Case

Plans
The United States federal government should end federal
requirements related to the Common Core State Standards
Initiative.
The United States federal government should end surveillance
in No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the Common Core
State Standards Initiative.
The United States Department of Education should end
surveillance in No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the
Common Core State Standards Initiative.
The United States federal government should national
educational tracking of students in the United States.
The United States Department of Education should remove the
surveillance and database requirements from the Race to the
Top grants.
The United States federal government should end the Common
Core State Standards Initiative.
The United States federal government should eliminate federal
testing and data collection requirements from the Common
Core State Standards Initiative.

1AC

1AC Inherency
The most dangerous form of government surveillance is the
federal education program known as Common Core. This
program seems benign, but is actually an institutional tracking
program that allows the government to control every aspect of
the American public for decades into the future.
Cook 13 Joshua Cook, MBA, reporter, writer for BenSwann.com whose work has
appeared on DrudgeReport, InfoWars, Breitbart.com, Daily Caller and
FreedomOutpost.com, 2013 (Common Core is the Most Dangerous Domestic
Spying Program, Freedom Outpost, September 2 nd, Available Online at
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/common-core-dangerous-domestic-spyingprogram/#eBdFDCwK8D3U5h94.99, Accessed 06-22-2015)
Earlier this year, revelations about the Department of Justice spying on the
Associated Press were quickly followed by revelations that the NSA was collecting
phone data on all Verizon, and then all American cell phone users. Edward
Snowden's whistleblowing drew yet more attention to the issue, and domestic
surveillance programs have remained a top issue in people's minds ever
since.
While Americans focus on institutions like the CIA and NSA, though, programs
are being implemented which would lead to a much more institutional way
of tracking citizens. Obamacare is one of these, but Common Core Standards
the federal educational program is the most eyebrow-raising.
Bill Gates was one of the leaders of Common Core, putting his personal money into
its development, implementation and promotion, so it's unsurprising that much of
this data mining will occur via Microsoft's Cloud system.
Even the Department of Education, though, admits that privacy is a concern,
and that some of the data gathered may be "of a sensitive nature." The
information collected will be more than sensitive; much of it will also be
completely unrelated to education. Data collected will not only include
grades, test scores, name, date of birth and social security number,
it will also include parents' political affiliations, individual or familial
mental or psychological problems, beliefs, religious practices and
income.
In addition, all activities, as well as those deemed demeaning, selfincriminating or anti-social, will be stored in students' school
records. In other words, not only will permanently stored data
reflect criminal activities, it will also reflect bullying or anything
perceived as abnormal . The mere fact that the White House notes
the program can be used to "automatically demonstrate proof of
competency in a work setting" means such data is intended to affect
students' futures .
Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that data collection will also
include critical appraisals of individuals with whom students have
close family relationships. The Common Core program has been heavily

scrutinized recently for the fact that its curriculum teaches young children to
use emotionally charged language to manipulate others and teaches students
how to become community organizers and experts of the U.N.'s agenda 21.
Combined with this form of data collection, it's easy to envision truly disturbing
untruths and distortions making their way into the permanent record.
Like Common Core, states were bribed with grant money from the federal
government to implement data mining, and 47 states have now implemented some
form of data mining from the educational system. Only 9 have implemented the full
Common Core data mining program. Though there are restrictions which make
storing data difficult on the federal level, states can easily store the data and allow
the federal government to access it at its own discretion.
The government won't be the only organization with access to the information.
School administrators have full control over student files, and they can choose who
to share information with. Theoretically, the information could be sold, perhaps
withholding identifying information. In addition, schools can share records with any
"school official" without parental consent. The term "school official," however,
includes private companies, which have contracts with the school.
NSA data mining is troubling because it could lead to intensely negative
outcomes, because it opens up new avenues for control and because it is
fundamentally wrong. Common Core data mining and tracking students
with GPS devices is far, far scarier.
It gives the government the ability to completely control the futures of
every student of public education, and that will soon extend to private and
home schools. It provides a way to intimidate students who already
have a difficult time socially into conforming to norms which are not only
social, but also political and cultural.

1AC Plan
[Insert a plan text.]

1AC Corporate Control

Advantage One is Corporate Control:
Common Core serves to ensure that students are ignorant of
their constitutional rights. It is fascism with a smile that
ensures that future generations can be controlled by
corporations and the government.
Whitehead 13 John W. Whitehead, constitutional and human rights lawyer,
founder of The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties and human rights
organization, winner of the Hungarian Medal of Freedom, co-counsel in Paula Jones'
sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton, co-counsel in several landmark
Supreme Court cases and has law reviews published in Emory Law Journal,
Pepperdine Law Review, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Washington and Lee Law
Review, Cumberland Law Review, Tulsa Law Journal and the Temple University Civil
Rights Law Review, 2013 (Common Core: A Lesson Plan for Raising Up Compliant,
Non-Thinking Citizens, The Rutherford Institute, September 23 rd, Available Online at
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/co
mmon_core_a_lesson_plan_for_raising_up_compliant_non_thinking_citizens,
Accessed 06-22-2015)
As I point out in my new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American
Police State, there are several methods for controlling a population. You can
intimidate the citizenry into obedience through force, relying on military
strength and weaponry such as SWAT team raids, militarized police, and a vast
array of lethal and nonlethal weapons. You can manipulate them into marching
in lockstep with your dictates through the use of propaganda and carefully
timed fear tactics about threats to their safety, whether through the phantom
menace of terrorist attacks or shooting sprees by solitary gunmen. Or you can
indoctrinate them into compliance from an early age through the schools ,
discouraging them from thinking for themselves while rewarding them for
regurgitating whatever the government , through its so-called educational
standards, dictates they should be taught .
Those who founded America believed that an educated citizenry
knowledgeable about their rights was the surest means of preserving
freedom. If so, then the inverse should also hold true: that the surest way
for a government to maintain its power and keep the citizenry in line is by
rendering them ignorant of their rights and unable to think for
themselves .
When viewed in light of the governments ongoing attempts to amass
power at great cost to Americansin terms of free speech rights, privacy, due
process, etc.the debate over Common Core State Standards, which would
transform and nationalize school curriculum from kindergarten through 12th grade,
becomes that much more critical.

Essentially, these standards, which were developed through a partnership

between big government and corporations , in the absence of any real input
from parents or educators with practical, hands-on classroom experience, and are
being rolled out in 45 states and the District of Columbia, will create a generation
of test-takers capable of little else, molded and shaped by the federal
government and its corporate allies into what it considers to be ideal
citizens.
Moreover, as Valerie Strauss reports for the Washington Post: The costs of the
tests, which have multiple pieces throughout the year plus the computer platforms
needed to administer and score them, will be enormous and will come at the
expense of more important things. The plunging scores will be used as an
excuse to close more public schools and open more privatized charters and
voucher schools, especially in poor communities of color . If, as proposed, the
Common Cores college and career ready performance level becomes the standard
for high school graduation, it will push more kids out of high school than it
will prepare for college.
With so much money to be made and so many questionable agendas at work, it is
little wonder, then, that attempts are being made to squelch any and all
opposition to these standards. For example, at a recent public forum to discuss
the implementation of these standards in Baltimore County public schools, one
parent, 46-year-old Robert Small, found himself pulled out of the meeting, arrested
and charged with second-degree assault of a police officer simply for daring to
voice his discontent with the standards during a Q&A session with the
superintendent.
Even calling this event a forum is disingenuous, given that attendees were not
allowed to stand and ask questions. Instead, attendees were instructed to write
their questions on a piece of paper, which the superintendent would then read and
members of a panel would answer. In other words, there would be no time or room
for debate, just a one-sided discussion. And this is what life in our so-called
republic of the United States has been reduced to, a one-sided monologue
by government officials who neither care about what we the people
have to say, nor are they inclined to hear us out, just so long as we pay
their taxes and abide by their laws.
Dont stand for this. You are sitting here like cattle, shouted Robert Small to his
fellow attendees as he was being dragged out of the forum on the Common Core
standards. Is this America?
No, Mr. Small, this is no longer America. This is, instead, fascism with a smile ,
sold to us by our so-called representatives, calculating corporations, and
an educational system that is marching in lockstep with the governments
agenda.
In this way, we are being conditioned to be slaves without knowing it. That
way, we are easier to control. A really efficient totalitarian state would be
one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of
managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced,
because they love their servitude, writes Aldous Huxley. To make them

love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of

propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.
The purpose of a pre-university education in early America was not to
prepare young people to be doctors or lawyers but, as Thomas Jefferson
believed, to make citizens knowledgeable about their rights, interests,
and duties as men and citizens. As Jefferson observed, I know no safe depository
of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think
them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion,
the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.
This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
Yet thats where the problem arises for us today. Most citizens have little, if
any, knowledge about their basic rights, largely due to an educational
system that does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Many studies confirm this. For instance, when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S.
citizens to take Americas official citizenship test, 29% of respondents couldnt
name the current vice president of the United States. Seventy-three percent
couldnt correctly say why America fought the Cold War. More critically, 44% were
unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6% couldnt even circle Independence Day
(the Fourth of July) on a calendar.
A survey of American adults by the American Civic Literacy Program resulted in
some equally disheartening findings. Seventy-one percent failed the test. Moreover,
having a college education does very little to increase civic knowledge, as
demonstrated by the abysmal 32% pass rate of people holding not just a bachelors
degree but some sort of graduate-level degree.
That Americans are constitutionally illiterate is not a mere oversight on
the part of government educators. And things will only get worse under
Common Core, which as the Washington Post reports, is a not-so-subtle attempt
to circumvent federal restrictions on the adoption of a national curriculum. One
principal, a former proponent who is now leading the charge against Common Core,
quickly realized that Common Core was not about educational reform as President
Obama would have us believe. Rather, its about pushing a curriculum
wrapped around incessant pre-testing, testing and test prep that teaches
students how to take tests but not how to think, analyze or learn .
As with most bright ideas coming out of the federal government, once you
follow the money trail, it all makes sense. And those who stand to profit are
the companies creating both the tests that will drive the school curriculum, as well
as the preparatory test materials, the computer and software industries, and the
states, which will receive federal funds in exchange for their cooperation.
Putting aside the profit-driven motives of the corporations and the power-driven
motives of the government, there is also an inherent arrogance in the
implementation of these Common Core standards that speaks to the
governments view that parents essentially forfeit their rights when they
send their children to a public school, and should have little to no say in
what their kids are taught and how they are treated by school officials.
This is evident in the transformation of the schools into quasi-prisons,
complete with metal detectors, drug-sniffing dogs, and surveillance

cameras. Equally arrogant are school zero tolerance policies that punish serious
offenders of a school weapons policy the same as a child who draws a picture of a
gun, no matter what the parents or students have to say about the matter. The
result is a generation of young people browbeaten into believing that they
have no true rights, while government authorities have total power and
can violate constitutional rights whenever they see fit.

Common Core surveillance allows corporate access to student

data to drive the education agenda.
Rugh 13 Peter Rugh, Brooklyn-based reporter who contributes to Vice.com and
is a correspondent for WagingNonviolence.org, 2013 (Exposed: How Murdoch, Bill
Gates and Big Corporations are Data Mining our Schools, Truthout, May 2 nd,
Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16130-exposed-howmurdoch-bill-gates-and-big-corporations-are-data-mining-our-schools, Accessed 0622-2015)
Last week, students across New York finished a set of tests taken over a two
week period designed to measure their proficiency at reading and math
against new federal college readiness standards known as Common Core.
Some parents opted their children out of the exams in protest against what they
described as the school system's over-emphasis on testing and its use of data as
the principle indicator of their children's achievement.
Starting next year, those scores, along with students' personal information
race, economic background, report cards, discipline records and personal
addresses will be stored in a database designed by Wireless Generation, a
subsidiary of media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
That's right, Rupert Murdoch can read your child's report card anytime he
likes and he knows where your kid is sleeping. The database will be managed
by inBloom inc, a non-profit outfit that, like Wireless Generation, is under the
domain of billionaire Bill Gates who, together with the Carnegie Corporation and
other philanthropic organizations, set up the company via his Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation.
inBloom is receiving $50 million for their services from the New York Education
Department through a contract awarded last fall. Data analyzing firms, educational
software designers and other third-party venders, both for and not-for-profit, will be
granted access to student information.
New York is not alone in turning to student data tracking system to measure
performance. Some 200,000 U.S. teachers use Wireless Generation software as part
of a national trend in which education administrators are increasingly turning to
data analysis to grasp why America's pupils are flunking when compared to the rest
of the world.
I am a deep believer in the power of data to drive our decisions, said U.S.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan shortly after his appointment to the post in
2008. Data gives us the roadmap to reform. It tells us where we are, where we
need to go, and who is most at risk.

But the consolidation of individual student information has been raising

eyebrows and sparking a backlash. The Electronic Privacy Information
Center is suing Duncan's Education Department for amending privacy
regulations in 2011 that allow student data to be accessed for noneducational objectives without informing parents a violation, EPIC contends, of
the Family Educational Rights Privacy and Privacy Act.
According to inBloom's privacy policy, the company is not responsible for security
breaches; though it will use reasonable administrative, technical, and physical
safeguards to ensure student records are kept private, inBloom cannot guarantee
the security of the information stored in inBloom or that the information will not be
intercepted when it is being transmitted.
Last week, New York parents sent a letter to the Board of Regents, which oversees
the state's public schools, decrying the plan to share highly confidential, personally
identifiable student data with inBloom. They expressed fear that the company
intends to share their children's information with for-profit vendors without parental
notification or consent.
After parents in Louisiana raised similar concerns, plans to hand over student data
to inBloom were put on hold two weeks ago. Contrary to statements from Louisiana
Education Superintendent John White, the state has not cancelled its contract with
the company, according to a spokesperson for inBloom.
The spokesperson also said it is up to inBloom's clients, not inBloom, to determine
what data the company possesses and who is granted access. In Louisiana, that
could include student social security numbers, which double as student ID digits in
most districts.
Besides New York and Louisiana, inBloom has contracts with seven other states. All
are part of the Shared Learning Collaborative, a pilot program set up by the Council
of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to help implement Common Core standards
through the tracking of student data. The Council of Chiefs, also a non-profit, is
composed of the heads of America's state school systems who work together with
corporations to collectively design education policy, in mold of the American
Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.
CCSSO's corporate partners include Microsoft, Apple, Wireless Generation, IBM and
Discovery Education a spin-off of the television channel that gave us Amish Mafia.
Then there are the big publishing houses: McGraw-Hill, Scholastic, and Pearson that
design the standardized tests that produce the data which feeds inBloom, Wireless
and others. Together, these tech, media and publishing corporations work
with policymakers to integrate their products into curricula.
I used to think there would be an uproar if I made this stuff public, said one
programmer who designs student tracking systems, and who wished to remain
anonymous in order to protect his job. Then, I discovered that it's all already public.
They're devising extra-governmental systems to handle student learning
right before our eyes. The state is using its monopoly on education to
benefit certain corporations .
Pearson, however, might have pushed its buddy-buddy relationship with education
administrators a little too far. The publisher, which recently received a $32 million
contract to design Common Core test prep materials for New York, is currently under

investigation from the state Attorney General's office for using its nonprofit wing,
the Pearson Foundation, to finance trips abroad taken by NYSED officials.
Yet, for the most part, by cloaking its aims in the guise of philanthropy the
private sector has successfully nuzzled its way into the sphere of public
education. And there are big bucks to be had.
When it comes to K through 12 education, Rupert Murdoch put it upon acquiring
Wireless Generation in 2010, we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is
waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach
of great teaching. To help ensure that News Corp. gets its share of the education
pie (translation: "to extend the reach of great teaching"), the media baron tagged
an industry insider to do his bidding, taking on former New York City Schools
Chancellor Joel Klein as an adviser.
Government and for-profit education businesses are becoming ever more
inextricably inter-connected, commented Michael McGill, superintendent for
schools in Scarsdale, New York, upon learning of the state's plan to house his
students info with the Murdoch/Gates start-ups. This is a development that merits
public concern and close public scrutiny."

The Common Core is a neoliberal plan to create corporate

control of American public education deeply conservative
corporations monopolize the content. This exacerbates poverty
and inculcates students in neoliberal values.
Brand 13 Candice Brand, Assistant Editor and Reporter for Truthout, a
progressive news organization that works to broaden and diversify the political
discussion by introducing independent voices, co-writer and producer of Don't Frack
With Denton, a documentary chronicling fracking in Texas. Truthout has featured
content from Paul Krugman, Henry Giroux, Bill Moyers, Andy Worthington, Kathy
Kelly, Dean Baker and Noam Chomsky, 2013 (Flow Chart Exposes Common Core's
Myriad Corporate Connections, Truthout, September 6 th, Available Online at
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/18442-flow-chart-exposes-common-cores-myr,
Accessed 06-22-2015)
Morna McDermott mapped the Common Core State Standard Initiative's corporate
connections in a new flow chart, which reveals how corporations and organizations
that are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
have funded and perpetuated Common Core standards throughout the
states.
ALEC has been funded for decades in large part by billionaire brothers
Charles and David Koch. According to the Center for Media and Democracy,
about 98 percent of ALEC's funds come from corporations such as Exxon
Mobil and corporate foundations like the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
The Common Core State Standard Initiative is part of the larger Race to the Top
educational policy announced by President Barack Obama and Education Secretary
Arne Duncan in 2009. It seeks to implement new Common Core educational
benchmarks to replace varying educational standards from state to state by

awarding grants to states that comply with the initiative. The standards have been
adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.
The chart illuminates a larger corporate agenda that seeks market-based
education reforms and increased influence over public education in the
United States. With defense and security expenditures slowing ,
corporations are looking to profit from new cloud-based software used to
collect and mine information from student records to create individualized
education programs designed by third-party companies.
McDermott is a teacher-educator with more than 20 years of experience working in
and with public schools. McDermott also serves as a section editor for the Journal of
Curriculum and Pedagogy and recently published a book titled "The Left Handed
Curriculum: Creative Experiences for Empowering Teachers" with Information Age
Publishing. She is an administrator with United Opt Out National, a nonprofit created
by parents, educators and students who are dedicated to the elimination of highstakes testing in public education.
She researched and produced the information on her own, but the work is endorsed
and supported by the United Opt Out National network. McDermott told Truthout
she used a systems-based approach in her research to show the concepts in
relationship to one another, and that it's just another example of a different method
of teaching and learning.
McDermott says she works to fight standards and testing because they divert
funds and attention away from the real issue in education, which is
poverty. "The whole thing about better tests and if we had better standards
is like a bait-and-switch so nobody pays attention to the real issues," she
said.
McDermott mentions a number of corporations and organizations prying for
influence over the Common Core standards. Among them is Achieve Inc., a
company widely funded by ALEC members, including Boeing and State Farm, among
others.
McDermott also points to peer-reviewed academic research originally published in
the International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation by Fenwick English
titled "The Ten Most Wanted Enemies of American Public Education's School
Leadership." In his research English looks at many of the players involved in the
same network that McDermott maps with clarity, writing of the Eli Broad Foundation
that:
Broad money is sloshed behind the scenes to elect or select candidates
who "buy" the Broad corporate agenda in education. ... Broad's enemies are
teacher unions, school boards, and schools of education. What all three
have in common is that they eschew corporate, top-down control required
in the Broad business model.
According to McDermott, America's Choice, another part of Common Core's
corporate web, originally was founded as a program of the National Center on
Education and the Economy (NCEE), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit. But in
2004, the group was reorganized as a for-profit subsidiary of NCEE.
McDermott cites a professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas, Jay
Greene, who writes:

NCEE's scheme was originally financed by a $1,500,000 pilot grant from the Gates
Foundation. It will now benefit from a sweetheart deal of $30,000,000 - all
taxpayers' money. Having Gates pay for both NCEE's start-up and the development
of Common Core standards certainly helped America's Choice to put its key people
on Common Core's [English Language Arts] and mathematics standards
development and draft-writing committees to ensure that they came up with the
readiness standards Gates had paid for and wanted NCEE to use.
It's all part-and-parcel to the larger neoliberal plan to "reform" public
education .
"What Race to the Top is doing to exacerbate the issues of poverty , for one
thing, in terms of school funding is it's even elevating the amount of money
that is funneled right through schools, like a sieve, and channeling it more
directly into the hands of testing companies, computer companies, online
companies and other corporate interests," McDermott said. "So for a state or a
district to say, 'Oh, we need the money,' my reaction would be, 'You're not going to
see a dime of it. They're going to hand you a check that's basically a coupon to buy
Pearson products.' "

Corporate control risks extinction global warming and

nuclear war.
Chomsky 14 Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the
National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, holds a
Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania 2014 (Americas corporate
doctrine of power a grave threat to humanity, Salon originally published on
TomDispatch, July 1st, Available Online at
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/01/noam_chomsky_americas_corporate_doctrine_of_
power_a_grave_threat_to_humanity/, Accessed 07-09-2015)
The Final Century of Human Civilization?
There are other examples too numerous to mention, facts that are well-established
and would be taught in elementary schools in free societies.
There is, in other words, ample evidence that securing state power from the
domestic population and securing concentrated private power are driving
forces in policy formation . Of course, it is not quite that simple. There are
interesting cases, some quite current, where these commitments conflict, but
consider this a good first approximation and radically opposed to the received
standard doctrine.
Let us turn to another question: What about the security of the population? It is easy
to demonstrate that this is a marginal concern of policy planners. Take two
prominent current examples, global warming and nuclear weapons. As any
literate person is doubtless aware, these are dire threats to the security of the
population. Turning to state policy, we find that it is committed to
accelerating each of those threats in the interests of the primary
concerns, protection of state power and of the concentrated private power
that largely determines state policy.

Consider global warming. There is now much exuberance in the United States
about 100 years of energy independence as we become the Saudi
Arabia of the next century perhaps the final century of human
civilization if current policies persist .
That illustrates very clearly the nature of the concern for security, certainly not
for the population. It also illustrates the moral calculus of contemporary
Anglo-American state capitalism: the fate of our grandchildren counts as
nothing when compared with the imperative of higher profits tomorrow.
These conclusions are fortified by a closer look at the propaganda system. There is
a huge public relations campaign in the U.S., organized quite openly by Big Energy
and the business world, to try to convince the public that global warming is either
unreal or not a result of human activity. And it has had some impact. The U.S.
ranks lower than other countries in public concern about global warming and the
results are stratified: among Republicans, the party more fully dedicated to the
interests of wealth and corporate power, it ranks far lower than the global norm.
The current issue of the premier journal of media criticism, the Columbia Journalism
Review, has an interesting article on this subject, attributing this outcome to the
media doctrine of fair and balanced. In other words, if a journal publishes an
opinion piece reflecting the conclusions of 97% of scientists, it must also run a
counter-piece expressing the viewpoint of the energy corporations.
That indeed is what happens, but there certainly is no fair and balanced doctrine.
Thus, if a journal runs an opinion piece denouncing Russian President Vladimir Putin
for the criminal act of taking over the Crimea, it surely does not have to run a piece
pointing out that, while the act is indeed criminal, Russia has a far stronger case
today than the U.S. did more than a century ago in taking over southeastern Cuba,
including the countrys major port and rejecting the Cuban demand since
independence to have it returned. And the same is true of many other cases. The
actual media doctrine is fair and balanced when the concerns of concentrated
private power are involved, but surely not elsewhere.
On the issue of nuclear weapons, the record is similarly interesting and
frightening. It reveals very clearly that, from the earliest days, the security of the
population was a non-issue, and remains so. There is no time here to run through
the shocking record, but there is little doubt that it strongly supports the lament of
General Lee Butler, the last commander of the Strategic Air Command, which was
armed with nuclear weapons. In his words, we have so far survived the nuclear
age by some combination of skill, luck, and divine intervention, and I
suspect the latter in greatest proportion. And we can hardly count on
continued divine intervention as policymakers play roulette with the fate
of the species in pursuit of the driving factors in policy formation.
As we are all surely aware, we now face the most ominous decisions in
human history . There are many problems that must be addressed, but
two are overwhelming in their significance: environmental destruction
and nuclear war . For the first time in history, we face the possibility of
destroying the prospects for decent existence and not in the distant
future. For this reason alone, it is imperative to sweep away the ideological

clouds and face honestly and realistically the question of how policy
decisions are made , and what we can do to alter them before it is too
late.

1AC Critical Thinking

Advantage Two is Critical Thinking:
The Common Core curriculum is the root of reducing teaching
and learning to instrumental rationality divorced from critical
thinking and social responsibility.
Giroux 14 Henry A. Giroux, Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the
English and Cultural Studies Department & Chair in Critical Pedagogy at The
McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning, Distinguished
Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, member of Truthout's Board of Directors,
author of dozens of books on learning and pedagogy including Youth in Revolt:
Reclaiming a Democratic Future, America's Educational Deficit and the War on
Youth, Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education, 2014 (Data Storms and the
Tyranny of Manufactured Forgetting, Truthout, June 24 th, Available Online at
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24550-data-storms-and-the-tyranny-ofmanufactured-forgetting#/, Accessed 06-25-2015)
It does not seem unreasonable to conclude at this point that critical
thinking as a mode of reasoning is nearing extinction in both the wider
society and the sphere of public schooling and higher education in the
United States . Stanley Aronowitz has written that critical thought has lost its
contemplative character and "has been debased to the level of technical
intelligence, subordinate to meeting operational problems."[27] Nowhere
is this more obvious than in the reactionary reforms being pushed on
public schooling . President Obama's educational policies along with the
Common Core curriculum created by Bill Gates-funded consultants are devoid
of any critical content and reduce pedagogy to the dictates of
instrumental standards alone . Education subjected to endless empirical
assessment results only in a high-stakes testing mania - a boon, of course,
for the test industries, but a devastating loss for teacher and student
autonomy. In this instance, student achievement and learning are reduced
to data that are completely divorced from "the inequalities of race, class
and educational opportunity reflected in . . . test scores."[28]
Under the auspices of quality control, the cult of data and high-stakes testing
becomes a signpost for empirical madness and number crunching run
amok. "Teaching to the test" more often than not results in miseducating
students while undermining any possibility of expanding their sense of
wonder , imagination , critique and social responsibility . Left unchecked,
instrumental rationality parading as educational reform will homogenize
all knowledge and meaning, as it becomes a machine for proliferating
forms of civic and social death, deadening the spirit with the weight of
dead time and a graveyard of useless testing pedagogies . What does this
have to do with the suppression of historical consciousness and the death of politics
in the broader culture? The answer becomes clearer when we analyze the

relationships among critical thinking, historical consciousness, and the notions of

social and self-emancipation.

When literacy becomes about test scores and history becomes

about memorization, we lose the ability to challenge the state
and address social problems. No one is immune to the reign of
neoliberal ideological tyranny that pushes the marginalized
out of the social sphere. We celebrate our own authoritarian
domination.
Giroux 14 Henry A. Giroux, Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the
English and Cultural Studies Department & Chair in Critical Pedagogy at The
McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning, Distinguished
Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, member of Truthout's Board of Directors,
author of dozens of books on learning and pedagogy including Youth in Revolt:
Reclaiming a Democratic Future, America's Educational Deficit and the War on
Youth, Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education, 2014 (Data Storms and the
Tyranny of Manufactured Forgetting, Truthout, June 24 th, Available Online at
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24550-data-storms-and-the-tyranny-ofmanufactured-forgetting#/, Accessed 06-25-2015)
Clearly, the attack on reason , evidence , science and critical thought has
reached perilous proportions in the United States. A number of political,
economic, social and technological forces now work to distort reality and
keep people passive, unthinking and unable to act in a critically engaged
manner. Politicians, right-wing pundits and large swaths of the American public
embrace positions that support Creationism, capital punishment, torture and the
denial of human-engineered climate change, any one of which not only defies
human reason but stands in stark opposition to evidence-based scientific
arguments. Reason now collapses into opinion , as thinking itself appears to
be both dangerous and antithetical to understanding ourselves, our
relations to others and the larger state of world affairs. Under such
circumstances, literacy disappears not just as the practice of learning skills,
but also as the foundation for taking informed action. Divorced from any
sense of critical understanding and agency, the meaning of literacy is
narrowed to completing basic reading, writing and numeracy tasks
assigned in schools . Literacy education is similarly reduced to strictly
methodological considerations and standardized assessment , rooted in
test taking and deadening forms of memorization , and becomes far
removed from forms of literacy that would impart an ability to raise
questions about historical and social contexts .
Literacy, in a critical sense, should always ask what it might mean to use
knowledge and theory as a resource to address social problems and
events in ways that are meaningful and expand democratic relations . I
have commented on the decline of critical literacy elsewhere and it is worth
repeating:

I don't mean illiterate in the sense of not being able to read, though we
have far too many people who are functionally illiterate in a so-called
advanced democracy, a point that writers such as Chris Hedges, Susan Jacoby,
and the late Richard Hofstadter made clear in their informative books on the rise of
anti-intellectualism in American life. I am talking about a different species of
ignorance and anti-intellectualism . It is a form of illiteracy that points less
to the lack of technical skills and the absence of certain competencies
than to a deficit in the realms of politics - one that subverts both critical
thinking and the notion of literacy as both critical interpretation and the
possibility of intervention in the world. This type of illiteracy is not only
incapable of dealing with complex and contested questions ; it is also an
excuse for glorifying the principle of self-interest as a paradigm for
understanding politics. This is a form of illiteracy marked by the inability
to see outside of the realm of the privatized self, an illiteracy in which the
act of translation withers, reduced to a relic of another age. The United
States is a country that is increasingly defined by [an educational] deficit,
a chronic and deadly form of civic illiteracy that points to the failure of
both its educational system and the growing ability of anti-democratic
forces to use the educational force of the culture to promote the new
illiteracy. As this widespread illiteracy has come to dominate American culture, we
have moved from a culture of questioning to a culture of shouting and in
doing so have restaged politics and power in both unproductive and antidemocratic ways.[11]
Needless to say, as John Pilger has pointed out, what is at work in the death of
literacy and the promotion of ignorance as a civic virtue is a "confidence trick" in
which "the powerful would like us to believe that we live in an eternal present in
which reflection is limited to Facebook, and historical narrative is the preserve of
Hollywood."[12] Among the materialized shocks of the ever-present
spectacles of violence, the expanding states of precarity and the
production of the atomized, repressed and disconnected individual,
narcissism reigns supreme. "Personal communication tends to all meaning,"
even as moral decency and the "agency of conscience" wither.[13]
How else to explain the endless celebration of an unchecked self-interest,
a culture that accepts cruelty toward others as a necessary survival
strategy, a growing economics of contempt that maligns and blames the
poor for their condition rather than acknowledging injustices in the social
order, or the paucity of even the most rudimentary knowledge among the
American public about history, politics, civil rights, the Constitution, public
affairs, politics and other cultures, countries and political systems?[14]
Political ignorance now exists in the United States on a scale that seems
inconceivable : for example, "only 40 percent of adults know that there are 100
Senators in the U.S. Congress," and a significant number of Americans believe
that the Constitution designated English as the countrys official language
and Christianity as its official religion.[15]
What is particularly disturbing is the way in which there has been a resurgence
of a poisonous form of technical rationality in American culture, or what I

call the return of data storms that uncritically amass metrics, statistics
and empirical evidence at the expense of knowledge that signals the need
for contextualization and interpretation in support of public values, the
common good and the ethical imagination. Data storms make an appeal to
a decontextualized and allegedly pure description of facts, and what Herbert
Marcuse called a "misplaced concreteness," one that was particularly "prevalent in
the social sciences, a pseudo-empiricism which . . . tended to make the objectivity
of the social sciences a vehicle of apologetics and defense of the status quo."[16]
This obsession with metrics feeds an insatiable desire for control and lives
in an eternal present, removed from matters of justice and historical
memory. The novelist, Anne Lamott, is right in arguing that the "headlong
rush into data is overshadowing 'everything great and exciting that
someone like me would dare to call grace. What this stuff steals is our
aliveness . . . Grids, spreadsheets and algorithms take away the sensory
connection to our lives, where our feet are, what we're seeing, all the raw
materials of life, which by their very nature are disorganized.' Metrics, she
said, rob individuals of the sense that they can choose their own path,
'because if youre going by the data and the formula, theres only one
way.'"[17]
Not only is this mode of rationality antithetical to other modes of
reasoning that recognize and value what cannot be measured as being essential
to life as well as democratic values and social relations , but it also carries
the weight of a deadly form of masculine logic wedded to toxic notions of
control, violence and ideological purity.[18] It is a form of rationality that
serves the interests of the rich and obscures modes of thinking that are more
capacious and reflective in their capacity to address broader conceptions of identity,
citizenship and non-market values such as love, trust and fidelity.
The cult of the measurable is enthralled by instant evaluation, and
fervently believes that data hold the key to our collective fate.
It bears repeating: reality is now shaped by the cultures infatuation with a
narrow, depoliticizing rationality, or what Frankfurt School theorist Max Horkheimer
called instrumental reason. Bruce Feiler, writing in The New York Times, argues
that not only are we awash in data, but words and "unquantifiable arenas
like history, literature, religion, and the arts are receding from public life,
replaced by technology, statistics, science, and math. Even the most
elemental form of communication, the story, is being pushed aside by the
list."[19] Historical memory and public space are indeed the first casualties
in this reign of ideological tyranny , which models agency only on
consumerism and value only on exchange value. The cult of the
measurable is enthralled by instant evaluation, and fervently believes that
data hold the key to our collective fate. John Steppling sums up the
authoritarian nature of this ideological colonization and monopoly of the present. He
writes:
Today, the erasure of space is linked to the constant hum of data information, of
social networking, and of the compulsive repetition of the same. There is no space
for accumulation in narrative. Emotional or intellectual accumulation is destroyed by

the hyper-branded reality of the Spectacle. So, the poor are stigmatized for sleep. It
is a sign of laziness and sloth. Of lassitude and torpor. The ideal citizen is one at
work all the time. Industrious and attentive to the screen image or the sound of
command. Diligence has come to mean a readiness to obey. A culture of shaming
and reprimand is based on a model of reality in which there is no history to reflect
upon. Todays mass culture only reinforces this. The "real" is a never changing
present. Plots revolve around the idea of disrupting this present, and then returning
to this present. Actual tragedy, Chernobyl or Bhopal or Katrina, are simply ignored in
terms of their material consequences. What matters are events that disrupt the
Empire's carefully constructed present reality.[20]
It gets worse. Within this reality, endlessly hawked by a neoliberal brand of
authoritarianism, people are turned into nothing more than "statistical
units." Individuals and marginalized groups are all but stripped of their
humanity, thereby clearing the way for the growth of a formative culture
that allows individuals to ignore the suffering of others and to "escape
from unbearable human dilemmas . . . . Statistics become more important
than real human life."[21]
Zygmunt Bauman and David Lyons have connected the philosophical
implications of experiencing a reality defined by constant measurement to
how most people now allow their private expressions and activities to be
monitored by the authoritarian security-surveillance state.[22] No one is
left unscathed . In the current historical conjuncture, neoliberalisms theater of
cruelty joins forces with new technologies that can easily "colonize the
private" even as it holds sacrosanct the notion that any "refusal to
participate in the technological innovations and social networks (so
indispensable for the exercise of social and political control) . . . becomes
sufficient grounds to remove all those who lag behind in the globalization
process (or have disavowed its sanctified idea) to the margins of society."[23]
Inured to data gathering and number crunching, the countrys slide into
authoritarianism has become not only permissible, but participatory bolstered by a general ignorance of how a market-driven culture induces all of us to
sacrifice our secrets, private lives and very identities to social media, corporations
and the surveillance state.[24]

This aggression toward critical thinking in schools enables the

deadly combination of anti-intellectualism and historical
amnesia that produced terrorism, the war in Iraq, and the
modern authoritarian state.
Giroux 14 Henry A. Giroux, Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the
English and Cultural Studies Department & Chair in Critical Pedagogy at The
McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning, Distinguished
Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, member of Truthout's Board of Directors,
author of dozens of books on learning and pedagogy including Youth in Revolt:

Reclaiming a Democratic Future, America's Educational Deficit and the War on

Youth, Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education, 2014 (Data Storms and the
Tyranny of Manufactured Forgetting, Truthout, June 24 th, Available Online at
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24550-data-storms-and-the-tyranny-ofmanufactured-forgetting#/, Accessed 06-25-2015)
The current mainstream debate regarding the crisis in Iraq and Syria
offers a near perfect example of both the death of historical memory and the
collapse of critical thinking in the United States. It also signifies the
emergence of a profoundly anti-democratic culture of manufactured
ignorance and social indifference . Surely, historical memory is under assault
when the dominant media give airtime to the incessant war mongering of politicians
such as Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham and retro pundits such as Bill
Kristol, Douglas Feith, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz - not one of whom has
any credibility given how they have worked to legitimate the unremitting web of lies
and deceit that provided cover for the disastrous US invasion of Iraq under the
Bush/Cheney administration.
History repeats itself in the recent resurgence of calls for US military
interventions in Syria and Iraq. Such repetitions of history undoubtedly shift
from tragedy to farce as former Vice President Dick Cheney once again becomes
a leading pundit calling for military solutions to the current crises in the
Middle East, in spite of his established reputation for hypocrisy, lies,
corporate cronyism, defending torture and abysmal policymaking under the
Bush administration. The resurrection of Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of the
21st century, as a legitimate source on the current crisis in Syria and Iraq
is a truly monumental display of historical amnesia and moral dissipa tion.
As Thom Hartman observes, Cheney bears a large responsibility for the Iraq War,
which "was the single biggest foreign policy disaster in recent - or maybe
even all - of American history. It cost the country around $4 trillion, killed
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, left 4,500 Americans dead,
and turned what was once one of the more developed countries in the
Arab World into a slaughterhouse.[3] What room is there for historical memory
in an age "when the twin presiding deities are irony and violence"?[4]
A resurrection of historical memory in this moment could provide important lessons
regarding the present crisis.
Missing from the commentaries by the mainstream media regarding the current
situation in Iraq is any historical context that would offer a critical account of the
disorder plaguing the Middle East. A resurrection of historical memory in this
moment could provide important lessons regarding the present crisis. What is clear
in this case is that a widespread avoidance of the past has become not only a sign
of the appalling lack of historical knowledge in contemporary American culture, but
a deliberate political weapon used by the powerful to keep people passive and blind
to the truth. Of course, there are many factors currently contributing to this
production of ignorance and the lobotomizing of individual and collective
agency.
Such factors extend from the idiocy of celebrity and popular culture and
the dumbing down of American schools to the transformation of the

mainstream media into a deadly mix of propaganda, violence and

entertainment. The latter is particularly crucial as the collapse of journalistic
standards that could inform the onslaught of information finds its counterpart in an
unrelenting rise of political and civic illiteracy. The knowledge and value deficits
that produce such detrimental forms of ignorance not only crush the
imagination , critical modes of social interaction , and political dissent , but
also destroy those public spheres and spaces that promote
thoughtfulness , thinking , critical dialogue and serve as " guardians of
truths as facts," as Hannah Arendt once put it.[5]
The blight of rampant consumerism, unregulated finance capital and
weakened communal bonds is directly related to the cultures production
of atomized, isolated and utterly privatized individuals who have lost sight
of the fact that "humanity is never acquired in solitude."[6] This retreat into
private silos has resulted in the inability of individuals to connect their
personal suffering with larger public issues. Thus detached from any concept
of the common good or viable vestige of the public realm, they are left to face alone
a world of increasing precarity and uncertainty in which it becomes difficult to
imagine anything other than how to survive. Under such circumstances, there is
little room for thinking critically and acting collectively in ways that are
imaginative and courageous.
Surely, the celebration and widespread prevalence of ignorance in American culture
does more than merely testify "to human backwardness or stupidity"; it also
"indicates human weakness and the fear that it is unbearably difficult to live beset
by continuous doubts."[7] Yet, what is often missed in analysis of political and civic
illiteracy as the new normal is the degree to which these new forms of illiteracy
not only result in an unconscious flight from politics, but also produce a
moral coma that supports modern systems of terror and authoritarianism .
Civic illiteracy is about more than the glorification and manufacture of ignorance
on an individual scale: it is producing a nationwide crisis of agency, memory
and thinking itself.

The future depends on the ability of todays students to solve

problems like endless war, mass incarceration and climate
change the Common Core curriculum guarantees theyll be
unprepared. This is the civil rights issue of our time.
Rugh 13 Peter Rugh, Brooklyn-based reporter who contributes to Vice.com and
is a correspondent for WagingNonviolence.org, 2013 (Exposed: How Murdoch, Bill
Gates and Big Corporations are Data Mining our Schools, Truthout, May 2 nd,
Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16130-exposed-howmurdoch-bill-gates-and-big-corporations-are-data-mining-our-schools, Accessed 0622-2015)

What some critics find most troubling is not simply that corporate interests
are collecting student personal information, but how that information is
being used. As the anonymous programmer put it, I don't think a lot these
products are going to work. Teachers aren't going to like them, but that doesn't
matter. These are essentially accountability systems.
Some school districts have released statistical teacher evaluations as a way of
holding teachers' feet to the fire and to justify layoffs. In Los Angeles, one teacher
committed suicide after the city paper published his score. In New York, Chicago,
Philadelphia and elsewhere, data standardized tests results have been used to
shutter schools and replace them with charters, often sponsored by hedge funds.
There are other ways, of course, to improve schools, says the programmer.
Rather than shutting them down, giving teachers the slip and hiring corporate data
tracking firms, policy makers could invest in improving the quality of life in
the neighborhoods surrounding schools. Also, they could just hire more
teachers. He insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation from his employer,
because such comments could cripple the programmer's entire profession, if
heeded.
Increasingly, parents are refusing to feed the statistical machine. Over the last two
weeks, several hundred in New York opted their children out of Common Core tests.
In Chicago last week, parents also refused to allow their children to be tested. These
boycotts were inspired by a school-wide refusal by teachers at Garfield High School
in Seattle, Washington, to administer standardized exams to students.
Arne Duncan has called education in America today 'the civil rights issue
of our time', said Jesse Hagopian, a Garfield teacher who helped initiate
the school-wide test refusal last fall. And I agree with him. Only I think his
methodology is flawed. Because I know what the actual Civil Rights
Movement was built on.
Just as a bus boycott helped launch the Civil Right's Movement, Hagopian hopes
that a test boycott will help launch a grassroots education reform movement.
Parents, students and teachers need to band together, he says, and boycott tests
that are designed to rank and sort our children and label them failures rather than
provide them educational equity. These tests can't measure leadership, civic
courage, creativity, the things we're going to need to solve the problems
in the world today like endless war, mass incarceration and climate
change.

