Difference between revisions of "Rhombus of K Db8 RL"

From UTNIF Disclosure Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "1NC – SP2 T Interpretation—“substantial” requires creating a new program. Redwoods.edu no date [https://inside.redwoods.edu/deancouncil/documents/Marla.SubstantialvsNo...")
 
(Blanked the page)
Line 1: Line 1:
1NC – SP2
 
T
 
Interpretation—“substantial” requires creating a new program.
 
Redwoods.edu no date [https://inside.redwoods.edu/deancouncil/documents/Marla.SubstantialvsNonsubstantialChange.pdf] Calculus BC
 
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE A new program based upon an active proposal. This action will initiate a new control number.
 
Violation: the aff modifies existing sex education standards and programs
 
Vote neg:
 
Limits—justifies an infinite number of affs that make minor changes to existing education programs—allows hyperspecific and small affs with massive advantage areas—explodes neg research burden
 
Ground—modifications to existing programs destroy DA and mechanism counterplan ground—destroys link uniqueness contextual counterplan solvency
 
Topicality is a voter for fairness and education
 
  
DA
 
Trump dedicated to reducing federal influence in education now
 
The Washington Times 2017 (S.A. Miller, Reporter for The Washington Times, “Trump to pull feds out of K-12 education”, April 26th 2017, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/26/donald-trump-pull-feds-out-k-12-education/, accessed 6/3/17, JK)
 
President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to start pulling the federal government out of K-12 education, following through on a campaign promise to return school control to state and local officials. The order, dubbed the “Education Federalism Executive Order,” will launch a 300-day review of Obama-era regulations and guidance for school districts and directs Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to modify or repeal measures she deems an overreach by the federal government. “For too long the government has imposed its will on state and local governments. The result has been education that spends more and achieves far, far, far less,” Mr. Trump said. “My administration has been working to reverse this federal power grab and give power back to families, cities [and] states — give power back to localities.” He said that previous administrations had increasingly forced schools to comply with “whims and dictates” from Washington, but his administration would break the trend. “We know local communities know it best and do it best,” said Mr. Trump, who was joined by several Republican governors for the signing. “The time has come to empower teachers and parents to make the decisions that help their students achieve success.”
 
Increased, sudden federal involvement in state education increases federal-state conflict.
 
McGuinn 2015 (Patrick, associate professor of political science and education at Drew University, “Schooling the State: ESEA and the Evolution of the U.S. Department of Education”, The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 77–94 (2015), Published December 17th 2015, http://www.rsfjournal.org/doi/full/10.7758/RSF.2015.1.3.04, accessed 6/3/17, jk)
 
This article provides an overview of the evolution of national administrative capacity and the implementation of federal education policy in the United States between 1965 and 2015 to examine the process by which federal power over schools has become institutionalized over time. The relationship between Washington and the states in the area of education has historically been predicated on cooperation rather than conflict, due to state education agencies’ long dependence on the Department of Education for a considerable portion of their budgets (about 40 percent on average), and because the federal government rarely interfered with core state education policies before the 1990s. (The department did, however, intervene forcefully on behalf of the civil rights of minority, English-language learners, and special education students in response to a series of Supreme Court rulings between 1950 and 1975.) The challenge in the post-NCLB era is that the feds have demanded that states develop new systems for tracking and disseminating student achievement data and intervening in struggling schools. States resent this new level of federal involvement and have struggled to meet all of the federal mandates. Consequently, as federal goals and methods have diverged from those of the states, the intergovernmental relationship has undergone a significant transformation. A central contribution of this article is thus to offer a detailed analysis of the new educational federalism in the post-NCLB era. It assesses how the policy mandates of the law have affected the institutional capacities and incentives for reform in state and federal departments of education to illuminate the administrative mechanisms through which this new federalism operates. Writing in the 1960s, Stephen Bailey and Edith Mosher articulate the many challenges to using federal power to drive school reform, challenges that continue to ring true today. “Both in the innovative and administrative aspects of public policy, a grant-in-aid agency must operate in a complex political environment. It must function in an intricate web of tensions spun by historical circumstance and by both coordinate and cross-purposes: congressional, presidential, judicial, group interest, intra-agency, inter-agency, inter-governmental, personal, societal, and even international. When as is the case with aid to education, the magnitude of Federal involvement is increased with dramatic suddenness, these tensions are particularly illuminated and exacerbated” (1968, vii).
 
Federalism on sex ed threatens national unity; causes fissures in morality issues
 
Barr 2010 (Sam Barr, February 4, 2010, “On Sex Ed, Who Should Decide?” < http://harvardpolitics.com/online/hprgument-blog/on-sex-ed-who-should-decide/>)//PS
 
Ross Douthat had an admirable column earlier this week arguing that, because we don’t really have strong evidence about the effectiveness of abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex-ed, we should just leave the issue to the states. Douthat says, accurately, that this battle is about “community values” more than public policy anyway. And, he concludes, values should be imposed, when they have to be imposed, at the most local level possible — no Berkeley values in Alabama, no Alabama values in Berkeley. But was this ever really a debate about public policy? If it were shown that abstinence-only education actually reduced teen pregnancy, would Berkeley types change their minds, or would their belief in what Douthat calls the “naturalist” view of sex continue to guide them? I think the latter. My intuition is that people who like abstinence-only education like it because they really, really don’t want their kids having sex, period, and people who like comprehensive sex-ed like it because they think teen sexuality is acceptable, maybe even desirable. It seems to me that the public-policy debate was always a proxy. Should moral values be imposed on the most local level possible? (Douthat says the issue should be “intensely local.”) I’m pretty sympathetic to that argument, but note that this isn’t really an argument for federalism, but for localism. There are a lot of variations between towns in the same state; Austin residents are probably going to feel differently about sex-ed than many of their fellow Texans. So, what Douthat’s argument logically leads to is a very fine patchwork of different sex-ed policies (or marriage policies, or abortion policies, or what have you). That result might have the virtue that people will usually be ruled by laws they morally approve of. But it might also entail that people will self-segregate in communities that share their values, and thus contribute to the already-vast divide between social liberals and conservatives. It might contribute to the feeling, which I hear a lot from my liberal friends and family, that we don’t or shouldn’t really share a country with people who are so incredibly different from us. It’s harder to feel that way if you share a community with such people, and see that, in addition to favoring laws you disapprove of, they also make good Little League coaches and friendly neighbors. In other words, federalism, taken to its extreme, might just threaten our national unity. I realize this is a hyperbolic conclusion for a little blog post about sex-ed, but I do generally think that this is the divide: Do you prefer proximity in law-making, or e pluribus unum in culture?
 
States have a right to education which the federal government lacks, which allows their courts to interfere with bad state policy to protect this right. Federal policy prevents state courts from acting, which leads to bad policies which hurt the poor and minority’s educations.
 
