TOP-LEVEL

*** NOTES
 Logistical Details
This file includes the entirety of a negative questioning the desirability of
Freirean pedagogy. It includes work from the following students
Ben M.
Ben S.
Debayan S.
Dylan S.
Eric H.
Jason J.
Josh K.
Lauren C.
Nithilan V.
Trey G.

Any questions or concerns --- email!

Thurt11@gmail.com
ADVANTAGE ANSWERS
*** INEQUALITY ADVANTAGE
 Frontline
Freirean pedagogy fails – it creates forms of hegemonic exclusion and can’t
solve inequality outside the dialogical relation
Burbules 2k (Nicholas C. Burbules – Department of Educational Policy Studies University of Illinois,
Urbana/Champaign, Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies from Grinnell College, Master of Arts
degree in Philosophy from Stanford University, Doctor of Philosophy degree in Philosophy of Education
from Stanford University; Article; Published in Revolutionary Pedagogies, Peter Trifonas, ed; 2000; “The
Limits of Dialogue as a Critical Pedagogy”;
http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/burbules/papers/limits.html; accessed on 7/27/17) [DS]
It seems that hardly anyone has a bad word to say against dialogue. A broad range of political orientations hold out the aim of
"fostering dialogue" as a potential resolution to social conflict and as a basis for rational public deliberation. A range of pedagogical
approaches, from constructivist scaffolding to Socratic instruction to Freirean liberatory pedagogy, all proclaim the
virtues of an interactive engagement of questions and answers in the shared pursuit of knowledge and
understanding. Philosophical accounts of dialogue from Plato to the present employ the dialogical form as a literary genre that
represents the external expression of an internal, dialectical thought process of back-and-forth ratiocination. Dialogue constitutes a
point of opportunity at which these three interests — political, pedagogical, and philosophical — come together. It is widely
assumed that the aim of teaching with and through dialogue serves democracy, promotes communication
across difference, and enables the active co-construction of new knowledge and understandings. Nevertheless, the ideal of
dialogue has received withering criticism, particularly from poststructural feminist theorists in
education and from those for whom "difference" is a lived experience of marginalization, and
not just a demographic category of identification. For these critics, "dialogue" has exerted a kind of
hegemonic dominance that believes its emancipatory rhetoric, its apparent openness to difference, and its stress
on equality and reciprocity within the dialogical relation. The way in which dialogue has become almost synonymous
with critical pedagogy has tended to submerge the voices and concerns of groups who feel
themselves closed out of dialogue, or compelled to join it only at the cost of restricting their self-expression into
acceptable channels of communication. Finally, an idealized, prescriptive conception of dialogue has abstracted the
situated historicity of specific practices of communicative engagement from their consequences for people
and groups who encounter the invitation to dialogue in difficult circumstances of conflict. In light of such reactions, the claims made
on behalf of dialogue as an inherently liberatory pedagogy need to be reassessed. The insistence that dialogue is
somehow self-corrective, that if there are unresolved power differentials or unexamined silences and omissions within a
dialogue, simply persisting with the same forms of dialogical exchange can bring them to light, seems not only
counterproductive but itself a form of hegemony : If dialogue fails, the solution to the problem
is more of the same. Yet it also remains true that the ideal of "dialogue" expresses a hope in the possibility of open, respectful,
critical engagements from which we can learn about others, about the world, and about ourselves. Is there a space between the
exaggerated claims made on behalf of dialogue as an inherently liberatory pedagogy and the rejection of dialogue as an ideal entirely?
Can dialogue continue in good faith while acknowledging the inherent limits to (and dangers arising from) its aspirations toward
understanding across differences? Or must such aspirations toward understanding and communication be abandoned entirely? These
are the questions animating this essay. The Fetishization of Dialogue We seem to be living in an era in which for many " dialogue"
has become the foundation of last resort in an antifoundational world. The thoroughgoing proceduralism of
placing trust in processes of interpersonal communication has proven to be compatible with a wide range of otherwise quite different
social and political stances. Dialogue represents, to one view or another, a way of reconciling differences; a means
of promoting empathy and understanding for others; a mode of collaborative inquiry; a method of critically comparing and testing
alternative hypotheses; a form of constructivist teaching and learning; a forum for deliberation and negotiation about public policy
differences; a therapeutic engagement of self- and other-exploration; and a basis for shaping uncoerced social and political consensus.
I will briefly review six dominant traditions that have centrally invoked the concept of dialogue, particularly in relation to the aims and
methods of education. (1) For liberal views of dialogue, such as those of John Dewey or Benjamin Barber, dialogue is the fulcrum
around which the imperatives of democracy can be reconciled with the facts of diversity and conflict. For exponents of "deliberative
democracy" it is in public, communicative engagements that democracy works its will, and a chief aim of democratic education must
be to foster in learners the capabilities and dispositions to participate in such deliberations. An implication of this stance, however, is
that those who do not, who cannot, or who choose not to develop or exercise these capabilities
suffer an attenuated relation, at best, to the democratic public sphere, if not an actual exclusion from it:
"Proponents of liberal dialogue are not sensitive enough to the fact that a theory of conversational restraint may be damaging precisely
to the interests of those groups that have not been traditional actors in the public space of liberalism — like women, nonwhite
peoples, and sometimes nonpropertied males." Public education is supposed to be an arena of training for engagement
in the rough and tumble of public deliberation; but the
very avenues of opportunity for access to deliberation on
these terms can be seen from a different vantage point as barriers of exclusion. (2) Some versions of
feminism, by contrast, tend to reject the agonistic features of dialogue in this sense and to promote a
more receptive, caring stance in the dialogical relation. Deborah Tannen’s recent popular book, The Argument
Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue, is an extended paean to this nonconfrontational view. More detailed and modulated
treatments of this theme can be found in Mary Belenky et al., Carol Gilligan, and Nel Noddings. What relates all of these accounts is a
linkage between a competitive, adversarial approach to public or private disagreements and the stereotypical norms of masculine
behavior, and the association of "dialogue" with the more open, receptive, inclusive spirit of women’s values. Educational and
social deliberation that privileges the more adversarial mode of interaction, and discourages or dismisses
the more tentative and cooperative spirit of dialogue, on this view, discriminates against females in schools and in
the public sphere generally. These authors are always careful to insist that this more receptive stance does not preclude
vigorous disagreement and self-assertion, but it is not difficult to see why these views have come to be labeled by
other feminists as "good girl" feminism. Without intruding myself into this particular disagreement, I think it is clear
why the mode of dialogue proposed under this view of feminism has not been seen as adequate for the
more confrontational politics favored by certain other feminists and by the aggrieved members of other groups. (3) Platonic views
of dialogue stress the role of communicative interchange as a proving ground for inquiries into truth: While in his dialogues the
protagonist Socrates distinguishes "disputatious" and "friendly" forms of dialogue (paralleling in some ways the distinction just
explored under (2)), in both forms the joint endeavor is to propose and oppose, to formulate arguments and to put forth
counterexamples and counterarguments, as the mechanism by which truth is ascertained. It is an intriguing feature of this view,
reflected later in a different context in the work of Freire and others, that this philosophical conception of dialogue coincides with a
preferred pedagogy: for in Plato’s view the way in which knowledge claims are adjudicated and tested is also the way to teach.
Dialogue is a way of drawing forth latent, unformed understandings and facilitating the discovery of truths by the learner for himself
or herself — hence the ubiquity of teachers from law schools to kindergartens to adult literacy programs ascribing their teaching to
"the Socratic method" (though this method never comprised only one style of teaching). But the Platonic view of dialogue rested upon
a view of knowledge as absolute, unchanging, and humanly attainable through recollection — an epistemological stance that almost
no one would feel comfortable with today. I suspect that few contemporary advocates of the Socratic method as a pedagogy would
want to be held to the underpinnings by which Plato advocated and justified it. (4) Hermeneutic views of dialogue tend to
emphasize dialogue as a condition of intersubjective understanding: what Hans-Georg Gadamer calls "the
fusing of horizons." A precursor of this view can be found in the existential theology of Martin Buber’s I-Thou relation. Hermeneutic
dialogue emphasizes the relational, to-and-fro movement of question and answer as an avenue toward understanding and agreement.
This intersubjective confirmation stands in direct contrast to the objectivist view of convergence around the truth that we find in
Platonic views of dialogue. But critics of this hermeneutic view of dialogue have tended to question its limited capacity
for critique and for engaging issues of power and inequality that stand outside the dialogical
relation ; these contexts need to be problematized in terms that go beyond their impact on interpersonal understanding. Moreover,
some have questioned the aim of understanding itself as insufficiently attuned to cultural differences and as dangerously naive in
supposing that when "fusing" occurs it occurs on neutral ground: By communicative dialogue, I mean a controlled process of
interaction that seeks successful communication, defined as the moment of full understanding. For those who advocate it in education,
communicative dialogue drives toward mutual understanding as a pedagogical ideal….What kind of knowledge does dialogue proffer?
What techniques does it use to regulate knowledge and the relationship of the teacher and student within the dialogue to knowledge
and truth? I’m persuaded that dialogue…is not just a neutral conduit of insights, discoveries, understandings, agreements, or
disagreements. It has a constitutive force. It is a tool, it is for something….[It] tries to accurately represent the world through the
conventions and politics of realism. (5) Most contemporary critical views of dialogue, especially those in education, invariably refer to
the important work of Paulo Freire. Indeed, for an entire generation of critical educators his writings and life’s work stand as an
inspiring model of committed pedagogy, and he has had a primary impact on the work of widely read North American authors
including Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, and Ira Shor. Yet it must be said that this very popularity and loyalty have interfered at times
with the selective, critical appropriation and reinterpretation of his ideas. Freire’s distinctions of monological vs. dialogical
pedagogies, his critique of "banking" forms of education as the mere "depositing" of information in the minds of students, his
conception of conscientization as the overcoming of what he calls "intransitive consciousness," are all virtually canonical. Freirean
pedagogy is sometimes taken as simply synonymous with critical pedagogy or radical pedagogy, forcing
feminists and others to find different ways of describing alternative critical educational theories and practices. Yet, as the roots of
Freire’s pedagogy have come to be more clearly identified in specifically Hegelian, Marxist, and Catholic assumptions, it has
become necessary to ask whether this particular constellation of theories is the best or only basis for a
radical theory and practice of pedagogy. In some accounts, Freirean dialogue is regarded as a practice with intrinsic
critical and emancipatory potential; but many authors, notably some feminists, do not find space within it for
critique and emancipation on their terms.
The US school system is bound to be flawed – disciplinary practices only
serve to further the roles of worker and management – that reifies their
inequality impact
Mocombe ’05 (Paul C. Mocombe, former visiting professor of philosophy and sociology at
Bethune-Cookman university, assistant professor of philosophy and sociology at West Virginia
State University, creator of the reading room curriculum; 2005; “Where Did Freire Go Wrong?
Pedagogy in Globalization: The Grenadian Example”; Jean Ait Belkhir, Race, Gender & Class
Journal; 2005;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41675167.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:d51976b5370e2c15bc0208d52
2c9c619; Accessed on 7-26-2017; CRB)
The social relations of production of the two most recent conditions of capitalism are diametrical
opposites to say the least. Under industrial capitalism, "the scientific management movement initiated
by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the last decades of the nineteenth century was brought into being... in an attempt to apply the

methods of science to the increasingly complex problems of the; control of labor [(in order to maximize profits)]
in rapidly growing capitalist [(industrial)] enterprises" (Braverman, 1998:59). The end result of this movement was the separation of

the roles of worker and management. In the case of post-industrialism (globalization), there was a renewed emphasis on cooperation between
worker and management. In both cases, interestingly enough, the techniques and functions of the work place were replicated

in US classrooms to serve as the means of socialization or enculturation to the labor process, and
its subsequent way of life. This direct correlation, most conspicuously, was between the
implementation of pedagogical practices in American classrooms that paralleled the organization
of work under each mode of production (Mocombe, 2001). For instance, under the scientific movement of the industrial stage, mental work was
separated from manual work, and "a necessary consequence of this separation [was] that the labor process [became] divided between separate sites and separate bodies of workers.
In one location, the physical processes of production [were] executed. In another [were] concentrated the design, planning, calculation, and record-keeping. The preconception of
the process before it is set in motion, the visualization of each worker's activities before they have actually begun, the definition of each function along with the manner of its
performance and the time it will consume, the control and checking of the ongoing process once it is under way, and the assessment of results upon completion of each stage of the
To parallel the concepts of
process - all of these aspects of production [were] removed from the shop floor to the management office" (Braverman, 1998:86).

control adopted by management at that time, school curricula in the US stressed marching, drill,
orderliness, assigned seats in rows, individualized seatwork, and tracking and leveling; seemingly
all were preparation for the coordination and orderliness required in the modern factory. Lining up for
class as well as marching in and out of the cloakroom and to the blackboard were activities justified in terms of training for factory assembly lines, while tracking and leveling
sorted out future workers and managers (Springs, 1994:18).

Inequality inevitable- social mobility has not changed in 600 years – leftist
policies can’t change this
Gorby 16 (Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, writer and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, writing appeared in Forbes, The Atlantic, First
Things, Commentary Magazine, The Daily Beast, The Federalist, Quartz, and other places; 16; "Is inequality inevitable?"; The Week; 5-20-2016;
http://theweek.com/articles/625010/inequality-inevitable; Accessed on 7-27-2017; CRB)
This might be the most depressing finding in social science. A new study
tried to assess intergenerational mobility by
looking at last names and found the highest earners in Florence in 2011 were the descendants of
the highest earners in the year 1427, nearly 600 years earlier. Social mobility, or the lack thereof,
persisted "despite the huge political, demographic, and economic upheavals that occurred
between the two dates." Lest you think this problem is quarantined to Italy, let me assure you: It is not.
There have been similar findings across various countries that possess vastly different cultures,
histories, and political and economic systems, including Sweden, England, the U.S., and even
China, in spite of the Maoist revolution. Those of us in the modern democratic West tend to think
intergenerational mobility is desirable and achievable. Sure, social stratification exists, but, we
think, with just the right policy tweaks, we can ensure every child at the bottom rung has a shot at
joining, if not the 1 percent, then at least the 10 percent. But what if social mobility on a large
scale simply isn't possible? If Chairman Mao, who sent his country's entire elite to death camps
and labor camps, couldn't shuffle the deck, do you really think Bernie Sanders will? Regardless of
circumstances, people with the money will always have the power to pass on their privilege,
whether that power takes the form of actual political power, or money, or status, or social capital
and social networks, or human capital. In this matter, the importance of family ties can't really be
overstated. Staunchly progressive parents will do anything to ensure their kids go to the right schools and have every advantage they can, even at
the expense of the less privileged. And why shouldn't they? Trying to help your progeny succeed is just about the most powerful instinct there is, wired
into our genes over millennia of evolution. If you add to that the finding that cognitive ability is heritable, you get a picture of why aristocracy is here to
stay, probably forever. So what does this mean, and what can we do about it? Well, it might pose a problem for conservatives who typically oppose
equality of opportunity is a
redistributive programs, pointing to equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. But it turns out
sham. When the left says the deck is stacked against the little guy, well, they're right. But it might be an
even bigger problem for liberals. Indeed, their entire raison d'être could be based on a sham. The left wants social equality and
mobility, but it might turn out these things aren't just hard to achieve, but completely impossible.
Sanders and his supporters believe it's a huge deal whether he or Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, but whatever Sanders does won't really influence
social mobility. The choice between these two candidates is like choosing between a spitball or a BB gun to attack a Panzer division. Forget about our
insane left vs. right battles for a second and realize this is a problem for democracy itself. As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out, the real appeal of
democracy is not liberty but equality. Democracy
appeals to us because we want to be equal with our
neighbors. Well, judging by these findings, that ain't happening. It's almost enough to make you
buy the Marxist critique that democracy is a lie designed to exploit the proletariat more easily by
making them believe they have a voice. After all, if social stratification is simply impossible to
change, we should probably just accept it. That would mean to accept an aristocracy, and even a bloodline-based aristocracy. But
you know what? That's just too much to contemplate.

Critical pedagogy can never solve for racism and oppression—built on a

foundation of white supremacy that prevents it from ever changing
Allen 13— Dr. Ricky Lee Allen is an associate professor in the Department of Language,
Literacy, & Sociocultural Studies at UNM. He received his Ph.D. in Education (Urban Schooling)
from UCLA. He specializes in critical studies of race, critical pedagogy, and critical social theory.
His scholarship focuses on the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of White identity
politics. Dr. Allen's work addresses the material and psychic violence of structural racism and its
relationship to white psychology. As an intervention, he labors to reimagine how whites can
respond positively to systemic white power and privilege. January 9th (“Whiteness and Critical
Pedagogy,” Tandof, available on http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-
5812.2004.00056.x, accessed on 7/27/2017, LC)
During the 1930s, W. E. B. Du Bois criticized the racial exclusion that was being practiced, and that had been practiced, in the name
of Marxism and unionism. Du Bois challenged the common notion of Marxist thought that class relations first and foremost explain
the motivations of racial groups. His epic Black Reconstruction in America (1935) illuminated the role that racial identity played in
the political practices of poor whites during slavery. Du Bois argued that poor whites chose receiving the benefits of
the ‘public and psychological wages of whiteness’ over joining with Blacks to undo the plantation
system. Within a system of white supremacy, whites received both material and psychological
benefits for surveilling the racialized system that had made the US into an opportunity structure
for European ethnics, who were able to become white. Poor whites understood that there were more social
rewards for those who were poor and white than for those who were people of color. In contrast to the common refrain of Marxist
discourse, it was whites, not people of color, whose racial focus blinded them to the possibilities of
class struggle. Thus, Du Bois suggested that the central obstacle to solidarity on the left, and, for that matter, all of society,
was the problem of race relations within a white supremacist context. Put another way, no social and
economic changes were likely to occur unless whites were willing to deal directly with how their
own racism prevented cross-racial solidarity. To this day, the public and psychological wages of whiteness continue
to shape the racial politics of the US. The problem of race relations is primarily—but not solely—a white
problem, and it has spilled over into the movements that we whites have created and led, no
matter how well intentioned we may have been. Critical pedagogy is one such movement. It has been
normalized around a discourse that sees class as the principal determinant of social and political life, while assigning race to a
subordinate position (Allen, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1997; Leonardo, 2002). Instead of naturalizing critical pedagogy’s fixation with
class, I suggest that a closer examination of its initial assumptions is needed. We need to delve intothe implications of basing critical
pedagogy upon class rather than race. For instance, what would critical pedagogy look like if it had been founded upon the belief that
white supremacy, not capitalism, is the central problem of humankind? What would be its main tenets if, say, Du Bois had been its
originator rather than Paulo Freire? Would it have gained wider acceptance in the US had it been based upon a more race-conscious
framework that matches our own history? Critical pedagogy has had a difficult time gaining acceptance
among people of color on the US educational left, who are more likely to be concerned about
white power and privilege and suspicious of critical theory (Ladson-Billings, 1997). Meanwhile, we white
critical pedagogists continue to scratch our heads as we try to figure out why darker-skinned
groups in the US, particularly Blacks and Indians, have been reluctant to join our educational
movement. We seem to be unable to realize that our diminution of race has alienated those who
do not have the privilege to ignore white supremacy—no matter what economic form it takes. Can
a discourse that pays so little attention to race be anti-racist? Historically speaking, critical pedagogy has constructed an
illuminating political discussion around concepts like hegemony, domination, empowerment, and
solidarity (see Allen, 2002a; McLaren, 1994). These are all concepts that are vital to organizing struggles against white supremacy.
However, critical pedagogy itself has not taken the next step and applied these terms to a significant
race-radical project. For example, how do domination and hegemony work in a system of global white supremacy? What are
the racialized barriers to solidarity both within and between racial groups? How can critical education act as a form of empowerment
within and against a white supremacist context? On these key anti-racist questions, critical pedagogy has been
amazingly reticent. For critical pedagogy to become anti-racist, it will need to be much more serious about the race-radical
philosophies of people of color around the world and move away from the comforts and constrictions of a Marxist Eurocentricity
(Allen, 2001; Means, 1983; Larson & Churchill, 1983; West, 1999)

No disease impact- no major disease has been catastrophic

Adalja 16 (Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Pittsburgh,
writer for Tracking Zebra; 16; "Why Hasn't Disease Wiped out the Human Race?"; Atlantic, 6-
17-2016; https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/infectious-diseases-
extinction/487514/; Accessed on 7-24-2017; CRB)
Any apocalyptic pathogen would need to possess a very special combination of two attributes. First, it would have
to be so unfamiliar that no existing therapy or vaccine could be applied to it. Second, it would need
to have a high and surreptitious transmissibility before symptoms occur. The first is essential because any
microbe from a known class of pathogens would, by definition, have family members that could serve as models for containment and
countermeasures. The second would allow the hypothetical disease to spread without being detected by even the most astute
clinicians. The three infectious diseases most likely to be considered extinction-level threats in the
world today—influenza, HIV, and Ebola—don’t meet these two requirements. Influenza, for
instance, despite its well-established ability to kill on a large scale, its contagiousness, and its unrivaled ability to shift and drift away from our
vaccines, is still what I would call a “known unknown.” While there are many mysteries about how new flu strains
emerge, from at least the time of Hippocrates, humans have been attuned to its risk. And in the modern era, a full-fledged
industry of influenza preparedness exists, with effective vaccine strategies and antiviral therapies.
HIV, which has killed 39 million people over several decades, is similarly limited due to several factors. Most
importantly, HIV’s dependency on blood and body fluid for transmission (similar to Ebola) requires
intimate human-to-human contact, which limits contagion. Highly potent antiviral therapy allows
most people to live normally with the disease, and a substantial group of the population has
genetic mutations that render them impervious to infection in the first place. Lastly, simple
prevention strategies such as needle exchange for injection drug users and barrier contraceptives—
when available—can curtail transmission risk. Ebola, for many of the same reasons as HIV as well as several others,
also falls short of the mark. This is especially due to the fact that it spreads almost exclusively through people with easily
recognizable symptoms, plus the taming of its once unfathomable 90 percent mortality rate by simple supportive care.
 Ext---Alt Causes
Critical pedagogy doesn’t work—white kids will not discuss race
Johnson 15— Javon Johnson is an Assistant Professor of Performance and Communication Studies at San Francisco State University where he teaches courses in
performance, gender, methods, race, and creative writing. After earning his Ph.D. in Performance Studies from Northwestern University, Professor Johnson served as a
Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Southern California in the Department of American Studies and Ethnicity, as well as the Program Manager of History at California
African American Museum. Professor Johnson is currently completing two manuscripts; Killing Poetry: Performing Blackness, Poetry Slams and the Making of Spoken Word
Communities (Rutgers University Press), an ethnographic project that examines the performances of race, gender, sexuality, and class in slam and spoken word poetry
communities, and Chiraq: War Cries, Love and Other Stories from the Murder Capital (Northwestern University Press), a coedited volume that uses poems, essays, and interviews
to explore Chicago. Additionally, Professor Johnson writes for The Huffington Post, The Root, and Our Weekly, and serves on the editorial board for Text & Performance
Quarterly. October (“Blasphemously Black: Reflections on Performance and Pedagogy,” Limialities, available on http://liminalities.net/11-4/blasphemously.pdf, accessed on
7/27/2017, LC)
Understanding that the classroom is laden with all sorts of power and political issues—as critical pedagogues rightfully informed us
three decades ago, and critical race and gender theorists decades before them—I wanted to open the classroom as much as I could. I
try my best to be a critically honest pedagogue, a teacher who is as transparent as possible in hopes of helping my students to find
languages of possibilities, to riff on and move slightly beyond Henry Giroux’s claim.4 Despite all of our discussions
about our classroom being a shared learning space in which we are all teachers and students, as
suspected, very few students spoke up, presumably out of fear that no matter how much I teach and
preach critical pedagogy, I am still firmly in the position of power. I invited two of my white students to
further explore their comments and feelings after they told me that I am intimidating and that my demeanor deters them from speaking
in class. After I politely asked them to explain, both of them replied, “I don’t know,” one of them added, “You seem very sure of the
things you say.” I quickly replied, “Because I am.” In moments such as these, I cannot help but to think about how my
unapologetic black body leads the class and decenters whiteness in a way that throws some
students into panic. I challenged the class to think about our subjectivities and positionalities, and asked if they question the
certainty level of their math and science professors. We had a tough but necessary conversation about “social capital”5 and baggage,
the possibly troubling ways they might be reading their “raced” professor teaching a class that deals with uneasy conversations about
race, structural racism, and how white fragility, “a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress
becomes intolerable,” might be preventing them from having meaningful interactions with me, the
course, and the materials.6 Asked if Jesus be a Black woman, said, the only people I know who could stretch that small
amount of food into a feast are big mommas. We laughed. Talked about bones and spades, about how Black women must be magic.
Couldn’t figure out why all the old Black men who smoke menthols know how to fix carburetors too. Smiled at how creative Black
kids are, said we must be, this world aint never been safe so we build new ones out of bones, scrap paper, and possibility.