2AC Corporate Control

2AC Common Core Causes Corporate Control

Common Core builds workers, not thinkers in an attempt to
drive 21st Century Skills it is creating a generation of bored,
apathetic automotons.
Natale 14 Elizabeth Natale, English and language arts teacher for more than
15 years, 2014 (Why I Want To Give Up Teaching, Hartford Courant, January 17 th,
Available Online at http://www.courant.com/opinion/hc-op-natale-teacher-ready-toquit-over-common-cor-20140117-story.html, Accessed 06-23-2015)
Surrounded by piles of student work to grade, lessons to plan and laundry to do, I
have but one hope for the new year: that the Common Core State
Standards, their related Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium testing and the
new teacher evaluation program will become extinct.
I have been a middle school English teacher for 15 years. I entered teaching
after 19 years as a newspaper reporter and college public relations professional. I
changed careers to contribute to society; shape young minds; create good
and productive citizens; and spend time with youngsters lacking adults at
home with time, energy and resources to teach them.
Although the tasks ahead of me are no different from those of the last 14 years,
today is different. Today, I am considering ending my teaching career.
When I started teaching, I learned that dealing with demanding college presidents
and cantankerous newspaper editors was nothing. While those jobs allowed me time
to drink tea and read the newspaper, teaching deprived me of an opportunity to use
the restroom. And when I did, I was often the Pied Piper, followed by children intent
on speaking with me through the bathroom door.
Unfortunately, government attempts to improve education are stripping the
joy out of teaching and doing nothing to help children. The Common Core
standards require teachers to march lockstep in arming students with
"21st-century skills." In English, emphasis on technology and nonfiction
reading makes it more important for students to prepare an electronic
presentation on how to make a paper airplane than to learn about moral
dilemmas from Natalie Babbitt's beloved novel "Tuck Everlasting."
The Smarter Balance program assumes my students are comfortable
taking tests on a computer, even if they do not own one. My value as a
teacher is now reduced to how successful I am in getting a student who has eaten
no breakfast and is a pawn in her parents' divorce to score well enough to meet my
teacher evaluation goals.
I am a professional. My mission is to help students progress academically,
but there is much more to my job than ensuring students can answer
multiple-choice questions on a computer. Unlike my engineer husband who
runs tests to rate the functionality of instruments, I cannot assess students by
plugging them into a computer. They are not machines. They are humans
who are not fazed by a D but are undone when their goldfish dies, who
struggle with composing a coherent paragraph but draw brilliantly, who
read on a third-grade level but generously hold the door for others.

My most important contributions to students are not addressed by the Common

Core, Smarter Balance and teacher evaluations. I come in early, work through lunch
and stay late to help children who ask for assistance but clearly crave the attention
of a caring adult. At intramurals, I voluntarily coach a ragtag team of volleyball
players to ensure good sportsmanship. I "ooh" and "ah" over comments made by a
student who finally raises his hand or earns a C on a test she insisted she would fail.
Those moments mean the most to my students and me, but they are not
valued by a system that focuses on preparing workers rather than
thinkers, collecting data rather than teaching and treating teachers as less than
professionals.
Until this year, I was a highly regarded certified teacher. Now, I must prove myself
with data that holds little meaning to me. I no longer have the luxury of teaching
literature, with all of its life lessons, or teaching writing to students who long to be
creative. My success is measured by my ability to bring 85 percent of
struggling students to "mastery," without regard for those with advanced
skills. Instead of fostering love of reading and writing, I am killing
children's passions committing "readicide," as Kelly Gallagher called it in
his book of that title.
Teaching is the most difficult but most rewarding work I have ever done. It is,
however, art, not science. A student's learning will never be measured by
any test, and I do not believe the current trend in education will lead to
adults better prepared for the workforce, or to better citizens. For the sake
of students, our legislators must reach this same conclusion before good teachers
give up the profession and the children they love.

2AC Corporate Control Impacts

Training students to become corporate careerists threatens
extinction.
Hedges 12 Chris Hedges, Fellow at The Nation Institute, F. Ross JohnsonConnaught Distinguished Visitor in American Studies at the Centre for the Study of
the United States at The University of Toronto, long-time foreign correspondent for
the New York Times where he was part of a team of reporters that won a Pulitzer
Prize for their coverage of the war on terrorism, recipient of the Amnesty
International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism, holds a B.A. in English
Literature from Colgate University and a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity
School, 2012 (The Careerists, TruthdigA Progressive Journal of News and
Opinion, July 23rd, Available Online at
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_careerists_20120723, Accessed 07-092015)
The greatest crimes of human history are made possible by the most
colorless human beings. They are the careerists . The bureaucrats . The cynics.
They do the little chores that make vast, complicated systems of
exploitation and death a reality. They collect and read the personal data
gathered on tens of millions of us by the security and surveillance state. They keep
the accounts of ExxonMobil, BP and Goldman Sachs. They build or pilot aerial
drones. They work in corporate advertising and public relations. They issue the
forms. They process the papers. They deny food stamps to some and
unemployment benefits or medical coverage to others. They enforce the laws
and the regulations. And they do not ask questions.
Good. Evil. These words do not mean anything to them. They are beyond
morality. They are there to make corporate systems function. If insurance
companies abandon tens of millions of sick to suffer and die , so be it. If
banks and sheriff departments toss families out of their homes , so be it. If
financial firms rob citizens of their savings, so be it. If the government
shuts down schools and libraries , so be it. If the military murders children
in Pakistan or Afghanistan, so be it. If commodity speculators drive up the
cost of rice and corn and wheat so that they are unaffordable for hundreds
of millions of poor across the planet, so be it. If Congress and the courts
strip citizens of basic civil liberties , so be it. If the fossil fuel industry
turns the earth into a broiler of greenhouse gases that doom us, so be it.
They serve the system. The god of profit and exploitation . The most
dangerous force in the industrialized world does not come from those who
wield radical creeds, whether Islamic radicalism or Christian fundamentalism, but
from legions of faceless bureaucrats who claw their way up layered
corporate and governmental machines. They serve any system that meets
their pathetic quota of needs.
These systems managers believe nothing. They have no loyalty. They are
rootless. They do not think beyond their tiny, insignificant roles. They are blind and
deaf. They are, at least regarding the great ideas and patterns of human civilization

and history, utterly illiterate. And we churn them out of universities. Lawyers.
Technocrats. Business majors. Financial managers. IT specialists. Consultants.
Petroleum engineers. Positive psychologists. Communications majors. Cadets.
Sales representatives. Computer programmers. Men and women who know no
history, know no ideas. They live and think in an intellectual vacuum, a world of
stultifying minutia. They are T.S. Eliots the hollow men, the stuffed men.
Shape without form, shade without colour, the poet wrote. Paralysed force,
gesture without motion.
It was the careerists who made possible the genocides , from the
extermination of Native Americans to the Turkish slaughter of the
Armenians to the Nazi Holocaust to Stalins liquidations . They were the
ones who kept the trains running . They filled out the forms and presided
over the property confiscations. They rationed the food while children
starved. They manufactured the guns. They ran the prisons. They enforced
travel bans, confiscated passports, seized bank accounts and carried out
segregation. They enforced the law . They did their jobs.
Political and military careerists, backed by war profiteers, have led us into
useless wars , including World War I , Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan . And
millions followed them. Duty. Honor. Country. Carnivals of death. They sacrifice
us all. In the futile battles of Verdun and the Somme in World War I, 1.8 million on
both sides were killed, wounded or never found. In July of 1917 British Field Marshal
Douglas Haig, despite the seas of dead, doomed even more in the mud of
Passchendaele. By November, when it was clear his promised breakthrough at
Passchendaele had failed, he jettisoned the initial goalas we did in Iraq when it
turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction and in Afghanistan when alQaida left the countryand opted for a simple war of attrition. Haig won if more
Germans than allied troops died. Death as score card. Passchendaele took 600,000
more lives on both sides of the line before it ended. It is not a new story. Generals
are almost always buffoons. Soldiers followed John the Blind, who had lost his
eyesight a decade earlier, to resounding defeat at the Battle of Crcy in 1337 during
the Hundred Years War. We discover that leaders are mediocrities only when it is too
late.
David Lloyd George, who was the British prime minister during the Passchendaele
campaign, wrote in his memoirs: [Before the battle of Passchendaele] the Tanks
Corps Staff prepared maps to show how a bombardment which obliterated the
drainage would inevitably lead to a series of pools, and they located the exact spots
where the waters would gather. The only reply was a peremptory order that they
were to Send no more of these ridiculous maps. Maps must conform to plans and
not plans to maps. Facts that interfered with plans were impertinencies.
Here you have the explanation of why our ruling elites do nothing about climate
change, refuse to respond rationally to economic meltdown and are incapable of
coping with the collapse of globalization and empire. These are circumstances that
interfere with the very viability and sustainability of the system. And bureaucrats
know only how to serve the system. They know only the managerial skills
they ingested at West Point or Harvard Business School. They cannot think
on their own. They cannot challenge assumptions or structures . They

cannot intellectually or emotionally recognize that the system might

implode. And so they do what Napoleon warned was the worst mistake a general
could makepaint an imaginary picture of a situation and accept it as real.
But we blithely ignore reality along with them. The mania for a happy
ending blinds us. We do not want to believe what we see. It is too
depressing. So we all retreat into collective self-delusion.
In Claude Lanzmanns monumental documentary film Shoah, on the Holocaust, he
interviews Filip Mller, a Czech Jew who survived the liquidations in Auschwitz as a
member of the special detail. Mller relates this story:
One day in 1943 when I was already in Crematorium 5, a train from Bialystok
arrived. A prisoner on the special detail saw a woman in the undressing room who
was the wife of a friend of his. He came right out and told her: You are going to be
exterminated. In three hours youll be ashes. The woman believed him because she
knew him. She ran all over and warned to the other women. Were going to be
killed. Were going to be gassed. Mothers carrying their children on their shoulders
didnt want to hear that. They decided the woman was crazy. They chased her away.
So she went to the men. To no avail. Not that they didnt believe her. Theyd heard
rumors in the Bialystok ghetto, or in Grodno, and elsewhere. But who wanted to
hear that? When she saw that no one would listen, she scratched her whole face.
Out of despair. In shock. And she started to scream.
Blaise Pascal wrote in Penses, We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting
something in front of us to stop us from seeing it.
Hannah Arendt, in writing Eichmann in Jerusalem, noted that Adolf Eichmann was
primarily motivated by an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal
advancement. He joined the Nazi Party because it was a good career move. The
trouble with Eichmann, she wrote, was precisely that so many were like him, and
that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are,
terribly and terrifyingly normal.
The longer one listened to him, the more obvious it became that his inability to
speak was closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the
standpoint of somebody else, Arendt wrote. No communication was possible with
him, not because he lied but because he was surrounded by the most reliable of all
safeguards against words and the presence of others, and hence against reality as
such.
Gitta Sereny makes the same point in her book Into That Darkness, about Franz
Stangl, the commandant of Treblinka. The assignment to the SS was a promotion for
the Austrian policeman. Stangl was not a sadist. He was soft-spoken and polite. He
loved his wife and children very much. Unlike most Nazi camp officers, he did not
take Jewish women as concubines. He was efficient and highly organized. He took
pride in having received an official commendation as the best camp commander in
Poland. Prisoners were simply objects. Goods. That was my profession, he said. I
enjoyed it. It fulfilled me. And yes, I was ambitious about that, I wont deny it.
When Sereny asked Stangl how as a father he could kill children, he answered that
he rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass. [T]hey were
naked, packed together, running, being driven with whips. He later told Sereny
that when he read about lemmings it reminded him of Treblinka.

Christopher Brownings collection of essays, The Path to Genocide, notes that it

was the moderate, normal bureaucrats, not the zealots, who made the
Holocaust possible. Germaine Tillion pointed out the tragic easiness [during the
Holocaust] with which decent people could become the most callous executioners
without seeming to notice what was happening to them. The Russian novelist
Vasily Grossman in his book Forever Flowing observed that the new state did not
require holy apostles, fanatic, inspired builders, faithful, devout disciples. The new
state did not even require servantsjust clerks.
The most nauseating type of S.S. were to me personally the cynics who no longer
genuinely believed in their cause, but went on collecting blood guilt for its own
sake, wrote Dr. Ella Lingens-Reiner in Prisoners of Fear, her searing memoir of
Auschwitz. Those cynics were not always brutal to the prisoners, their behavior
changed with their mood. They took nothing seriouslyneither themselves nor their
cause, neither us nor our situation. One of the worst among them was Dr. Mengele,
the Camp Doctor I have mentioned before. When a batch of newly arrived Jews was
being classified into those fit for work and those fit for death, he would whistle a
melody and rhythmically jerk his thumb over his right or his left shoulderwhich
meant gas or work. He thought conditions in the camp rotten, and even did a few
things to improve them, but at the same time he committed murder callously,
without any qualms.
These armies of bureaucrats serve a corporate system that will quite
literally kill us. They are as cold and disconnected as Mengele. They carry out
minute tasks. They are docile. Compliant. They obey. They find their selfworth in the prestige and power of the corporation, in the status of their
positions and in their career promotions. They assure themselves of their own
goodness through their private acts as husbands, wives, mothers and fathers. They
sit on school boards. They go to Rotary. They attend church. It is moral
schizophrenia. They erect walls to create an isolated consciousness. They make the
lethal goals of ExxonMobil or Goldman Sachs or Raytheon or insurance companies
possible. They destroy the ecosystem, the economy and the body politic
and turn workingmen and -women into impoverished serfs . They feel
nothing. Metaphysical naivet always ends in murder . It fragments the
world. Little acts of kindness and charity mask the monstrous evil they abet. And
the system rolls forward. The polar ice caps melt . The droughts rage over
cropland. The drones deliver death from the sky. The state moves
inexorably forward to place us in chains . The sick die . The poor starve .
The prisons fill . And the careerist, plodding forward, does his or her job .

Corporate Control and influence in academic spheres leads to

an inverted totalitarianism which precludes any concern for
morality.
Seybold 14 Peter Seybold is an associate professor at Indiana
University/Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI), Department of Sociology,2014
("Servants of Power: Higher Education in an Era of Corporate Control," Truthout, 6-

22-2014, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24305-servants-ofpower-higher-education-in-an-era-of-corporate-control, Accessed 7-16-2015)//CM

Over the last 40 years, we have witnessed a dramatic change in the structure of
power in the United States. Since the mid-1970s, a one-sided class war has taken
place and the ruling class has been winning. It has altered the relationship
between capitalism and democracy, and in turn has subjugated a variety
of institutions to the logic of capitalism. Douglas Frazier, former head of the United Auto
Workers (UAW), took note of this class war early on, and more recently super-rich investor Warren Buffet has also
commented on how his class has waged a very successful class war against the rest of the American population.
Academia has really been slow to assess the changing dynamics of capitalism and the erosion of democracy in the
United States. Those who have written about this tidal wave of change have been marginalized by being labeled
conspiracy theorists or radicals with an axe to grind - or professors who have not been able to climb the ladder to
academic stardom. One sees little discussion in mainstream academic publications of the profound influence that
the Powell Memorandum (1971) has had on key institutions that make up the US cultural apparatus. Powell, who
later became a Supreme Court justice, argued in his memo that business had to wage a counterattack against the
left in American society. He urged the business community to mobilize and to finance conservative foundations,
think tanks, media organizations and endowed professorships in order to advance a cultural war carried out by
elites. Powell argued in his memo to the US Chamber of Commerce that business had to retake control over the
media and the university as part of an orchestrated campaign to alter social and political discourse in America.
Powell's proposal was certainly ambitious and involved a long battle to bend institutions in the direction of the
interests of the business community. This campaign was in direct response to gains made by the social movements
of the 1960s and early 1970s and the legislation that was passed in response to these movements. In Powell's
vision, the goal was not just to blunt the influence of left and progressive forces in the United States; it was to
fundamentally shift the country in a conservative direction by weakening labor unions, attacking the social wage,
repressing social movements and recapturing the media and higher education. What was to transpire over the
course of the next 40 years largely followed the outlines of Powell's proposal and dramatically altered the balance
of power in the country by eroding democratic institutions and restricting public spaces. It is not an exaggeration to
say that during this period, conservatives completely out-organized left and progressive social forces and changed

Business ultimately benefited the most from

this cultural war, although its major concern was - as always - commodifying more and
more areas of life, expanding profitability and reconstituting ideological control,
rather than engaging in the politics of morality. The long-term
consequences of this orchestrated campaign have resulted in the
degradation of life in the United States as the institutions which
previously undergirded the social safety net have come under fierce
attack. In the process, the opportunity for the American people to hold the
powerful accountable has been reduced to rituals of democracy which are
more about form than substance. As Sheldon Wolin has eloquently argued in his book,
Democracy Inc. (2008), the net result of this extended campaign by elites is a
managed democracy with a demobilized public that blurs the lines
between corporations and government and eviscerates concerns about the
public good. Wolin maintains that the present social and political
formation in the United States might best be described as "inverted
totalitarianism." The political arena is structurally incapable of addressing the major problems facing the
the landscape of social and political discourse.

American people. Taking the Powell Memorandum seriously and understanding what Wolin has asserted about the
US political system does not involve embracing conspiracy theory. It is not the case that elites in the United States
developed a plan to recapture major institutions and bend them toward the interests of business and did so without
encountering resistance. As Marx was so fond of reminding us, capitalism always generates its own opposition and
in the period from the mid-1970s to the present, there has been considerable resistance bubbling underneath the
surface of American society. The long-term consequences of a successful cultural war by the right have been to shift
the balance of social forces and institutions in the direction of business and to marginalize social justice
movements. As the Occupy Movement illustrated, efforts by elites were unable to stamp out the opposition or
contain the outrage generated by running the country solely for the interests of mega corporations. As Antonio

hegemony is never completely successful; it has to be

constantly defended, revised and reproduced, and this involves a struggle
Gramsci argued,

between different social classes. However, probably the most insidious effect
which hegemony has had on American society is that it has shifted the
range of debate to the right and redefined the acceptable policy options
available to the major political parties. The Democrats now represent center/right policy
alternatives and the Republicans now represent right/extreme right policy prescriptions. Consequently, the political

The height of
hegemony is when even the form and content of the opposition has been
affected by the institutionalized thought structure. This is exactly what has happened
arena is structurally incapable of addressing the major problems facing the American people.

in the United States when social movements have been marginalized or repressed, and when critics of society have

the range of debate has been narrowed and

the institutions that previously were independent and served as the
conscience of society have been integrated into the social order. Wolin's
nightmare of inverted totalitarianism no longer seems far-fetched.
been effectively contained. Consequently,

Without changing educational institutions and resisting

neoliberal control, we risk a fundamental erosion of democracy
and social justice movements, especially those centered in
academia
Seybold 14 Peter Seybold is an associate professor at Indiana
University/Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI), Department of Sociology,2014
("Servants of Power: Higher Education in an Era of Corporate Control," Truthout, 622-2014, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24305-servants-ofpower-higher-education-in-an-era-of-corporate-control, Accessed 7-16-2015)//CM
So how does academia fit into the grim picture painted above? Higher education, I would argue, has
mimicked the trends in the larger society and can often be seen as a
microcosm of this larger struggle. More and more universities and colleges in the
United States have fallen into line and have functioned as servants of power .
Fittingly, in 1984, I was asked to make a presentation at another university. I entitled my talk "Toward a Corporate
Service Station." I believed at the time that the university was being pushed and pulled in a direction that

the university has

lost its soul and has auctioned off its services to the highest bidder. There is
threatened its goals and ideals. Thirty years later, I believe even more strongly that

no better example of this trend than the growth of for-profit universities that make bundles of money from
desperate students while strangling them with incredible levels of debt in pursuit of dubious credentials. However, it
is too easy to just put this at the doorstep of for-profit educational institutions, because they are doing what they
were created to do - make money and commodify education. Even more disturbing is that

universities and

colleges are aligning themselves with corporate America. In 2008, I published a

short essay called "The Struggle Against Corporate Takeover of the University" in Socialism and Democracy. I
continue to be interested in the university as a microcosm of the larger struggle in American society involving the
commodification of culture and the attack on the commons. I am also interested in linking what is happening in
higher education to the attack on the middle and working classes: the growing polarization of American society, and
the weakening connection between education, the American Dream and the promotion of democratic principles. As

we are experiencing "the near death of the university

as a democratic sphere." Things have become considerably worse for universities and colleges since
2008, and the attack on these institutions has further degraded campus life
and has put the traditional mission of higher education in peril. Faced with
Henry Giroux has so aptly put it,

budget cuts, hostile legislatures, university administrators who increasingly identify themselves with corporate
CEOs, and communities which have been buffeted by the forces unleashed by the economic crash, universities are
increasingly being run like mega corporations. In Giroux's words, " Casino

capitalism does more

than infuse market values into every aspect of higher education; it wages
a full-fledged assault on public goods, democratic public spheres, and the

role of education in creating an informed and enlightened citizenry." We don't

have to accept the assault on university ideals and programs as inevitable or as another example of "there is no

Instead we need to forge a common understanding across sectors

of the university community to resist corporate takeover of academe. To be
alternative."

successful in this project will require going beyond the academic community and reaching out to students, parents,

We
must indeed see the university as an arena for struggle in order to revive
higher education and its ideals and to contribute to the larger struggle for
democracy and social justice. As someone who has worked in higher education for his entire career,
workers and community members who have been adversely affected by the direction the university has taken.

I sense a tremendous unease and decline in morale in academe. Some would say that this is normal because the
university has been subject to the same technological forces as any other institution and inevitably this leads to
changing the way people work. Surely, there is an element of faculty grumbling about having to do things
differently and being subjected to increased scrutiny. But there is more than just this going on in higher education.
Running a university like a business degrades all aspects of university life and negatively affects administrators,

Commodifying education
alienates people from each other, from the institution, from their work,
and diminishes people's expectations. Corporate logic changes priorities
and changes the allocation of resources for the institution. To argue against the
faculty, professional staff, workers, students, parents and the community.

corporatization of the university is not to harken back to the "good old days" in academe because, as Noam
Chomsky has argued, "we

should put aside any idea that there was once a 'golden
age.'" As Chomsky describes it, "things were different and in some ways better in the past, but far from perfect."
(Chomsky, 2014). He goes on to say that "traditional universities were for example, extremely hierarchical, with
very little democratic participation in decision-making." While his description is accurate, academe still maintained

The
university did provide a rather unique public space to think, debate and
criticize, and at least at one time, tried to teach students to be better,
more engaged, public citizens. It was also generally the case that those who worked in academe
relative autonomy from society, and also paid lip service to ideals that go back to the Enlightenment.

believed that the institution was exempt from some of the pressures which affected other institutions, and that the
university, despite what was happening in the larger society, would be successful in protecting itself from the
corrosive effects of capitalist society. To be sure, in a previous era, many sought work in academe to maintain their
independence, escape the restrictions imposed by capitalist society and work in a more humane and less

universities have had to

adapt to a rapidly changing social, political and economic environment.
commodified workplace. All of this has changed in the last 30 years or so as

Instead of leading the fight against the decline of the public sphere and the erosion of democracy,

universities have accepted the conditions imposed on them by

neoliberalism and have adjusted to the new status quo. Instead of speaking truth to
power they have more often become servants of power. The consequences
for academe have been catastrophic for the institution and its mission, for
the general public, and for the wellbeing of democracy. If the university
fails to perform its functions to teach students to think critically and to
serve as the conscience of society, what other institution in American
society will assume these responsibilities? As Giroux suggests, "Critical thinking
and a literate public have become dangerous to those who want to
celebrate orthodoxy over dialogue, emotion over reason, and ideological
certainty over thoughtfulness."Wider Implications of Corporate Cooptation of Academia The wider
implications of the corporate cooptation of higher education and the success of the cultural war waged by elites

Inverted totalitarianism, although at times

capable of harassing or discrediting critics, has instead cultivated a loyal intelligentsia of
its own. Through a combination of government contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects
since the 1970s are clearly explained by Sheldon Wolin:

involving university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors, universities (especially research

During
the months leading up to and following the invasion of Iraq, university and
universities), intellectuals, scholars and researchers have been seamlessly integrated into the system

college campuses, which had been such notorious centers of opposition to the Vietnam War that
politicians and publicists spoke seriously of the need to 'pacify the campuses,' hardly stirred. The
Academy had become self-pacifying (Wolin, 2008:68). College has become "the great unleveler."
The seamless integration of higher education into the logic of corporate
capitalism has created a new natural order of things where critics of the
new social arrangements are chastised for not keeping up with the
requirements of the post-modern economy and holding on to the past as
the world passes them by. The university, it has been argued, had to reinvent
itself to adjust to the current circumstances or it would lose out in the
competition. The market would now dictate what the best practices would
be in higher education and the guidelines for leading the institution would
be adapted from the corporate world. What follows is an account of the
corrosive effects of embracing corporate logic on higher education.
Corporatization of higher education has taken its toll on an institution,
which previously was considered one of the great triumphs of the
American system. Combined with rampant inequality, a college education is now more the province of the
privileged and, as The New York Times recently pointed out, college has become "the great unleveler."

The corporatization of education has serious implications for

teaching, innovation, and social justice movements these all
spill over into society
Seybold 14 Peter Seybold is an associate professor at Indiana
University/Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI), Department of Sociology,2014
("Servants of Power: Higher Education in an Era of Corporate Control," Truthout, 622-2014, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24305-servants-ofpower-higher-education-in-an-era-of-corporate-control, Accessed 7-16-2015)//CM
For those from the richest fifth, the annual cost of attending a four-year college has inched up from 6 percent of
family income in 1971 to 9 percent in 2011. For everyone else, the change is formidable. For those in the poorest
fifth, costs at State U have skyrocketed from 42 percent of family income to 114 percent. A tiered system has
evolved where the top 20 percent of the population is able to afford a university education. The bottom 80 percent
is increasingly burdened with debt if they pursue post-secondary education, and they are consigned to schools in
which the college experience often resembles vocational education. These trends are consistent with the imposition

The impact of corporatization

distorts and reshapes the university, which in turn affects American
society. I will focus on four areas which come to mind when examining the corrosive effects of corporatization
of a neoliberal agenda on a variety of American institutions.

on the university: 1) the way in which universities are administered in this corporate age, 2) the state of academic
labor and how it has changed over time, 3) the redefinition of university education and the alteration of the
curriculum to meet corporate influences, and 4) the decline of public intellectuals and the diminished role of
universities as independent centers of thought and debate. Henry Giroux, in his piece entitled "Beyond Neoliberal
Miseducation," cites Debra Leigh Scott who points out that " administrators

now outnumber
faculty on every campus across the country." The top-down control of
university governance by administrators has severely compromised
faculty governance. Universities now recruit former CEOs of major companies or former prominent
politicians to run complex university systems. Many of these recruits have no prior experience in academe and are
not steeped in the traditions of the university community which they seek to lead. At Purdue University, the former
governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, now serves as president of the university. Almost immediately after Daniels took

the timetested way of doing things in a university system has been systematically
dismantled. Like the larger society, an illusion of democratic participation
in decision-making has replaced actual participation in university
over at Purdue, a firestorm of protest by faculty and students ensued. This is just one example, but

decisions and dissenters have been threatened with sanctions for

questioning the current institutional arrangements. Governor Pat McCrory
of North Carolina illustrates clearly the mentality of conservative
politicians and their attitudes toward university education. McCrory has argued: "If
you want to take gender studies, that's fine, go to a private school. But I
don't want to subsidize that if that's not going to get someone a job." As I
mentioned earlier, university administrators have largely adopted business management principles, and units
within a university are now evaluated as stand-alone units responsible for paying for themselves. This practice has
seriously affected cooperation between departments and interaction with service units on campus, and has set off a
wave of competition between schools within a university. Running a university like a business is relatively easy to
institutionalize, but its intended and unintended consequences degrade the university environment and negatively

Under this system, the university runs more

efficiently within a very narrowly conceived understanding of efficiency,
but over time it tends to distort the allocation of resources on campus by
shifting money and personnel to segments of campus that generate
profits, attract grants and embrace neoliberal orthodoxy. An illusion of democratic
impact the morale of everyone on campus.

participation in decision-making has replaced actual participation in university decisions and dissenters have been
threatened with sanctions for questioning the current institutional arrangements. The area of campus in which the
harshest effects of corporatization can be seen is the organization of academic labor. More and more faculty these
days are hired off tenure-track in order to cut costs and establish greater control over academic labor. In 2007,
according to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 70 percent of the faculty on college
campuses were adjuncts and other contingent employees. These trends continue as tenure-track faculty who retire
are replaced by adjunct faculty. The pay of adjunct faculty is deplorable and their working conditions are just as bad
as they travel between part-time teaching jobs and have little time - or even an office in which - to talk with their
students. As James Hoff and other critics of the current practices of utilizing adjuncts assert, the system of low pay
creates a hierarchy within academia and creates even more tiers within the system (Hoff, 2014). Ever mindful of the

contingent faculty have to toe the line and are not

accorded the common courtesies extended to full-time faculty because
their job security is at risk. Hoff goes on to argue that universities now spend
more on administration than they do on teachers. According to Benjamin Ginsberg's
book The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters, between 1985
and 2005 administrative spending increased by 85 percent and the
number of administrative support staff increased by a whopping 240
percent. At the same time spending on faculty increased by only around 50
percent. Hoff also goes on to make the important point that students who are most in need, poor and working
class students, first generation students and students of color are most
frequently taught by adjunct faculty. The casualization of academic labor
thus affects the quality of instruction by restricting the time that faculty
can spend with students and the possibilities for mentoring opportunities.
In addition, low pay for contingent faculty also calls into question whether
someone can maintain an adequate standard of living by teaching in
college or junior college. Mirroring the inequality in the larger society, the average administrative salary, for
threat to their economic livelihood,

instance, at the University of Vermont was $210,851 per year. This was more than seven times the annual salary of
maintenance workers at the university (Jacobs, Counterpunch, Feb. 21-23, 2014). As tuition and other fees on
campus skyrocket, the money generated is disproportionately allocated to the most privileged segments of campus,
while the lowest wage workers on campus often qualify for food stamps. In a piece in Salon, Keith Heller has called
the current practices at US colleges and universities "the Wal-Mart-ization of higher education." He argues that
more and more faculty are underpaid and undervalued. The

casualization of academic labor is

gaining increased attention nationwide as parents, students and the university community come to
grips with the skewed priorities of University, Inc. Some of the basic principles underlying
effective pedagogy, such as small class size, individual attention and the
importance of mentoring, are being sacrificed in order to increase head

count, limit labor costs and create a one-size-fits-all educational

experience. Some of the basic principles underlying effective pedagogy, such as small class size, individual
attention and the importance of mentoring, are being sacrificed in order to increase head count, limit labor costs

A key aspect of the movement to

reorder the priorities of higher education is the redefinition of the
university experience in line with neoliberal principles. Reflecting the inequality in
and create a one-size-fits-all educational experience.

the larger society, the college experience is being segmented by the kind of school that students are able to afford.
Students from the top tier continue to enjoy the benefits of practices which are now increasingly only found at elite
universities and colleges. In other tiers, for instance, a liberal arts education is devalued and in public universities
that are not in the top tier, the educational experience emphasizes finding an area of study that will yield a job.

Training has often been substituted for a broad liberal arts experience and
students influenced by the difficult job market also question why they
need to take subjects that are not directly related to what they will do
when they leave college.

Education remains open to corporate control and abuse this

precludes critical thinking and questioning the world around
us.
Seybold 14 Peter Seybold is an associate professor at Indiana
University/Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI), Department of Sociology,2014
("Servants of Power: Higher Education in an Era of Corporate Control," Truthout, 622-2014, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24305-servants-ofpower-higher-education-in-an-era-of-corporate-control, Accessed 7-16-2015)//CM
The promise of the university has been subverted by corporate power . The
orchestrated attack on the university has taken its toll. The university used to be a place
where critical thinking was encouraged, where the imagination was
expanded, and democratic practices were extended. Corporate influence
over the university has fundamentally changed the trajectory of the
institution. Of course, universities bolstered the status quo in the past, as well, but they did provide
opportunities for radical thinkers and they were not as dependent on corporate funding in
the past. The struggle against the corporate university is part of a larger
struggle for social justice in American society. As I have argued in this paper, higher
education is not exempt from the social and political forces that impacted other key institutions in American society.

the fate of higher education has not been decided and the
corporate restructuring of the academy is being resisted. Higher education and its
However,

professoriate have been targeted because they represent a major reservoir of resistance to corporate control and
the erosion of democracy. As Antonio Gramsci reminded us, hegemony is not easily accomplished. It involves social,
political and cultural struggle to produce and reproduce the dominant order. According to Gramsci, hegemony is

Just as there has been a

war waged on women and the poor in the United States, there is a cultural
war being waged on the ideals of the American university. Higher education
and its professoriate have been targeted because they represent a major
reservoir of resistance to corporate control and the erosion of democracy .
The last thing that elites want to encourage is a space in which critical
thinking is nourished and a liberal arts education is valued . Universities
naturally are places where one might find people who are trained to "think
big," and who have developed an understanding of the inherent
contradictions of capitalism. It is for this reason that a campaign to
restructure the academy into a corporate service station has taken place.
never complete - it is constantly resisted even if only in a fragmented way.

In the struggle for hegemony in American society, the university as traditionally understood is contradictory in
nature. On the one hand, it has the potential to be a very unique commodity - one which makes bundles of money
and one which helps elite ideas and elite ideology become hegemonic. On the other hand, it can play a crucial role
in questioning the dominant ideology and producing critical thinkers. The contradictory role played by universities in

Corporate elites
seek to enlist the university in its battle to impose its will on the rest of
society. They seek to blunt the critical impulses of the university and
reinforce its role as a defender of neoliberalism. The challenge to everyone in academia
American society has made higher education an arena for struggle over the last 30 years.

is to resist corporatization of higher education. We still have the capacity to imagine a different university that
contributes to the fight to create a different, more peaceful and more democratic society. The goal should be to
build a broader coalition for social justice, to reimagine the future and to create a counter hegemony. To do these

the university stands for

something greater and more humane than simply being a servant to
power.
things we must firmly reject the current path. We must be clear that

They Say: Citizens United

Citizens United did nothing to change the politics or increase
Corporate Control Corporations arent asserting control by
spending money now
Bai 12 Matt Bai is the Chief Political Correspondent for the New York Times,
2012 (How Much Has Citizens United Changed the Political Game?, New York
Times, 7-17-2012, available via http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/howmuch-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html, accessed on 7-102015)//CM
A hundred million dollars is nothing, the venture capitalist Andy Rappaport told me
back in the summer of 2004. This was at a moment when wealthy liberals like
George Soros and Peter Lewis were looking to influence national politics by
financing their own voter-turnout machine and TV ads and by creating an
investment fund for start-ups. Rappaports statement struck me as an expression of
supreme hubris. In American politics at that time, $100 million really meant
something. Eight years later, of course, his pronouncement seems quaint.
Conservative groups alone, including a super PAC led by Karl Rove and another
group backed by the brothers Charles and David Koch, will likely spend more than a
billion dollars trying to take down Barack Obama by the time November rolls
around. The reason for this exponential leap in political spending, if you talk to most
Democrats or read most news reports, comes down to two words: Citizens United.
The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of
the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any
restriction on corporate money in politics. The oft-repeated narrative of 2012
goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from
businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are
now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics. As a matter of
political strategy, this is a useful story to tell, appealing to liberals and
independent voters who arent necessarily enthusiastic about the
administration but who are concerned about societal inequality, which is
why President Obama has made it a rallying cry almost from the moment the
Citizens United ruling was made. But if youre trying to understand whats
really going on with politics and money, the accepted narrative around
Citizens United is, at best, overly simplistic. And in some respects, its just
plain wrong. It helps first to understand what Citizens United did and didnt do
to change the opaque rules governing outside money. Go back to, say, 2007,
and pretend youre a conservative donor. At this moment, you would still have been
free to write a check for any amount to a 527 so named because of the shadowy
provision in the tax code that made such groups legal. (America Coming Together
and the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were both 527s.) Even
corporations, though they couldnt contribute to a candidate or a party,
were free to write unlimited checks to something called a social-welfare
group, whose principal purpose, ostensibly, is issue advocacy rather than
political activity. The anti-tax Club for Growth, for instance, is a social-welfare
group. So, remarkably, is the Koch brothers Americans for Prosperity and Karl

Roves Crossroads GPS. Photo There were, however, a few caveats when it came to
the way these groups could spend their money. Neither a 527 nor a social-welfare
group could engage in express advocacy that is, overtly making the case for
one candidate over another. Nor could they use corporate money for electioneering
communications a category defined as radio or television advertising that even
mentions a candidates name within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general
election. So under the old rules, the Club for Growth couldnt broadcast an ad that
said Vote Against Barack Obama, but it could spend that money on as many ads
as it wanted that said Barack Obama has ruined America call and tell him to
stop! as long as it did so more than 60 days before an election. (The distinction
between those two ads may sound silly and arcane to you, but thats why you dont
sit on the Federal Election Commission.) Citizens United and a couple of related
court decisions changed all of this in two essential ways, and each of them was
more incremental than transformational. First, the Supreme Court wiped away much
of the rigmarole about express advocacy and electioneering. Now any outside
group can use corporate money to make a direct case for who deserves your vote
and why, and they can do so right up to Election Day. The second change is that the
old 527s have now been made effectively obsolete, replaced by the super
PAC. The main difference between a super PAC and a social-welfare group,
practically speaking, is that a super PAC has to disclose the identity of its
donors, while social-welfare groups generally do not. Those who criticize the
effect of Citizens United look at these very technical changes and see an obvious
causal relationship. The high court says outside groups are allowed to use corporate
dollars to expressly support candidates, and suddenly we have this tidal wave of
money threatening to overwhelm the airways. One must have led to the other,
right? Well, not necessarily. Legally speaking, zillionaires were no less able to
write fat checks four years ago than they are today. And while it is true
that corporations can now give money for specific purposes that were
prohibited before, it seems they arent, or at least not at a level that
accounts for anything like the sudden influx of money into the system.
According to a brief filed by Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, and Floyd
Abrams, the First Amendment lawyer, in a Montana case on which the Supreme
Court ruled last month, not a single Fortune 100 company contributed to a
candidates super PAC during this years Republican primaries. Of the $96
million or more raised by these super PACs, only about 13 percent came
from privately held corporations, and less than 1 percent came from
publicly traded corporations. This only tells part of the story. The general
election has just begun, and big energy and health care companies may still be
pouring money into social-welfare groups that dont have to disclose their donors.
The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington reported
last month, for instance, that Aetna anonymously contributed more than $7 million
to two such groups. We may never know precisely how much money is coming from
similar companies, which should alarm anyone who cares about the integrity and
transparency of government. But the best anecdotal evidence suggests that this
kind of thing isnt happening in nearly the proportions you might expect.
Kenneth Gross, an election lawyer who represents an array of large corporations,
told me that few of his clients have contributed to the social-welfare groups

engaged in political activity this year. They know those contributions might
become public at some point, and no company that sells a product wants
to risk the kind of consumer reaction that engulfed Target in 2010, after it
contributed $150,000 to a Minnesota group backing a conservative
candidate opposing gay marriage. If youve got a bank on every corner, if
youve got stores in every strip mall, you dont want to be associated with
a social cause, Gross told me. None of this is to say that Citizens United hasnt
had an impact. Gross and others point out that in the era before Citizens United,
while individuals and companies could still contribute huge sums to outside groups,
they were to some extent deterred by the confusing web of rules and the liability
they might incur for violations. What the new rulings did, as the experts like to put
it, was to lift the cloud of uncertainty that hung over such expenditures, and the
effect of this psychological shift should not be underestimated. It almost certainly
accounts for some rise in political money this year, both from individuals and
companies. Even so, the Supreme Courts ruling really wasnt the sort of
tectonic event that Obama and his allies would have you believe it was.
Id go so far as to call it a liberal delusion, Ira Glasser, the former executive
director of the A.C.L.U. and a liberal dissenter on Citizens United, told me. Which
leads to an obvious question: If Citizens United doesnt explain this billion-dollar
blast of outside money, then what does?

