation and innovation. That simply is untrue. All existing state
programs would be unaffected, and states would retain the ability to encourage or discourage
whatever they wanted through state tax codes. With President Trump in the White House and Republicans in
charge of both houses, the bad bill that Burke envisions is not likely. In lieu of a federal scholarship tax credit, Burke advocates for a
small-potatoes approach toward educational choice that would expand the D.C. Scholarship program and add choices for military
families and Native Americans. Nice ideas all, but hardly the bold national solution children need. The do little strategy embraced
by Heritage would leave millions of students stranded in bad schools. The fact that many of these students live in blue or purple
states does not mean they are less deserving of school choice. This solution stands in stark contrast to expanding
the educational bureaucracy to administer and oversee higher government spending that would then
flow through state and school district bureaucracies, with only the remaining crumbs trickling down to help students.
Scholarship tax credits are a federal incentive that maintains local
control of donations- solves the link to federalism
Jason Russell, 2015 Jason is the contributors editor for the Washington Examiner. Previously,
he was a researcher for Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute. He graduated from the
University of Rochester and is originally from Commerce, Mich. Rubio calls for federal tax credit
for school choice; http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rubio-calls-for-federal-tax-credit-for-
school-choice/article/2576198
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., wants the federal government to encourage school
choice without interfering with state and local governments. To do so, Rubio would create a tax credit for
companies that donate to nonprofits that give K-12 tuition scholarships to poor students. "American
companies, in lieu of a portion of their taxes being paid to the government, would pay it into a local not-for-profit
scholarship organization that gives scholarships to low-income families to send their children to a private
school of their choice," Rubio said in an interview with the 74's Founder Campbell Brown Wednesday. "I'm not saying it's a silver
bullet that's going to solve everything. But it will provide yet one more avenue by which low-income parents can have access to a
better education than the one their kids are getting now." Such a program would create a federal incentive for
school choice, without directly interfering in the affairs of state and local governments and their
education budgets. Not interfering in those affairs is a priority for Rubio, who said he opposes using
federal dollars to incentivize states to implement school choice programs. "The problem with that is that
federal dollars that start out as incentives become mandates," Rubio said. "The federal government has a long history of sending
dollars down as a suggestion and then ultimately becoming a mandate with not strings attached, chains attached
and ropes. I don't want us to have a national school board." Sixteen states have similar school choice
programs, according to the Center for Education Reform. The scholarships given out by the nonprofits can essentially be used as
tuition vouchers at private schools. Scholarship tax credits should not be confused with school voucher programs, however, since the
tax credits do not directly send taxpayer dollars to private schools. "Allowing parents to become the
ultimate and final arbiter and decision maker on where their kids are getting their education is, for me, deeply empowering," Rubio
said. "It's immoral that the only people in America who have no control over where their kids go to school are low-income parents."
Spending DA
Tax credit scholarships save billions of taxpayer money- multiple
studies prove.
Martin F. Lueken 2016, Ph.D. and Director of Fiscal Policy and Analysis at EdChoice. Marty
studied in the department of education reform and received his doctorate in education policy
from the University of Arkansas. He also earned a masters degree in economics from the
University of Missouri. His research interests include education finance and teacher pensions.
His work primarily focuses on fiscal policy issues as they pertain to education choice. He also
travels around the country to testify in states that introduce education choice legislation. THE
TAX-CREDIT SCHOLARSHIP AUDIT Do Publicly Funded Private School Choice Programs Save
Money? https://www.edchoice.org/blog/breaking-tax-credit-scholarship-audit/
In 2007, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice (now EdChoice) released its report, School Choice by the Numbers: The
Fiscal Effects of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006. 10 In this report, Susan Aud estimated the fiscal impact of
most of the 19 school choice programs in operation at the time, including three tax-credit scholarship programs.