Critical pedagogy—ensures the white, male student becomes the oppressing

student
Allen and Rossatto 9—Ricky Lee Allen is an associate professor of educational thought and
sociocultural studies in the College of Education at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
Nex Mexico; Cesar Augusto Rossatto is an associate professor in the Department of Teacher
Education at the University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas. (“Does Critical Pedagogy Work
with Privileged Students?,” Teacher Education Quarterly Vol. 36, No. 1, Social Studies Teacher
Education: Dare We Teach for Democracy? (Winter 2009), pp. 163-180, available on
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23479207.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:79d53e9440e293c425840dfe20
912a95, accessed on 7/27/2017, LC)
In this article, we examine the limitations of critical pedagogy, as commonly conceptualized in U.S. multicultural and social
foundations fields. What we have concluded is that there is a definite need to re-invent critical pedagogy for its implementation in the
more privileged spaces of U.S. teacher education programs. In order for critical pedagogy to bring about wide-
scale transformation of social inequalities in the U. S., it must be re-envisioned, at least in part,
around inquiries into the identity formations of those in oppressor groups. It must also be more willing to
embrace the empowerment found in the development of positive identities for those in oppressor groups. In general, these positive
identities should be ideologi cally consistent in their commitment to social justice for all oppressed groups. Thinking about
critical pedagogy, part of the problem in applying it to the U.S. context is that its major founder,
Paulo Freire, wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970/1993) as a means of empowering oppressed Brazilians
(as well as other op pressed people in the poorest parts of the world). But even though oppression is an
overwhelming reality in both countries, the U.S. reality is different from that of Brazil. In the U.S., most live
a relatively privileged life. It seems to us that many U.S. educators working in higher education may be
choosing to apply critical pedagogy without frilly considering the specificities of the U.S. social
context. Namely, that the students in U.S. teacher education classrooms, especially those who are White and middle or upper class,
are some of the most privileged humans to have ever lived in the history of humankind. Yet many of them believe that they are just
"normal" humans or, amazingly enough, victims of "reverse discrimination." Thus, our central question is, " Should critical
pedagogy be used with U.S. middle- or upper-class White students without any significant
changes in the theory of critical pedagogy itself?" We believe that the answer is "No," and a sympathetic critique of
critical pedagogy is called for. Our goal in this article is to outline a refinement of critical pedagogy that deals more explicitly with
students from oppres sor groups and, to a lesser extent, those in oppressed groups who have internalized the discourse of the
oppressor. Constructing the "Oppressor Student" in Critical Pedagogy An oppressor student is a student who is a
member of an oppressor group (White, male, middle- or upper-class, etc.) and a benefactor of
oppressor group membership. Since oppression is a structural phenomenon, no individual person
can escape their location as the oppressor any more than no individual person can escape their
location as the oppressed. These changes can only occur at a societal level. Even the most radical White
student, for example, is an oppressor because they still benefit (relative to people of color) from the
social context of Whiteness. While it may be difficult for well-intentioned people to accept themselves as the oppressor,
moving beyond denial is a key first step towards building a humanizing social order (Freire, 1970/1993). As White men, the authors
accept the fact that we are the oppressors relative to most humans. One could say we are "oppressor educators." This does not make us
bad people, and the intention is not to build ste reotypes. Rather, it locates us in a hierarchical system of oppression and reminds us
that regardless of good intentions we need to work at learning how to play an effective and positive role in ending oppression given
our privileged statuses. Over the last few years, we have had numerous conversations with other critical educators about the difficulty
of teaching oppressor students. Granted, our evidence is anecdotal at this point. However, we have strong reason to believe that it
seems as though oppressor students exhibit common patterns of behavior in critical class rooms.
When they are immersed in a sustained examination of the particular form of hegemony that
gives them their unearned privilege, the oppressor student many times does poorly on class
assignments, both in terms of understanding the concepts or critiques and completing assignments
in a full and timely manner. Some even drop the class. Also, they seem to resist deeper readings of critical reading
materials, if they read at all. It is as if they have a difficult time "hearing" those they read. More over, they consistently deny
the existence of the structured, oppressive realities that are the social inheritance of the oppressed.
Thus, these students have a difficult time understanding why they as (future) educators need to focus on social justice. They hold on to
individualistic educational psychologies that privilege positivistic learning techniques or non-critical strategies of self-actualization
and "higher-order" thinking skills. They often seem to not understand, or not want to understand, why
members of oppressed groups do not simply assimilate to the normative order, and they feel that they
have "accommodated" the oppressed as much as they are willing to. They exhibit a multiplicity of behaviors and
discourses in attempts to distance themselves from self-reflection, whether at a personal or group
definition of "self." Within this type of classroom scenario, it is easy to understand how an educator would doubt whether
critical pedagogy works with oppressor students. The frustrated educator might even begin to struggle in their own mind as to whether
they should be more accommodating to the oppressor student. "Should I make the reading as signments shorter and more politically
neutral?" "Should I tone down the critiques I make of structural oppression, the oppressor, and hegemonic ideologies?" "Should my
lessons on multiculturalism make oppressor students feel more comfortable or should I persist in 'speaking truth to power'?" Critical
pedagogy seems to have provided critical educators with few answers for dealing with the
concrete problem of power and privilege in U.S. classrooms (Ladson-Billings, 1997).
 Ext---Disabilities Turn
Critical pedagogy IGNORES disabled bodies—even if they solve race, they
don’t include disabled bodies in conversations
Erevelles 2000– Nirmala Erevelles is an assistant Professor of Social Foundations of Education in the Department of Educational
Foundations, Leadership, and Technology, 4036 Haley Center, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849–5221. Her primary areas of scholarship arc
disability studies, sociology of education, feminist theory, and qualitative Methodologies. (“EDUCATING UNRULY BODIES: CRITICAL
PEDAGOGY, DISABILITY STUDIES, AND THE POLITICS OF SCHOOLING, Online Wiley Library, available on
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00025.x/epdf, accessed on 7/27/2017, LC)
At first glance,the poststructural argument that posits a critical pressure on foundational and normative
constructions of reality may appear persuasive to disability studies. However, I am going to argue in this essay that
this position, by locating emancipation solely in the transformation of discursive systems, ignores the

harsh reality of disabled people’s lives, which are bounded by oppressive social and economic
conditions that are much more difficult to transcend. I propose therefore a theoretical shift from
the rhetorical/metaphorical to the material by returning to a historical materialist analysis that will
render visible the historical, political, economic, and social interests that have supported
debilitating construc- tions of disability in the social context of education. 1 will argue that a critical re- examination
of the political economy of education from the standpoint of disability will illustrate that disability constitutes the central organizing principle that supports “the practice of
ordering, licensing, and regulating that structures public schooling.”’u In other words, instead of arguing for the inclusion of disability within the discourses of critical pedagogy, I
use the category of disability as central in explaining how and why racial, gendered, and sexual subjects are oppressively constituted within educational settings and within
society at large. ENCOUNTERING THE LIMITS OF BORDERS: DISABILITY STUDIES MEETS CRITICAL PEDAGOGY If the debates that appeared in a recent issue of
Educational Theory (Fall 1998) are representative of the state of the art of knowledges regarding critical pedagogy, I would agree with some of the authors included in that issue
that critical pedagogy is indeed experiencing a crisis of representati0n.l’ Notwithstanding their different perspectives, the articles cohered in describing this crisis as the inability
of its theorists to respond effectively to issues of difference within a social context rife with contradictions, competing perspectives, and counternarratives. While the authors
themselves may not have represented their debate in the following terms, my reading of their debate foregrounds the historical shift in emancipatory praxis from an emphasis on a
politics of need to that of a politics of desire -a tension that is also mirrored in the theoretical debates within the “new” sociology of education. In light of these intellectual
tensions in contemporary theories of schooling, I want to explore how the “new” sociology of education, and consequently critical peda- gogy, have provided contested
explanations for the roles that “desire” and “need” play in the constitution of the subject of difference. More specifically and consonant with my project, my intention is to explore
these contesting perspectives from the standpoint of disability studies in order to map both their limits and their possibili- ties for education’s most marginalized subjects. In the
the critical tradition in education began to examine the ways in which schools reproduced
early 1970s,

social difference along the axes of race, class, and gender. Rejecting traditional educational
discourses that upheld the liberal human- ist version of the rational, unified, stable, and unique
subject, critical theorists of education began to propose alternative theories pertaining to the
social construction of subjectivity. For example, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis in Schooling in Capitalist America argued that the history of
public education in capitalist America was a reflection of the history of the successes, failures, and contradictions of capitalism itself.I2 In other words, they conceptualized
schools as “ideological state apparatuses,” that, rather than attempting to meet the needs of citizens, instead devised administrative, curricular, and pedagogical practices that
reproduced subject positions that sustained exploitative class hierarchies. For example, they argued that one way educational institutions legitimated the distribution of wealth,
privilege, and status in capitalist societies is through the administration of tests that claim to measure intelligence a presumably genetic attribute - whch supported the ideology
that the poor are poor because they are stupid. Consequently, schools socialized the working-class poor to accept individual responsibility for the condi- tions of poverty and
discrimination that continue to prevent them from adequately meeting even their basic needs. In this way, schools legitimate the existence of an unequal social division of labor
Though liberal
that locates the source of economic failure, not in the social and economic structures of capitalism, but, in the individuals themselves.

education reformers have criticized the biological determinism inherent in this argument, they
have continued to support the notion of innate intelligence by assuming that if only equal
educational opportunity were provided to all populations through compensatory programs like
Head Start, then the possi- bilities of increasing individual IQ scores and consequently economic
advancement would be an attainable goal for all citizens. Critical of this liberal position, Bowles and Gintis, on the other hand,
demonstrated through statistical analyses that IQ was not an important determinant of economic success because even genetically inher- ited differences in intelligence did not
inequality
adequately explain the historical patterns of economic and educational inequalities apparent in capitalist societies. Thus, Bowles and Gintis concluded that “

under capitalism is rooted not in individual deficiencies, but in the structure of production and
property relation^."'^
 Ext---No Disease
No disease- immunity and consciousness stop
Adalja 16 (Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Pittsburgh,
writer for Tracking Zebra; 16; "Why Hasn't Disease Wiped out the Human Race?"; Atlantic, 6-
17-2016; https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/infectious-diseases-
extinction/487514/; Accessed on 7-24-2017; CRB)
Beyond those three, every other known disease falls short of what seems required to wipe out
humans—which is, of course, why we’re still here. And it’s not that diseases are ineffective. On the contrary,
diseases’ failure to knock us out is a testament to just how resilient humans are. Part of our
evolutionary heritage is our immune system, one of the most complex on the planet, even without the benefit
of vaccines or the helping hand of antimicrobial drugs. This system, when viewed at a species level, can
adapt to almost any enemy imaginable. Coupled to genetic variations amongst humans—which open up the possibility
for a range of advantages, from imperviousness to infection to a tendency for mild symptoms—this adaptability ensures that
almost any infectious disease onslaught will leave a large proportion of the population alive to
rebuild, in contrast to the fictional Hollywood versions. While the immune system’s role can never be
understated, an even more powerful protector is the faculty of consciousness. Humans are not the most
prolific, quickly evolving, or strongest organisms on the planet, but as Aristotle identified, humans are the rational
animals—and it is this fundamental distinguishing characteristic that allows humans to form
abstractions, think in principles, and plan long-range. These capacities, in turn, allow humans to
modify, alter, and improve themselves and their environments. Consciousness equips us, at an
individual and a species level, to make nature safe for the species through such technological
marvels as antibiotics, antivirals, vaccines, and sanitation. When humans began to focus their minds on the
problems posed by infectious disease, human life ceased being nasty, brutish, and short. In many ways, human consciousness
became infectious diseases’ worthiest adversary.
*** NEOLIBERALISM ADVANTAGE
 Frontline
Turn – their pedagogy reinforces capitalist education, causes
commodification of minorities, and can’t liberate students
Mocombe 5 (Paul C. Mocombe – is the Education Director for the Russell Life Skills and Reading Inc.,
he is in the Department of Comparative Studies at Florida Atlanlantic University, PhD, Comparative
Studies/Sociology and Philosophy; PDF; 2005; Race, Gender & Classi Volume 12, Number 2; “Where Did
Freire Go Wrong? Pedagogy in Globalization: The Grenadian Example”;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41675167?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents; accessed on 7/27/17) [DS]
My argument in keeping with the structural logic of Gintis, Bowles, Wallerstein, and Bourdieu is that the
Freirean dialogical
practices, which McLaren and Giroux emphasize, as evidential of the democratic struggle, between
diverse groups, over the "production, legitimation, and circulation of particular forms of meaning
and experience" within the existing hegemony of capitalist education, are in fact the result of the
social relations of production in post-industrial capital, and therefore paradoxically serves
capitalist education. That is, the consumerist globality of postindustrial capital fosters and regulates
the participation of the cultural sites that exist in opposition to the dictates of capitalist education. For these
sites, that is the meaning and new identities allowed to be constructed within the capitalist social space, are
in-turn used to extract surplus value from their consumer representatives. In other words, cultural
sites become markets - structured (through education) by the relational logic of the protestant ethic and the spirit
of capitalism - to be served, by their predestined (capitalist class) "hybrid" representatives, who, working for the upper-class of owners
and high-level executives, service their respective "other" community as petit-bourgeois middle class "hybrid" agents of the Protestant
ethic who generate surplus- value, for capital, through the consumption of cheaply produced products coming out of periphery nations.
Thus, no longer is the "other" alienated and marginalized by capital; instead they (i.e., those who exercise their
"otherness" as hybrids) are embracedand commodified so that the more socialized of their agents can (i.e.,
through hard work, calculating rationality, etc.) obtain
economic gain for its own sake, and at the same time increase
the rate of profit for capital through consumption and by servicing the desires, wants, and needs of the
oppressed of their communities as workers (pawns) for the upper class of owners and high-level executives.
This further implies, current pedagogical practices, which reflect Paulo Freire' s emphasis on dialogue,
lack the potential, contrarily to Freire' s inference, for liberation as they are utilized to reproduce the
social relations of production under post-industrial global capitalism amongst previously
discriminated against "others," the majority of whom remain oppressed given their lack of social and economic capital due
to the "expansion" of industrial production (i.e., loss of jobs to developing countries) and the rise of labor exploitation in developing
countries. To prove this point, I want to juxtapose this relation between the "hegemonic dictates of capitalist
education" and culture in this post-industrial age, by looking at this interaction at the global, or what Immanuel
Wallerstein calls the world-system, level. Specifically, I will concentrate on the hegemonic dictates of post-industrial
capitalist education in today's world-system dominated by the US, and the actions and practices of what
amounts to the Grenadian subculture, for example. The social relational circumstances of this example, I intend to argue in
other words, will highlight the paradoxical nature characterizing (capitalist) education in
globalization or the contemporary post- industrial world system.

Privatization of neoliberal universities makes their impacts inevitable

Saunders 10 (Daniel B. Saunders – Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and
Policy Studies, M.Ed. in Higher Education Administration , University of Massachusetts Amherst; PDF;
“Neoliberal Ideology and Public Higher Education in the United States”; http://www.jceps.com/wp-
content/uploads/PDFs/08-1-02.pdf; accessed on 7/27/17) [DS]
Neoliberalism and Higher Education As neoliberalismincreasingly became the dominant socio-economic
policy of the United States and as its ideology became increasingly accepted, a parallel process of neoliberal
development and infusion of economic rationality has occurred within higher education. While few
scholars (i.e. Aronowitz, 2000; Ayers, 2005; Giroux & Giroux, 2004; Hill, 2003; Levin, 2005; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004) identify
neoliberalism as a source of widespread changes to the economics, structure, and purpose of higher education
over the past thirty years, these changes are well documented in higher education literature (Alexander, 2001; Astin, 1998; Astin &
Oseguera, 2004; Gumport, 1993; Marginson & Considine, 2000; Paulson & St. John, 2002; Tierney, 1998). As a part of the general
reduction in funding social services and what were once considered public goods, public higher education has seen
drastic cuts in state funding (Levin, 2005). The privatization and commercialization of previously publicly
funded institutions extended to higher education, and as a result, these institutions became increasingly
reliant on private funds (Aronowitz, 2000; Giroux & Giroux, 2004; Hill, 2003; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). A substantial
portion of those funds came from applied research that was financially supported and subsequently owned
by private corporations (Clark, 1998; Slaughter, 1998; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). The role of the faculty and their
institutional priorities were altered, with heavy emphasis placed on generating revenue and a lesser role in
institutional decision-making (Alexander, 2001; Aronowitz, 2000; Levin, 2006). The tenure system, which neoliberals
argued is economically irrational and a “bad investment” (Horowitz, 2004; Tierney, 1998) came under attack. Economic
efficiency became a high priority for colleges and universities, which provided the rationale to use an
unprecedented amount of part-time and adjunct faculty (Aronowitz, 2000; Bousquet, 2008; Giroux, 2005;
McLaren, 2005; Rhoades, 2006) as well as to attack systems of shared governance (Ayers, 2005; Currie, 1998; Eckel, 2000; Gumport,
1993). A college education was increasingly seen as a private good to be purchased by a student, who
was redefined as a customer (Chaffee, 1998; Swagler, 1978; Wellen, 2005). Students, as rational economic actors, changed
their goals from what were largely intrinsic, such as developing a meaningful philosophy of life, to larger extrinsic goals
including being very well off financially (Astin, 1998, Astin & Oseguera, 2004; Saunders, 2007). All of these are direct
results of individuals and institutions using neoliberal policies and an economic rationality to make
educational decisions, including attempts to treat and govern the university just like any traditional business, its faculty as
traditional workers, and its students as customers (Lohmann, 2004; Winston, 1999). Many of the scholars (i.e. Aronowitz, 2000;
Giroux, 2005; Kezar, 2004) who discuss the impact of neoliberalism on higher education juxtapose the neoliberal
university , which focuses on meeting the needs of the market, technical education and job training, and revenue generation with
a previous university that allegedly focused on civic engagement, democratic education, and learning for its own sake. To some
extent, this contrast is accurate, as the intense focus on revenue generation and the embracing of an
economic rationality has led to dramatic changes in institutional priorities and a vocationalization of the curriculum that was
not present in previous incarnations of the university. However, the claim that universities were ever such
democratic institution with altruistic aims is questionable. As Barrow (1990) discusses, the corporatization
of American higher education began in earnest at the beginning of the expansion of public education in the nineteenth
century. Similarly, Bowles and Gintis (1976) chronicle the vocalization of the curriculum, corporatization of governing
boards, and the focus on marketable technologies and meeting the needs of capital beginning over a
hundred years before the rise of neoliberalism. These accounts help demonstrate that the changes that have occurred due to
neoliberalism are not fundamental transformations of the roles and purposes of the university, but instead are substantial accentuations
of its previous functions. To say that the development of the neoliberal university and the changes that define it are unique is to both
misunderstand the history of higher education in the United States as well as to misplace the source of many functions of higher
education. What is new to the neoliberal university is the scope and extent of these profit-driven, corporate ends, as well as how many
students, faculty, administrators, and policy makers explicitly support and embrace these capitalistic goals and priorities. The
following sections will outline changes to the funding, finances, and priorities of higher education institutions, shifts in the decision-
making processes and systems of shared governance of colleges and universities, alterations in faculty composition, roles, and
priorities, and changes in students goals, motivations, and identities within their institutions. These sections will provide a basic
discussion of the manifestations and impact of neoliberal ideology on public higher education in the
United States.
 Ext---Alt Causes
DeVos neoliberal intervention means schools will always operate under the
market model
Blakely 17 (Jason Blakely – assistant professor of political philosophy at Pepperdine University, writer
for The Atlantic; Article; 4/17/17; “How School Choice Turns Education Into a Commodity”;
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/is-school-choice-really-a-form-of-
freedom/523089/; accessed on 7/28/17) [DS]
Buoyed by Donald Trump’s championing of a voucher system—and cheered on by his education secretary Betsy
DeVos—
Arizona just passed one of the country's most thoroughgoing policies in favor of so-called “school
of choice.” The legislation signed by Governor Doug Ducey allows students who withdraw from the public system to use their
share of state funding for private school, homeschooling, or online education. Making educational funding “portable”
is part of a much wider political movement that began in the 1970s—known to scholars as neoliberalism —
which views the creation of markets as necessary for the existence of individual liberty. In the
neoliberal view, if your public institutions and spaces don’t resemble markets, with a range of consumer options, then you aren’t really
free. The goal of neoliberalism is thereby to rollback the state, privatize public services, or (as in the
case of vouchers) engineer forms of consumer choice and
market discipline in the public sector. DeVos is a
fervent believer in neoliberalizing education—spending millions of dollars on and devoting herself to
political activism for the spread of voucher-system schooling. In a speech on educational reform from 2015,
DeVos expressed her long-held view that the public-school system needs to be reengineered by the
government to mimic a market. The failure to do so, she warned, would be the stagnation of an
education system run monopolistically by the government: Many Americans now find DeVos’s
neoliberal way of thinking commonsensical. After all, people have the daily experience of being able to choose
competing consumer products on a market. Likewise, many Americans rightly admire entrepreneurial pluck. Shouldn’t the
intelligence and creativity of Silicon Valley’s markets be allowed to cascade down over public education, washing the system clean of
its encrusted bureaucracy? What much fewer people realize is that the argument over “school of choice” is only the latest chapter in a
decades-long political struggle between two models of freedom—one based on market choice and the other based on democratic
participation. Neoliberals like DeVos often assume that organizing public spaces like a market must
lead to beneficial outcomes. But in doing so, advocates of school of choice ignore the political ramifications of the
marketization of shared goods like the educational system. The first point to consider when weighing whether or not to marketize
the public school system is that markets always have winners and losers. In the private sector, the role of competition is often
positive. For example, Friendster, the early reigning king of social networks, failed to create a format that people found as useful and
attractive as Facebook. The result was that it eventually vanished. When businesses like Friendster fail, no significant public damage
is done. Indeed, it is arguably a salutary form of what the economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction,” which is a
feature of market innovation. But should all goods in a society be subjected to the forces of creative destruction? What happens to a
community when its public schools are defunded or closed because they could not “compete” in a marketized environment? In Detroit
(where DeVos played a big role in introducing school choice) two decades of this marketization has led to extreme
defunding and closing of public schools; the
funneling of taxpayer money toward for-profit charter ventures;
economically disadvantaged parents with worse options than when the neoliberal social
experiment began; and finally, no significant increase in student performance. Indeed, some zones of
Detroit are now educational deserts where parents and children have to travel exorbitant miles and hours for their children to attend
school. On the whole, neoliberalization is hardest on the poor. Market choice does, however, favor those
who already have the education, wealth, and wherewithal to plan, coordinate, and execute moving their children to the
optimal educational setting. This means the big beneficiaries of school of choice are often the rich. For instance, when Nevada
recently passed an aggressive school-of-choice system the result was that the vast majority of those able to take advantage of it came
from the richest areas of Reno and Las Vegas. As money is pulled from failing schools and funneled into succeeding ones, wealth can
actually be redistributed by the state up the socioeconomic ladder. Market competition in the context of schools thus
opens the possibility for a vicious cycle in which weak and low-performing communities are
punished for their failings and wealthy communities receive greater and greater funding advantages. Americans should ask
themselves a basic question of justice when it comes to the education system: Should it be organized around a model in which the
more you win the more you get, and the more you lose the less you are given? Markets are by their nature non-egalitarian. For this
reason, neoliberalization has been one of the biggest factors contributing to the growing inequalities and diminishment of the middle
and lower classes. A common neoliberal response to this is simply to say that economic inequality is the cost paid for individual
liberty and personal responsibility. But the problem is that this discourse of individualism followed to its logical conclusion eliminates
any public goods whatsoever. For example, if student funds are portable based on consumption choices, why shouldn’t the growing
number of childless taxpayers be able to move their funding outside the education system entirely toward goods they actually
consume, like dog parks or public golf courses? This is the logical conclusion of Margaret Thatcher’s famous neoliberal
pronouncement that “there is no such thing as society” but only “individual men and women.” The problem with this way of thinking
is that education is not simply another commodity to buy and sell on a market. It is a shared good. Free societies need educated
members to intelligently and critically deliberate over public life, select representatives, and help guide policy decisions. Market
freedom is thus in tension with the freedom of democratic participation. Many people recognize this fact and for that reason favor
coordinating action and sharing costs through the government when it comes to goods like education, defense, public parks,
transportation, public health, and the environment. Yet forming a shared collective action through government or a labor organization
is the one kind of individual freedom that neoliberal philosophy does not tolerate. As the preeminent historian of neoliberalism, David
Harvey, puts it, “neoliberals have to put strong limits on democratic governance … while individuals are
supposedly free to choose, they are not supposed to choose to construct strong collective institutions.”
 Ext---Dialogue Fails
Dialogue is a tool used for manipulation by powerful actors and the aff re-
creates forms of banking education through implicit exclusion
Adams et al 03 (Don Adams – Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Pittsburgh,
Joseph Carasco – was a professor in the Department of Biochemistry, Makerere University, and served as
the principal researcher for Uganda’s Improving Education Quality, Roger Dale – Professor of Education at
Auckland University, New Zealand, Holger Daun – Professor in International and Comparative Education
at the Institute of International Education, Stockholm University, Sweden et al; PDF; Conclusion;
“Limitations and Possibilities of Dialogue among Researchers, Policy Makers, and Practitioners”;
http://www.tandfebooks.com/isbn/9780203463376; accessed on 7/27/17) [DS]
However, we are not naively suggesting that this or any division of labor ensures dialogue. Remember
that, following
Freire, dialogue involves joint reflection and action among individuals or groups who do not engage in
“banking” relations, in which one party “deposits” ideas into the heads of another: Because dialogue is an encounter among [people]
who name [and thus begin to transform] the world, it cannot be reduced to a situation where some [person] names on behalf of others.
It…must not serve as a crafty instrument for the domination of one [person] by another…. Unfortunately, however,… [change agents]
often fall for the banking line of planning program content from the top down.148 Thus, we need to scrutinize the motives
and actions of those involved in dialogic efforts. While Freire was clearly aware and concerned that
people might claim they are pursuing “dialogue” when, in fact, they were employing
communication as “a technique for manipulation,”149 this has not prevented critics of Freire’s dialogic method
from claiming that it is merely a subterfuge for indoctrination.150 Relevant here is the point that Moses and Gair (Chapter Eight)
make in this volume, that individuals and groups who possess greater amounts of economic, social, and
cultural capital are likely to be more influential both in shaping and interpreting research and in
framing and making decisions about controversial educational policy issues. Thus, they propose combining Freire’s notion
that researchers should serve as critical cultural workers (acting as progressive agents in concrete political struggles in the public
domain) with a conception of “deliberative democracy” in formulating their proposed ideal strategy (critical deliberation) for
undertaking dialogue about research, policy, and practice. In the field of comparative and international education this
issue surfaces in the context of communication between powerful/privileged actors (e.g., those
representing bilateral or multilateral agencies, universities in center locations) to impose over actors of periphery their
own views about research questions, design, and findings interpretation.151 In Chapter Six, Stacki discusses how she tried to get
practitioners and policy makers in India to reflect on and discuss gender issues without trying to impose her own
views on them. Like Stacki, Puchner (Chapter Five) identifies this as a personal concern that she dealt with as a researcher from a
“Western” country while studying and interacting with policy makers and practitioners in the “non-Western” or “developing” country
of Mali in West Africa. Puchner suggests that part of the reason that she may have not shared her interpretation of her findings was
that she worried about imposing her “Western,” feminist perspective on the Malians with whom she interacted.152 It should be noted
that Freire would not encourage the strategy followed by Puchner (and likely other researchers, not to mention some consultants153
who are engaged in technical assistance and training projects in less privileged/powerful countries). In response to Shor’s questions,
Freire emphasizes that educators (and researchers) should evince humility and demonstrate (versus assert) their competence, but notes
that this “does not mean that [they] deny that [they] know! It would be a lie, an hypocrisy.”154 One might also question whether
Puchner’s decision not to share her views avoided the problem of imposing ideas on her counterparts in Mali. The other, more
technical interpretations of her findings that she shared with her associates in Mali may also have swayed their thinking, if only by
reinforcing their previously held ideas, which could now be “supported” by the scientific/empirical
research of a doctoral student “scholar” from the United States. Furthermore, it is important to remember that relationships
are constructed by the various individuals and groups in interaction (not just the researchers). It may be that,
no matter how hard theorists and researchers from more “privileged/ powerful” countries
strive to achieve co-agency or power-with relations155 with policy makers, practitioners, and other community
members from less “privileged/ powerful” countries, the latter groups may continue to devalue the contribution
of their own perspectives, knowledge, and skills, and thus not participate fully and equally in the joint
activities of theorizing, researching, policy making, and/or educating. In effect, they help create and sustain
a “banking” relationship with researchers from privileged/power locations, despite a
commitment by such researchers toward a more dialogic form.
*** SOLVENCY
 Frontline
The aff uses Freire’s specific theory of teaching illiterate adult peasants in the
1970s as a broad sweeping claim about all education – proves the aff would
fail in current-day schools
Ashman 15 (Greg Ashman – completed my P.G.C.E. at the Institute of Education in London, graduated
in Natural Science (physics) at Cambridge, high-school teacher in Australia; Article; 6/12/15; “The false
choice at the heart of Freire”; https://gregashman.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/the-false-choice-at-the-heart-
of-freire/; accessed on 7/27/17) [DS]
I have to admit that it is a very odd book. It is mainly about revolution and is written almost entirely in the abstract about the
‘oppressed’ and the ‘oppressors’. It is hard to even imagine what this means. However, I think that this acts as something of a blank
canvas onto which we may can project our own preoccupations. I might imagine peasants versus dictators; you might imagine students
versus teachers. If I ask a student to remove his coat in class then perhaps I am the oppressor and he is
the oppressed? What would Freire say? Indeed, something has to account for the book’s
extraordinary influence. According to the Pedagogy of the Oppressed website, “Over one million copies of Pedagogy of the
Oppressed have been sold worldwide since the first English translation in 1970. It has been used on courses as varied as Philosophy of
Education, Liberation Theology, Introduction to Marxism, Critical Issues in Contemporary Education, Communication Ethics and
Education Policy.” “Pedagogy of the Oppressed is one of the foundational texts in the field of critical pedagogy, which attempts to
help students question and challenge domination, and the beliefs and practices that dominate.” And so it sits at the base of a whole
field; critical pedagogy. At a more trivial level, Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a source of internet memes and
it was a recent encounter with a tweeter of such memes that started me thinking again about
Freire. The source of these memes is generally chapter 2 where Freire has a go at what he calls the ‘banking concept’
of education where teachers ‘deposit’ knowledge in students and which sounds to me a lot like explicit teaching. I
think this is one of the reasons for the book’s huge popularity. People can use it as a source of authority from
which to criticise explicit forms of instruction. The book is laced with ironies. For instance, Freire criticises
traditional teaching for setting up dichotomies, as encapsulated by this (misspelt) meme: [image omitted] There’s
a lot of wild assertions there (necrophily? seriously? that’s just weird…) and the book itself does little to
substantiate them. However, let’s stick with this idea of dichotomies. A false dichotomy is when a someone presents us with
two options when, in reality, there are more. For example, if I said, “You either oppose standardised testing or you are a neoliberal,”
then that would be a false choice. Standardised NAPLAN testing was introduced to Australia by a left-of-centre government. Indeed,
the sort of system where the state sets targets and then measures progress against them is perfectly consistent with state socialism. The
point is that the choice presented in the statement does not cover all of the options. You can see why this is a bad thing*. Going
around dichotomising everything would be problematic because it would risk creating false
choices and so risk grossly oversimplifying the world. Yet here is another Freire meme. [image omitted] Hmmm…
So, what is the alternative to the banking model? According to Freire, it is ‘problem-posing’
education. If this sounds familiar, it is because there is a problem-based theme running from at least William Kilpatrick in 1918,
through Freire and right up to today’s proponents of inquiry learning, the maker movement and project/problem based learning.
Freire’s problem-posing education seemed to consist of showing images to peasants and trying to
initiate a dialogue around those images. Yet even then, it’s
not supposed to be the teacher who selects these
images in isolation – they should draw upon what the peasants wanted to investigate. So, a teacher must
either continue using the banking model where, “by considering [students’] ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence,” or he
can engage in some sort of problem-posing education. But this doesn’t cover all of the available options, does it? When I teach
Year 12 physics , I am well aware that my students already know quite a lot of physics. In fact, I hope they do and my starting
point is always to find out exactly what. I assume that they know a lot of other things too. Analogies would hold no explanatory value
if my students didn’t know about the thing that I was using as an analogy. Yet, I don’t do anything like problem-
posing teaching. I stand, usually at the front, explaining things to the students and asking them questions before setting them
tasks to complete. This is Freire’s banking concept. So Freire himself has set up a false choice. Now, it is possible that
we’ve over-extended Freire here. He was writing about a particular form of education – the education
of illiterate adult peasants – at a particular time . I happen to think that these peasants might have been better
served by being taught to read in a systematic way but let’s set that aside for now. I would be happy enough to agree that Freire
has little of value to say about educating students in the today’s schools . If so, we would probably
have to conclude that Critical Pedagogy, at least in its application to schools, is built on a false
premise .