Lawson 2013 (Aaron,  J.D. 2013, University of Michigan Law School; B.A. 2010, Gettysburg College, “Educational Federalism: A New Case for Reduced Federal Involvement in K-12 Education”, Summer 2013, Volume 2013 issue 2, Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=elj, accessed 6/10/17, jk)
 
Every state constitution, in contrast with the Federal Constitution, contains some guarantee of education.18 State courts split into two groups on how to give effect to these guarantees: (1) by evaluating education policy under Equal Protection by declaring education a fundamental right or by treating wealth as a suspect classification,19 or (2) by evaluating education policies under a framework of educational adequacy.20 In either case, these clauses establish substantive educational guarantees on the state level that do not exist at the federal level and provide the courts with a role in ensuring the fulfillment of these guarantees.21 These clauses also help to create a valuable political dynamic, which has inured to the benefit of children. As part of this political dynamic, courts define the contours of these affirmative guarantees, and the legislature fulfills its own constitutional duty by legislating between those boundaries.22 However, when the federal government legislates or regulates in a given field, it necessarily constrains the ability of states to legislate in that same field.23 In the field of education, the ability of courts to protect the rights of children is dependent on the ability of legislatures freely to react to courts. As such, anything that constrains state legislatures also constrains state courts and upsets this valuable political dynamic created by the interaction of state legislatures and state courts. An expansive federal role in educational policymaking is normatively undesirable when it threatens to interfere with this political dynamic. This dynamic receives scant attention in the literature described above. However, mindfulness of this dynamic is crucial to the proper placement of the educational policymaking and regulatory epicenter. Constraints on state legislatures would not be as problematic if the federal government had proven itself adept at guaranteeing adequate educational opportunity for all students. However, RTTT and NCLB have, in some cases, proven remarkably unhelpful for poor and minority students.24 These negative outcomes, of course, are not guaranteed. However, the fact that federal involvement in education has produced undesirable outcomes for poor and minority students should cause policymakers to reexamine whether it is most desirable for the federal government to play such a significant role in education. This Comment argues that it is not. Using policies adopted in New York State in response to RTTT as an example, this Comment argues that the federal government should step aside to the extent necessary to allow state courts more flexibility to protect the substantive educational rights of poor and minority children. Specifically, where federal constitutional rights are not at issue, federal involvement in education should be minimized to the point that state courts have an unrestrained ability to protect the educational needs of, and ensure adequate educational opportunity for, each state’s children.25 This Comment does not argue for an end to all education policymaking at the federal level. Rather, it argues that the functioning of the state’s court-legislature dynamic should act as a limitation on the policies enacted at the federal level. The educational rights of poor and minority children in particular may be more efficiently safeguarded by putting the power in the hands of state courts and legislatures, whereas recent federal programs have taken that ability from the states in a way that may be detrimental to the nation’s youth. In particular, the expansion of the federal presence in the education arena has changed policymaking dramatically. Federal policy will be off limits to the remedial powers of state courts and legislatures, limiting the array of options they have when seeking to enforce constitutional guarantees of education. Unless state courts prove themselves unwilling and unable to deal with the structural problems created by educational policies, the federal government should assume a role that leaves sufficient space for state courts to operate.
 
Federal involvement weakens subnational government cooperation, which causes educational disparity despite any regulation that federal governments try to impose.
 
Hills 2013 (Roderick M. Hills Jr., a law professor at the New York University School of Law., “The Case for Educational Federalism: Protecting Educational Policy from the National Government's Diseconomies of Scale”, http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=ndlr,  Notre Dame L. Review, 6/1/12, accessed 6/17/17, jk)
 
The history of federal involvement in educational aid to indigent households is a history of federal scale diseconomies rendering ineffective the federal assistance. The essential difficulty is that assistance was directed to service providers, the incentives of which were imperfectly aligned with federal goals. In effect, the federal government had chosen an unreliable “machine” to subsidize. If the beneficiaries of the money were politically well-organized or had well-organized allies, then they could have come to the assistance of the federal government (and themselves). But indigent households lack the social capital of stably governed households, and the latter, far from wanting to assist the former in securing federal money, sought to appropriate that money for themselves. Moreover, the heterogeneity of the national population interfered with the federal government’s capacity to seek out more reliable allies: sectional controversy deterred federal use of religious education providers. The problems with misappropriation of federal aid began soon after Title I of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA)94 was enacted in 1965. The ESEA provided up to $3 billion of aid (by 1970) to aid “local education agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low-income families.”95 Within four years, however, a reputable study found that the money given to school districts was not actually spent on the education of low-income children.96 Moreover, the Martin-McClure study found that subnational governments made no effort to evaluate whether Title I money was being spent on classroom instruction that had any likelihood of improving socially disadvantaged students’ education.97 This finding was repeated by later studies showing that school districts systematically spent more on middle-income children than children from low-income households, largely because teacher salaries vary lockstep with seniority and the education of the teacher, insuring that dollars are not targeted to the teachers serving the neediest students.98 Aside from not being well-targeted towards low-income students, Title I and Head Start expenditures have consistently under-performed in producing educational results. Since the publication of A Nation at Risk, the federal government has increasingly demanded that recipients of federal aid for compensatory education test their students to show improvements in their learning.99 Despite almost thirty decades of increasingly strict accountability measures, however, the results have been disappointing.100 The cause of the subnational misdirection of ESEA money was not subnational fraud but rather the usual difficulty with intergovernmental aid: all money being green, school districts could offset the federal aid they received by re-directing state and local funds to serve noisier constituencies—middle-class parents in the suburbs and teachers in search of salary bumps unrelated to the teaching of low-income students. This pattern of subnational governments’ redirecting federal grants from assisting low-income households to local goals is not confined to educational grants: subnational agents ordinarily pursue local goals (for instance, economic development) with national resources unless carefully monitored by their national principal.101 Indeed, these local incentives to under-provide national goods are precisely the justification for the federal grant in the first place.102 The federal government has attempted to solve this problem of unfaithful subnational implementation by tightening national standards of curriculum and student evaluation. But the federal government itself is impeded by scale diseconomies that prevent it from controlling errant subnational behavior. The federal government lacks the fiscal tools available to subnational governments—in particular, capitalization of educational investments into property values— that could induce local voters to pay less attention to the fate of grant revenues than own-source revenues. That local voters focus less intensely on the fate of grant revenues than own-source revenues is a familiar point.103 By contrast with the parents and taxpayers of a school district, voters at the national scale pay little attention to federal reform efforts.104 Moreover, the federal governments’ threats to discipline the local school district for sluggish response to federal mandates are impeded by the small amounts of federal revenue at stake: threats to pull grants can be empty threats when the realization of the threat would injure the very constituencies that the feds are trying to aid.105 Parental social networks that might work at the local level are less effective at the national level. Ideological gridlock is most intense at the national level, and such strife has impeded the federal government’s ability to impose accountability measures. The re-authorization of “No Child Left Behind” has languished in legislative limbo since 2007 as Congress is paralyzed by partisan gridlock, and ethnocultural conflict has prevented the federal government from using private educational providers to induce greater fidelity from local school districts.106
 
Increased federal policy fails to mobilize change and only leads to increased backlash, making schools unstable and the impacts of the 1AC inevitable.
 
Hills 2013 (Roderick M. Hills Jr., a law professor at the New York University School of Law., “The Case for Educational Federalism: Protecting Educational Policy from the National Government's Diseconomies of Scale”, http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=ndlr,  Notre Dame L. Review, 6/1/12, accessed 6/17/17, jk)
 
Household autonomy, in short, implies federalism. The national government’s role can be limited to supplementing households’ and subnational governments’ incentives where educational programs have spillover benefits not captured by parents and homeowners and where, as a result, subnational government will tend to under-supply the good in question—for instance, military science (e.g., West Point) or aid to the indigent (e.g., Head Start). On the pessimistic side, I will suggest that the national government does not have a good track record of mobilizing households that lack stable governance to provide political support for its educational programs. Where the beneficiaries of federal educational programs have been stably governed households—for instance, family farms or children with learning disabilities— then those beneficiaries control the program and maintain its funding. Unlike stably governed households, however, households headed by indigent or single parents do not have the organizational capacity to mount strong political support for federal initiatives. Federal reforms for the benefit of these households are, therefore, perpetually at risk of being overwhelmed by ethnocultural divisions or cartels of educational providers—the same forces that stymie educational equality at the subnational level, but, at the federal level, further aided by the unwieldy bicameral and presidentialist legislative process that mires the national democracy in perennial gridlock. National interventions to promote educational equality, therefore, face a paradox of what Paul Peterson has called the mismatch between “functional” and “political” federalism.2 If the federal government focuses on its functional advantage of aiding constituencies that subnational governments neglect, then the federal reform may lack sufficient political support. But, if the federal government broadens its mandate to pursue generalized reforms of the K-12 curriculum, teacher evaluation, or testing of students, then they diffuse their revenue and regulatory effort in fixing that which is not broken—the subnational educational system catering to stably governed households. Worse yet, such federal reforms might break what does not need to be fixed, by eroding school districts’ reliance on local political networks and own-source revenue, characteristics that make those districts responsive to the demands of stably governed households. Uniform testing mandates or teacher evaluation standards may also provoke a backlash from middle-class suburban households who find federal reforms—for instance, testing mandates or curricular standards—to be a gratuitous impediment to what they regard as well-functioning schools. Like Plunkitt’s reforming “mornin’ glories,” reformers are not likely to have staying power unless they can find or create some “machine” with the political capacity to carry on the reform after the federal reformers have lost national power. Federal educational reformers, therefore, might be best advised to focus on the political over the technocratic: they might concentrate less on pedagogical reforms best designed to induce educational achievement and more on fostering subnational constituencies that will sustain federal reforms through the vicissitudes of national politics. Rather than anxiously specify pedagogical programs (“portfolio schools,” KIPP, Successful for All, etc.) to see which offers the best hopes for an upward tick in standardized test scores, reformers might instead focus on cultivating a constituency of grateful low-income parents by giving them the incentives and political skills to fight for their own educational interests. The ultimate goal should be to transform the beneficiaries of federal action into a constituency with the same political clout as the stably governed households that dominate subnational government. Otherwise, federal educational policy may become a recipe for policy-making ADD—in Charles Payne’s pungent phrase: “so much reform, so little change.”3
 
