Trump is dedicated now to reducing federal role in education– Republican controlled congress will pass his proposal
Kamenetz 5/22 (Anya, lead education writer, “President Trump's Budget Proposal Calls For Deep Cuts To Education”, NPR, 5/22/2017, http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/05/22/529534031/president-trumps-budget-proposal-calls-for-deep-cuts-to-education) //AVR
President Trump's full budget proposal for fiscal year 2018, to be released Tuesday, calls for a $9.2 billion, or 13.5 percent, spending cut to education. The cuts would be spread across K-12 and aid to higher education, according to documents released by the White House. None of this can be finalized without Congress. And the political track record for Presidents who want to reduce education funding is not promising, even in a far less poisoned atmosphere than the one that hovers over Washington right now. Student loans This proposal calls for big changes to federal student aid: The federal government would stop subsidizing the interest on student loans, for a cut of $1 billion in the next fiscal year. This would add thousands of dollars to the cost of college, primarily for low-income graduates. Simplifying student loan repayment plans — a proposal that enjoys broad, bipartisan support. Currently, borrowers have a dizzying array of options: standard repayment (a 10-year term), graduated, extended, pay-as-you-earn, income-based, income-contingent and public service loan forgiveness. Trump's budget would create just one repayment plan that caps monthly payments at 12.5 percent of discretionary income. For undergraduate borrowers, the balance would be forgiven after 15 years. In the process of that simplification, the budget would phase out the program known as public service loan forgiveness, which erases student loans after 10 years of employment for the government or a qualifying nonprofit. Almost half a million people are enrolled in this program. Those with graduate, not bachelor's, degrees, have the largest balances, such as teachers, doctors and lawyers. It's not yet clear whether the program would be sunset or canceled immediately. The first group of participants was set to have their loans forgiven this coming October. Another proposal in this budget with broad support: making Pell Grants, which provide tuition aid for low-income students, available year-round. Currently you can only get one in the fall and one in the spring. Lauren Asher is a college affordability advocate with the Institute for College Access and Success. That group has supported simplifying student loan repayment. However, she says, all told, this budget amounts to, "multiple cuts that will exacerbate student debt by increasing the need to borrow, and increase the cost of repayment for many but not all students.". This would affect public schools and students in several ways. For both special-needs students, as well as millions of poor students, public schools provide services, from vision screening to speech therapy, to the tune of $4 billion in reimbursements a year, or 1 percent of all Medicaid dollars. "It does represent quite a bit of money for schools and it's significant for them in terms of what they're able to use it for," says Jessica Schubel of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. School choice Title I is the biggest K-12 federal education program. It supports high-poverty schools. Under Trump's budget, regular Title I funding would be flat. And $1 billion more would be dedicated to a new grant program for states that allow poor students to leave neighborhood schools for other public schools, and take that extra money with them. This concept is known as "portability," or as it's sometimes known, the "backpack of cash" idea. It's controversial, because in practice it means redistributing funds from poorer schools and potentially poorer districts to richer ones. In addition, $250 million would go to create vouchers for private schools, and $167 million for charter schools. The administration is also expected to unveil — outside this budget process — a tax credit scholarship program (sometimes called neo-vouchers), as part of tax reform. Cuts Some of the biggest axes would fall on a $2.3 billion program for teacher training and class-size reduction, and a $1.2 billion after-school program, which serves nearly 2 million children, many of them poor. A $190 million literacy program would also be cut. What are the chances? We should note that, though this document has more details than the "budget blueprint" released earlier, nothing becomes law until it passes through Congress. If history is any guide, budget reductions won't be so extreme. The Department of Education was established under President Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan is the only president since then to seek a significant cut in its budget. In fact, Reagan campaigned on a proposal to eliminate the department altogether. Once elected, his initial budget proposal asked for cuts of 20 to 25 percent in elementary and secondary education, among other programs. But total appropriations for 1981 ended up higher than the year before. Of course, Reagan was dealing with a House and Senate controlled by the opposing party.