Freire’s analysis is worthless in the context of American schools and it

independently causes worse forms of oppression
Ohliger 95 (John Ohlinger – Doctorate in Adult Education at University of California, Los Angeles,
Advanced study in Adult Education, University of Chicago., Masters degree in Adult Education, University
of California, Los Angeles, Professor of Education; Article; 1995; “Critical views of Paulo Freire's work”;
http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Facundo/Ohliger1.html#VIII; accessed on 7/27/17) [DS]
IX. APPLICABLE TO OTHER GROUPS? "PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED DOES NOT HELP IN
UNDERSTANDING EITHER REVOLUTIONS OR EDUCATION IN GENERAL. THE RANKEST
ABSURDITY IS THE APPLICATION OF FREIRE'S ANALYSIS TO THE YOUNG MIDDLE
CLASS STUDENTS IN THIS COUNTRY." Wayne Urban Ellsworth, Elizabeth. "Why Doesn't This Feel Empowering?" In
Teaching for Change, Kathryn Geismar & Guitele Nicoleau, editors. Harvard Educational Review Reprint Series, 1993. "Key
assumptions, goals, and pedagogical practices fundamental to the literature on critical pedagogy namely 'empowerment,'
'student voice,' 'dialogue,' and even the term 'critical' are repressive myths that perpetuate
relations of domination. When participants in our [University of Wisconsin 'Media and Anti-Racist Pedagogies'] class
attempted to put into practice prescriptions offered in the literature concerning empowerment,
student voice, and dialogue [Ellsworth cites work by Freire six times as an example], we produced results that
were not only unhelpful, but actually exacerbated the very conditions we were trying to work
against, including Euro-centrism, racism, sexism, classism, and 'banking education .' To the
extent that our efforts to put discourses of critical pedagogy into practice led us to reproduce relations of
domination in our classroom, these discourses were 'working through' us in repressive ways, and
had themselves become vehicles of repression. To the extent we disengaged ourselves from those aspects and moved
in another direction, we 'worked through' and out of the literature's highly abstract language ('myths') of who
'should' be and what 'should' be happening in the classroom, and into classroom practices that were context
specific and seemed to be much more responsive to our own understandings of our social identities and situations." Ewert, David
Merrill. Freire's Concept of Critical Consciousness and Social Structure in Rural Zaire. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Wisconsin, 1977. "The findings suggest that while Freire's approach may be effective as an educational strategy, its revolutionary
potential appears to be somewhat limited in rural Africa. People in this Zairian community do not generally define themselves as a
class whose problems are a function of a social structure dominated by an elite class with conflicting interests. Consequently, the
people of [the village of] Mudiwamba would rather exploit their connections with the elite than unite in a
struggle against them as a class of oppressors, a basic premise of Freire's educational model." McLaren, Peter L., &
Henry A. Giroux. "Foreword" in Reading Paulo Freire by Moacir Gadotti. State University of New York Press, 1994. "Few educators
have received as much widespread acclaim and worldwide recognition as the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire." Oliveira, Rosiska
Darcy de & Pierre Dominice. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed The Oppression of Pedagogy. Institute of Cultural Action, 1974.
"Freire's thought is in a somewhat paradoxical situation. There is between the success of his writings and the practical
development of his thinking a distance which grows larger and larger. His success is tied to the fact that
more and more people, apparently from many different social groups, easily recognize themselves in his critique of alienating
education and the mechanisms which program consciousness. They are attracted by his propositions which deal with liberating
actions. On the other hand, the whole problem of historical agents which are capable of putting into
practice any radical alternative and the difficulty of determining the times and the places when struggle leads to real social
change ... these make difficult the passage from consciousness of the need for change to the point of
concrete action for liberation." Urban, Wayne J. Comments on Paulo Freire. Paper presented at a meeting of the American
Educational Studies Association in Chicago, Feb 23, 1972. "Pedagogy of the Oppressed does not help in understanding either
revolutions or education in general. The rankest absurdity, however, is the application of Freire's analysis to the young middle class
students in this country." Woock, Roger. Paulo Freire. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Educational Studies Association
in Chicago, Feb 23, 1972. "At first the charge that Freire is not a revolutionary may strike the reader as being absurd for certainly he
uses the appropriate language. These terms occur, however, in a curious vacuum without being rooted in a social or economic context.
If we have learned anything about revolutionary possibilities in the last 20 years, it is that revolutions will take different forms in
different social and economic situations. Revolution in Cuba has not been the same as revolution in Chile. By not linking his
revolutionary model to a particular Woock, Roger. Paulo Freire. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Educational Studies
Association in Chicago, Feb 23, 1972. "At first the charge that Freire is not a revolutionary may strike the reader as being absurd for
certainly he uses the appropriate language. These terms occur, however, in a curious vacuum without being rooted in a social or
economic context. If we have learned anything about revolutionary possibilities in the last 20 years, it is that revolutions will take
different forms in different social and economic situations. Revolution in Cuba has not been the same as revolution in Chile. By not
linking his revolutionary model to a particular social and economic context, he makes it that
much more difficult for those of us not in Northeastern Brazil to find it useful . Who
specifically here in North America are the oppressor and the oppressed, where does violence play
a role, where should it not play a role? Are teachers in public schools oppressors or are they part of the
oppressed? To answer these questions one must virtually write another book filling in the social and economic context, without
which not much use can be made of Freire's analysis."

Problem posing can never work without banking education—proves solvency

deficit
Zhao 11—Chuandi Zhao is a recent graduate from The Johns Hopkins Carey Business School.
She also received her undergraduate degree from Valparaiso University majoring Finance and
Applied Statistics. October 20th, (“The Best Education Lies in the Middle (2011),” ValpoScholar,
available on http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=core_reader,
accessed on 7/18/17, LC)
Large and small, good and bad, black and white: it seems everything in the world is composed by many forms and therefore extremes
exist in every case, and so it is with education. There are different types of education systems such as the western style and the Asian
style. As Paulo Freire said in his literature Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student
contradiction” (30), so he introduced to us two extreme ways of education systems in terms of the teacher-student relationship: the
“banking” concept of education; and the problem-posing education. As for me, I do not think either of these two are perfectly right
and should be followed completely. This is the same with our daily life in which we would prefer things in the middle (such as
average instead of small and large), we do not want extreme things. When considering an education system, it may
be better to use a combination of banking education and problem-posing education rather than
just choosing either one of them at all in terms of teacher-student relationship. In Freire’s Pedagogy of
the Oppressed, the most important difference between these two education systems is the relationship
between teacher and student. In banking education, a teacher is the “depositor”, and the student is more like a “container”.
The teacher’s task is to ““fill” the students with the contents of his narration” (29). Whether a teacher or a student is good or bad is
judged in this way, “the more completely she fills the receptacles, the better teacher she is. The more meekly the receptacles permit
themselves to be filled, the better students they are” (29). In this system, the student is just a student. He or she must follow what the
teacher said without questioning. The teacher is superior to the student. In contrast, the problem-posing education shows a different
teacher-student relationship. The teacher here is more like a partner of the student. The task of a teacher is to “create, together with the
students, the conditions under which knowledge at the level of the doxa is superseded by true knowledge, at the level of the logos”
(33). The student can teach something to his/her teacher, while at the same time he/she is taught by the teacher. Their relationship is
mutual. As Friere implies, “The teacher is no longer merely the one who teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the
students, who in turn while being taught also teach” (33). From my perspective, the ideal teacher-student relationship is
the one which combines the relationships in these two systems. A teacher should not be the
oppressor who controls everything, as in Freire’s banking system of education. Teachers and
students should be equal and communicate like friends. For example, the teachers should not feel
superior to the students because they are older or they have more life experiences. He/she should
listen to what the students say. But the teacher should also have authority among students so that
the students would actually listen to what he/she says. A teacher should be able to regulate his/her class. He/she
should be strict with his/her rules. A good teacher is judged not by how good or understanding he/she treats the students, it is judged
by whether the students are really learning something through the class. Back in China, the education I received was much like the
banking system of education. We considered all the knowledge the teacher gave us as right. We were required to stand up before and
after class to show our respect for the teachers. If we had doubts about what the teacher taught to us, it would be better to talk to
him/her after class in order to not embarrass him/her in class. Here, in the US, the education I received is much like the problem-
posing education. I can always see that the teacher listens carefully to the students’ ideas in class and makes adjustment to his/her
class schedule to meet the needs of most students. What impressed me most is at the beginning of every fall semester, all the faculty at
this university will stand in line to greet the new students walking into the chapel. This leaves me with a strong feeling about the equal
and friendly relationship between teachers and students in the U.S. I agree with the problem-posing education in regards to the
teacher-student contradiction, but every coin has two sides. There are also some good points in the banking education. I still think the
relationship between teachers and students cannot be completely equal. The teachers should have
some authority on the students so that the students listen to the teacher. If a student can do
whatever he/she wants in class, it would be impossible for him/her to argue with his teachers, or
what’s more, in turn teach the teacher something new. So, the combination of these two systems,
which allows students an equal status with the teachers and at the same time respect for the
teachers, would be the best choice.
Freire is wrong—education is not how to deal with reality
Mocombe 4 – Paul C. Mocombe, Florida Atlantic University, 04 (“Where Did Freire Go
Wrong? Pedagogy in Globalization: The Grenadian Example,” net4dem, 2004, Available online
at http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Papers/Conference2004Papers/PaulMocombe.pdf,
Accessed on 7-20-2017 //JJ)
But how is this possible? How can education come to serve as “the means by which men and
women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the
transformation of their world,” if, as I am suggesting, it is always an institution of the power
structure (i.e., a reproductive apparatus)? Paulo Freire (2000 [1970]) suggests that it is through the
restructuring of the education system to allow for dialogue between subjective or cultural
structural positions (i.e., in postmodern terms, dialogue between varying discursive practices). Recent shifts in
American pedagogical practices (as a result of the shift from an industrial to a postindustrial economy), and
concomitantly in developing countries such as Grenada for example, which appear to emphasize
Freire’s dialogical model, however, speaks, as I intend to argue here, to the continual role of
education as an instrument that is used to facilitate integration, rather than (as many Postmodernist
theorists of education emphasize with their Freirean understanding of dialogue between “cultural” discursive practices within the
existing configuration of power) as a liberating force against what has become a reified consciousness, i.e.,
the global capitalist ideological social structure or culture. So where did Freire (and by association,
Postmodern critical theorists of education) go wrong? This essay offers a rereading, at the world-system level, of
Freire’s emphasis on dialogue, as practiced in the American and Grenadaian context, which refutes it (and the
Postmodern emphasis)—given its utilization by power (America) to normalize divergent discursive practices (Grenada) within its
existing configuration, i.e., the Protestant discourse and its discursive practice, the “Spirit of Capitalism,”—in favor of the
antidialogical model or the “Banking system,” which, as a result of the nature of the global capitalist social structure (a reified
consciousness), offers a more realistic chance of freedom for those oppressed by its neoliberal ideological practices, i.e., the poor,
children, and people of color.

Freire believed that his concepts were utopian—the plan isn’t realistic to
Freire’s true pedagogy
Roberts 15—The results of his projects are published in journals such as the Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science
Quarterly, American Journal of Sociology, Industrial and Corporate Change, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal. Recently, he is
directing his interests in entrepreneurship and organizational performance toward topics in the field of social enterprise. His current projects focus on
social entrepreneurs, on microfinance institutions, and on philanthropic organizations and foundations. For the past several years, he has also been
spearheading Goizueta’s Social Enterprise Initiative, whose focus is to better understand how business principles and market-based solutions can be
applied to address a range of important social issues. Peter's Ph.D. is from the University of Alberta. Before taking up his current position, Peter served
on the faculties of Columbia University, Carnegie Mellon University, and the Australian Graduate School of Management. (“Paulo Freire and Utopian
Education,” Taylor and Francis Online, available on http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10714413.2015.1091256, accessed on 7/17/2017, LC)
For Freire, an indispensable quality for teachers committed to utopian education is love: love of
one's subject and the process of seeking to understand it more deeply; love of the possibilities for human communication
and connectedness through dialogue; and love of the students with whom one is working. Freire was at one with Che Guevara in seeing love as a revolutionary virtue (Freire 1972b
Freire, P. 1972b. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. [Google Scholar] ; McLaren 2000 McLaren, P. 2000. Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Pedagogy
of Revolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. [Google Scholar] ). By this he meant not that love should be equated with the overthrow of particular political regimes
(though that too may be an expression of love); rather, his key philosophical point was that love, for all its apparent “everydayness,” as a supremely radical human characteristic.
He was interested in love as a “return to the roots”
Freire did not deny the importance of romantic love but this was not his main focus.

of what it means to be human. Love, for Freire, was not merely a feeling nor simply an intellectual posture: it was a messy,
difficult, deep commitment to one's fellow human beings and to the possibility of building a
better world (cf. Fraser 1997 Fraser, J. W. 1997. “Love and History in the Work of Paulo Freire.” In Mentoring the Mentor: A Critical Dialogue with Paulo Freire, edited
by P. Freire J. W. Fraser D. Macedo T. McKinnon and W. T. Stokes 175–99. New York, NY: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar] ; Freire 1998c Freire, P. 1998c. Teachers as Cultural
Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. [Google Scholar] , 2004 Freire, P. 2004. Pedagogy of Indignation. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
[Google Scholar] ; Darder 2002 Darder, A. 2002. Reinventing Paulo Freire: A Pedagogy of Love. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. [Google Scholar] ; Roberts 2010 Roberts, P.
2010. Paulo Freire in the 21st Century: Education, Dialogue and Transformation. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. [Google Scholar] ). Freire speaks in this connection of
“armed love”, a term he borrows from the poet Tiago de Melo: “the fighting love of those convinced of the right and duty to fight, to denounce, and to announce” (Freire 1998c
Freire, P. 1998c. Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. [Google Scholar] , 40–41). Without this armed love, Freire says,
On the
teachers would find it difficult to hold up against the contempt frequently shown them by government in “shameful” wages and poor conditions of work (40).

relevance of love for utopia, Freire was explicit in outlining what he had in mind. Reflecting on his love of
reading and writing, and his return to these activities following the completion of his period as Secretary of Education in São Paulo, he noted: My love of reading and writing is
It is a love that has to do with the creation of a
directed toward a certain utopia. This involves a certain course, a certain type of people.

society that is less perverse, less discriminatory, less racist, less machista than the society we now
have. This love seeks to create a more open society, a society that serves the interests of the
always unprotected and devalued subordinate classes, and not only the interests of the rich, the
fortunate, the so-called “well-born”. (Freire 1993b Freire, P. 1993b. Pedagogy of the City. New York, NY: Continuum. [Google Scholar] , 140)
 Ext---Method Flawed
School reforms fail – Only serve to re-entrench listening skills and capital
accumulation
Mocombe ’05 (Paul C. Mocombe, former visiting professor of philosophy and sociology at
Bethune-Cookman university, assistant professor of philosophy and sociology at West Virginia
State University, creator of the reading room curriculum; 2005; “Where Did Freire Go Wrong?
Pedagogy in Globalization: The Grenadian Example”; Jean Ait Belkhir, Race, Gender & Class
Journal; 2005;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41675167.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:d51976b5370e2c15bc0208d52
2c9c619; Accessed on 7-26-2017; CRB)
In short, all of the above-mentioned vestiges of the school curriculum/pedagogy complimented an

aspect of the factory under scientific- management. This is why, the service-oriented (post-industrialism)
re- structuring of American capitalist society, beginning in the 1960s, witnessed massive reform initiatives
in school pedagogies - a result of the re- conceptualization of the role of the worker in the labor-
process under consumerist globality. Skills that were peculiar to the industrial worker become futile to the service worker in the postindustrial
process. That is, whereas, the old work process was founded on passive submission to schedules or routines, individualism, isolationism, and privatism; the

postindustrial or globalization stage of the labor process focuses on teamwork. "It celebrates
sensitivity to others; it requires such 'soft skills' as being a good listener and being cooperative"
(Sennett, 1998:99). This reorganization of work has revamped the role of the laborer in the work process,

and "throughout the U.S. economy, employers and managers are promoting a new ethos of
participation for their workers. In fact, the spread of a paradigm of participation - comprised of
extensive discussion about the merits of worker involvement as well as actual transformation of
production methods and staffing practices - may indeed be one of the most significant trends
sweeping across postindustrial, late twentieth- century workplaces" (Smith, 1998:460). And to ensure socialization to this
new aspect of Being in capitalism, this trend of employee involvement is adumbrated in the pedagogical

curriculum reform movements of many US school systems, which place a major emphasis on
"process approaches," "active learning strategies," such as cooperative learning, group work, and
many other "soft skills" - good listener, speaker, and writer - which characterize the dialogical elements of the new labor-process.
Essentially, this is the reason why the existing configurations of economic power, located in the US, allow for the fashioning and participation of new identities (through
pedagogical practices that engender participation, i.e., cooperative group work, field trips, class room presentations, etc.) in the order of things: under industrial capitalism the aim
was accumulation of capital through the production of cheaply produced goods for the dominating masses and those in militarily controlled overseas markets (hence the rise of
surplus- value at the expense of labor exploitation); under post-industrialism, however, the emphasis is servicing a larger segment of these markets not just the dominating masses
and the initial colonial "hybrid" petit-bourgeois class, who are also interested in obtaining a larger portion of these markets as members of a growing middle class interpellated by,
and "embourgeoised" with the wants and needs of, capital (hence the fall of the rate of profit). This class, which is a result of the restructuring of the organization of labor (service-
oriented in the First World, production in the Third) by the dominant bourgeois class of owners and high- level executives in core countries in order to increase the rate of profit or
accumulate more capital, constitutes the capitalist social space as pawns or service-workers, for these owners and high-level executives, who service the desires, wants, and needs
of the oppressed of their respective communities - who are either unemployed or work in labor intensive production jobs - while at the same time legitimating the "hybrid" petit-
bourgeois middle class identity which the oppressed, working in low-wage earning occupations or not at all, must aspire to, and producing surplus value (increasing the rate of
profit) for capital through consumption. Thus, in the socialization of "identities-in-differential" within education as an ideological apparatus for the post-industrial capitalist social
structure what is (re) produced is ideological sameness amongst diverse "bodies/subjects" vying for control of their commodified oppressed markets as firms, who employ the more
by using the knowledge which dialogue between subjective positions
integrated or socialized amongst them, learn,

foster, how to maximize their profits by catering to the needs of these "new" consumers
represented by "hybrids," i.e., "other" agents of the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, of
their communities. Be that as it may, the introduction of management- initiated employee
involvement programs (EIPs), as well as paralleling dialogical pedagogic practices in schools,
have been introduced, under the auspices and "practical consciousness" of this "hybrid" capital
class of once discriminated against identities in order to parallel the capitalist ethos of
consumerism - the current means of capital accumulation - currently dominating the globalization process or, as Wallerstein three
decades ago framed it, the contemporary post-industrial "world-economy" which allows for their (middle class) participation at the expense of the oppressed of their communities
working in low-wage manufacturing and production jobs or not at all.

Freire’s method is wrong—the Grenadian Revolution proves

Mocombe 4 – Paul C. Mocombe, Florida Atlantic University, 04 (“Where Did Freire Go Wrong? Pedagogy in Globalization:
The Grenadian Example,” net4dem, 2004, Available online at
http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Papers/Conference2004Papers/PaulMocombe.pdf, Accessed on 7-20-2017 //JJ)
Freire’s “epistemology is central to his pedagogical principles and method. He
views knowledge as an active process
that is made and remade within changing historical conditions. Following from this is his deeply
held belief that learners must actively create knowledge, not passively absorb donated
information as if it were knowledge” (Hickling-Hudson, 1988: 12). My take, on the contrary, is that,
knowledge is made and remade within a structure of history (i.e., within the ruling ideas or what amounts to the
same thing, the practices, of those in power position) delimited by marginalizing differences. That is, society, up
to this point in the archaeological record, is constituted through the contradictory principles of
marginality and integration. Be that as it may, the very necessity of dialogue between democratic
subjective positions paradoxically requires the practice of “banking education.” For the structure
of the democratic process necessitates a differing social structure from that of the existing
configuration of capitalist social relations of power, which necessarily engenders inequality and
gives rise to the oppressor/oppressed social relationship. In other words, in order to facilitate
egalitarian democratic dialogue between subjective positions of the life-world the historical
capitalist structure of signification must be supplanted by a democratic one with “ideological
apparatuses” intended on socializing social actors for democratic social relations.11 The case of
the Grenadian revolution, highlighted here, speaks precisely to the attempt on behalf of an oppressed
group to decenter and challenge the reified consciousness of the American order through
democratic dialogue, i.e., institutionalizing another form of being in the world in dialogue with
the American global capitalist one. 27 Bishop and the PRG introduced pedagogical practices
intended on institutionalizing “a new world order,” i.e., fashion a new identity within existing
configurations of power, that appeared to challenge the reality and existence as such of the
world’s lone superpower—as historical hindsight would reveal given that the Soviet Union was
practically on the verge of collapse. The invasion, however, reoriented the Grenadians’, from
their utopic euphoria, back into the American dominated capitalist social relations of production.

Freire is wrong—the masses don’t have the time

Mocombe 4 – Paul C. Mocombe, Florida Atlantic University, 04 (“Where Did Freire Go Wrong? Pedagogy in Globalization:
The Grenadian Example,” net4dem, 2004, Available online at
http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Papers/Conference2004Papers/PaulMocombe.pdf, Accessed on 7-26-2017 //JJ)
Moreover, it is my position that Freire’s dialogical emphasis characterizes contemporary educational pedagogical practices; however,
where I part with Freire is on the extent to which individuals in dialogue with the “sedimented
and codified” referents of the power structure can actually deconstruct them for other forms of
being-in-theworld. My conclusion is that that is the role of the intellectual, who has the time to
Phenomenologically meditate on and reactivate the referents and signifiers of power for other
forms of reality. The masses, as interpellated subjects of the power structure recursively organize
and reproduce the rules of conduct of power for their ontological security. Thus, they lack the
time to meditate on other forms of existence to present in their dialogue with power; the
intellectual, by their very existence does. Accordingly, the onus is on them to recursively organize
another form of being-in-the-world for the masses.
 Ext---War Turns SV
War turns Structural violence- any conflict hurts the poor immensely
Winter, Pilisuk, Houck et-al Lee ‘07 (Deborah Du Nann Winter, Deborah Du Nann Winter, author, Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology, Whitman College, President of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, on the Editorial Board of Peach and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,
Marc Pilisuk, K teaches at the Saybrook Graduate School and is Professor Emeritus of Community Psychology in the Department of Human and Community Development at the
University of California, past President of the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence, a Steering Committee Member of Psychologists for Social Responsibility,
Sara Houck, and Matthew Lee, Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois Urbana Campus; 2007; “Understanding Militarism: Money,
Masculinity, and the Search for the Mystical”; Prentice-Hall; 2007; http://u.osu.edu/christie/files/2014/10/Chapter-12-Understanding-Militarism-Winter-Pilisuk-Houck-Lee-
1sdfpsi.pdf, Accessed on 7-20-2017, CRB)
Preparation for war is a form of structural violence, since its social, political, and economic
structures cause avoidable injury or deaths (Christie, 1997; Galtung, 1969). Structural violence is insidious
because it has no active agent, no conscious intent, and no clear point of origin (see Chapter 1). But
inevitably, national decision-makers choose between military and social spending. When countries spend precious income on
military matters instead of food, health care, or environmental protection and restoration, injuries
and deaths to civilians occur. As Eisenhower put it a half century ago, “the problem in defense spending is to
figure how far you should go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from
without” (1956, as quoted by Sivard, 1996). Half of the world’s governments spend more to guard their
citizens against military attack than to protect them against the enemies of good health, such as
contaminated water, poor nutri- tion, and lack of medical care (Sivard, 1993). World military expenditures reached an
all-time high of $1.3 trillion in 1987. Despite significant decreases since the close of the Cold War, however, global expenditures in 1995 still amounted
to more than $1.4 million per minute. The United States became the world’s military superpower during World War II, when its military budget sky-
rocketed from under $13 billion a year to $530 billion (Sivard, 1996). The United States currently eclipses the rest of the world by a huge margin,
spending over five times that of the second-biggest spender (Russia); more than the combined budgets of the 13 countries ranking below it (Sivard,
1996); and over 18 times the combined spending of those countries often identified as its biggest threats (North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan,
and Cuba). Even
redirecting relatively small amounts of military expenditures could significantly
impact social well-being (see Mazaruna and McKay, this volume; Pilisuk, this volume). For example, just 4 percent of
the world’s military budget could raise global literacy to 50 percent, and redirecting 8 percent of
military budgets for family planning would stabilize global population by the year 2015. The cost
of one nuclear-powered submarine ($2.5 billion) could immunize the world’s children for one
year. Clearly, excessive military expenditures constitute great structural violence.
OFFCASE ARGUMENTS AND
LINKS
*** CP---PRIVATE
 1NC
Text: The United States federal government should implement a Freirean
pedagogy that breaks down the current banking system and enforces an open
dialogue between educator and educand in private schools.

Private schools and higher education embody the workforce mentality of our
education system- they’re the biggest components of Friere’s views
Giroux 10— Henry Giroux, currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at
McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department. He has taught at Boston
University, Miami University of Ohio, and Penn State University. His most recent books include:
Youth in a Suspect Society (Palgrave, 2009); Politics After Hope: Obama and the Crisis of
Youth, Race, and Democracy (Paradigm, 2010); Hearts of Darkness: Torturing Children in the
War on Terror (Paradigm, 2010); and he is working on two new books titled Zombie Politics and
Culture in the Age of Casino Capitalism and Education and the Crisis of Public Values, both of
which will be published in 2011 by Peter Lang Publishers. Giroux is also a member of Truthout's
Board of Directors, 2010 (“Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and
the Promise of Critical Pedagogy”, Truth Out, January 1st, http://www.truth-
out.org/archive/item/87456:rethinking-education-as-the-practice-of-freedom-paulo-freire-and-
the-promise-of-critical-pedagogy, Accessed 07-27-2017 // GHS-JK)
As the market-driven logic of neoliberal capitalism continues to devalue all aspects of the public
good, one consequence has been that the educational concern with excellence has been removed from
matters of equity, while the notion of schooling as a public good has largely been reduced to a
private good . Both public and higher education are largely defined through the corporate
demand that they provide the skills, knowledge and credentials that will provide the workforce necessary for the
United States to compete and maintain its role as the major global economic and military power. Consequently, there is little interest
in both public and higher education, and most importantly in many schools of education, for understanding pedagogy as a deeply
civic, political and moral practice - that is, pedagogy as a practice for freedom. As schooling is increasingly subordinated to a
corporate order, any vestige of critical education is replaced by training and the promise of economic security. Similarly, pedagogy is
now subordinated to the narrow regime of teaching to the test coupled with an often harsh system of disciplinary control, both of
which mutually reinforce each other. In addition, teachers are increasingly reduced to the status of technicians and deskilled as they
are removed from having any control over their classrooms or school governance structures. Teaching to the test and the
corporatization of education becomes a way of "taming" students and invoking modes of corporate governance in which public school
teachers become deskilled and an increasing number of higher education faculty are reduced to part-time positions, constituting the
new subaltern class of academic labor.
 Solvency---2NC Wall
Private schools are a key part of Friere’s views- the aff can’t deconstruct the
status quo education system because they are unchanged
Darder 14—Antonia Darder, holds the Leavey Presidential Chair in Ethics and Moral
Leadership at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, and is professor emerita at the
University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign. For almost 40 years, she has examined issues related
to culture, racism, class and inequalities in education and society, 2014 (“Racism and the Charter
School Movement: Unveiling the Myths,” Truth Out, July 14th, http://www.truth-
out.org/opinion/item/27689-racism-and-the-charter-school-movement-unveiling-the-myths,
Accessed 07-27-2017 // GHS-JK)
Instead, we need to call for a truly humanizing and socially conscious school movement that embraces a genuine commitment to
social and economic justice in educational funding and community-centered approaches to schools as true cooperatives, in order to
support the communal consciousness and participation that must be the cornerstone for a genuinely democratic society of the future.
Our children require schools that are ethically committed to a humanizing ethos of education, restructured in
ways that breakdown the false dichotomies of public/ private and, instead, establish public policies and practices
that support genuine forms of economic and cultural democracy in everyday life. There is an international movement already taking
root for a socially conscious world citizenry, which calls for the development of schools as cooperatives within all communities.
Inherent in this concept of education are important democratizing principles, focused on a culture of both society and schooling, which
reclaim our right to public space and recommit uncompromisingly to a politics of the commons. Such a movement toward
schools as cooperatives is in sync with Paulo Freire's view of education, as it is with that of many other critical
educators in this country and abroad. Rather than an oppressive and manipulative engine for capitalist accumulation, schools
should function as genuine learning centers of creativity and imagination, where an open ethos of
democratic life, anchored in an ethics grounded upon cultural inclusiveness, social justice and economic democracy informs the
structures, polices, practices and relationships between all who participate, including students, parents, teachers, administrators and the
larger community. This can only be accomplished through a set of critical principles of schooling that fundamentally support love,
faith and a practice with people, rooted in an abiding political commitment to struggle against all forces that defile the humanity of our
children and the emancipatory future that is our birthright as free cultural citizens of the world.