 
CP
 
The Fifty United States and all relevant territories should eliminate funding for abstinence-only sex education and fully fund sexual education programs that meet the criteria established by the Real Education for Healthy Youth Act.
 
 
States are key to education and preventing “one size fits all” programs. The CP also aligns responsibility and moves towards a more practical decision calculus.
 
Kelly and Hess 9/15/2015 [Andrew P. Kelly is a resident scholar and director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Entrprise Institute. Frederick M. Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the new book, “Letters to a Young Education Reformer.” More Than a Slogan Here are five good reasons federalism is so important in education. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/09/15/5-reasons-federalism-in-education-matters] Calculus BC
 
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. ADVERTISING 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. [READ: The Best Way to Boost GDP: Education?] 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 for students than the wish lists and airy promises of Beltway pols. It leaves room for varied approaches to 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. [READ: Knowledge Is Literacy] 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, funding research and promoting interstate transparency. The feds also have opportunities to take on the dominance of entrenched local interests by playing a "trust-busting" role. Federal recognition of alternative approaches like charter schools, nontraditional teacher licensure programs and innovative postsecondary programs can challenge incumbents' privileged market position. Federal funding is another trust-busting lever; wherever possible, reformers should ensure that public dollars flow to students and families and empower them to choose. Rather than write prescriptive rules that all schools must obey, trust-busting gives local problem-solvers an opportunity to change politics and policy from the bottom up. But the feds are not well equipped to fix 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.
 
 
States solve better—sex ed policy is decentralized
 
Kaiser 02 [Kaiser Family Foundation. March 2002. “Sex Education in the U.S.: Policy and Politics.” The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2000/09/3224-sex-education-in-the-us-policy-and-politics.pdf. SH]
 
Despite these federal efforts, sex education policy is mostly decentralized. And, since states may have multiple policies governing the teaching of sex education, the overall policy picture is fairly complex. For example, states that require that sex education be taught may vary considerably in terms of what, if any, curriculum they specify. Meanwhile, a state that has no specific policy on sex education may still “recommend” that educators take a particular course of action or even specify that a school district opting to offer sex education adhere to a particular curriculum. Even within an individual state, there may be differing policies governing mandates for education about contraception or abstinence and instruction on HIV/AIDS and other STDs. In fact, more states require schools to offer specific HIV or STD education than general sex education. It is also common for states to have different requirements for students in different grade levels. These policy distinctions among and within states are often lost in the larger debate about sex education. As of December 1, 2001, 22 states require that students receive sex education and thirty-eight states require that students receive instruction about HIV/STDs:14 • Twenty-one (21) states require schools to provide both sex education as well as instruction on HIV/STDs (AK, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, MD, MN, NV, NJ, NC, RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, WV, WY). • Seventeen (17) states require instruction about HIV/STDs, but not sex education (AL, CA, CT, ID, IN, MI, MS, NH, NM, NY, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, WA, WI). • One state requires sex education, but not STD instruction (ME). Specific requirements about what should be taught are also on the books in a number of states. Thirty-four (34) states require local school districts that offer sex education to teach about abstinence: Nine require that it be covered (CT, DE, FL, GA, KY, MI, NJ, VT, VA) and twenty require that it be stressed (AL, AZ, AK, CA, HI, IL, IN, LA, MD, MS, MO, NC, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, WV). In addition, thirteen of these states require local school districts that do offer sex education to cover information about contraception (AL, CA, DE, HI, MD, MO, NJ, OR, RI, SC, VT, VA, WV), but no state requires that birth control information be emphasized. Thirty-five states (35) give parents some choice as to whether or not their children can receive sex education or STD instruction (AL, AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, ID, IL, IA, KS, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NJ, NV, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA, UT, WA, WV, WI).15 Most of these states give parents the option of withdrawing their children from the courses. Three of these states (AZ, NV, UT) say that parents must actively consent before the instruction begins, while one of these (AZ) has an opt-out policy for STD education while requiring parental consent for sex education. Of the states with “opt-out” policies, five require that it be due to a family’s religious or moral beliefs.
 
States key—have the most power over sex ed
 
PSU 17 [Penn State University. April 6, 2017. “Who Decides?” https://sites.psu.edu/youhaveissues/2017/04/06/who-decides/. SH]
 
State: State government has the most power in determining sex education in its state. States can mandate that sexuality education be taught, require schools to teach about STDs or HIV/AIDS, set state-wide guidelines for topics, choose curricula, and approve textbooks. These mandates and guidelines can be either governed by law, as passed by state legislature and signed by the governor, or established by the State Department of Education. State departments of education are also generally responsible for disbursing state and federal funds to local school districts, so they have the power to monitor how the programs are being implemented before distributing the funds.
 
State control is key—cultural differences
 
Bell 09 [Kelly J. Kelly J. Bell graduated in 2011 with a concentration in Psychology from Simmons College in Boston, MA. “Wake Up and Smell the Condoms: An Analysis of Sex Education Programs in the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, France, and Germany.” Inquiries 2009m Vol. 1 No. 1. SH]
 
However, it is important to note that concepts of sexuality vary vastly among cultures. Effective sex education programs must be culturally appropriate (Labauve & Mabray, 2002) . Simply adapting the policies of another country would not solve United States’ sexual health problems. In fact, due to the incredible cultural variations between states and regions in the United States, I would suggest that the implementation of a single, national sex education curriculum would also be ineffective. Comprehensive sex education, starting in elementary school and continuing throughout high school, should be mandatory in schools across the country, but it should be up to individual states to develop a curriculum that meets the specific needs of its population.
 
 
Case
 
Low income minorities don’t receive the same sex education as their upper class peers.
 
Horne 15 [Horne, Emily A., "Sexual Education across the United States: Are we doing it right?" (2015). Scripps Senior Theses. Paper 676. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1675&context=scripps_theses pg. 11] Calculus BC
 
Another large problem for sexual education is that racial minorities are less likely to receive factually accurate information through their sexual health education (Taylor & Ward 1991; Guzzo & Hayford 2012). Research shows that African American and Latina women are more likely to have misconceptions and conspiracy beliefs about different forms of contraception (Thornburn & Bogart 2005; Venkat, Masch, Ng, Cremer, Richman, & Arslan 2008; Guzzo & Hayford 2012). Not only does this imply that there is less of an effort to educate these communities, but it also raises the question of class. Socioeconomic status has a large impact on one’s sexual education and health (Thornburn & Bogart 2005; Venkat, Masch, Ng, Cremer, Richman, & Arslan 2008; Guzzo & Hayford 2012; Lloyd, Ferguson, Corbie-Smith, Ellison, Blumenthal, Council, Youmans, Muhammad, Wynn, Adimora, & Akers 2012). Quality of education in the public school system is generally reflective of the socioeconomic stratification of residential communities, which means that the quality of the sexual education programs is generally worse in low-income, minority districts (Guzzo &Hayford 2012)
 
Poverty negatively affects sexual health.
 