Overall, she estimated that there were about $444 million in net fiscal savings from school choice programs
between 1990 and 2006. The three largest tax-credit scholarship programs alone saved taxpayers
cumulatively more than $200 million. These programs saved taxpayers money because the cost of taxpayer
support for these programs was substantially less than the variable cost of students attending a
public school in the same state. Seven years later, the Foundation released The School Voucher Audit, which built upon
Auds seminal research.11 In The School Voucher Audit, Jeff Spalding estimated the net fiscal impact of 10 school voucher
programs on state governments, taxpayers, and public schools.12 This 2014 report looked at school voucher programs only and
estimated $1.7 billion in taxpayer savings. For consistency and to facilitate comparability, the methodology employed in
this report closely followed the methods used in Spaldings School Voucher Audit. Methods used in both of these reports differ in
significant ways from Auds report, however, and they have already been explained extensively in The School Voucher Audit. 13 For a
variety of reasons, there has been much more published analysis of proposed school choice programs than of existing programs.14
For example, early work by Lips and Jacoby estimated the fiscal impact of Arizonas Original Individual Tax Credit
Program during the programs first few years and estimated a fiscally neutral impact.15 Because this program does not
have any prior enrollment requirements, a fiscal analysis should account for how many students receiving scholarships did not or
would not have switched from public schools (i.e. students likely to enroll in a private school even without that financial aid). Not
doing so could overstate the expected savings. Lips and Jacoby estimated that about 80 percent of scholarship
recipients were currently private school students or likely to attend private school, though the
vast majority were from low-income households. The authors suggested it was likely that some portion of the
scholarship recipients would have had to return to public schools without the financial assistance. This was confirmed by
Vicki E. Murray, who analyzed student-level data and found that 66.8 percent of scholarship recipients family incomes would
qualify them for the corporate low-income scholarship program.16 More recently, Baylor economist Charles North estimated
Arizona taxpayer savings from the individual tax-credit scholarship program (in calendar year 2008) and presented his findings
during testimony to the Arizona legislatures Ad Hoc Committee on Private School Tuition Tax Credit Review. Though tax
revenue forgone because of the program was $55 million, he estimated savings to taxpayers at
between $100 million and $242 million.17 A critical factor for estimating the fiscal impact of school choice programs
is the number of students who leave public schools or who would have enrolled in public schools without financial assistance from
the program (commonly referred to as switchers.) While data on this group is usually not tracked at all, we can still get a
sense about whether a program saves or costs taxpayers money by calculating the break-even
switcher rate, which is the proportion of scholarship recipients who would need to be switchers in order for a program to be
fiscally neutral. Robert Buschman and David Sjoquist examined the fiscal effects of Georgias tax-credit scholarship program.18
Because they did not have data about the share of scholarship recipients who switched from public schools into the program, The
Florida legislatures Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) conducted a fiscal analysis of the
Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program and estimated that the program saved state taxpayers $36.2 million in
FY 2009.21 Put another way, for each dollar of forgone revenue, the state saved $1.44. Andrew LeFevre
estimated the cost to Pennsylvania taxpayers if all of the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) program participants re-
entered public schools. The gap between the average cost of a public school student and the average
scholarship award given through the EITC was more than $13,000. The cost to educate the
38,600 EITC participants in 200910 would have been $512 million.22 This estimate overstates the true
impact, however, as not all of the students would likely have switched back to public schools.
Tax Credits save taxpayers millions- most comprehensive empirical
studies prove
Greg Forster, 2013 Greg Forster, Ph.D. is a Friedman fellow with EdChoice. He conducts research and writes on school
choice policy. Forster has conducted empirical studies on the impact of school choice programs in Milwaukee, Ohio, Florida and
Texas, as well as national empirical studies comparing public and private schools in terms of working conditions for teachers, ethnic
segregation and teacher and staff misconduct. He also has conducted empirical studies of other education topics, including charter
schools, accountability testing, graduation rates, student demographics and special education. A Win-Win Solution The Empirical
Evidence on School Choice; Third edition April 2013. EdChoice; https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2013-4-
A-Win-Win-Solution-WEB.pdf
Costrells work represents the most meticulous and comprehensive fiscal analysis ever conducted on a
school choice programprobably on any education program, possibly on any government program in any area. His final
analysis found that Milwaukee vouchers were saving $37 million per year as of 2009. Without the funding
flaw, that would be the end of the story. However, the program also was transferring money from local property taxpayers to the
state. The funding flaw took an additional $45 million from Milwaukee property taxpayers, allowing property taxpayers
outside Milwaukee to save $52 million total and generating $30 million in total savings on state
taxes.33 Floridas Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research produced the second state published
fiscal analysis of a school choice program in 2012. The results of the analysis were published with only a sparse
supporting narrative explaining the method, which limits the readers ability to assess its methodological quality. However, it is still
worth noting. The office found that Floridas tax-credit scholarship program was saving the state $23
million per year as of 2011-12.34 The most recent fiscal analysis was published by Patrick Wolf and Michael
McShane in 2013. Examining the federally funded Washington, D.C. voucher program, they found that each
participating student would have cost taxpayers $14,939 per year to educate in D.C. public
schools, compared to voucher expenses of $7,500 per student. They estimate that, from 2004 to 2009, the
program saved taxpayers a total of about $135 million.
