1AC Solvency – Funding is the major determinant of adequate outcomes criticisms don’t – account for the improved targeting in the plan’s formula - Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law (Derek, the Federal “Abandoning Black, 17 Role in Education: The Every Student Succeeds Act”, 102 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 105:101, SSRN) Third, the ESSA’s willingness to largely ignore input equality and adequacy assumes that inputs are of limited relevance to student outcomes. The precise connection between inputs and outcomes is surely scholars consistently agree that spending complex and subject to disagreement, but courts and money wisely matters to education outcomes. A 1996 review of all relevant school funding 294 studies found that per-pupil expenditures strong and consistent relations with “show achievement. . . . In addition, resource variables that attempt to describe the quality of teachers (teacher ability, teacher education, and teacher experience) show very strong relations with student The precise effect of funding may differ based on how funds are allocated, but achievement.”295 broad range of resources [are] positively related to student outcomes, with effect sizes large “a enough to suggest that moderate increases in spending may be associated with significant increases in achievement.”296 Recent studies have confirmed these findings.297 Most notably, based on three decades of data, a 2016 study found that a 20 percent increase in per-pupil funding, if maintained over time, results in low-income students completing almost a full additional year of education.298 That additional learning eliminates two-thirds of the gap in outcomes between and middle-income students.299
1AC – Solvency Funding is the major determinant of adequate outcomes – criticisms don’t account for the improved targeting in the plan’s formula Black, 17 - Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law (Derek, “Abandoning the Federal Role in Education: The Every Student Succeeds Act”, 102 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 105:101, SSRN) Third, the ESSA’s willingness to largely ignore input equality and adequacy assumes that inputs are of limited relevance to student outcomes. The precise connection between inputs and outcomes is surely complex and subject to disagreement, but courts and scholars consistently agree that spending money wisely matters to education outcomes. 294 A 1996 review of all relevant school funding studies found that per-pupil expenditures “show strong and consistent relations with achievement. . . . In addition, resource variables that attempt to describe the quality of teachers (teacher ability, teacher education, and teacher experience) show very strong relations with student achievement.”295 The precise effect of funding may differ based on how funds are allocated, but “a broad range of resources [are] positively related to student outcomes, with effect sizes large enough to suggest that moderate increases in spending may be associated with significant increases in achievement.”296 Recent studies have confirmed these findings.297 Most notably, based on three decades of data, a 2016 study found that a 20 percent increase in per-pupil funding, if maintained over time, results in low-income students completing almost a full additional year of education.298 That additional learning eliminates two-thirds of the gap in outcomes between and middle-income students.299
Title-1-Affirmative-Paper.docx