Bell 09 [Kelly J. Kelly J. Bell graduated in 2011 with a concentration in Psychology from Simmons College in Boston, MA. “Wake Up and Smell the Condoms: An Analysis of Sex Education Programs in the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, France, and Germany.” Inquiries 2009m Vol. 1 No. 1. SH]
 
Discouragingly, even if the US adopts a comprehensive sex education curriculum and funds sexual health services for youth, the entire problem will not be solved. Other major causes of poor sexual health in the US are the high poverty rates and uneven distribution of wealth (Lottes, 2002). As long as high numbers of American youth are living in poverty, US teen sexual health will continue to rate worse than that of other industrialized countries. Addressing these issues is extremely complicated and a topic that must be saved for another paper.
 
The Vatican is pushing for identity based CSE in the squo.
 
VoxCantor 16 [Sexual indoctrination: an attack on parental rights, family and children’s souls. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/sexual-indoctrination-an-attack-on-parental-rights-family-and-childrens-sou] Calculus BC (lol that this card is written by an angry Christian but still provides descriptive analysis)
 
The Vatican At the last World Youth Day held in Poland, 2016, the Vatican released a radical sex education program. To the shock of many, the goal of the program contradicts past Church teaching on marriage, family and life. The program is called “The Meeting Point: Course for Affective Sexual Education for Young people.” It's an explicit sexual program that is the direct fallout from Pope Francis' Amoris Laetitia. The program is illustrated with a number of what can only be called pornographic photos. What's wrong with it? There are so many things. To begin, it teaches about gender identity...a concept which is totally anti-Catholic because it rejects the biological and divine idea that human beings are made in the image of God, and created male and female. Instead, the Vatican program pushes the notion that parents are to make sure that their children are instructed in sexual education. But the program undermines parental rights by telling parents to let institutions do the sexual teaching not that parents are the prime educators of their children. There is no mention of sexual sins or the breaking of the 6th and 9th commandments. Basically, the Vatican has surrendered to the modern comprehensive sex education buzzword which is being pushed by all Western countries.
 
Sexual socialization begins in childhood, meaning biases are pre-entrenched by parents and community standards.
 
Shtarkshall, Santelli, and Hirsch 2k7 [Ronny A. Shtarkshall is head of the Social Science and Health Behavior Program, Braun School of Public Health, and of community medicine at the Hebrew University and Hadassah Medical Organization, Jerusalem. John S. Santelli is professor of clinical population and family health and clinical pediatrics, Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health; and Jennifer S. Hirsch is associate professor of sociomedical sciences—both at the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York. Guttmacher institute, Sex Education and Sexual Socialization: Roles for Educators and Parents, https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2007/sex-education-and-sexual-socialization-roles-educators-and-parents] Calculus BC
 
Socialization, in contrast, is the process through which an individual acquires an understanding of ideas, beliefs and values, shared cultural symbols, meanings and codes of conduct.10 Sexual socialization of babies and children begins at home, where parents have the opportunity to emphasize their most deeply held values (whether or not these are shared by mainstream society). From a very young age, children are exposed to messages about modesty, nudity and privacy, including gender-specific messages about proper conduct. Parental responses to infant masturbation, displays of physical affection between parents and the instruction children receive about appropriate physical contact with others influence children’s understanding of their own sexuality. Discussions of physical differences between men and women and parents’ responses to the ways in which children use sexual language help shape children’s awareness of sexuality. Parents teach children about their values and behavioral expectations through these explicit and implicit messages and actions. These essential forms of early sexual socialization12,13 are generally not considered part of formal sex education. Sexual socialization also takes place outside the home as children and adolescents observe community norms, consume mass media, and participate in cultural and religious activities. This sexual socialization includes learning about religious values, which may include views of sexuality as a divine gift and sex as limited to marriage. Children and adolescents are also exposed to a diversity of cultural viewpoints on abortion, birth control and gender roles. Such issues sometimes remain unaddressed in schools, as teachers may feel reluctant to explore these diverse opinions, fearing that such discussions will be perceived as endorsing or refuting specific religious and cultural values. However, exploring and understanding both family and community influences on sexuality is an integral component of sex education.
 
Parents want CSE, but prefer that they retain their roles and that schools emphasize abstinence.
 
Shtarkshall, Santelli, and Hirsch 2k7 [Ronny A. Shtarkshall is head of the Social Science and Health Behavior Program, Braun School of Public Health, and of community medicine at the Hebrew University and Hadassah Medical Organization, Jerusalem. John S. Santelli is professor of clinical population and family health and clinical pediatrics, Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health; and Jennifer S. Hirsch is associate professor of sociomedical sciences—both at the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York. Guttmacher institute, Sex Education and Sexual Socialization: Roles for Educators and Parents, https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2007/sex-education-and-sexual-socialization-roles-educators-and-parents] Calculus BC
 
A third set of considerations pertinent to education and socialization are parent and adolescent preferences concerning sex education. Parents express support for a robust school-based program of sex education, as do large proportions of young people, who also value the input of their parents. A 2004 survey of the parents of middle school and high school students in the United States found overwhelming support for sex education in school: Ninety percent believed it was very or somewhat important that sex education be taught in school, and only 7% did not want it to be taught.28 Most parents supported a comprehensive approach emphasizing abstinence, and only 15% wanted abstinence-only sex education.
 
Comprehensive sex ed is an assimilatory tactic of cisheteropatriarchy – the progressive narrative of inclusion envelops deviant subjects into a neoliberal restructuring of the nuclear family, which only permits the biopolitical management of trans and gender non-conforming subjects.
 
Shannon 16 (Barrie Shannon, PhD Candidate at the School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. “Comprehensive for who? Neoliberal directives in Australian ‘comprehensive’ sexuality education and the erasure of GLBTIQ identity,” Sex Education, 2016)[discourse modified]*
 