Private schools are the model for capitalist education- public schools model
them
Friere Institute 13— 2013 (“CALL FOR PAPERS: THIRD INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON CRITICAL EDUCATION”, Friere Institute, http://www.freire.org/call-for-
papers-third-international-conference-on-critical-education, Accessed 07-27-2017 // GHS-JK)
Neoliberal and neoconservative educational politics have significantly been damaging education all over the
World. Public education is regarded as old fashioned, private schools and a variety of types of education
have been presented as an ideal model , schools and the students are now in a more competitive relationship, public
education has been losing its status as a social right as a result of relationships with the market, and the state is rapidly losing its social
character in the face of these developments. It leads us to rethink education given problems such as the education
becoming less democratic, less secular and losing its scientific character; becoming more conservative and capital oriented and
becoming less concerned with- in fact- detrimental to- issues of equality and critique. In rethinking education, the critical education
movement takes an important role in creating new horizons and strategies against the global attack of the capital.
 Net-Benefit---A2: Links to Politics
CP avoids the link to Politics – private school reform is bipartisan
Burke 09 (Lindsey Burke – Director, Center for Education Policy and Will Skillman Fellow in
Education; Article; 4/20/09; “How Members of the 111th Congress Practice Private School Choice”;
http://www.heritage.org/education/report/how-members-the-111th-congress-practice-private-school-
choice; accessed on 7/28/17) [DS]
Policies that give parents the ability to exercise private-school choice continue to proliferate
across the country. In 2009, 14 states and Washington, D.C., are offering school voucher or education tax-
credit programs that help parents send their children to private schools. During the 2007 and 2008 legislative sessions, 44 states
introduced school-choice legislation.[1] In 2008, private-school-choice policies were enacted or expanded in Arizona,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Utah[2]--made possible by increasing bipartisan
support for school choice.[3] On Capitol Hill, however, progress in expanding parental choice in education remains slow.
Recent Congresses have not implemented policies to expand private-school choice. In 2009, the 111th Congress has already approved
legislative action that threatens to phase out the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), a federal initiative that currently helps
1,700 disadvantaged children attend private schools in the nation's capital. Congress's Own School Choices At the same time, many
Members of Congress who oppose private-school-choice policies for their fellow citizens
exercise school choice in their own lives. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the chief architect of the language that
threatens to end the OSP, for instance, sends his children to private school[4] and attended private school himself.[5] Since 2000, The
Heritage Foundation has surveyed Members of Congress to determine whether they had exercised private-school choice by ever
sending a child to private school. In 2009, this survey was updated for the new Congress. This survey included a new element--
whether members themselves had ever attended private school. The new survey revealed that 38 percent of Members of the 111th
Congress sent a child to private school at one time. (See Appendix Table A-1.) Of these respondents, 44 percent of Senators
and 36 percent of Representatives had at one time sent their children to private school; 23 percent of House Education
and Labor Committee Members and nearly 40 percent of Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Members have
ever sent their children to private school; 38 percent of House Appropriations Committee Members and 35 percent of Senate Finance
Committee Members have ever sent their children to private school; and 35 percent of Congressional Black Caucus Members and 31
percent of Congressional HispanicCaucus Members exercised private-school choice.[6](See Chart 1.) The survey also showed that 20
percent of Members had attended private school themselves. (See Appendix Table A-2.) Among average
citizens, approximately 11 percent of American students are enrolled in private schools.[7] These survey results suggest that
Members of Congress are significantly more likely than the general public to choose private
schools for their own children and to have attended private schools themselves. Private-school choice
is a popular practice among both congressional Republicans and Democrats . Thirty-eight percent
of House Republicans and 34 percent of House Democrats have ever sent their children to private school. In the Senate, 53 percent of
Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats have exercised private-school choice for their children. Thirty five percent of Congressional
Black Caucus Members have sent a child to private school. Only 6 percent of black students overall attend private school.[8]
Members' Educational Backgrounds In 2009, Heritage also surveyed private-school attendance by the Members of Congress
themselves. Many were beneficiaries of a private secondary education. Seventeen percent of responding Senators and 20 percent of
responding Representatives attended private high schools. Overall, 20 percent of Members of Congress attended private school, nearly
twice the rate of the American public. Specifically, 20 percent of responding Senate Democrats attended private school, as did 13
percent of Senate Republicans. Similarly, 21 percent of House Democrats attended private high school along with 20 percent of House
Republicans. The 2009 study examined two facets of school choice: 1) whether Members of Congress practiced private-school choice
for their children, and 2) whether they were themselves beneficiaries of a private secondary education. Some Members attended
private school and also chose that option for their children. Of respondents who themselves went to private school and had children,
64 percent chose to send a child to private school. Policy Implications The 111th Congress will have the opportunity
to enact policies that give parents greater ability to choose the best school for their children .
Specifically, Congress could reform major programs like No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act to give states the option of using federal funding to give parents vouchers to send their children to a private school of
their choice. In addition, Congress could support private-school choice by expanding education savings
accounts and reforming other social programs to allow greater parental direction.
*** CP---STATES
 1NC
CP Text: The 50 States and all relevant territories should implement a
Freirean based method of critical pedagogy in schools.
The CP is key to solve for critical pedagogy through teacher support – they
are the driving force behind the introduction of critical pedagogy
Kozleski and Siuty 16 - Elizabeth B. Kozleski, Professor & Chair, Special Education Department, University of Kansas, and Molly
Baustien Siuty, CEEDAR Center, University of Florida, Doctoral Student, Department of Special Education, University of Kansas, 2016("The
Complexities of Inclusive Education: How Cultural Histories Shape the Ways Teachers Respond to Multiple Forms of Diversity", Equity-Centered
Capacity Building:, February 2016, Available Online from https://capacitybuildingnetwork.org/article6/, Accessed on 7-28-2017)//BM
The work of creating professional collaborations between school districts and teacher education
institutions needs to be supported and encouraged through state education agency (SEA) support for the
time, effort and resources that it takes to develop and maintain such partnerships. The sites where
teachers learn to teach are critical to the development of grit, self-determination, collaborative
and other dispositions that will enable them to emerge as successful teachers who stay in the profession, honing
their skills and capacities to serve a full, diverse range of students. Special educators along with other teachers are part of the

whole teaching force. They are anchored by much of the same foundational understanding of
schools, including the design, delivery and assessment of effective learning opportunities in core
content areas. They also have specialized knowledge that expands their ability to serve students through individualized, carefully calibrated instructional approaches to
reading and numeracy and ongoing assessment that guides ongoing adjustments to learning plans (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010; Pugach, Blanton, & Boveda,
that encompass special educators,
2014). Local education agencies (LEAs) need support to create shared professional learning communities

acknowledging the overlaps and differences in roles, professional identities and the cultural
practices of their everyday work at the elementary and secondary levels. An explosion of research on learning has
helped to advance how learning scientists conceptualize optimal learning contexts and designs (Bransford & Schwartz, 2001; Pea et al, 2012; Scribner & Cole, 1975). A 2013
report sponsored by the National Science Foundation details critical features of learning that include understanding that mastery of knowledge and skills emerge from decisions
about how to access and use information distributed across resources, and then applying that knowledge to authentic, complex situations (Computing Research Association, 2013).
The report goes on to highlight the importance of a focus on conceptual and analytical capabilities that ensure that learners are able to function, adapt and problem-solve in diverse
contexts. Further, persistence, engagement and stereotypic threat are among the socio-emotional aspects of cognition that have important implications for learning. Another
learning that is socially embedded,
influential group of learning scientists outline the important features of what they call connected learning: “

interest-driven, and oriented toward education, economic, or political opportunity.” (Ito et al, 2013, p. 4.)
Thinking of learning in these ways has implications for moving away from the organization of high schools, in particular, in discipline-specific arenas. Instead, high schools
become spaces where generative scholarship occurs, and where teachers lead their students in solving complex, local issues, drawing on the reservoirs of expertise available
through the Internet and partnerships with local and community-based groups, organizations and institutions. In this way, learning involves empathy, support, motivation,
persistence and the emergence of expertise through application. This kind of approach to learning involves centering learning on the complex problems of the 21st century, draws
on developing expertise in a number of content areas, maps onto student engagement and supports the development of a set of mind-tools that will serve students in multiple ways
Inclusive education requires a high-level skill set in which the effective inclusive
throughout their lifetimes.

educator excels at content knowledge as well as the design of learning spaces where students with
multiple capacities and experiences can engage in learning. Sustaining engagement and progress, even though what and how
students perform may be very different, would be the hallmark of such a learning domain. A workforce that is poorly prepared compounds its vulnerabilities. A group of poorly
prepared or supported teachers creates a network of poorly designed learning environments. Similarly, a critical mass of high-quality teachers is able to support student-learning
gains in schools with high-need students (Heck, 2007). Schools with high levels of teacher quality provide more equitable learning opportunities school-wide. Partnerships
Educational
between universities and schools can leverage structural changes in schools as well as reshape the professionalization of teachers. CONCLUSION

discontinuities are shaped by structural, economic, political and cultural fissures that give
students from non-dominant cultures less access to higher education and thus to teaching careers
at a time when we need them more than ever. In this article, we presented inclusive education as an agenda for
substantial shifts in the way we organize, conceptualize and work within the policies, structures
and agencies that inform teacher education. The dominant assumptions that undergird teaching
and learning largely have gone without critical reflection, and those that fall outside of the perceived standard of normalcy have
been relegated to the margins. Inclusive education can be a vehicle for examining and challenging these tacit assumptions. This cycle of critical investigation should be ongoing
with constant renegotiation of the margins to produce new and more inclusive centers (Artiles & Kozleski, 2007). Inclusive education as a tool for decreasing marginalization will
require significant changes in the systems that prepare teachers and socialize them into the profession. As we’ve noted, teacher education programs must prepare teachers to teach
with diversity in mind by valuing culturally responsive practices as an integral part of their practice rather than an additive skill set (Pugach & Blanton, 2012). Moreover, teachers’
notions of diversity must account for the varied ways cultural makers of difference intersect to impact identity. We believe that it is imperative for teachers to be prepared to locate
We made these arguments
sources of power and privilege within the school system in order to uncover and dismantle the mostly invisible status quo.

with the recognition that teachers work in communities of practice (Aladjem, et al, 2006), which
significantly impacts teachers’ identities (Cochran-Smith et al, 2012; Kozleski, Artiles, & Skrtic, 2014). Thus, LEAs must support
sustainable learning communities committed to professional development by sharing expertise and consuming
cutting-edge research on teaching and learning in the 21st century. Indeed, inclusive education will require highly skilled teachers with the capacity to support a wide range of
students. The program for preparing inclusive educators that we described combines three domains of
effective inclusive practice: (a) technical, (b) contextual and (c) critical (Kozleski, Artiles, & Skrtic, 2014). In this way,
teachers become adept at choosing effective pedagogical practices for diverse populations of
students, while locating them within the complex social and cultural histories of their specific
contexts. Moreover, the critical domain emphasizes the political nature of teaching and schooling. Through critically reflexive practice, teachers become conscious of their
own identity and histories and are better able to locate their role in promoting inclusivity within their own classroom (Cunliffe, 2004). Freire (1990) stated, “The

educator has the duty of not being neutral” (p. 180). Teaching is a highly political act and, yet, the
underlying assumptions and biases that undergird pedagogical decisions go largely unexamined
(Waitoller & Kozleski, 2015). Moreover, the educational systems, including those that prepare and socialize teachers

to the profession, operate within a status quo that perpetuates dominant notions of teaching and
schooling that produce marginalization. Inclusive education has the potential to be a transformative tool to reframe the educational policies,
structures and agencies in teacher education to produce teachers who view their practice through an equity-centered lens.
 Solvency---2NC Wall
Preserving Federalism is key to active change in schools – pedagogy is still
possible
Hess & Kelly 15 (Frederick, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, Andrew, resident
scholar and director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Entrprise Institute, 9/15, “More Than a Slogan,”
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/09/15/5-reasons-federalism-in-education-matters , DS)
Federalism matters for at least five reasons . It's a matter of size. Education advocates suffer from
severe bouts of Finland and Singapore envy. They tend to ignore that most of these nations
have populations of 5 million or so , or about the population of Maryland or Massachusetts. Trying to make rules for
schools in a nation that's as large and diverse as the U.S. is simply a different challenge. It aligns responsibility and
accountability with authority . One problem with tackling education reform from Washington is that it's not members of
Congress or federal bureaucrats who are charged with making things work or who are held accountable when they don't. Instead,
responsibility and blame fall on state leaders and on the leaders in those schools, districts and
colleges who do the actual work. The more authority moves up the ladder in education, the more this divide worsens. It
steers decisions towards the practical. No Child Left Behind promised that 100 percent of students would be proficient in reading and
math by 2014. President Barack Obama wants to ensure that all students can attend community college for "free" – though most of the
funds would come from states. It's easy for D.C. politicians to make grand promises and leave the
consequences to someone else. State leaders must balance the budget and are answerable to
voters for what happens in schools and colleges; this tends to make them more pragmatic in
pursuing reform. When policymakers are embedded in a community, as mayors and state legislators are, there is also more trust
and opportunity for compromise. That kind of practicality might disappoint firebrands eager for national solutions, but it's a better bet
It leaves room for varied approaches to
for students than the wish lists and airy promises of Beltway pols.
problem-solving . One of the perils of trying to "solve" things from Washington is that we wind up with one-size-fits-all
solutions. No Child Left Behind emerged from a wave of state-based efforts to devise testing and
accountability systems. Those state efforts were immensely uneven, but they allowed a variety of
approaches to emerge, yielding the opportunity to learn, refine and reinvent. That's much more
difficult when Washington is seeking something that can be applied across 50 states. It ensures that reform efforts
actually have local roots. The Obama administration's Race to the Top program convinced lots of
states to promise to do lots of things . The results have been predictably disappointing . Rushing to
adopt teacher evaluation systems on a political timeline, states have largely made a hash of the exercise. Free college proposals make
the same mistake; they depend on states and colleges promising to spend more money and adopt federally sanctioned reforms, an
approach that seems destined to frustrate policymakers' best-laid plans.To be sure, local control has its downsides. Local school
politics tend to be dominated by interests like teachers unions. School boards are often parochial and shortsighted. And the federal
government is uniquely positioned to do some jobs that states can't, like providing a national bully pulpit to spotlight problems,
the feds are not well equipped to fix
funding research and promoting interstate transparency. [Continues] But
schools . More to the point, getting Washington involved undermines the many benefits of state-
driven reform in our federal system. Limiting the federal government's role in education isn't a
slogan, it's a way to ensure that American education is both accountable to the public and
dynamic enough to meet today's challenges.

Federal intervention is worse for education and recreates the neoliberal

standards criticized by Friere- state action is key- proves both CP solvency
and plan failure
Smith 10— Marion Smith, researches and writes at The Heritage Foundation, 2010 (“Solutions
for America: Education Reform”, The Heritage Foundation, August 17th,
http://www.heritage.org/report/solutions-america-education-reform, Accessed 07-28-2017 //
GHS-JK)
American education is at a crossroads. The federal government’s role in education has grown significantly
over the past half-century, infringing on our long-held principle of federalism in education. Massive spending
increases, and the reams of regulations that accompany them, have not led to better results. Meaningful reforms like school
choice, moreover, have been stymied by special interests. To restore a sense of self-government, empower families, and yield
it is imperative that educational authority be returned to states and local leaders
educational excellence,
The federal government’s continued overreach into
and parents. THE FACTS: Increased Federal Control.
education has culminated in a push to implement national standards and tests, which threatens the
long-established right of parents to direct their children’s education and muzzles the states’ traditional role in designing school
curricula.. National standards threaten to standardize mediocrity by undercutting those states that demand more from their students.
Increased Spending. Increased federal control of education has corresponded with increased education spending
from Washington. Today, combined federal, state, and local education spending exceeds $580 billion annually, or about 4.2 percent of
GDP. But while inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending has more than doubled since 1970—it now exceeds $10,000 per student per
year—academic achievement has stagnated and graduation rates have remained flat. Teachers Unions Stifle Education Reform. Many
of the problems plaguing American education today can be attributed directly to the influence of unions and the unions’ staunch
opposition to meaningful education reform. According to the Federal Election Commission, teachers unions spent more than $71
million in 2007–2008 on campaigns and candidates, with 95 percent of their contributions going to left-leaning politicians and their
causes. Undermining School Choice for Children in Need. One casualty of the Obama Administration’s education agenda is the
successful and highly popular D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (DCOSP), which provides scholarships of up to $7,500 for low-
income children in the nation’s capital. Sadly, the White House wants to phase out this program despite its proven track record of
increasing the educational achievement of the students receiving opportunity scholarships. THE SOLUTIONS: Free States from
Federal Red Tape. States should have the freedom to opt out of federal education programs and
should be allowed to consolidate federal funding in order to direct resources to any lawful education purpose under state statute.
Policymakers can look to past models, such as the Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A’s) and the A-PLUS Act for
inspiration. Freeing states from Washington mandates and empowering state leaders to exercise greater control over education funding
would foster innovation, efficiency, and excellence. Reject National Standards and Tests. Congress should reject and
dismantle the Obama Administration’s effort to establish federal standards and tests . State oversight of
standards and tests will make them more transparent and accountable to parents. Curb Federal Education Spending. Education
spending has no correlation with academic achievement. Yet Congress, at the behest of teachers unions, continues to increase federal
spending on education. Instead of increasing funding for public education, federal and state policymakers should embrace reforms that
focus resources on the classroom, rather than on the so-called education blob—the tens of thousands of bureaucrats who do not
contribute to the quality of classroom teaching. Free Students to Attend Safe, Effective Schools. In order to improve educational
outcomes, parents should be empowered to hold schools accountable through school choice. Research demonstrates that students who
participate in school choice programs achieve more academically than those who do not. State policymakers should be free to allow
parents to convert their share of federal funds in programs such as IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and Title I
to school choice initiatives, i.e., allowing funds to follow children to schools, including private schools, that best meet their needs.
 Solvency---A2: Fed Key
States need to reject federal mandated changes in standards and tests-
coercion breaches federalism
Burke 12— Lindsey Burke, Director, Center for Education Policy and Will Skillman Fellow in
Education, researches and writes on federal and state education issues, 2012 (“States Must Reject
National Education Standards While There Is Still Time”, Heritage Foundation, April 16th,
http://www.heritage.org/education/report/states-must-reject-national-education-standards-while-
there-still-time, Accessed 07-27-2017 // GHS-JK)
The Obama Administration is intent on nationalizing the content taught in every public school across America. Without
congressional approval, the Administration has used a combination of carrots and sticks to spur
states to sign on to the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Common Core includes standards for English Language
Arts (ELA) and mathematics, and federally funded national assessments have been crafted to align with the standards. The Common
Core effort, originally spearheaded by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO), became quickly entangled with Washington. Billions in federal funding was used to create
incentives for states to adopt the standards, yet the effort has left state taxpayers to pick up
the tab for their implementation, conservatively estimated to cost more than $16 billion. Growing concern over the
national standards push is well-founded: The effort to centralize control of education has never had more momentum.
While the Obama Administration has been a driving force behind the Common Core standards, state leaders have also jumped on the
bandwagon. With little public notice, 46 states have agreed to adopt the Common Core national standards. The Department of
Education offered $4.35 billion to states in Race to the Top grants, conditioned in part on adoption of “standards common to a
significant number of states.” The only standards option that qualified at the time (and currently) was the Common Core State
Standards Initiative. Moreover, suggestions that $14.5 billion in federal Title I money for low-income school districts could be tied to
standards adoption and, more recently, the availability of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers conditioned on common standards
The constitutional authority for education
adoption have coaxed many state leaders to go along with the overhaul.
rests with states and localities, and ultimately with parents— not the federal government. The federal
government has crossed this line in the past, but dictating curriculum content is a major new
breach that represents a critical level of centralization and a major setback for parental rights. Adopting
Common Core national standards and tests surrenders control of the content taught in local schools to
distant national organizations and bureaucrats in Washington. It is the antithesis of reform that would put control of
education in the hands of those closest to the student: local school leaders and parents. But it is not too late for state leaders to regain
schools. States should take immediate steps to reject the
control of the content taught in their local
nationalization of standards and tests —and, ultimately, curricula— and work to improve outcomes
through reforms to state and local policy.

The counterplan establishes a formal institutional restraint on federal power

that revitalizes federalism.
Hills 17 — Roderick M. Hills Jr., William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, earned a
J.D. from Yale Law School and a B.A. in History from Yale University, 2017 ("A response to Heather Gerken: Why the politics of
tolerant pluralism need the legal institutions of federalism," PrawfsBlog, January 3rd, Available Online at
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2017/01/a-response-to-heather-gerken-why-the-politics-of-tolerant-pluralism-need-the-
legal-institutions-of-f.html#more, Accessed 07-09-2017, Lil_Arj)
Heather Gerken has a characteristically thoughtful response to my post on the “federalism insurance
premium.” Heather agrees with me that willingness of the party in power decentralize controversial issues is
weakened by each side’s intolerance toward ideological disagreement. She also agrees that more tolerance
would be a good thing: When Democrats hold the Presidency, they should allow Red states more latitude to adopt
conservative policies, and vice versa. Heather disagrees with me, however, about whether constitutional
conventions and institutions of federalism are relevant solutions to this problem. In her words, “… the
give-and-take has more to do with politics than institutions. Put differently, it’s not federalism that matters here, but pluralism. And a
pluralist system only flourishes when both sides are willing to live and let live…” The core of our disagreement is, in
short, about whether and how legal institutions promote pluralist politics. After the jump, I will explain why I
think that Heather is mistaken to contrast institutions and politics as if they are distinct mechanisms for promoting pluralism. As
I
have argued in yet another post, politics depends on – indeed, are defined by – legal institutions.
Saying that achieving pluralism is rooted in politics, not institutions is like saying that scoring
touchdowns is rooted in athletic ability, not the rules of football. Of course, the sort of athletic ability
needed to score a touchdown depends on the rules of football. Likewise, the particular sort of
politics needed to entrench a convention of decentralization depends on legal institutions . Even
tolerant voters and politicians need some assurance that their tolerance will be reciprocated by their
rivals before surrendering their cherished policy priorities for the sake of allowing the rivals to impose dissenting subnational policies.
Without some credible commitment of reciprocity, such tolerance brands the politician who
practices it as a chump, not a pluralist. Legal institutions allow such politicians to make such
credible commitments such that they can be assured that their forbearing to centralize power when they control the presidency
will later be rewarded by their rival's similar forbearance. To see this relationship between legal institutions and political pluralism,
however, it helps to focus on a specific example. 1. Why is "tolerance" without institutions insufficient to protect
pluralism? Consider, for example, the question of whether a university should be permitted to use a
"clear and convincing evidence" standard to determine whether or not a constituent of the
university (student, staff, faculty, etc.) committed sexual assault against another constituent. As I have argued
elsewhere, whether or not Title IX requires a mere "preponderance of the evidence" ("POTE") standard to insure adequate protection
from gender-based inequality is a tricky question. The Party in Power (call them "PIP") could "be tolerant" by
acknowledging the uncertainty and let different public and private institutions make the call. This
"tolerant" stance will bitterly disappoint the supporters of the PIP who ardently believe that POTE
test is the statutorily required standard. Such supporters, however, might be mollified if they were
assured that, by honoring a norm of decentralization, PIP would protect the supporters from having the
POTE standard prohibited when the rival party comes to power. After all, the rival party might
believe that POTE denies the accused of due process -- that only "clear and convincing evidence"
("CACE") would insure adequate protection against false positives . In order to prevent the very worst-case
scenario, the PIP's supporters might grudgingly accept limits on their power to impose what they
regard as the ideal rules. The problem, of course, is that there is no obvious mechanism by which the PIP
can make an enforceable deal with the Party out of Power ("POOP") to insure that present
forbearance will be reciprocated. Because the POOP cannot give assurance that they will
reciprocate, the PIP's supporters rationally insist that the PIP go ahead and impose the PIP's ideal
policy. PIP would be rational to do so even if POOP's and PIP's supporters both were "tolerant
and pluralist" -- that is, even if each side would prefer to forgo their own best-case scenarios in order
to insure against the triumph of their opponent's best-case scenarios. Without legal institutions to
enforce a deal, the two sides are trapped in a prisoner's dilemma from which their political good faith, their
tolerance, their pluralistic character -- all the stuff that, I am guessing, Heather would classify as "politics" -- cannot save them.
Heather argues that we suffer from too much polarization rather than bad institutions. "[T]he real
problem," she notes, "is the underlying assumption that one’s opponent is closer to Frankenstein rather than to Brandeis." I suggest,
however, that polarization should increase rather than decrease the willingness to cut deals with one's
opponents in the name of tolerance. After all, if one's opponents' views are closer to one's own, then the prospect of being
governed by their norms is not so terrible. It is precisely when we fear our opponents' values most intensely that we need to take out an
insurance policy against being subject to those values. The Thirty Years' War was not settled by good character
or pluralist politics: It was settled by good rules in the Treaty of Osnabruck that gave each side
credible assurances that they would be protected from their rivals. Likewise, during intensely
polarized periods of U.S. history, legalistic norms like the Missouri Compromise flourished
precisely because high levels of distrust created incentives for each side to seek institutional
protection from their rivals. (Barry Weingast argues that such institutional protections fell apart not because of polarization
but because the parties tinkered with the rules, admitting California as a free state and thereby eliminating the enforcement mechanism
that forced each side to stick with the deal). 2. How might legal institutions help us achieve the pluralism that we want? I heartily
agree with Heather that, without a minimum amount of good will as lubricant, the gears of even the
most sophisticated constitutional mechanism will lock up. I think, however, that we have not exhausted
the benefits of good institutions that can help distrustful parties achieve the repose that both sides
might really want. Consider, for instance, the possibility of taking issues off the national agenda more aggressively. Heather's
"national federalism" depends on the idea that, by giving Congress plenary power to decide everything, the two political parties will
have better incentives to "dissent by deciding," enlivening our political debate with subnational policies that they hope eventually to
 In
nationalize. (By scoring a hit Off-Broadway, as it were, the POOP can move their show to a Broadway Theater as a PIP).
Heather's world, every subnational government is a farm team for the Big League, so voters in
every local election rationally think about the effects of their ballot on national issues. The problem
with such a world is that, by raising the stakes of subnational politics, it destroys those politics for
subnational government. David Schleicher has nicely explained how our subnational elections have been
transformed into "second-order elections" in which voters vote on city council members, state
legislators, and (to a lesser extent) mayors and governors solely based on their assessment of the
national parties. As David notes, the cost is the destruction of subnational politics for subnational
government. One solution to go back to your father's federalism -- i.e., that old-fashioned idea
that certain issues should be presumptively walled off from national decision-making, if not
with barbed wire fences and trenches, then at least with speed bumps that slow down national
legislation and regulation. Require more rules to go through notice-and-comment rule-making.
(Such a requirement would likely have stalled OCR's "Dear Colleague" letter on sexual assault). Invoke Pennhurst and anti-
coercion norms to limit the degree to which new interpretations can be given to cross-cutting
grant conditions like Title IX. Beef up anti-commandeering norms to protect sanctuary cities.
Such doctrines provide political cover to PIPs against their own followers, allowing them to be
tolerant and pluralistic to the other side by explaining to their impatient followers that certain
centralizing policies will take too long to enact and are a waste of political capital. Such rules also
provide reassurance to POOPs governing subnational jurisdictions who can thereupon relax the
perpetual campaign at the subnational level to nationalize every local experiment and instead
focus on subnational government . (As an example, consider Governor Hickenlooper's focusing on purely subnational
politics of regional transit without any agenda of nationalizing the result, building up trust through initiatives like Colorado's
FasTracks regional light rail program). My point is not to attack Heather's "national federalism" but only
to
suggest that her brand of federalism, lacking formal legal institutions to constrain national
power , might have consequences for the politics of pluralism. To the extent that our rules reward
defection from decentralizing norms and dangle the brass ring of total national power before our
subnational politicians, it should not be astonishing that they follow the incentives we give them.
Even well-meaning pluralists will abandon self-restraint, after all, if their own restraint is never
reciprocated. Rather than give up on the rules and hope for less polarization, it might be a good
idea to think about ways in which our rules makes polarization a little more rewarding and
self-restraint, a bit less attractive.
*** DA---FEDERALISM
 Link---Curriculum Change
Curriculum change is viewed as major federal overreach – Common Core
proves
Burke 12 - Lindsey Burke, Director, Center for Education Policy and Will Skillman Fellow in Education, Lindsey Burke researches and writes
on federal and state education issues, 12 ("States Must Reject National Education Standards While There Is Still Time", Heritage Foundation, 04-16-
2012, Available Online from http://www.heritage.org/education/report/states-must-reject-national-education-standards-while-there-still-time, Accessed
on 7-27-2017, DS)
The Obama Administration is intent on nationalizing the content taught in every public school across America.
Without congressional approval, the Administration has used a combination of carrots and sticks
to spur states to sign on to the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Common Core includes standards for English
Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics, and federally funded national assessments have been crafted to align with the standards. The Common Core effort,

originally spearheaded by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO), became quickly entangled with Washington. Billions in federal
funding was used to create incentives for states to adopt the standards, yet the effort has left state
taxpayers to pick up the tab for their implementation, conservatively estimated to cost more than
$16 billion. Growing concern over the national standards push is well-founded: The effort to centralize control of education has
never had more momentum. While the Obama Administration has been a driving force behind the Common Core standards, state leaders have also jumped
on the bandwagon. With little public notice, 46 states have agreed to adopt the Common Core national standards. The Department of Education

offered $4.35 billion to states in Race to the Top grants, conditioned in part on adoption of
“standards common to a significant number of states.” The only standards option that qualified at the time (and currently) was the
Common Core State Standards Initiative. Moreover, suggestions that $14.5 billion in federal Title I money for low-income school districts could be tied to standards adoption and,
more recently, the availability of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers conditioned on common standards adoption have coaxed many state leaders to go along with the overhaul.
The constitutional authority for education rests with states and localities, and ultimately with
parents—not the federal government. The federal government has crossed this line in the past, but
dictating curriculum content is a major new breach that represents a critical level of
centralization and a major setback for parental rights.