Theres no impact to Citizens United its mostly felt on a

state instead of nation-wide level, and has no real effect on
Corporate Control.
Bai 12 Matt Bai is the Chief Political Correspondent for the New York Times,
2012 (How Much Has Citizens United Changed the Political Game?, New York
Times, 7-17-2012, available via http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/howmuch-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html, accessed on 7-102015)//CM
If youre a Democrat, theres some good news here. One persistent fear you hear
from liberals is that Citizens United altered the balance between the parties in a
permanent way that corporate money will give Republicans a structural
advantage that can never be overcome. Whats more likely is that the boom in
outside money will prove to be cyclical, with the momentum swinging toward
whoever feels shut out and persecuted at the moment. Liberals dominated outside
spending in 2004 and 2006. And should Romney become president, theyll most
likely do so again. Its worth asking just how much an advantage all of this
outside money actually confers. The greatest impact of this years
imbalance in outside money will be felt on the state level, where a lot of
House seats and control of the Senate hang in the balance, and where a sharp
gust of advertising can often blow the results in one direction or another.
But a presidential campaign is different, focusing as it does on a dozen or so pivotal
states and a limited number of advertising markets. Theres probably a limit to
how many 30-second spots all of these groups can cram onto cable
stations during late-night showings of Turner & Hooch. I recently called

Carter Eskew, a longtime Democratic adman and strategist whose clients included
Al Gore in 2000, and asked him a simple question: How much did he think he would
really need for a candidate today, if he could have an unlimited budget to run a
national ad campaign, including all the outside money? Eskew paused before giving
a declarative answer: $500 million. Anything beyond that, he said, was probably
overkill. In other words, theres a threshold below which a presidential
candidate cant really compete effectively, and that number whether its
$500 million or something less is outlandish enough that it should give us
pause. But beyond that number, its not clear that spending an extra $200
million or $500 million will really make all that much of a difference on
Election Day. More likely, the two ideological factions are now like rivals of the
nuclear age, stockpiling enough bombs to destroy the same cities over and over
again, when one would do the job. You could even argue that whatever benefit a
campaign derives from all this money is balanced, somewhat, by the threat it poses.
Back in the days of soft money, a candidate had ownership of his partys
national apparatus and the accusations it hurled on prime-time TV. He was
responsible for the integrity of his argument, and his advisers ultimately
controlled it. What the reform-minded architects of McCain-Feingold
inadvertently unleashed, what Citizens United intensified but by no means
created, is a world in which a big part of the money in a presidential
campaign is spent by political entrepreneurs and strategists who are
unanswerable to any institution. Candidates and parties who become the
vehicles of angry outsiders, as Mitt Romney is now, dont really have control of their
own campaigns anymore; to a large extent, they are the instruments of volatile
forces beyond their own reckoning. Maybe that makes for a cleaner and more
democratic system than the one we had before, in the way the campaign-finance
reformers intended. Standing here in 2012, its just hard to see how.

They Say: FERPA Checks

FERPA doesnt protect student data the Obama Department
of Education continues to ignore it.
Newman 13 Alex Newman, president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small
information consulting firm, degree in journalism from the University of Florida,
foreign correspondent for The New American magazine, writes for several
publications in the U.S. and abroad, 2013 ("Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your
Kids," The New American, August 1st, Available Online at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16193-orwelliannightmare-data-mining-your-kids, Accessed 7-7-2015)
Of course, all of the data collected must be shared with the U.S. Department of
Education and other entities within and outside the federal government. Acting
unilaterally, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan even purported to
overrule federal privacy laws by promulgating new regulations gutting
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Some lawmakers
expressed outrage, but the process continues.
As part of what you described as a cradle to career agenda, the Department of
Education is aggressively moving to expand data systems that collect
information on our nations students, wrote Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), now
chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, in an early 2010 letter
to Duncan. The Departments effort to shepherd states toward the creation of a de
facto national student database raises serious legal and prudential questions.
As Kline points out in the letter, there is good reason to believe that the
administration is again flouting federal law. Congress has never
authorized the Department of Education to facilitate the creation of a
national student database, he explained. To the contrary, Congress
explicitly prohibited the development of a nationwide database of
personally identifiable information and barred the development,
implementation, or maintenance of a Federal database. Despite no mention
of the Constitution, multiple federal statutes are cited in the correspondence.
Apparently, the administration does not take kindly to having its alleged
violations of the law exposed. While it couldnt fire Rep. Kline, the
Education Department did reportedly dismiss its top privacy official, thenFamily Policy Compliance Office chief Paul Gammill. According to a 2010 report in
Inside Higher Ed, Gammill was fired after he argued in internal meetings and
documents that the departments approach to prodding states to expand their
longitudinal student data systems violated the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act. The Education Department refused to comment on the case, though it
openly admits that one of the long-term goals of the SLDS program is to make
education data transparent through Federal and public reporting.

2AC Critical Thinking

2AC Common Core Hurts Critical Thinking

Common Core testing ruins critical thinking and drives
students away from education.
Natale 14 Elizabeth Natale, English and language arts teacher for more than
15 years, in an Interview with Breitbart News, Byline Dr. Susan Berry, 2014
(Connecticut Teacher's Op-Ed Against Common Core Goes Viral, Breitbart News,
January 26th, Available Online at http://www.breitbart.com/biggovernment/2014/01/26/connecticut-teacher-s-op-ed-against-common-core-goesviral/, Accessed 06-23-2015)
Breitbart News: Supporters of Common Core say the standards are
rigorous and teach critical thinking, and will prepare students for
college and career and a global 21st century economy. You said in your
op-ed that Common Core is a system that focuses on preparing workers rather
than thinkers, collecting data rather than teaching and treating teachers as less
than professionals. What about this huge discrepancy in how the standards are
viewed?
Elizabeth Natale: Im not opposed to rigor and critical thinking. Given the
emphasis on non-fiction reading, however, I dont think this curriculum is
preparing students for college and career or for the global 21st century
economy. Since when is reading and analyzing fiction irrelevant in the 21st
century? Students need to do this type of critical thinking in their careers,
in college, and in the 21st century. When I worked in public relations at Trinity
College in Hartford, the alumni magazine ran a story about graduates
employed on Wall Street. The largest percentage of them were religion
majors. Why? Because religion majors have to think critically . They can be
trained to do the work in any sort of career.
BBN: It seems that many parents still dont know much about the new standards.
Are parents becoming more informed and, if so, whats your impression of their
reactions to them?
EN: I dont think the majority of parents know that much about it. I especially dont
think they know much about the SBAC [Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium]
testing. Again, my argument is less with Common Core than with the associated
testing. I have had a few parents write to me about talking with their children about
SBAC for the first time after reading my piece and being shocked at the negative
comments made by their children. Parents should sit down and look at the test with
their children. They should ask their children what they think about it. I also have
had a few parents write to say they are opting out when it comes to SBAC testing.
BBN: If a parent came to observe your classroom, would he or she see a difference
because of Common Core, and what would that difference be?
EN: Im trying to resist changing everything I know is good just because of Common
Core, but the test looms over all of us . We give many more assessments to
collect data. We give the student assessments that are contrived to
resemble SBAC testing, which is so counterproductive. Im more stressed,
and I know the students sense that. I dont think learning has to be fun every

minute, but Common Core and testing is certainly hurting everyones ability
to be excited.

2AC Education Impact National Security

Lack of history and language education weakens military
responses to crises
Council on Foreign Relations 12 The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
is an independent think tank dedicated to being a resource for its members in order
to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the
United States and other countries, 2012 (U.S. Education Reform and National
Security, CFR Independent Task Force Report No. 68, March 2012, available online
via http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-education-reform-national-security/p27618,
accessed on 7/8/15)//CM - Edited for ablest language
The lack of language skills and civic and global awareness among
American citizens increasingly jeopardizes their ability to interact with
local and global peers or participate meaningfully in business, diplomatic,
and military situations. The United States is not producing enough
foreign-language speakers to staff important posts in the U.S. Foreign
Service, the intelligence community, and American companies. A GAO report found
that the State Department faces foreign language shortfalls in areas of
strategic interest.22 In Afghanistan, the report found, thirty-three 2of forty-five
officers in language-designated positions did not meet the State Departments
language requirements. In Iraq, eight of fourteen officers did not have the necessary
skills. Shortages in such languages as Dari, Korean, Russian, Turkish,
Chinese languages, and others are substantial.23 This leaves the United
States crippled [weakened] in its ability to communicate effectively with others
in diplomatic, military, intelligence, and business contexts . Too many
Americans are also deficient in both global awareness and knowledge of
their own countrys history and values. An understanding of history,
politics, culture, and traditions is important to citizenship and is essential
for understanding Americas allies and its adversaries . A failure to learn
about global cultures has serious consequences: a recent report by the U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences asserted that cultural
learning and cultural agility are critical skills in the military.24 What the
authors call crosscultural competence allows soldiers to correctly read and
assess situations they encounter. It also gives them the tools they need to
respond effectively and in line with the norms of the local culture. Finally, it
helps them anticipate and respond to resistances or challenges that arise.
Our forces must have the ability to effectively communicate with and
understand the cultures of coalition forces, international partners, and
local populations, U.S. secretary of defense Leon Panetta wrote in an August
2011 memo. [The Department of Defense] has made progress in establishing a
foundation for these capabilities, but we need to do more to meet current and
future demands.25

2AC Education Impact Hegemony

Education is key to U.S. world power declining education
trends risk decreases in stability
Council on Foreign Relations 12 The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
is an independent think tank dedicated to being a resource for its members in order
to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the
United States and other countries, 2012 (U.S. Education Reform and National
Security, CFR Independent Task Force Report No. 68, March 2012, available online
via http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-education-reform-national-security/p27618,
accessed on 7/8/15)//CM
In a broader sense, the growing gap between the educated and the
undereducated is creating a widening chasm that divides Americans and
has the potential to tear at the fabric of society. As problems within the
American education system have worsened, mobility that was possible in
previous generations has waned. For the first time, most Americans think it
is unlikely that todays youth will have a better life than their parents .26
With wider income inequality and an increase in poverty, young people born to
poor parents are now less likely to perform well in school and graduate
from college than their better-off peers, and they are increasingly less
likely to rise out of poverty.27 This trend not only causes the American
Dream to appear out of reach to more citizens but also breeds isolationism
and fear. The Task Force fears that this trend could cause the United States
to turn inward and become less capable of being a stabilizing force in the
world, which it has been since the mid-twentieth century. In short, unequal
educational opportunities and the resulting achievement gap have a direct
impact on national security. Large, undereducated swaths of the population
damage the ability of the United States to physically defend itself, protect
its secure information, conduct diplomacy, and grow its economy . The
unrelenting gap separating peers from peers also renders the American
Dream off limits to many young people. Task Force members fear this
inequality may have a long-term effect on U.S. culture and civil society.

2AC Education Impact Tyranny

Absent education, politics is useless. Education is starting
point for fighting social injustice and reshaping existing
institutional relationships. The culture of non-thinking
guarantees tyranny.
Giroux 14 Henry A. Giroux, Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the
English and Cultural Studies Department & Chair in Critical Pedagogy at The
McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning, Distinguished
Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, member of Truthout's Board of Directors,
author of dozens of books on learning and pedagogy including Youth in Revolt:
Reclaiming a Democratic Future, America's Educational Deficit and the War on
Youth, Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education, 2014 (Data Storms and the
Tyranny of Manufactured Forgetting, Truthout, June 24 th, Available Online at
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24550-data-storms-and-the-tyranny-ofmanufactured-forgetting#/, Accessed 06-25-2015)
Under the auspices of quality control, the cult of data and high-stakes testing
becomes a signpost for empirical madness and number crunching run
amok. "Teaching to the test" more often than not results in miseducating students
while undermining any possibility of expanding their sense of wonder, imagination,
critique and social responsibility. Left unchecked, instrumental rationality parading
as educational reform will homogenize all knowledge and meaning, as it becomes a
machine for proliferating forms of civic and social death, deadening the spirit with
the weight of dead time and a graveyard of useless testing pedagogies. What does
this have to do with the suppression of historical consciousness and the
death of politics in the broader culture? The answer becomes clearer when
we analyze the relationships among critical thinking, historical
consciousness, and the notions of social and self-emancipation.
If we think of emancipation as both a mode of critical understanding and a
form of action designed to overthrow structures of domination, we can
begin to illuminate the interplay between historical consciousness, critical
thinking and emancipatory behavior. At the level of understanding, critical
thinking represents the ability to step beyond commonsense assumptions
and to be able to evaluate them in terms of their genesis, development
and purpose. Such thinking should not be viewed simply as a form of progressive
reasoning; it must be considered in itself as a fundamental political act . In this
perspective, critical thinking becomes a mode of reasoning that, as MerleauPonty points out, is embedded in the realization that "I am able," meaning
that one can use individual capacities and collective possibilities "to go
beyond the created structures in order to create others."[29] Critical thinking
as a political act means that human beings must emerge from their own
submersion and acquire the ability to intervene in reality as it is unveiled.[30] Not
only does this instil a sense that they must work with others to actively
shape history, but it also means that they must "escape" from their own
history - that is, the history which society has designated for them.

As historical memory is erased, critical thought is crushed by a sterile

instrumental rationality under the guise of mass information and a data
storm.
As Jean Paul Sartre writes, "you become what you are in the context of what others
have made of you."[31] This is a crucial point, and one that links critical agency and
historical consciousness. For we must turn to history in order to understand the
traditions that have shaped our individual biographies and relationships with other
human beings. This critical attentiveness to one's own history and culture
represents an important element in examining the socially constructed sources
underlying one's formative processes. To become aware of the processes of
historical self-formation initiates an important beginning in breaking apart
the taken-for-granted assumptions that legitimize social injustice and
existing institutional arrangements . Therefore, critical thinking demands a
form of hermeneutic understanding that is historically grounded. Similarly,
it must be stressed that the capacity for a historically grounded critique is
inseparable from those conditions that foster collective communication
and critical dialogue. In this case, such conditions take as a starting point
the need to delegitimize the culture of neoliberalism and the socioeconomic structure it supports, particularly what might be called a
pernicious notion of instrumental rationality, with its one-sided emphasis
on mathematical utility, numbers, data and the cult of the empirical.
Schools play a crucial , but far from straightforward, role in reproducing the
culture of ignorance and instrumental rationality , though they are not alone
as the popular media in its traditional and newer digital formats have become a
powerful educational force throughout the culture. Furthermore, the mechanisms
of social control - such as high-stakes testing - that increasingly
characterize school life are not new developments, despite what their
proponents would claim for them. They are rooted in the modern conditions
that have functioned to transform human needs as well as buttress
dominant social and political institutions . Put another way, the prevailing
mode of technocratic and instrumental rationality that permeates both the
schools and the larger society has not just been tacked on to the existing social
order as a recent innovation. It has developed historically over the last century and
with particular intensity since the end of the 1970s; consequently, it deeply
saturates our collective experiences, practices and routines. Thus, to
overcome the culture of instrumental rationality means that educators, artists,
intellectuals and others will have to construct alternative social
formations and worldviews that transform both the consciousness as well
as the deep vital structures of schools and the larger American public. Put
bluntly, education and the changing of habits, consciousness, desires and
knowledge must be viewed as both an educational task and central to any
viable notion of politics .
As a pedagogical challenge, progressives of various ideological stripes might
engage in the political task of making power visible by raising
fundamental questions such as: What counts as knowledge? How is this

knowledge produced and legitimized? Whose interests does this

knowledge serve? Who has access to this knowledge? How is this knowledge
distributed and reproduced in the classroom and wider society? What kinds of social
relationships are being produced at the level of everyday life in schools, the
workplace and other sites and may parallel or disrupt the social relations in the
wider society? How do the prevailing forms of public pedagogy and empirical
methodological frenzy serve to legitimize existing knowledge and practices?
Questions such as these, which focus on the production, distribution and
legitimation of knowledge, values, desires and subjectivities, should be related to
the institutional arrangements of the larger society. Moreover, these questions
should be analyzed as part of a larger understanding of why so many
people participate in their own oppression , why they accept the values of
an authoritarian society , and why they are willing to embrace as common
sense the cutthroat values, practices and policies of neoliberalism ,
regardless of the misery caused by its malignant blend of social austerity
and unchecked casino capitalism. In other words, these are questions that
should provide the foundation for engaging the educative nature of politics as it
disseminates its messages through all those cultural apparatuses that are actively
engaged in producing subjectivities amenable to the dictates of an authoritarian
society. It is important to recognize that these questions can help teachers,
students, young people, workers, artists, intellectuals and others to identify,
understand and generate those pivotal social processes needed to
encourage the American public to become active participants in the search
for knowledge and meaning - a search designed to foster, rather than
suppress, critical thinking and social action.
Central to such a culture of questioning is the necessity to address the fact that the
cult of instrumental rationality in the United States has no language for relating the
self to public life, social responsibility or the demands of citizenship. It has nothing
to say about what institutions should achieve to support democracy, and why they
too often fail. Instrumental reason erases the crucial question of how knowledge is
related to self-definition and weakens the ability of individuals to raise questions
about how knowledge works to secure particular forms of power and desire.
While it is true that critical thinking will not in and of itself change the nature of
existing society, engaging in an intellectual struggle with the death-driven
rationality that now fuels neoliberal capitalism will set the foundation for
producing generations of young people who might launch a larger social
movement. Such a movement will enable new forms of struggle, and hopefully
a new future in which questions of justice, dignity, equality and
compassion matter. The relationship between the wider culture of instrumental
rationality, commodification and privatization, and the wider practices of public
pedagogy is, in essence, a relationship between ideology and social control. The
dynamic at work in this relationship is complex and diverse. To begin to understand
that dynamic as a pedagogical and political issue is to understand that history is not
predetermined, but waiting to be seized.
The culture of instrumental rationality has undermined the critical nature
of the civic and the political, reduced education to a narrow focus on
mathematical utility, weakened the democratic purpose of schooling and

other institutions, and undermined the role of educators, artists and other
cultural workers who are engaged and critical public intellectuals. Given
the importance of education in and out of schools in providing the
formative culture necessary for students and others to develop the
capacities for connecting reason and freedom, ethics and knowledge, and
learning and social change, progressives must reclaim education as an
emancipatory project deeply rooted in the goal of expanding the
possibilities of critical thought, agency and democracy itself.
Such a task is about reclaiming the Enlightenment emphasis on freedom,
reason and informed hope as well as engaging education as a crucial site
of struggle, one that cannot be frozen in the empty, depoliticizing
ignorance that supports an oppressive culture of instrumental rationality.
Near the end of her life Hannah Arendt argued that thinking is the essence of
politics because she recognized that no politics could be visionary if it did not
provide the foundation for human beings to become literate, critical agents.
Thinking is a dangerous activity, especially in dark times like the historical
moment we currently inhabit. But, for Arendt, what she called "nonthinking" is
the real peril in that it allows tyranny to take root , and history to repeat
itself again and again . She wrote:
And to think always means to think critically. And to think critically is always to be
hostile. Every thought actually undermines whatever there is of rigid rules, general
convictions, et cetera. Everything which happens in thinking is subject to a critical
examination of whatever there is. That is, there are no dangerous thoughts for the
simple reason that thinking itself is such a dangerous enterprise. . . . nonthinking is
even more dangerous. I don't deny that thinking is dangerous, but I would say not
thinking, ne pas reflechir c'est plus dangereux encore [not thinking is even more
dangerous].[32]
No democratic society can survive with a configuration of power,
institutions and politics dedicated to keeping people ignorant while
exploiting their needs, labor, desires and hopes for a better future.
Dependency and vulnerability are now viewed as a weakness, even as the public
services and public servants that might alleviate people's distress are defined as
gratuitous costs by the neoliberal state. American democracy is losing ground
against an onslaught of neoliberal forces in every realm, not only in the realm of
politics. As historical memory is erased, critical thought is crushed by a
sterile instrumental rationality under the guise of mass information and a
data storm. The formative cultures and institutions that enable individuals
to learn how to become critically engaged citizens are being eviscerated. If
unchecked, neoliberal barbarism will strengthen its dominance over
everyday life, and the transition into authoritarianism will quicken . The
way out of this conundrum is not to be found in the use of data-gathering
technologies or in an uncritical faith in the expansion of new digital and social
media. Neither will it be discovered in a callous retreat from compassion and social
responsibility, or in reliance on a depoliticizing instrumental rationality.
It is only a rebirth of historical memory that will enable the merging of
dangerous thinking, critical knowledge and subversive action into a

movement capable of reviving the dream of a future in which the practice

of radical democratization prevails. Memory work is dangerous, particularly to
those defenders of tyranny such as Cheney, Kristol, Rice and other warmongers for
whom the politics of forgetting is crucial to their own legitimation. When such antipublic intellectuals have returned to the national spotlight in order to revel in
history's erasure, it is time to make trouble and to hope, as Herbert Marcuse
once stated, that the horizon of history is still open.[33]

2AC Value to Life Impact

The data-driven life is devoid of quality we become
automotons.
Feiler 14 Bruce Feiler, writer for numerous publications, including The New
Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, and Gourmet, where he won three James
Beard Awards, contributor to NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News, author of 6
NYT bestsellers on education, families and success, 2014 ("The United States of
Metrics," New York Times, May 16th, Available Online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/fashion/the-united-states-of-metrics.html?_r=1,
Accessed 7-6-2015)
In the last few years, there has been a revolution so profound that its
sometimes hard to miss its significance. We are awash in numbers. Data is
everywhere . Old-fashioned things like words are in retreat; numbers are
on the rise. Unquantifiable arenas like history, literature, religion and the
arts are receding from public life, replaced by technology, statistics,
science and math. Even the most elemental form of communication, the story, is
being pushed aside by the list.
The results are in: The nerds have won. Time to replace those arrows in the talons of
the American eagle with pencils and slide rules. Weve become the United
States of Metrics.
Given our new obsessions with numbers, youre probably eager for some statistics
to back up this argument. (Actually, by this point, youve probably already stopped
reading. A study by the Internet data company Chartbeat looked at deep user
behavior across two billion web visits and found that 55 percent of readers spent
fewer than 15 seconds on a page.)
In any event, here goes:
HEALTH Sixty-nine percent of Americans track their weight, diet or exercise, while a
third track their blood pressure, sleep patterns and headaches. The market for
digital fitness devices brought in $330 million last year and is expected to double
this year. Samsung just added a heart-rate monitor to its popular Galaxy line of
phones. The No. 1 paid app on iTunes this spring is the Sleep Cycle Alarm Clock,
which monitors the amount and quality of winks you get and wakes you during a
light phase of your cycle. The app is the top seller in every G-8 country.
SOCIAL MEDIA Facebook is the king of metrics. The site counts the number of
friends (average 338), the number of likes on each status report, the number of
comments on each report and the number of likes on each comment. Twitter,
Instagram, LinkedIn, Foursquare and Tumblr all tally your followers and connections,
along with the number of pass-alongs, favorites and responses. Want to know how
influential you are on social media? Klout and Kred use analytics to rank your
impact. Five hundred million users have calculated their Klout score on a scale from
1 to 100.
SOCIAL SCIENCE That God-shaped hole in the universe? Its been filled with social
science. Whereas once we quoted politicians or preachers, now we quote Gallup or
Pew. (Actually, few neologisms better capture the change in the United States in the
last 50 years than the move from pew to Pew.) Theres a study, poll or survey for

everything these days. TED Talks, the headquarters of this movement, have been
viewed more than a billion times, and talks are ranked by views. The hottest
nonfiction book this spring is Capital in the 21st Century, a 696-page economic
tome by Thomas Piketty.
Every generation gets the gurus it craves. Ours include Malcolm Gladwell, Daniel
Kahneman, Bren Brown, Jim Collins, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, Dan
Gilbert, Dan Pink, Dan Ariely and Nate Silver. What do they all have in common?
They use research to tackle issues that were once the provenance of poets,
theologians and philosophers. (Also, theres a 40 percent chance theyre named
Dan.)
SPORTS While sports fans have always loved statistics, the explosion of fantasy
sports in recent years means that the statistics, in essence, now play one another.
Fans assemble their own rosters of players from various teams, then those teams
compete based on metrics. Thirty-two million people play fantasy sports each
year. Offerings include baseball, football, rugby, professional wrestling, surfing, auto
racing, hockey and golf. (Theres even a Fantasy Congress.) The economic impact is
$4 billion a year.
LIFESTYLE The Quantified Self movement utilizes life-logging, wearable computing
and other techniques to assemble what it calls self-knowledge through numbers.
New York University just announced that it has teamed with Hudson Yards to create
the nations first quantified community. Electronic monitors will collect data on
such things as pedestrian traffic, air quality, energy consumption, composting
compliance, even the physical activity of residents in order to build a smart
community. The app Reporter pings you several times a day and asks you
questions like Where are you?, Who are you with? and What did you learn
today? The service then creates a graph of your life.
Theres even smart cutlery. HapiFork tracks how fast you eat. If you dont pause 10
seconds between each bite, the utensil turns bright red and vibrates to slow you
down.
Big Brother isnt our big enemy anymore. Its Big Self. That hovering eye
in the sky watching every move you make: Its you.
So what are the consequences of this new numerized world?
Duncan Watts, a social scientist at Microsoft Research and the author of Everything
Is Obvious, welcomes the trend. He said all this new information enables better
decisions.
If you had to choose between a world in which you do everything based on instinct,
tradition or some vague, received wisdom, or you do something based on evidence,
I would say the latter is the way to go, he said.
The challenge is coming up with the proper interpretation of the data, he said. Did
you not get a full nights sleep because you were mindlessly flipping channels or
watching Internet porn, or because you were comforting a sick child or having a
night of great sex the way they do in New Mexico?
Coming up with the correct meaning is whats hard, Mr. Watts said.
Tony Haile, the chief executive of Chartbeat, which provides real-time analytics for
ESPN, CNN and The New York Times Company, agrees. (In addition to studying
readers habits, nearly every major news organization has invested in data
journalism, the use of computerized tools to scan digital records, cull big data and

visualize complex stories through three-dimensional charts and revolving

infographics.) He said the benefits of metrics far outweigh the risks. Data provides
what he calls a sixth sense, giving instant feedback thats objective. A former tour
guide to the North Pole, Mr. Haile measures his sleep, his exercise, his fat
percentage and how many steps he takes each day.
I do it because its fun, he said. I get a buzz when I see Ive hit my 10,000 steps.
Still, in the same way we never use one sense in isolation, Mr. Haile said, the same
should apply to data.
Just as looks can be deceiving, data can also be deceiving because theyre not the
whole picture, he said. But its an important part of the picture and one we didnt
have before. Im much less concerned about the data taking over as long as we
remember that its an additional layer.
Others, though, are concerned. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the statistician and
former options trader who wrote the best-selling book The Black Swan,
about unexpected events, said he believes the current obsession with
metrics is a seductive trap .
The evil here is not having metrics, he said. The problem is that you start
trying to maximize every metric you have and reduce everything else.
Mr. Taleb said he likes knowing how many kilograms of meat hes buying, but if his
meal is measured only by kilograms of meat and calories consumed, then dozens
of other uncountable qualities, like the pleasure of the food or the quality of the
conversation, go ignored.
As a scientist, I can say that very little is measurable , he said, and even
those things that are measurable, you cannot trust the measurement
beyond a certain point .
Many nonscientists are even more frustrated. Anne Lamott, the novelist and
nonfiction writer whose best-selling books include Bird by Bird and Traveling
Mercies, is concerned that the headlong rush into data is overshadowing
everything great and exciting that someone like me would dare to call
grace.
What this stuff steals is our aliveness , she said. Grids, spreadsheets and
algorithms take away the sensory connection to our lives, where our feet
are, what were seeing, all the raw materials of life, which by their very
nature are disorganized. Metrics, she said, rob individuals of the sense
that they can choose their own path, because if youre going by the data
and the formula, theres only one way .

2AC One-Size-Fits-All Fails

Common core, like every attempt for standardized standards,
is doomed a one-size-fits-all approach cant solve
Kibbe 14 Matt Kibbe, President of FreedomWorks, former Chief of Staff to Rep.
Dan Miller, Director of Federal Budget Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Senior economist at the Republican National Committee, 2014 ("Common Cores
Top-Down Standards are Doomed to Failure," US News & World Report, February
27th, Available Online at http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-the-common-corestandards-a-good-idea/attempts-to-standardize-education-are-doomed-to-fail,
Accessed 7-6-2015)
For the uninitiated, Common Core represents a set of national standards
with the aim of imposing uniformity on the countrys schools through
rigorous testing requirements. Aside from the circulation of number of
laughably terrible math questions approved under the new standards, the
response from those affected has not been enthusiastic, with a wide
variety of state level initiatives being proposed to block the implementation
of Common Core. Even the National Education Association, the largest
teachers union in the country, is walking back its initial support for the
standards in light of what it calls a completely botched roll-out.
This should come as no surprise. Attempts to standardize something like
education are, by their very nature, doomed to fail because every childs
mind is unique. Different students learn in different ways, at different paces, and
forcing adherence to inflexible, one-size-fits-all standards can only result in
harm in the long term.
Since school funding is tied to success in testing, good teachers are handicapped
from using their skills to their best advantage. Instead of bringing their years of
experience to engage students on a personal level, pressure to produce
measurable results will turn teachers into little more than automatons,
frantically teaching to the test under the threat of losing their own jobs if
the required scores dont materialize. We saw this same pattern under No Child
Left Behind, which placed increased emphasis on standardized testing. The
freedom and creativity necessary to inspire students and get them thinking for
themselves, as unique individuals, is lost in the ruthless quest for conformity.
[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]
In a recent and half-hearted attempt to spin Common Core into something
conservatives could support, Republican strategist Rich Galen insisted, Standards
and accountability are conservative values that we have promoted for decades!"
While there is undoubtedly some truth in this, the assumption behind the statement
is completely backwards. There is nothing conservative about standards imposed
from on high by a government that has proven itself to be time and time again
hopelessly corrupt, relentlessly partisan, and painfully incompetent. Instead,
accountability should be local in nature. No one is better equipped to
understand the needs of individual children than their parents, working
with teachers within their shared communities.

National standards fail policymakers dont understand the

classroom and teachers inevitably reject standards anyways
Mehta 13 Jal Mehta, Associate Professor in education at Harvard, PhD in
Sociology and Public Policy from Harvard, 2013 (Why American Education Fails
Foreign Affairs, May/June Issue, Available online at
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-04-03/why-americaneducation-fails, Accessed 7-7-15)
The result has been a vicious cycle in the interaction between policymakers
and practitioners, one that leaves little hope for the much-needed
improvements in American education. Policymakers understandably want to
intervene in the failing system, given the highly uneven performance
among schools, with dropout rates as high as 40-50 percent in some urban
districts. They have done so through a variety of mechanisms, but most notably
through an effort to set higher standards for student performance and to
create consequences for schools that fail to improve. Teachers, for their
part, resent the external mandates developed by people who know little of
their daily work and who are unwilling to provide the social support that
their students need . Teachers' unions worry that their members are being
scapegoated for their schools' failure, and so they frequently harden their
positions and seek to resist what they see as unfair and unwise external
accountability measures. Many policymakers, in turn, see schools as units
that need tighter coupling to overcome the teachers' opposition and think
of unions as an obstruction to necessary reforms. The cycle continues, with
each group playing its appointed role, but with no improvement in sight .

They Say: Teacher Quality

Common Core discourages qualified teachers from teaching
teachers reject the standards and resources for Common Core
implementation could instead be used for more attractive
reforms.
Ravitch 13 Diane Ravitch, a historian of education, educational policy analyst,
and research professor at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture,
Education, and Human Development. Previously, she was a U.S. Assistant Secretary
of Education. Ravitch is a 3-time winner of the Delta Kappa Gamma Educators
Award. She has a PhD from Columbia University in education history, 2013 (Why
Teachers Dont Like the Common Core, http://dianeravitch.net, December 21,
Available Online at http://dianeravitch.net/2013/12/21/why-teachers-dont-like-thecommon-core/, accessed 7/10/15, KM)
Although Arne Duncan, Jeb Bush, the New York Times, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Exxon Mobil have done
their best to create an air of inevitability about the Common Core (the train has left the station), parents and

teachers continue to object to the imposition of these untested standards

written mostly by non-educators. In this article, which appeared in the Journal News in the Lower
Hudson Valley of New York, Melissa Heckler and Nettie Webbveteran educators explain their
objections to the Common Core. They insist that what matters most in
education is the interaction between teachers and students, not a scripted
curriculum or higher standards. They write: Through the knowledge of
subject content, teaching strategies, and brain research, teachers strive
to reach and teach every child. The scripted modules undermine the
essential teaching relationship by preventing the individualized exchange
between teacher and student, the hallmark of active learning. Student
interest should be a salient feature that helps develop and drive curriculum something
not possible with prescribed modules. Good teachers embrace change but not change for the
sake of change: Veteran teachers recognize what we did yesterday is not necessarily good for today. Teachers
embrace processes that produce meaningful, constructive change that moves education forward in our country.
However, teachers recognize that Common Core is not research-based and there
hasnt been the opportunity to define and refine the standards in this chaotic collapsed time frame for

Common Core is causing students to suffer. This is why

teachers reject this change so vehemently. Stress has caused these
reactions: students reporting they hate school, regressive behaviors like
toileting mishaps, crying, increased aggression, sleeplessness and
stomach upsets before and during the tests. This is what has occurred under Common
Core. This is meaningless, destructive change. Why do teachers resist the mandates of
Common Core? We suggest money spent on the development of these
major unresearched and unfunded mandates to implement CCSS be used to
alleviate the lack of resources unequal staffing, support services, and
restoration of school libraries, music and art classes, as well as
enrichment programs in these schools. Research has shown that this is the way to help even
implementation.

the playing field for the districts in poverty. Teachers are mind-molders. When they embrace, create and implement
meaningful change with their students, they are helping every child reach his or her potential. Teachers embrace
constructive, researched change that result in better, meaningful learning. Resistance to the Common Core
standards should be understood in this context.

Teachers are incentivized to quit because of Common Core

the standards prevent educators with creative, successful
teaching methods from actually teaching.
Chiaramonte 13 Perry Chiaramonte, a reporter with FoxNews.com where he
covers a wide range of issues including international affairs, politics, urban
policy/planning, education, and technology, 2013 (Teachers complain Common
Core-linked lessons little more than scripts to read/, Fox News, December 8,
Available Online at http://dianeravitch.net/2013/12/21/why-teachers-dont-like-thecommon-core/, accessed 7/10/15, KM)
Some of the biggest critics of new lesson plans aligned with the national Common Core standards are the people

A growing number of teachers say the national

standards, adopted by some 45 states, have combined with pressure to "teach to the
test" to take all individuality out of their craft. Some teachers told FoxNews.com the new
education approach is turning their lessons into little more than data-dispensing sessions, and they fear
their jobs are being marginalized. Now teachers arent as unique, said Michael
Warren, a public school history teacher in New Jersey. It means anyone can do it. Its like taking
something done by humans and having it done by a machine. Backers of the Common Core Standards
charged with teaching them.

Initiative, which was created at the behest of the nation's governors and has since been enthusiastically backed by
the Obama administration, say it is critical to ensuring all of the nation's middle and high school students meet a
baseline in math and English. But while Common Core is not itself a curriculum, but a set of standardized tests,
private curriculum producers are marketing their materials as "Common Core-aligned." Critics of Common Core say
establishment of a national standard is simply a backdoor way of nationalizing curriculum. The root of the problem
with the Common Core initiative is that standards drive testing, which drives curriculum, Glyn Wright, executive
director of The Eagle Forum, a Washington-based watchdog group that has long campaigned against the new
curriculum, told FoxNews.com. The standards were created by private organizations in Washington, D.C., without
input from teachers or parents and absent any kind of study or pilot test to prove its effectiveness. In fact, the
only mathematician and the only ELA expert on the validation committee refused to sign off on the standards
because they are inadequate, she added, Yet, the standards have been copyrighted and cannot be changed, and
this is resulting in a loss of local and state control. Parent groups have criticized Common Core, and there are

complaints from teachers are

come as the Common Core-aligned teaching materials are
being implemented for the first time in many districts. In a recent Washington Post blog post, a
Delaware public school educator penned an anonymous letter complaining that
Common Core was taking the joy out of a profession she loved. Teaching
used to be a fun job that I was deeply passionate about," the teacher
wrote. "I used my own creativity, mixed with a healthy dose of perseverance, dedication and
cheerleading to encourage my students, most labeled special needs, to believe in their
own abilities and self-worth. The teacher goes on to explain that despite strong
performance reviews in the past, the Common Core standards have been
counter-intuitive to her methods as her employers told her that her
performance would be judged to how closely she adheres to the new
standard. "I was given a curriculum and told by my administration to teach it word-for-word," the
teacher wrote. "In a meeting with my administration, I was reprimanded with Dont
forget, standards drive our instruction. Another New Jersey public school
teacher who asked not to be named, said the rigid new instructions for teaching
have left her and her colleagues feeling like "robots." "I'm unable to do projects
efforts under way in several states to repeal participation. But the
relatively new, and

anymore because we have so much other stuff to do that is based on the Common Core," she told FoxNews.com.

all we talk about is how we don't teach anymore and

we feel like robots just doing what we are told to teach and can't have any
creativity for the students to enjoy themselves."
"All the teachers at my school,

They Say: Doesnt Mandate a Curriculum

Common Core has a large effect on school curriculum even if it
doesnt mandate one
Bedrick 14 Jason Bedrick, Policy analyst at the Cato Institutes Center for
Educational Freedom, former education policy research fellow at the Josiah Bartlett
Center for Public Policy, M.A. in Public Policy from Harvard University, 2014
("Common Core and the Impact of National Standards," Cato Institute, August 20th,
Available Online at http://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/common-corenational-standards, Accessed 7-6-2015)
Additionally, the conformity induced by Common Core undermines the very
diversity and innovation that give parental choice its value. While
Common Core does not directly mandate a specific curriculum, its testing
regime will drive what is taught in the classroom, when it is taught, and
even how it is taught . For example, Common Core tests algebra in 9th grade,
which has already induced states like California to abandon their previous practice
of teaching algebra in 8th grade. Had they not conformed, their students would
likely have scored lower when being tested on material that they had not covered in
a year.
The Common Core tests would also drive how concepts are taught in the
classroom. As Dr. James Shuls of the Show-Me Institute, a former school teacher,
has written:
The fact is that curriculum standards dont tell teachers how to
teach in the same way that a high jump bar doesnt tell a jumper
how to jump. You could theoretically jump over a high jump bar in
whatever way you would like; but because of how the jump is
structured there is a clear advantage to doing the old Fosbury Flop.2

Topicality

Topicality Its

Its We Meet
Common Core is a federal program the USFG uses a
combination of aid and mandates to force the states to
conduct testing, data mining, and other forms of surveillance.
Newman 13 Alex Newman, president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small
information consulting firm, degree in journalism from the University of Florida,
foreign correspondent for The New American magazine, writes for several
publications in the U.S. and abroad, 2013 (Common Core: A Scheme to Rewrite
Education, The New American, August 8th, Available Online at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-ascheme-to-rewrite-education, Accessed 06-29-2015)
Almost immediately following the public announcement on Common Core ,
the Obama administration and the federal leviathan it leads began the
push to ensure compliance nationwide . Indeed, widespread acceptance of
Common Core thus far has been almost exclusively attributed to the taxpayer
largess offered under various programs. One key element in getting states to
comply was the $50 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, part of the
2009 stimulus bill, which distributed funds to state governments that
agreed to adopt Common Core and create or improve systems to track
students (see Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your Kids).
Obamas controversial and unconstitutional $10 billion Race to the Top
program was also crucial. Billions of federal dollars have been awarded to
state governments from a fund for the scheme, which was also established
with $4.5 billion under the 2009 so-called stimulus bill. With federal aid , of
course, comes federal control . And to be eligible for the massive grants,
state governments were forced to adopt Common Core or other
internationally benchmarked standards while creating data systems to track
students. Some $350 million was set aside to help fund common assessments for
states that adopt common international standards, the Department of Education
announced, referring to the national testing regime set to be rolled out as early as
next year.
Unveiled at a 2009 event at U.S. Department of Education headquarters was an
array of other federal grants worth billions of dollars much of it from the
stimulus bill aimed at usurping control over education and Americas youth
from families and communities. Among the programs outlined in a Department of
Education press release: a $650 million Investing in Innovation Fund, a $297
million Teacher Incentive Fund, and more. Another $3.5 billion in School
Improvement Grants was earmarked for states to support efforts to reform
struggling schools.
Another key element in getting state governments to agree to the national
standards was the issuance of waivers from the Bush-era No Child Left
Behind. Without authority from Congress, the Department of Education
announced in 2011 that it would grant waivers from NCLB to state governments in
exchange for obedience to various federal decrees and the adoption of Common

Core or other standards approved by the administration. Acceptance of Common

Core-aligned testing was also required.
More than a few members of Congress and state officials feigned outrage by the
waiver-in-exchange-for-obedience-to-Obama scheme, but the administration went
forward anyway.
Local school districts are in the administrations crosshairs as well. In May of 2012,
the U.S. Department of Education began offering huge taxpayer-funded incentives
to school districts that adopted the controversial scheme.
This district-level program is a full-scale assault on state sovereignty, explains
the group Truth in American Education, which opposes the Common Core plan. It is
a power-grab through which the federal government will skirt citizens
elected statewide bodies and negotiate directly with school districts to
embrace federal policy . It will also undermine the state governmental structure
by grouping school districts together on policy decisions and thereby making it
more difficult for the group to disengage from federal programming.