Objectivism DA
Taxes are coercive and unethical -- privatization and individual choice
is the first step to stopping it.
Saint-Andre 94 Peter Saint-Andre, Peter Saint-Andre received a degree in Philosophy and
Ancient Greek, worked as a business writer and editor, April 1994, On the Road to Voluntary
Government Financing, http://stpeter.im/writings/essays/bp.html
Ayn Rand's position on government financing -- that taxation is by nature theft and that government is
best financed through purely voluntary means -- sets her apart from almost all other
political thinkers. This is, however, a double-edged sword for Objectivists. The good news is that hardly anyone else takes a
stand on the issue, so that we've got the field all to ourselves. The bad news is that the Objectivist position on government financing
can be a source of embarrassment or befuddlement, and is often held up to those new to the philosophy as an example of its
extremism and lack of concern for "the real world". In addition, the issue of voluntary financing has little
"resonance" with normal folks. Who cares about voluntary vs. coercive financing when there are so many more pressing
issues facing the polity -- who, that is, except ideological wackos with (hide the children!) libertarian leanings? Even among those of
basically libertarian principles (and despite what your opinion is of the Libertarian Party, the Objectivist political theory must be
classified as libertarian, though perhaps with a small "l"), the issue of voluntary financing is usually considered
one of the last that must be dealt with in the progression towards a free society, not one of the first.
Rand herself, for example, in her 1964 essay "Government Financing in a Free Society", writes that voluntary financing "will be
practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions."
Leaving aside the question of how any society can be "fully free" under a regime of forced taxation, I want to challenge the
conventional Objectivist wisdom about voluntary financing of government. If voluntary financing is so crucial to
liberty, then what are we waiting for? Do we want to wait for the arrival of a virtually libertarian society before we
introduce what Rand seems to consider "the last reform"? Why don't we find a path to tax freedom that we can embark on now? In
this essay, I propose just such a path, one which may not appeal to all (or even any) Objectivists, but one which I believe can move us
closer to the day when government will be financed through fully voluntary, non-coercive means. Read on. Not so long ago, George
Bush (remember George Bush?) floated the idea of a check-off on your income tax form, by which you could dedicate up to ten
percent of your income tax exclusively for deficit reduction. This modest proposal contains the germ of what I
call choice-based taxation: the ability -- the right -- to assign your taxes to whatever
governmental services you deem most important. The idea for full-blown choice-based taxation came
to me on witnessing the June 1990 elections in Czechoslovakia, in which 96% of the electorate cast their votes. Weeks before the
voting, each citizen received in the mail an election packet that included one-page descriptions of each of the 24 political parties and
its program -- advertisements, if you will, though they could include only text. Each citizen had weeks to reflect on the positions of
the parties and decide which candidates to vote for. Well, this bright idea, so respectful of the minds of the voters, set me to thinking:
What if you and I were so respected as taxpayers? What if you were supplied with an information packet along with your tax forms,
and could decide which government departments or services you wished to support with your tax money? Just think: each
department is required to come up with a one-page summary of what it has accomplished
recently and why its programs are so important to the people of the nation, and you get to
allocate your tax money among those departments or services that seem on reflection to be most
worthy of your support. Right there on the old 1040, you would have the final choice about the
percentage of your taxes you wanted to assign to each department. One of the beauties of
such a choice-based taxation scheme is that it co-opts the income tax, which every
self-respecting lover of freedom despises. I believe that we can turn the income tax, which is in
essence a way of punishing the creation of wealth, into a weapon against the state. If "the rich"
(successful businesses and the individually better-off) do pay most of the taxes in this country, then don't they deserve to have more
of a say in how that money is spent? Given all the talk about tax fairness, we need to ask: is it fair to soak the rich and give them little
or no say in what is done with the money that is taken from them? The old adage "He who pays the piper calls the tune" not only
does not hold true in the realm of government -- in the United States today those who pay the piper are being forced more and more
to play the tune, through increased regulation. This state of affairs isn't fair, and it's about time someone
(namely, Objectivists) said so. Furthermore, assigning your taxes as you wish has an impeccable "democratic" or old-line liberal
ring to it: after all, is it not right that you be allowed to decide which functions of government you want to support with your hard-
earned money, especially if you are morally opposed to foreign aid or national defense or government subsidies for art or whatever?
Who could argue with the principle of choice, applied even to taxation and fiscal matters? Another beauty of choice-
based taxation is that it takes the fundamental power of government -- the power of the purse --
away from our so-called representatives, at least in part. That portion of federal revenues derived from income taxes
(currently around 35% from personal income taxes and 7% from corporate taxes) would lie beyond the power of Congress.