Curriculum change is a massive federal overreach that upsets the balance of

federalism
Evers 11 - Bill Evers, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of the Institution’s Koret Task Force on K–12 Education, specializes in research on
education policy especially as it pertains to curriculum, teaching, testing, accountability, and school finance from kindergarten through high school, 11 ("Education hornets’ nest:
Creating a national K-12 curriculum", TheHill, 5-9-2011, Available Online from http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/159911-education-hornets-nest-us-department-
of-education-is-creating-a-national-k-12-curriculum, Accessed on 7-27-2017, DS)
If there is legal support for creation of such a national curriculum by the U.S. Department of Education, we can’t see what it is. Federal
control
of what students learn in school certainly does not comport with the balance between national
and state responsibilities in America’s federal system. Congress has long been sensitive to the
dangers of putting curriculum matters in the hands of the Department of Education, knowing of
the department’s immense influence through the funds it gives to states. The General Education
Provisions Act, the Department of Education Organization Act and the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (now known in its current form as the No Child Left Behind Act) all forbid or protect against the
Department intruding into curriculum choices by the states and local districts. The legislative
history of these statutes and the intent of lawmakers are clear — the federal government has no
role in establishing the K-12 curriculum. We know firsthand that federal intrusion into
curriculum can stir up a hornets’ nest of critics. In 2006, private curriculum developers, members
of Congress, and the Department’s own Inspector General excoriated the Department when its
Reading First program used members of local advisory groups who were associated with a
specific curriculum. Hence, in 2007, when the Department’s policy office created a website (Doing What Works) on best classroom practices,
the Department went out of its way to post an explanation on the site confirming that the
Department did not endorse any specific curriculum materials. Back when the Department of Education was created,
President Jimmy Carter, who had campaigned in 1976 on a promise to create such a cabinet-level department, assured the public in his January 23, 1979
State of the Union address that “states, localities, and private institutions” would continue to bear “primary responsibility for education.” The
House committee report on the bill establishing the department even emphasized that it contained
a “clear prohibitive” on “federal interference” in the curriculum. To provide a sense of how this law has historically
been understood, we would point to an article by a former senior official in President George W. Bush’s Education Department which speaks of the law
as one that “prohibits the feds from endorsing programs or dictating local decisions about curricula.” But today the Obama Administration is funding the
development of national curriculum guidelines, national curriculum models, national teaching materials and national tests, using
the Common
Core national academic-content standards as the basis for these efforts. When Education
Secretary Arne Duncan announced the Department’s grants to the testing groups on September 2,
2010, he pointed enthusiastically to one group “developing curriculum frameworks and ways to
share great lesson plans” and the other group developing “instructional modules.” These efforts to
gather the reins of America’s K-12 course of study at the federal level are likely to harm
America’s public schools, our teachers and our children. Officials inside the Beltway cannot design a curriculum that is
suitable and effective in every classroom across our large country. When mistakes and misjudgments are made in Washington, D.C., as is inevitable, they
will affect the entire system and be hard to fix in the classroom. Only
local players in districts, non-profits and the
private sector can adroitly detect mistakes and make improvements. Education Department
officials should have a prudent sense of their limits and not try to fund or do more than is wise or
possible — and they should follow the clear intent of federal statutes.
 Link---Trump
Trump has committed to state control over education—the plan is a major
reversal
Newman 17 – Alex Newman, an American journalist and consultant who writes about economics, finance, banking, business, and politics for
diverse publications in the United States and abroad. He studied journalism, economics and political science at the University of Florida, 17 ("Trump
Orders Review of Federal Overreach in Education", New American, 4-1-2017, Available Online from
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/25911-trump-orders-review-of-federal-overreach-in-education, Accessed on 7-27-2017, DS)
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 26 that is ostensibly aimed at
curtailing unlawful federal meddling in K-12 education across America. But it may not actually
accomplish that much, depending on how top education officials implement it. “Previous
administrations have wrongfully forced states and schools to comply with federal whims and
dictate what our kids are taught,” Trump declared. “But we know that local communities do it
best and know it best.” According to the order itself, the goal is “to restore the proper division of
power under the Constitution between the Federal Government and the States and to further
the goals of, and to ensure strict compliance with, statutes that prohibit Federal interference with
State and local control over education.” Whether that will happen, though, remains to be seen. Trump said it was the
policy of the administration to protect state and local control over curriculum, instruction,
personnel, schools, and more. However, in the order, he cited the Every Student Succeeds Act, which Obama's Secretary of Education,
Arne Duncan, said put Obama's entire educational agenda into federal law for the first time. While GOP lawmakers deceptively claimed the bill restored
state control over education, it actually did the opposite, cementing Common Core in place and purporting to grant the feds the power to approve or reject
standards selected by state governments. In fact, Obama called the bill a “Christmas miracle,” and his education chief boasted of conspiring with
Republican leadership to deceive voters. Trump's order also calls for a review of federal regulations and
guidance issued by previous administrations to ensure that they are in compliance with federal
laws. Any that are not are supposed to be rescinded or revised. The Constitution's Tenth Amendment, which prohibits
any federal involvement in education, was never mentioned. In a phone call with reporters, Rob Goad, a senior Department of
Education official, claimed the order “delivers on [Trump's] commitment to ensure education
decisions are made by those closest to students.” He also correctly noted that since America's
founding, education was always supposed to be a state and local responsibility. “In recent years,
however, too many in Washington have advanced top-down mandates that take away autonomy
and limit the options available to educators, administrators, and parents,” he said. “Today's
executive order puts an end to this overreach, ensuring that states and localities are free to make
educational decisions as required by law. This executive order makes certain that local leaders will be making the decisions about
what happens in the classroom. Parents will no longer have to worry about the federal government enacting
overreaching mandates or requiring states to adopt a federal curriculum at the expense of local
education innovation.” Goad said the order would take the next step toward “identifying and eliminating D.C.-driven regulations that
attempt to control what students are or aren’t taught.” The Education Department has 300 days to comply, he added. In questions, when asked what
would change, he merely pointed to a “comprehensive review” being ordered. “ With this executive order, President Trump
has reaffirmed his commitment to getting the federal government out of the way and to
returning control over education back where it belongs, at the state and local level,” Goad concluded
before taking questions. “When communities and parents make the educational choices, students win. Today's executive order puts us
firmly on that track.”

The executive order proves Trump’s commitment – it appeases Republicans

Toppo 17 - Greg Toppo, is USA Today's national K-12 education writer, 17 ("Trump orders DeVos to get rid of 'overreaching mandates' in
schools ", USA TODAY, 4-26-2017, Available Online from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/26/trump-orders-devos-get-rid-overreaching-
mandates-schools/100941802/, Accessed on 7-27-2017, DS)
President Trump on Wednesday ordered U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to study how the
federal government has supported “top-down mandates” that rob autonomy from state and local
education authorities, taking aim at Obama-era regulations that Republicans have long sought to
eliminate. In an executive order, Trump granted DeVos authority to get rid of K-12 education regulations
that don’t comport with federal law. A top U.S. Education Department official admitted,
however, that DeVos already has this authority. “This executive order makes certain that local
leaders will be making the decisions about what happens in the classroom,” top DeVos advisor Rob Goad told
reporters. “Parents will no longer have to worry about the federal government enacting overreaching

mandates or requiring states to adopt a federal curriculum at the expense of local education
innovation,” an apparent reference to widely adopted "Common Core" standards, which conservatives have long criticized. Trump, like many
Republicans, has vowed to shrink the Education Department’s role in how schools and colleges
operate. The new order gives DeVos about 10 months to review regulations and guidance. The review will be led by a task force headed by Robert Eitel, a senior counselor
to DeVos, Goad said. Republicans have long complained that the federal government overreaches in

regulating schools — a complaint that they said was especially relevant during the eight years of
President Obama’s administration. Almost from the beginning, Obama held out billions of dollars in federal stimulus cash that came with
requirements that states adopt new “college- and career-ready” academic standards, among other measures. In response, most states adopted Common Core standards. But Obama
also loosened regulations late in his second term. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which he signed in 2015, reduced the federal role in K-12 education, handing control of
many aspects of schooling back to states and school districts. Observers have noted, with irony, that the ESSA law, in limiting federal authority, actually prohibits Trump from
abolishing Common Core, a key campaign pledge. The standards remain in place in about 35 states and the District of Columbia. Conservatives have also complained that
Obama’s Education Department pushed too hard on civil rights for transgender and minority students, among others, and forced colleges to rethink how they handle campus sexual
Since our founding, education was intended to be under state and local control
assault. “ ,” Goad said. “In recent
years, however, too many in Washington have advanced top-down mandates that take away autonomy and limit the options available to educators, administrators, and parents.”
Wednesday’s executive order “puts an end to this overreach,” giving DeVos the power “to
Goad said

modify anything that is inconsistent with federal law,” though he admitted that she is already
empowered to do that.
*** DA---INNOVATION
 1NC
Problem Posing is bad for education – it harms student learning in math
Akay and Boz 9 - Hayri Akay, Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Nihat Boz, Secondary Science and Mathematics
Education, Gazi University , 2009("Prospective teachers’ views about problem-posing activities ", World Conference on Educational Sciences 2009,
January 2, 2009, Available Online from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042809002183/1-s2.0-S1877042809002183-main.pdf?_tid=90e8d3e8-72fa-11e7-
bd32-00000aacb362&acdnat=1501180796_8dc9fb75ccd50c7953caf8aeb24f2a54, Accessed on 7-27-2017)//BM
the participants have not used problem posing in courses other than Calculus II. The underlying
As can be seen from Table 1,

reasons of this are collated under three categories: 65% wrote that our education system was not
suitable, 20% mentioned other courses were not suitable and 15% responded that the students
were not suitable for problem posing oriented teaching. In the literature there is scarcity of research
dealing problem posing teaching with university students. As Lowrie and Whitland (2000) cited from Silver that problem posing
activities had not been examined systematically as a part of mathematics teaching and curriculum.
Table 2 shows that participants’ difficulties in problem posing oriented teaching arise from themselves

32% (not being creative, being shy or unconfident), lack of knowledge in mathematics (55%),
problem posing being a very different approach (10%), and the nature of problem posing (40%).
The difficulties that arose from the nature of problem posing actually stems from the fact that
students tend to pose such problem that they could solve them. However, some researchers claim
that students should not be forced to solve the problem they posed (Silver, 1994; Brown & Walter, 1983; Brown, 1984).
However, we believe that if students keep in mind that the problems they posed should be solved by themselves than they would achieve better understanding. The findings of the
prospective teachers are aware of the
study emphasize the importance of mathematical background, self confidence and creativity. Although

difficulties they would face, and also how to overcome them, it was seen during the study that
they could not put these panacea into action. Similar findings were reported by Korkmaz (2003).

STEM Education K2 Innovation in the economic sector – that’s crucial for

growth
Chatterji 17 - Aaron K. Chatterji, Aaron Chatterji, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor (with tenure) at Duke University’s Fuqua School of
Business and Sanford School of Public Policy. He previously served as a Senior Economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)
where he worked on a wide range of policies relating to entrepreneurship, innovation, infrastructure and economic growth. Chatterji has also been a
visiting Associate Professor at Harvard Business School, 2017("Innovation and American K-12 Education", Duke University, June 2017, Available
Online from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13934.pdf, Accessed on 7-27-2017)//BM
Next, I turn to the second major stream of work in this domain, which explores the relationship
between K-12 education and the creation of an innovative workforce. Economists have argued U.S.
productivity growth depends in large part on the knowledge-intensive sectors of the economy, which
will increasingly require skilled workers to invent and use new technologies along with developing business models to commercialize them. This
demand for skilled workers has been increasing in the 21st century, as firms shift from investing in production
activities reliant on tangible capital to non-production activities more reliant on intangible capital. This change will require workers
who have higher levels of skills in innovation, management, and marketing (Hulten and Ramey 2015). Many political and
business leaders argue that the U.S. economy lacks the requisite number of skilled workers to capitalize on
these trends (e.g., Augustine et al. 2010). Figure 3 illustrates that the United States lags China and India in the
number of STEM graduates per year, though many observers have pointed out that quality-based measures may be more informative
indicators. In response to these challenges, an emerging academic literature has focused on the allocation of
talent in the U.S. economy and its implications for innovation. Much of this literature has focused
at least in part on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects, which are thought to be particularly important
inputs to innovation (Augustine et al. 2010). At the university level, some work has found an association between STEM
degrees and the propensity to become an inventor (Aghion et al. 2015; Bianchi and Giorcelli 2017). Recent
performance data suggest American secondary students are lagging behind peer nations in math and
science achievement (Lander and Gates 2010; Hulten and Ramey 2015), a concern not only for innovation per se but perhaps also for these
students’ long-term employment outcomes (see Figure 4). Although specific policies to support STEM education in the
United States can be traced back to at least the 1958 National Defense Education Act, which was
designed to reform the science curriculum in response to Soviet scientific achievements (Goodman 2017), only recently has a more targeted strategy
emerged. In 2010, the PCAST recommended the creation of a STEM Master Teacher Corps that could provide increased salary and compensation to
STEM teachers and increase the number of STEM-focused schools to 1,000 by 2020. The PCAST also called for the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Education to develop a partnership and better coordinate the
numerous disparate programs promoting STEM across the federal government (Lander and Gates 2010).
Fostering interest in STEM fields Despite significant interest in expanding STEM education, very few

rigorous evaluations of the impact of these programs exist to date . Some evidence suggests
particular interventions can increase student interest in STEM fields. Hulleman and Harackiewicz (2009) employ a
semester-long randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 262 high school science students and find that asking students to write monthly
about the relevance of the course material to their own lives (compared to a control condition
where the students summarize what they learn) increases student interest in science and their
inclination to take science courses in the future.

Economic decline leads to nuclear war

Tønnesson 15 - Stein TøNnesson, department Of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Sweden, And Peace Research Institute
Oslo (Prio), Norway, 2015("Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peaceInternational Area Studies Review", International Area Studies REview, 8-
20-2015, Available Online from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2233865915596660, Accessed on 7-28-2017)//BM
Several recent works on China and Sino–US relations have made substantial contributions to the current understanding of how and under what circumstances a combination of nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence may reduce the risk of war between major
powers. At least four conclusions can be drawn from the review above: first, those who say that interdependence may both inhibit and drive conflict are right. Interdependence raises the cost of conflict for all sides but asymmetrical or unbalanced dependencies and
negative trade expectations may generate tensions leading to trade wars among inter-dependent states that in turn increase the risk of military conflict (Copeland, 2015: 1, 14, 437; Roach, 2014). The risk may increase if one of the interdependent countries is governed by
an inward-looking socio-economic coalition (Solingen, 2015); second, the risk of war between China and the US should not just be analysed bilaterally but include their allies and partners. Third party countries could drag China or the US into confrontation; third, in this
context it is of some comfort that the three main economic powers in Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea) are all deeply integrated economically through production networks within a global system of trade and finance (Ravenhill, 2014; Yoshimatsu, 2014:
576); and fourth, decisions for war and peace are taken by very few people, who act on the basis of their future expectations. International relations theory must be supplemented by foreign policy analysis in order to a ssess the value attributed by national decision-

If leaders begin to seriously fear or anticipate their

makers to economic development and their assessments of risks and opportunities. on either side of the Atlantic

own nation’s decline they may appeal to anti-foreign sentiments, contemplate the
then blame this on external dependence,

use of force to gain credibility, adopt protectionist policies, and

respect or refuse to be deterred by ultimately

nuclear arms or prospects of socioeconomic calamities. Such a dangerous shift could happen
either

abruptly , i.e. under the instigation of actions by a third party – or against a third party. Yet as long as there is both nuclear deterrence and interdependence, the tensions in East Asia are unlikely to escalate to war. As Chan (2013) says, all states in the

The greatest risk is not a territorial dispute

region are aware that they cannot count on support from either China or the US if they make provocative moves. that leads to war under present

but that changes in the world economy alter those circumstances in ways that render inter-
circumstances

state peace more precarious . If China and the US fail to rebalance their financial and trading relations (Roach, 2014) then a trade war could result, interrupting transnational production networks, provoking social distress,

This could have unforeseen consequences in the field of security, with nuclear
and exacerbating nationalist emotions.

deterrence remaining the only factor to protect the world from Armageddon, and unreliably so .

Deterrence could lose its credibility great powers might gamble that the other yield in a : one of the two

cyber-war or conventional war or third party countries might engage in conflict

limited , with each other, with a view to

obliging Washington or Beijing to intervene.

 UQ---Graduation Rates
Education improving now - graduation rates and achievement are
progressing upward
O’day and Smith 16 (Jennifer A. O’Day, Institute Fellow at AIR.; Marshall S. Smith, senior fellow at the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, served for two years in the Obama administration as the senior counselor to the secretary of education and director of
international affairs, From 2001-2009 he directed the Education Program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, in the Clinton administration, he
was the undersecretary of education for seven years, responsible for all policy and budget matters, and for four of those years also the acting deputy
secretary, the second ranked person in the US Department of Education, during the Carter administration, he served as the chief of staff to the first
secretary for education and assistant commissioner for policy studies in the Office of Education, In the Ford administration he was the director of policy
and budget for the National Institute of Education; 2016; “Quality and Equality in American Education: Systemic Problems, Systemic Solutions”;
Carnegie Foundation; February 2016; https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ODay-Smith_Systemic_reform.pdf, Accessed on
7-24-2017, CRB)
A second sign of progress is the recent increase in high school graduation rates. The U.S. Department of
Education recently released a report showing an overall average freshman graduation rate of 81 % for the
nation in 2012–2013. Murnane ( 2013 ) in a comprehensive paper points out that the rate was stagnant from 1970 to
2000 and since then shows a substantial overall increase, with especially large increases for
Hispanic and African-American students. Using a different metric (adjusted status completion rates for 20–24 years), which he
convincingly argues has greater validity than “average freshman graduation rate”, Murnane finds an overall 6 % increase in
completion rates from 2000 to 2010 to 83.7 %. During this time period, Whites gained 4.5 points
to 86.3 %, while Blacks gained 10.2 points and Hispanic students jumped 13.9 points, both to
roughly 78 %. 14 We suggest two main takeaways from these data. First, the predominant force driving the gaps—and overall achievement
levels—is family income and the concomitant conditions associated with it (see previous section). 15 While race differentials controlled
for income have not disappeared, they have declined. This suggests that the independent effect of
race/ethnicity is decreasing and that a good portion of the overall racial gap might be explained by the disproportionate percentages of
African-American and Latino youth living in poverty. This is not to say that race should be ignored. Quite the contrary. The related effects of
discrimination and language and the very high levels of poverty and especially intergeneration poverty among Blacks and Hispanics make it imperative
that these issues be treated together. A second takeaway is that there is both some momentum to build on and much more to be done. The achievement
gaps both by race/ethnicity and by income remain unconscionably large, with significant impact on the quality of life and work for far too many of our
nation’s children. In addition, the
positive momentum in achievement appears to apply primarily to tests of
more procedural knowledge and of the curriculum of the 1990s and early 2000s NAEP and
TIMSS. We do not see the same pattern of improvement, for example, on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) , which
assesses the ability of students to apply their knowledge and skills in mathematics, science or reading to analyze novel situations and solve complex
problems—the very type of performance needed for success in the twenty-first century. On PISA, the U.S. performance has remained fairly stable since
the assessment was initiated in 2003, hovering around the international average in science and reading and substantially below the international average
Common Core State Standards for
in math. This suggests the need to extend and deepen our improvement efforts in education. The
Mathematics and English Language Learning and Next Generation Science Standards (or similar college and
career readiness standards ) may be a good step in this direction as they are reflective of the types
of knowledge and skills that PISA assesses and that students will need in adulthood. To successfully
move in this direction, however, requires that we learn from previous reform efforts, a subject to which we now turn.
 UQ---Test Scores
Education is improving now - scores going up
O’day and Smith 16 (Jennifer A. O’Day, Institute Fellow at AIR.; Marshall S. Smith, senior fellow at the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, served for two years in the Obama administration as the senior counselor to the secretary of education and director of
international affairs, From 2001-2009 he directed the Education Program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, in the Clinton administration, he
was the undersecretary of education for seven years, responsible for all policy and budget matters, and for four of those years also the acting deputy
secretary, the second ranked person in the US Department of Education, during the Carter administration, he served as the chief of staff to the first
secretary for education and assistant commissioner for policy studies in the Office of Education, In the Ford administration he was the director of policy
and budget for the National Institute of Education; 2016; “Quality and Equality in American Education: Systemic Problems, Systemic Solutions”;
Carnegie Foundation; February 2016; https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ODay-Smith_Systemic_reform.pdf, Accessed on
7-24-2017, CRB)
One sign of progress is the positive trend for American students on several aggregate measures of
achievement compared both to their counterparts in other developed nations and to the historical data on outcomes here in the
U.S. 11 For example, in 2011, the average scale score in mathematics for all U.S. eighth graders on the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was 509, nine points above the
international average of 500 and 16 points above the U.S. score of 493 in 1995. This represented
the sixth largest gain among the 31 countries that took the assessment in both years. (We focus on
eighth grade throughout these analyses because they provide a better estimate of overall schooling than those in the earlier grades and
represent the whole population of a cohort better than 12th-grade scores, which do not include dropouts.) In science, U.S.
eighth-graders scored ninth at 525, a 12-point gain from 1995 even though science had not been a specific focal
point of the U.S. education reform efforts. It is important to note that all of the nations that scored better than
the U.S. had substantially lower rates of poverty. 12 Finland, for instance—with which the U.S. is often (negatively)
compared—has a poverty rate of only 5 %. By way of comparison, Massachusetts , whose TIMSS scores are the highest of the U.S.
state participants in the assessment, has a poverty rate somewhere around 13–15 % and scores that are substantially greater than those
of Finland. Indeed, Massachusetts’ science results would place it second in the world if it were a country. 13 Achievement and
attainment trends on U.S. measures reflect an even clearer pattern of growth. Eighth-grade
mathematics scores on the Main NAEP increased 15 points between 1996 and 2013, a gain of
roughly 1.3 grade levels. In NAEP reading, average eighth-grade scores went from 257 in 1994 to
266 in 2013, an increase of nine points, or a little less than one grade level.
 Link---Skills
Education, especially social skills, are key to Innovation and Business -
Chatterji 17 - Aaron K. Chatterji, Aaron Chatterji, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor (with tenure) at Duke University’s Fuqua School of
Business and Sanford School of Public Policy. He previously served as a Senior Economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)
where he worked on a wide range of policies relating to entrepreneurship, innovation, infrastructure and economic growth. Chatterji has also been a
visiting Associate Professor at Harvard Business School, 2017("Innovation and American K-12 Education", Duke University, June 2017, Available
Online from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13934.pdf, Accessed on 6-26-2017)//BM
Note that not all scholars take for granted that America’s relative standing on STEM education indicators,
such as math and science test scores, is a valuable signal of our nation’s future innovative and entrepreneurial capability. For example, Bhide (2008) argues the large domestic
market in the United States and the willingness of American consumers to experiment with new products is a central driver of innovation. Similarly, it is not clear the technical
many successful entrepreneurs do not appear
skills adequately measure the capacity for innovative entrepreneurship. Baumol (2005) observes that

to have advanced technical training, and only a small fraction have created breakthrough innovations on their own. Interestingly, Baumol notes a
possible tension between the kind of foundational technical skills that underlie incremental innovation and the sort of novel and creative approaches required to develop radical
America’s lead in many innovation indicators is not due to the sheer number of
innovations. He posits that

technically trained citizens (an area where we lag behind some peer nations) but is due in part to the flexibility of our
education system and its attitude toward creativity. Relatedly, Levine and Rubinstein (2016) find that individuals who start
incorporated businesses in the United States are more educated and score higher on exams, but also engage in more illicit activities, such as drug use, than their peers. These results
creative and less structured tasks such as innovation and entrepreneurship may
are consistent with the idea that

favor individuals who deviate from accepted norms. One implication of this study is that increasing STEM education at the expense of
developing other skills could have an unintended impact on outcomes such as innovation and entrepreneurship. Aside from math and science, other kinds of skills, including non-
cognitive skills (Heckman 2006), could also be important in developing an innovative workforce. Cook et al. (2014) find large effects on math scores from an intervention in
Chicago schools whereby they provided both academic and non-academic remediation for students who were at risk of dropping out of school. The academic component consisted
of a daily, one-hour math tutoring session with two students per instructor. The non-academic component was cognitive behavioral therapy to improve problem-solving, impulse
control, and decision-making, delivered through 27 one-hour weekly sessions. The authors find that participation in this program raised math test scores by the equivalent of 15
research in
percentile points within the distribution of national scores, and increased graduation rates by an estimated 14 percentage points. Other, seemingly disparate,

