[HELP] A Debate on Public Funding for Schools

Crowd sourcing seems to be a better way to learn than a public class that hands out assignments expecting you to research on your own.

 

This should help:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html

 

One thing that might help your debate is do a search of the threads about public funding of schools here. Even the Wisconsin legislators thread had a lot of back and forth regarding public funding of education.

 

All schools or is it focusing on universities?

 

Is the debate specifically on federal funding, or just public funding? Public schools are mostly funded with local taxes, but there are federal programs that hand out additional money. But, it sounds like the two teams want an argument about the more fundamental point about whether education should be paid with taxes in the first place. Clarification?

 

If you want to stick to federal funding, then I think the points you listed are too broad and fundamental.

The alternatives to for-profit colleges are non-profit colleges and state-funded colleges. The Feds only come in with grants for research and funding some students.

I can see a class warfare angle in that Federal grants to colleges and grade schools level the playing field a bit between rich students and poor students. (But, states, the schools themselves, and other players also have a role in equalizing students with funding.)

Public schools working isn't simply (or even mostly) attributable to Federal intervention.

Even the total elimination of Federal involvement wouldn't create a 'limited-government/corporate-controlled world' insofar as I would imagine you mean. The states would just carry the burden themselves, if you're limiting yourself to discussing federal funding.

Do you see my confusion?

 

Not sure about 1,2, and 4. But I suppose those depend on how radical you opponent is.

1. I would guess that private universities are doing fine. You might be able to research on how "private" they actually are though with Federal grant/loan/scholarship programs - and how much private school benefit from them.

If a substantial percentage of private school revenues is derived from theese source of public funding - then you probably have a great debate point.

2. I would stay away from saying "class warfare" as it makes you sound biased. Maybe you can demonstrate your point by just pointing out the high costs of a private university (such as USC) and how it is extemely difficult for a middle-class family to afford it. Let the facts speak for themselves with out saying "class warfare"

4. This may be going outside the parameters of your debate. Again use your facts from 1 and 2. I suppose you can theorize that without any public funding, tuition costs would rise as private schools look to recoup lost revenue.

I'm not sure how "Glenn Beck-ish" your opponent is, but you might have gotten him all angry and framed the debate around ALL public funding (not just Federal). I don't know the facts, but I would guess that the vast majority of public funding comes from the state level and lower.

 

To play the devil's advocate:

The Constitution never gives the express authority for Congress to provide states funding for education. You should be prepared for that by justifying federal funding vis a vis the general welfare clause, etc.

Another argument against Federal funding of public education would be the economic argument: When the Federal government provides low interest loans for higher education, it creates an incentive for more people to attend college, which in turn increases the price of a college education, all else equal (with the supply of higher education the same). If you were going to argue against this point, you'd need to counter that the benefits derived from a more educated population outweigh the increasing cost of higher education. You might mention something here about Federal funding going towards constructing new public universities (thus increasing the supply of higher education, putting downward pressure on the price of that education).

Another argument you should expect would involve the conditions associated with Federal funds going toward public education in the several states; namely, that those conditions (standardized testing, etc.) aren't conducive to improving education. To counter that, you'd either have to defend the reasoning and effectiveness of those conditions, or counter that the conditions associated with Federal funding don't have a large enough negative effect to condemn Federal funding overall.

That should give you an idea of what to expect from your opponent.

 

I think you should reconsider the points you're considering to make the argument for Federal funding.

If you were going to claim that "for-profit colleges" are a failure, you'd better have some good evidence to support that claim. Somebody else mentioned that these private universities often benefit from Federal funding. That might be a better point than calling them a failure.

I don't think the class warfare point of view is a great argument to make. Maybe you could mention that lack of funding for education has a greater effect on the poor and minority groups. However, I wouldn't make that the centerpiece of your argument.

You could make the point that schools receiving Federal funding are working overall, but it would have to be based on something else besides the fact that, "most of us went to public school." What about the people who went, but dropped out, or the people who graduated without really learning anything (because of funding conditions)?

And on your last point, Federal funding for education is a well-defined issue. It would be a slippery slope argument to connect a lack of Federal funding to some dystopian ideal of what the extreme of limited-government/corporate-control would be like. Plus, you'd be attacked by your opponent for equating limited-government with corporate-control.

Hope I've helped out!

 

If it hasn't already been posted, simplistic but numbers-heavy tax revenue argument that compares lifetime earnings and welfare/incarceration rates between dropouts and graduates. Maybe even try to just use Oklahoma school statistics.

 

You might want to check this out:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2011-05-01/webextra10.php

Mostly state funding issues, but there's some discussion of the role of federal dollars in local education.

 

In that case, you should be ready with some kind of rebuttal if he goes beyond scope. You can either expand your own scope to debunk his larger position, or call him out on procedure and point out his arguments don't properly address the question. You could force him to throw out half his work that way. Of course, you may want to also be prepared to debunk his larger position too just in case your teacher allows the expansion in scope.

 

Preface: I am not claiming to hold any of these views (at least not in this thread), just trying to helper the author of the OP.

If your opponent is a libertarian, then he is gonna hit you with the Constitution. The 10th amendment limits the powers of the federal government to those given in the Constitution, and providing funding for state run school systems is not one. He is going to tell you that federal funding for state schools is a violation of the 10th amendment.

He will also mention the federal deficit and how cuts in spending must be made and unconstitutional spending should be on the top of that list.

I don't know the person, but since your OP says the debate is on federal funding of schools, then I doubt he will argue about the effectiveness of public schools, since it's not really the point.

You mention class warfare in the OP, I suggest you be familiar with the voucher system, which your opponent will argue would greatly benefit the lower class (giving them choices). Also remember how ****ty our current public schools are at educating the lower class.

 

Good stuff, tallanvor. All these arguments are pretty easily refuted with a little preparation, and that will go a long way when it comes time for you to deliver your speeches.

To help you get started on the 10th Amendment argument: Article I, Section 8 states, "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States (emphasis added, though I bet the Founders pressed their pens down really hard when writing that part)." It is not a stretch to say that public education promotes the general welfare. If your debate format includes a question/answer period (rather than simply alternating speeches), you can ask your opponent whether s/he believes an educated populace is good for the country. If s/he says yes, s/he has just made your argument for you. If s/he says no, s/he will have to defend that education is bad, which is a difficult position to take when you're paying thousands of dollars a semester for it.

That's just one argument in favor of the Constitutionality of public education funding. Another approach you could take would be to cite Constitutional scholarship or, better, specific Supreme Court cases.

 

That's not what Libertarians believe 'promote the general welfare' means. By that definition, the government could force citizens to do jumping jacks every morning to reduce health care costs and 'promote the general welfare'. The federal government would have no restrictions by that interpretation and the 10th amendment would be meaningless (so would most the Constitution). Libertarians don't believe the preamble of the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. No other powers are defined there.