Sameness, ‘homonormativity’ and GLBTIQ erasure Harris and Farrington (2014) and Riggs and Due (2013) critique the discourses of ‘sameness and homogeneity’ which permeate contemporary sexuality education, particularly in relation to the way in which GLBTIQ people are portrayed as the same as heterosexual people. This sameness is provided as a justification for queer people to deserve legitimacy, respect and representation within the curriculum. The underlying assumption is ‘that they [GLBTIQ people] want nothing more than to assimilate to the standards and limitations dictated by heterosexual hegemony’ (Peterson 2013, 489). This practice of assimilation, which avoids critique, is somewhat of a litmus test for those who can be deemed eligible for social citizenship. Halberstam (2003) has observed a similar trend in queer activism and representation more broadly. The dominant narrative of the ‘gay and lesbian community is used as a rallying cry for fairly conservative social projects aimed at assimilating gays and lesbians into the mainstream life of the nation and the family’ (Halberstam 2003, 314). Halberstam (2003) critiques the placement of GLBTIQ people into the dominant heteronormative temporality consisting of birth, marriage, reproduction and death, dominantly portrayed as the ‘natural’ or universally desirable human lifespan. Riggs and Due (2013) demonstrate this point in their exploration of how the topic of same-sex families is broached in Australian classroom discussions. Although Australian sexuality education curricula are often well-meaning in their attempts to include same-sex families, they appear ‘typically through a guise of liberal equality that enshrines heterosexuality as the norm against which non-heterosexual people are measured’ (Riggs and Due 2013, 102). Though it is important that sexuality education curricula emphasise the notion that queer families should be viewed as ‘normal’, and certainly treated as legal and societal equals, the constitution of the ‘normal’ family in this context evades interrogation. A lack of critical attention to the normative ‘family’ entrenches several assumptions about families and the expected social and economic roles of each family member. Peterson (2013, 487) writes that the family is seen to be the ‘primary organising feature of social, civil, cultural, and economic life’. The portrayal of the family, however, is ‘predicated on persistent and unidentified, heteronormative assumptions and conscriptions’ (Peterson 2013, 487), such as dominant modes of economic participation, cultural reproduction, and childbirth and child-rearing (Peterson 2011). The family itself is often presented as intertwined with seemingly ‘natural’ biological processes. Focuses on ‘reproductive biology tend to reinforce a normatively gendered and naturalised understanding of parenthood, gender, and familial responsibilities … [which] link these social understandings to biology’ (McNeill 2013, 836). Existing on the periphery of this normative and ‘natural’ model, GLBTIQ families are implicitly burdened with the ‘need to somehow prove their ‘sameness’ with heterosexuals in order to gain social credibility and legitimacy’ (Peterson 2013, 489). Wilton (1996) notes that the ‘sameness’ test is often enforced on GLBTIQ people in same-sex relationships and their families, in the form of gendered assumptions or questions about their roles in their own relationships and in public life. Examples provided by Wilton (1996) often relate to confusion about who fulfils gendered expectations as arbitrary as the completion of domestic duties, or each partner’s ‘role’ during sexual intercourse. Peterson (2013, 488) thus warns that ‘individuals and relationships that exist outside the family’s designated bounds are at risk of being deemed undesirable, unworthy of support, and even pathological’. The ability to prove this sameness, or at least appear to be doing so, is a privilege that cisgendered queer people enjoy that gender non-conforming or transgender people do not. Virtually all representations of the nuclear family include a complementarity of typical male and female gender roles, from which children are offered a ‘balance’ of normative gender expression. Consequently for transgendered [transgender]* people who display visual and social transgressions of traditional gender roles, it may not be possible to be reconciled into the traditional family model at all. Transgendered [transgender]* and gender non-conforming people and their families therefore face continued exclusion and discrimination within and outside of the GLBTIQ rights movement (Jauk 2013). Elliott (2014) alleges that liberationist activisms and the queering of structural institutions are actively discouraged through the employment of neoliberal discourses. The tenets of ‘good’ neoliberal citizenship are the ability ‘to be self-managing, self-responsible, and desiring of self-advancement – and to conform to, rather than challenge, existing institutional arrangements’ (Elliott 2014, 212). Sexuality and its consequences are expected to be personally managed and kept private, therefore preventing any meaningful open dialogue about the social aspects of sex, sexuality and gender expression. Sexual autonomy in decision-making and interpersonal relationships is encouraged in neoliberal sexuality education. McAvoy (2013, 495) agrees in this sense that ‘sex education that prioritises the value of autonomy reifies inequality’. Elliott (2014, 222) eloquently rebukes the notion of sexual autonomy by stating that ‘we are not invulnerable, autonomous agents… we are intimately linked with others, a fact that should be acknowledged and unpacked in the sex education classroom as well as in public policy and government discourse’. If we accept Elliott’s (2014) argument that we are ‘intimately linked with others’, it follows that we should look to shape a curriculum that acknowledges and celebrates the actual lived experiences of young people; sexuality in the classroom must emphasise personhood and mutuality if it is to be relevant and effective. This is especially important for young GLBTIQ people whose identities are subject to erasure under a heterosexualised and gendered curriculum, and whose capability to feel ‘intimately linked’ with the world around them is diminished.
 
“Inclusive language” doesn’t discuss same-sex or single parent families.
 
McNeill 13 [Tanya McNeill received her PhD in Sociology with a Certificate in Feminist Studies from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 2008. She has taught in Women’s and Gender Studies, LGBT Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, Wellesley College, the University of California at Davis, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. Her research interests include the production of knowledge about the family, the regulation of gender, race, sexuality, and class, childhood and gender, and LGBT advocacy. Her essay, ‘A nation of families: The codification and (be)longings of heteropatriarchy’ was published in Toward a Sociology of the Trace in 2010. She currently lives in Eugene, Oregon, where she is researching cultural and political representations of gender creative (or gender non-conforming) children. file:///C:/Users/Benny/Downloads/sex%20education%20and%20the%20promotion%20of%20heteronormativity.pdf “Sex education and the promotion of heteronormativity” pg. 10] Calculus BC
 
The inclusion of language that recognizes the ‘many forms’ that families ‘come in’ suggests openness to ‘difference,’ yet the document demonstrates the limits of the state’s tolerance for diversity. Two-parent families are described as ‘traditional’ and as containing a mother, father and children, and ‘blended families’ are described as the result of the marriage of a man and women. There is no discussion of gay and lesbian headed two-parent families (much less single-parent families). This reproduces and reinforces both heterosexuality and heteronormativity.
 
Canada proves that sex education is designed to outline who and what LGBTQ+ and disabled people need to be. Comprehensive sex education contends itself to be diverse and inclusive, but mimics the narrowed view of neoliberal mentality and reinforces violence against disabled people in the name of “normal”
 
McMinn 17 (TL McMinn thesis for Master of Arts Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto “Sex Education as Neoliberal Inclusion: Hetero-cis-ableism in Ontario’s 2015 Health and Physical Education Curriculum” <http://search.proquest.com/docview/1884603730?pq-origsite=gscholar>)
 
The following research question informed this study: how does hetero-cis-ableism operate in the Ontario H&PE curriculum to construct idealised versions of gender and sexual difference while erasing those that are less valuable? The analysis of this research question resulted in the acquisition several significant passages that aided in the creation of seven categories (example, special education/accommodations, sensitivity and controversy, diversity and difference, furthering a cause, inclusion, identity and self-concept) that fit within the five original themes (disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, mental health). Discourse Analysis The following discourse analysis, split into the seven categorical sections, contains the passages that I felt best reflected my research question. (bad) Example. The ‘(bad) Example’ category was only seen within the disability and mental health themes and was primarily found within the personal safety and injury prevention and substance use, addictions, and related behaviours sections. The category was used in conjunction with human development and sexual health in that many sexual health discussions surround the use of contraception and abstinence with the clear point of avoiding or minimising the risk of illness and pregnancy in relation to sexual activity. In this instance to be an example, and almost always a bad example, is in direct connection to consequence(s) for bad or poor behaviour and/or actions of an individual. Being safe and protecting yourself is a good thing; it is a natural instinct and it makes sense to have developments and lessons on the subject within health curricula. However, the  rhetoric of “doing bad things (smoking/drugs/drinking/sex/other risky behaviour) will lead to illness and injury and isn’t that something you should avoid?” is in direct contrast with language that consists of and insists on the “inclusion” and “integration” of disabled children (Ontario's Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 60). The curriculum content that focuses solely on consequences of poor life choices or “acting without thinking” (all of which could leave the individual disabled, ill, or dead) counteract the positive narrative curriculum designers are trying to instil. This is not suggesting that we cease to warn children of the dangers and effects of smoking, drugs, or alcohol, or that wearing protective equipment, whether you are riding a bike or considering having sex, isn’t important. It is; but what is just as important is how and why we say it. Figure 1: Grade 8 example of “dangerous behaviours” p.215 of the 2015 Ontario Grade 1-8 Health and Physical Education Curriculum Figure 1, while accurate (in terms of a cause and effect rationality), and to the point, leaves a bad taste in my mouth regarding the negativity that is associated with the onset or potentiality of disability. While these are severe and dangerous situations that are being discussed, there is nothing following that states that having or acquiring a disability is not the death of life; the prompt simply ends with “may even lead to death” (see Figure 1). How these types of situations are handled is not surprising, however, as Western society has been trained to look at difference with scrutiny and apprehension; difference in this case would be the acquisition of a spinal cord or heard injury. I acknowledge that these negative overtones were created to cause fear and to instil a disturbing and even nagging narrative in the students’ mind that would, hopefully, cause them to think twice before entering potentially dangerous situations, however, it does not consider the effect this narrative has on life with disability or the meaning of it as a whole and creates an attitude that disability is only created through thoughtlessness. As disability is already looked at as a negative and is always already linked to death, this message of doom reinforces the adage “better dead than disabled” and may present those already living with disabilities, regardless of how it was acquired, with a sense of helplessness and hopelessness in regards to their own futurity and longevity (Schaller, 2008; Shildrick, Death, debility and disability, 2015).This works with instances of mental health as well as, and although mental health awareness is a key component of the 2015 H&PE curricula, the messages are never about mental illness (or disability) as a part of life, only as something that needs to be taken care of or as something that needs to be prevented. Although the above figure does not strictly relate to mental health, it does suggest that possible situations that may “lead to injury or death” could be related to “mental, physical, emotional, or social harm resulting from mental health and/or addition problems” and furthers this when it asks to “describe behaviours that can help to reduce risk” and three of the last examples are “using self-acceptance, coping, and help-seeking skills” (see Figure 1) suggests that possible reasonings for unsafe behaviours may be due to mental health concerns. It does not, however, pursue this any further within the teacher prompt or student response. The concern for mental health and mental health awareness is apparent throughout the beginning of both 2015 H&PE curricula, however, the lack of attention throughout the documents, especially that dedicated to primary and middle grades, suggests that the conversations are viewed as unnecessary, overwrought, and just plain uncomfortable to have.
 