innovation and education suggest teaching “soft skills” such as social skills and teamwork in K-
12 could play a role in increasing innovation and entrepreneurship. For example, consider Jones (2009), who documents
the increase in teamwork in U.S. innovative activity and finds that inventor team size increased by 35% from 1975 to 1999. More
recently, Deming (2015) finds that between 1980 and 2012, jobs with high social skill requirements increased by 10

percentage points as a share of the U.S. job market. If the results of these studies are considered in tandem, they imply that
teamwork, which necessarily involves social skills to knit together larger groups of
individuals, is crucial for developing new innovations . Although individuals can learn teamwork in different settings, including
at home, through military service, and in employment, K-12 education could offer a particularly advantageous setting to develop these skills provided that we can develop
despite the significant attention from policymakers on STEM skills and, to
evidence-based practices. Interestingly,

a lesser extent, non-cognitive skills, to my knowledge, little empirical work has documented the
mechanisms by which increasing the skill level of a population can enhance the quality and
quantity of innovation. Although more educated populations might produce more innovations, a relatively small share of citizens are directly involved in
innovation in advanced economies. Whether raising the math and science skills of the average American student would have a significant impact on this metric is

unclear, based on the current literature. Nor do we have any experimental evidence that I am aware of that specific
retraining programs lead to increases in the quality and quantity of innovation. These topics appear ripe for
future research. Conclusion: An Emerging Innovation Agenda for Education? Despite a large amount of attention from policymakers

and the media about the potential for technological innovation to yield dramatic improvements in our K-12 education

system, we have yet to see significant gains in outcomes or reductions in cost. Relatedly, although it is intuitive to
believe that a skilled workforce, particularly in STEM subjects, will create more innovations, scant direct
evidence for this conjecture exists. These gaps present a tremendous opportunity for new research to generate actionable policy insights.
 Link---Social Norms
Imparting knowledge from learned individuals is key to social skill formation
– especially through technology
SIngh 10 – Bupinder Singh, Freelance Journalist, aims to create public awareness on social and general issues,
2010("MODERN EDUCATION SYSTEM. THE PRO’S AND CON’S.", Some Serious Stuff!, 8-27-2010, Available Online from
https://bupinder21.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/modern-education-system-the-pros-and-cons/, Accessed on 7-27-2017)//BM
Education is the imparting and acquiring of knowledge through teaching and learning, especially
at a school or similar institution. The earliest educational processes involved sharing information about gathering food and providing shelter; making weapons and other
tools; learning language; and acquiring the values, behaviour, and religious rites or practices of a given culture. Before the invention of reading and writing, people lived in an
environment in which they struggled to survive against natural forces, animals, and other humans. To survive, preliterate people developed
skills that grew into cultural and educational patterns. Education developed from the human
struggle for survival and enlightenment. It may be formal or informal. Informal education refers
to the general social process by which human beings acquire the knowledge and skills needed to function in their culture. Formal education refers to the
process by which teachers instruct students in courses of study within institutions. Talking of the modern day education, one feels proud; of

saying yes I am an educated person. Formally or informally all of us are educated. Education is
the equipping with knowledge. The overall development of mind, body and soul is the real education. Carter G. Woodson once said “For me,
education means to inspire people to live more abundantly, to learn to begin with life as they find it

and make it better.” THE PRO’S Modern day education is aided with a variety of technology,
computers, projectors, internet, and many more. Diverse knowledge is being spread among the
people. Everything that can be simplified has been made simpler. Science has explored every aspect of life. There is much to learn and more to assimilate. Internet provides
abysmal knowledge. There is no end to it. One can learn everything he wishes to. Every topic has

developed into a subject. New inventions and discoveries have revealed the unknown world to us
more variedly. Once a new aspect is discovered, hundreds of heads start babbling over it, and you get a dogma from hearsay. Not only our planet but the whole universe
has become accessible. Now we have good and learned teachers to impart us with knowledge of what they

know. Every one is a master in his field. We and our children are getting taught by professionals
of their field. Presently our education is based on making us the best in our area of interest, to
help us reach our goals more easily. More of the fact based knowledge is being grasped by us. What we learn helps us in our career and in our profession.
Professionalism is deep-rooted in our society now and this education makes us so. Skill-development and vocational education has

added a new feather to the modern system of education. There is something to learn for everyone.
Even an infant these days goes to a kindergarten. And a little grown, mentally and physically is promoted to a Montessori. Everything is
being categorized, be it a primary, middle, a higher secondary or graduate school. We have temples of education known by a familiar word the “university”. Whatsoever

we are getting educated day by day and what’s good about is that it’s a never-ending process. Rightly
said by Aristotle, “Education is an ornament in prosperity and a refugee in adversity.” is what everybody feels now.
 Impact---Disease
The lack of proper STEM education leads to a decrease in patents, especially
among high achieving students – a change in law is key
Chatterji 17 - Aaron K. Chatterji, Aaron Chatterji, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor (with tenure) at Duke University’s Fuqua School of
Business and Sanford School of Public Policy. He previously served as a Senior Economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)
where he worked on a wide range of policies relating to entrepreneurship, innovation, infrastructure and economic growth. Chatterji has also been a
visiting Associate Professor at Harvard Business School, 2017("Innovation and American K-12 Education", Duke University, June 2017, Available
Online from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13934.pdf, Accessed on 6-26-2017)//BM
A new line of work also explores the link between STEM education and innovative activity later in life. Toivanen and
Väänänen (2016) find that policy changes in Finland that led to greater opportunities to earn an engineering
degree are related to the likelihood of patenting. Bianchi and Giorcelli (2017) investigate the relationship
between STEM education and innovation, using the same 1960s-era reform in Italian universities discussed above. The authors
find that, since the law was enacted, high-achieving students (based on high school grades) are actually less likely
to generate new inventions. However, students with lower high school achievement are more
likely to generate new inventions, compared to similar students who matriculated before the law. Interestingly, the decrease in
invention among high-achieving students was not necessarily from the highest potential prospective inventors.
Using data on Italian inventors who patent in the United States (a proxy for quality), the authors conclude the decline in
patenting among individuals who were high-achieving students was likely concentrated among
those who would not have produced the very best inventions. The authors note the different occupational choices made
by students after the change in law might explain these effects. This result indicates broad expansions of STEM
education may not only influence the number of inventions produced, but also “who” produces them, by changing
the composition of would-be inventors.
 Impact---Poverty
Lack of STEM education disparately effects low income populations –
Chatterji 17 - Aaron K. Chatterji, Aaron Chatterji, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor (with tenure) at Duke University’s Fuqua School of
Business and Sanford School of Public Policy. He previously served as a Senior Economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)
where he worked on a wide range of policies relating to entrepreneurship, innovation, infrastructure and economic growth. Chatterji has also been a
visiting Associate Professor at Harvard Business School, 2017("Innovation and American K-12 Education", Duke University, June 2017, Available
Online from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13934.pdf, Accessed on 6-26-2017)//BM
the connection between STEM education and
Another recent effort has taken a different approach to yield novel insights about

innovative activity later in the life. Bell et al. (2016) link federal tax returns and the U.S. patent data to investigate the link
between human capital and innovation. They find that children of low-income parents (who are more
likely to be in lowperforming schools and have lower test scores) are far less likely to be
inventors later in life, and differences that emerge in the early years of schooling can explain this
disparity. The authors also find that children who grow up in a region where innovation in a specific
technology class is prevalent are more likely to invent in that technology class as adults. This result suggests
exposure to specific kinds of innovation in the early years might be important in
determining how young people select their eventual fields of study and shape their decisions to become inventors.
This logic could inform the design of many sorts of programs, for example, mentoring initiatives for

low-income children. The authors conclude that, particularly as it relates to math education, reducing the relationship between
parental income and achievement could contribute significantly to innovative output in terms of patents by unlocking the
potential of more individuals to develop inventions. Card and Giuliano (2014) provide related evidence that the strategic use of gifted and talented

programs could be one mechanism to achieve this objective. Their study of gifted and talented initiatives suggests including
disadvantaged students in these programs who do not meet the IQ cutoffs, but have scored well on state exams,
may increase subsequent math and science performance for these students.

Poverty Impact in the 1AC for the aff

*** DA---POLITICS
 Link---Generic Reform
Public education reform is uniquely polarized – teacher unions and
republican parent groups guarantee backlash
Edmonds 16 (Brian Edmonds – serves on the North Middlesex Regional School District School
Committee, soon-to-be graduate of University of Massachusets, Boston; Article; Honors College Theses
Paper 17; “Political Action in Public Education”;
http://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=honors_theses; accessed on
7/28/17) [DS]
Education and Partisan Politics In addition to the types of arguments made by Brenneman about the role of teachers in
politics, other authors have focused on the intense politicizing of education and a seeming partisan
divide that has developed. One such author is Kevin Chavous, Executive Council to the American Federation for Children.
Chavous tackled the issue of education policy in relation to the Presidential election in 2012 through a series of articles reflecting on
the debates and campaigns of the race. He indicates the tactics used in speeches, debates and advertisements are
without a doubt in poor taste despite the fact that we as a population have become accustomed to them. The first of two Chavous
articles to be discussed is titled “Education Reform is Much More Than Partisan Politics”. When opening this reaction to education in
the context of the presidential race, an analogy is made to a predictable movie, with “a predictable plot, bad script, bad director and
bad actors” all of whom are “ready to perform their roles” (Chavous). Chavous goes on to note that here we had Mitt Romney’s
proposal for more parental choice in education and yet he is applauded by Republicans and attacked by Democrats because this
is the partisan political world that has developed. For Chavous the most ironic part to all of this is that “the
emerging cry for parental choice is warranted, and it’s not coming from the Republican Party playbook” (Chavous). Chavous sees this
push coming from families lower on the income ladder who typically votes with the Democratic Party. The article notes that this
movement is being driven “by low-income parents who are disgusted with the fact that they are forced to send their kids to bad
schools with no other options” (Chavous). Chavous argues that as political partisan divide continues to grow the
more educational excellence is diminished. He maintains that “while the politicians and pundits continue to play their
parts, more and more of our kids are falling behind” (Chavous). He adds that in this immensely polarized political world
“adult interests and politics take precedence over the education of our children” (Chavous). The article
goes on to note that in many instances both political parties (specifically the 2012 campaign proposals of Barack Obama and Mitt
Romney) are not as far apart as some would think. Chavous notes that both parties support issues of performance pay, charter schools,
and teacher quality initiatives but these areas of agreement are dwarfed by the metaphorical battle lines drawn when there is
disagreement. One example would be the role of the federal government (Chavous). His writing points to the fact that the
political rhetoric during debates and discussions polarizes
movements for education reform while in reality
both parties have theories and proposals that are more alike than they care to admit (Chavous). Like
Brennenman, Chavous brings this article to a close with a call to action. He makes it clear that discussions regarding education need to
be taken to a level where partisan divide is removed from the equation. He cites education reform as “the one issue we should rally
around as Americans, without the political shenanigans” (Chavous). He ends be presenting a hypothetical scenario in which
presidential candidates see the issue of education as one where they can be unified. He calls for “proposals calling for the immediate
and radical change needed in this country to make schools work for kids today… proposals that when offered, to the American people,
give no deference to the politics of education, but are thoughtful and forwardthinking with children yet unborn in mind” (Chavous).
Another article of interest was published in the aftermath of what Chavous called “the most expensive, hype-driven presidential
campaign in U.S. History” (Chavous). This wrap up piece is the culmination of Chavous’ editorials throughout the campaign that
advocated a more unified stance between Governor Romney and President Obama when discussing education policy. The article
serves as Chavous’ blueprint to not only to de-politicize education reform efforts but also to help unify the nation in making these
changes. Chavous begins his wrap up, by explaining just exactly what he is looking for by proposing to remove politics from
education and why current divisions continue to exist. He explains that “as a starting point, we need to look at education quite
differently than we do now” (Chavous). Evidence shows that many stereotypes exist regarding the various groups
who care about education policy. For example, teachers’ unions are often painted an extension of
Democratic Party politics, while charter school groups and parental choice leaders are smeared as
mere extensions of right wing politics. For Chavous, a major part of the problem comes from the fact that “any and all
discussions relating to how we fix our schools are viewed in stark political terms and the various
stakeholders feel compelled to pick sides before all the relevant issues are fully understood” (Chavous). Writing in early 2013,
Chavous believes that solutions to achieve unification must come from the top down. He states that our leaders need to push for
positive dialogue and goals that represent the dreams and goals of both the parents and students. Chavous’ proposal “means that
Republicans and Democrats nationally and in every state legislative chamber should reach across the aisle and build on their common
points of agreement and create measurable goals and objectives both short and long term, that will advance the academic achievement
of our kids” (Chavous). The author writes that he knows this will not be easy. However, he does not stop there. Chavous’ blueprint for
change continues in a call to action that once the political sphere becomes more unified “make it a priority to educate and each and
every American child” this will in turn “accelerate the urgency associated with closing achievement gaps and in eliminating the
education disparities… so that all children can benefit” (Chavous). The final piece of this outline calls on the well-recognized national
leaders, particularly the president, to promote education reform as a national cause that everyone needs to think about. Whether
someone has a child in the school system or is nearing retirement, an “environment in which all citizens can participate” must be
cultivated and encouraged (Chavous). The author believes this can all be achieved simply by changing the ways partisan politics
tackles the issue of education and by replacing animosity over the issue with a desire for creating a common goal as “a nation that
motivates its students to value education, love learning, and realize their duty to their families, our nation, and themselves to maximize
their educational potential without giving any thought to the politics of the day” (Chavous). Too much Politics, not enough
Education Unlike Brenneman and Chavous there are some proponents of education policy who take great issue with the political
connections that have become a staple to these important conversations. One example is P.L. Thomas. Thomas is an Associate
Professor of education at Furman University located in Greenville South Carolina. In a piece published by the Atlantic, Thomas takes
a position of removing political bureaucracy from education. The article titled “Politics and Education Don’t Mix” begins with a
simple statement that is explained later in the article: “governors and presidents are no better suited to run
schools than they are to run construction sites, and it’s time our education system reflected that” (Thomas). This particular
statement could seem like a gross exaggeration, but for Thomas it serves as a lead to bring forward the issue of bureaucratic
idiosyncrasies preventing lasting reform in terms of developing stronger educational opportunities within the United States. Thomas
begins by citing an argument made by legal reformer Philip K. Howard that in order for teachers and principals to act in the best
interests of students school bureaucracy must be bulldozed (Thomas). Thomas indicates that he is in agreement with that particular
concept but to understand those notions, a more in-depth discussion of bureaucracy and the obstacles it creates is required (Thomas).
Thomas’ analysis begins by presenting the fact that without proper dissection of the obstacles in bureaucratic debates this argument
would serve as little more than a convenient target for challenging current education reform efforts. In the words of this education
professor “bureaucracy fails in part because it honors leadership as a primary qualifier over
expertise, commits to ideological solutions without identifying and clarifying problems first, and repeats the same reforms over and
over while expecting different results” (Thomas). In this case repetitive reform represents the current model of developing standards
and utilizing a standardized test as the primary indicator. Though a proponent of education being removed from politics, Thomas is
quick to note that in our current system education is in many ways a subsidiary of government . This
has unfortunately resulted in schools and the public education system/curriculum becoming a vehicle for political mandates and
ideological changes consistent with changes in party majorities and administrations (Thomas). Direct examples cited include President
Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” and President Obama’s “Race to the Top”. (Thomas). In fact Thomas states that government
“bureaucracy is unavoidable” however “the central flaw is that need for structure and hierarchy is that politics prefers
leadership characteristics over expertise” something that can’t happen when talking about the future of millions of
young people (Thomas).
 Link---Loss of Choice
The plan moves away from choice and local control of education—causes
GOP backlash
Strauss 12 — (Valerie Strauss, 8-28-2012, "What GOP platform says on education," https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-
sheet/post/what-gop-platform-says-on-education/2012/08/28/4b993bce-f15a-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_blog.html?utm_term=.26b04434f2c2, Accessed
7-9-2017, JWS)
Here’s what the 2012 Republican Party platform calls for regarding education: Education: A Chance for Every Child Parents are
responsible for the education of their children. We do not believe in a one size fits all approach to education and support

providing broad education choices to parents and children at the State and local level. Maintaining American
preeminence requires a world-class system of education, with high standards, in which all students can reach their potential. Today’s education reform movement

calls for accountability at every stage of schooling. It affirms higher expectations for all students and rejects the crippling bigotry of low expectations. It
recognizes the wisdom of State and local control of our schools, and it wisely sees consumer
rights in education – choice – as the most important driving force for renewing our schools .
Education is much more than schooling. It is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and

American education has, for the last several

traditions. It is the handing over of a personal and cultural identity. That is why education choice has expanded so vigorously. It is also why

decades, been the focus of constant controversy, as centralizing forces outside the family and community have sought to

remake education in order to remake America. They have not succeeded, but they have done
immense damage Attaining Academic Excellence for All Since 1965 the federal government has spent $2 trillion on elementary and secondary education with no substantial improvement in
academic achievement or high school graduation rates (which currently are 59 percent for African-American students and 63 percent for Hispanics). The U.S. spends an average of more than $10,000 per pupil per
year in public schools, for a total of more than $550 billion. That represents more than 4 percent of GDP devoted to K-12 education in 2010. Of that amount, federal spending was more than $47 billion. Clearly, if
money were the solution, our schools would be problem-free. More money alone does not necessarily equal better performance. After years of trial and error, we know what does work, what has actually made a
difference in student advancement, and what is powering education reform at the local level all across America: accountability on the part of administrators, parents and teachers; higher academic standards; programs
that support the development of character and financial literacy; periodic rigorous assessments on the fundamentals, especially math, science, reading, history, and geography; renewed focus on the Constitution and
the writings of the Founding Fathers, and an accurate account of American history that celebrates the birth of this great nation; transparency, so parents and the public can discover which schools best serve their

We support the
pupils; flexibility and freedom to innovate, so schools can adapt to the special needs of their students and hold teachers and administrators responsible for student performance.

innovations in education reform occurring at the State level based upon proven results. Republican Governors
have led in the effort to reform our country’s underperforming education system, and we applaud these advancements. We advocate the policies and methods that have proven effective: building on the basics,
especially STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and math) and phonics; ending social promotions; merit pay for good teachers; classroom discipline; parental involvement; and strong leadership by
principals, superintendents, and locally elected school boards. Because technology has become an essential tool of learning, proper implementation of technology is a key factor in providing every child equal access

Republican Party is the party of fresh and innovative ideas in education.

and opportunity. Consumer Choice in Education The

We support options for learning, including home schooling and local innovations like single-sex classes, full-day school hours, and year-round schools. School
choice – whether through charter schools, open enrollment requests, college lab schools, virtual schools, career and technical education programs, vouchers, or tax credits – is important for
all children, especially for families with children trapped in failing schools. Getting those youngsters into decent learning
environments and helping them to realize their full potential is the greatest civil rights challenge of our time. We support the promotion of local career and technical educational programs and entrepreneurial
programs that have been supported by leaders in industry and will retrain and retool the American workforce, which is the best in the world. A young person’s ability to achieve in school must be based on his or her
God-given talent and motivation, not an address, zip code, or economic status. In sum, on the one hand enormous amounts of money are being spent for K-12 public education with overall results that do not justify
that spending. On the other hand, the common experience of families, teachers, and administrators forms the basis of what does work in education. We believe the gap between those two realities can be successfully

We support its concept of block grants and the repeal of

bridged, and Congressional Republicans are pointing a new way forward with major reform legislation.

numerous federal regulations which interfere with State and local control of public schools .

Trump wants to pursue choice – The plan goes against his promoises
Turner 16 - Cory Turner, earned a master's in screenwriting from the University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts, edits and reports for the NPR Ed
Team. He's led the team's coverage of the Common Core while also finding time for his passion: exploring how kids learn — in the classroom, on the playground, at home and
everywhere else. 16 ("Donald Trump's Plan For America's Schools", NPR.org, 9-25-2016, Available Online from http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/09/25/494740056/donald-
trumps-plan-for-americas-schools, Accessed on 7-27-2017, DS)
"I'm a tremendous believer in education. But education has to be at a local level," Trump says
from his leather office chair, looking directly into the camera. "We cannot have the bureaucrats in
Washington telling you how to manage your child's education." This is a common theme for
Trump: Washington needs to butt out of our schools. "There's no failed policy more in need of
urgent change than our government-run education monopoly," he said earlier this month at a campaign stop in Cleveland. In this
story line, schools are the business of the local community — of the district — and the U.S. Department of Education is Public Enemy No. 1, pushing down onerous rules that
make life harder for educators, students and parents. While this may sound more like a feeling than a policy position, stay tuned: On Oct. 18, 2015, Trump told "Fox News
Sunday" host Chris Wallace that, if elected President, he would consider cutting the Education Department entirely. That would be a profound policy shift from past presidents and
one worth reckoning with briefly here. It's not clear if Trump, in cutting the Department, would also cut the services that it provides, but, since his conversation with Wallace was
in the context of broader spending cuts it's reasonable to assume he would. Those services include providing roughly $15 billion in Title I funds to help schools that educate at-risk
students, more than $12 billion for students with special needs, and some $29 billion in Pell Grants to help low-income students pay for college (all according to 2016
Congressional appropriations). Common Core On February 10, 2016, Trump tweeted: "I have been consistent in my opposition to Common Core. Get rid of Commo n Core —
keep education local!" In that campaign ad on his website, Trump is even more colorful: "Common Core is a total disaster. We can't let it continue." The Common Core are
learning standards in math and English language arts that were developed through a collaboration between the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State
School Officers. According to the Core's website, they're being used in 42 states and the District of Columbia. Trump's loathing for the Core needs unpacking — because you have
to understand how the standards were created to understand how schools can be "rid of" them. The Core were adopted by states at the state level. There was no top-down vote from
Congress, no presidential signature. Yes, President Obama and his Education Department dangled money in front of states who agreed to do many things, including adopt rigorous
new standards. But Washington could not, and did not, force the Core on states. As such, if states want to repeal the standards, they can and have. But a President Trump ...
couldn't. Besides, if he tried, it might feel an awful lot like "the bureaucrats in Washington telling you how to manage your child's education." School Choice Earlier this month, in
Cleveland,Trump unveiled perhaps the most specific education proposal of his campaign. "As
president, I will establish the national goal of providing school choice to every American child
living in poverty," Trump said. "If we can put a man on the moon, dig out the Panama Canal and
win two world wars, then I have no doubt that we as a nation can provide school choice to every
disadvantaged child in America." The plan would involve a $20 billion government investment,
"reprioritizing existing federal dollars." The money would go to states as block grants and follow
disadvantaged students wherever they go: to a traditional public school in their neighborhood or
elsewhere, a charter school or even a private school. While Trump made clear the $20 billion would not be new money, he did not say
where he would find that much old money to reprioritize. This idea, known as portability, is popular in conservative circles

because, it is assumed, the competition that comes with choice would force struggling public
schools to improve or close. But it worries many student advocates because, they say, it would also drain money from the schools that need it most and send
taxpayer dollars to well-resourced private schools.
 Link---Neoliberalism
Trump will pursue neoliberal policies in the status quo – plan is a major
policy shift change
Brown 17 – Emma Brown, writes about national education and about people with a stake in schools, including teachers, parents and kids, 17
("Perspective", 03-06-2017, Available Online from https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/22/dont-let-his-trade-policy-fool-you-
trump-is-a-neoliberal/?utm_term=.cad78f26a8e0, Accessed on 7-27-2017, DS)
In his first speech to a joint session of Congress, President Trump promised to deliver on his
populist campaign pledges to protect Americans from globalization. “For too long,” he
bemoaned, “we’ve watched our middle class shrink as we’ve exported our jobs and wealth to
foreign countries.” But now, he asserted, the time has come to “restart the engine of the American
economy” and “bring back millions of jobs.” To achieve his goals, Trump proposed mixing
massive tax-cuts and sweeping regulatory rollbacks with increased spending on the military,
infrastructure and border control. This same messy mix of free market fundamentalism and
hyper-nationalistic populism is presently taking shape in Trump’s proposed budget. But the
apparent contradiction there isn’t likely to slow down Trump’s pro-market, pro-Wall Street, pro-
wealth agenda. His supporters may soon discover that his professions of care for those left behind by globalization are — aside from some mostly symbolic moves on
trade — empty. Just look at what has already happened with the GOP’s proposed replacement for Obamacare, which if enacted would bring increased pain and suffering to the
anxious voters who put their trust in Trump’s populism in the first place. While these Americans might have thought their votes would win them protection from the instabilities
Neoliberalism is a term most often
and austerities of market-led globalization, what they are getting is a neoliberal president in populist clothing.

used to critique market-fundamentalism rather than to define a particular policy agenda.

Nonetheless, it is most useful to understand neoliberalism’s policy implications in terms of 10
norms that have defined its historical practice. These norms begin with trade liberalization and extend to the encouragement of exports;
enticement of foreign investment; reduction of inflation; reduction of public spending; privatization of public services; deregulation of industry and finance; reduction and
flattening of taxes; restriction of union organization; and, finally, enforcement of property and land ownership. Politicians don’t necessarily have to profess faith in all of these
norms to be considered neoliberal. Rather, they have to buy into neoliberalism’s general market-based logic and its attendant promise of opportunity. When one compares these 10
the president is far more neoliberal than his populist
neoliberal commandments with Trump’s policy agenda, it is clear that

rhetoric would suggest. This conclusion will likely surprise his supporters, especially in light of Trump’s assaults on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the
North American Free Trade Agreement. Despite these attacks, however, Trump is clearly and consistently positioning himself to

cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulate big business and the financial industry, and pursue a wide
range of privatization plans and public-private partnerships that will further weaken American
unions. In short, he will govern like the neoliberals who came before him and against whom he
campaigned so ardently. In fact, Trump’s agenda aims to realize the foremost goals of
neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax-cutting, anti-unionism, and the strict enforcement
of property rights. For example, in his address to Congress, Trump promised “a big, big cut” for American companies and boasted about his administration’s
“historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations.” Ironically, Trump then asserted that he will reduce regulations by “creating a deregulation task force inside of every
government agency,” itself a contradictory expansion of the administrative state he had just sworn to shrink. Since so much of Trump’s agenda aligns with the long-standing
Trump will be able to work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch
ambitions of the Republican Party, it is likely that

McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to pass strictly neoliberal
legislation. Unlike his approach to trade, which congressional Republicans will probably scuttle, there is little reason to doubt that we will see new legislation that
privatizes public lands, overturns Dodd-Frank and other Wall Street regulations, cuts taxes on business, makes organizing unions difficult, and allows big landowners to develop,
For all the animosity that may exist between the Trump administration and
mine, log, and shoot without restraint.