Federal government mandates longitudinal database

surveillance of every American student from pre-K to college.
Hohmann 14 Leo Hohmann, news editor for WND (WorldNetDaily), former
managing editor of the Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, North Carolina, 2014
(Whistle Blown On 'Womb-To-Workforce' Data-Mining Scheme, WorldNetDaily,
November 30th, Available Online at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/whistle-blown-onwomb-to-workforce-data-mining-scheme/, Accessed 06-23-2015)
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/whistle-blown-on-womb-to-workforcedata-mining-scheme/#FBBfh5GbB00Wim0u.99
Privacy advocates are calling for a moratorium on the Pennsylvania school
systems sweeping data-collection program, which they say is part of the
federal governments goal of being able to track the development of
every child womb to workforce .
All 50 states have been mandated by the U.S. Department of Education to
establish inter-connected longitudinal databases accumulating
information on every student from pre-kindergarten through college.
Two groups, Pennsylvania Against Common Core and Pennsylvanians Restoring
Education, are asking Gov. Tom Corbett to place a moratorium on data collection in
the Pennsylvania Information Management System or PIMS. The system gathers
information on students in all 500 school districts across the state and some schools
have started collecting behavioral data that goes beyond testing for academic
knowledge, according to the two organizations.
The two groups are also asking the state attorney generals office to launch an
investigation into possible violations of student privacy laws.
We are asking the governor to rescind all contracts and written agreements that
the Pennsylvania Department of Education has with any commonwealth entity and
any outside contractor who can access personally identifiable information on our
children in violation of federal law, state policy, and Chapter 4 (state code)
regulations, reads a statement issued by Pennsylvania Restoring Education and
Pennsylvania Against Common Core.

While Pennsylvania has become ground zero in the backlash against what is seen as
an increasingly invasive student tracking system, all 50 states are in the
process of expanding and digitizing their student records under the
direction of the U.S. Department of Education . The goal is to have all state
systems plugged into a centralized database storing sensitive student
information.

The testing is designed and funded by the federal government

all students will be involved.
Newman 13 Alex Newman, president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small
information consulting firm, degree in journalism from the University of Florida,
foreign correspondent for The New American magazine, writes for several
publications in the U.S. and abroad, 2013 (Common Core: A Scheme to Rewrite
Education, The New American, August 8th, Available Online at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-ascheme-to-rewrite-education, Accessed 06-29-2015)
Despite the growing outcry surrounding Common Core, analysts say that without a
significant change in course, it is only a matter of time before the
nationalized education scheme ensnares virtually every student in America.
Homeschoolers, private-schooled children, and even kids in states that
have refused to participate will likely all be impacted by the standards,
sometimes without even being aware of it. Consider, for example, the rush by
virtually all major publishers to align their textbooks with Common Core. Most
parents have no idea of the major changes taking place.
Meanwhile, a national testing regime based on the new standards is already
being rolled out, with the Common Core-aligned tests planned for introduction by
2014. Two consortia receiving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars
from the federal government , Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC),
were put in charge of developing standardized tests to go along with
Common Core. Students will be tested regularly from the third grade to ensure
that their Common Core-based education is proceeding smoothly. All of that
private data will be available in perpetuity to the federal government and
other as-yet unknown parties.
Even students who do not live in one of the states using Common Corealigned standardized tests may ultimately be forced to learn from the same
set of standards. Consultant David Coleman, widely regarded as the architect of
Common Core, became president of the College Board last year all but ensuring
that the SATs, which are produced by the College Board, will be aligned with the new
standards. Of course, SATs are used nationwide in admissions to higher-learning
institutions.

Common Core exists because of coercion from the federal

Department of Education.
Strauss 13 Valerie Strauss, education columnist for the Washington Post, 2013
(Five myths about the Common Core, Washington Post, December 13 th, Available
Online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-commoncore/2013/12/13/da05f832-5c40-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_story.html, Accessed
06-30-2015)
The Common Core State Standards, which spell out what K-12 students should learn
in school, are at the center of a heated debate: Who should control public
education? What do students really need to know? Lets separate fact from fiction to
figure out whats at stake.
1. The Common Core is a federal takeover of public education that imposes a
national curriculum.
It isnt and it doesnt though it has substantial support from the Obama
administration, verging on coercion.
The Common Core has been spearheaded by the National Governors Association
and the Council of Chief State School Officers, D.C.-based associations that get
funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In 2009, with bipartisan support,
they engaged education reform nonprofits to take the lead in writing standards for
what students should know and be able to do in math and English/language arts,
grade by grade, from kindergarten through 12th.
The Core does not prescribe how students should meet those standards, though the
English/language arts authors also wrote curriculum guidelines for textbook
publishers, and school districts in different states can and are using the same
prepackaged lessons.
Forty-five states and the District have adopted the Core, and the Obama
administration has a lot to do with that statistic. Its $4.3 billion Race to the
Top competition makes adoption of common standards an incentive to
win federal funding . The Education Department also wanted states that
applied for waivers from No Child Left Behind to adopt common standards.

The Common Core databases are federally funded.

Hohmann 14 Leo Hohmann, news editor for WND (WorldNetDaily), former
managing editor of the Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, North Carolina, 2014
(Whistle Blown On 'Womb-To-Workforce' Data-Mining Scheme, WorldNetDaily,
November 30th, Available Online at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/whistle-blown-onwomb-to-workforce-data-mining-scheme/, Accessed 06-23-2015) **Hoge = Anita
Hoge, a member of Pennsylvanians Restoring Education and an expert on the
student assessment industry.
Hoge said the 50 states are at varying stages of designing and
implementing their own statewide longitudinal databases.
Some have them set up, some are in the process of setting them up, it depends on
the state and how much money they have, she said.
The first two federal grants to Pennsylvania exceeded $20 million.

The contracts are huge, absolutely huge, to implement this system, Hoge said.
So you had to have a state department of education that was willing to take the
lead and set up the entire system.
Pennsylvanias former secretary of education, Gerald Zahorchak, was among
the first state education chiefs to take the millions in federal money and
run with the program. For his efforts, he received a national leadership award in
2008.
Pennsylvania was one of 20 states that initially received a combined $250
million in federal stimulus funds to develop and implement data systems
capable of tracking student progress from early childhood through college
graduation.
The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grants will help deliver muchneeded data into the hands of educators and policymakers, according to a
Pennsylvania Department of Education press release from 2010.
All 50 states submitted applications for the database grants in late 2009.

They Say: States Control the Program

Dont be fooled by state in the name Common Core
standards are federal.
ReThinking Schools 13 ReThinking Schools, nationally prominent publisher
of educational materials, with subscribers in all 50 states, 2013 (Corporate
Education 'From Above' and the Trouble with Common Core, Common Dreams, June
26th, Available Online at
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/06/26/corporate-education-above-andtrouble-common-core, Accessed 06-23-2015)
For starters, the misnamed Common Core State Standards are not state
standards. They're national standards , created by Gates-funded consultants
for the National Governors Association (NGA). They were designed, in part, to
circumvent federal restrictions on the adoption of a national curriculum,
hence the insertion of the word state in the brand name . States were
coerced into adopting the Common Core by requirements attached to the
federal Race to the Top grants and, later, the No Child Left Behind waivers. (This
is one reason many conservative groups opposed to any federal role in education
policy oppose the Common Core.)

The federal government pretends that Common Core is a

states program, but theyve just bludgeoned states into
implementing the testing and monitoring for the DOE.
Newman 13 Alex Newman, president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small
information consulting firm, degree in journalism from the University of Florida,
foreign correspondent for The New American magazine, writes for several
publications in the U.S. and abroad, 2013 (Common Core: A Scheme to Rewrite
Education, The New American, August 8th, Available Online at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-ascheme-to-rewrite-education, Accessed 06-29-2015)
If something is not done soon, the vast majority of American K-12 school
children will be taught using dubious, federally backed national education
standards that have come under fire from across the political spectrum.
Americas kids, as well as their parents, will also be monitored and tracked in
unprecedented ways from early childhood into the workforce. Opposition is
growing by leaps and bounds, but government officials are not yet backing down.
The controversial standards scheme, known informally as Common Core, is
being foisted on state governments all across the country with a
combination of taxpayer-funded bribes , outright deception , and federal
bludgeoning . Despite Americas long traditions of local governance and
separation of powers, the Obama administration and its establishment allies in
both parties are determined to get the standards rolled out nationwide. So
far, their progress has been remarkable.

Even with the backing of billionaire Bill Gates and the U.S. Department of Education,
the entire Common Core State Standards Initiative, as it is referred to officially,
was developed and rolled out with almost no serious media attention. The eerie
silence, of course, helped proponents avoid scrutiny in the early phases, when it
would have been much easier for critics to derail the scheme that will essentially
nationalize education along with the minds of Americas youth, and therefore, the
nations future.
Education and policy experts who spoke with The New American blasted the
standards themselves, the centralization and federalization of schooling, the longterm agenda behind the plan, and the nefarious tactics used to advance it. One
critic, Tennessee Liberty Alliance co-founder Glenn Jacobs, even suggested in a
column that Common Core proponents were seeking to produce what Russian
communists referred to as New Soviet Men. Others are calling the program
ObamaCore.
With the federal government handing out massive grants only to state
governments that comply , some 45 states and Washington, D.C., have
already signed up to implement the full plan. Among the few states that have not
jumped completely on the bandwagon, only Texas appears to be standing firm, with
Minnesota, Nebraska, Virginia, and Alaska all reportedly flirting with various
elements of the scheme.
Even the states that refuse to join not to mention homeschoolers and private
schools may find themselves ensnared in the program due to national
testing, college admission requirements, and more. However, experts expect
resistance to accelerate.

Common Core is NOT driven by the states this is federal

propaganda designed to avoid a constitutional challenge.
Newman 13 Alex Newman, president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small
information consulting firm, degree in journalism from the University of Florida,
foreign correspondent for The New American magazine, writes for several
publications in the U.S. and abroad, 2013 (Common Core: A Scheme to Rewrite
Education, The New American, August 8th, Available Online at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-ascheme-to-rewrite-education, Accessed 06-29-2015)
Proponents of Common Core continue to downplay concerns about the
controversial scheme by incessantly parroting two primary lines: the standards
are state-led and voluntary. Because multiple federal laws specifically
prohibit any federal direction, control, or supervision of curricula, programs of
instruction, and instructional material in elementary or secondary schools, the
whole scheme would be unlawful not to mention unconstitutional if the
standards were not, in fact, state-led and voluntary.
However, the idea that Common Core is being driven by state governments
is easily shown to be bogus neither legislators nor elected officials played any
significant role in developing the scheme, and in fact, states had to agree to the

standards in 2009, before the standards were even published, to be eligible for
federal bribes. Instead, as even establishment analysts have admitted, Common
Core is a set of national standards pushed by the federal government and
created by consultants funded by unaccountable billionaires.
Dr. Sandra Stotsky explained that when states signed on to common core
standards, they did not realize that they were transferring control of the
school curriculum to the federal government. Even if it were truly a stateled initiative, however, critics say it would still be a bad idea, as parents and local
school districts continue to lose control over education.
Are the standards voluntary? For now, the argument could be made that they are
technically not mandatory, since no state government can be forced to comply.
However, the fact that the federal government is bribing state
governments with taxpayer money to go along with the plan not to
mention the federally funded national testing regimes virtually ensures
that American students will have to submit to some elements of Common Core
whether they want to or not.

Common Core is a state program in name only the federal

government mandates its use.
Burke 12 Lindsey M. Burke, Will Skillman Fellow in Education in the Domestic
Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation, 2012 (States Must Reject
National Education Standards While There Is Still Time, The Heritage Foundation,
April 16th, Available Online at
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/states-must-reject-nationaleducation-standards-while-there-is-still-time, Accessed 06-30-2015)
The Common Core State Standards Initiative began in earnest in the spring of
2009 with an announcement by the National Governors Association and the Council
of Chief State School Officers that they would be developing Common Core
standards and assessments. States were told they could choose whether to
replace their existing standards with the Common Core standards in math and ELA
but the Obama Administration quickly became involved, raising
questions about the neutrality of the federal government in the effort and,
ultimately, the voluntary nature of the Common Core push.
One of the first indications of federal involvement in common standards came on
February 17, 2009, when President Obama signed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law. The ARRA provided an unprecedented $98
billion in new federal funding to the U.S. Department of Education, of which
$4.35 billion was earmarked for the Race to the Top (RTT) competitive grant
program. RTT invited states to compete for $4.35 billion during a difficult budgetary
climate and doled out grants to states that agreed to the Administrations policy
proposals. Notably, applications for RTT funding required states to describe
how they would transform their standards and assessments to college and
career-ready standards that were common to a significant number of states. By
June 1, 2010, applicants had to submit evidence of having adopted common
standards.[1]

The Department of Education defines common standards as a set of content

standards that define what students must know and be able to do and that are
substantially identical across all states in a consortium.[2] While there was no
explicit requirement to adopt the Common Core State Standards developed by the
NGA and CCSSO, the Common Core standards were the only standards that
met the Education Departments criteria for commonality at the time, as
well as today.
Race to the Top also required states to join one of two testing consortia crafting
assessments that are aligned with the Common Core State Standards Initiative.
More than $350 million of Race to the Top was earmarked for the funding of national
assessments in math and ELA. Education Secretary Arne Duncan stated that the
Common Core standards and assessments will help put an end to the insidious
practice of establishing 50 different goalposts for educational success.[3]
President Obama was not shy about the incentives in Race to the Top to
push states to adopt common standards and tests. During his remarks at
James C. Wright Middle School in 2009, President Obama stated:
In the coming weeks, states will be able to compete for what were calling a Race to
the Top award. Were putting over $4 billion on the table$4 billion with a bone
of the largest federal investments that the federal government has ever made in
education reform. And I have to tell you, this was not an easy thing to get through
Congress. This is not normally how federal dollars work.
I want to commend the leadership of the governors and school chiefs whove
joined together to get this done. And because of these efforts, there will be a set of
common standards that any state can adopt...and I urge all our states to do so.[4]
Secretary Duncan echoed the Presidents support of the common standards effort,
stating: We have 50 different standards, 50 different goal postsWe want to
fundamentally reverse that. We want common, career-ready internationally
benchmarked standards.[5]
The Obama Administration has also linked federal policy to the Common Core
State Standards Initiative beyond Race to the Top funding. In February 2010,
Secretary Duncan told a group of governors that access to the nearly $15 billion in
Title I funding for low-income school districts could be tied to the adoption
of common standards.[6] That March, the Obama Administration released its
blueprint to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, currently
known as No Child Left Behind. The blueprint suggested renaming the Title I
program for low-income children the College- and-Career-Ready Students program
and states:
Following the lead of the nations governors, were calling on all states to develop
and adopt standards in English language arts and mathematics that build toward
college- and career-readiness by the time students graduate from high school.
States may choose to upgrade their existing standards or work together with other
states to develop and adopt common, state-developed standards.[7]
More recently, in fall 2011, the Obama Administration announced that it would
offer NCLB waivers to states that agreed to conditions stipulated by the
Department of Education. States applying for a waiver must adopt college- and
career-ready standards in math and ELA that are common to a significant number

of states or have been certified by a state network of institutions of higher

education.[8]

Common Core was started as a state program, but its now

federal.
US News & World Report 14 US News & World Report, Byline Allie
Bidwell, education reporter, 2014 (More States Seek to Repeal Common Core, US
News & World Report, January 31st, Available Online at
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/31/more-states-seek-to-repealcommon-core, Accessed 06-30-2015) *Schneider = Indiana State Senator Scott
Schneider.
Still, some opponents say the standards, which have been strongly
supported by the federal government (and given states financial
incentives through Race to the Top grants), are an overreach into local control
of education standards and curriculum.
"Common Core threatens our high standards and our ability to determine as a
state what our students need to learn to be prepared for a successful future,"
Schneider said in an April statement. " With the federal government's
involvement pushing states to adopt the standards, this is no longer a
state-led initiative, and Indiana has lost its ability to set its own education
policy."

They Say: Think Progress Evidence

Think Progress is wrong Common Core is federally
constructed and funded
Pullman 15 Joy Pullman, managing editor of The Federalist and an education
research fellow at The Heartland Institute, 2015 ("Ted Cruz Gets Common Core Way
Better Than ThinkProgress," Federalist, March 15th, Available Online at
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/24/ted-cruz-gets-common-core-way-better-thanthinkprogress-does/, Accessed 7-6-2015)
Legum might want to spend some time googling up the pertinent federal
and other publicly available source documents, because hes flat-out
wrong.
Fed Involvement in Common Core
Federal law does indeed prohibit any federal entity from having anything
to do with curriculum. Legum may not have noticed, but the Obama
administration doesnt give a damn what any law says. So, in flat
contradiction to the law, the Obama administration has indeed funded and
coerced Common Core.
These two federal shadow agencies (PARCC and SBAC) explicitly told the
Obama administration they would use tax dollars to create Common Core
curriculum.
Common Core is not, as its apologists insist because theres no other way
to cover their butts on this, merely curriculum benchmarks. The
document governors signed to signal their consent to the creation of
Common Core defines the initiative in two phases: The first is standards,
the second linked assessments. And the federal government provided
$360 million in tax dollars explicitly to create the pair of linked national
testing systems that share test questions and student data, both with
each other and the federal government. Federal employees oversaw the
creation of these tests right down to the test questions. Without federal
money, there would be no second half of Common Core .
Furthermore, these two federal shadow agencies (PARCC and SBAC) explicitly
told the Obama administration they would use tax dollars to create
Common Core curriculum. SBACs grant agreement with the feds promised
it would provide teachers exemplary instructional materials linked to
CCSS, model curriculum and instructional modules that are aligned with
the CCSS, and teacher training. It will send teachers recommended readings,
focused group discussions, use of online tools, and sharing of annotated examples
of best practices and exercises. The organization budgeted $5.125 million in
federal funds to contract with yet another organization to develop such
instructional and curriculum resources for educators. PARCCs says it is
writing model curriculum frameworks and exemplar lesson plans.
Its also utterly blind to pretend the Obama administrations Race to the Top
and No Child Left Behind waivers did not push states into Common Core. State
board of education minutes from Race to the Top winners show that these boards
believed The verbatim adoption of these standards is required for Race

to the Top approval (thats Tennessees). As the Washington Post reported, the
term Common Core was written directly into Race to the Top mandates
until substituted for a definition that matched only them so people wouldnt get
suspicious.
Lastly, the federal government provides at least half the operating funds of
the two organizations that created Common Core, which are private
nonprofits with no authority to create any binding national initiatives or laws. So
either way, the feds were there at the beginning, at the request of Common
Cores creators, no less.

Topicality Surveillance

Surveillance We Meet
Common Core is government surveillance.
Schlafly 13 Phyllis Schlafly, American constitutional lawyer, conservative
activist, author, and speaker and founder of the Eagle Forum, 2013 (Backlash
Against Common Core, The Eagle Forum, May 15 th, Available Online at
http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/backlash-against-commoncore.html, Accessed 06-22-2015)
Common Core means government agencies will gather and store all sorts
of private information on every schoolchild into a longitudinal database
from birth through all levels of schooling, plus giving government the
right to share and exchange this nosy information with other government
and private agencies, thus negating the federal law that now prohibits
that. This type of surveillance and control of individuals is the mark of a
totalitarian government .
Common Core reminds us of how Communist China gathered nosy
information on all its schoolchildren, stored it in manila folders called dangans,
and then turned the file over to the kids employer when he left school.
The New York Times once published a picture of a giant Chinese warehouse
containing hundreds of thousands of these folders. That was in the pre-internet era
when information was stored on paper; now data collection and storage are
efficiently managed on computers in a greater invasion of privacy.

Common Core is a nationwide surveillance system.

Hohmann 14 Leo Hohmann, news editor for WND (WorldNetDaily), former
managing editor of the Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, North Carolina, 2014
(Whistle Blown On 'Womb-To-Workforce' Data-Mining Scheme, WorldNetDaily,
November 30th, Available Online at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/whistle-blown-onwomb-to-workforce-data-mining-scheme/, Accessed 06-23-2015) **Hoge = Anita
Hoge, a member of Pennsylvanians Restoring Education and an expert on the
student assessment industry.
Hoge says Pennsylvanians Restoring Education has documented evidence of a
systemic collusion between the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the
National Center for Education Statistics to create a national ID without the
knowledge of citizens.
The next step for the education database is to link it with the Department
of Labor with the addition of the last five digits of the students Social
Security number or link to the unique ID created by eScholar, she said, citing
written correspondence between former Pennsylvania Secretary of Education
Zahorchak and former Secretary of Labor Sandi Vito, a copy of which has been
obtained by WND.
Creating a modern Stasi
This creates a database of human capital your worth, or non-worth
to the economy, Hoge said. The government wants to know how you think
and what you think and everything about you. This is a government
intelligence operation using education to create a dossier on every family

in this country. Attitudes and practices of each family are unwittingly

revealed in the students responses in the classroom and on tests through
the Special Ed Student Snap and Student Snap. (Source: Pennsylvania State
University, PennData Grant: Project Number 062-14-0-042: Federal Award Number:
HO27A130162)
Every person age 28 and under, schooled in Pennsylvania, has a psychometric
profile, an intelligence profile kept by the state of Pennsylvania, Hoge said.
In 10 years, every Pennsylvania schooled person, age 38 and under.In 20 years,
every person age 48 and underIn 30 years, Pennsylvania will have a complete
psychographic on every person in the workforce and on every child born thereafter
in the workforce, she said. This is an American electronic model eerily
similar to East Germany Stasi of yesteryear.
Common Core as the vehicle
The Common Core national standards are the vehicle used to
standardize the data collection as the autonomy of the local school district
is stripped away and teachers in the classroom are reduced to virtual
automatons, Hoge said.
The individual mandate, similar to the Obamacare individual mandate for health
care, requires students to conform to this national agenda, she said. There
is no privacy.
She described the system as a top-down form of federal control that
bypasses state legislatures. The goal is to standardize the entire nations
educational system.
Teachers must remediate each child to ensure he or she is absorbing the
attitudes, values, beliefs and dispositions required by the system.
And teachers are constantly monitored by the system to make sure they are doing
just that.
This turns teachers into virtual psychologists, despite the fact they are not statelicensed practitioners and vulnerable to malpractice issues, Hoge said. If students
dont meet the required proficiency in interpersonal skills, teachers can be
threatened with reprisals including possible termination, according to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act flexibility waiver issued by the Obama
administration. These waivers absolved school systems from certain requirements
of President Bushs No Child Left Behind Act, but exacted a heavy toll in the form of
states losing their autonomy over classroom instruction.
An organized, national system of surveillance and monitoring
The contracts uncovered in Pennsylvania refer to Common Core as the model
curriculum.
Common Core provides 2,394 fool-proof validated scripts with which to remediate
each child to achieve proficiency in the interpersonal skills.
We have also discovered that these Interpersonal Skills Standards are also
embedded in other academic areas of Career Education and Work, Family and
Consumer Sciences, and Health Safety and Physical Education, according to the
statement from Pennsylvanians Restoring Education. The test contract in Appendix
B for the Keystone Exams states, The diagnostic assessments are intended to be
easily administered online and provide immediate feedback of students strengths
and weaknesses.

This is nothing more than a sophisticated method of brainwashing, Hoge

said.
Clearly this data-collection system has utilized education funds to set up
a national system of surveillance and interventions on our students that is
structured from the federal level down into each classroom, she said.
Huge amounts of our taxpayer money have been used to fund this system
of surveillance creating a dossier on each student and their family for the
purpose of creating the worker desired by big business and enforced by
the arbitrary, authoritative state.
She said the plan to transform Americas school into factories that churn out
human capital began in 1990 when the U.S. Department of Labor established the
Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills or SCANS. ACT was awarded
the contract to develop the list of skills seen as necessary for the 21st century
global economy. This skill list formed the basis of what would later become Common
Core State Standards, which was copyrighted by the Council of Chief State School
Officers and adopted by 43 states.
In 2013, the Council decided to add non-academic soft skills to the list.
We are requesting Gov. Corbett to stop the data collection, stop the invasion of
privacy We want legislation NOW, to protect our families, protect our children, and
protect our childrens future, stated Pennsylvanians Restoring Education.
The group ended its statement with a chilling conclusion.
America used to educate its children and let them create their own world.
Now, we are creating their world and forcing them to live in it.

Common Core is a surveillance policy, just like NSA programs.

Logue 13 Gretchen Logue, education activist and founder of Missouri
Education Watchdog, 2013 ("Education Reform is Really About Surveillance.,"
Missouri Education Watchdog, January 3rd, Available Online at
http://thebellnews.com/2013/01/03/education-reform-is-really-about-surveillance/,
Accessed 7-7-2015)
The method of making money (not really providing education reform for the sake
of education) is in full swing. But look down the road. WHY are we
experiencing this monstrous wave of centralized control? Its for the data.
The linked article explains about the surveillance of Americans via the
National Security Agency (NSA) capturing email information (without Americans
realizing it) and the massive storage and infrastructure needed for this activity.
WHY is the government keeping your information? Michael S. Rozeff writing in
LewRockwell.com:
If we examine the legality of this NSA warrantless surveillance, we will quickly
become mired down in abstruse issues of statutory and constitutional law.
Let us not go there. That wont give us the central answer to the question of
whats wrong with a wide network of government surveillance of Americans,
with or without warrants.
Its the same for Common Core Standards . The grab of educational direction
by the Department of Education is unconstitutional, but trying to get them out of
your state legislatively promises to take several years. Look bigger picture. WHY

is the government so interested in establishing common core standards?

Like the NSA and the tracking of financial transactions, the tracking of
student data will be able to determine your students place in a managed
workforce. Your students will be placed in a position based on his/her data set.

Common Core is government surveillance they collect and

store the data.
Perkins 13 Tony Perkins, Head of the Family Research Council, 2013
(Common Cores Uncommon Opponents, Accuracy in Academia, December 5 th,
Available Online at http://www.academia.org/common-cores-uncommon-opponents/,
Accessed 06-30-2015) **[he in the first sentence refers to Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal.]
Like us, he knows that behind the curtain of Common Core is a strong drive the
federal government to centralize education and strip parents and local schools of
their authority. The program is also making headlines for its veiled attempt at
data collection through suspicious student surveys and other means.
Common Core means government agencies will gather and store all sorts
of private information on every schoolchild into a longitudinal database
from birth through all levels of schooling, plus giving government the
right to share and exchange this nosy information with other government
and private agencies Phyllis Schlafly pointed out. This type of surveillance
and control of individuals is the mark of a totalitarian government. Whats
more, the type of curriculum being spawned by Common Core (CC) is objectionable
to many parents. Contact your state officials and encourage them to avoid CC and
its lure of federal money. A rotten Core is worse than no core at all.

The federal government collects, analyzes and stores the data.

Newman 13 Alex Newman, president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small
information consulting firm, degree in journalism from the University of Florida,
foreign correspondent for The New American magazine, writes for several
publications in the U.S. and abroad, 2013 ("Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your
Kids," The New American, August 1st, Available Online at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16193-orwelliannightmare-data-mining-your-kids, Accessed 7-7-2015)
Much of the information vacuumed up at all levels of government already
makes its way into a national Department of Education scheme known as
EDFacts. The department describes it online: EDFacts is a U.S. Department
of Education (ED) initiative to collect, analyze, report on and promote the
use of high-quality, kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) performance
data.... EDFacts centralizes data provided by state education agencies,
local education agencies and schools. Under EDFacts, state education
agencies submit some 180 data groups. The federal National Center for Education
Statistics, meanwhile, describes over 400 data points to be collected.
The U.S. Department of Labor, separately, admits that it is working to integrate
workforce data and create linkages to education data. According to the

departments Workforce Data Quality Initiative, the SLDS will enable workforce
data to be matched with education data to ultimately create longitudinal data
systems with individual-level information beginning with pre-kindergarten through
post-secondary schooling all the way through entry and sustained participation in
the workforce and employment services system. When combined with information
from the IRS, ObamaCare, the NSA, and countless other federal data-collection
schemes, the picture that emerges has critics very nervous.

The federal government is the one that collects, coordinates,

and stores the student data.
Newman 13 Alex Newman, president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small
information consulting firm, degree in journalism from the University of Florida,
foreign correspondent for The New American magazine, writes for several
publications in the U.S. and abroad, 2013 ("Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your
Kids," The New American, August 1st, Available Online at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16193-orwelliannightmare-data-mining-your-kids, Accessed 7-7-2015)
According to the Department of Education, grants awarded to states under
the program are aimed at supporting the creation and implementation of
systems that have the capacity to link individual student data across
time and across databases and promote the linking of data collected or
held by various institutions, agencies, and States. Among the data to be included
are the yearly test records of individual students mandated under the 1965
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. States are encouraged to include
additional information in their longitudinal data systems, the department
continued.
In another Education Department document offering guidance on the SLDS
schemes, further insight is offered into what sort of information authorities
are seeking and collecting. Among the Personally Identifiable
Information outlined in the report: name, parents names, address, Social
Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mothers maiden name, and
more.
Other private and protected data that might be collected, the document
suggests, include the political affiliations or beliefs of the student or
parent; mental and psychological problems of the student or the students
family, sex behavior or attitudes; illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating,
and demeaning behavior; critical appraisals of other individuals with
whom respondents have close family relationships; legally recognized
privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers,
physicians, and ministers; religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the
student or the students parent; or income. While the collection of such data
in surveys and questionnaires funded by federal tax dollars requires parental
consent under federal law, state-level collection does not. Plus, experts say there
are numerous other potential loopholes as well.

Surveillance Counter Interpretation

Surveillance is gathering data---it doesnt require preventive
intent
Rule 12 James B. Rule, Distinguished Affiliated Scholar at the Center for the
Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley, Routledge
Handbook of Surveillance Studies, Ed. Lyon, Ball, and Iaggerty, p. 64-65
For many people, the term surveillance conjures up images of the
systematic tracking of individuals lives by distant and powerful agencies.
These pop-up cartoon images are not entirely misleading. To be sure, surveillance
takes many different forms. But since the middle of the twentieth century, the
monitoring of ordinary peoples affairs by large institutions has grown
precipitously. Such direct intakes of detailed information on literally
millions of people at a timeand their use by organizations to shape their
dealings with the people concernedrepresent one of the most far-reaching
social changes of the last 50 years. These strictly bureaucratic forms of
surveillance, and their tensions with values of privacy, are the subject of this
chapter.
Surveillance
Surveillance is a ubiquitous ingredient of social life. In virtually every
enduring social relationship, parties note the actions of others and seek to influence
future actions in light of information thus collected. This holds as much for intimate
dyadsmutually preoccupied lovers, for example, or mothers and infantsas for
relations among sovereign states. Surveillance and concomitant processes of social
control are as basic to the life of neighborhoods, churches, industries and
professions as they are to relations between government or corporate organizations
and individuals.
But whereas the ability of communities, families, and local associations to track the
affairs of individuals has widely declined in the world's "advanced" societies,
institutional surveillance has lately made vast strides. Throughout the
world's prosperous liberal societies, people have come to expect their dealings
with all sorts of large organizations to be mediated by their "records."
These records are ongoing products of past interactions between institutions and
individualsand of active and resourceful efforts by the institutions to
gather data on individuals. The result is that all sorts of corporate and state
performances that individuals expectfrom allocation of consumer credit and social
security benefits to the control of crime and terrorismturn on one or another form
of institutional surveillance. Perhaps needless to say. the outcomes of such
surveillance make vast differences in what Max Weber would have called the "life
chances" of the people involved.
No twenty-first-century society, save perhaps the very poorest, is altogether without
such large-scale collection, processing and use of data on individuals' lives. Indeed,
we might arguably regard the extent of penetration of large-scale institutions into
the details of people's lives as one measure of modernity (if not post-modernity).
The feet that these activities are so consequentialfor the institutions, and for the

individuals concernedmakes anxiety and opposition over their repercussions on

privacy values inevitable.
Despite the slightly foreboding associations of the term, surveillance need
not be unfriendly in its effects on the individuals subjected to it. In the
intensive care ward at the hospital, most patients probably do not resent
the intrusive and constant surveillance directed at them. Seekers of social
security benefits or credit accounts will normally be quick to call attention
to their recorded eligibility for these thingsin effect demanding
performances based on surveillance. Indeed, it is a measure of the
pervasiveness of surveillance in our world that we reflexively appeal to our
"records" in seeking action from large institutions.
But even relatively benevolent forms of surveillance require some toughminded measures of institutional enforcement vis-a-m individuals who
seek services. Allocating social security payments to those who deserve themas
judged by the letter of the lawinevitably means hoi allocating such benefits to
other would-be claimants. Providing medical benefits, either through government or
private insurance, means distinguishing between those entitled to the benefits and
others. When the good things of life are passed around, unless everyone is held to
be equally entitled, the logic of surveillance demands distinctions between the
deserving, and others. Ami this in turn sets m motion requirements for positive
identification, close record-keeping, precise recording of each individual case
history, and so on (see also Webster, this volume).

Surveillance includes routine data collection---they exclude

the majority of contemporary activity and over-focus on
dramatic manifestations
Ball 3 Kirstie Ball, Professor of Organization at The Open University, and Frank
Webster, Professor of Sociology at City University, London, The Intensification of
Surveillance: Crime, Terrorism and Warfare in the Information Age, p. 1-2
Surveillance involves the observation, recording and categorization of
information about people, processes and institutions. It calls for the
collection of information, its storage, examination and - as a rule - its transmission.
It is a distinguishing feature of modernity, though until the 1980s the
centrality of surveillance to the making of our world had been underestimated in
social analysis. Over the years surveillance has become increasingly
systematic and embedded in everyday life, particularly as state (and,
latterly, supra-state) agencies and corporations have strengthened and
consolidated their positions. More and more we are surveilled in quite
routine activities, as we make telephone calls, pay by debit card, walk into a
store and into the path of security cameras, or enter a library through electronic
turnstiles. It is important that this routine character of much surveillance is
registered, since commentators so often focus exclusively on the dramatic
manifestations of surveillance such as communications interceptions and
spy satellites in pursuit of putative and deadly enemies.

In recent decades, aided by innovations in information and communications

technologies (ICTs), surveillance has expanded and deepened its reach
enormously. Indeed, it is now conducted at unprecedented intensive and extensive
levels while it is vastly more organized and technology-based than hitherto.
Surveillance is a matter of such routine that generally it escapes our
notice - who, for instance, reflects much on the traces they leave on the
supermarkets' checkout, and who worries about the tracking their credit card
transactions allow? Most of the time we do not even bother to notice the
surveillance made possible by the generation of what has been called transactional
information (Burnham, 1983) - the records we create incidentally in everyday
activities such as using the telephone, logging on to the Internet, or signing a debit
card bill. Furthermore, different sorts of surveillance are increasingly melded
such that records collected for one purpose may be accessed and analysed
for quite another: the golf club's membership list may be an attractive database
for the insurance agent, address lists of subscribers to particular magazines may be
especially revealing when combined with other information on consumer
preferences. Such personal data are now routinely abstracted from individuals
through economic transactions, and our interaction with communications networks,
and the data are circulated, as data flows, between various databases via
'information superhighways'. Categorizations of these data according to lifestyle,
shopping habits, viewing habits and travel preferences are made in what has been
termed the 'phenetic fix' (Phillips & Curry, 2002; Lyon, 2002b), which then informs
how the economic risk associated with these categories of people is managed. More
generally, the globe is increasingly engulfed in media which report, expose and
inflect issues from around the world, these surveillance activities having important
yet paradoxical consequences on actions and our states of mind. Visibility has
become a social, economic and political issue, and an indelible feature of advanced
societies (Lyon, 2002b; Haggerty & Ericson, 2000).

Counter-interp Surveillance includes storage.

Ball 3
Kirstie Ball, Professor of Organization at The Open University, and Frank Webster,
Professor of Sociology at City University, London, The Intensification of Surveillance:
Crime, Terrorism and Warfare in the Information Age, p. 1-2
Surveillance involves the observation, recording and categorization of
information about people, processes and institutions. It calls for the
collection of information, its storage, examination and - as a rule - its
transmission. It is a distinguishing feature of modernity, though until the
1980s the centrality of surveillance to the making of our world had been
underestimated in social analysis. Over the years surveillance has become
increasingly systematic and embedded in everyday life, particularly as state (and,
latterly, supra-state) agencies and corporations have strengthened and
consolidated their positions. More and more we are surveilled in quite routine
activities, as we make telephone calls, pay by debit card, walk into a store and into
the path of security cameras, or enter a library through electronic turnstiles. It is
important that this routine character of much surveillance is registered, since
commentators so often focus exclusively on the dramatic manifestations of

surveillance such as communications interceptions and spy satellites in pursuit of

putative and deadly enemies.

They Say: Surveillance Means Crime

Surveillance is more than observation of criminals
Marx 5 Gary T. Marx, Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Surveillance and Society, Encyclopedia of Social
Theoryhttp://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/surandsoc.html
Traditional Surveillance
An organized crime figure is sentenced to prison based on telephone
wiretaps. A member of a protest group is discovered to be a police informer. These
are instances of traditional surveillance --defined by the dictionary as,
close observation, especially of a suspected person.
Yet surveillance goes far beyond its popular association with crime and
national security. To varying degrees it is a property of any social system
--from two friends to a workplace to government. Consider for example a
supervisor monitoring an employees productivity; a doctor assessing the health of
a patient; a parent observing his child at play in the park; or the driver of a
speeding car asked to show her drivers license. Each of these also involves
surveillance .
Information boundaries and contests are found in all societies and beyond that in all
living systems. Humans are curious and also seek to protect their informational
borders. To survive, individuals and groups engage in, and guard against,
surveillance. Seeking information about others (whether within, or beyond ones
group) is characteristic of all societies. However the form, content and rules of
surveillance vary considerably --from relying on informers, to intercepting smoke
signals, to taking satellite photographs.
In the 15th century religious surveillance was a powerful and dominant form. This
involved the search for heretics, devils and witches, as well as the more routine
policing of religious consciousness, rituals and rules (e.g., adultery and wedlock).
Religious organizations also kept basic records of births, marriages, baptisms and
deaths.
In the 16th century, with the appearance and growth of the embryonic nation-state,
which had both new needs and a developing capacity to gather and use
information, political surveillance became increasingly important relative to
religious surveillance.
Over the next several centuries there was a gradual move
to a policed society in which agents of the state and the economy came to
exercise control over ever-wider social, geographical and temporal areas. Forms
such as an expanded census, police and other registries, identity documents and
inspections appeared which blurred the line between direct political surveillance and
a neutral (even in some ways) more benign, governance or administration. Such
forms were used for taxation, conscription, law enforcement, border control (both
immigration and emigration), and later to determine citizenship, eligibility for
democratic participation and in social planning. In the 19th and 20th centuries with
the growth of the factory system, national and international economies,
bureaucracy and the regulated and welfare states, the content of surveillance
expanded yet again to the collection of detailed personal information in order to
enhance productivity and commerce, to protect public health, to determine

conformity with an ever-increasing number of laws and regulations and to

determine eligibility for various welfare and intervention programs such as Social
Security and the protection of children. Government uses in turn have been
supplemented (and on any quantitative scale likely overtaken) by contemporary
private sector uses of surveillance at work, in the market place and in medical,
banking and insurance settings. The contemporary commercial state with its
emphasis on consumption is inconceivable without the massive collection of
personal data. A credentialed state, bureaucratically organized around the
certification of identity, experience and competence is dependent on the collection
of personal information. Reliance on surveillance technologies for authenticating
identity has increased as remote non face-to-face interactions across distances and
interactions with strangers have increased. Modern urban society contrasts
markedly with the small town or rural community where face-to-face interaction
with those personally known was more common. When individuals and
organizations dont know the reputation of, or cant be sure with whom they are
dealing, there is a turn to surveillance technology to increase authenticity and
accountability.
The microchip and computer are of course central to surveillance developments and
in turn reflect broader social forces set in motion with industrialization. The
increased availability of personal information is a tiny strand in the constant
expansion in knowledge witnessed in the last two centuries, and of the centrality of
information to the workings of contemporary society.
The New Surveillance
The traditional forms of surveillance noted in the opening paragraph contrast in
important ways with what can be called the new surveillance, a form that became
increasingly prominent toward the end of the 20th century. The new social
surveillance can be defined as, "scrutiny through the use of technical
means to extract or create personal or group data, whether from
individuals or contexts". Examples include: video cameras; computer
matching, profiling and data mining; work, computer and electronic
location monitoring; DNA analysis; drug tests; brain scans for lie
detection; various self-administered tests and thermal and other forms of
imaging to reveal what is behind walls and enclosures.

Their interpretation is outdated

Odoemelam 15 Chika Ebere Odoemelam, Ph.D. in Media Studies from the
University of Malaya, Visiting Research Postgraduate Scholar at Lehigh University,
Adapting to Surveillance and Privacy Issues in the Era of Technological and Social
Networking, International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 5(6), June, p. 573
The concise Oxford Dictionary defines surveillance as close observation,
especially of a suspected person. From the above definition, one can deduce
that surveillance is supposed to apply to a suspected person. But the big
question is , is that the case in our today's world? Electronic surveillance
has become a common phenomenon especially in the developed world as a
way of monitoring the activities of every member of the society
irrespective of whether or not they are a suspect. Again, in our present day
world filled with all kinds of modern technology, surveillance could be carried out

from afar instead of only from close observation, as the dictionary meaning
suggests. Satellite images and remote monitoring of communications via
highpowered infra-red technologies can be used for long distance surveillance
activities. Thus, governments and big corporations have made surveillance part of
everyday life, in that it includes, but is not limited to, hidden cameras in an ATM
machines, data bases of all employees in a particular company, scanners that picks
mobile phone communications, computer programs that monitor keystrokes, or key
words and video cameras that parents can use, to monitor, their children at a day
care centre.

Broad interpretations of surveillance are key to advance

discussion of the topic beyond a limited fixation on overt
monitoring---thats critical to capture the essence of modern,
bureaucratic information gathering
Ericson 6 Richard V. Ericson, Principal of Green College, University of British
Columbia, and Kevin D. Haggerty, Doctoral Candidate in sociology at the University
of British Columbia, The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility
p. 3-4
Surveillance involves the collection and analysis of information about
populations in order to govern their activities. This broad definition
advances discussion about surveillance beyond the usual fixation on
cameras and undercover operatives. While spies and cameras are
important, they are only two manifestations of a much larger
phenomenon.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (hereafter 9/11) now inevitably shape
any discussion of surveillance (Lyon 2003). While those events intensified antiterrorist monitoring regimes, surveillance against terrorism is only one use of
monitoring systems. Surveillance is now a general tool used to accomplish
any number of institutional goals. The proliferation of surveillance in
myriad contexts of everyday life suggests the need to examine the
political consequences of such developments.
Rather than seek a single factor that is driving the expansion of surveillance, or
detail one overriding political implication of such developments, the volume is
concerned with demonstrating both the multiplicity of influences on
surveillance and the complexity of the political implications of these
developments. Contributors to this volume are concerned with the broad
social remit of surveillance - as a tool of governance in military conflict, health,
commerce, security and entertainment - and the new political responses it
engenders.