Sex ed requirements are often disregarded and instead replaced with heteronormative propaganda that criminalizes anything that threatens the nuclear family.
 
McNeill 13 [Tanya McNeill received her PhD in Sociology with a Certificate in Feminist Studies from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 2008. She has taught in Women’s and Gender Studies, LGBT Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, Wellesley College, the University of California at Davis, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. Her research interests include the production of knowledge about the family, the regulation of gender, race, sexuality, and class, childhood and gender, and LGBT advocacy. Her essay, ‘A nation of families: The codification and (be)longings of heteropatriarchy’ was published in Toward a Sociology of the Trace in 2010. She currently lives in Eugene, Oregon, where she is researching cultural and political representations of gender creative (or gender non-conforming) children. file:///C:/Users/Benny/Downloads/sex%20education%20and%20the%20promotion%20of%20heteronormativity.pdf “Sex education and the promotion of heteronormativity” pg. 7-8] Calculus BC
 
Only 12 states and Washington DC require that schools include what SIECUS and the Guttmacher Institute describe as ‘positive’ information about LGBTQ issues.11 California, for example, is required to provide sexuality education curricula ‘appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities’ (Official California Legislative Information, n.d.a). Moreover, the California Education Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of ‘disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, 832 Sexualities 16(7) [or] sexual orientation’ (Official California Legislative Information (n.d.b). Despite the state’s anti-discrimination mandate, the state policy document Health Framework for California Public Schools: Kindergarten Though Grade Twelve articulates the superiority of heteronormative families. It does so in two brief paragraphs that describe such families in an affectively dense manner. This description demonstrates the ambivalence of the state towards non-heteronormative or ‘nontraditional’ individuals and families. [this portion is the actual law’s write up that is being referenced] A functional family unit is vital to the well-being of children. Children usually develop best when they live in a stable environment with their mother and father and receive from their parents consistent love, support, and direction. However, children from nontraditional families can also develop successfully. Given the variety of nontraditional families in contemporary society, it is important that children not reared in two parent families be convinced that their situation can also be conducive to growth and development. Further, it is important that children not be denigrated because of their living arrangement or the composition of their family. All students, regardless of their current living arrangement, can benefit from classroom instruction and discussion on family living. They can learn how they can contribute to making the family unit harmonious and successful now as well as in the future – when they will likely become parents. (California Department of Education, 2003: 63) Heteronormative families are characterized as ‘functional,’ ‘stable,’ and ‘consistent,’ which links normative and affective concepts. The description links these normative families as sites of ‘love, support, and direction.’ Positive affects and affective states are linked with normative family forms. The juxtaposition of the description of two-parent heterosexual, married families with a discussion of ‘nontraditional’ families (and the use of the word ‘however’) implies that nonheteronormative families are not ‘functional,’ ‘stable’ or ‘consistent’ and that they are unlikely to offer the same level of ‘love, support, and direction’ as ‘traditional’ families can. This logic pathologizes unmarried heterosexual parents as well as LGBTQ parents. Moreover the state articulates the norm of parenthood, and family as central to adulthood and citizenship by positing that these students ‘will likely become parents.’
 
“LGBTQ+ Friendly” education only manages negative stigma whilst maintaining the superiority of the nuclear family.
 
McNeill 13 [Tanya McNeill received her PhD in Sociology with a Certificate in Feminist Studies from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 2008. She has taught in Women’s and Gender Studies, LGBT Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, Wellesley College, the University of California at Davis, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. Her research interests include the production of knowledge about the family, the regulation of gender, race, sexuality, and class, childhood and gender, and LGBT advocacy. Her essay, ‘A nation of families: The codification and (be)longings of heteropatriarchy’ was published in Toward a Sociology of the Trace in 2010. She currently lives in Eugene, Oregon, where she is researching cultural and political representations of gender creative (or gender non-conforming) children. file:///C:/Users/Benny/Downloads/sex%20education%20and%20the%20promotion%20of%20heteronormativity.pdf “Sex education and the promotion of heteronormativity” pg. 9] Calculus BC
 
The assertion of the superiority of a particular family form raises affective and pedagogical problems in the classroom. According to these state policies, teachers in California12 and in Prince William County must simultaneously teach their students that the heteropatriarchal family is most ‘desirable’ and manage (or discipline) the negative feelings that might emerge for students whose families look ‘different.’13 Although these statements seem to be articulating the importance of respecting all students and all families, they produce the very ideas about ‘non-traditional families’ that they then attempt to counter. The discussion of the superiority of heteronormative families produces inequality and itself is a form of ‘denigration’ of children from gay and lesbian families, single-parent families, foster families, grandparent or legal guardian headed families, polyamorous families, or any number of other non-heteronormative family formations. These assumptions about both normative and ‘nontraditional’ families permeate US public policy and demonstrate the limitations of diversity discourses. Discussions of family ‘difference’ in sexuality education policy and curricula reveal a deep ambivalence towards diversity; these texts create a hierarchy of family forms within schools, and within society at large. Certain families are more valuable to the state than others.14 Teaching that the heteronormative family is preferable to all other family forms generates tensions around how to manage students’ feelings of ‘worth’ and belonging. This illustrates the affective nature of heteropatriarchy as a social structure. It is also a moment of ambivalence in public school policy; it pits conflicting pedagogical goals against each other. How are students to be taught self-esteem and feelings of competence and worth (all included in Virginia’s standards), when they are simultaneously taught that their families do not fit the desired norm? These moments of ambivalence and contradiction are frequent in curricular documents dealing with sexuality and family. In the next section I take the state of Virginia’s curricular standards as a case study of the heteronormative regulation of the family, and of the state’s regulation of affect.
 