Furthermore, everyone would be aware of the percentages assigned by the people to the various departments, which would make
highly suspect any effort by our "representatives" to allocate the funds at their disposal in wildly different percentages. There is no
guarantee that you or I would like the resulting percentages. What if the people in their wisdom vote for more welfare, more farm
supports, more government-supported art, more spending on environmental regulation? That outcome is entirely possible, but then
again it is entirely possible that the people would vote less money for the NEA and the EPA, and more money for such basic
functions of government as defense and criminal justice. Given the priorities of the average American vs. those
of the average legislator, I know I would rather entrust fiscal decisions to the people. A focus on such
results looks only at the short term, however. In the long run, a radically democratic financing system will
reintroduce the one principle capable of eradicating coercive government at its
root: the idea that government exists to serve the people, and not the other way around. In these
days of government of the Congress, by the Congress, for the Congress, we have lost sight of the fact that
government exists to serve the needs of the people -- that government is a service.
Where do all our taxes go? Into government services: justice, defense, welfare, farm supports, national parks, foreign aid, and all the
rest. You or I may not like them all, but they're all services provided by the government. Yet who is making the choices
about these services? Not those who are served, but our so-called representatives. No wonder
it seems more and more that the federal government serves not the people but the
Beltway establishment. Beyond the democratic pedigree of a choice-based taxation system could lie a path towards
fully voluntary government financing. For, once we establish the principle that it is services you are paying for with
your taxes, then slowly we can push the idea that it is right for you to pay only for the
government services from which you feel you benefit, and only to the extent that you benefit
from them. That is, we will be able to establish that even paying taxes is fundamentally not an example of forced expropriation
but of voluntary exchange of mutual value between consenting parties. At that point, there will be no need or justification for the
government to set required levels of giving (such as a flat 10% of income, say); instead, levels of giving will be left to the discretion of
the individual, and government financing will be fully voluntary. I believe that choice-based taxation may also provide
a way to reduce government to what Rand called its "proper, basic functions". One
mechanism for doing so would be the privatization of government-sponsored
businesses and charities such as the Postal Service, the NEA, foreign aid programs, public television, and the various
welfare programs. In performing such services, the government is in direct competition with private
businesses or private charities. In order to privatize these government-run services, they might
be given privileged status on tax forms for a few years, meriting a check-off box or a line for contributions to
charities that are making the transition to private status.
Neg PPP CP
1nc PPP
The United States federal government should:
Establish a Public Private Partnership for <the object of the aff>
Farm to School Programs reduce waste, increase health, and improves engagement
and education
Becot et al 17, Florence Becot, Jane M. Kolodinsky, Erin Roche, Alexandra E. Zipparo,
Linda Berlin, Erin Buckwalter, and Janet McLaughlin, 1st Quarter 2017, a research
specialist for Center for Rural Studies at the University of Vermont, Do Farm-to-School
Programs Create Local Economic Impacts?
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/UserFiles/file/cmsarticle_565.pdf
First, anecdotal evidence suggests that FTS programs lead to reduced food waste, representing
a cost saving for schools (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2016b). The reduction in food waste
might be due to improved quality of meals served and increased awareness of the value of food
through FTS class programming. Since the current evidence is anecdotal, future research is
needed to explore the relationship among FTS programs, food waste, and food costs.
Second, focus on healthy diets and education through food and agricultural literacy leads to
improved nutritional intake, which could ultimately lead to improved health outcomes among
children (Joshi et al., 2008; Roche et al., 2012). Improved health outcomes, including reduced
rates of obesity and weight-related illnesses, would likely lead to healthcare costs savings (Fung
et al., 2012; Qian et al., 2016). If FTS programs lead to improved health outcomesand given
that better health leads to healthcare cost savingseconomic impact modeling may show that
these programs have a negative impact on the economy. However, despite potential losses for
the healthcare industry, gains at the societal level would likely be greater. The impacts of FTS
on health and the ensuing economic impacts are currently large research gaps.
Third, educational programming is a cornerstone of FTS programs, but its effect on educational
outcomes for students has received little attention. Research has shown that these educational
approaches lead to improved outcomes because increased student engagement lead to
positive attitudes towards learning (Bamford, 2015; Block et al., 2012). Schools participating in
FTS programs have seen a decrease in behavioral referrals and school nurse visits, further
indicating improved educational outcomes (Dirks and Orvis, 2005; Waliczek, Bradley, and
Zajicek, 2001; Zipparo, 2016). Better educational outcomes have been associated with
improved economic outcomes due to increased earning potential (Card, 1999).