Disadvantages

Education Competitiveness DA

2AC Education Competitiveness DA

The US education system is an embarrassment were one of
the lowest-ranking industrialized countries in education.
Ingraham 14 Christopher Ingraham, Reporter at the Washington Post that
covers politics, policy, and economics citing an OECD education report, 2014 (The
state of U.S. education: Above-average spending, below-average graduation rates,
Washington Post, September 12, Available Online at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/12/the-state-of-u-seducation-above-average-spending-below-average-graduation-rates/, accessed
7/6/15, KM)
New data out this week paint a less-then-flattering portrait of the U.S.
education system. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development notes that while a
large proportion of adults have college degrees, degree attainment is
rising much faster in other developed countries. The U.S. is lagging in
what the OECD calls "educational mobility:" the share of adults who've
attained a higher education level than their parents. As the New York Times writes,
"Barely 30 percent of American adults have achieved a higher level of
education than their parents did. Only Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic do worse. In
Finland more than 50 percent of adults are more educated than their parents." Perhaps more vexing,
the U.S. is a laggard when it comes to high school education too . Despite a
per-pupil secondary education spending level that's roughly a third higher
than the OECD average, in 2012 our high school graduation rate of 78.7 percent
ranked us 22 out of 29 countries the OECD surveyed - well behind the Czech Republic,
and just a hair ahead of China. It's tempting to imagine just how different our society
might be if we could boost high school graduation rates by nearly 20
percent, putting them in line with our western European counterparts. But
beyond that, it is worth noting that our graduation rate has improved considerably in recent years - in 2000, for
instance, only 72 percent of high school freshman made it out with a degree. One final note - a study out this week
points to a significant link between teen marijuana use and decreased likelihood of high school graduation. This has
raised some concerns that the relaxation of marijuana laws in U.S. states might lead to lower graduation rates and
poorer outcomes for teens overall. But the Netherlands has employed a tolerant marijuana policy for decades now,
and the OECD figures show that high school graduation rates there are among the highest of countries surveyed.
While many factors play into educational outcomes at the country level, this does suggest that liberal cannabis
policies haven't created a Dutch educational crisis.

Case outweighs
Competitiveness decline inevitable slow growth, small
businesses, economic inequality.
Porter 14 Interview between Chris Matthews and Michael Porter, who is Bishop
William Lawrence University Professor at The Institute for Strategy and
Competitiveness, based at the Harvard Business School. Porter is a leading
authority on competitive strategy and the competitiveness and economic
development of nations, states, and regions. Porter's work is recognized in many
governments, corporations and academic circles globally. He chairs Harvard
Business School's program dedicated for newly appointed CEOs of very large
corporations, 2014 (The slow decay of American economic competitiveness, The

Washington Post, September 8, Available Online at

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/22/common-core-can-makeamerica-competitive/, accessed 7/2/15, KM)
A new survey from Harvard Business School paints a worrying picture for
the health of small business in America. While the American economy is
adding jobs at a faster pace than at any point since the end of the
financial crisis and is growing faster than many of its developed peers, its
still not close to full strength. Harvard Business Schools 2013-2014 survey on competitiveness
queried thousands of Harvard alumni to get a sense of what business leaders feel is holding the economy back, and
the findings were released Monday. Fortune spoke with Michael Porter, professor and lead researcher on the
competitiveness survey, about the surveys findings. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. Fortune:
Can you summarize the findings of this years survey? Michael Porter: The big message here is that if the economy

competitiveness as
consisting of two things: You have to provide an environment in which firms operating
in the U.S. can win in the marketplace, but at the same time we have to do that in
a way that allows income and the standard of living of the average citizen to
go up. Fundamentally, competitiveness depends on doing those things
together. If youre doing one but not the other, its unsustainable. The big
finding weve seen in our surveys in recent years, and which was reinforced in this report, is the
divergence between the fate of businesses, particularly large businesses,
and the average worker. What weve been able to show in this work is that
actually its not only the difference between the high skill citizen and the
average citizen thats diverging; there are also big differences in
performance between large businesses and small businesses. Small
business is declining as a force for job creation in America, and were
seeing less new business formation in the economy . And I think the reason for this is
that small businesses are disproportionately affected by high regulatory
costs, legal costs, a deteriorating infrastructure, and high corporate taxes.
is going to grow and thrive in the long run, you have to be competitive. We define

The report shows that business leaders are concerned about the tax code, infrastructure, and worker skills in
America: all problems that require political solutions. Does the business community have a plan to address these
issues amid political gridlock? Corporate taxes are probably the single biggest issue
[in which] a policy change could make an immediate and substantial difference in the trajectory of the economy.

Its partly the corporate tax rate itself, which is the highest in the OECD,
but also this issue of repatriation, where we have so much capital stuck abroad
because of the international tax regime we have. Businesses are ready to do a deal
where you bring down the corporate tax rate to something reasonable in the mid twenties and you eliminate
virtually all or most deductions in a revenue-neutral way. The business community isnt holding out for lower taxes
overall. They just want a more rational tax code that provides certainty and makes it easier to invest in the U.S.
rather than elsewhere. Unfortunately, the political will isnt there. Is there anything the business community can do
to help end this gridlock in Washington? The business community is very wary of entering the political fray right
now. The business leaders I talk to are tired of Washington. They see more downside than upside when it comes to
speaking out and then getting criticized, so business kind of has a bunker mentality. But business right now isnt
presenting a very organized and forceful advocacy of the sort of policies we need and outline in this report, and
thats unfortunate. We believe that business must deal with some of these issues themselves as businesses, rather
than waiting for government. But, ultimately, government has to make some big changes too, and how to mobilize
business in that process is something were struggling with. Your report raises the issue of the so-called skills gap
in the American labor market. We hear from business leaders that American workers dont have necessary skills,
yet businesses also seem unwilling to raise wages or provide much training in order to encourage workers to build
those skills. Whats going on here? The stunning and disappointing [finding] from this survey was that businesses
will go to great lengths to avoid hiring full-time people. Theyd rather outsource, theyd rather use automation, and
the first question is why? I think the answer to that is the same structural competitiveness issues that weve been
talking about: high corporate taxes, high regulatory and compliance costs, and high healthcare costs. And there is
also a perception of this skills gap, but the discussion about this skills gap has been too abstract. In fact, the skills
businesses need are very specific to region and industry. Theres not one big labor market, but many different micro

markets for skills all across the country. The problem is that businesses dont communicate their needs very well, so
young people dont know what skills they need to succeed. Companies havent been doing a good job of workforce
planning and communicating their needs, and business has been a passive player in the market for skills. What this
report has found is yes, there is a skills problem, but its not something that you can deal with at the national level
because of all the micro markets. And its not something that can be solved just by the demand side or the supply
side. It seems like larger businesses are thriving and are much more optimistic than small businesses when it comes
to competitiveness in the U.S. Is this a new phenomenon? This is a relatively new finding since this is the first year
we grouped respondents by the size of the company they worked for. What we found is the smallest businesses

Small businesses are

absolutely the bedrock of the American economy. They create more jobs
than other businesses, and its a core aspiration of many Americans to
own their own businesses. And well before the beginning of the recession, we were seeing troubling
trends that run counter to the role small business has typically played in the economy. Small business has
for years now been accounting for a smaller share of new jobs. Were
seeing the formation of small businesses declining. We see the closing of
small businesses increasing. And this is not just a result of the downturn.
These are ongoing trends. So, why would this be? Our narrative here is that the U.S. for years been
were much more pessimistic about the business environment than larger firms.

the most competitive economy on earth, with great infrastructure, an educated workforce, and a strong middle

its small businesses that

are the canary in the coal mine, because large businesses have the ability
to look overseas for better opportunities. This divergence between the
fates of large and small business is just one more sign that relative
competitiveness in the U.S. is declining.
class. As our relative strengths in these areas have begun to disappear,

Common Core hurts economic competition lower labor costs

internationally displace jobs, rigid standards cant account for
future industries, standards ignore the importance of
creativity to the economy, and lack of global education
outweigh any marginal benefits.
Zhao 13 Yong Zhao, presidential chair and associate dean for global education
at the University of Oregons College of Education, where he also serves as the
director of the Center for Advanced Technology in Education. He is a fellow of the
International Academy for Education. Zhao was the former director of both the
Center for Teaching and Technology and the U.S.-China Center for Research on
Educational Excellence at Michigan State University, as well as the executive
director of the Confucius Institute/Institute for Chinese Teacher Education, 2013
(Five key questions about the Common Core standards, The Washington Post,
January 8, Available Online at http://zhaolearning.com/2013/01/02/five-questions-toask-about-the-common-core/, accessed 7/2/15, KM)
What makes one globally competitive?
With only a few exceptions (e.g., North Korea), geographical distance and
political boundaries no longer divide the world in terms of economic
activities. Virtually all economies are globally interconnected and interdependent.
Employment opportunities are thus no longer isolated to specific locations. Jobs can
be outsourced to distant places physically or performed by individuals remotely. In a
world where jobs can be and have been moved around globally, anyone could
potentially go after any job he or she desires. Whether she can be employed

depends largely on two factors: qualifications and price. All things being equal,
those who ask for a lower price for the same qualifications will get the job.
With over seven billion people living on Earth today, there is plenty of competition.
But due to the vast economic disparities in the world, there exists tremendous
differences in labor cost. The hourly compensation costs in manufacturing in 2010
varied from $1.90 in the Philippines to $57.53 in Norway, according to data released
by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2011 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). If a
Norwegian were doing exactly the same job as a Filipino, it is very probable that his
job would be gone soon. For the Norwegian to keep his job, hed better be doing
something that the Filipino is unable to do.
If all children are asked to master the same knowledge and skills, those
whose time costs less will be much more competitive than those with
higher costs. There are many poor and hungry people in the developing world
willing to work for a fraction of what workers in developed countries need. Thus for
those in developed countries such as the United States to be globally
competitive, they must offer something qualitatively different , that is,
something that cannot be obtained at a lower cost in developing
countries. And that something is certainly not great test scores in a few
subjects or the so-called basic skills , because those can be achieved in the
developing countries. Yet the Common Core claims to be benchmarked
with internationally high-performing countries, i.e., countries with high
scores.
Can you be ready for careers that do not exist yet?
Old jobs are being replaced by new ones rapidly as old industries disappear due to
technological changes and existing jobs move around the globe. For example,
existing firms in the U.S. lost on average over one million jobs annually in the period
from 1977 to 2005, according to a report of the Kauffman Foundation, while an
average of three million jobs were created annually by new firms (Kane, 2010). As a
result, there is no sure way to predict what jobs our children will have to take in the
future. As the head of PISA, Andrea Schleicher, recently said: Schools have to
prepare students for jobs that have not yet been created, technologies that have
not yet been invented and problems that we dont know will arise (Schleicher,
2010). If one does not know what careers are there in the future, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to prescribe the knowledge and skills that will make todays students
ready for them.
Are the Common Core Standards relevant?
Jobs that require routine procedure skills and knowledge are increasingly
automated or sent to places where such skills and knowledge are
abundant with lower cost. As a result, as best selling author Daniel Pink
observed, traditionally neglected talents, which he refers to as Rightbrained directed skills, including design, story, symphony, empathy, play,
and meaning, will become more valuable (Pink, 2006). Economist Richard
Florida noticed the increasing importance of creativity in the modern
economy ten years ago in his best seller The Rise of the Creative Class (Florida,
2012). And economist Philip Auerswald convincingly proves the case for the need of
entrepreneurs to bring the coming prosperity in his 2012 book (Auerswald, 2012).

These are just antagonistic to the core subjects prescribed by the

Common Core and tested by international assessments such as PISA and
TIMSS, which are mostly left-brained cognitive skills.
Does Common Core support global competence?
The world our children will live in is global, not local as before. Given the
interconnectedness and interdependence of economies, the rise of global
challenges such as climate change, and the ease of movement across national
borders, ones birthplace no longer determines his or her future living space or
whom he or she may be working for or with. Thus to be ready to live in this
global world requires the knowledge and abilities to interact with people
who are not born and raised in the same local community. But the
Common Core does not include an element to prepare the future
generations to live in this globalized world and interact with people from
different cultures.
What opportunities we may be missing?
Globalization and technological changes, while presenting tremendous
challenges, bring vast opportunities. Globalization, for example, greatly expands
the pool of potential customers for products and services. Niche talents that used to
only be of interest to a small fraction of people may not be of much value locally,
because the total population of a given community is small. In the globalized world,
the potential customers could number seven billion. Even a small fraction of the
seven billion can be significant, and talents that may be of little value in a given
location can be very valuable in another country. Globalization and technology
today enable products and services to reach almost any corner of the world. But
the Common Core, by forcing children to master the same curriculum,
essentially discriminates against talents that are not consistent with their
prescribed knowledge and skills. Students who are otherwise talented but
do not do well in these chosen subjects are often sent to spend more time
on the core subjects, retained for another grade, and deprived of the
opportunity to develop their talents in other ways.
In summary, the efforts to develop common curricula nationally and
internationally are simply working to perfect an outdated paradigm . The
outcomes are precisely the opposite of the talents we need for the new
era. A well organized, tightly controlled, and well-executed education
system can transmit the prescribed content much more effectively than
one that is less organized, loosely monitored, and less unified. In the
meantime, the latter allows for exceptions with more room for individual
exploration and experimentation. The question is what matters in the
future: Do we want individuals who are good at taking tests, or individuals
who are creative and entrepreneurial? I believe the answer is the latter.

Competitiveness is a myth theres no economic basis for

their impact.
Krugman 94 Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 1994 (Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession, Foreign

Affairs, March-April, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis

Academic Universe)
It was a disappointing evasion, but not a surprising one. After all, the rhetoric of
competitiveness the view that, in the words of President Clinton, each nation is
"like a big corporation competing in the global marketplace" has become
pervasive among opinion leaders throughout the world. People who believe
themselves to be sophisticated about the subject take it for granted that the
economic problem facing any modern nation is essentially one of competing on
world markets that the United States and Japan are competitors in the same sense
that Coca-Cola competes with Pepsi and are unaware that anyone might seriously
question that proposition. Every few months a new best-seller warns the American
public of the dire consequences of losing the "race" for the 21st century. n1 A whole
industry of councils on competitiveness, "geo-economists" and managed trade
theorists has sprung up in Washington. Many of these people, having diagnosed
America's economic problems in much the same terms as Delors did Europe's, are
now in the highest reaches of the Clinton administration formulating economic and
trade policy for the United States. So Delors was using a language that was not only
convenient but comfortable for him and a wide audience on both sides of the
Atlantic.
Unfortunately, his diagnosis was deeply misleading as a guide to what ails Europe,
and similar diagnoses in the United States are equally misleading. The idea that a
country's economic fortunes are largely determined by its success on
world markets is a hypothesis , not a necessary truth; and as a practical,
empirical matter , that hypothesis is flatly wrong. That is, it is simply not
the case that the world's leading nations are to any important degree in
economic competition with each other, or that any of their major economic
problems can be attributed to failures to compete on world markets. The
growing obsession in most advanced nations with international
competitiveness should be seen, not as a well-founded concern, but as a view
held in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence . And yet it is clearly a
view that people very much want to hold a desire to believe that is
reflected in a remarkable tendency of those who preach the doctrine of
competitiveness to support their case with careless, flawed arithmetic .
This article makes three points. First, it argues that concerns about
competitiveness are, as an empirical matter, almost completely
unfounded. Second, it tries to explain why defining the economic problem as one
of international competition is nonetheless so attractive to so many people. Finally,
it argues that the obsession with competitiveness is not only wrong but
dangerous , skewing domestic policies and threatening the international
economic system . This last issue is, of course, the most consequential from the
standpoint of public policy. Thinking in terms of competitiveness leads,
directly and indirectly, to bad economic policies on a wide range of issues,
domestic and foreign, whether it be in health care or trade.

No relative U.S. economic decline enduring geopolitical

strengths will preserve American power.
Meltzer et al. 13 Joshua Meltzer, Fellow in the Global Economy and
Development Program at the Brookings Institution, Adjunct Professor at The Johns
Hopkins Universitys School of Advanced International Studies, holds an S.J.D. and
L.L.M from the University of Michigan Law School, et al., with David Steven,
Nonresident Senior Fellow for the Managing Global Order Project in the Foreign
Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, Nonresident Senior Fellow and Associate
Director of the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, and
Claire Langley, Research Analyst in the Global Economy and Development Program
at the Brookings Institution, 2013 (The United States After The Great Recession:
The Challenges of Sustainable Growth, Brookings Institution Global Economy &
Development Working Paper #60, February, Available Online at
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/02/us%20post
%20great%20recession%20meltzer%20steven/02%20us%20post%20great
%20recession%20meltzer%20steven.pdf, Accessed 08-11-2013, p. 20)
A New Era of Global Leadership
Although the United States is certain to face headwinds in the coming
decades, this does not mean that its stance will be a pessimistic one.
Though fears of American decline will continue to surface, a more
confident narrative is likely to predominate at most times. Even during the
crisis, a slim majority of Americans remained optimistic about the countrys future
over the next 50 years.148 At the ballot box, meanwhile, they consistently reward
optimistic politicians over negative ones.149 A blind analysis of the speeches of
presidential candidates between 1900 and 1984* showed that the candidate who
sounded least pessimistic was elected on 80 percent of occasions, creating strong
incentives for politicians to emphasize the potential for renewed American
leadership.
At the same time, the United States will be able to draw on enduring absolute
geopolitical strengths , even if its relative power continues to diminish
due to the economic success of rising powers. It will continue to benefit
from:
Its position as a dominant security actor , which it seems certain to
maintain for at least another generation , and its privileged position in
most global institutions. 150
Its internal security , which is more robust than that of countries such as
India (currently tackling a Naxalite insurgency in 125 of its 640 districts)151 or
China (reported to be spending as much on domestic security as it does on
defense).152
Its growth potential , especially when compared with the EU, but more
generally if it manages to use its leadership in key export sectors to
exploit the purchasing power of a growing global middle class153 or if one
or more of the emerging economies suffers an interruption to its growth.

1AR Uniqueness Education Low

The plan solves education is poor now is because of
standardizing education through reforms like Common Core.
Garland 14 Sarah Garland, Executive editor of The Hechinger Report, former
Spencer Fellow in Education Reporting at Columbia University's Graduate School of
Journalism, Joint masters degree in journalism and Latin American studies from New
York University, 2014 (US education: How we got where we are today, Christian
Science Monitor, August 17, Available Online at
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2014/0817/US-education-How-we-gotwhere-we-are-today, accessed 7/6/15, KM)
The standardized state of US schools today grew from the Reagan blueprint, A
Nation at Risk. Why that legacy matters now.
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. On the last day of school in June, Principal Aurelia Curtis was harried. An auditorium full of
teachers was waiting for her. But instead of congratulating them on a good year and sending off three retiring staff members, she
was in her office signing the last of the 742 teacher evaluation forms for her staff of nearly 150 that she had to finish by an end-ofyear deadline. Ms. Curtis, a stern but beloved leader who shares her name with Curtis High School here in Staten Island, N.Y., where

spends more time these days filling out intensive

teacher evaluations required by the state than she does talking to her
teachers. Or thats how it often feels. It has tied me up in so much paperwork, she says. I dont have the time to have
meaningful conversations with teachers. Likewise, her teachers and students spend less time in
meaningful discussions and more time worrying about the tests that will help
decide those teacher evaluation scores. Were trying to quantify everything, she says. The
she began her career 30 years ago,

new system, is it better? Im not convinced. Yet as the school year opens and students return to the sprawling Gothic building on a
hill with views of the Statue of Liberty, Curtis will be starting on another pile of 700-plus forms meant to tell her which of her

The new evaluation system, along with many of the

other changes roiling American education, can be traced directly back to a
set of old ideas as old as Curtiss tenure at Curtis High. The push for new teacher
evaluations, new standards, new curricula, and new tests began with A
Nation at Risk, a report published in 1983 that busy educators like Curtis usually dont have much
teachers are good and which arent.

time to think about. But in many ways, the report has defined the careers of a generation of educators like her and the educations

A Nation at Risk, commissioned by the

Reagan administration in 1981, was a scathing appraisal of public
education. Its authors a federal commission of leaders from government, business, and education spent two years
of a generation of American public school students.

examining American schools, and they were appalled at what they found. Standardized test and SAT scores were falling. The United
States was dropping behind competitors such as Japan. The public education system was so bad that not only were US students
unprepared to join an increasingly high-tech workforce, 23 million Americans were functionally illiterate. Worst of all, the report
concluded, Americans were complacent as their schools crumbled, threatening the very fabric of society. One of the most famous
lines in the report said: If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance

The document set off panic in a once

self-satisfied nation and launched a movement to transform the public
education system. A generation later, its effects are powerful. The excoriation of
American schooling is what most people remember, but its actual legacy is ingrained in public
education today. The reports five proposed solutions improving content,
raising standards, overhauling the teaching profession, adding time to the
school day and year, and improving leadership and fiscal support are
clear in current reform. They can be seen in the spread of the Common
Core standards , a set of streamlined but intense new standards introduced in 2009 that, though controversial, are still in
that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

use in more than 40 states; in new teacher ratings based partly on standardized test scores; and in the invention and rise of charter

the
solutions offered in A Nation at Risk stoked a backlash among many on the left who argued that its
schools with longer school days and no union contracts. Initially embraced by a coalition of conservatives and liberals,

were over the top and that its solutions ignored poverty
and inequity in the system. But the Republican-driven revolution is being
driven home, as never before, by a Democratic president. The Obama
administration admits theres a connection. Education Secretary Arne
Duncan has said the report was influential in the administrations
education reform strategy. So why are ideas from a report that once provoked fury among many on the
criticisms of public education

left having their heyday now? Milton Goldberg, who was the executive director of the National Commission on Excellence in
Education, which issued A Nation at Risk, believes the answer is simple. When we did the Nation at Risk, we collected dozens
and dozens of research papers and recorded testimony all over the country, he says. We finally came to the conclusion that those
five things, theyre the essential legs of a five-legged footstool that you must address in order to improve education. The legs of
that stool havent changed very much. Whats changed is what you do about them, added Mr. Goldberg, now chancellor of Jones
International University, a for-profit institution in Centennial, Colo. Indeed, the fallout from A Nation at Risk has not always been

Before A Nation at Risk, the federal governments role in

education was minimal, as the reports authors believed was proper, and Reagan had even wanted to abolish the
federal Education Department. The government had mainly focused on finishing the work of desegregation. Afterward,
the federal government became one of the main drivers of reform, and A
Nation at Risk became the blueprint. And it never mentioned charter schools or school
what its writers expected.

choice. Now, there are nearly 6,000 charters nationwide, up from 1,500 in the year 2000, and thousands of district schools
are being remade in the same image thanks to state and federal policies that borrow heavily from ideas in A Nation at Risk. But as

the report and the movement it fueled become reality, theyre

sparking a another backlash among those who say the country has embraced the worst of A Nation
at Risk an overhyped sense of crisis and business-focused mentality
and turned its back on the reports best ideas about empowering teachers, raising expectations
many policy prescriptions from

for students, and identifying and training better school leaders. For more than 30 years, U.S. education leaders have been like a
dog chasing its tail, Diane Ravitch, an education historian and assistant education secretary under President George W. Bush, wrote
in an e-mail interview. What

Risk.

has happened is tragic. And it started with A Nation at

1AR Uniqueness Competitiveness Low

Competitiveness is at an all-time low lack of small businesses
means the economy will continue to decline
Matthews 14 - Chris Matthews is a writer for Fortune and News magazines,
2014 (The slow decay of American economic competitiveness, Fortune, 9-8-2014,
available online via http://fortune.com/2014/09/08/us-economic-competitiveness/,
accessed on 7-8-2015)//CM
A new survey from Harvard Business School paints a worrying picture for the health of small business in America.

While the American economy is adding jobs at a faster pace than at any
point since the end of the financial crisis and is growing faster than many
of its developed peers, its still not close to full strength. Harvard Business
Schools 2013-2014 survey on competitiveness queried thousands of Harvard alumni
to get a sense of what business leaders feel is holding the economy back,
and the findings were released Monday. Fortune spoke with Michael Porter, professor and lead
researcher on the competitiveness survey, about the surveys findings. The interview has been edited for length
and clarity. Fortune: Can you summarize the findings of this years survey? Michael Porter: The big message here is

if the economy is going to grow and thrive in the long run, you have to
be competitive. We define competitiveness as consisting of two things: You have to provide an
environment in which firms operating in the U.S. can win in the
marketplace, but at the same time we have to do that in a way that allows
income and the standard of living of the average citizen to go up.
Fundamentally, competitiveness depends on doing those things together.
If youre doing one but not the other, its unsustainable. The big finding
weve seen in our surveys in recent years, and which was reinforced in this report, is the divergence
between the fate of businesses, particularly large businesses, and the
average worker. What weve been able to show in this work is that actually its not only the difference
that

between the high skill citizen and the average citizen thats diverging; there are also big differences in performance

Small business is declining as a force for

job creation in America, and were seeing less new business formation in
the economy. And I think the reason for this is that small businesses are
disproportionately affected by high regulatory costs, legal costs, a
deteriorating infrastructure, and high corporate taxes. The report shows that
between large businesses and small businesses.

business leaders are concerned about the tax code, infrastructure, and worker skills in America: all problems that
require political solutions. Does the business community have a plan to address these issues amid political gridlock?
Corporate taxes are probably the single biggest issue [in which] a policy change could make an immediate and
substantial difference in the trajectory of the economy. Its partly the corporate tax rate itself, which is the highest
in the OECD, but also this issue of repatriation, where we have so much capital stuck abroad because of the
international tax regime we have. Businesses are ready to do a deal where you bring down the corporate tax rate to
something reasonable in the mid twenties and you eliminate virtually all or most deductions in a revenue-neutral
way. The business community isnt holding out for lower taxes overall. They just want a more rational tax code that
provides certainty and makes it easier to invest in the U.S. rather than elsewhere. Unfortunately, the political will
isnt there. Is there anything the business community can do to help end this gridlock in Washington? The business
community is very wary of entering the political fray right now. The business leaders I talk to are tired of
Washington. They see more downside than upside when it comes to speaking out and then getting criticized, so
business kind of has a bunker mentality. But business right now isnt presenting a very organized and forceful
advocacy of the sort of policies we need and outline in this report, and thats unfortunate. We believe that business
must deal with some of these issues themselves as businesses, rather than waiting for government. But, ultimately,
government has to make some big changes too, and how to mobilize business in that process is something were
struggling with. Your report raises the issue of the so-called skills gap in the American labor market. We hear from
business leaders that American workers dont have necessary skills, yet businesses also seem unwilling to raise

The
stunning and disappointing [finding] from this survey was that businesses
wages or provide much training in order to encourage workers to build those skills. Whats going on here?

will go to great lengths to avoid hiring full-time people. Theyd rather

outsource, theyd rather use automation, and the first question is why? I think the
answer to that is the same structural competitiveness issues that weve been talking about: high corporate
taxes, high regulatory and compliance costs, and high healthcare costs. And
there is also a perception of this skills gap, but the discussion about this skills gap has been too abstract. In fact,
the skills businesses need are very specific to region and industry. Theres not one big labor market, but many

that businesses dont

communicate their needs very well, so young people dont know what
skills they need to succeed. Companies havent been doing a good job of
workforce planning and communicating their needs, and business has
been a passive player in the market for skills. What this report has found is yes, there is a
different micro markets for skills all across the country. The problem is

skills problem, but its not something that you can deal with at the national level because of all the micro markets.
And its not something that can be solved just by the demand side or the supply side. It seems like larger
businesses are thriving and are much more optimistic than small businesses when it comes to competitiveness in
the U.S. Is this a new phenomenon? This is a relatively new finding since this is the first year we grouped
respondents by the size of the company they worked for. What we found is the smallest businesses were much
more pessimistic about the business environment than larger firms. Small businesses are absolutely the bedrock of
the American economy. They create more jobs than other businesses, and its a core aspiration of many Americans
to own their own businesses. And well before the beginning of the recession, we were seeing troubling trends that
run counter to the role small business has typically played in the economy. Small business has for years now been
accounting for a smaller share of new jobs.

Were seeing the formation of small

businesses declining. We see the closing of small businesses increasing.
And this is not just a result of the downturn. These are ongoing trends. So,
why would this be? Our narrative here is that the U.S. for years been the most competitive
economy on earth, with great infrastructure, an educated workforce, and
a strong middle class. As our relative strengths in these areas have begun
to disappear, its small businesses that are the canary in the coal mine,
because large businesses have the ability to look overseas for better
opportunities. This divergence between the fates of large and small business is just one more sign that
relative competitiveness in the U.S. is declining. Many of the solutions the report suggests, like improvements to the
education system and infrastructure, will require investment from both the private and public sector. Are business

Businesses are investing quite a bit, just not

in the United States. I think the appetite will return if we start to see some signs of progress on budget
and tax reform. I think that would be decisive. I think a lot of business leaders are holding back
because theres not a lot of confidence in the future. I think theres a fatalistic idea that
leaders willing to support these investments?

nothings going to change, and so incrementally, if we want to invest, lets do it overseas where we dont have
these problems and growth is stronger. That said, there are some tailwinds out there, like the recent boom in
domestic energy production. U.S.-based businesses will see huge cost benefits because of this trend, which, by the
way, was set in motion because of American technology and innovation. Theres also a tailwind as a result of rising
labor costs abroad; in China, for example. So, we have the opportunity to be more cost-competitive because of

we can start to see some headway on these critical policy

questions, wed see businesses [become] more willing to invest and
support investment from the public sector.
these trends. I think if

1AR Link Turn Common Core Hurts

Competitiveness
Current U.S. education typically fails to prepare students for
national security jobs without these jobs, we risk lower levels
of national security
Council on Foreign Relations 12 The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
is an independent think tank dedicated to being a resource for its members in order
to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the
United States and other countries, 2012 (U.S. Education Reform and National
Security, CFR Independent Task Force Report No. 68, March 2012, available online
via http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-education-reform-national-security/p27618,
accessed on 7/8/15)//CM
Education has historically given all Americansrich and poor, black and white
opportunity. It has allowed individuals to achieve their dreams, and it
has fueled the continued innovation, growth, prosperity, and security of
this nation. Today, however, as Americas young citizens are
simultaneously confronted with growing economic inequalities and an
increasingly global and competitive world, elementary and secondary (K12) schools are failing to provide the promised opportunity. Measured
against global standards, far too many U.S. schools are failing to teach
students the academic skills and knowledge they need to compete and
succeed. Many are also neglecting to teach civics, the glue that holds our society
together. This failure and its consequences are not theoretical; they are real
and already having a noticeable impact on individual students, particularly
the neediest students for whom education is the only intervention
capable of putting them on track to a better life, as well as on U.S.
competitiveness, readiness, and future prospects. In short, Americas
failure to educate is affecting its national security. Consider the following
points: Despite sustained unemployment, employers are finding it difficult
to hire Americans with necessary skills, and many expect this problem to
intensify. For example, 63 percent of life science and aerospace firms report
shortages of qualified workers.1 In the defense and aerospace industries,
many executives fear this problem will accelerate in the coming decade as
60 percent of the existing workforce reaches retirement age.2 Most
young people do not qualify for military service. A recent study on military
readiness found that 75 percent of U.S. citizens between the ages of
seventeen and twenty-four are not qualified to join the military because
they are physically unfit, have criminal records, or have inadequate levels
of education.3 The 25 percent of students who drop out of high school are
unqualified to serve, as are the approximately 30 percent of high school
graduates who do graduate but do not know enough math, science, and
English to perform well on the mandatory Armed Services Vocational
Aptitude Battery.4 The U.S. State Department and intelligence agencies
are facing critical language shortfalls in areas of strategic interest. Fewer
than half of State Department officers in language-designated positions in

Iraq and Afghanistan met the departments language requirements, for

example, and shortfalls in strategically important languages such as
Chinese, Dari, Korean, Russian, and Turkish are substantial.5 In many ways,
the United States remains a global leader: its scholars win the most Nobel Prizes; its
companies hold the most science and technology patents; and its armed services
are, by many measures, the strongest in the world. However, no country in the
twenty-first century can rest on its laurels or be truly secure by military
might alone. Human capital will determine power in the current century,
and the failure to produce that capital will undermine Americas security.

1AR Competitiveness = Myth

Competitiveness is the wrong focus its a bankrupt
metaphor.
Krugman 11 Paul Krugman, Columnist for the New York Times, Professor of
Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, and Recipient of the
2008 Nobel Prize in Economics, 2011 (The Competition Myth, New York Times,
January 23rd, Available Online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24krugman.html, Accessed 08-112013)
Meet the new buzzword, same as the old buzzword. In advance of the State of
the Union, President Obama has telegraphed his main theme:
competitiveness. The Presidents Economic Recovery Advisory Board has been
renamed the Presidents Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. And in his Saturday
radio address, the president declared that We can out-compete any other nation on
Earth.
This may be smart politics. Arguably, Mr. Obama has enlisted an old clich on behalf
of a good cause, as a way to sell a much-needed increase in public investment to a
public thoroughly indoctrinated in the view that government spending is a bad
thing.
But lets not kid ourselves: talking about competitiveness as a goal is
fundamentally misleading . At best, its a misdiagnosis of our problems. At
worst, it could lead to policies based on the false idea that whats good for
corporations is good for America.
About that misdiagnosis: What sense does it make to view our current woes as
stemming from lack of competitiveness?
Its true that wed have more jobs if we exported more and imported less.
But the same is true of Europe and Japan , which also have depressed
economies. And we cant all export more while importing less, unless we
can find another planet to sell to. Yes, we could demand that China shrink its
trade surplus but if confronting China is what Mr. Obama is proposing, he should
say that plainly.
Furthermore, while America is running a trade deficit, this deficit is smaller
than it was before the Great Recession began. It would help if we could make
it smaller still. But ultimately, were in a mess because we had a financial
crisis, not because American companies have lost their ability to compete
with foreign rivals.
But isnt it at least somewhat useful to think of our nation as if it were
America Inc., competing in the global marketplace? No.

Krugman is right competitiveness is economically

bankrupt.
Schrage 94 Michael Schrage, writer, consultant and research associate at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994 (The Myth of a 'Competitive' Economic
Policy, Los Angeles Times, March 10th, Available Online at

http://articles.latimes.com/print/1994-03-10/business/fi-32358_1_economic-policy,
Accessed 08-11-2013)
An American economy that cares a great deal about boosting domestic
productivity requires policy-makers who care very little about global
competitiveness.
A Zen koan for the nationalistic '90s? The sound of one Keynesian clapping? A lyric
for aspiring autarkists?
None on the above. It's the startling pronouncement of MIT's Paul Krugman,
one of the country's most brilliant young economists , a nonpartisan
academic with a reputation for intellectual honesty and a cruel tongue.
You might recall that Krugman was widely quoted criticizing industrial-policy
economist Laura D'Andrea Tyson's research when President Clinton named her
chairwoman of his Council of Economic Advisers.
Alternating between statistical scalpels and macroeconomic machetes,
Krugman bloodily eviscerates "competitiveness" as a policy doctrine
without any kind of economic validity.
What supply-side "economics" was to Reaganomics, Krugman asserts,
competitiveness has become to Clintonomics: a sort of psuedo-rational pastiche
that Nobel Prize-winning chemist Irving Langmuir once described as "pathological
science"--that is to say, no science at all.
"To make a harsh but not entirely unjustified analogy," he says in his essay
"Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession" in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, "a
government wedded to the ideology of competitiveness is as unlikely to
make good economic policy as a government committed to creationism is
to make good science policy, even in areas that have no direct relationship
to the theory of evolution."
"Gee, we must be making progress," smiles Dan Burton, president of the Council of
(sigh) Competitiveness, which was formed by frustrated high-tech executives in the
wake of the Ronald Reagan Administration's rejection of its own presidential
commission on the topic. "In 1987, competitiveness was dismissed as a buzzword.
Today, it's graduated to being a dangerous obsession."
Might Krugman be the one with the dangerous obsession? Not after you see the
numbers. His arguments would command respect even without his
impeccable credentials . They're important because he takes the global
competitiveness champions like Tyson, U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor,
Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich and health care guru Ira Magaziner on their own
terms , impatiently redoes their arithmetic for them and makes a strong
case that competitiveness issues amount to little more than a rounding
error in the $6-trillion U.S. economy.

1AR Alt Causes to Competitiveness

Even if skills are key to competitiveness, Common Core does
not fill the gap outsourcing and micromarkets prevent
solvency.
Porter 14 Interview between Chris Matthews and Michael Porter, who is Bishop
William Lawrence University Professor at The Institute for Strategy and
Competitiveness, based at the Harvard Business School. Porter is a leading
authority on competitive strategy and the competitiveness and economic
development of nations, states, and regions. Porter's work is recognized in many
governments, corporations and academic circles globally. He chairs Harvard
Business School's program dedicated for newly appointed CEOs of very large
corporations, 2014 (The slow decay of American economic competitiveness, The
Washington Post, September 8, Available Online at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/22/common-core-can-makeamerica-competitive/, accessed 7/2/15, KM)
Your report raises the issue of the so-called skills gap in the American
labor market. We hear from business leaders that American workers dont
have necessary skills, yet businesses also seem unwilling to raise wages or provide much training in
order to encourage workers to build those skills. Whats going on here? The stunning and
disappointing [finding] from this survey was that businesses will go to
great lengths to avoid hiring full-time people. Theyd rather outsource,
theyd rather use automation, and the first question is why? I think the answer to that
is the same structural competitiveness issues that weve been talking
about: high corporate taxes, high regulatory and compliance costs, and
high healthcare costs. And there is also a perception of this skills gap, but the discussion about this
skills gap has been too abstract. In fact, the skills businesses need are very specific to
region and industry. Theres not one big labor market, but many different
micro markets for skills all across the country. The problem is that businesses dont
communicate their needs very well, so young people dont know what skills they need to succeed. Companies
havent been doing a good job of workforce planning and communicating their needs, and business has been a

What this report has found is yes, there is a skills

problem, but its not something that you can deal with at the national
level because of all the micro markets. And its not something that can be solved just by the
passive player in the market for skills.

demand side or the supply side.

1AR No Economy Impact

No short-term impact to slow growth any effect on military
power is long-term.
Morgan 11 Iwan Morgan, Professor of U.S. Studies and Head of U.S.
Programmes at the Institute of the Americas at University College London, former
Professor of U.S. Studies at the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the School
of Advanced Study at the University of London, Professor of American Governance
at London Metropolitan University, and Fulbright Educational Exchange Lecturer at
Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne, holds a Ph.D. in International
History from the London School of Economics, 2011 (The American Economy and
Americas Global Power, The United States after Unipolarity, Published by the
London School of Economics, December, Available Online at
http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SR009/morgan.pdf, Accessed
08-11-2013, p. 30)
In immediate terms, it is clear that the United States is far from any tipping
point where it has to scale back its military power very significantly
because of economic and debt problems at home. True, its supporting rather
than lead role in the NATO intervention in Libya owed something to the Obama
White Houses desire to contain defence costs while America is still actively
engaged against the Taliban in Afghanistan and has just started to run down its Iraq
commitments. In Obamas Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget plan, defence
outlays are also scheduled to decline from 5.1 percent of GDP in FY 2011 to
3.4 percent of GDP in FY 2016. Nevertheless, the savings will largely result
from the running down of commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq and waste
elimination rather than the reduction of core strength. Even if a new crisis
demanded expansion of military spending in the course of the next
decade, the United States should be able to meet that need without
imposing a strain on its economy .