Conservative backlash means that states don’t follow through
 
Jonathan Zimmerman, 8-31-2014, "A global front against sex ed,"(Jonathan Zimmerman is the professor of the history of educaton at NYU), Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sex-education-is-a-global-dividing-line-between-liberals-and-conservatives/2014/08/31/b92715b0-2e3b-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html?utm_term=.1fbd7c153796
 
Two decades later, girls’ education has expanded steadily around the globe. But sex education has stalled. In most countries, children and adolescents receive a smattering of information about their reproductive organs and a set of stern warnings against putting them to use. Whereas the Cairo meeting envisioned preparing youths to be autonomous sexual beings, most contemporary sex education simply admonishes them against sex itself. And that’s not because certain parts of the world are “conservative” or “traditional” on the topic. Instead, conservatives around the globe have united across borders to block or inhibit sex education. On issues of sex and reproduction, it’s not East vs. West anymore. It’s liberals vs. conservatives, each of which often have more in common with their ideological soulmates in other parts of the world than they do with people next door. This configuration was already apparent at the Cairo meeting, where delegates from seven countries — including the host nation, Egypt — dissented from the resolution on sex education. As an Iranian representative explained, the resolution “could be interpreted as applying to sexual relations outside the framework of marriage, which is totally unacceptable.” The resolution was also condemned by the Vatican, which had sent a papal envoy to Tehran earlier that year to coordinate its campaigns against the Cairo accords. The resolution caught the attention of growing Muslim immigrant communities in Europe, who joined hands with native white conservatives against sex education. On most issues, including immigration itself, these groups were at loggerheads. But on sex education, they saw eye to eye. Meanwhile, a burgeoning network of international organizations bound conservatives together. Born a year after Cairo, the World Congress of Families united Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews who opposed abortion, same-sex marriage and sex education. It received a letter of praise in 2004 from President George W. Bush, who had declared that one-third of U.S. foreign assistance for HIV/AIDS prevention would be devoted to abstinence-only education. But the global right was not simply a product of conservative U.S. support, as liberal critics too often assume. When U.S. delegates condemned a reference to “reproductive health services and education” at a U.N. special session on children in 2002, the other opponents of the language were Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and Syria. On sex education, one observer wryly noted, the United States had united with the “axis of evil” that it otherwise reviled. With the election of Barack Obama, U.S. foreign policy became friendlier to sex education and reproductive rights. But the global campaign against sexual information for adolescents continued. In Asia and Africa, especially, critics railed against “Western” sex education. They simultaneously made common cause with their conservative brethren in the West, borrowing the rhetoric of family values and — increasingly — multiculturalism. Consider the reaction to the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s 2009 “International Guidelines on Sexuality Education,” which urged schools to address often-ignored topics — including masturbation, abortion and contraception — so that adolescents could develop their own sexual selves. One critic in Singapore blasted the “U.S.-centrism” of the guidelines, which were authored by two American educators. He was echoed by a right-wing opponent in the United States, who decried the standards as a “one-size-fits-all approach” that was “damaging to cultures, religions, and to children.” In the 20 years since Cairo, the world has globalized as never before. Hundreds of millions of people have migrated among countries, while digital technologies forge new connections across them. But as the fate of sex education shows, globalization does not necessarily mean liberalization. It can also bind formerly isolated conservatives into powerful new coalitions, which can lead to stalemates on causes that liberals hold dear.
 
State and control over education means the aff gets circumvented
 
ACLU, No Date, "Campaigns to Undermine Sexuality Education in the Public Schools," (American Civil Liberties Union) https://www.aclu.org/other/campaigns-undermine-sexuality-education-public-schools
 
Current Status Of Sexuality Education In American Public Schools Many states sponsor some form of sexuality education through laws, regulations, or recommendations. At present, 19 states require that schools provide sexuality education, and 34 states require instruction about sexually transmitted diseases and/or HIV/AIDS. 2 Although these statistics suggest that sexuality education is widespread in American schools, the quality and comprehensiveness of this education vary considerably. In some places, teachers of sexuality education are prohibited from mentioning topics such as intercourse, masturbation, abortion, homosexuality, or condoms. Only five percent of American students receive truly comprehensive sexuality education. 3 Groups That Seek To Undermine Comprehensive Sexuality Education Despite widespread parental support for sexuality education in public schools, these programs sometimes engender concerted opposition. Some of the opposition may come from people who have inadequate information or misinformation about the programs; their concerns are usually allayed through education about the content and aims of the program. However, other opposition comes from groups that are opposed in principle to comprehensive sexuality education in public schools. They argue that such education usurps parental rights and encourages "immoral" premarital sexual promiscuity in the young. National organizations that have publicly criticized comprehensive sexuality education in the schools include Focus on the Family, Citizens for Excellence in Education, the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the American Life League, the Eagle Forum, Parents Roundtable, the Christian Coalition, the National Coalition for Abstinence Education, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, the Educational Guidance Institute, the National Monitor of Education, and the Research Council on Ethnopsychology. People who organize opposition to sexuality education in local communities may be affiliated with these organizations. The local groups they organize may have names such as "Citizens Advocating Responsible Education," "Concerned Parents/Taxpayers," or "Coalition for Excellence in Education." 4 These local groups employ a wide variety of tactics, from censoring library books to attempting to pack school boards in order to control curricular decisions. Attempts To Ban Or Derail Comprehensive Sexuality Education Curricula Opponents of comprehensive sexuality education may attempt to ban it outright or to derail curricula that are thorough in their treatment of sexuality, reproduction, and HIV/AIDS. Hundreds of school districts across the nation have confronted organized opposition to such programs. Although most school districts give parents the opportunity to exclude their children from participation in sexuality education programs, many opponents seek to block comprehensive programs for everyone. Their fundamental indictment is that such curricula "usurp parental authority." Opponents criticize comprehensive sexuality education curricula on many grounds, not all of them connected in obvious ways to sexuality. In particular, their complaints cite certain features of the curricula: naming anatomical parts, journal writing, promoting self-esteem, role-playing, "psychotherapeutic approaches" to education, non-directive education, and outcome-based education. Promotion Of "Abstinence-Only" Curricula Groups that seek to undermine comprehensive sexuality education frequently promote alternative sex education curricula such as: Sex Respect; Facing Reality; Me, My World, My Future; Sexuality, Commitment and Family; Choosing the Best; Families, Decision-Making and Human Development; Responsible Sexual Values Program; Safe Sex; and Reasonable Reasons to Wait. Called "abstinence-only" curricula, these programs instill fear and shame to discourage teenagers from engaging in sexual activity. They generally provide little information that can help sexually active teenagers protect themselves from pregnancy or disease. These curricula are laden with scientific and medical inaccuracies, sexist and racist stereotypes, and religious prescriptions for proper behavior and values. 5 Focused on delivering a "single unmistakable message," the abstinence-only curricula censor important information about human sexuality. Federal Support for Abstinence-Only Education The proponents of abstinence-only curricula got a big boost from the enactment of the 1996 welfare law, 42 U.S.C. § 710, which included a $50 million-per-year, five-year-long appropriation of funding for abstinence-only education. The funding is administered by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau and its state analogues. States have to contribute three "matching" dollars for every four federal dollars they receive. The combined federal and state funding can be used for various purposes such as media campaigns, programs in public schools, or programs outside of public schools. To be eligible for this funding, programs must focus exclusively on "teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity." Programs that emphasize abstinence but also discuss contraception and other means of protection are not eligible. Restrictive "Stress Abstinence" Legislation State laws and regulations requiring schools to "stress abstinence" in their sexuality education courses have proliferated in recent years. Because abstinence from sexual activity is the only 100 percent foolproof way of avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, comprehensive sexuality education programs appropriately stress abstinence. All instruction about alternative preventive measures begins from the premise that abstinence is the best prevention. However, some of the new laws and regulations seek to stress abstinence to the exclusion of all other information. Some even seek to impose a "word-count and stopwatch" approach, which would specify how much time must be devoted to abstinence in every class session. This attempt to micro-manage the classroom is counterproductive because it crowds out other needed information and stops genuine education from taking place. Teachers cannot truly educate if they are given a script to read and told that they cannot deviate from it to discuss open-ended questions that students ask. Such laws and regulations can also require school districts to incur heavy costs in replacing curricular materials already in use, draining schools of scarce financial resources.
 