In addition, if schools are given the option of contracting with independent food service contractors,
instead of the few major options that are currently available, the quality and price of the food may be
modified to a higher standard. Allowing students to become more involved in the creation and
preparation of the food they eat makes them more invested in their health and increases their
willingness to continue healthier behaviors.
STEM
PPP solves STEM -- tons of partnerships now prove.
Guymon 14 Dave Guymon, Online middle school teacher & educational blogger from Idaho
Falls, Idaho, JUNE 17, 2014, Public-Private Partnerships: The Real Future of Education,
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/public-private-partnerships-future-of-education-dave-guymon
As education reform initiatives continue to advance, the responsibility for rearing educated
citizens will increasingly broaden as well. Rather than focusing on the shortcomings of public schooling, a more
sensible approach to the problem will be increasing accountability for the process of public education. In other words, nurturing
educated citizens won't be delegated as solely the purview of school systems, but rather the
mission of various community stakeholders with an emphasis on public-private partnerships
(PPP). Changing the Equation Inside and out of classrooms, such relationships are already taking place. In response to President
Obama's Educate to Innovate initiative in 2009, Change the Equation, a non-profit dedicated to
"mobilizing the business community to improve the quality of STEM education in the United
States" was launched. In its first year, Change the Equation successfully spread proven STEM
education programs in districts across the country, empowered CEOs with a toolkit to
"advocate in communities where they are the largest employers for STEM reform," and designed
a new plan for how companies "can create and invest in STEM programs" as well. US2020 is
another PPP answering the STEM education challenge. Their vision is to "match one
million STEM mentors with students at youth-serving nonprofits by the year 2020." With a
focus on increasing access to STEM careers for "girls, underrepresented minorities, and low-
income children," US2020 and Citizen Schools have partnered to provide expanded STEM learning opportunities for students
across the country. Additionally, the US2020 City Competition is leveraging the "roles of cities
as centers for innovation, supporting outstanding efforts to build STEM mentoring
capacity at the local level." Applicants from around the country, including representatives from city governments,
corporations, nonprofits, schools, universities, museums, and libraries proposed plans to increase STEM mentoring in their areas
for the chance to share over $1 million in resources. City Competition recently announced the finalists from Round 1. The
Energy of Digital Youth Public-private partnerships have also drawn on research into students'
relationships with digital media to create student-owned learning labs in existing community
spaces. YOUmedia, an innovative, 21st century, teen-oriented learning space has experienced much success as part of the Chicago
Public Library since its first lab opened in 2009. A partnership between the MacArthur Foundation and the
Digital Youth Network, YOUmedia is a place for tweens and teens to connect with "books,
media, mentors, and institutions throughout the city of Chicago in one dynamic space designed
to inspire collaboration and creativity." Teens at YOUmedia are supported in their efforts to learn how to use digital
and traditional media to "engage in projects that promote critical thinking, creativity, and skill building." The response to the PPP-
driven YOUmedia initiative has been so positive that the MacArthur Foundation, in partnership with the Institute of Museum and
Library Services, is planning to fund the creation of "30 new hands-on learning centers around the country . . . based on the
successful YOUmedia center at the Chicago Public Library." Remaking the Future The Maker Movement has likewise
gained steam over the past few years, and partnerships have formed as a result. The Maker Education
Initiative was created to provide "more opportunities for all young people to develop confidence, creativity, and interest in science,
technology, engineering, math, art, and learning as a whole through making." Maker Corps, with the generous support of such
organizations as Cognizant, Google for Entrepreneurs, and the Grable Foundation, leverages host sites across the country by placing
Maker Corps members in youth-serving organizations to "diversify and expand the network of
makers, mentors, and community leaders" while increasing "the capacity of youth-serving
organizations to engage youth and families in making." Contrary to being the invasive
privatization of a cultural institution, public-private partnerships in education are a
community effort. This type of collaboration can lead to greater efficiency and increased
choice, and expand access to education services for a full range of communities. PPPs also "allow
governments to take advantage of the specialized skills offered by certain private organizations
and to overcome operating restrictions such as inflexible salary scales and work rules that may
prevail in the public sector." Despite the shrill tone of today's education reform rhetoric, the future of
education isn't a zero-sum tug-of-war between public systems of education and
private organizations. It's quite the opposite. In order for our students to receive the best educational
experiences possible, and in
order to improve America's standing in the global economy, partnerships
between our teaching and learning institutions and workforce industries must be forged. This
goes beyond our formal public school system to include community learning centers such as
libraries and after-school clubs as well. Only after this has taken place -- and after we learn how
to work synergistically to empower our students with their futures in mind -- will the future of
public education really involve the public.