No risk of relative decline the U.S. is comparatively stronger

than other nations.
Sharma 12 Ruchir Sharma, Head of Emerging Markets at Morgan Stanley,
Columnist for Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economic Times of India,
2012 (Comeback Nation: Why the U.S. Economy Is Much Stronger Than You Think,
The Atlantic, August 3rd, Available Online at
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/comeback-nation-why-the-useconomy-is-much-stronger-than-you-think/260634/, Accessed 08-11-2013)
Usain Bolt is the most dominant sprinter the world has seen in a century, perhaps
more, so when he runs at the London games, anything less than victory by a
blistering margin will be greeted as a disappointment. Results are always
relative to expectations , and this as true for global economic competition as for
the 100-meter dash. These days, the United States is an underestimated
underdog, while China is still widely seen as something more like Bolt. The

expectations gap is crucial to parsing the confused public discussion of the

American recovery, and what it means for America's future.
Since the crisis of 2008, most Americans have come to expect gloom rather than
gold in the near future. The long-term US growth rate is now burdened by our huge
debts, and is slowing to 2.5 percent, down from 3.4 percent between 1950 and
2007. This fall is stoking a premature sense that American preeminence is already
over. Polls show that a majority of Americans think China is already the world's
"leading" economy, even though it is still about one third the size of the U.S.
economy. The reality is that, at 2.5 percent growth, the US remains the
fastest-growing rich economy , and is in fact regaining some of the recent
ground lost to newcomers like China.
America's performance should be measured against the current
competition , not against the records it set in the 1990s or 2000s. All the big
emerging markets are slowing, most notably China, which has lowered its
growth target to under 8 percent for the first time in many years and may well fall
under 7 percent. It is hard to grow at a sprinter's pace when you are hitting middle
age, growing careful and a bit fat. China is all three, having recently reached an
average real income of more than $5,000, with a total GDP of more than $7 trillion,
and a new taste for welfare state programs. Every "miracle economy," from Japan in
the 1970s to South Korea in the 1990s, slowed at this real income level.
Unhappily, for those who like to imagine that globalization can produce "win-win"
finishes, China's slowdown will be America's gain. The story of American growth
slipping by a point will pale in comparison to the three or even four point
slip in China. If the U.S. grows 2.5 percent this year, and China slips to 7 percent,
the United States should regain the title it lost to China in 2007: that of the single
largest contributor to global growth.
This year, the United States will also grow faster than the global average for
the first time since 2003, the year an unprecedented boom in emerging market
growth began. For the next four years, emerging market growth doubled to over 7.0
percent, creating the widespread perception that the rich nations of the West were
being overtaken by the rise of the poor. Now, the historic norm is reasserting itself -the big emerging nations are slowing dramatically, and the coming years are once
again likely to produce more laggards than winners. As of 2007 the emerging
markets were on average growing three times faster than the United States; now
they are growing only twice as fast.
Evidence of an American revival, against both developed and emerging world
competition, is mounting , driven by the traditional strengths of the
American economyits ability to innovate and adapt quickly. America's worst
worries heavy debt, slow growth, the fall of the dollar and the decline of
manufacturing will look much less troubling when compared to its direct
rivals. While US growth has slowed by a full point so has growth in Japan
and Europe, leaving the United States on top of the league of rich nations .

1AR They Say: Education Turns Corporate

Control
Common Core does not solve income inequality it just
distracts from the root cause of corporate control. Only the
plan breaks the corporate stranglehold on American education.
Krugman 15 Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning American economist, Op-Ed
columnist at The New York Times, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at
the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, ranked among
the most influential economic thinkers in the US, 2015 (Knowledge Isnt Power,
The New York Times, February 23, Available Online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/23/opinion/paul-krugman-knowledge-isntpower.html?_r=0, accessed 7/7/15, KM)
Regular readers know that I sometimes mock very serious people politicians and pundits who solemnly repeat
conventional wisdom that sounds tough-minded and realistic. The trouble is that sounding serious and being serious
are by no means the same thing, and some of those seemingly tough-minded positions are actually ways to dodge
the truly hard issues. The prime example of recent years was, of course, Bowles-Simpsonism the diversion of
elite discourse away from the ongoing tragedy of high unemployment and into the supposedly crucial issue of how,
exactly, we will pay for social insurance programs a couple of decades from now. That particular obsession, Im

theres a new form of issuedodging packaged as seriousness on the rise. This time, the evasion
involves trying to divert our national discourse about inequality into a
discussion of alleged problems with education. And the reason this is an evasion is that
whatever serious people may want to believe, soaring inequality isnt about education; its
about power. Just to be clear: Im in favor of better education. Education is a friend of mine. And it should be
available and affordable for all. But what I keep seeing is people insisting that educational
failings are at the root of still-weak job creation, stagnating wages and
rising inequality. This sounds serious and thoughtful. But its actually a view very much at
odds with the evidence, not to mention a way to hide from the real, unavoidably
partisan debate. The education-centric story of our problems runs like
this: We live in a period of unprecedented technological change, and too many American workers lack the skills
to cope with that change. This skills gap is holding back growth, because businesses cant
find the workers they need. It also feeds inequality, as wages soar for workers with
the right skills but stagnate or decline for the less educated. So what we need is
happy to say, seems to be on the wane. But my sense is that

more and better education. My guess is that this sounds familiar its what you hear from the talking heads on
Sunday morning TV, in opinion articles from business leaders like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, in framing
papers from the Brookings Institutions centrist Hamilton Project. Its repeated so widely that many people
probably assume its unquestionably true. But it isnt. For one thing, is the pace of technological change really that
fast? We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters, the venture capitalist Peter Thiel has snarked.

theres no
evidence that a skills gap is holding back employment. After all, if businesses were
Productivity growth, which surged briefly after 1995, seems to have slowed sharply. Furthermore,

desperate for workers with certain skills, they would presumably be offering premium wages to attract such
workers. So where are these fortunate professions? You can find some examples here and there. Interestingly, some
of the biggest recent wage gains are for skilled manual labor sewing machine operators, boilermakers as some
manufacturing production moves back to America. But the notion that highly skilled workers are generally in

while the education/inequality story may once have

seemed plausible, it hasnt tracked reality for a long time. The wages of the
demand is just false. Finally,

highest-skilled and highest-paid individuals have continued to increase steadily, the Hamilton Project says.
Actually, the

inflation-adjusted earnings of highly educated Americans have

gone nowhere since the late 1990s. So what is really going on? Corporate
profits have soared as a share of national income, but there is no sign of a
rise in the rate of return on investment. How is that possible? Well, its what you
would expect if rising profits reflect monopoly power rather than returns to
capital. As for wages and salaries, never mind college degrees all the big gains are going to a tiny
group of individuals holding strategic positions in corporate suites or astride
the crossroads of finance. Rising inequality isnt about who has the knowledge; its
about who has the power. Now, theres a lot we could do to redress this inequality of power. We could
levy higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and invest the proceeds in programs that help working families.
We could raise the minimum wage and make it easier for workers to organize. Its not hard to imagine a truly
serious effort to make America less unequal. But given the determination of one major party to move policy in
exactly the opposite direction, advocating such an effort makes you sound partisan. Hence the desire to see the
whole thing as an education problem instead. But we should recognize that popular evasion for what it is: a deeply
unserious fantasy.

STEM DA

2AC STEM DA
1. Squo solvesSTEM camps for young girls are solving for the
lack of female representation in the STEM field now
Yang 15 Sarah Yang, 7-16-2015 ("Camp gives middle school girls hands-on
experience in engineering," UC Berkeley News, 7-16-2015, Available Online at
http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/07/16/girls-in-engineering-camp/, Accessed 7-212015)
UC Berkeleys Girls in Engineering summer camps, middle schoolers go from
robots to cow legs to edible juice caviar, all in one whirlwind week. Girls assemble
and test their Pi-Bot at UC Berkeleys Girls in Engineering summer camp. (Video by
Roxanne Makasdjian and Phil Ebiner) The camps are part of a pilot program run
by the College of Engineering as part of an effort to narrow the gender
gap in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. Each summer
there are two one-week sessions with 30 participants for each week. Instructors are
professors, postdoctoral researchers, and graduate and undergraduate students,
covering topics ranging from nanotechnology to data science. By design, nearly all
instructors are women. In one workshop, instructor Lavanya Jawaharlal, a UC
Berkeley senior in mechanical engineering and co-creator of the Pi-Bot robotics kit,
insisted that the girls master the proper names and functions of the robotic parts
they were about to assemble. They went over terms like chassis, micro-controller
and breadboard, a platform used to build electronic circuits. I like how they dont
treat us like babies and water things down, said camper Maddy Jones, 12, a rising
seventh-grader at Montera Middle School. They talk to us like adults. The
program was launched last year with funding from the National Science
Foundation, UC Berkeleys College of Engineering and the Peggy and Jack
Baskin Foundation. This year, the program picked up support from Twitter
and SanDisk Corp. There is no cost to attend, but girls must apply. (This
year, the organizers received three applications for every spot available.) Interested
girls write short essays about which everyday problem theyd like to solve and how,
or what common object theyd like to improve. The process helps ensure that
participants come armed with an affinity for scientific thinking, even if
they have no prior experience with STEM-based camps. The trick is to
show how that problem-solving attitude can turn into careers in science
and technology. A number of studies have found that around middle
school, a lot of girls start to lose interest in STEM fields, said the camps
faculty director, Claire Tomlin, a professor of electrical engineering and computer
sciences. We have seen unbridled enthusiasm in 10-year-old girls, but by
high school, we start to have problems recruiting enough girls to
participate in engineering programs. Our goal is to keep the girls from
losing interest, to keep the momentum going. There are no easy answers as
to why interest among girls wanes at this age, but programs like this one are an
attempt to help plug the leaking pipeline to women in STEM fields. I liked that
everything was hands-on, said camper Sammy Rogers, 11, a rising sixth-grader at
Montera Middle School. We got to make food in a materials science class, and we
made robots in a robotics class. One that was really cool, but kind of gross, was an
engineering in medicine class where we touched the bones of a cow leg. The

camp also emphasizes the need for soft skills, such as communication
and presentation skills. At the beginning of the session, girls are grouped into
teams of five. They are then asked to identify a problem and discuss ways to solve
it. On the last day of camp, they give their presentation before camp staff and
family members. This summer, the campers spent a day at Twitter headquarters in
San Francisco, where they designed and created racing games, and met with female
interns, engineers and executives to get a sense of what a career in engineering
entails. Weve gotten feedback that it is exciting for the girls to be on campus,
working in labs, Tomlin added. We do show them an academic perspective, but
they also need to see the industry side of engineering, which is why we arranged
field trips to local tech companies. Kids dont usually get to see the insides of these
companies, so the field trips provide a visual of what they could be and do if they
pursued a STEM career. Organizers hope the effort will foster greater
retention of women in the STEM pipeline. While gender gaps continue in
salaries, federal statistics show that women in STEM jobs earn 33 percent
more than those in non-STEM occupations, and experience a smaller wage
gap relative to men. Yet in recent years, tech companies have released
survey results that show dismal representation of women and
underrepresented minorities in their employee rosters. Its important to
remember that engineers are choosing what problems to solve in our
society, said camp program coordinator Lizzie Hager-Barnard. We need the
different perspectives women bring to the table in order to maintain leadership in
innovation. This video is from the 2014 launch of the Girls in Engineering camp.
The program is part of the College of Engineerings longstanding commitment to
increasing the ranks of women in STEM fields. Campers and their parents are also
asked to participate in a broader longitudinal study about science education led by
the Lawrence Hall of Science. The study, which entails the completion of surveys
twice during the camp session, seeks to learn more about girls attitudes and
experiences in science education. Camp participants are recruited from a limited
number of local schools. This year, the girls were recruited from Bentley School and
Montera Middle School in Oakland, REALM Charter School in Berkeley and Stanley
Middle School in Lafayette. We try to pull in girls who may not have had
access to STEM-based camps before, said Hager-Barnard. Our goal is to
have a diverse group of participants. At least half the schools we picked
have a high percentage of kids who qualify for the free and reduced lunch
program. She added that the hope is to get additional funding to expand the
camp so more girls and more schools can participate in the future. It was nice
being all girls, said Sammy, who participated in the June session. That way its not
awkward. Sometimes it can be awkward with boys. We still wouldve applied, even
if the camp included boys, but I do like that it was all girls, said Sammys mother,
Maggie Rogers. As a bonus, the campus setting was familiar turf for Rogers, who got
her bachelors degree in English from UC Berkeley. I know that theyre really
trying to get more women to go into engineering, and Im grateful to Cal for
offering this, she said.

2. Common Core Standards Do Not Prepare Student For a

Career in the STEM Field
Stotsky 13Sandra Stotsky is professor of education reform emerita at the
University of Arkansas. (Common Core fails to prepare students for STEM The
Denver Post, December 17th, 2013. Available online at
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_24743742/common-core-fails-prepare-studentsstem?source=infinite Accessed July 8th, 2015.)
When states adopted Common Core's math standards, they were told (among other things) that they would make
all high school students "college- and career-ready" and strengthen the critical pipeline for science, technology,
engineering and math (STEM). However,

with the exception of a few standards

in

trigonometry, the math standards end after Algebra II, as James Milgram, professor of
mathematics emeritus at Stanford University observed in "Lowering the Bar: How Common Core Math Fails to
Prepare High School Students for STEM," a report that Milgram and I co-authored for the Pioneer Institute. Who was
responsible for telling the truth to the Colorado Board of Education when it adopted these standards in 2010? Who
should be telling Gov. John Hickenlooper, business executives, and college presidents today that Common Core

school graduates taught only to Common

Core's mathematics standards won't be prepared to pursue a four-year degree in
STEM? Superintendents, local school committees, and most parents don't seem to know that under Common
Core, their students won't be able to pursue a STEM career . In fact, they think that
Common Core's math standards are rigorous. U.S. government data show that only one out of
every 50 prospective STEM majors who begin their undergraduate math
coursework at the pre-calculus level or lower will earn bachelor's degrees in a STEM
area. Moreover, students whose last high school mathematics course was Algebra
II or lower have less than a 40 percent chance of earning any kind of fouryear college degree. It's not as if the lead mathematics standards writers themselves didn't tell the
includes no standards for pre-calculus and that high

public how low Common Core's high school mathematics standards were. In 2010, Jason Zimba, a lead writer, said

the standards are "not only not for STEM, they are also not for selective
colleges." In January 2010, William McCallum, another lead mathematics standards writer, said, "The overall
standards would not be too high, certainly not in comparison [to] other nations, including East Asia, where math
education excels." There are other consequences to having a college readiness test in math with low expectations.
The U.S. Department of Education's competitive grant program, Race to the Top, requires states to place students
who have been admitted by their public colleges and universities into credit-bearing (non-remedial) mathematics

Selective public
colleges, engineering schools, and universities in every state will likely
have to lower the level of their introductory math courses to avoid
unacceptably high failure rates. Milgram and I were members of Common Core's Validation
(and English) courses if they have passed a Common Core-based "college readiness" test.

Committee, which was charged with reviewing each successive draft of the standards. We both refused to sign off
on the academic quality of the national standards, but made public our explanation and criticism of the final version
of Common Core's standards. It is still astonishing that Colorado's state board of education adopted Common Core's
standards without asking the engineering, science and math faculty at its own higher education institutions (and
the math teachers in our own high schools) to do an analysis of Common Core's definition of college readiness and
make public their recommendations. After all, who could be better judges of what students need for a STEM major?

We

clearly need to revise Common Core's mathematics standards as soon as possible

so that all American schools are able to offer the coursework beginning in grades 5 or 6, enabling mathematically
able students to aim for a STEM major in college. Unless, of course, Colorado's towns and cities aren't interested in
American-born and educated engineers, doctors or scientists.

3. Alt causes to lack of workers in the STEM sector

Immigration Reform, Not Common Core, Key to Solving the
Skills Gap in the STEM Sector
Marin 15 Rosario Marin, former treasurer of the U.S., is co-chair of the
American Competitiveness Alliance. (Immigration reform could help fill a growing
skills gap The Orlando Sentinel , February 24th, 2015, Available online at
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-immigration-reform-02241520150223-story.html, Accessed 7/8/15
U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Texas suspended an executive order granting
some 5 million undocumented immigrants status based on a lawsuit by 26
Republican states challenging its legality. Whether the order will be upheld or
rejected by the courts remains to be seen, but while Congress and the president
grapple for leverage over one another, legislation that would help to positively
impact immigration reform hangs in the balance. The modern U.S. economy is
increasingly reliant on industries that are demonstrating a pronounced
dearth of skilled professionals to meet steadily increasing demand from
several sectors, but viable solutions aren't receiving the attention they
deserve. Over the past several years, declining unemployment rates and
faster gross domestic project growth have been welcome indicators that
the U.S. economy has been moving in the right direction. However, not all
sectors of the economy have seen the same growth. Indeed, the Federal
Reserve's "Beige Book" survey of current economic conditions points to a restricted
labor market throughout the country in the once-thriving sectors of trucking,
computer programming, manufacturing, construction and energy. At the heart of
the matter is a steadily growing "skills gap" between the jobs that
businesses need to fill and the pool of workers who can meet the demand.
Coupled with an aging population, a deficit of necessary skills and able
workers is culminating on the U.S. economic horizon. The obvious solution
to this pending dilemma is a far cry from novel, and yet immigration
reform is consistently overlooked. Passing legislation aimed at loosening
restrictions on visas for highly skilled workers in the critical STEM fields
(science, technology, engineering and mathematics) and lower-skilled workers
in key sectors such as agriculture, construction and hospitality would allow the
U.S. economy to derive the maximum benefit from these programs by
filling the skills and population gaps that continue to hamper its growth.
Washington must take the necessary steps to address this skills deficit by enacting
more dynamic legislation that would refurbish the antiquated visa programs for
foreign skilled workers (H-1B), agricultural workers (H-2A), and non-agricultural
temporary and seasonal workers (H-2B). First set in 1990, the H-1B visas are still
capped at 85,000 annually, which is less than half the 172,500 applications
submitted by business to acquire employees with the skills they need. Likewise, the
H-2B program, also set in 1990, is so routinely exceeded that Congress must often
provide temporary relief to satisfy a minimum of the demand. Republicans should
take the first step forward by revisiting bipartisan legislation that could mitigate
these shortcomings. On skilled workers, measures like the Immigration Innovation
Act of 2015, already introduced this year by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Amy

Klobuchar, D-Minn., and others would immediately increase the H-1B cap to 115,000
(with no cap for those with advanced degrees from U.S. institutions) with the
potential to rise as high as 195,000 based on demand. A House bill introduced by
Judiciary Chairman Robert Goodlatte would immediately set the cap at 195,000,
though within that figure is a 40,000 set-aside for STEM graduates. Importantly,
whatever bill is introduced to alleviate the skills gap, we must ensure that all
employers can benefit equally from the skilled-worker program. For agricultural
workers, the Senate-passed bill and another measure introduced by Goodlatte are
good starting points, as both bills would create new visa categories allowing
farmworkers to stay in the U.S. for longer periods, and thus providing more certainty
for businesses while enabling some undocumented immigrants to eventually qualify
for legal status. For other temporary workers, the Senate-passed bill would exempt
returning seasonal workers from the annual 66,000 H-2B cap, while creating a new
visa category for longer-term temporary workers that would fluctuate between
20,000 and 200,000 workers per year. With the exception of a 15,000 annual cap on
construction workers, these common-sense changes to temporary worker-visa
policies can and should be adopted. Republicans ought to seize this opportunity to
sidestep the amnesty debate in order to focus on bipartisan issues around which
they can unite. Our Republican Party can drive real, beneficial immigration reform
by encouraging skilled and able foreign talent to fill the growing American economic
need.

4. Alt causes to economic competitiveness fiscal policies,

political institutions
Porter & Rivkin 12 Michael E. Porter, Bishop William Lawrence University
Professor at The Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, based at the Harvard
Business School, and Jan W. Rivkin, Senior Associate Dean for Research and a
Professor in the Strategy Unit at Harvard Business School, 2012 (The Looming
Challenge to U.S. Competitiveness, Harvard Business Review, March, Available
online at https://hbr.org/2012/03/the-looming-challenge-to-us-competitiveness,
Accessed 7/20/15) JL
Many of the factors that underpin U.S. competitiveness. This set of
factors, as identified in the work of Michael Porter, Mercedes Delgado, Christian Ketels, and Scott Stern,
includes macro and micro components. From a macro perspective, a
competitive nation requires sound monetary and fiscal policies (such as
manageable government debt levels), strong human development (good health care and K12 education systems),

and effective political institutions (rule of law and effective law-making bodies). Macro
foundations create the potential for long-term productivity, but actual
productivity depends on the microeconomic conditions that affect
business itself. A competitive nation exhibits a sound business
environment (including modern transport and communications infrastructure, high-quality
research institutions, streamlined regulation, sophisticated local
consumers, and effective capital markets) as well as strong clusters of
firms and supporting institutions in particular field s, such as information technology in
Silicon Valley and energy in Houston. Competitive nations develop companies that adopt advanced operating and
management practices. In a large country like the U.S., many of the most important drivers of competitiveness rest
at the regional and local levels, not the national level. Though federal policies surely matter, microeconomic drivers

Assessing
the U.S. through this lens, we see significant cracks in its economic
foundations, with particularly troubling deterioration in macro
competitiveness. Problems include levels of government debt not seen since
tied to regionssuch as roads, universities, pools of talent, and cluster specializationare crucial.

World War II; health care and primary education systems whose results are neither world-class nor reflective of the

and a polarized and often paralyzed political system

(especially at the federal level) that makes decisions only when facing a crisis. In micro
large sums spent on them;

competitiveness, eroding skills in the workplace, inadequate physical infrastructure, and rising regulatory
complexity increasingly offset traditional strengths such as innovation and entrepreneurship. Our HBS alumni
survey provided an original and timely assessment of overall competitiveness and the strengths and weaknesses of
the U.S. The findings were sobering. (See the chart Evaluating the U.S. Business Environment, in the article
Choosing the United States, HBR March 2012.) Respondents perceived the United States as already weak and in
decline with respect to a range of important factors: the complexity of the national tax code, the effectiveness of its
political system, basic education, macroeconomic policies, and regulation. Some current American strengths, such
as logistics and communications infrastructure and workforce skill levels, were seen as declining. Americas unique
strengths in entrepreneurship, higher education, and management quality were intact, but these strengths must

the U.S.
business environment is falling behind that of emerging economies , while just
overcome growing weaknesses in many other areas. Nearly two-thirds of survey respondents said that

8% said that the U.S. is pulling ahead. Overall, the picture that emerges is an American economy that has some
crucial strengths but is weakening, with problems especially visible in macro factors. How Did America Get Here?

To address Americas competitiveness problem, we must first understand

the intricate and intertwined roots of the current predicament. They stem from
changes in the world economy as well as failures within America itself.

5. Economic decline doesnt cause war

Jervis 11 (Robert, Professor PolSci Columbia, December, Force in Our Times Survival, Vol 25 No 4, p 403425)
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to
arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into
sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism.

worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself

bring back old-fashioned beggar-myneighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the
conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to
contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded
More likely would be a

produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and

to the point where it could not be reversed states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen

even if the more extreme versions

of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see
how without building on a preexisting high level of political conflict
leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could
prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not
internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that

only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a
pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an

the very fact that we have seen such a

sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms
is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic
conflict, it will not make war thinkable.
optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that

1AR AT: CC Helps STEM

CCMS Hurts STEM Majors
Phelps and Milgram 14--Richard P. Phelps is editor or author of four books
Correcting Fallacies about Educational and Psychological Testing (APA,
2008/2009);Standardized Testing Primer (Peter Lang, 2007); Defending Standardized Testing
(Psychology Press, 2005); and Kill the Messenger (Transaction, 2003, 2005)and founder of
the Nonpartisan Education Review, R. James Milgram is professor of mathematics emeritus,
Stanford University. He was a member of Common Cores Validation Committee 20092010.
Aside from writing and editing a large number of graduate level books on research level
mathematics, he has also served on the NASA Advisory Board the only mathematician to
have ever served on this board, and has held a number of the most prestigious
professorships in the world, including the Gauss Professorship in Germany. (Common Core
Math Will Reduce Enrollment in High-Level High School Courses Published by the Pioneer
Institute, September 8th, 2014, Available online at
http://pioneerinstitute.org/featured/common-core-math-will-reduce-enrollment-in-high-levelhigh-school-courses/ Accessed on July 6th, 2015)

Common Core math standards (CCMS) end after just a partial Algebra II course.
This weak Algebra II course will result in fewer high school students able to
study higher-level math and science courses and an increase in credit-bearing college
courses that are at the level of seventh and eighth grade material in high-achieving countries, according to a new

Common Core Math Standards Will Reduce

Enrollment in High-Level High School Math Courses, Dumb Down College
Stem Curriculum The framers of Common Core claimed the standards would be anchored to higher
study published by Pioneer Institute. Study Finds

education requirements, then back-mapped through upper and lower grades. But Richard P. Phelps and R. James
Milgram, authors of The Revenge of K-12: How Common Core and the New SAT Lower College Standards in the

higher education was scarcely involved with creating the

standards. The only higher education involvement was from institutions that agreed to place any students
U.S., find that

who pass Common Core-based tests in high school into credit-bearing college courses, said Phelps. The guarantee
came in return for states hoped-for receipt of federal Race to the Top grant funding. Many

students
will fail those courses until theyre watered down, he added. Perhaps the
greatest harm to higher education will come from the College Boards
decision to align its SAT tests with Common Core. The SAT has historically been an
aptitude test one designed to predict college success. But the new test would become an achievement test a
retrospective assessment designed to measure mastery of high school material. Many high-achieving countries
administer a retrospective test for high school graduation and a predictive college entrance examination. The new
test will also be less useful to college admissions officers, since information gained from the retrospective test will
duplicate data they already have, such as grade point average and class rank. David Coleman, the lead author of
Common Cores English language arts standards, is now president of the College B\\oard and announced the

The change in the

nature of the SAT will be most harmful to low-income students. An
achievement test is far less useful as a vehicle for identifying students
with high science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) potential
who attended high schools with poor math and science instruction.
Retrospective tests are also more susceptible to coaching, which provides
another advantage to students from families who can afford test
preparation courses. Low-income students will also be hurt the most by the shift to weaker math
decision to align the SAT tests with Common Core when he became president.

standards. Since the Common Core math standards only end at a partial Algebra II course, nothing higher than

High schools
in low-income areas will be under the greatest fiscal pressure to eliminate
under-subscribed electives like trigonometry, pre-calculus, and calculus.
Algebra II will be tested by federally funded assessments that are currently under development.

Research has shown that the highest-level math course taken in high
school is the single best predictor of college success. Only 39 percent of the members
of the class of 1992 who entered college having taken no farther than Algebra II earned a college degree. The
authors estimate that the number will shrink to 31-33 percent for the class of 2012. Two of the authors of the
Common Core math standards, Jason Zimba and William McCallum, have publicly acknowledged the standards

Zimba said the CCMS is not for

STEM and not for selective colleges. Indeed, among students intending to
major in STEM fields, just 2 percent of those whose first college math
course is pre-calculus or lower ever graduate with a STEM degree. Proponents
weakness. At a public meeting in Massachusetts in 2010,

claim the Common Core standards are internationally benchmarked, but compulsory standards for the lower
secondary grades in China are more advanced than any CCMS material. The highest-achieving countries have
standards for different pathways based on curricular preferences, goals and levels of achievement, and each
pathway has its own exit examination.A

one-size-fits-all academic achievement target

must of necessity be low, Milgram said. Otherwise politically unacceptable
numbers of students will fail.

Multiple Alt Causes to Lack of Women in the STEM SectorA

Lack of Standards in School is Not One of Them
Welsh 13 Jennifer Welsh is a Senior Editor at Business Insider, covering the science
section. She manages and writes content on businessinsider.com/science. She graduated
from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 2010 with a graduate certificate in Science
Communications and got a Bachelors of Science in Biology from the University of Notre
Dame in 2006. In between, she was a research associate at at startup biotech company in
San Francisco. She's written for Wired Science, The Scientist, Discover Magazine and
LiveScience.com, among others. (These Are The 7 Things Keeping Women Out Of Science
Careers Business Insider, October 16th, 2013, Available online at
http://www.businessinsider.com/7-things-keeping-women-out-of-science-2013-10 Accessed
on 7/8/15)
Ada Lovelace Day, a day meant to honor female scientists as a way to remember Ada Lovelace, the first computer
programmer, was Oct. 15. In 1842, Lovelace wrote a computer program for a machine that didn't even exist yet.

women are still lacking in science fields. Nationally,

women now earn close to 60% of bachelor's degrees overall, but only 20%
of the degrees in computer science, 20% of those in physics, and 18% of
those in engineering according to The New York Times. Why women still aren't well or equally
More than 150 years later,

represented in the sciences (or, more specifically women in science, technology, engineering, and math STEM) is
a complex topic, and there's been a lot of talk about it of lately. Eileen Pollack wrote a wonderful New York Times
Magazine piece on women in science, posted on Oct. 3. We've broken apart some of the points she made and added

Even at
the high school level, teachers and classmates sometimes stereotype girls
who are interested in advanced physics and math. Pollack spoke to Yale physics
some other sources to get a better grip on why there are so few women in science. 1. Teasing in school

undergrads and heard these stories: One young woman had been disconcerted to find herself one of only three girls
in her AP physics course in high school, and even more so when the other two dropped out. Another student was
the only girl in her AP physics class from the start. Her classmates teased her mercilessly: "You're a girl. Girls can't

These kinds of
reactions to their presence in these courses pushes young women out .
Studies have shown that countries with greater gender equity had smaller
gender gaps in math. When given the right support women do just as well
as men it isn't an inherent ability difference between the sexes. "When girls
do physics." She expected the teacher to put an end to the teasing, but he didn't.

see opportunities for themselves in science, technology, engineering and math, they're more likely to take higher
math in high school and more likely to pursue those careers," researcher Janet Hyde, from the University of
Wisconsin, said in a press release. 2. A Lack of Encouragement Lovelace herself was encouraged to pursue math by
her mother, to avoid the "dangerous poetic tendencies" of her father, the poet Lord Byron, according to The New

York Times' Bits blog. This could be why she shed the female stereotype and pursued her STEM interests. As Pollack,
herself a physics major who didn't go into academia, writes: "I didn't go on in physics because not a single professor
not even the adviser who supervised my senior thesis encouraged me to go to graduate school." She
graduated at the top of her class, but none of her professors even asked if she was going to graduate school.

Studies have shown that when told that men score better in math tests
than women, women tend to score worse. When told that isn't true, the
two genders scored equally well. This might come from an "internal bias"
in the minds of young female scientists, who may naturally under-rate
their intelligence. Whether that's a cultural concoction or a difference in how female brain responds to
encouragement, we don't know yet. "Women need more positive reinforcement, and men need more negative
reinforcement. Men wildly overestimate their learning abilities, their earning abilities. Women say, 'Oh, I'm not good,
I won't earn much, whatever you want to give me is O.K.,'" Yale physicist Meg Urry told Pollack. 3. Stereotypes
Females playing STEM-literate characters are gaining more popularity in the movies for example, Natalie Portman
plays a physicist in the new "Thor" movie and Sandra Bullock stars in "Gravity" as a female Astronaut. But, in other
ways, women are being held back by stereotypes. In the hugely popular television show
"The Big Bang Theory," female scientists are forced into "weirdo" roles, while the non-scientist is the only "normal"

These
stereotypes also extend into how we portray male scientists. Research has
indicated that when females are exposed to nerdy white-guy stereotypes,
it discourages them from STEM fields. Studies have shown that when
young women hear about a non-stereotypical computer scientist, their
interest in the field increases. 4. Childcare Even if young women make it
through a bachelor's and enter academia, they often leave the STEM fields
early in their career. A frequently suggested reason for this is the lack of
maternity leave and childcare after having kids. This is also seen in the long-hour days of
female character. computer science stereotypes and women Cheryan, et. al, Sex Roles, 2013.

technology startups. Tenure-track academics face steep obstacles in reaching their goals, and taking a "time-out" to
have children is still a problem at many institutions. Astrophysicist and MacArthur "genius" grant award winner Sara
Seager, of MIT, says she will use her $625,000 award to pay for childcare to help her concentrate on her work. If
this wasn't an issue facing academics, she wouldn't need to put her winnings toward it. There are indications that
having children isn't the main reason women leave STEM fields mid-career after all, startups and academia allow
flexible days and plenty of work from home opportunities it does seem to become an issue for some research-

41% of women postdocs who had

babies retreated from their original goal of being a research professor,
minded women. A study by Berkeley researchers found that

versus 20% of single women. 5. Competition Women are generally less competitive and aggressive than men, and
this could impact their desires to follow through with a career in the sciences at the academic level when
constant competition to publish becomes the major determinant of a successful career. The push to constantly
compete can wear on someone whose personality isn't naturally inclined to be aggressive. "While the women in our
study were undoubtedly high achievers, many felt that the competitiveness of science (e.g., to secure a grant and
post), and especially at the early career stages, results in less weight being given to integrity and meritocracy,
making academia an unattractive long-term career option for those who are less naturally competitive," according
to a study by the Wellcome Trust [PDF]. 6. Marginalization E ven

if women do find themselves a

faculty position, they are frequently paid less than their male
counterparts, given less lab and office space, get fewer awards for their
work, and given access to fewer resources, an MIT committee found. Women software
developers earn 80% of what men do. These figures hold true in larger studies, including one from the American
Institute of Physics looking at 15,000 physicists in 130 countries. "In almost all cultures, the female scientists
received less financing, lab space, office support and grants for equipment and travel, even after the researchers

This marginalization is likely the

result of bias. Women in the STEM fields face a constant bias against them,
not just from male colleagues, but also from females. For example, when presented
controlled for differences other than sex," Pollack wrote. 7. Bias

with identical lab manager resumes from either a John or a Jennifer both male and female professors tended to pick
the John as the better candidate, and offer him more money for the position. As Johnathon Mohr points out on
twitter, this bias is sometimes built into the "good old boy" network of tenured professors. If males are the majority
of researchers that make it into the later stage of a research career, then they are making the decisions of who will
get tenure, and hired for higher-level positions and awards. This also crops up in male-driven Silicon Valley, where
female entrepreneurs find getting funding hard to do because they aren't perceived as leaders, but as mothers.

Women only start about 8% of venture-backed tech startups. Hope ahead It's not all bad news; more women are
making it to college and graduate levels of STEM. "If you look at the students scoring in the top one in 10,000 in
mathematics in 1983, there were 13 boys for every girl," Steven Ceci of Cornell University, said in a press release.
"Since then, until 2007, that gap has shrunk to somewhere between 2.8 and four boys for every girl." A Berkeley
study found that women represented between 20% (engineering) and 71% (psychology) of UC system Ph.D.s in
science (51% of life sciences Ph.D.s). There have even been stronger efforts to encourage women to go into
sciences. "Marvel Ultimate Mentor Adventure," for example, is a new contest created by Marvel around the "Thor"
movie premier to encourage girls to reach out to STEM mentors in their area and interview them. The girls get a trip

The problem comes when

we want to keep these women in STEM careers, specifically academia, for
longer. Many move out of research and hard-science fields and into more
personable and "female" positions like health care or education.
Improvements need to be made at the higher levels of STEM fields to keep
women in these professions.
to Hollywood for a movie screening, but also a week-long STEM adventure.

Common Core directly harms academic readiness for careers in

the STEM fields
Stotsky 14 Ms. Stotsky was a member of Common Core's Validation Committee from
2009-10. She is professor emerita at the University of Arkansas. (Common Core Doesn't
Add Up to STEM Success WSJ, January 2nd, 2014, Available online at
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304020704579278060483138096 Accessed
7/20/15)
As a former member of the Common Core Validation Committee and the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education, I am one of the few mothers to have heard the full sales pitch for this latest educational

Common Core buzz words, from "deeper learning"

and "critical thinking" to "fewer, clearer, and higher standards." It all sounds impressive, but I'm
worried that the students who study under these standards won't receive
anywhere near the quality of education that children in the U.S. did even a
few years ago. President Obama correctly noted in September 2012 that "leadership tomorrow
depends on how we educate our students todayespecially in science,
technology, engineering and math." He has placed a priority on increasing
the number of students and teachers who are proficient in these vital
STEM fields. And the president's National Math and Science Initiative is strongly supported by people like
reform, which has been adopted by 45 states. I know the

Suzanne McCarron, president of the Exxon Mobil Foundation, who has said she wants to "inspire our nation's youth
to pursue STEM careers by capturing their interest at an early age."

Yet the basic mission of

Common Core, as Jason Zimba, its leading mathematics standards writer, explained at a videotaped board
meeting in March 2010, is to provide students with enough mathematics to make
them ready for a nonselective college"not for STEM," as he put it. During that
meeting, he didn't tell us why Common Core aimed so low in mathematics. But in a September 2013 article
published in the Hechinger Report, an education news website affiliated with Columbia University's Teachers
College, Mr. Zimba admitted: "If

you want to take calculus your freshman year in

college, you will need to take more mathematics than is in the Common
Core." As Stanford mathematics professor James Milgram noted in "Lowering the Bar," a report the two of us cowrote for the Pioneer Institute in September, the Common Core deliberately leaves out "major topics in
trigonometry and precalculus." Contrast that with the status quo before the Common Core, when states like
Massachusetts and California provided precalculus standards for high-school students. The implications of this are
dramatic. "It

is extremely rare for students who begin their undergraduate

years with coursework in precalculus or an even lower level of
mathematical knowledge to achieve a bachelor's degree in a STEM area,"
Mr. Milgram added. Common Core's deficiencies also plague its English standards, though its proponents have been
selling the opposite line.

Under the Common Core, complex literary study

literature close to or at a college reading levelis reduced to about 50% of

reading instructional time in high school English class. The rest of the time is to be spent on
"informational" texts, and more writing than reading is required at all grade levels. Excerpts will have to do when
reading "The Great Gatsby" so students can spend more time on the Teapot Dome Scandal. Yes, that's a real
suggestion for informational reading from the National Council of Teachers of English, the professional organization
of English teachers that aims to support teachers under the Common Core. In its November 2013 Council Chronicle,
a teacher argued that learning about this 1920s government oil scandal is the proper way to "contextualize"
Fitzgerald's Jazz Age characters. But reducing the time students spend studying complex literature means fewer
opportunities to learn how to read between the linesthe fundamental way teenagers learn how to analyze a text.
Still, no major English or humanities organizations have endorsed the Common Core state standards for English
language arts. Not so in mathematics. Despite the dramatic mismatch of the Common Core math standards with
the White House goal of preparing more students for a STEM career, all the heads of major professional
mathematics associations expressed "strong support for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics" in a
July 2013 letter solicited and posted by William McCallum, professor of mathematics at the University of Arizona and
a Common Core math standards writer. Other signers include the presidents of the American Mathematical Society,
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Association for Women in Mathematics, the Benjamin

Why
leaders of these organizations would endorse standards that will not
prepare students for college majors in mathematics, science, engineering
and mathematics-dependent fields is a puzzle. But no educational reform
that leads to fewer engineers, scientists and doctors is worthy of the
name.
Banneker Association, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and TODOS: Mathematics for ALL.

1AR AT: Women Key to the STEM

Immigrants are critical to filling the STEM worker gapThey
are crucial to innovation and economic competitiveness
McDaniel 13 Paul McDaniel is the Immigrant Entrepreneur and Innovation Fellow at the
Immigration Policy Center. Previously, he served as Project Researcher in the Center for Citizenship and
Immigrant Communities at Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC). Prior to his work at CLINIC,
Paul was a Researcher at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he worked on several
community-based research projects with the Department of Family Medicine at Carolinas Medical
Center, Levine Museum of the New South, Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, Crossroads Charlotte, Latin
American Coalition, and Community Building Initiative. He has worked on reports and presentations
about immigrant entrepreneurship, immigrant settlement and integration in new immigrant gateways
and destinations, immigrant access to education and healthcare, and community receptivity. Paul
recently completed his Ph.D. dissertation in Geography and Urban Regional Analysis from the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and holds an M.S. in Geography from the University of
Tennessee, an M.A. in Educational Leadership from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and a
B.S. in Geography from Samford University. (Immigrants are Key Driver of U.S. Talent and Economic
Competitiveness American Immigration Council , July 2nd, 2015 , Available online at
http://immigrationimpact.com/2013/07/02/immigrants-are-key-driver-of-u-s-talent-and-economiccompetitiveness/, Accessed 7/8/15)

U.S. workers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields have been
important contributors to American innovation, job creation, rising
incomes, and global economic competitiveness throughout the years. And not
surprisingly, immigrants have played a critical role in American innovation
through STEM fields and all parts of the U.S. economy. A new report by Gordon
Hanson (University of California, San Diego) and Matthew Slaughter (Dartmouth) describes these important
relationships between talent, economic competitiveness, and immigration in the United States. In their paper, the
authors present data in support of three critical points: First, the contribution of talent to American innovation and
overall competitiveness is as important today as in the past: Talent

especially the talent of

highly educated STEM workers drives much of Americas innovation and
economic growth. In the increasingly global economy, Americas need for
talent has become even more acute. Despite the nations historic innovation prowess, concern is
rising among leaders that our economic strength is waning. Second, i mmigration adds to the
talent pool in the United States, which is as important today as it has been
in the past: Immigration plays a critical role in helping America meet its
steadily growing demand for talent especially for highly skilled STEM
workers. Immigrants have long made substantial contributions to American
innovation, both at the highest levels and throughout the economy at all
stages of discovering and developing new ideas. Over time, Americas
reliance on talented immigrants has been rising, not falling. America attracts
immigrants who achieve very high levels of education and who are strongly inclined toward training in STEM
disciplines.

Third, the supply of and need for STEM talent in the U.S. includes
an opportunity for immigrants to continue to help meet that growing
demand: Even after the Great Recession, Americas need for more talent persists, as it did for decades before.
Americas demand for skilled STEM workers continues to grow and
immigrants continue to help meet this demand, both directly and more
broadly through their expansive contributions to Americas innovation
potential. Post-recession, unemployment in STEM occupations has been falling sharply as the STEM labor
market rapidly tightens. Immigrants make significant contributions to innovation throughout the country, from the
discovery of new ideas, research and development of new products, and patenting, to starting and leading new and
innovative companies that create thousands of jobs in the U.S. As the report reiterates, immigrants founded or cofounded 25 percent of all U.S. high-tech firms between 1995 and 2005. In 2005, those new companies employed

nearly half a million people and produced more than $50 billion in sales. Beyond the national level, cities and
regions within the U.S. that attract greater numbers of skilled immigrants tend to be more successful at innovation.
Furthermore, innovation-intensive metropolitan areas tend to have higher rates of patenting, lower unemployment
rates, and higher demand for high-skilled workers since patenting growth is correlated with job growth, population
growth, and increases in educational attainment. Americas past innovation grew in part from a robust education
system and an environment that allowed for the worlds most talented native- and foreign-born alike to thrive.

