DDI09-BQ-Education-Case-Neg

DDI09-BQ-Education-Case-Neg -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
c456fb8ee589dabb0fafdb88f8c282bf9601700d Dartmouth 2K9 1 Notes Inherency?? Ashby card says nothing about an increase in social services, just an improvement/risk assessment ECONOMY Need to contradict kamperman card --- find economy getting better cards (stimulus solved) Get cards saying that child care is not the biggest industry, early education doesn’t reduced spending on children, and parents still can’t keep jobs Find reasons why head start doesn’t work even with risk assessment The Ausley card is not specific to head start, its pre-stimulus, and its long term CONPETITIVENESS The Gordon card says that lack of broadband access makes competition in science and tech impossible ---its also just talking about high school and college education --- not applicable to head start Ausley and Campbell card = huge links to Biopower and coercion ---admits that education won’t have any impact for at least the next 4 years while obama is in office The only ev. the miller card cites is an opinion poll from executives of large corporations who the card also says want more early-education ---- their competitiveness claims are biased Dalton/Shelton card ideas: - high school dropouts key to recruitment turn - big time Biopower links --- we train future soldiers Donnelly Card --- too old (even before iraq war) ---- doesn’t assume recent changes in perception of American power --- also cites failed bush doctrine as the thing that preserves our heg --- collapse of bush doctrine inevitable because of obama Your Hawkes card says that Head start already has had immense success proving the card’s thesis Shaul card just says that Head Start already enforces a clause designed to reach the most families. Mistagged? Last printed 7/29/09 8:48 PM 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
c456fb8ee589dabb0fafdb88f8c282bf9601700d Dartmouth 2K9 2 Second Shaul card just says that a risk assessment is necessary to “provide assurance that the program is operating as intended and is achieving expected outcomes” --- nowhere does it say that the assessment is key to fixing any problems found, nor does it say that any problems currently exist in head start The only inherency cards you have are in your advantages and just say that head start needs more funding, something your aff doesn’t do Your GAO states pre-empt is just a reason why states are solving now --- the federal government gives funding to the states to promote the states to collaborate on their own --- just proves that the states can fund themselves and still collaborate Your Gilliam and ripple evidence cites a study by zigler in ’99 --- our evidence that blending is good postdates and assumes recent changes that have improved the administration of head start --- get evidence that coordination solves as well as blending Your second Gilliam and ripple ev. admits that an assessment of the quality of state programs is impossible because only 3 have done quality assessments, something that the fed itself hasn’t done. The ev. also cites all studies from the late 90’s --- we postdate
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 58

DDI09-BQ-Education-Case-Neg -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online