This is an idea that is taking hold, that we are in a world that is bifurcated and will become ever more
bifurcated, that things are going to be getting more unequal in society before they become less so,
Foroohar said. The truth is that its going to take more than Washington, its going to take more than
government, to fix these things.
Foroohar said she thinks reforming education through collaboration between the private and public
sectors is one possible way to address income inequality. She added that her reporting shows that
companies arent finding enough qualified individuals to fill middle-tier jobs, while there is a large talent
pool for both high-paying jobs and low-end positions.
The most obvious examples are Uber and Lyft, which aspire not merely to eliminate the taxi
industry, but to replace public transportation. Theyre slowly succeeding: municipalities around
America are now subsidizing ride-hailing fares instead of running public buses. And earlier this
year, Lyft began offering a fixed-route, flat-rate service called Lyft Shuttle in Chicago and San
Francisco an aggressive bid to poach more riders from public transit. These companies
wouldnt have customers if better public alternatives existed. It can be hard to find a
water fountain in Manhattan, and public transit in American cities ranges from mediocre to
nonexistent. But solving these problems by ceding them to the private sector ensures that public
services will continue to deteriorate until they disappear. Decades of defunding and outsourcing
have already pushed public services to the brink. Now, fortified with piles of investor cash and
the smartphone, tech companies are trying to finish them off. Proponents of privatization
believe this is a good thing. For years, they have advanced the argument that business will
always perform a given task better than government, whether its running buses or schools,
supplying healthcare or housing. The public sector is sclerotic, wasteful and undisciplined by the
profit motive. The private sector is dynamic, innovative and, above all, efficient. This belief has
become common sense in political life. It is widely shared by the countrys elite, and has guided
much policymaking over the past several decades. But like most of our governing myths, it
collapses on closer inspection. No word is invoked more frequently or more fervently by apostles
of privatization than efficiency. Yet this is a strange basis on which to build their case, given the
fact that public services are often more efficient than private ones. Take healthcare. The United
States has one of the least efficient systems on the planet: we spend more money on healthcare
than anyone else, and in return we receive some of the worst health outcomes in the west. Not
coincidentally, we also have the most privatized healthcare system in the advanced world. By
contrast, the UK spends a fraction of what we do and achieves far better results. It also happens
to provision healthcare as a public service. Somehow, the absence of the profit motive has not
produced an epidemic of inefficiency in British healthcare. Meanwhile, we pay nearly $10,000
per capita and a staggering 17% of our GDP to achieve a life expectancy somewhere between that
of Costa Rica and Cuba. A profit-driven system doesnt mean we get more for our money it
means someone gets to make more money off of us. The healthcare industry posts record profits
and rewards its chief executives with the highest salaries in the country. It takes a peculiar frame
of mind to see this arrangement as anything resembling efficient. A profit-driven system doesnt
mean we get more for our money it means someone gets to make more money off of us
Attacking public services on the grounds of efficiency isnt just incorrect, however its beside
the point. Decades of neoliberalism have corroded our capacity to think in non-economic terms.
Weve been taught that all fields of human life should be organized as markets, and that
government should be run like a business. This ideology has found its perverse culmination in
the figure of Donald Trump, a celebrity billionaire with no prior political experience who
catapulted himself into the White House by invoking his expertise as an businessman. The
premise of Trumps campaign was that America didnt need a president it needed
a CEO. Nowhere is the neoliberal faith embodied by Trump more deeply felt than in Silicon
Valley. Tech entrepreneurs work tirelessly to turn more of our lives into markets and devote
enormous resources towards disrupting government by privatizing its functions. Perhaps this
is why, despite Silicon Valleys veneer of liberal cosmopolitanism, it has a certain affinity for the
president. On Monday, Trump met with top executives from Apple, Amazon, Google and other
major tech firms to explore how to unleash the creativity of the private sector to provide citizen
services, in the words of Jared Kushner. Between Trump and tech, never before have so many
powerful people been so intent on transforming government into a business. But government
isnt a business; its a different kind of machine. At its worst, it can be repressive and corrupt
and autocratic. At its best, it can be an invaluable tool for developing and sustaining a
democratic society. Among other things, this includes ensuring that everyone receives the
resources they need to exercise the freedoms on which democracy depends. When we privatize
public services, we dont just risk replacing them with less efficient alternatives we risk
damaging democracy itself. If this seems like a stretch, thats because pundits and
politicians have spent decades defining the idea of democracy downwards. It has come to mean
little more than holding elections every few years. But this is the absolute minimum of
democracys meaning. Its Greek root translates to rule of the people not rule by certain
people, such as the rich (plutocracy) or the priests (theocracy), but by all people. Democracy
describes a way of organizing society in which the whole of the people determine how society
should be organized. Analysis Neoliberalism turned our world into a business. And there are two
big winners Fearmongering Donald Trump and optimistic Silicon Valley seem to epitomize
opposing ideologies. But the two have far more in common than you think What does this have
to do with buses or schools or hospitals or houses? In a democracy, everyone gets to participate
in the decisions that affect their lives. But thats impossible if people dont have access to the
goods they need to survive if theyre hungry or homeless or sick. And the reality is that when
goods are rationed by the market, fewer people have access to them. Markets are places of
winners and losers. You dont get what you need you get what you can afford. By contrast,
public services offer a more equitable way to satisfy basic needs. By taking things off the market,
government can democratize access to the resources that people rely on to lead reasonably
dignified lives. Those resources can be offered cheap or free, funded by progressive taxation.