Republican congressmen, the two groups share a neoliberal vision of the world. From his new budget
proposal we also know that Trump plans to continue the neoliberal assault on social service provisions—such as the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act—as well as public
broadcasting, arts funding, scientific research and foreign aid. As Trump vowed to Congress, he intends to implement a plan in which “Americans purchase their own coverage,
money he does want to spend will be expended on
through the use of tax credits and expanded health savings accounts.” Moreover, the

military and infrastructure projects that will almost certainly be organized around public-private
partnerships that will fill the coffers of Trump’s business cronies.
*** K---DERRIDA/DECONSTRUCTION
 1NC
The 1AC’s attempt of an “Open Dialogue” between the sender and the
receiver represents a flawed communication and educational communication
is a model for “give and mis-take” – the misunderstandings of interpretations
between sender and receiver shows how language is vague and fluid – only a
deconstruction can facilitate educational freedom
Biesta 9 (Gert; Gert Biesta is Professor of Education and Director of Research. In addition he is
Visiting Professor at ArtEZ, Institute of the Arts, the Netherlands. He also has visiting affiliations
with NLA University College, Bergen, Norway, and NAFOL, the Norwegian Graduate School in
Teacher Education. He previously worked at universities in Luxembourg, the UK and the
Netherlands, and was a postdoctoral fellow with the National Academy of Education in the USA.
His work focuses on the theory and philosophy of education, education policy, and the theory and
philosophy of educational and social research. He has a particular interest in questions of
democracy and democratisation. Since 2015 he is an associate member of the ‘Onderwijsraad’,
which is the main education advisory body for the Dutch government. He is joint-coordinator of
SIG 25 of EARLI, The European Association for Research and Learning and Instruction, together
with Rupert Wegerif and Giuseppe Ritella, and co-editor of two book-series with Routledge: New
Directions in the Philosophy of Education and Theorizing Education From 1999 to 2014 he was
editor-in-chief of Studies in Philosophy and Education, and currently serves as chief advisory
editor; “Witnessing Deconstruction in Education: Why Quasi-Transcendentalism Matters”;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2009.00705.x/full; published 7/14/2009;
accessed 7/27/17) [TG]
Are there signs of deconstruction occurring in education and of education-in-deconstruction? And
if there are, why would it matter to bear witness to such signs? Let me begin with the first
question and relate this to some of my own writings on education. One theme I have pursued
through a number of publications is that of the role of communication in educational processes
and practices. The question I have asked in relation to this is how education is possible (see, for
example, Vanderstraeten and Biesta, 2001; 2006; see also Biesta, 2004; Osberg and Biesta, 2008;
Osberg, Biesta and Cilliers, 2008). In one respect the answer to this question is simple in that we
can say that education is made possible through communication—most notably the
communication between teachers and students, although it can be argued that textbooks,
curricula and school buildings, to name but a few educational artefacts, also try to communicate
something to students. A common way to theorise communication is through the so-called
sender-receiver model. Here communication is conceived as the transmission of information from
one place (the sender) to another place (the receiver) through a medium or channel. It includes
processes of encoding on the side of the sender in order to put the information in such a form that
it can go through the medium or channel. It involves processes of decoding on the side of the
receiver in order to transform the encoded information back into its original state.
While the sender-receiver model might be an adequate way to describe the transportation of bits
of information from one location to another—it's very useful, for example, to describe how
information from a television camera ends up on the television screen at home—I have argued
that it is an inadequate model for understanding human communication. The main reason
for this is that human communication is not about the transportation of information but about the
exchange of meaning. In the sender-receiver model ‘decoding’ is seen as just a technical matter:
that of taking away the ‘packaging’ that was needed to send the information safely from one
location such as the TV studio to another location such as the home. What is omitted in this
account, however, is not only what is happening in front of the camera but also, and more
importantly, the fact that for the meaning of what is happening in front of the camera to ‘arrive’ at
the other end, someone actually needs to watch the screen and make sense of what is being seen.
What we find at the ‘end’ of human communication, therefore, are processes of interpretation and
sense-making rather than simple unpacking and retrieving.
This reveals that there is a fundamental flaw in the sender-receiver model, at least if it is
being used as a model to understand human communication, as it is based on the assumption that
the meaning of information is attached to the medium that carries the information—i.e. that the
meaning of a book is in the book, that the meaning of a lecture is in the words spoken, that the
meaning of a curriculum is in the curriculum, and so on—so that identity of meaning between
sender and receiver is just a technical matter, just an issue of transportation. As soon as it is
acknowledged, however, that meaning is not something that we passively receive but that we
actively (though not necessarily always consciously) ascribe—we give meaning to, we make
sense of—it becomes clear that the sender-receiver model omits the most crucial part of human
communication, viz., that of the interpretation of the ‘message’ (which then ceases to be just a
message) on the side of the ‘receiver’ (who then ceases to be just a receiver).
If we look at educational communication from this angle we can already begin to see that what
makes such communication possible—interpretation—at the very same time threatens to make
communication impossible. The reason for this is that the interpretations on the side of the
‘receiver’are never completely determined by the intentions of the ‘sender’ and also can never be
completely determined by the intentions of the ‘sender’ for the very reason that even if the
‘sender’ were to articulate his or her intentions explicitly, these would always need to be
interpreted by the ‘receiver’ as well.4 Educational communication—but for that matter any
form of human communication—is therefore not a matter of give and take, but more a matter of
give and mis-take. It is here that we can begin to see deconstruction occurring in education in that
the condition of possibility of educational communication appears to be at the very same time its
condition of impossibility. This is not to suggest that educational communication is not possible;
what it rather highlights is how educational communication is possible, viz., on the basis of a
strange, deconstructive ‘logic’. If this is so, why, then, might it be important to highlight the
occurrence of deconstruction in education? Why might it be important to witness the event of
education-in-deconstruction? Let me now turn to this question. OPENINGS, CLOSURES, AND
IN(TER)VENTIONS
The deconstructive nature of educational communication suggests that there is a certain ‘slippage’
in the processes of education, that there is an imperfection or weakness, so we might say, a
certain ‘opening’ that occurs each time we engage in education. From one angle this is pretty
irritating. If we want to teach our students that 2 and 2 makes 4, if we want them to learn how to
drive a car, how to weld, how to administer anaesthesia, if we want them to understand how the
convention of the rights of the child came into existence, what racism is and why it is wrong,
what democracy is and why it is good, what evolution theory and creationism are about, or why
deconstruction is not a method and cannot be transformed into one, our aim is to get it ‘right’
and, more importantly, our aim is for our students to get it ‘right’.5 Teachers have a special
‘trick’ for getting it right. It is not called effective teaching but assessment (see Biesta, 2008).
Assessment is the mechanism that constantly tries to close the gap between teaching and learning.
It does this by saying ‘this is right’ and ‘this is wrong’—and, more often, by saying ‘you are
right’ and ‘you are wrong’. In a sense it is as simple as that. But because the slippage is there all
the time, achieving closure in education requires an enormous amount of effort. Looking at the
financial and human resources societies put into this ‘project’, one can begin to get a sense of the
force of this little opening that occurs ‘wherever there is something rather than nothing’ (Derrida
and Ewald, 2001, p. 67).6 Of course, societies invest in this project because they believe that they
have it right and because they believe that it is important for the next generation to get it right as
well—which is precisely where Dewey started his discussion of education in Democracy and
Education (Dewey, 1966).
To witness deconstruction in education is thus first of all helpful in order to understand why
education as a ‘project’ requires so much effort. But the point of witnessing deconstruction is not
about identifying its occurrence in order then to effectively tame it. There is, as I have shown,
something more at stake, which is the fact that this little opening called ‘deconstruction’ can also
be an entrance for the in-coming of something unforeseen. Derrida connects these points very
helpfully in a discussion of J. L. Austin's speech act theory (see Derrida, 1988). Austin is
concerned with the question how performative speech acts—speech acts that try to ‘do’
something rather than that they are intended to convey meaning—can work successfully. Austin
acknowledges that performative speech acts always run the risk of failure. Austin, however, sees
such failures as accidents, as events that our outside of ‘normal’ human interaction. This is why
he puts a lot of effort into specifying the conditions under which performative speech acts can
work—conditions, so we might say, that must be met before we can engage successfully in
performative speech acts (see Derrida, 1988, pp. 14–5). Derrida, on the other hand, suggests that
if the potential failure of performative speech acts is always a possibility, then we should perhaps
see this ‘necessary possibility’ of failure as constitutive of rather than as the exception of
performative speech acts. Derrida takes up this issue in the context of a wider discussion about
the conditions of possibility of communication more generally, particularly in relation to the
question of the ‘context’ of communication (p. 2).7
The reason for suggesting that the risk of misunderstanding should be seen as constitutive of
communication rather than as something external to it stems from Derrida's observation that the
only way in which we can guarantee ‘perfect’ communication—that is, communication in which
there is an identity between what the speaker intended to convey and what the listener
‘receives’—is when the context in which such communications disseminate is exhaustively
determined (p. 18). Derrida argues, however, that this can never be an empirical reality because in
order for communication to be possible there needs to be interpretation—i.e. ‘receivers’ need to
make sense of what is being communicated. Derrida thus argues that communication is, in this
regard, a fundamentally open process and to claim otherwise—as he sees Austin trying to do by
taming the unpredictability of communication—is maintaining an ‘idealized image’ and ‘ethical
and teleological determination’ of the context in which communication occurs (p. 17). The
general risk or failure therefore does not surround language ‘like a kind of ditch or external place
of perdition which speech … can escape by remaining “at home”, by and in itself’. On the
contrary, this risk is ‘its internal and positive condition of possibility’ (ibid.).
The plausibility of Derrida's argument becomes clear when we imagine a situation in which
language would be without risk. In such a situation communication would have become a strictly
mechanical, a strictly calculable and predictable process. Under such conditions it would actually
be meaningless to intervene in social interaction by means of speech acts. In such a mechanistic
universe an utterance such as ‘I promise’ would add nothing to the interaction, because all the
possible consequences of any action would already be determined and would already be strictly
transparent for all other actors, whose own reactions would already be determined as well. The
fact that speech acts can always and structurally fail therefore suggests that human
communication is not mechanistic but that it is an event.
The importance of these considerations does not so much lie in Derrida's account of the fact that
communication relies on interpretation and therefore can always go ‘wrong.’ It rather relies in his
insight that if communication would go ‘right’—that is, if the connection between input and
output, between utterance and response, between teaching and learning, would be perfect—we
would have ended up in a completely deterministic universe in which there is actually no reason
for communication as utterances and responses would simply be mechanically connected. This is
first of all a universe in which there is nothing to learn. Yet it is also a universe in which there is
no possibility for anything new to emerge on the scene. It's a universe in which invention, in-
coming, is no longer a possibility. If we take away the risk involved in communication—and
perhaps Derrida would say: if we were able to take away the risk involved in communication—
we therefore also take away the opportunity for the in-coming of the other as other. Derrida's
insistence on the necessary role of misunderstanding in communication should therefore not be
read as a plea for a release from the rules and constraints of interpretation and understanding—a
kind of ‘hermeneutics free-for-all’ (Norris, 1987, p. 139)—but as motivated by a concern for the
impossible possibility of the invention, the in-coming of the other. The ‘point,’ in other words, is
an ethical and political one but it is, therefore, also an educational one. Let me briefly explain.
Teachers sometimes jokingly say that their job would be so much easier—and could be so much
more effective—if they could do it without students. But what may seem the administrator's
heaven should be the educator's nightmare if, that is, the interest of education is not exclusively in
the reproduction of what exists—in the insertion of ‘newcomers’ into existing social, cultural,
political, religious, economic, cognitive and other orders—but is also an interest in the ‘coming
into the world’ of something new, of ‘new beginnings’ and ‘new beginners’ to use Hannah
Arendt's terminology.8 The simple question, then, is whether we value such inventions—which
always announce themselves as interventions (see Fryer, 2004)—or not. The simple question is
whether we think that education should only be a big reproduction machine, or whether we think
that education should also express an interest in what we might perhaps best refer to as human
freedom (see also Biesta, 2007). If the latter is the case, then it might matter that we witness the
occurrence of deconstruction in education, as this may point us towards openings that can be a
potential entrance for the event of freedom.

Refusing to calculate communication enables massive violence in the name of

doing “justice”. Derrida’s critique is key
Miller 8 – J. Hillis Miller, Distinguished Research Professor at the University of California at
Irvine, 2008("Derrida's Politics of Autoimmunity ", Discourse, Volume 30, Numbers 1 & 2,
Winter & Spring, Available Online from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/362101/pdf, Accessed on 7-
28-2017)//BM
The context of the passage I have cited is the distinction Derrida draws between law and justice. To act lawfully is not to act justly. Preexisting laws
preprogram decision and act, for example a judge’s decision in a court of law, whereas justice is always new, inaugural, and unheard of. A just judge
remakes the laws in every just judgment, because he or she acts in response to the uniqueness and singularity of each case. Justice is a response to what
Derrida calls “the wholly other.” That means justice is “incalculable.” It resists rational calculation either beforehand or
after the fact. Justice is an example of that resistance to cognition I spoke of a moment ago as fundamental to Derrida’s thinking and action. No one and
nothing, no general command, tells him he must allow that African immigrant in Paris to use his address, nor that he should feed and take care of one
Since justice is
single cat out of all the others that are dying of hunger every day, to cite a somewhat scandalous example Derrida gives.4
“incalculable,” that means that it can easily be appropriated by the bad or the worst. A bad person
can always say, I acted unlawfully because the “wholly other” commanded me to do so and so. I
claim I acted according to a higher justice. This means that “incalculable justice requires us to
calculate,” in order to try to avoid the bad or the worst, totalitarianism, fascism, some unjust
authoritarian regime claiming sovereignty. Calculating in this case means, I think, measuring
what we do against that “classical emancipatory ideal.” It also means, I think, calculating as best we
can what will be the actual practical effect, for example of new laws about stem-cell research, something that in its novelty and
promise does not fit earlier paradigms of medical research. Derrida stresses that we get no help in doing this from preexisting
laws. We are forced to remake the very foundations of law: “[E]ach advance in politicization obliges one to reconsider,
and so to reinterpret, the very foundations of law such as they had previously been calculated or delimited.” Moreover, since what Derrida calls
“destinerrance,” as I shall explain further later on, means that we can never anticipate just what will be the results of our political choices and decisions,
such as passing new laws, our
calculations about the incalculable are always risky and dangerous.
Nevertheless, a decision is demanded of us. Derrida stresses the urgency and immediacy of the
obligation to decide. I must decide, now, even though I never have enough information to make my decision and act anything other than a
more or less complete leap in the dark, as when I propose marriage to this one woman out of all the other possible ones.
vote negative to endorse a deconstruction of education – only an aberration of
the aff can allow education to unfold and speak for itself
Higgs 3 (Phillip Higgs; Emeritus Professor and Research Fellow at UNISA. research focuses at
present on a critical overview of conceptual frameworks for Philosophy of Education and will
result in a text published by JUTA in 2016 entitled, Philosophy of Education Today: An
Introduction. In addition to this focus, he is also working on a postmodern conceptual framework
for African philosophy of education with special reference to the transformation of the curriculum
in South Africa; Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology from University of the Witwatersrand;
“Deconstruction and re-thinking education”;
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/download/24866/20582; published in 2003; accessed
7/27/17) [TG]
Deconstruction and educational discourse In recent years educators, educational theorists,
philosophers of education, and curriculum theorists around the world have shown a mounting
interest in Derrida’s work and in his concept of deconstruction [see, for example, Biesta and Egea-Kuehne (2001),
Cherryholmes (1988), Lather (1991), Stronach and MacLure (1997), Usher and Edwards (1994), Pinar et al. (1995) and Pinar and Reynolds (1992)].
The major influence of Derrida and deconstruction on the practice of education originally came from the
adoption of deconstruction in English departments. As “a theory of reading and writing” deconstruction had found its way in the teaching of English, both
in writing instruction and composition, and in the practice of teaching literature [see, for example, Atkins and Johnson (1985), Crowley (1989), Gilbert
(1989), Henricksen and Morgan (1990), Miller (1983), Neel (1988) and Ulmer (1985)]. Although some scholars, such as Biesta and Egea-Kuehne (2001)
and Knoper (1989), have acknowledged the possible political and ethical implications of deconstructive writing pedagogy, it would seem that the
reception of deconstruction in education, in the first instance, was primarily ‘technical’ in its narrow focus on literary analysis [see, for example, Johnson,
1985)], and has only minimally been concerned with the political and ethical possibilities of deconstruction in relation to education. Biesta and Egea-
Kuehne (2001:4) in attempting to bring to the fore the ethico-political potential of deconstruction for educational discourse, note, that what Derrida’s
texts have to offer is not a set of guidelines, rules, or prescriptions which can be applied to education to remedy whatever ails it. The point is not to reduce
Any attempt to
the profound arguments which form Derrida’s work to trivial statements used to talk about implications for schooling.
summarise complex concepts, to recall them more or less exactly, more or less precisely in order
to try and draw some specific implications to be applied to education would not carry much
meaning, and would amount to a misreading of Derrida. Nor is it a matter of relating Derrida’s thought to issues in
education. Reading Derrida in the context of education calls for an engagement with his forms of
reasoning in analysing educational issues. Such an engagement needs an attentive and respectful reading “ ... through work which
actually requires time, discipline, and patience, work that requires several readings, new types of reading, too, in a variety of different fields” (Derrida
1995:401). All in all, Biesta and Egea-Kuhne (2001:5) conclude
that deconstruction can engage a thoughtful reader in
some powerful rethinking of education, analysing all the hidden assumptions which are implied in
the philosophical, or the ethical, or the juridical, or the political issues related to education. In short, a
consideration of Derrida’s seminal works, reveals the necessity and the possibility of thinking again, through deconstruction, about education in terms of
language, justice, the other and responsibility. Cahen (2001:12) is of the opinion that, not only is the question of education at the core of Derrida’s
writings, but that this is also not a coincidence. It is not a case of deconstruction and education having accidentally come together in Derrida’s writings.
Cahen (2001:25-26) argues
that, if we acknowledge the radically affirmative nature of deconstruction,
then, the question of deconstruction is the question of education. Cahen makes it clear that
deconstruction is not just about profoundly educational questions such as, ‘who is coming when I
speak to the other?’, and, ‘where am I going when the other speaks to me?’ Cahen emphasises that in raising the
question of how we can educate ‘the other as other’, how we can let the other be, deconstruction
moves the whole cluster of questions about education, about teaching, from the plane of techniques and methods to
a level which is deeply concerned with the ethical, the political, and ultimately, with the destination of life, history and humanity. Much of present day
educational discourse is vulnerable to an ideologically driven educational practice which emphasises that persons be educated for the maintenance and
development of environmentally and sociologically determined functions, as well as for the promotion of the economy (Higgs:1998). In such a context,
education becomes the handmaiden of the state, and, at the same time, serves the state’s programmes of political intent. Educational discourse which
poses fundamental questions, has, as Aronowitz (2001:ii) notes, virtually disappeared from the mainstream literature. Present day educational discourse,
no longer sees the need to interrogate the givens of education, or the social and political contexts in which education functions. As a result, nearly all
educational discourse is reduced to what Aronowitz (2001:xvi-xvii) describes as the application of “ ... technologies of managing consent, where teaching
is increasingly a function of training for test taking.” All
this can be regarded as an aberration of education, as the
mystification of education in the service of dominant ideologies that see education as a process of
information transfer (mainly of a scientific, technical and legislative kind), and which, in turn, aim to ensure conformity to political and
economically acceptable norms. In the light of this, it can be concluded that, what is needed today, is an awakening of the educational or a return to
education. In short, present day educational discourse must re-think itself. The
philosophical challenge of re-thinking
education, of deconstructing education, does not consist in changing, replacing, or abandoning
education . On the contrary, to deconstruct is first and foremost to undo a construction with
infinite patience, to take apart a system in order to understand all its mechanisms, to exhibit
all its foundations, and to reconstruct on new bases. To be sure, it is a matter of transforming our relation to
education, to reflect on the conditions of such a transformation, and to give ourselves the theoretical and practical means to do so. In this regard,
Derrida’s reflections on deconstruction and related concepts such as différance, justice, the other, and responsibility, can provide a powerful paradigm to
develop a greater awareness of the issues at stake in education; for his texts suggest new ways of thinking about education and of assuming responsibility
in education in relation to the other, and in the name of justice. I would suggest that in re-thinking education in terms of a Derridian discourse, we should
address such questions as: how can we educate the other as other?; in which space can education be realised?; how can we let the other be as other in the
educational encounter?; what, and whose knowledge, should be transmitted in the educational encounter?; how can we know in the educational
encounter?; what form of instruction should mark the educational encounter? what is the nature of an educational encounter? what of the place of
language in the educational encounter? All these questions, I believe, are constitutive of at least two challenges that Derrida’s works hold for educators.
On the one hand, educators should deconstruct the ideological influences that imprison
educational discourse and in so doing allow the nature of education to unfold and speak for
itself ; and on the other hand, educators should affirm education , and attempt to determine what it can
and should do today in our society, in the face of new forms of knowledge in general and the advances of technology. Too often
trapped within the walls of a dominant ideology, or social practices and beliefs, education should be allowed to think for itself, expose itself, teach itself.
This constitutes the Derridian imperative in its programme of deconstruction with its concern for justice, the other, and responsible action. Furthermore,
as a particular mode of mind for experiencing ideas, deconstruction can significantly change the nature of educational discourse. Regarding instructional
messages as language means considering them in the context of the Western philosophical tradition, from Plato to Rousseau to Kant, where all
communication media are representations of how people think. It is a logocentric tradition that valorises speech over writing. Derrida’s programme of
deconstruction refutes the assumption that spoken language, the most abstract of communication media, can be accepted as the closest representation of
thought. For Derrida it is a non-neutral medium shaped by ideology and preconceived bias. No way of communicating, whether in speech or writing is
It is a fallacy to
more or less direct. No way of communicating is unequivocally better for obtaining a convergence of minds than any other.
think of thought as language because in itself, language is undecidable. In this mode education deconstructs like
language and also differently from language. For as Standish (2001: 77-97) argues, in education, learners always go beyond fixed meanings, beyond
curriculum objectives, beyond aims, in fact beyond the stable authority of the teacher. This “going beyond” for Standish is far from being a threat to
education only
meaning and a hence a threat to education. Rather, Standish (2001:95) argues that it is the very condition for education, because

exists, only comes into presence, as a result of the necessary disruption of the learner . The
anxious preoccupation with clarity, control and containment runs the risk of stifling what is most
important in education, namely, the “going beyond” in the establishment of the singularity of the
individual.
 Link---Ethics
Util isn’t true specifically for Derrida – only a non-universalist stance based
on deconstructive readings is the “most ethical choice”
Taguchi 7 (Hillevi Lenz Taguchi; Lenz Taguchi holds undergraduate majors in literature and sociology and earned her PhD in education in 2001 at Stockholm
University. Promoted Professor of Education 2011. Appointed professor in Child and Youth Studies and presently co-director of the division of Early Childhood Education,
Department of Child and Youth Studies, Stockholm University in 2013. Lenz Taguchi has experience of trans- and interdisciplinary research specifically focusing feminist theories
and continental philosophy in her studies of higher education, teacher education and early childhood practices. She is much involved with the theoretical development and
transgressive methodologies as part of the Posthumanist, New Materialist and Post Qualitative turns. She has published extensively in international journals and published a book
in English at Routledge 2010. Nationally, she is a well-known author and lecturer with several books used in first most teacher education and gender studies. She has been project
leader of a project on gender-pedagogy (2006-2010) and as of 2015 she is project-leader of a large scale educational neuroscience project in pre-school. Both with grants from the
National Research Council; “Deconstructing and Transgressing the Theory—Practice dichotomy in early childhood education”;
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hillevi_Lenz_Taguchi/publication/229732009_Deconstructing_and_Transgressing_the_Theory-
Practice_dichotomy_in_early_childhood_education/links/5621277d08ae70315b58c8e9/Deconstructing-and-Transgressing-the-Theory-Practice-dichotomy-in-early-childhood-
education.pdf; published 2007; accessed 7/27/17) [TG]

No Objective ‘Most Ethical’ Choice: Just Openness to What ‘May Be’ From both an
individualistic and a broader social perspective, we choose a pedagogical method in order to ‘do
good.’ Critics of a poststructurally-informed, deconstructive approach in ECE argue that it is too
relativistic and too ambiguous. The critics argue that, by their very nature, eclectic practices are
not sufficiently grounded in any one (universalist or better) theory and lack the normative
qualities expected of a robust pedagogy. But, as the particularist ethical philosopher Ulrik
Kihlbom argues, ‘The morally competent or virtuous person is a moral ideal, which probably no
one ever fully satisfies’ (Kihlbom, 2002, p. 141). An ethical particularist stance, just as a
poststructuralist stance, understands moral issues to be non-universalist, and that persons and
actions must be understood contextually, the same way multiple readings of pedagogical
practice are done contextually. We learn how to become morally competent persons within a
specific social culture, although the existence of human virtuous ideals cannot be denied
(Kihlbom, 2002). Derrida talks about the force of ‘Necessity’, simultaneously acknowledging the
necessity of human ideals and the necessity of questioning them (Derrida, 2003). In another
context Derrida clarifies his ethical thinking in relation to the process of deconstruction by
making a difference between universal laws and rights (‘la droite’) and being ethically righteous
(‘juste’). The latter is a situated deconstruction of la droite in a radical openness to the specific
Other, as part of a deconstructive ethic in education as a pedagogy of (what) ‘may be’ (Steinsholt,
2004). A deconstructive ethic then, is about taking the wor(l)d very seriously in tracing and
troubling signs of meaning, by way of absences and the otherness of what we think we know and
believe. But it is also about the power of affirmation and welcoming what is beyond what we
understand as present and possible. So deconstruction can never be about revealing new
truths in a gesture of unmasking, revealing our ignorance and raising our consciousness to a
higher level, as in a sublimation of ‘having finally seen the light’, or a Hegelian ‘aufhebung’ into
higher meaning (Spivak, 1976, p. xi). It is rather about holding on to an attitude of indeterminacy
and paradox, as conditions of what Lather writes as ‘affirmative power by undoing fixities and
mapping new possibilities for playing out relations between identity and difference, margins and
centres’ (2003, p. 5). As teachers, all we can realistically hold ourselves accountable for is
selecting the ‘best’ choice in relation to specific circumstances and specific children and
ourselves as their teachers, on the basis of the deconstructive readings we have made (compare
Lenz Taguchi, 2005a).
 Alt---Solvency
The Alt solves – the criticism of banking education is correct – the method is
not
Alam 13 (Mahbubul; CTO/CMO at Movimento Acquired by Delphi Automotive PLC, Responsible for: General Manager of Silicon Valley Office Business
Transformation: Innovation, Digitalization, New Monetization Models, Business Processes and Automation Product Market Strategy: Brand Awareness and Thought Leadership
Partner Eco-System: Strategic Alliance, Partnership and Joint Go-to-Market Product Management & Marketing Engineering & Development: Private/Hybrid/Public Cloud
Automotive Platform and OTA Client Virtualization Strategic Business Development Marketing and Communication; “Banking Model of Education in Teacher-Centered Class: A
Critical Assessment”; http://pakacademicsearch.com/pdf-files/art/448/27-31%20Vol%203,%20No%2015%20(2013).pdf; published 2013; accessed 7/27/17) [TG]