Based on the evidence of the importance of immigrants to American

innovation, we must ensure that comprehensive immigration reform in 2013
allows immigrants to contribute their talent and skill here in the U.S.
Furthermore, we must guarantee that our education system cultivates a
long-term future workforce of talented individuals with the STEM
expertise necessary to allow the U.S. to continue to be an innovation
leader in our global innovation economy.

Immigration reform key to US growth competitiveness

Papademetriou and Sumption 11 Demetrios Papademetriou,
Distinguished Senior Fellow and President Emeritus of the Migration Policy Institute,
PhD in Comparative public policy and international relations from the University of
Maryland, Madeleine Sumption, former Senior Policy Analyst and Director of
Research for the Migration Policy Institutes International Program, M.A. in Public
Policy from the University of Chicago, 2011 (The Role of Immigration in Fostering
Competitiveness in the United States, Migration Policy Institute, May, Available
online at www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/competitiveness-US.pdf, Accessed 7-11-15)
Many aspects of the US immigration system are deeply troubled , however: The
small share of employment-based immigration, together with tight numerical
limits that do not adjust to economic demand, substantial backlogs and delays,
and a failure to prioritize effectively between prospective highly skilled
immigrants below the ranks of the most elite, all undermine the job-creating power of
US employers and hinder the system's ability to select effectively from the large pool of workers who would
like to gain admission. The economic crisis may have brought temporary respite from some of the problems

in the
longer term, substantial reforms will be needed if the US immigration
system is to facilitate, not impede, economic growth and competitiveness.
described in this paper by reducing employers' demand for immigrant workers in the short term. But

1AR AT: Gender Gap

Men Do Not Outnumber Women in the STEM Field
Cummins 15 Dr. Denise Dellarosa Cummins is research psychologist and
author. She has held faculty and research positions at Yale University, the University
of California, the University of Illinois, and the Center for Adaptive Behavior at the
Max Planck Institute in Berlin. She is a respected cognitive scientist who has
authored numerous scientific articles, and is an elected Fellow of the Association for
Psychological Science. She also gives invited talks about her research at universities
and popular venues all over the world. In her Psychology Today blog, she writes
about what she and other cognitive scientists are discovering about the way people
think, solve problems, and make decisions. (Why the STEM gender gap is
overblown PBS News Hour, April 17th, 2015, Available online at
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/truth-women-stem-careers/ Accessed
on 7/8/15)
There are two universally accepted truths about women and STEM careers
(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). The first is that men outnumber women
in in these fields, and the second is that women are socialized to avoid
STEM as career choices, because society considers them unfeminine. These beliefs have
spawned a national effort on the part of the National Science Foundation
to attract girls and young women into STEM. The preferred strategy is to attract females by
unbrainwashing them into accepting STEM careers as appropriate for women. Why we think the way we do about

it turns out that these truths are nothing

more than assumptions, and that these assumptions are inconsistent with
the facts. Here are the facts: 1. Men do not outnumber women in all STEM fields
Gender equity in STEM means that females account for 50 percent of the individuals
involved in STEM fields. When we look at the percentage of STEM bachelors degrees awarded to
female students for the last two decades, based on NSF statistics, we find that there is
no gender difference in the biosciences, the social sciences, or
mathematics, and not much of a difference in the physical sciences. The only
men, women and work On closer inspection,

STEM fields in which men genuinely outnumber women are computer science and engineering. I created the
following graphs, based on NSF data, to show womens completion of bachelors degrees and PhDs in specific fields

women
have clearly achieved equity in the biosciences and social sciences , are
nearly there (40 percent) in mathematics and the physical sciences, and
are over-represented in psychology (78 percent). Again, the only fields in which men greatly
between 1991 and 2010. Graph courtesy of the author. Graph courtesy of the author. At the Ph.D. level,

outnumber women are computer science and engineering.. When we look at the actual workforce, we see the same

Women are as likely as men to be biological scientists, medical

scientists and chemists. They are much less likely than men to be computer scientists, but have
pattern.

achieved equity in three out of five areas, with computer science and geoscience being exceptions. Cummins.Labor
force 2. Women and men are equally capable of doing STEM work One explanation
for sex difference in STEM fields is that women just dont have what it takes to succeed in the hard sciences,
computer science, or engineering. Some have even argued that women are not smart enough for these fields. The
fact is that men and women score equivalently on tests of raw IQ, with some studies showing women scoring
slightly higher. When it comes to mathematicsa core requirement for science and engineeringwomen score on
average only 32 points lower than men on the SAT a mere 3 percent difference. While men outnumber women in
the genius SAT math score range (700-800), the ratio is not that large (1.6 to 1). Men show only an insignificant
five-point advantage over women on the quantitative section of the Graduate Record Examination, and they score
one point lower than women on the analytic section. It is also not the case that more undergraduate men than
women are selected by top engineering programs. Of the top STEM programs in the country, most have male-tofemale undergraduate student ratios close to 1:1. 3. Sex-linked interest preferences are not mere artifacts of

socialization One interpretation of the sex difference in STEM careers (and the workforce in general) is that females
are pressured into areas that are more gender appropriate, not that they are choosing to study what is
intrinsically more interesting to them. For example, former American Association of University Women senior
researcher Andresse St. Rose, one of the authors of Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Another common but somewhat misguided

explanation for female underrepresentation in STEM is that while girls and
young women may be just as able as young men, they are not as
interested in science and engineering. From early adolescence, girls report less interest in
Mathematics, puts it this way:

math and science careers than boys do (Turner et al. 2008), and among children identified as mathematically
precocious, girls were less likely than boys to pursue STEM careers as adults (Lubinski and Benbow 2006). Girls
lower reported interest in STEM may be partially explained by social attitudes and beliefs about whether it is
appropriate for girls to pursue these subjects and careers. The problem with this blank slate interpretation of
gender differences is that it doesnt jibe with results of developmental studies. Newborn girls prefer to look at faces
while newborn boys prefer to look at mechanical stimuli (such as mobiles). When it comes to toys, a consistent
finding is that boys (and juvenile male monkeys) strongly prefer to play with mechanical toys over plush toys or
dolls, while girls (and female juvenile monkeys) show equivalent interest in the two. (See this for summary of this
research.) These sex-linked preferences emerge in human development long before any significant socialization can
have taken place. And they exist in juvenile non-human primates that are not exposed to human gender-specific
socialization efforts. It is not difficult to see how such early emerging preferences can end up shaping career
choices later on: Women tend to gravitate toward fields that focus on living things and agents, men to fields that

Different preferences dont mean womens are less important

The hidden assumption underlying the push to eliminate gender gaps in
traditionally male-dominated fields is that such fields are intrinsically
more important and more valuable to society than fields that traditionally
appeal to women. The hidden assumption underlying the push to eliminate gender gaps in traditionally
focus on objects. 4.

male-dominated fields is that such fields are intrinsically more important and more valuable to society than fields
that traditionally appeal to women. So we must turn women into men so that women can achieve economic parity
with men. As Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg put it in her book Lean In, we need to set a goal
of getting more women in the door of male-dominated, prestigious, and high-paying fields, even if doing so
requires that women act more like men. But what happens when women follow this advice and follow the lure of
prestige and wealth offered by male-dominated professions? Kate Bahn, an economics Ph.D. candidate at the New
School, put it this way in her blog The Lady Economist: I sometimes wonder to what extent my desire to be taken
seriously, like one of the boys, played into my decision to become an economist over, say, a sociologist. and Do
other fields perceived as masculine also attract a certain type of woman, like me, who is drawn to the power and
seriousness connoted with masculinity? And what does it say about me, as a staunch feminist, if Im relying on
masculinity to convey my worth Yes, indeed, what does it say when women must adopt male values wholesale in
order to command real social, political, and economic power? Or perhaps the better question is: Why are the fields
that appeal to men so much better compensated than the fields that appeal to women? My answer to this question
is 5. Men earn more because they believe they are worth moreand women agree Nursing, a traditionally femaledominated profession surely has more intrinsic value to society than trading stocks, yet nurses make a fraction of
what high-frequency traders make. And nursing did not bring about a global economic crisis that the taxpayer was
required to bail out. Yet when the percentage of male nurses increased from a miniscule 3 percent in 1970 to 10
percent in 2011, something else very interesting developed: a gender pay gap in the field of nursing. In 2011, the
average female nurse earned $51,100, 16 percent less than the $60,700 earned by the average man in the same
job. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that male-dominated professions are high-status and well-paid precisely
because they are male-dominated, and female-dominated professions are low-status and poorly-paid precisely
because they are female-dominated. When men move into traditionally female-dominated professions, the salaries
and status levels of those professions rise because men demandand getmore for the work they do. When men
move into traditionally female-dominated professions, the salaries and status levels of those professions rise
because men demandand getmore for the work they do. This is more than just conjecture. The fact that women
undervalue themselves (and by extension, the work they do) has been amply demonstrated in carefully designed
experimental economics studies. The two most frequently studied economics games are the dictator and ultimatum
games. In the dictator game, one individual is given full authority to keep or share a sum of money with another
player. On average, women keep less for themselves than men do. In the ultimatum game, one person is allowed to
make an offer as to how the money should be divided, and the other party is given the opportunity to accept or
reject the offer. If the offer is rejected, no one gets any money. Both men and women make lower offers to women
than to men. Other studies have found that women negotiated harder when they were working on behalf of others
rather than for themselves, which implies a reluctance to push their own interests. Rather than rushing to
traditionally male professions to shore up our status and our income levels, perhaps we need to reject the implicit
belief that men and whatever men are doing must be important and valuable, and whatever women are doing must
be the career dregs that men fobbed off on us simply because they found that work intrinsically less interesting.

The bottom line Women are clearly capable of doing well in STEM fields traditionally dominated by men, and they
should not be hindered, bullied, or shamed for pursuing careers in such fields. But we also should not be ashamed if
our interests differ from mens. If we find certain careers more intrinsically rewarding than men do, that does not
mean we have been brainwashed by society or herded into menial fields of labor. Instead, we should demand that
greater intrinsic and monetary compensation be awarded to the work we like and want to do.

1AR AT: CC Good for Students

Common Core Standards have created a host of new issues for
special education in America
Beals 14KATHARINE BEALS is a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania
Graduate School of Education and an adjunct professor at the Drexel University
School of Education. She is the author of Raising a Left-Brain Child in a Right-Brain
World: Strategies for Helping Bright, Quirky, Socially Awkward Children to Thrive at
Home and at School. (The Common Core Is Tough on Kids With Special Needs The
Atlantic, February 21st, 2014. Available online at
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/the-common-core-is-toughon-kids-with-special-needs/283973/ Accessed July 6th, 2015)
In a recent discussion board thread on reading comprehension challenges in autism, a special-education
teacher commented that her students cant understand the assigned
reading passages. When I complained, I was told that I could add extra support, but not actually change
the passages, she wrote. It is truly sad to see my students frustration. Why
must this teachers students contend with passages that are too complex
for them to understand? She attributes this inflexibility to the Common
Core, new standardscreated in 2009 by a group of education
professionals, none of them K-12 classroom teachers or special-education
expertsthat have been adopted by 45 states. Though most Common Core goals are abstract and schematic,
collectively they constitute a one-size fits-all approach that, in practice,
has severely straightjacketed Americas special-needs students. The teacher I
quoted aboveone of the many special-ed instructors I teach at the Drexel University and University of
Pennsylvania education schoolsis hardly alone. Shes echoing the concerns of dozens of other special-education
teachers Ive spoken with, most of whom have already gotten the message from their supervisors or superiors that
they must adhere to the standards and give all their students the designated grade-level assignments. Precocious
students, students with learning disabilities, precocious students with learning disabilities: How does the Common

it was already
increasingly rare for even the most intellectually unusual children to be
exemptedwhether by acceleration, remediation, or placement in special classroomsfrom the course of
Core suit them? Even before the widespread adoption of the Common Core,

study followed by their cognitively typical peers. The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act had schools focusing away from
the most academically advanced students (and requires no special programming for them); the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act required children with disabilities to be involved in

Increasingly, its the general

curriculum for everyone. And now that this general curriculum is being
shaped by dozens of grade-specific Common Core standards, and that
teachers (including special-ed teachers) are increasingly expected to align each days
lesson with one or more of these standards, theres even less room for
remediation or acceleration. Restricting students to curricula beyond their cognitive capacities
substantially lowers their achievement. Indeed, those two words appear nowhere in the standards, not even in the
one Common Core document that addresses this subject: a one-and-a-halfpager entitled Application to Students with Disabilities. It says that
special-needs students should have the support services, individualized
instruction, and assistive technology they need for the the rigor and high
expectations of the Common Core State Standards. It does not, however,
state what these services are or how they would work. As for curricular materials,
they might be altered or presented in multiple ways, but only within the framework of the Common Core . For
students with sensory disabilities like deafness or blindness, the
and make progress in the general education curriculum.

necessary accommodationse.g., sign language interpreters or audio

booksare obvious. Cognitive disabilities are different. Yet the document simply states:
Some students with the most significant cognitive disabilities will require
substantial supports and accommodations to have meaningful access to
certain standards. So what happens to the approximately six percent of
the student population with significant cognitive disabilities whether general
intellectual disabilities, language impairments, reading impairments, non-verbal learning disabilities, or autistic

What happens when their classrooms function under a set of

guidelines that ignore their skills and specific needs? In general, the news isnt good.
spectrum disorders?

Last November, an issue of Education Week ran several articles on special-needs students and the Common Core.

One article characterizes the English language arts goals as largely

unmet. Another reports more than half of teachers surveyed saying they
are unprepared to teach the standards to high-needs students. To see how the
Common Core standards play out in practice, lets look at two subsets of children with cognitive disabilities: those
with language impairments and those with autism. Lets look at eighth grade in particular, and at two of the English
language arts standards for reading and literature, beginning with R-L 8.2: Determine a theme or central idea of a
text and analyze its development over the course of the text, including its relationship to the characters, setting,
and plot; provide an objective summary of the text. This, like all Common Core goals, is rather schematic. So
perhaps theres a way to tweak things in line with the Students with Disabilities document. Perhaps one could adjust
the material by using a simplified or alternative text at the students actual reading level. RELATED STORY The
Common Core Is Tough on Kids Who Are Still Learning English But probably not. As additional Common Core
documents explain, the texts for the different grade levels must be at a certain grade-appropriate level of verbal
complexity. The Common Core Myths vs. Facts page notes, the

Standards require certain critical

content for all students, including Americas Founding Documents, foundational American literature,
and Shakespeare. And an appendix explains that sample texts, which include The Adventures of Tom Sawyer for
eighth grade, exemplify the level of complexity and quality that the Standards require all students in a given grade
band to engage with. So, while one might supplement a text, say, with glossaries and storyboards, one cant adjust
the text itself to match the students reading level. Further showing what special needs students are up against are
the sample tasks. For R-L 8.2 above, we have: Students summarize the development of the morality of Tom Sawyer
in Mark Twains novel of the same name and analyze its connection to themes of accountability and authenticity by

Now imagine a 14-year-old who

comprehends language at a fourth-grade level. What combination of
assistive technology and supplemental material could possibly provide
sufficient access to how accountability and authenticity play out in the
complex paragraphs of Tom Sawyer? What, other than years of remediation in reading
noting how it is conveyed through characters, setting, and plot.

comprehension, could get her through highly relevant sentences like this one, in which Tom takes a lashing from
Schoolmaster Dobbins for an infraction actually committed by Becky Thatcher? Inspired by the splendor of his own
act, he took without an outcry the most merciless flaying that even Mr. Dobbins had ever administered; and also
received with indifference the added cruelty of a command to remain two hours after school should be dismissed
for he knew who would wait for him outside till his captivity was done, and not count the tedious time as loss,
either. What, short of simplifying the text or spoon-feeding its meaning to her, will it take for our language-impaired
14-year-old to grasp this 67-word sentence, with its complex syntax, words like flaying, indifference, and an
outdated sense of should, and the inference needed to grasp the contextual meaning of captivity?

One can

only imagine how tough things become once the student gets to
Shakespeareone author that the standards appear to mandate. Lets turn to
another eighth-grade reading goal, R-L 8.3: Analyze how particular lines of dialogue or incidents in a story or drama
propel the action, reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision. Now imagine the challenge for a student
with autismeven one whose vocabulary and syntax are age appropriate. Autism is largely a social disability, with
key deficits in understanding character and motivation and in drawing inferences from dialoguesin real life as
much as in reading. Where does the teacher of an autistic student even begin? Some special-education
professionals believe they have the answer. In an article entitled Core State Standards for Students with Autism:
the Challenge for Educators, published last year in the journal Teaching Exceptional Children, we find Stephen, an
eighth grader with Aspergers Syndrome (mild autism) who is struggling to meet the R-L 8.3. The authors describe a
goal-aligned text in which a boy stops going to school after being habitually bullied and ostracized. When asked why

Aspergers-related social deficits

make it hard for him to recognize the students bullying and ostracizing as
the boy quits school, Stephen cant answer. Presumably, his

such, and to grasp the emotional and behavioral effects on the boy. How, the
authors ask, can Stephens teacher help him meet R-L 8.3? By creating a comic strip that shows the characters
thoughts, including a thought bubble for Matt that reads "I am a loser. Everyone hates me. I am never going back to
school!" In other words, the teacher can help Stephen meet the standard by giving away the answer! But the
answer to one specific configuration of dialogue, action, and character does not teach a child with autism how any
particular lines of dialogue reveal traits or provoke actions in characters. If it did, wed have screaming headlines
about a simple cure for one of the core deficits of autism .

Not all students will succeed with

Americas Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and/or
Shakespeare. But well-meaning aspirations for special-needs children can
foster deep and widespread denialin particular among educators facing
high-stakes standards. One of the special-education professors quoted in Education Week, for example,
asks, in reference to students with severe cognitive disabilities, "Why would we take a whole class of citizens and
say you don't get to learn the standards that we say are most important for everyone?" "Most important for

Forcing all students into the same, age-pegged

standards deprives atypical students of optimized learning opportunities
and attainable goals at their level of developmental readiness . Far better for an
everyone": Thats the real problem.

eighth grader who is four years behind in language to read texts with vocabulary and sentence complexity just
above her current skill level than to struggle through 67-word sentences in Tom Sawyer using story boards as
crutches. Far better for a student with autism to engage with simplified social scenarios that he can work through
on his own than to muddle through complex ones that need to be explained to him piecemeal .

As any of my
special-ed student teachers can tell you, and as research has shown,
restricting students to curricula beyond their cognitive capacities
substantially lowers their achievement. The purported goal of the
Common Core is success for all students. But success for all requires
openness towards cognitive diversity, and isnt so easily standardized.

Removing Common Core Drastically Benefits Children with

Disabilities
Ramaswamy 15Swapna Venugopal Reamaswamy is a writer for Lohud (Common
Core tests 'devastating' for special-needs kids Lohud- The Journal News April 7 th, 2015.
Available online at http://www.lohud.com/story/news/education/2015/04/06/state-testsdevastating-special-needs-students/25374391/ Accessed July 8th, 2015)

the state tests that measure progress in math

and English in grades three through eight are setting them up for failure with a onesize-fits-all approach. They say the tests are developmentally inappropriate
and create anxiety and frustration for their children . They worry that test-prep is
eating into the time spent working on social and life skills. They also don't like their children's
performance on tests being tied to their teacher's evaluations. Many are
Parents of children with special needs say

considering opting out of the controversial Common Core-aligned exams, according to NYS Allies for Public
Education, a parent and educator advocacy group. LOHUD.COM View: Common Core hurting students outside
mainstream Cindy Rubino is a mother of four, including John, a second-grader at Lakeland's Benjamin Franklin

students
with special needs face social challenges that can challenge their
confidence and self-esteem. There was a time, for example, when Rubino learned that John was
Elementary School who is on the autism spectrum. Along with academic difficulties, John and other

sitting by himself at lunch every day. She sought help from the school's social worker, who promptly intervened. As
her son struggles to learn life skills, the last thing Rubino wants is for him be left "defeated" by state tests that she
says are not a true measure of his social or academic growth. "It's

a grueling process for these

kids. It's a lot of pressure for typical kids, but for kids who have daily
struggles, it can be magnified," said Rubino, who has decided that all of her kids will opt out of the
tests. "It's emotionally devastating to them ... to feel like they are failures from third grade on." Against the law's
spirit Kathryn Merrifield of Mamaroneck, who has a son with special needs, said

the tests go against

the spirit of the federal law for children with disabilities, which guarantees
a "free and appropriate education." Kathryn Merrifield is a mother of three in the Rye Kathryn
Merrifield is a mother of three in the Rye Neck school district, including a son with special needs. These
tests do nothing but make him feel terrible. It does a lot of damage. (Photo: Submitted)
"He's a bright child but he has to work hard to keep his body calm and block out sound. How appropriate is it to
force him to sit in a chair for hours?" said Merrifield, who also plans to opt all three of her children out of the tests.
"These tests do nothing but make him feel terrible. It does a lot of damage." Students with severe cognitive
disabilities are exempt from testing. Students who are required by the state Education Department to take the tests
include those who have a learning disability such as dyslexia or ADHD or who are in the high-functioning range
on the autism spectrum. But they are at a disadvantage when taking the tests, said Jean Kerr, a special-education
teacher at Albert Leonard Middle School in New Rochelle. " Children

with disabilities could be

reading two to three grade levels behind their same-aged peers, and
taking a test that is above their actual grade level is developmentally
inappropriate," she said. Kerr said accommodations spelled out in a student's "individualized educational
program" such as having tests read aloud, checking for understanding and repeating or explaining directions
are not permitted on the state tests. Extended time is allowed. "The test goes against everything we as teachers do
in the classroom, which is to differentiate and individualize to best educate our kids," she said. 'They are failures'
Cheryl Smith teaches science at Albert Leonard MiddleBuy Photo Cheryl Smith teaches science at Albert Leonard
Middle School in New Rochelle. We are telling our kids they are failures. (Photo: Mark Vergari/The Journal News)
"We are telling our kids they are failures," said Cheryl Smith, who teaches science at Albert Leonard in a
collaborative classroom, in which half the children have special needs. "Tests are supposed to tell you something,
but we already know what the outcome will be for these kids..." Mahopac Middle School English teacher Tom
McMahon said he would never consider allowing his son with special needs, now a first grader, to take the exams.
"Michael will have enough struggles in school without being used as a statistic on an exam with no diagnostic value
and no value to his education," he said. "The last thing Michael needs is another test where he cannot possibly
achieve success." Tom and Jessica McMahon with their son Michael, who Tom and Jessica McMahon with their son
Michael, who has special needs. The Mahopac father and teacher says his children will not be taking the upcoming
state tests. The last thing Michael needs is another test where he cannot possibly achieve success. (Photo:
Submitted) McMahon, who also lives in Mahopac, said none of his children will be taking the tests. Rubino, whose

that teachers won't want to

teach those classes anymore for fear of being rated low. Under the new
law, teachers rated ineffective on two rounds of state tests are required to
be rated "ineffective" overall. Two consecutive ineffective ratings can get
a teacher fired. "If the class does poorly on the test, the teachers would be
rated ineffective," Rubino said. "John's teachers are anything but ineffective they are phenomenal.
son, John, is now a fourth grader in a collaborative classroom, worries

Common Cores one size fits all approach to education mirrors

failed policies and reinforces the federal take over of
education
Borowski 13 Julie Borowski is a contributer to Freedom works, ("Top 10
Reasons to Oppose Common Core," No Publication, 7-26-2013, Available Online at
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-10-reasons-oppose-common-core,
Accessed 7-21-2015)
1. Common Core is a Federal Takeover of Education The ultimate goal of
Common Core is to have every school district follow the same national
standards. This is a failed educational approach that will undermine
educational quality and choice. States and local communities better know how to design standards
based on their students and parents needs than Washington bureaucrats. 2. Common Core is Bad for Parents
Parents will not have a say in their childs education under Common Core. They will not be able to suggest changes
to their local schools standards or enroll their child in another public school with better standards. Common Core
would limit parental choice and shut their voices out of their childs education. 3. Common Core is Bad for Teachers

Teachers would have little control over their classrooms under Common
Core. They will be forced to comply with standards decided upon by

federal bureaucrat. This leaves little to no room for teachers to innovate

to meet the unique needs of their students. 4. Common Core is Bad for Taxpayers
Common Core has a hefty price tag that will be paid by taxpayers in states.
Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction estimates
that Common Core will cost the state $300 million. California Department of Education
estimates it will cost $759 million to implement the nationalized standards. Common Core will cost taxpayers a lot

Common Core is a
one-size-fits-all education policy that assumes every students learns
exactly the same. A top down and centrally controlled standards will hurt
students creativity and learning. Good education policy realizes that all
students have different learning styles, preferences, and paces. 6. Common
Core Violates Privacy The Race to the Top Grants associated with Common Core
violates privacy by data mining information about students that will
follow them the rest of their lives. The information collected is more than
just test scores and academic progress. Common Core will track
information on religious practices, political beliefs, sex behaviors and
attitudes, and more. 7. Common Core Resembles Failed No Child Left Behind Program A main
criticism of the failed No Child Left Behind program is that teachers teach
the test. This means that students are memorizing rather than learning
and critical thinking about information. Common Core would resemble No
Child Left Behind by requiring students to take national standardized tests
to measure their progress. 8. Common Core is Unconstitutional The federal government
should not control education. Since education is not specifically listed in
the Constitution, the authority over education should be left up to the
states and the people. This allows localities from New York City to rural Alabama to design unique
curriculums that are best for their students. 9. Common Core Will Require Some States to Move Backwards Some
states have advanced standards that are designed with students and
parents in mind. Sandra Stotsky, a professor at the University of Arkansas, who served on the committee to
validate Common Core standards said, The standards dumb American education down
by about two grades worth. Some states would have to move their standards backwards to comply
with Common Core standards. 10. Common Core Is a Failed Education Approach
Washington has tried one-size-fits-all education approaches time and time
again. Centralized education programs have not worked and will never
work. The quality of education has only declined over the past few
decades. The solution is to get the federal government out of the
education business.
of money while not improving education quality. 5. Common Core is Bad for Students

Common core gender equity claims are false lower

standards impact students negatively
Berry 14 Dr. Susan Berry, graduated from the University of Kansas School of
Medicine in 1978, affiliated with Childrens Hospitals & Clinics Of Minnesota and
University Of Minnesota Medical Center, 2014 (Desperate: common core pulled into
phony war on women, Brietbart, November 25th, Available online at
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/25/desperate-common-corepulled-into-phony-war-on-women/, Accessed 7/20/15) JL
With support plummeting for the controversial Common Core standards, it appears at
least one university president is resorting to the phony war on women

to give a boost to the national education initiative. In an op-ed in Sundays Miami

University of Miami president Donna Shalala claimed that the Common Core
standards can reduce gender-based inequities by ensuring that every
young woman receives the educational foundation she needs to be
successful in college and career. With Common Cores more engaging and challenging
standards, we can narrow the gender achievement gap that begins early and
worsens by eighth grade, particularly for black and Hispanic girls, Shalala
wrote. There are many problems with Shalalas premise , not the least of
which is the fact that, as Neal McCluskey observes at Cato, the college-readiness
gender gap in favor of men is non-existent. Walk around a random college campus,
and the odds are good the first student youll run into will be female, writes McCluskey, pointing out that 57
percent of college students are women, compared to 43 percent men . He
notes 56 percent of students taking the Advanced Placement exams are also young
women. However, even if Shalala is suggesting the existence of a gender gap in STEM subjects that tend to
attract more males, the overriding problem is that no one male or female will be
adequately prepared for STEM careers with Common Core because the math
standards do not address the advanced math necessary for those careers.
meme

Herald,

As Breitbart News reported in September, a new paper by assessment expert Richard P. Phelps and Stanford
University mathematician R. James Milgram refers to the promises made by the Common Core Math Standards
(CCMS) as empty rhetoric. Because

the CCMS are standards for all public school students in this country,
low standards, topping out at about the level of

regardless of achievement level, they are

a weak Algebra II course, the authors observe in their report published by the Massachusetts-based
Pioneer Institute (PI). And because this level is to determine college readiness as they define it (which is not
remotely what our public four year college and universities currently assume it to be), the authors continue, it

is
apt to mean fewer high school students taking advanced mathematics and science
coursework before they go to college, more college freshmen with even less knowledge of
mathematics than currently, and more college credit-bearing courses set at an
international level of seventh or eighth grade. As far as Shalalas claim that the Common
Core standards will narrow the gender achievement gap, especially for minority women, PI observes how
Common Core math will be further harmful to low-income, high STEM
ability students, because with these math standards nothing higher than
Algebra II will be tested by the new federally funded, multi-state assessments developed by consortia
PARCC and SBAC. High schools in low-income areas will be under the greatest
fiscal pressure to eliminate under-subscribed electives like trigonometry,
pre-calculus, and calculus, PI said in a press release. Shalalas claim that the Common Core
standards are more rigorous K-12 education standards is the same empty talking point that carries no weight
simply because no independent studies have been performed that prove this argument. In fact, in a recent report,
also published by PI, visiting Hoosier scholar and former senior policy adviser with the U.S. Department of Education
Zeev Wurman cited two studies conducted by Common Core Validation Committee members, who signed off on the

According to
Wurman, in both studies the research was poorly executed and failed to provide
evidence that the Common Core standards are internationally competitive
and reflective of college-readiness. Similarly, Wurmans research is consistent with another
study published by the Brookings Institution which found that the Common Core
standards will have little to no impact on student achievement. Brookings 2014
standards in 2010 and then later attempted to find post facto evidence to justify their decisions.

Brown Center report revealed that states whose standards were less like Common Core performed better on

Shalalas claim that

the Common Core standards will improve education for women is based on
a premise that does not exist and smacks of desperation to boost the
national assessments than those states that had standards more like Common Core.

image of a failing initiative.

Defense of the Common Core has too often come in the form of
platitudes and ungrounded assertions, writes McCluskey. This latest effort hasnt improved upon that.

1AR AT: CC Good for Minority Women

Common cores lack of STEM fails to resolve women of
minorities underrepresentation
Bright Education 14 Bright Education Services and Testing, providing
parents/teachers with testing tools, recognized leader in assessments, cites sources
like the AP Board review of demographics and American Community Survey Reports,
2014 (Computer science courses still lack minority representation, Bright
Education Services and Testing, December 19th, Available online at
http://brighted.funeducation.com/News/Common-Core-State-StandardsNews/computer-science-courses-still-lack-minority-representation, Accessed
7/20/15) JL
Science, technology, engineering and math fields in the U.S. are
dominated by men. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, men are
hired in STEM fields at twice the rate women are. What's more, Hispanics and blacks
have been historically underrepresented in these industries. To combat this, more educational programs and
nonprofit organizations have attempted to pique STEM interest in minority students (in this case, minority includes
women, blacks and Hispanics). For instance, the Girl Scouts of America has created a computer game that teaches
players the ins and outs of developing video games. Code.org provides free resources that teach students how to

The
College Board recently released data from fall Advanced Placement 2014 testing, and
computer science participation showed that boys dominated the students
taking the exam. Some minorities were more represented in 2014 than in 2013, but the gap is still
code. Despite these efforts, computer science is still most popular with boys. Computer science and AP

looming. Here's a look at who took the test this fall:Women: 20 percent (up from 19 percent in 2013), Black: 4
percent (same as 2013), Hispanic: 9 percent (up from 8 percent in 2013), Asian: 30, percent, White: 52 percent
Additionally, this percentage breakdown is a national average. In some states, such as Wyoming and Montana, no
Hispanic students took the AP computer science exam. Other states had virtually no black student representation.
Common Core and STEM The

Common Core State Standards provide benchmarks

for English/language arts and math, which includes only one of the STEM
subjects. Many educators worry that a lack of standards for computer science
and technology will fail to encourage students to explore such subject s - the
Next Generation Science Standards offer science benchmarks for participating states. Fortunately, some states
allow students to take computer science courses in place of a math or science credit .

If more states
adopt this approach, however, that still does not solve the issue of
demographics. "We believe low AP Computer Science A Exam participation
among traditionally underrepresented minority and female students has
been an encouragement and access issue, but are hopeful to see the focus is shifting,"
Katherine Levin, spokesperson for the College Board, told Education Week. "Twenty-five states now allow computer
science to count towards high school graduation requirements, and organizations like Code.org are helping to
introduce the subject in earlier grades."

Meeting standards are especially hard for minoritiesSchools

in lower income areas are subject to achievement gaps due to
lack of economic resources
Senior 13 Jennifer Senior, contributing editor at New York Magazine, advisory
board member of the Austen Riggs Center, anthropology degree from Princeton
University, 2013 (A Simple Way to Boost Minority Test Scores, New York Magazine,

August 9th, Available online at http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/simpleway-to-boost-minority-test-scores.html, Accessed 7/20/15) JL

Two days ago, Bloombergs Education Department released some
demoralizing statistics: Just 30 percent of the citys kids in grades three
through eight passed the states standardized tests in math, and just 26
percent of them passed the states tests in reading. When isolating the
grades of minority students, the numbers were more alarming still: Just 15
percent of African-American students and 19 percent of Latinos passed
the math exam, and just 16 percent of both passed the reading exam.
To some extent, these results were expected. Numbers across New York took a
dive this year, because the state, for the first time, tried to tailor its exams
to a more rigorous set of national standards called the Common Core. How the
city will address these plunging scores in 2009, students passed the English
exam at a rate of 77 percent is a long-term problem, one among many woes
for the public-school system as it tries to ready young New Yorkers for the global
economy. But the achievement gap is especially disturbing, serving to
underscore not just the severity of the test-score problem citywide, but
the painful disparities in cultural and economic resources between
schools, and between the citys families.

1AR AT: Econ Competitiveness

Multiple Alt Causes to US Economic Competitiveness
Bonvillian 4William B. Bonvillian is Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. ("Meeting the New Challenge to U.S.
Economic Competitiveness." Issues in Science and Technology 21, no. 1 (Fall 2004).
Issues In Science, 2004, Available online at http://issues.org/21-1/bonvillian-2/
Accessed July 8th, 2015)
The U.S. economy, seemingly a world-dominant Goliath in the mid- and late-1990s, now faces major
structural challenges from a new cast of Davids. The nation confronts a host of new
economic challengers led by India and China. The U.S. economy recently took an
unprecedented path when it regained strength during 2003 and 2004 without creating growth in jobs. The
manufacturing sectors share of the economy continues to shrink . The
growing service sector, once considered immune to global competition, now finds that
advances in information and communications technology have enabled
global competition in low-skilled service jobs and the beginning of competition in highskilled service tasks. Underlying these shorter-term developments is a major demographic shift. Historically, the
U.S. economy has relied on steady 1 percent annual population growth to provide additional workers and increased
output. In the coming decades, the country will face a rapid expansion of the nonproductive population of seniors.
Furthermore, the aging baby boomers are propped up by a network of entitlement programs generally indexed to
inflation. The Social Security Trustees recently estimated that the Social Security and Medicare programs create an
unfunded liability for the taxpayers of $72 trillion (in net present value terms)a daunting sum compared to total
national wealth estimated at $45 trillion. A debt on upcoming generations of these dimensions, unsupported by any
anticipated revenue stream, is an unprecedented national problem and has strong implications for the nations
future ability to invest in growth. This new economic landscape raises a question: If the current economy faces
structural difficulties, what could a renewed economy look like? Where will the United States find comparative
advantage in a global economy? This is a threatening process, and even if the United States finds a way to meet the
challenge, the transition will inevitably create losers as well as winners. The last economic war In the late 1970s
and the 1980s, the United States faced strong competition, especially from Japan, which was making a serious bid
to become the largest economy in the world. This competition focused on the manufacturing sector, particularly
consumer electronics, automobiles, and information technology (IT). The United States lost dominance in consumer
electronics but salvaged its auto manufacturing sector, in part through bilateral trade arrangements that set import
quotas on imported Japanese vehicles but allowed Japanese auto production in the United States. The U.S.
industrys light truck platform, which was protected by tariff from foreign competition, became the basis for the
next several generations of U.S. vehicle innovations: minivans, pickups, and SUVs. In information technology, the

The United States benefited

from the investments in science education in the Sputnik era and from major Cold War
United States retained its lead in advanced computer chips and software.

federal R&D investments. It explored public-private collaboration to bridge the gap between government supported
research and private sector development. The most successful example was Sematech, which helped reverse the
countrys declining position in chip technology. The Defense Departments Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) came into its own as a unique organization focused on moving revolutionary technology from the
research to the development stage, playing a crucial role in creating the Internet and promoting multiple
generations of IT. New forms of capital support for innovation were developed, facilitating the birth of creative
startup companies. The dramatic growth of the U.S. economy in the mid and late 1990s rode on the IT revolution
that boosted productivity throughout the economy. Although excessive enthusiasm about IT fueled a stock market
bubble, the gains in productivity were real and translated into widespread societal gains in real income across
classes, record homeownership, and a decline in poverty rates. The next war The United States faces a very
different competitive situation now. Consider how the China of 2004 differs from the Japan of 1980. Japan, like the
United States, was a high-wage, high-cost, advanced technology economy. China is a low-wage, low-cost, advanced
technology economy, a much more complicated competitive mix. Japan held an advantage in collaborative industrygovernment activities, whereas the United States excelled in entrepreneurism. China provides a good environment
for entrepreneurs as well as wielding government power to capture advanced technology for use in its firms.
Whereas Japan had a reliable legal and intellectual property system, Chinas legal system is a work in progress and
its intellectual property regime is notoriously lax. China has adopted Japans technique of manipulating its currency
to gain advantage. The strategy is to undervalue its own currency to stimulate exports and to buy U.S. government
bonds to create leverage in U.S. policymaking. Japan was a national security ally, whereas China is a potential
competitor. Competition with China will be both very different and far more complicated and demanding than was
competition with Japan. On top of this, the United States faces new and growing competitive forces in India and East

Asia as well as continuing strong competition from Japan. India is a particularly interesting challenger, because
whereas China is pursuing a more traditional emphasis on manufacturing-led growth, India is pursuing the emerging
global services market. Of course, the emergence of China and India can provide benefits to the U.S. economy. As

so
far U.S. exports are dwarfed by its imports, and there is no evidence that
this situation will change soon. Not only are the competitors different than in the 1980s, but so are
they develop as markets, the United States should be able to sell goods and services to their consumers. But

the markets that are in play. In the 1980s the competition was over manufacturing, but now most sectors, including
services, face direct competition, and the increasing fusion of services and manufacturing is creating a new field of
battle. The focus is shifting from machines, capital plant, and natural resources to talent and knowledge. The
competition over quality has expanded to include customization, speed, and responsiveness to customer

it is now necessary to also

develop an effective business model for using the technology. Trade discussions
requirements. Whereas the best technology was once enough,

that were once limited to products now incorporate knowledge management and services. A skilled workforce is no
longer a durable asset; workers must be periodically retrained to remain competitively productive. Whereas lowcost capital was once sufficient, success now requires first-rate efficiency in all elements of the financial system as
well as the ability to recognize and tap intangible knowledge assets. Is the United States ready for these new
challengers and new challenges? Economic growth and innovation A school of economic theory that has developed
during the past two decades argues that technological and related innovation accounts for more than half of
historical U.S. economic growth, which makes this a far more significant factor than capital and labor supply, which
are the dominant factors in traditional economic analysis. These economic growth theorists see a pattern shared by
important breakthrough technologies such as railroads, steamships, electricity, telecommunications, aerospace,

The new technology ignites a chain reaction of related

innovation that leads to a surge in productivity improvements throughout
the economy and thus to overall economic growth. The most recent example is the
and computing.

productivity boom that occurred in the mid-1990s following the IT revolution that spread through the manufacturing
and service sectors. The United States has been capturing talent worldwide for two centuries and must continue to
do so. Yet we are handicapped by this theory. Innovation may be the true growth god , but the
details of this new religion have not been fleshed out. Whereas we have almost a centurys worth of detailed data
on the old godscapital and labor supplywe have few metrics to understand the dynamics of innovation-based

R&D spending and worker education

where government plays a prominent role, but macro data are inherently misleading. We
growth. We can look at some macro data, such as

know that some R&D investments are more vital than others, as are some members of the workforce. In addition,
these macro factors are imbedded in a spiders web of other connected and supporting strands that make up a
complex system. The federal government plays many innovation-related roles, such as in fiscal and tax policy,
industry standards, technology transfer, trade policy, product procurement, intellectual property protection, the
legal system, regulation, antitrust, and export controls. We have only a gestational idea of how to optimize this
complex network to spur innovation. And that is only the public policy side. There is the even more complex private
sector role in innovation as well as the interactions between the private and public sectors. Despite the lack of
innovation metrics, the underlying logic of growth theory is compelling. And if innovation is the big factor in growth

It must innovate its

way to continuing competitive advantage. The United States must
increase the pace of innovation introduction to shorten the intervals
between innovations. Behind this approach is an assumption that a country that leads in an innovation
and therefore for much of national well-beingthe nation has only one choice:

area can retain competitive advantage in that area for a period of time while it readies the next round of innovation
introductions. In a deeply competitive globalized economy, the length of that advantage period can become
progressively shorter, compelling an ever faster innovation flow. It would be easier to promote an innovation

A first
step should be to energize business, public policy thinkers, economists,
and data collection agencies to start identifying the data we need to make
better policy judgments about effective innovation systems . However, given the
revolution if we had the metrics and benchmarks to better understand a successful innovation process.

magnitude of the competitive challenge, the country cannot wait for the results of a perfected innovation model.
Enough is already known about the U.S. economy and federal policy to begin strengthening a few key links on the
public policy side of the innovation chain: R&D funding, talent, organization of science and technology, innovation
infrastructure, manufacturing, and services. R&D funding. Measured as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP),

federal R&D support has been in long-term decline ; it is now only half of its mid-1960s
peak of 2 percent of GDP. Federal support for the life sciences through the National Institutes of Health has been
rising, doubling between 1999 and 2003 to nearly $28 billion .