They can also be managed by publicly accountable institutions led by elected officials, or subject
to more direct mechanisms of popular control. These ideas are considered wildly radical in
American politics. Yet other places around the world have implemented them with great
success. When Oxfam surveyed more than 100 countries, they discovered that public services
significantly reduce economic inequality. They shrink the distance between rich and poor by
lowering the cost of living. They empower working people by making their survival less
dependent on their bosses and landlords and creditors. Perhaps most importantly, they entitle
citizens to a share of societys wealth and a say over how its used. But where will the money
come from? This is the perennial question, posed whenever someone suggests raising the
welfare state above a whisper. Fortunately, it has a simple answer. The United States is the
richest country in the history of the world. It is so rich, in fact, that its richest people can afford
to pour billions of dollars into a company such as Uber, which loses billions of dollars each year,
in the hopes of getting just a little bit richer. In the face of such extravagance, diverting a modest
portion of the prosperity we produce in common toward services that benefit everyone shouldnt
be controversial. Its a small price to pay for making democracy mean more than a hollow
slogan, or a sick joke.
Some officials and commentators believe that outsourcing school support services will save
money while maintaining quality and accountability. Theyre wrong. Outsourcing generally
leads to a loss of accountability, fails to save money and lowers the quality of services, while
harming workers and the local economy. Privatization Means a Loss of Accountability When a
school district outsources support services, those unhappy with contractor employees or the
quality of work have little recourse. For example, Durham School Services hired bus drivers with
felony records and serious motor vehicle violations to work for Memphis area school districts.
The number of bus crashes skyrocketed, with Durham drivers at fault in 125 crashes in less than
three years. School officials had few alternatives to working with Durham because the district
sold its buses to the company. As one school official explained, It put you in an awkward
position, yes it did. They had us over a barrel. Even when a school district can identify
problems with a contractors substandard service, the district has to follow inflexible procedures
to get the company to fix the problem. GCA Services standard contract requires school districts
to file two notices and wait 90 days before they can cancel contracts for cause.1 Privatization
Doesnt Save Money Privatizing doesnt save money, and often costs more, because the contract
fails to include all of the duties that school employees perform, and the cost comparison omits
many hidden costs of outsourcing. For example: Cleaning firms submit low-ball bids based on
unrealistic staffing assumptions. When classrooms are dirty and parents complain, it costs the
district more to boost staffing and improve cleanliness. Chicago Public Schools found this out
with its custodial contract with Aramark. In the first 11 months of the deal, the company charged
$22 million more than budgeted, wiping out all of the projected savings for the year. The
company had to increase staffing by hundreds of workers after complaints about school
cleanliness and the districts failure to include some facilities in the contract.2 Food service
contractors promise to save districts millions of dollars, but any financial improvement comes
from increased federal reimbursements from school lunch programs that smart school districts
can achieve themselves.3 Privatization is no guarantee of success, as District of Columbia Public
Schools found when its contract with Chartwells cost taxpayers $7 million more than projected
while serving 15 million fewer meals.4 School districts across the country have brought student
transportation back in-house when they found they could save money and improve service
compared to outsourcing.5 School officials assume in their cost comparisons that privatization
will save in administration, overhead and utilities, but those costs do not go away after the work
is outsourced and do not result in savings. Meanwhile, actual costs of administering and
overseeing vendor contracts are ignored. Privatization Diminishes the Quality of Service Private
contractors cut corners to increase profits, but that comes at the expense of quality. At Volusia
County Public Schools in Florida, teachers complained their schools werent clean with Aramark
and resorted to cleaning classrooms themselves. An inspection revealed 14 deficient schools,
including restrooms without soap and paper, which the school board chairman called
unacceptable. The company admitted it had not hired enough custodians.6 Contractors often
seek savings with a lower-quality workforce. The contractor may offer jobs to current school
staff, but most employees cannot afford to take the jobs at the pay the company is offering.