The Plan’s standards gets circumvented by state boards – Colorado loopholes proves
 
Kopsa 2011 (Andy, 8/9/11 at 4 A.M. Andy Kopsa is a freelance investigative journalist from New York. “Abstinence-only funding was refused, but that didn't stop a state school-board member,” http://www.westword.com/news/abstinence-only-funding-was-refused-but-that-didnt-stop-a-state-school-board-member-5113629 -cDr)
 
In 2007, Governor Bill Ritter took a big step toward ensuring that Colorado kids would get comprehensive sex education by signing HB 1292 into law. The measure requires that, in addition to addressing the benefits of abstinence in eliminating STDs and teen pregnancy, in-school sex-education programs must also supply evidence-based, medically accurate information on the use of condoms and other contraceptives. Study after study has revealed the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs in reducing the number of teen pregnancies and reducing the spread of disease. According to the Journal of Adolescent Health, virginity pledges, a staple of abstinence-only programming, not only did not decrease occurrences of teen STDs, but actually resulted in pledge-takers not seeking medical attention once infected, leading to an increased possibility of transmission. Abstinence-only programs come under fire for questionable instructional methods and curricula as well. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) periodically releases in-depth reviews of abstinence-only programs and regularly finds that they often rely on messages of fear and shame to encourage abstinence and promote biased views of gender, marriage and pregnancy options. Yet Americans have spent more than $1.5 billion on abstinence-only programs over the past fifteen years through Title V of the Social Security Act and other federal legislation. The programs really flourished under President George W. Bush, who created an injection of funding with his Community Based Abstinence Education grants. President Barack Obama did away with this funding stream, but during the fight in Congress over health-care reform, Republicans put $250 million for abstinence-only programs into the Affordable Healthcare Act. The funds — now being distributed throughout the country — were made available on a non-competitive, state-by-state basis through Title V. All a governor had to do was say that he or she wanted abstinence funding, and a scaled dollar amount was provided to the state. Ritter declined the reported $3.2 million in abstinence-only funding available to Colorado, electing instead to seek funding for comprehensive sex education through the federal Personal Responsibility Education Program. Colorado was awarded approximately $793,000 in PREP funds each year from 2010 through 2014. But a member of the State Board of Education, operating without board approval, decided to make an end run around the governor and bring the Title V funding to Colorado anyway. That money is now paying for abstinence programs to go to public school auditoriums, training conferences, churches and community centers throughout Colorado, spreading the message that abstinence-only-until-marriage is the only way to have disease-free, worthwhile sex. On August 25, 2010, Peggy Littleton, then one of the seven members of the Colorado Board of Education, sent an e-mail to then-Commissioner of Education Dwight Jones, stating, in part: "Give me a call to discuss so that we may move forward as quickly as possible to capture funding.... I will be happy to stop by before another meeting I have in Denver, or have Mrs. Mackenzie stop by CDE today, to pick up the letter..." The letter was one that Littleton believed the Colorado Department of Education could provide, enabling the board to go for Title V funding even if Ritter had decided against it. Via return e-mail, Jones's office advised Littleton that it couldn't act counter to the governor's wishes and that the CDE could not produce the letter she wanted. The Mrs. Mackenzie to whom Littleton refererred is Joneen Mackenzie, a nurse who is founder and president of Denver-based WAIT (Why Am I Tempted?) Training. This abstinence-only organization has used over $8.3 million in federal funding since 2005 to implement its training throughout the United States and around the world — and Littleton has worked closely with the group. Originally from Nebraska, Littleton moved to Colorado with her family when she was just four years old. She graduated from Colorado State University, married, home-schooled her three children, and held faculty positions at Cheyenne Mountain Charter Academy and Colorado Springs Christian School. Governor Bill Owens appointed her to be director of Colorado GEAR UP, a program designed to ready low-income students for college. In 2004, she ran for the Colorado Board of Education in the conservative fifth congressional district, which includes Colorado Springs. Littleton is known for her proud conservatism. During the 2004 election cycle, she and state representative Amy Stephens ran for delegate slots as "Blond Babes for Bush," a distinction that earned Littleton an interview with Fox News pundit Sean Hannity. In 2008, she was appointed to the "Palin Truth Squad," part of the McCain campaign's efforts to fight Palin "smears." Earlier this year, Littleton did a video interview with Think Progress, a blog of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, in which she faithfully supported the right-wing conspiracy theory that Obama is secretly fueling Islam in America. Littleton told the interviewer that the only reason Obama shows support for charter schools is his desire to allow the "sneaking creep" of Muslim schools across the nation — schools where Littleton claimed children are taught to hate America, among other things. By then, she was off the Colorado school board and was an El Paso County commissioner, a post she won last November. But Littleton wasn't done with education issues. In response to a November 21 Denver Post piece on eight Front Range teachers charged with sexual misconduct in six months, she circulated an op-ed titled "Sex Misconduct Haunts Schools, But Why?" In it, she wrote: "Why are we surprised that sexual misconduct haunts schools? Are there clear cultural pro social norms in place to prevent this from happening? I think not. Try to find someone who is willing to expect more from individuals and adolescents when it comes to self regulating around drugs, alcohol, tobacco, violence and particularly sex. If you should find that rare individual, they are probably battle weary from being labeled as fear and shame based, ideologically driven, harmful, old fashioned, unrealistic, religious and uninformed." Littleton went on to explain that there was more information on sex available than ever before, and therefore people were more confused than ever before. She called the 1960s the beginning of the end of a sexually responsible society, moving through Kinsey on to the development of SIECUS, Hugh Hefner's Playboy and the founding of Planned Parenthood as proof. Littleton closed with this: "I encouraged the Colorado State Board of Education to request that the Colorado Department of Education apply for the Title V grant. I am happy to say this will happen by December 10, 2010. We can legislate and revoke or suspend teacher licenses all we want as a penalty for after the fact sexual misconduct by educators, but until we empower students to recognize inappropriate sexual advances, learn about risk avoidance and convey the message that sex with anyone, anywhere, anytime is not healthy we will not see any decrease in this type of criminal behavior." Here's how Littleton "encouraged" that application for the Title V grant: After Jones told her that the CDE would not be sending a letter, Littleton sent the commissioner a note encouraging him not to be "beholden to a governor who is gone by the end of the year when this [Title V] will have an impact for years to come." Littleton didn't end her quest for Title V funding there. A Department of Health and Human Services program specialist told Mackenzie that an authorized representative could issue a letter that would allow the education department to apply for the funds on behalf of the state. As she noted in an e-mail to Littleton (on which Bob Schaffer, the former congressman who was then chair of the Board of Education, was copied), "All we need is an opinion letter from the AG that the CDE has authority to apply for these funds." So Littleton contacted the attorney general's office, looking for that legal loophole. That move inspired this September 1 e-mail from Jones to Elaine Berman, the Colorado Board of Education commissioner representing Denver. "Peggy has not given up on Title V and plans to challenge the Governor's decision. She has asked the AG's office for an informal opinion...I think Bob [Schaffer] is going to have to stop this or the board is going to have to make a choice on how they want to proceed. Having one member do their own thing is the beginning of the end of getting the state's work done for students. I'm becoming very concerned about Peggy's behavior and think the board may need to decide how they want to handle their colleague. She has a right to do what she thinks is best, but not working with her colleagues is an interesting way to do it." In her reply to Jones, Berman said: "An individual board member should not be able to request an opinion from the AG's office. You should talk to the chair about this precedent." "Governor Ritter made very clear his decision to not apply for this funding," Berman recalls. Given this country's fiscal woes, she says, "every program that is being funded by the government needs to be scrutinized. And funded programs should not be ideologically motivated, which I believe this [Title V] was." "This is not unusual," Littleton says of her appeal to the AG's office last year. "State Board of Education members frequently interact with CDE staff on many topics and provide direction and conduct inquiry to be well informed before items come to a vote of the board. It is the prerogative of state board members to have access to and advice from the AG's office to clarify statute." On September 16, 2010, the Colorado Board of Education voted to seek Title V funding — circumventing the governor. This move was made possible by a letter that soon came from the Colorado Attorney General's Office. A federal provision allows for a state's attorney general to rule on who can and cannot apply directly on the state's behalf for federal funds. According to the Colorado Attorney General's Office, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services contacted the office, asking for an opinion letter stating that the board could independently seek funding. On September 22, 2010, Senior Assistant Attorney General Tony Dyl wrote a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services, citing Colorado law that allowed his agency to seek Title V funding for the Colorado Department of Education without permission of the governor. Colorado was awarded the funds.
 

Revision as of 17:17, 20 July 2017