Increasing federal involvement in education worsens disputes over federalism
Mcguinn 15 (Patrick McGuinn is associate professor of political science and education and chair of the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Drew University,12/16/17 “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), http://www.rsfjournal.org/doi/full/10.7758/RSF.2015.1.3.04) //AVR
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. Statesresent 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
Loyola and Curtis 16 (12/20, Mario, senior fellow and Director of the Center for Competitive Federalism at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, and Jake, associate counsel at the Center, “Scott Walker’s Call to Arms”, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443214/federal-state-balance-walker-letter-explains-its-importance, National Review) MBE
America owes President Barack Obama an enormous debt of gratitude for showing how truly dangerous the federal government can be when our Constitution’s checks and balances start failing. With the active collusion of congressional Democrats, President Obama’s presidency has been one long series of body blows to the separation of powers that has protected our democracy since the Founding. The results have been stark. Never has a president trampled so much on the prerogatives of Congress. Obama’s executive orders, suspending parts of our immigration laws and even his own prized Obamacare, have been sheer usurpations, going far beyond even the breathtaking delegations of legislative authority granted by the brief Democratic supermajority in Congress in 2009–10. Sad to say, Obama’s trampling on the prerogatives of state governments has been even more unprecedented, and potentially far more damaging. His agencies’ “Dear Colleague” letters, addressingsuch sensitive issues as local school districts’ bathroom policies and the standards by which institutions of higher education review claims of sexual assault, have wrested away the core functions of state leaders, local boards, and even administrators. The separation of state and federal authority is one of the most essential principles of our Constitution. It explains the Constitution’s structural allocation of powers as much as the division between legislative, executive, and judicial functions. If we lose the separate and independent existence of state governments, we will lose our Constitution. Hence the potentially historic importance of the initiative just announced by Governor Scott Walker, under the heading “Wisconsin, Not Washington.” This morning Governor Walker sent a letter to President-elect Trump, asking for Trump’s help in restoring the federal structure of the Constitution. Governor Walker’s letter opens (after congratulating Trump) with a paragraph framing the issue in a way similar to how the Founders might have done it: The question is not what functions the federal government should give back to the states, but what functions should the federal government have in the first place. The federal government was originally created to be a small, central government of limited powers, with everything else left to the states. Through years of federal overreach, this model has been turned on its head, and now is the time to right the ship. Power flows from the people to the government, not the other way around. With an eye toward “aggressively expand[ing] opportunities for those seeking family supporting jobs,” the letter calls on the incoming Trump administration to provide various block grants and waivers to state governments. Among other suggestions, the letter calls for an executive order “directing all federal agencies to consult and coordinate federal activities with their state counterparts and to truly delegate oversight of functions and activities without mandates or strings.” It suggests that federal agencies should be required to make permitting decisions in a timely manner, just as most state agencies are required to do. The letter specifically calls for flexibility in the administration of nutritional-assistance programs, Medicaid, and the management of the state’s gray-wolf population. It highlights the need for revisions to the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards. And it calls for giving Wisconsin more ability to manage federal timberland for the benefit of the resources, wildlife, and economy of Wisconsin, not the federal government. The Supreme Court has many times insisted that states must remain “free and independent within their proper sphere of authority.” But the Court has given the federal government almost free rein to put coercive conditions on the funds it sends the states, and to require federal-agency “permission” for states to implement federal law. These twin levers of “coercive federalism” have resulted in a situation where federal and state governments are more integrated with each other than many independent federal agencies are with the rest of the executive branch. Today the president has more control over how states run their Medicaid programs than he has over the Federal Communications Commission. There’s definitely something wrong with that. Democrats who fear the exercise of unbridled power by a Republican president have as much reason to want state governments kept free from federal control as Republicans do for not wanting a repeat of Obama’s constitutional abuses. We can disagree about policy issues, but we should agree on the basic meaning of our Constitution. It is urgent to return the states’ reserved powers and responsibilities to them, as the Tenth Amendment requires. It is urgent to return the states’ reserved powers and responsibilities to them, as the Tenth Amendment requires. But as we do so, it’s equally important to resist the temptation of letting states take over federal functions. One of the most invidious forms of federal control is “cooperative federalism,” whereby states assume responsibility for implementing federal programs. Instead, the federal government should be forced to implement all federal regulations itself. Constituents who fear the EPA may prefer State Implementation Plans to Federal Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act, but either way, it’s a shakedown. If federal bureaucrats want to regulate everything, let’s make them do it all by themselves. If they want us to do it at the state level, then they should let us do it all by ourselves. MORE CONSTITUTION WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT? CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE: WHERE DUE PROCESS GOES TO DIE THE SLOW DEATH OF AN IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE Governor Walker’s letter closes by noting that the suggested recalibration between the federal and state governments “should only be the beginning of our efforts to return authority closer to the people.” He is absolutely right that this conversion will not happen overnight, but it is a challenge that must be tackled immediately. The separation of powers between the federal government and state governments is as important as the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government. Restoring those checks and balances is a task for all the states, and all generations of Americans. The task before us is monumental, but with any luck, Governor Walker’s letter to the incoming president can serve as a rallying call.