Schools go from having a stable, experienced staff to a contractor workforce with constant
turnover. Because of low pay and benefits, contractors are desperate to recruit enough workers.
This impacts the quality of service and school safety. Contractors are found to employ people
who do not belong in a school environment. Incidences of theft and worse are all too
common. Privatization Harms Workers and the Local Economy Privatization replaces decent,
middle-class school district jobs with substandard, poverty-level jobs. When Chelmsford,
Massachusetts, schools outsourced custodial jobs, wages were slashed from $19 per hour to
about $8.50 per hour. Employees couldnt afford to take the new jobs at poverty-level wages,
meaning the community lost many experienced, familiar workers in their schools.8 Outsourcing
means more than lower wages. It leaves workers with only part-time hours, inferior health
insurance at higher cost, inadequate retirement benefits and little or no sick leave. When
Aramark, Sodexo, Compass and others took over school cafeterias in New Jersey, the companies
not only cut wages by $4 to $6 per hour, but many workers lost their health insurance, leaving
them uninsured or dependent on Medicaid or childrens health insurance programs.9 GCA
Services bid for New Haven Public Schools custodians proposed cutting wages, hours and
benefits so much that custodians would have been eligible for food stamps and Medicaid.10
When school employees, who are parents and grandparents of district schoolchildren, lose good
jobs in our schools, they are pushed into unemployment and poverty. The local economy and
stability of neighborhoods is harmed.11 School employees, instead of strengthening the
community, will need public benefits just to make ends meet.
Aff Scholarship Tax Credits CP
No Solvency
2ac School Choice Bad
School Choice is bad for education
Camera 17, Lauren Camera, April 27, 2017, an education reporter at U.S. News & World Report, a
2013 Spencer Education Fellow at Columbia Universitys School of Journalism
When Secretary DeVos own departments independent research office tells her that siphoning
taxpayer dollars into private schools has a negative impact on students, its time for her to finally
abandon her reckless plans to privatize public schools across the country, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.,
the top Democrat on the Senate education committee, said in a statement.
"We know vouchers don't work, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., the top Democrat on the House education
committee, said in a statement. For years I've been saying that on average, voucher programs are
average, but IES confirms that they are actually worse than traditional public schools. D.C. students
using vouchers actually lose learning.
Vouchers or Choice. In practice, school choice means parents can choose the school within the system
they want the child to attend. Few of the myriad systems tried from 1970 to 2008 operated in such a
pristine fashion. Enrollment limits, transportation and a host of other factors complicate realities.
Despite intense examination, there is no consistent body of evidence that show vouchers or choice
systems provide higher test scores. Evidence to date suggests social segregation is the result and cost-
savings have not been established.
2ac Parent Choice Fails
Parents dont know how to properly choose schools
Howell and Peterson 06, William G. Howell and Paul E. Peterson, 2006, the Sydney Stein
Professor in American Politics at Chicago Harris and a professor in the Department of Political Science
and the College at the University of Chicago. School Choice and American Democracy
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/educationgaprevised_chapter.pdf
When useful information is unavailable, parents may divine the quality of a school from the
appearance of the students attending it, the exhibition of new computers, the quality of the
sports team, or some other consideration that may have little academic content. According to
education sociologist Amy Stuart Wells, when parents in the St. Louis area were given a chance
to send their child to a school outside the central city, not one of the [eleven] transfer
parents she interviewed actually went to visit a county district before listing their top three
choices. She concluded that their choice of school was based more on a perception that
county is better than city and white is better than black, not on factual information about the
schools.65
Offense
2ac Vouchers Unconstitutional
School Choice is unconstitutional- it violates separation of church and
state
Lynn No Date, Barry w. Lynn, No Date, executive director of Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and a prominent leader of the religious
left, the case against
vouchers http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/vouchers/choice/convouchers.html
About 96% of the students who get some benefit from the Ohio voucher program are going to religious schools,
and whenever you take funding from the general treasury of the state and divert it into the treasuries of private
religious schools, you've helped to promote religion. You've helped to make it more likely for parents to send
their children to that religious school. That kind of government support for religion violates the constitution of
most states and also the Constitution of the United States.