Banking Model of Education and Derrida’s Logocentrism Freire’s resentment towards

banking education goes parallel to Jacque Derrida’s theory of Deconstruction where he shows his
position against logocentrism. Logocentrism is evident where knowledge is centralized. Freire
rejects any god-like figure of the teacher in the classroom. This god-like appearance of the
teacher being a storehouse of knowledge is a logocentric presence in front of the students. Derrida
attempts to destroy any logocentric presence in the intellectual field. He asserts that the
centralized knowledge must be decentralized or deconstructed, this process is called
deconstruction. In the traditional teaching-learning method the teacher plays a metaphysical role.
The aim of Deconstruction is that the center-creating meaning must be displaced to destroy
metaphysics (Chowdhury 2006, p. 76). Hence, we can place Freire and Derrida on the same
position of decentralized knowledge. In banking education the teacher occupies the central
position and knowledge also remains centralized to the teacher. Freire revolts against this
logocentric position, like Derrida.
 A2: Permutation
Representations DA – the perm is impossible – “representational” and
“participatory” approaches are completely opposite – combining them is a
dangerous strategy – deconstruction is an impact turn to the aff’s
methodology
Osberg and Biesta 3 (Deborah Osberg; Senior lecturer in the Graduate School of Education, and a member of the Centre for Creativity, Sustainability
and Educational futures, primarily interested in the relationship between education and democracy, and in particular the creative impetus of both educational and democratic
action. In my research I use emergentist’ perspectives to make sense of eucational choices connected with knowledge, power, pedagogy, curriculum and ethics; Gert Biesta; Gert
Biesta is Professor of Education and Director of Research. In addition he is Visiting Professor at ArtEZ, Institute of the Arts, the Netherlands. He also has visiting affiliations with
NLA University College, Bergen, Norway, and NAFOL, the Norwegian Graduate School in Teacher Education. He previously worked at universities in Luxembourg, the UK and
the Netherlands, and was a postdoctoral fellow with the National Academy of Education in the USA. His work focuses on the theory and philosophy of education, education
policy, and the theory and philosophy of educational and social research. He has a particular interest in questions of democracy and democratisation. Since 2015 he is an associate
member of the ‘Onderwijsraad’, which is the main education advisory body for the Dutch government. He is joint-coordinator of SIG 25 of EARLI, The European Association for
Research and Learning and Instruction, together with Rupert Wegerif and Giuseppe Ritella, and co-editor of two book-series with Routledge: New Directions in the Philosophy of
Education and Theorizing Education From 1999 to 2014 he was editor-in-chief of Studies in Philosophy and Education; “Complexity, Representation and the Epistemology of
Schooling”; Pages 5-6;
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deborah_Osberg/publication/228462492_Complexity_representation_and_the_epistemology_of_schooling/links/54dc960a0cf28a3d93f7f5f2.
pdf; published 2003; accessed 7/28/17) [TG]
However there are at least two arguments that, in a sense, challenge the idea of representation.
First of all there are arguments from the point of view of learning. The main insight—relatively
old, but for some reason education needs to be reminded of it from time to time—is that teaching
does not determine learning. What students learn may have a link with what teachers teach, but
the two are not necessarily identical. Learners learn much more and much different things from
their participation in educational practices than only that which they were supposed to learn. This
poses a challenge to curriculum makers. The argument from progressive, participatory and
‘situated’ learning theories is that the only way in which young people can learn meaningfully is
if they can participate in ‘real world’ practices. Strongly representational curricula, it is argued,
are disconnected from the things they wish to represent and therefore devoid of any real,
significant meaning. The solution is therefore to do away with the ‘re’ and make educational
institutions into places where the world itself is presented. However, against this
‘presentationalist’ or ‘participatory’ position, is has been argued, firstly from a conservative
viewpoint, that a ‘decent’ education is not merely about ‘practical work’ or ‘apprenticeship’ (see
Lave and Wenger, 1991, for an ‘apprenticeship’ model of learning) but one in which children get
access to all the great works of a particular cultural tradition. In this regard, even Dewey argued
that schools should present a purified selection of the world (Dewey, 1966/1916). Secondly, from
a radical viewpoint, it is argued that participatory or presentational forms of learning end up in
socialisation and adaptation and make it difficult to create critical distance and therefore result in
one-dimensional ways of learning. In this way ‘representational’ and ‘presentational’ pedagogies
are somewhat (although not completely) opposed to each other—although both strategies are still
the two main approaches to education, and perhaps becoming increasingly intertwined. But
there is another argument that challenges the idea of representation. This argument
challenges both presentation and representation and therefore opens the possibility to think about
education in a way that gets away from the intertwined presentation/representation approach. This
argument comes mainly from Jacques Derrida’s work on deconstruction, but if understood in a
particular way, complexity can also be regarded as falling into this camp. According to this line
of thinking, both presentational and representational pedagogies rely upon the idea of a world that
is simply present, or can simply be re-presented. This is where deconstruction comes in, in that
Derrida would argue that both presentation and representation are examples of the
‘metaphysics of presence’—the idea that there is a world ‘out there’ that is simply ‘present’ and
to which all our understandings (meanings) are in relation. In contrast to this position,
deconstruction re-sists being drawn into and subsumed by any relationship with presence. Instead
the deconstructive ‘position’ could be described as one of ‘relationality with the radically non-
relational’ as Michael Dillon (2000) has put it. The ‘radically non-relational,’ he suggests, is …
the utterly intractable, that which resists being drawn into and subsumed by relation albeit it
transits all relationality as a disruptive movement that continuously prevents the full realisation or
final closure or relationality, and thus the misfire that continuously precipitates new life and new
meaning. There is no relational purchase to be had on the intractable. It resists relation. (Dillon,
2000, pp. 3–4) While deconstruction certainly offers some interesting perspectives on education
(see Biesta and Egea-Kuehne 2001 for a general overview and Ulmer 1985 for a discussion about
deconstruction and educational [re]presentation), we believe that by challenging both
representation and presentation, complexity also offers a way out of the dilemmas in the
representational approach to education.
*** K---DESCHOOLING
 Link---Monologue
Freire is contradictory – his system Is doomed to the monologue of the status
quo
Ohlinger 95, John Ohlinger, member of Basic Choices, Inc., 95 ("John Ohliger: Critical views of Paulo Freire's work," bmartin.cc, 1995,
Available Online at http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Facundo/Ohliger1.html, Accessed on 7-27-2017 //JJ)
Giroux, Henry A. "Paulo Freire and the Politics of Postcolonialism." In Paulo Freire. Peter McLaren & Peter Leonard, eds. Routledge,
1993. "The contradictions raised in Freire's work offer a number of questions that need to be
addressed by critical educators about not only Freire's work but also their own. For instance, what
happens when the language of the educator is not the same as that of the oppressed? How is it
possible to be vigilant against taking up a notion of language, politics, and rationality that
undermines recognizing one's own partiality and the voices and experiences of Others? How does
one explore the contradiction between validating certain forms of 'correct' thinking and the
pedagogical task of helping students assume rather than simply follow the dictates of authority,
regardless of how radical the project informed by such authority?" Isaacs, Charles. "Praxis of Paulo Freire."
Critical Anthropology, Spr 1972. "Freire's brief discussion casts the limit-situation in such an optimistic
light that it seems in danger of losing its meaning. The mode of production is not mentioned here
at all. This is a weakness in the Freirian dialectic; he equivocates between idealism and
materialism, at one point stating the primacy of the material base, and at others appearing to
ignore that substructure in an elaboration of its ideal and linguistic expressions." Leach, Tom. "Paulo
Freire." International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. I, No. 3, 1982. "Many charges have been laid against Paulo Freire. Some
have seen him as a dangerous and violent revolutionary. Others have seen him as a quaint, rather unoriginal and eclectic philosopher.
It is difficult not to feel that he richly deserves the accusation that he is, jackdaw-like, borrowing concepts, which cannot be torn from
the detailed material and economic arguments in which they are embedded. Freire does not wholly ignore basic material
considerations. However, it is fair to say that he gives them only fleeting consideration. One major criticism had been that Freire's
concept of dialogue is contradictory. In my view there are considerable grounds for saying he is wrong-
headed about material conditions and therefore for calling into question his whole concept of
dialogue. Others suggest that Freire's concept of dialogue is 'contradictory' because it involves
strong intervention, purpose and structure on the part of 'teacher-learners.' Are his theories about
dialogue anything more than an elaborate attempt to bridge the gap between the leaders and the
people by blurring their differences? His comprehensive and frequently unclear terminology persistently veils and
perhaps also dissipates the trust of his writing. The reader's expectations are frustrated constantly by the countervailing tensions and
paradoxes which pervade his writing." Nasaw, David. "Reconsidering Freire," Liberation, Sep/Oct 1974.
"Freire has little to say to us. The fault with Freire's theorizing is that he analyzes the social
situation with some clarity, but then ignores it completely to talk about the 'dialogic' process.
Freire is well aware of the incongruity between the ethical imperatives he postulates in theory,
and the real world. But while he recognizes the contradiction, he fails to offer a means by which
categorical 'oughts' can be translated into daily practice. On first reading, Freire's eclecticism is
refreshing. Considered more carefully, it's a disaster. Existentialist, Marxist, structuralist,
Christian: Freire fails in his attempt to graft his Christian ethical categories onto his Marxist
concept of historicity." Schipani, Daniel S. Conscientization and Creativity. University Press of America, 1984. "A
conflict and contradiction is present between the denunciation of manipulation and maintaining
that the goal of education must be the realization of a certain kind of revolutionary option.
Another related area for critical evaluation along these lines refers to the oversimplification and
generalizations inherent in the dichotomizing e.g., oppressed-oppressors analytical process. We have to underscore a
major obstacle for the manifestation of creativity, which requires appreciation of complexity and tolerance for ambivalence and
ambiguity. Freire does not always do justice to the very conscientization thrust by overlooking the variety and nuances, richness and
precariousness, of social reality. Freire's anthropology does not take consistently into account the diverse
sources of limitations to human freedom. Consequently, it tends to present a too simplistic and
optimistic view of the actual possibilities of socio-political transformation. Further, this radical
change is referred to often as if it were merely a matter of perceiving its necessity and then
willing its occurrence. The Marxist influence certainly does not help to correct these appreciations, which fail to take into
account the complexity of the problem of the human predicament and the pervasive presence of radical evil in particular." Sherman,
Ann I. "Two Views of Emotion in the Writings of Paulo Freire," Educational Theory, Win 1980 .
"On the one hand, Freire
states that we need certain emotions (e.g. love, mutual trust) in order for dialogue, and thus
education for critical consciousness, to develop. On the other hand, Freire talks about the
necessity of overcoming emotionality which he sees as one of the prime characteristics of a naive
and irrational consciousness. It is this basic ambiguity which I will discuss." Taylor, P.V. Retexturing the Word and the
World. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick, 1991. "Most studies of Freire concentrate on his
method and techniques. This present work seeks to go beneath the obvious practice of literacy
teaching, to analyze the construction of his pedagogy and to explore the contradictions posed both
by Freire's life and by his work. The fundamental contradiction is exposed: that literacy, which
means 'learning to read' can never achieve its ideals of dialogue."
 Link---Oppression
Freire is wrong about his theories of the oppressed – it re-entrenches the
system of capitalist education
Ohlinger 95, John Ohlinger, member of Basic Choices, Inc., 95 ("John Ohliger: Critical views of Paulo Freire's work," bmartin.cc, 1995,
Available Online at http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Facundo/Ohliger1.html, Accessed on 7-27-2017 //JJ)
Bowers, C.A. "Review of The Politics of Education." Educational Studies, Spr 1986. "In
the most critical area of Freire's
own existential project, which is to provide an understanding of the conditions of human
alienation and oppression, he appears to have reached a point where original insight, burdened
now by excessive repetition, is in danger of becoming an encumbering dogma. When packaged together
and represented as a new statement on the politics of education, the appearance of these old essays is a major disappointment."
Bugbee, John A. "Reflections on Griffith, Freire and Beyond." Literacy Discussion, Spr 1975. "One can hope that Freire
will choose to address himself to the claims he abstracts from the concrete specifics of the class
struggle in his oppressor-oppressed analysis; that he will clarify the role that he accords to ideas
as an agency of history; and that he will no longer leave open the whole matter of a political
program to be framed by those who would use his methods." Elias, John L. Conscientization and Deschooling.
Westminster Press, 1976. "The problem with Freire's social criticism is its simplistic nature. Freire deals
only in vague generalities. Oppression is never clearly defined. Freire concentrates on the
oppression of the poor and fails to deal realistically with oppression as it is found at all levels of
society. It is a mistake to see only the poor as oppressed and all others as oppressors." Epstein, Erwin
H. Blessed Be the Oppressed And Those Who Can Identify with Them. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Educational
Studies Association in Chicago, Feb 23, 1972. "Freire is unable to reconcile satisfactorily the condition of
peasants having to rely on themselves for their loss of ignorance with their having to be made
aware of their state of oppression." Griffith, William S. "Paulo Freire." In Paulo Freire. Stanley Grabowski, ed. Syracuse
University Publications in Continuing Education, 1972. "Freire's criticisms of education, based primarily on his
assumptions about the relationship between teachers and students, are neither new nor
particularly useful in bringing about an improvement in the process. Freire leaves little question
regarding his willingness to control and restrict the freedom of those who cannot see the
superiority of his system. The freedom to disagree with the new ruling group, following the
revolution, is to be restricted to those who have passed some undefined loyalty test. Freire's own
professional life since 1959 presents a pattern of sponsorship by the most favored segments of
society, universities, international organizations, and churches, a pattern which may present an incongruous
answer to his question: 'What could be more important than to live and work with the oppressed, with the "rejects of life," with the
"wretched of the earth?"'" Kennedy, William B. "Pilgrims of the Obvious or the Not-So-Obvious?" Risk, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1975. "At
two points I would like to challenge Freire to go further. One is to develop the concept of 'free
space.' He needs to explore more concretely what it means to 'do in history' what is historically
possible. The second point builds upon Freire's magnificent faith in the people as the foundation
of democratic education. Only a process of engagement by and with the people can be the basis
for his radical reversal of traditional educational assumptions about learning. But the scattered
references to the specialized roles of certain people, to the role of the revolutionary party in a
mass movement, to the characteristics of those who serve as educators in action with the
educatees, are haunting in the lack of completeness and clarity. In history, and not by magic, how
do specialists emerge in education for liberation?" Knowles, Malcolm. The Making of an Adult Educator. Jossey-
Bass, 1989. "In 1973 four enthusiastic people representing two universities in Brazil asked me whether I would be interested in doing
a five-day workshop. The first workshop was at the University of Bahia in Salvador, northern Brazil. The workshop went smoothly. In
the last hour of the fourth day I asked them to pool their evaluations. One of the table groups was composed of staff members from the
national department of education in Brasilia. Their spokesman reported that they agreed that 'Malcolm
Knowles is more subversive than Paulo Freire, since Freire had the political goal of overthrowing
the government as integral to his approach, and therefore the government had a basis for exiling
him. Knowles, on the other hand, has no political goals in his andragogical approach, but only the
goal of producing self-directed learners. But if we succeed in producing truly self-directed learners, they will know
what to do about the government, and it will have no basis for exiling anybody as they did with Freire.'" MacEoin, Gary.
"Conscientization for the Masses." National Catholic Reporter, Mar 17, 1972. "For years I have been searching for an
instance in which peasants have broken out of their oppression, even at a local level, but have
found none. When I asked Freire, he admitted that neither has he." Stanley, Manfred. "Literacy." in Paulo
Freire. Stanley Grabowski, ed. Syracuse University Publications in Continuing Education, 1972. "Utopianism is a problem
in Freire's thought. It is evident in an uncritical tendency to regard his notion of literacy as the key
to liberation. He does not apparently take much note of the complexities, much less the dark side
of liberation itself. Freire's views place an extraordinary emphasis upon education as the
instrument of liberation. If Freire were to carry the matter further and admit that social
mobilization of large numbers of unenlightened people is necessary for revolution, Leninism
would have to be the next step in his thinking. Under such conditions of mass mobilization, both
church and secular history suggest that the saintly educators whom Freire depends on to keep his
revolution honest, would turn out to be in short supply."
 Alt---Specific Solvency
Any promotion of an education system perpetuates inequality—only by doing
the alt can it be solved
Ward 7—Tony Ward is a clinical psychologist by training and has been working in the clinical
and forensic field since 1987. He was formerly Director of the Kia Marama Sexual Offenders'
Unit at Rolleston Prison in New Zealand, and has taught both clinical and forensic psychology at
Victoria, Deakin, Canterbury, and Melbourne Universities. He is a Member of the New Zealand
College of Clinical Psychologists and a Clinical research member of the Association for the
Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). He is currently Professor of Clinical Psychology at
Victoria University of Wellington. His current research projects include: (a) explanation and
inquiry in research and practice . This includes the nature of protective and dynamic risk factors
and their theoretical grounding in embodied agency; (b) normative issues in forensic and clinical
practice including restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence; and (c) change processes in
the psychopathology and forensic/correctional domains. (“PAULO FREIRE’S THEORY OF
EDUCATION,” available on
http://www.tonywardedu.com/images/critical_theory/the_educational_theories_of_paulo_freire.p
df, accessed on 7/17/2017, LC)
An important element in the process of the normalisation of cultural superimpositions is their representation not as cultural products
but as facts. The banking system of education frames the deposits of knowledge as 'facts" - that is to say as objective views of reality
unmediated by any individual subjectivity, and these facts are increasingly enmeshed in scientific and objectivist terminologies which
includes the use of technical-positivist rationality to characterise the actors themselves, to define and categorise students
hierarchically, serving to locate them, to determine their abilities to judge and challenge the factuality of the knowledge with which
they have been inculcated. Schools play an important role in perpetuating the present system of social
inequality and exploitation, and in their capacity as agent of dominant cultural values they have
increasingly turned to the tools of scientific rationalism and logical positivism. Referring to the
process of education as cultural invasion, Paulo Freire says: "In cultural invasion it is essential
that those who are invaded come to see their reality with the outlook of the invaders rather than
their own; for the more they mimic the invaders, the more stable the position of the latter
becomes...To this end, the invaders are making increasing use of the social sciences and
technology, and to some extent the physical sciences as well, to improve and refine their action. It
is indispensable for the invaders to know the past and present of those invaded in order to observe the alternatives of the latter's future
and thereby attempt to guide the evolution of that future along lines that will favour their own interests." 6 As we move into the
Twenty-First Century, it is a sobering experience to look back over a century of compulsory schooling and note how it has developed
and changed. One of the most significant changes which has taken place seems to have been that school has become more
systematically "scientised". I. Q. Tests, Thematic Apperception Tests (TATs), Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SATs) and Graduate Record
Examinations (GREs) - not to mention, High School Diplomas, University Entrance Exams and (in New Zealand) Bursary
Examinations have all become the standard measures of individual student ability. So much so, that according to psychologist William
Ryan, we have in fact been misled into believing that education is about the creation of an equality
of opportunity in society, when in fact, it is really about the labelling and sorting of young people
to fit them precisely for the available number of different jobs with different aptitude
requirements in the society at large. 7 Not only has this "scientisation" of education been instrumental in shaping the way
we measure child (and adult) performance, but also - and partly as a function of its apparent success in this capacity - it has also
coloured educative notions about what constitutes truth and knowledge. In other words, the positivist analysis of
schooling serves indirectly to legitimate positivism as a key ingredient in valid learning, and
hence in the educational experience as a whole. Increasingly, over the last 100 years positivist forms of knowledge
have displaced or penetrated other, less determined and deterministic forms. Within the curriculum, science and math increasingly
predominate over art and social studies as legitimate educational pursuits. In this sense, we seem to have almost reached the stage
where science and education have become synonymous. Knowledge itself, as Martin Carnoy has so eloquently put it, has been
colonised.8 Speaking of the historical use of education in the European colonies to inculcate of a
feeling of inferiority in the indigenous peoples - in other words as the laying on of a psychological condition, Carnoy
notes that: "Colonialism becomes a description of relationships between people rather than nations. We therefore use the term to
describe the way one individual behaves toward another (one individual's subjugation of another). Since human relations usually occur
within the context of institutions (created and managed by people), these relations are shaped and mediated by institutional structures.
"Colonial" institutions have clearly defined hierarchies: the institution defines each person's role in an authoritarian structure and there
is great disparity between the control that various individuals have over its structure and operation. Such institutions are the family, the
factory, the school, the hospital etc. Colonial institutions can also be society-wide." 9 Clearly,
education, seen in this
light is hardly an egalitarian phenomenon, but is rather an operation which equates with
subjugation and oppression - which is to say with cultural violence. And if this is the case, then its constituent
parts - knowledge itself, together with the rationalism and scientific positivism which have become somuch a legitimating part of
knowledge, are implicated in this violence. Undoubtedly, this is a strong assertion and needs further explanation. It is this
juxtaposition between the effects of technical rationality, of objectivism, and the world of human experience and inter-subjectivity
which stands at the centre of any critique of education. The normalisation of objectivated knowledge turns subjectivities into objects
of indoctrination, and in this process the experience of being indoctrinated itself becomes normalised as "getting an education", with
all of its dehumanising potential. This process of dehumanisation, of the transformation of Subjects into Objects takes on an added
dimension when seen in the context of the State's need to maintain an integrated sense of "the nation" - a sense of patriotism through
which it maintains the accepted social order.
*** K---FEMINISM
 Link---Sexist Language
Freire’s sexist language ignores the role of gender and the aff’s future is
centered around erasing non-male perspectives
Ohliger 95 (John Ohlinger – Doctorate in Adult Education at University of California, Los
Angeles, Advanced study in Adult Education, University of Chicago., Masters degree in Adult
Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Professor of Education; Article; 1995; “Critical
views of Paulo Freire's work”;
http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Facundo/Ohliger1.html#VIII; accessed on 7/27/17)
[DS]
VIII. SEXISM "THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MOMENT WHEN READING FREIRE THAT I
HAVE NOT REMAINED AWARE OF THE SEXISM OF THE LANGUAGE." bell hooks [SEE
ALSO: Balke in I.; & Ellsworth in IX.] Brady, Jeanne. "Critical Literacy, Feminism, and a Politics of Representation." In Politics of
Liberation. Peter L. McLaren & Colin Lankshear, eds. Routledge, 1994. "Tied to an over-emphasis on class struggle, Freire
ignored the various forms of domination and social struggles being addressed by feminists,
minorities, ecologists, and other social actors. The most glaring example can be found in Freire's earlier work,
where the subject and object of domination are framed in thoroughgoing patriarchal discourse .
Not only are women erased in Freire's language of domination and struggle, there is no attempt to even
acknowledge how experience is gendered differently. A feminist re-reading of Freire has argued
against his exclusive focus on class as the only form of domination." hooks, bell. "Speaking About Paulo
Freire." In Paulo Freire. Peter McLaren & Peter Leonard, eds. Routledge, 1993. "There has never been a moment when reading Freire
that I have not remained aware of not only the sexism of the language but the way he (like other progressive Third World political
leaders) constructs a phallocentric paradigm of liberation wherein freedom and the experience of
patriarchal manhood are always linked as though they are one and the same. For me this is always a source of
anguish for it represents a blind spot in the vision of men who have profound insight." Weiler,
Kathleen. "Freire and a Feminist Pedagogy of Difference." In Politics of Liberation. Peter L. McLaren & Colin Lankshear, editors.
Routledge, 1994. "From a feminist perspective, Pedagogy of the Oppressed is striking in its male referent. Much
more troublesome is the failure to define terms such as 'humanization' more specifically in terms of men and women, black and white,
or other forms of socially defined identities. The assumption of Pedagogy of the Oppressed is that in struggling against oppression the
oppressed will move toward true humanity. But this leaves unaddressed the forms of oppression experienced
by different groups. Freire sets out these goals of liberation and social and political transformation
as universal claims, without exploring his own privileged position or existing conflicts among
oppressed groups themselves."

Freire subsumes women in his ideology—utilizes sexist language

Olson 92—Gary A. Olson is a noted scholar of rhetoric, writing, and culture and the President of Daemen College in Amherst, New York, a
private, co-educational, comprehensive college awarding both undergraduate and graduate degrees to a student body of over 3,000 students. He is the
author or editor (often in collaboration) of 20 books and over 100 essays and articles and has written on a number of subjects central to rhetoric studies,
including the role of theory in rhetorical scholarship, the connections between ideology and discourse, and the contributions of Stanley Fish. His most
recent book is A Creature of Our Own Making: Reflections on Contemporary Academic Life (SUNY Press, 2013). (“History, Praxis, and Change: Paulo
Freire and the Politics of Literacy,” JSTOR, available on
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20865824.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A3926af30fe8e7b5082f57088192cafcb, accessed on 7/20/2017, LC)
In true Marxist form, Paulo Freire appeals unabashedly to an "objec tive" reality that we all can come to know through careful, critical analysis. He has
little patience for poststructuralist proclamations that reality is neither objective nor knowable. In Freire's world, everything, including the objective
reality to which he so regularly appeals, is social. Of course, "there is an individual dimension of this social perception," but "the very construc tion of
Freire tends to subsume
reality is collective." The social collective, the people?this is where Freire's heart lies. Also in typical Marxist form,
the struggles of women within the class struggle. That he is becoming sensitive to charges that his writings and
pedagogy are male oriented and his language sexist is abundantly clear from this interview: he
takes pains always to say "he or she," for example, and he insists that he does "emphasize the fight against ma chismo." He even
goes so far as to say that he can "feel like a woman" in women's struggles for equality, and he appears somewhat defensive, insisting that it would be
"absolutely naive" for women to "reject my sympathy and my camaraderie because I am a man." Yet, Fre ire
seems to downplay the
women's movement, saying, "I always work together, men and women?the people" because "in
the last analysis, men and women, we are, together, human beings." These views, though, are
consistent with Freire's larger world view, for he sees himself as a man of the people. And, of course, he
has devoted his life to liberation of the masses through critical literacy. In fact, freedom is "one of the main issues of this century," and we all must
continue to strive for more and higher levels of freedom because Without freedom, it's impossible to go on." But bringing freedom through critical
literacy necessitates carefully conceived ethnographic research of a given community, and this means, again, becoming one with the people. That is, the
ethnographer must learn to "respect the reality" of the people in order to minimize the distance between the people and him or herself so as to be
positioned to intervene effectively in their reality
 Link---White Feminism
Critical pedagogy is only good for WHITE women—can’t solve, makes
feminist pedagogy key
Hoodfar 17—Homa Hoodfar is a Canadian-Iranian sociocultural anthropologist and professor emerita of anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal. While
she is most widely known for her work on Western perceptions of the veil or hijab in its varied forms, meanings, and historical uses,[1] much of her work has focused on women's
roles in public life in Muslim societies,[2] with particular attention to how religious symbols and interpretations have been variously used to support and repress women's status.[3]
(“Feminist Anthropology and Critical Pedagogy: The Anthropology of Classrooms’ Excluded Voices,” Canadian Journal of Education, available on
http://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/viewFile/2636/1945, accessed on 7/26/2017, LC)
The exponents of critical
Critical pedagogy challenges the exclusionary practices of racism, sexism, ablism, and heterosexism in the dominant society.

pedagogy have rejected the traditional view of classroom instruction in favour of approaches that
challenge the status quo. In this paper, by reviewing some of my teaching experiences as a woman of
colour, I demonstrate that not all teachers teach pedagogy in the same way. Based on my observations, I argue that
debates on critical pedagogy should include voices from outside the dominant social groups and
ethnicities, be they teachers’ or students’ voices. Furthermore, the success of teaching for social change depends on our
ability to incorporate these critical approaches in conventional courses and subject matters where,
in my experience, not all students would welcome unconventional classroom relations. La pédagogie
critique conteste les pratiques d’exclusion que sont, dans les groupes sociaux dominants, le racisme, le sexisme, l’hétérosexisme et la discrimination fondée sur les
déficiences. Les chefs de file de la pédagogie critique rejettent l’enseignement traditionnel au profit
d’approches qui mettent en question le statu quo. Dans cet article, l’auteure démontre, tout en analysant certaines de ses expériences pédagogiques en tant que Noire, que tous les
enseignants n’enseignent pas la pédagogie de la même manière. Se fondant sur ses observations, l’auteure soutient que les débats sur la pédagogie critique devraient inclure des
points de vue provenant d’ethnies ou de groupes sociaux non dominants, qu’il s’agisse des points de vue des enseignants ou des élèves. Le succès de la pédagogie eu égard aux
changements sociaux dépend de notre aptitude à incorporer ces approches critiques dans les matières et les cours traditionnels où, d’après l’expérience de l’auteure, tous les élèves
ne sont pas disposés à accueillir favorablement des méthodes d’enseignement non traditionnelles. Critical pedagogy challenges the exclusionary practices of racism, sexism,
ablism, and heterosexism in dominant society.2 Although exponents of critical pedagogy, therefore, begin theoretically with
a recognition that subject position matters, this attention to race, sex, gender, and sexuality has not
carried over into the practice of critical pedagogy. By critical pedagogy, I refer to rejecting the traditional view that classroom instruction
is an objective process removed from the crossroads of power, history, and social context, while attempting to encourage more critical teaching and learning methods. The

techniques used to challenge the status quo are not themselves appreciated as gendered and
racialized. Put simply, what works for a white female teacher may not work for a black female teacher,
regardless of a shared commitment to be critical. During the last two decades, teachers of different feminist perspectives have tried to adapt
their critical approaches to conventional scholarship by addressing the way the dominant culture, through its universalistic views, creates and perpetuates social inequality. The
goal is to encourage students to develop a critical and analytical approach to the social systems of which they are a part. This currently evolving synthesis has been painfully
difficult. If we begin with the early feminists’ attempts to add women (read white middle class women) to the universalist view of the dominant cultures of North America and
Western Europe, perhaps the most significant and painful break-through has been to overcome the blockade of “sisterhood is universal” which in effect had authorized the more
feminist scholarship(s) slowly
privileged women to talk for all other women (bell hooks, 1988; Lazreg, 1988; Mohanty, 1991; Spelman, 1988). Thereafter,

moved on not only to recognize the social and cultural differences among women but to hear and
to recognize, though reluctantly, the other voices of feminism(s). We can now link oppression of women to other forms of
oppression, thus making feminists’ concerns and the agenda for social change broader than sexism.3 Critical/feminist pedagogy has been advocated essentially as teaching to
the incorporation of critical pedagogy in the classroom has proved
influence and to subvert the social system. However,

more problematic and challenging than simply including more diverse and critical material in the
curriculum. There is a tacit agreement that a central objective of critical pedagogy is to encourage students to develop their ability to analyze and assess critically the
social structure (Cannon, 1990; de Danaan, 1990; de Lauretis, 1986; Nelson, 1986; Weiler, 1988). Students should be assisted to locate themselves, as well as others, in the social
system so as to assess the way they and others have been shaped by and in turn shape their social environments, albeit to various degrees and in different directions depending on
their social positions (Razack, 1990). One of a teacher’s important roles, therefore, is to facilitate students’ connection of their daily and life experiences to the critical literature,
much of which is written in highly abstract language. Giving voice to students’ life experiences and contextualizing these experiences in the social system have become the major
teachers to locate
strategy for encouraging critical analysis of the socio-economic environment (Frankenberg & Martens, 1985). A first step, however, is for

themselves in the structure of the society and the classroom. They can then initiate a discussion of difference. Taking
advantage of teachers’ privileged position in the classroom, they can help students recognize that
their interactions with one another and with their teachers are structured by the inequality of
power between them.