This means that the physical

sciences have borne a disproportionate share of the federal decline. T his

trend must be seen in the context of the upcoming long-term pressure on the federal budget created by tens of
trillions of unfunded entitlement liabilities noted earlier. Within a decade these mandatory entitlements will begin to
crowd out nondefense discretionary federal spending such as R&D. The current budget crunch and ballooning
deficit caused by the reduction in federal revenue resulting from economic recession and tax cuts provide a preview
of future budget debates. The budget process, the mainstay of congressional fiscal controls for three decades, has
ground to a halt, and the appropriations system, a fundamental congressional process for well over a century, is
systematically breaking down. Congress increasingly is politically unable to pass underfunded appropriations, so it
throws them into massive, last-minute continuing resolutions. Federal budget deterioration, which will worsen with
structural demographic and entitlement pressures, threatens the viability of our federal R&D capacity. We have an
initial signal of that problem as annual appropriations for the National Science Foundation fail to meet authorized

Industry R&D spending, which focuses on development, cannot

substitute for the federal investment in research. Because the two
components are related and interdependent, a decline in the robustness
of federal research funding will have ramifications for the private sectors
innovation performance, and future prospects for federal research spending are grim. Effective
levels.

political action will be necessary to change the current trend. Much can be learned from the life sciences, which
have assembled a powerful mix of research institutions, industry, and grassroots patient groups working on a
common R&D funding agenda. Federal life science research has increased five-fold since 1970. The physical
sciences, despite steady deterioration in their research portfolios since the end of the Cold War, have yet to
organize a comparable advocacy effort, and we cannot assume that they will. Without a political movement to

the nation will have to choose between two strategies for

making the most of declining research funds: random disinvestment or a
conscious program of niche investment. Because the United States funds research through a
increase funding,

wide variety of agencies and programs, the research budget is difficult to understand and manage. Many see this
decentralized system as a strength, because it provides diversity and more opportunities for breakthrough research.
However, given a growing pattern of research cutbacks, the fully decentralized system could result in what is
essentially random disinvestment. An alternative would be to focus research investments on the key niche areas
likely to be most productive, focusing on research quality not quantity. The United States has funded science niches
many times in the past, from high performance computing to the genome project to nanotechnology. However, this
has always been done within an overall strategy of funding a broad front of scientific advance to guard against
niche failures. If funding is not adequate to support research across a broad front, a niche strategy could be the
best option. This is certainly not the ideal approachindeed, it is potentially dangerous and riskybut it is
preferable to random disinvestment. It will be made more difficult by the fact that the country does not have a
tradition or mechanism for making centralized research priority decisions across agencies and disciplines. Given the
intensifying budget pressure and the political weakness of physical science advocacy efforts, the scientific world
needs to start a frank discussion of research priorities and the painful sacrifices of quantity of research that will
have to be made to maintain quality in key niches. The science community can begin preparing for this task by
carefully studying the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which is the nations largest current niche effort, to look
for lessons on how best to organize multiagency and multidiscipline research efforts. Talent. Growth economist Paul
Romer of Stanford University has long argued that talent is essential for growth. His prospector theory posits that
the number of capable prospectors a nation or region fields corresponds to its level of technological discovery and
innovation. Talent must be understood as a dynamic factor in innovation. A nation or region shouldnt try to fit its
talent base to what it estimates will be the size of its economy. Instead, its talent base, because of its critical role in
innovation, will determine the size the economy. In the simplest terms, the more prospectors there are, the more
discoveries and the more growth there will be. Other nations are not standing still. The forty leading developed
economies have increased their science and engineering research jobs at twice the rate that the United States has.
U.S. universities train an important segment of the science and engineering talent base of the nations developing
country competitors, and those nations are encouraging a larger proportion to return. Their own universities in
many cases are also rapidly improving. China graduates over three times as many engineers as does the United
States, with engineering degrees accounting for 38.6 percent of all undergraduate degrees in China compared to
4.7 percent in the United States. The United States now ranks seventeenth in the proportion of college age
population earning science and engineering degrees, down from third place several decades ago. Talent is now
understood globally as a contributor to growth, and a global competition has begun. Yet, despite decades of
discussion about the importance of educating more scientists and engineers, the percentage of U.S. students
entering these fields is not increasing. The technological opportunities of the coming century will require a different
type of infrastructure, and government can play a role. The government has been active in education policy
recently. The No Child Left Behind Act demands that schools demonstrate that their students are making adequate
progress, which should help make science and math courses more rigorous. However, the legislation needs to be
backed up with adequate funding if it is to succeed with its ambitious reforms. In addition, U.S. high schools need
more programs focused on science and more magnet high schools focused on science. Congress has passed Tech

Talent legislation, creating a competitive grant program to encourage colleges and universities to devise
innovative ways to increase the number of science and engineering graduates. Successful efforts could serve as
models for programs implemented on a large scale. If the percentage of undergraduates receiving these degrees
increases, it would create a larger pool from which to attract graduate students. By focusing on a later stage of
science education, the Tech Talent program provides a potential shortcut to increase the talent base. Because
turning around the science education system will take at least a decade, the United States must continue to rely on
a large number of foreign-born scientists and engineers. The United States has been capturing talent worldwide for
two centuries and must continue to do so to maintain the robustness of its innovation system. One third of the U.S.
citizens who have won Nobel prizes were born outside the country. It is thus cause for alarm that the number of
visas granted to foreign students has fallen sharply since September 11, 2001. A recent survey of graduate schools
showed a 32 percent drop in 2002-03 graduate school applications from foreign students, driven largely by a sharp
increase in visa denials. A much more efficient security review system must be implemented, and scientists and
engineers should be actively encouraged to stay. There are serious short- as well as long-term innovation
consequences to this contraction of the talent pool, and it must be turned around promptly. In addition, science and
engineering education must change. The innovation system and process need to become a part of the curriculum
so that students become motivated and prepared to play a role in innovation. Organization of science and
technology. The United States has had the same organizational structure for science since the 1950s. Until the
recent creation of the Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, President Eisenhowers DARPA in
1957 was the last major new R&D agency. Yet the science and technology enterprise has grown far more complex in
the past half century. Solo inventors have been largely replaced by complex organizational networks linking
industry, universities, and government research agencies. A web of communication networks are now available for
spreading, applying, and developing knowledge. Science and innovation are now collaborative activities that no
longer heed disciplinary, agency, or sectoral boundaries. The nations technology transfer mechanisms have not
kept pace with developments in the generation of knowledge. The federal R&D system is a prisoner of its history
even though changes in the way research is done demand changes in the way it is organized and managed. For
example, NIH is now struggling with strains on a management system that remained unchanged even as its budget
was quickly doubling in size. U.S. federal R&D agencies need to take a searching look at whether they are optimally
organized to contribute to innovation, consistent with their missions. The best innovation organizational models
need to be explored and evaluated, performance metrics for innovation contributions need to be sharpened, and
new approaches should be tested. The collaborative science we need for innovation demands new collaborative
organization models. Therefore, we also need to look at past niche science initiatives to determine which crossagency efforts have worked best and why. Legislation establishing a stronger coordination and budgeting role for
the Office of Science and Technology should be considered to promote this organizational review. Innovation
infrastructure. Technology seeds have to land on fertile fields. Research progress must be coupled with an effective
infrastructure to hasten the pace of innovation. For example, the Internet thrived because it was introduced into a
vibrant computer sector. For the Internet to continue to thrive, it will need to have a high-speed broadband
infrastructure. The Department of Defense (DOD) is now building a worldwide Global Information Grid, an integrated
fiber optic and wireless system including a dense satellite network that will provide the framework for the planned
network centric defense system. Its effort to move all transmissions from all locations at fiber speed might pave the
way for a civilian infrastructure able to capture the next generation of IT applications. As another example, research
into greener energy systems will yield the desired benefits only if the underlying power and transportation
infrastructure is able to integrate the new technologies. Infrastructure includes technology standards for new
products, accounting standards that capture the value of knowledge-based enterprises, and technology transition
systems that will smooth the introduction of revolutionary new developments such as nanotechnology into a wide
array of applications. Government has an historic role in supporting and encouraging infrastructure. Much of the
economic story of the past two centuries revolves around government support of transportation infrastructure, from
waterways to railroads to highways. The technological opportunities of the coming century will require a different
type of infrastructure, and government can again play a role. Future needs are not obvious, so government has a
responsibility to first assess likely developments and identify its infrastructure role. Competitive private sector
solutions must be the preferred infrastructure mechanism, but where public missions are involved, government
incentives should be considered to spur infrastructure markets. Accounting standards that developed in the 19th
century understandably emphasized fixed assets such as plant and equipment in measuring a corporations value.
For the 21st century corporation, value resides not only in physical assets but also in talent, intellectual property,
and the ability to launch innovation. Measuring the value of those intangible assets is critical to making wise
investment decisions. The European Union has begun a wide-ranging effort to develop new accounting
measurement tools. Some on this side of the Atlantic have been working on this issue of valuing intangibles, but
this effort needs to be expanded. The Securities and Exchange Commission and other federal agencies should spur
the accounting profession, economists, and business thinkers to develop the new metrics needed for an innovation
economy. Manufacturing and services. Dazzling prototypes are not sources of profit. Reliable and cost-competitive
products must be manufactured to reap the final reward of innovation. In the 1990s manufacturing comprised 16
percent of the U.S. economy but contributed 30 percent of U.S. economic growth. Manufacturing jobs on average
pay 23 percent more than service sector jobs, but the United States lost some 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in the
recent recession, and few of these have returned. In addition to providing a good salary, the average manufacturing
job creates 4.2 jobs throughout the economy, which is three times the rate for jobs in business and personal

services. As a result of the improved productivity of manufacturing workers, the sectors share of employment has
fallen far faster than its share of GDP. Although manufacturing has continued to increase productivity since 2000,
this hasnt translated into the economic gains we need. This is significant because manufacturing is a big multiplier.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that some economic sectors have a multiplier effect where growth in
one sector influences others; there is a 2.43 multiplier for manufacturing,compared to a 1.5 multiplier for business
services. Manufacturing remains the currency of the global economy. Selling high-value goods in international trade
is still the way nations and regions become rich. However, the U.S. trade deficit in goods is exploding: It reached
$482 billion in 2003 ($120 billion with China alone) and continues to growwithout causing significant public alarm.
For perspective, remember that the nation agonized over a $22 billion deficit in 1981 and a $67 billion deficit in
1991. The argument that only the low end of manufacturing is leaving simply is not true; key parts of high-end
advanced manufacturing are moving abroad. Manufacturing is also a dynamic factor in the innovation process.
Historically, manufacturing and the design and development stages of innovation have been closely interrelated
and kept geographically close to each other. This is particularly true for newer advanced technologies such as
semiconductors. When manufacturing departs, design and R&D often follow. In recent years, firms have been
developing a combined production and services model, carefully integrating the two to provide unique products and
services, and thus enhancing the importance of manufacturing. Without a strong manufacturing base, it is difficult
to realize economic gain from technological innovation. The talent erosion in the manufacturing base is a particular
concern. Economist Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School has argued that if high-productivity jobs are lost
to foreign rivals, long-term economic prosperity is compromised. John Zysman of the Berkeley Roundtable on the
International Economy believes that manufacturing is critical even in the information age, because advanced
mechanisms for production and the accompanying jobs are a strategic asset whose location can make a nation an
attractive place to create strategic advantage. Without a strong manufacturing base, it is difficult to realize
economic gain from technological innovation. Because technology innovation and manufacturing process innovation
are closely linked, the erosion of the manufacturing base will affect the innovation system. To avoid the hollowing
out of manufacturing, action will be needed on a range of policies from trade promotion and enforcement, to tax
policies to encourage new investment, to programs for improving worker skills, to DOD efforts to ensure strategic
manufacturing capability. Innovation in the manufacturing process, however, might be the most important: The
United States will be able to achieve comparative advantage in critical manufacturing sectors only if it updates the
process, substituting productivity for our higher costs. The nation needs a revolution in manufacturing that taps into
developments in distributed manufacturing, desktop manufacturing, simultaneous inspection and production, smalllot production that is cost-competitive with mass production, and the use of new materials and methods for
practical fabrication of devices and machines at the nano scale. Overall, the country needs new intelligent
manufacturing approaches that integrate design, services, and manufacturing throughout the business enterprise.
Because DOD would be a major beneficiary of the corresponding productivity gains, because it has long played an
important role in this field, and because it has a huge strategic stake in keeping advanced manufacturing leadership
in the United States, it makes sense for DARPA to take a lead in R&D for 21st century manufacturing processes and
technologies. DODs Mantech programs could support pilot projects and test beds for evaluating prototypes and
results in the defense industrial sector. The nation needs innovation in services as well as manufacturing because
we now face global competitiveness there, too. Services dominate our economy, yet we perform comparatively little
services R&D. We need a new focus on services innovation to retain comparative advantage, so that we are ready
for the upcoming global services challenge. From analysis to action In the 1980s, when the United States faced
significant competitive challenges from Japan and Germany, U.S. industry, labor, and government worked out a
series of competitiveness policies and approaches that helped pave the way for the nations revitalized economic
leadership in the 1990s. In the mid-1980s President Reagan appointed Hewlett Packard president John Young to
head a bipartisan competitiveness commission, which recommended a practical policy approach designed to defuse
ideological squabbling. Although many of its recommendations were enacted slowly or not at all, the commission
created a new focus on public-private partnerships, on R&D investments (especially in IT), and on successful
competition in trade rather than protectionism. This became the generally accepted response and provided the
building blocks for the 1990s boom. The Young Commission was followed by Congresss Competitiveness Policy
Council through 1997. These efforts were successful in redefining the economic debate in part because they built
on the experiences, well-remembered at the time, of industry and government collaboration that was so successful
in World War II and in responding to Sputnik. Those are much more distant memories in this new century, but we
should revisit the Young Commission model. The private sector Council on Competitiveness, originally led by Young,
has assembled a group of leading industry, labor, and academic leaders to prepare a National Innovation Initiative,
which could provide a blueprint for action. Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to establish a new
bipartisan competitiveness commission that would have the prestige and leverage to stimulate government action.
The U.S. economy is the most flexible and resilient in the world. The country possesses a highly talented workforce,
powerful and efficient capital markets, the strongest R&D system, and the energy of entrepreneurs and many
dynamic companies. That by itself will not guarantee success in a changing economy, but it gives the country the
wherewithal to adapt to an evolving world. Challenges to U.S. dominance are visible everywhere. Strong economic
growth is vital to the U.S. national mission, and innovation is the key to that growth. The United States needs to
fashion a new competitiveness agenda designed to speed the velocity of innovation to meet the great challenges of
the new century. Once that agenda has been crafted, the nation must find the political will to implement it.

U.S. manufacturing industry key to sustaining economic

competitivenessnot the STEM sector
Rosselet 13 Dr. Suzanne Rosselet is a research fellow at IMD business school in
Lausanne, Switzerland. She specializes in world competitiveness and holds a degree in
economics from Stanford University. She previously served as deputy director of IMDs World
Competitiveness Yearbook. (US manufacturing is key to competitiveness The Christian
Science Monitor, February 8th, 2015, Available online at
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0208/US-manufacturing-is-key-tocompetitiveness Accessed 7/8/15)

LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND US competitiveness in the global economy is

slipping. According to the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, the United States
fell from its number one slot, mainly due to a dramatic slide in its
Government Efficiency ranking, where it has fallen from 5th place in 2002 to
22nd today. And the World Economic Forums Global Competitiveness Report puts
the US in 7th place, down from 1st in 2007. If this isnt worrying enough, 71 percent
of more than 10,000 Harvard Business School alumni surveyed expect US
competitiveness to decline over the next three years. In the World Banks Doing
Business Report, the US ranks 4th in terms of the ease of doing business, including
a dismal 69th place for the ease of paying taxes. And the Information Technology
and Innovation Foundation puts the US second-to-last on the rate of progress on
innovation-based competitiveness since 2000, ahead of only Italy. But there is
some good news: US manufacturing. Until recently, the industry had been
in steady decline, but many signs now indicate that America is now in the midst of
a historic manufacturing revival. But manufacturers are also facing a skillsgap, as workers are unprepared for the demands of this growing industry.
Preparing tomorrows skilled workforce should be one of the Obama
administrations top economic priorities. Developing a long-term plan to
train workers for new manufacturing jobs is vital to boosting US
competitiveness. There are several reasons for the growth in US manufacturing,
but one of the main explanations is that outsourcing to low-cost countries is no
longer as tempting as it once was. With labor and transportation costs rising in
many of these countries, American companies are bringing work back to the US and
foreign companies are more attracted to a cost-competitive US base as well. In
addition, a natural gas boon will help make US energy costs some of the lowest in
the world. Add to that the benefits of higher quality manufactured goods and stateof-the-art innovation capabilities, and the US has a fair chance of regaining its
historical leadership in advanced manufacturing. A recent study by the Boston
Consulting Group claims that the US is indeed on course to regain its status as a
global industrial powerhouse, suggesting that the manufacturing resurgence
combined with boosting US exports could create between 2.5 million and 5 million
jobs by the end of the decade. But meeting the challenges of this
manufacturing revival, means closing the skills gap through more, and
better-targeted, investment in education and training. Three
recommendations to support advanced manufacturing were proposed in
July 2012 by a committee of the presidents Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology. This multi-stakeholder committee, made up of business leaders,
academics, and scientists, called on President Obama to make good on his promise

to create an economy built to last by enabling innovation, securing

the talent pipeline, and improving the business climate. To build,
attract, and retain talent, their report recommends an advertising
campaign to promote manufacturing as an exciting career path. It
suggests capitalizing on the skills of returning veterans, investing in
community colleges, and creating partnerships between industry and
these colleges, as well as promoting manufacturing fellowships and
internships. These are all key steps, but policymakers and the manufacturing
industry should also encourage workers to re-focus their career choices toward high
value-added, knowledge-intensive manufacturing. And America must shore up its
educational curriculum in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. Supplement this with more technical training during and after high
school. The US must also continue to decrease student drop-out rates and keep
working to improve the quality of high school education. Despite the fact that more
than half of the worlds 100 leading universities are American (and 8 of the top 10),
American high school graduates rank poorly in international test scores: American
15-year-olds ranked 25th in mathematics, 14th in reading, and 17th in science (out
of 34 countries) on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developments
(OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings. No
American president should sleep well with these results. Since many experts
acknowledge that advanced manufacturing is the best bet for creating high-paying
jobs, with the additional advantages of contributing to innovation and reducing the
US trade deficit, Mr. Obama would do well to heed the advice of his council.
Education and training are critical to providing an appropriately skilled workforce
that will ensure long-term sustainable growth and restore the US lead in
competitiveness indices. But more important than rankings, investing in the skills of
the American people will put struggling lower and middle class Americans back to
work. And with the US unemployment rate still hovering just below 8 percent, thats
an objective worth fighting for.

Alt causes to economic competitiveness twelve pillars

WEF 5 World Economic Forum, 2005 (Methodology: The 12 pillars of
competitiveness, World Economic Forum, 2005, Available online at
http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/methodology/,
Accessed 7/21/15) JL
We define competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies, and factors
that determine the level of productivity of a country . The level of productivity, in turn,
sets the level of prosperity that can be reached by an economy. The productivity level also determines the rates of
return obtained by investments in an economy, which in turn are the fundamental drivers of its growth rates. In
other words, a more competitive economy is one that is likely to grow faster over time. The concept of

competitiveness thus involves static and dynamic components. Although the

productivity of a country determines its ability to sustain a high level of income, it is also one of the central
determinants of its return on investment, which is one of the key factors explaining an economys growth potential.
Many determinants drive productivity and competitiveness. Understanding the factors behind this process has
occupied the minds of economists for hundreds of years, engendering theories ranging from Adam Smiths focus on
specialization and the division of labor to neoclassical economists emphasis on investment in physical capital and
infrastructure,2 and, more recently, to interest in other mechanisms such as education and training, technological
progress, macroeconomic stability, good governance, firm sophistication, and market efficiency, among others.
While all of these factors are likely to be important for competitiveness and growth, they are not mutually exclusive
two or more of them can be significant at the same time, and in fact that is what has been shown in the economic

literature. This open-endedness is captured within the GCI by including a weighted average of many different
components, each measuring a different aspect of competitiveness. In addition, Appendix A assesses statistically
the robustness of the GCI as an appropriate estimate of the level of productivity and competitiveness of an

components are grouped into

12 pillars of competitiveness: First pillar: Institutions The institutional
environment is determined by the legal and administrative framework
within which individuals, firms, and governments interact to generate
wealth. The importance of a sound and fair institutional environment has
become all the more apparent during the recent economic and financial
crisis and is especially crucial for further solidifying the fragile recovery,
given the increasing role played by the state at the international level and
for the economies of many countries. The quality of institutions has a strong bearing on
competitiveness and growth.4 It influences investment decisions and the organization
of production and plays a key role in the ways in which societies distribute
the benefits and bear the costs of development strategies and policies . For
economy. The GCI Framework: The 12 Pillars of Competitiveness The

example, owners of land, corporate shares, or intellectual property are unwilling to invest in the improvement and
upkeep of their property if their rights as owners are not protected.5 The role of institutions goes beyond the legal
framework. Government attitudes toward markets and freedoms and the efficiency of its operations are also very
important: excessive bureaucracy and red tape,6 overregulation, corruption, dishonesty in dealing with public
contracts, lack of transparency and trustworthiness, inability to provide appropriate services for the business sector,
and political dependence of the judicial system impose significant economic costs to businesses and slow the
process of economic development. In addition, the proper management of public finances is critical for ensuring
trust in the national business environment. Indicators capturing the quality of government management of public
finances are therefore included here to complement the measures of macroeconomic stability captured in pillar 3.
Although the economic literature has focused mainly on public institutions, private institutions are also an important
element in the process of creating wealth. The global financial crisis, along with numerous corporate scandals, has
highlighted the relevance of accounting and reporting standards and transparency for preventing fraud and
mismanagement, ensuring good governance, and maintaining investor and consumer confidence. An economy is
well served by businesses that are run honestly, where managers abide by strong ethical practices in their dealings
with the government, other firms, and the public at large.7 Private-sector transparency is indispensable to business;
it can be brought about through the use of standards as well as auditing and accounting practices that ensure

Second pillar: Infrastructure Extensive and

efficient infrastructure is critical for ensuring the effective functioning of
the economy, as it is an important factor in determining the location of
economic activity and the kinds of activities or sectors that can develop
within a country. Well-developed infrastructure reduces the effect of distance between regions, integrating
access to information in a timely manner.

the national market and connecting it at low cost to markets in other countries and regions. In addition, the quality
and extensiveness of infrastructure networks significantly impact economic growth and reduce income inequalities
and poverty in a variety of ways.9 A well-developed transport and communications infrastructure network is a
prerequisite for the access of less-developed communities to core economic activities and services. Effective modes
of transportincluding quality roads, railroads, ports, and air transportenable entrepreneurs to get their goods
and services to market in a secure and timely manner and facilitate the movement of workers to the most suitable
jobs. Economies also depend on electricity supplies that are free from interruptions and shortages so that
businesses and factories can work unimpeded. Finally, a solid and extensive telecommunications network allows for
a rapid and free flow of information, which increases overall economic efficiency by helping to ensure that
businesses can communicate and decisions are made by economic actors taking into account all available relevant

Third pillar: Macroeconomic environment The stability of the

macroeconomic environment is important for business and, therefore, is
significant for the overall competitiveness of a country .10 Although it is certainly true
information.

that macroeconomic stability alone cannot increase the productivity of a nation, it is also recognized that
macroeconomic disarray harms the economy, as we have seen in recent years, conspicuously in the European
context. The government cannot provide services efficiently if it has to make high-interest payments on its past
debts. Running fiscal deficits limits the governments future ability to react to business cycles. Firms cannot operate
efficiently when inflation rates are out of hand. In sum, the economy cannot grow in a sustainable manner unless
the macro environment is stable. Macroeconomic stability captured the attention of the public most recently when
some advanced economies, notably the United States and some European countries, needed to take urgent action
to prevent macroeconomic instability when their public debt reached unsustainable levels in the wake of the global

financial crisis. It is important to note that this pillar evaluates the stability of the macroeconomic environment, so it
does not directly take into account the way in which public accounts are managed by the government. This
qualitative dimension is captured in the institutions pillar described above. Fourth pillar: Health and primary
education A healthy workforce is vital to a countrys competitiveness and productivity. Workers who are ill cannot
function to their potential and will be less productive. Poor health leads to significant costs to business, as sick
workers are often absent or operate at lower levels of efficiency. Investment in the provision of health services is
thus critical for clear economic, as well as moral, considerations.11 In addition to health, this pillar takes into
account the quantity and quality of the basic education received by the population, which is increasingly important
in todays economy. Basic education increases the efficiency of each individual worker. Moreover, often workers who
have received little formal education can carry out only simple manual tasks and find it much more difficult to adapt
to more advanced production processes and techniques, and therefore they contribute less to devising or executing
innovations. In other words, lack of basic education can become a constraint on business development, with firms
finding it difficult to move up the value chain by producing more sophisticated or value-intensive products. Fifth
pillar: Higher education and training Quality higher education and training is crucial for economies that want to
move up the value chain beyond simple production processes and products.12 In particular, todays globalizing
economy requires countries to nurture pools of well-educated workers who are able to perform complex tasks and
adapt rapidly to their changing environment and the evolving needs of the production system. This pillar measures
secondary and tertiary enrollment rates as well as the quality of education as evaluated by business leaders. The
extent of staff training is also taken into consideration because of the importance of vocational and continuous onthe-job trainingwhich is neglected in many economiesfor ensuring a constant upgrading of workers skills.

Sixth pillar: Goods market efficiency Countries with efficient goods

markets are well positioned to produce the right mix of products and
services given their particular supply-and-demand conditions, as well as to
ensure that these goods can be most effectively traded in the economy.
Healthy market competition, both domestic and foreign, is important in driving market
efficiency, and thus business productivity, by ensuring that the most efficient firms,
producing goods demanded by the market, are those that thrive. The best possible environment for the exchange of
goods requires a minimum of government intervention that impedes business activity. For example,
competitiveness is hindered by distortionary or burdensome taxes and by restrictive and discriminatory rules on
foreign direct investment (FDI)which limit foreign ownershipas well as on international trade. The recent
economic crisis has highlighted the high degree of interdependence of economies worldwide and the degree to
which growth depends on open markets. Protectionist measures are counterproductive as they reduce aggregate
economic activity. Market efficiency also depends on demand conditions such as customer orientation and buyer
sophistication. For cultural or historical reasons, customers may be more demanding in some countries than in
others. This can create an important competitive advantage, as it forces companies to be more innovative and
customer-oriented and thus imposes the discipline necessary for efficiency to be achieved in the market.

Seventh pillar: Labor market efficiency The efficiency and flexibility of the
labor market are critical for ensuring that workers are allocated to their
most effective use in the economy and provided with incentives to give
their best effort in their jobs. Labor markets must therefore have the flexibility to shift workers from
one economic activity to another rapidly and at low cost, and to allow for wage fluctuations without much social
disruption.13 The importance of the latter has been dramatically highlighted by events in Arab countries, where
rigid labor markets were an important cause of high youth unemployment. Youth unemployment continues to be
high in a number of European countries as well, where important barriers to entry into the labor market remain in
place. Efficient labor markets must also ensure clear strong incentives for employees and efforts to promote
meritocracy at the workplace, and they must provide equity in the business environment between women and men.
Taken together these factors have a positive effect on worker performance and the attractiveness of the country for

Eighth pillar:
Financial market development The financial and economic crisis has
highlighted the central role of a sound and well-functioning financial
sector for economic activities. An efficient financial sector allocates the
resources saved by a nations citizens, as well as those entering the
economy from abroad, to their most productive uses. It channels resources to those
talent, two aspects that are growing more important as talent shortages loom on the horizon.

entrepreneurial or investment projects with the highest expected rates of return rather than to the politically
connected. A thorough and proper assessment of risk is therefore a key ingredient of a sound financial market.
Business investment is also critical to productivity. Therefore economies require sophisticated financial markets that
can make capital available for private-sector investment from such sources as loans from a sound banking sector,
well-regulated securities exchanges, venture capital, and other financial products. In order to fulfill all those
functions, the banking sector needs to be trustworthy and transparent, andas has been made so clear recently

financial markets need appropriate regulation to protect investors and other actors in the economy at large.

Ninth pillar: Technological readiness In todays globalized world, technology is

increasingly essential for firms to compete and prosper . The technological
readiness pillar measures the agility with which an economy adopts
existing technologies to enhance the productivity of its industries , with specific
emphasis on its capacity to fully leverage information and communication technologies (ICTs) in daily activities and
production processes for increased efficiency and enabling innovation for competitiveness.14 ICTs have evolved into
the general purpose technology of our time,15 given their critical spillovers to other economic sectors and their
role as industry-wide enabling infrastructure. Therefore ICT access and usage are key enablers of countries overall
technological readiness. Whether the technology used has or has not been developed within national borders is
irrelevant for its ability to enhance productivity. The central point is that the firms operating in the country need to
have access to advanced products and blueprints and the ability to absorb and use them. Among the main sources
of foreign technology, FDI often plays a key role, especially for countries at a less advanced stage of technological
development. It is important to note that, in this context, the level of technology available to firms in a country
needs to be distinguished from the countrys ability to conduct blue-sky research and develop new technologies for
innovation that expand the frontiers of knowledge. That is why we separate technological readiness from

Tenth pillar: Market size The size of

the market affects productivity since large markets allow firms to exploit
economies of scale. Traditionally, the markets available to firms have been constrained by national
borders. In the era of globalization, international markets have become a
substitute for domestic markets, especially for small countries. Vast empirical evidence shows
innovation, captured in the 12th pillar, described below.

that trade openness is positively associated with growth. Even if some recent research casts doubts on the
robustness of this relationship, there is a general sense that trade has a positive effect on growth, especially for
countries with small domestic markets.16 Thus exports can be thought of as a substitute for domestic demand in
determining the size of the market for the firms of a country.17 By including both domestic and foreign markets in
our measure of market size, we give credit to export-driven economies and geographic areas (such as the European

Eleventh pillar:
Business sophistication There is no doubt that sophisticated business practices
are conducive to higher efficiency in the production of goods and services .
Union) that are divided into many countries but have a single common market.

Business sophistication concerns two elements that are intricately linked: the quality of a countrys overall business
networks and the quality of individual firms operations and strategies. These factors are especially important for
countries at an advanced stage of development when, to a large extent, the more basic sources of productivity
improvements have been exhausted. The quality of a countrys business networks and supporting industries, as
measured by the quantity and quality of local suppliers and the extent of their interaction, is important for a variety
of reasons. When companies and suppliers from a particular sector are interconnected in geographically proximate
groups, called clusters, efficiency is heightened, greater opportunities for innovation in processes and products are
created, and barriers to entry for new firms are reduced. Individual firms advanced operations and strategies
(branding, marketing, distribution, advanced production processes, and the production of unique and sophisticated
products) spill over into the economy and lead to sophisticated and modern business processes across the countrys

Twelfth pillar: Innovation Innovation can emerge from new

technological and non-technological knowledge. Non-technological
innovations are closely related to the know-how, skills, and working
conditions that are embedded in organizations and are therefore largely
covered by the eleventh pillar of the GCI.
business sectors.

1AR AT: Econ Decline = War

Econ decline wont cause war the 2008 crash disproves their
claim.
Drezner 12 Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law
and Diplomacy at Tufts University, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a
blogger for the Washington Post. He has previously held positions with University of Chicago, Civic
Education Project, the RAND Corporation, and the US Department of the Treasury. THE IRONY OF
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: THE SYSTEM WORKED This publication is part of the International
Institutions and Global Governance program October 2012
http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/IIGG_WorkingPaper9_Drezner.pdf

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasnt barked: the effect of the
Great Recession on crossborder conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the
crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to
increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.19 Whether through greater
internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of
great power conflict, there were genuine concerns that the global
economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the
Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the
disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. The
aggregate data suggests otherwise, however. A fundamental conclusion from a recent report
by the Institute for Economics and Peace is that the average level of peacefulness in
2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.20 Interstate violence in
particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis as have military
expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession
has not triggered any increase in violent conflict; the secular decline in violence that
started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.

Multipolarity makes your arguments untrueeconomic decline

doesnt cause war
Thirwell 10 MPhil in economics from Oxford U, postgraduate qualifications in
applied finance from Macquarie U, program director in International Economy for the
Lowy Institute for International Policy (Mark, September 2010, The Return of Geoeconomics: Globalisation and National Security, Lowy Institute for International
Policy, google scholar,)
Summing up the evidence, then, I would judge that while empirical support for the Pax Mercatoria is not
conclusive, nevertheless its still strongly supportive of the general idea that international integration is good for

raises the
virtuous circle: globalisation (trade) promotes peace, which in turn
promotes more globalisation. In this kind of world, we should not worry too much
about the big power shifts described in the previous section, since they are taking place against a
peace, all else equal. Since there is also even stronger evidence that peace is good for trade, this
possibility of a nice

backdrop of greater economic integration which should help smooth the whole process. Instead of ending this

the Pax Mercatoria

might nevertheless turn out to be a poor, or at least overly optimistic, guide to our future.
section on that optimistic note, however, its worth thinking about some reasons why

The first is captured by that all important get-out-of-gaol-free card, all else equal. Its quite possible that the
peace-promoting effects of international commerce will end up being swamped by other factors, just as they were
in 1914. Second, perhaps the theory itself is wrong. Certainly, a realist like John Mearsheimer would seem to have
little time for the optimistic consequences of the rise of new powers implied by the theory. Heres Mearsheimer on
how the US should view Chinas economic progress, for example: . . . the United States has a profound interest in
seeing Chinese economic growth slow considerably in the years ahead . . . A wealthy China would not be a status

quo power but an aggressive state determined to achieve regional hegemony. 62 Such pessimistic (or are they
tragic?) views of the world would also seem to run the risk of being self-fulfilling prophecies if they end up guiding

the shift to a multipolar world might indirectly

undermine some of the supports needed to deliver globalisation. Here I am thinking
about some simple variant on the idea of hegemonic stability theory (HST) the proposition that the global
economy needs a leader (or hegemon) that is both able and willing to provide the sorts
of international public goods that are required for its smooth functioning: open
markets (liberal or free trade), a smoothly functioning monetary regime, liberal capital flows,
and a lender of last resort function. 63 Charles Kindleberger argued that the 1929
depression was so wide, so deep, and so long because the international economic
system was rendered unstable by British inability and US unwillingness to assume
responsibility for stabilizing it, drawing on the failures of the Great Depression to make the original case for
HST: . . . the international economic and monetary system needs leadership , a
country that is prepared . . . to set standards of conduct for other countries and to
seek to get others to follow them, to take on an undue share of the burdens of the system, and in
actual policy. Finally, there is the risk that

particular to take on its support in adversity... 64 Kindlebergers assessment appears to capture a rough empirical
regularity: As Findlay and ORourke remind us, periods

of sustained expansion in world trade have

coincided with the infrastructure of law and order necessary to keep trade routes open being
a dominant hegemon or imperial power. 65 Thus periods of globalisation
have typically been associated with periods of hegemonic or imperial power, such as
the Pax Mongolica, the Pax Britannica and, most recently, the Pax Americana (Figure 9). The risk, then, is that by
reducing the economic clout of the United States, it is possible that the shift to a
multipolar world economy might undermine either the willingness or the
ability (or both) of Washington to continue to supply the international public goods
needed to sustain a (relatively) smoothly functioning world economy. 66 That in turn
could undermine the potential virtuous circle identified above.
tended to

provided by

Politics DA

Politics Plan Popular

Theres overwhelming bipartisan support to end Common Core
the GOP views Common Core as too much government
interference and the Dems perceive it as too much
standardized testing.
Garland 14 Sarah Garland, Executive editor of The Hechinger Report, former
Spencer Fellow in Education Reporting at Columbia University's Graduate School of
Journalism, Joint masters degree in journalism and Latin American studies from New
York University, 2014 (US education: How we got where we are today, Christian
Science Monitor, August 17, Available Online at
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2014/0817/US-education-How-we-gotwhere-we-are-today, accessed 7/6/15, KM) ** A Nation at Risk = Education report
created in 1983 that is the foundation for standardized education
But bipartisan criticism has also grown. The agenda might match almost
perfectly with a document promoted by the Reagan administration, yet on
the right, perceptions that the federal government is muscling in on local
education decisions has fueled a revolt against Common Core , in particular. And
to many on the left, the Obama administration appears to be doubling
down on the standardized testing that critics say was a misinterpretation
of A Nation at Risk. The backlash has threatened the viability of the new
policies. Originally, 45 states adopted Common Core, but several have
dropped out in the past year. Many jurisdictions are also balking at the
testing component of Common Core and the new teacher evaluations. And for
the policies to stick, schools will need to log more rapid gains in achievement than the incremental progress of the
past three decades. But supporters of the changes are hopeful. These huge shifts toward standards and outcomes,
and the one toward giving people choices, are here to stay, says Mr. Finn. Theres reason to be pleasantly
optimistic that were going to make gains. Theyll never be as fast or as big to satisfy most of us who are
impatient, he added. I dont see any point in time where we can say weve turned the corner, [but] were getting
closer to the corner. The ideas for reform espoused in A Nation at Risk are just a part of what schools need
to go from mediocre to great, according to educators at both Curtis High and Boston Collegiate. As different as the
schools are, administrators and teachers at both schools have similar concerns about whats been lost in the push
to set standards and measure performance. The two schools cite similar strategies behind their own success: high
expectations but also an intense focus on the needs of disadvantaged students both in school and out of school
and support systems to address those needs. They also point to a tight-knit culture among teachers, and
administrators who carefully cultivate trust with their faculty. And both schools cite their significant racial and ethnic
diversity, which exposes students to different people, ideas, and backgrounds, a priority that faded in many
American schools as the effort to desegregate ended in the years after A Nation at Risk. Theres

not one
100 percent solution, theres one hundred 1 percent solutions , says Arielle Zern,
an algebra teacher at Boston Collegiate. I dont think there are just these few things
that we change at every school and we improve every single school in the
nation. Goldberg is happy about the recent progress on the main policy prescriptions of A Nation at Risk, but
hes also realistic that it isnt enough to realize the reports ultimate goals that could take several decades more
and ideas beyond the five solutions. I cant let go of the fact that we still have a high dropout rate, that we still
have a growing gap in college achievement and college attainment between whites and minorities, he says.
Theres a lot that we know that we dont do. Why dont we do it? Because its hard.

Common Core is more controversial than Obamacare

opponents come from every part of the political spectrum.
Strauss 13 Valerie Strauss, education columnist for the Washington Post, 2013
(Five myths about the Common Core, Washington Post, December 13 th, Available
Online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-commoncore/2013/12/13/da05f832-5c40-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_story.html, Accessed
06-30-2015)
The reality is that resistance to the Common Core is coming from every
political direction. On the right, the tea party has indeed been vocal .
Though the Core has support from the likes of former Florida governor Jeb Bush,
conservative Republicans have mounted a sustained attack . Glenn Beck
warned his listeners: You as a parent are going to be completely pushed out of the
loop. The state is completely pushed out of the loop. They now have control of your
children.
On the left, Diane Ravitch , the most vocal critic of school reforms that focus on
standardization, has suggested that federal promotion of the Common Core
may well have been illegal.
In the middle are educators, students and parents concerned about how
the Core has been designed, written and implemented. They worry that
teachers havent had time to absorb the standards and figure out how to teach
them. They say prewritten lessons arent a good solution, because they take away
teachers ability to individualize learning according to student needs. Randi
Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers union and a
supporter of the Core, has said: You think the Obamacare implementation is
bad? The implementation of the Common Core is far worse .

Common Core is hated across the aisles GOP hates federal

and Dems hate standards.
Perkins 13 Tony Perkins, Head of the Family Research Council, 2013
(Common Cores Uncommon Opponents, Accuracy in Academia, December 5 th,
Available Online at http://www.academia.org/common-cores-uncommon-opponents/,
Accessed 06-30-2015)
If theres one thing education experts agree on, its that Common Core isnt
creating a lot of common alliances! In an interesting political twist, the
Presidents national standards seem to be producing plenty of strange
partnerships. Republicans and Democrats are reaching across the aisle for and
against the policy, while tea partiers hatch odd coalitions with teachers unions and
President Obama saddles up with Exxon-Mobil. The coalitions around Common
Core are as diverse as they are unpredictable. That wonderful old line [is]
that the problem with national standards is: Republicans dont do
national and Democrats dont do standards , said one leader.
For now, the opposition to the administrations feducation seems to be
picking up steam, as states like Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
frantically try to roll back Washingtons universal standards. In Arizona and Idaho,

the benchmarks are so unpopular that leaders have tried changing the programs
name to boost its image (Arizonas College and Career Ready Standards and
Idaho Core). Although 45 states and D.C. adopted the Core, Governors like
Louisianas Bobby Jindal (R) are trying to stop the federal governments overreach.
We need Louisiana standards, not Washington, D.C. standards.

The public is outraged about Common Core politicians will

respond.
Newman 13 Alex Newman, president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small
information consulting firm, degree in journalism from the University of Florida,
foreign correspondent for The New American magazine, writes for several
publications in the U.S. and abroad, 2013 ("Strategies to Defeat Common Core
Education Gain Momentum," The New American, September 26 th Available Online at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16627-strategies-to-defeatcommon-core-education-gain-momentum, Accessed 7-6-2015)
Across the country, opposition to the Common Core national education
standards that are being pushed by the Obama administration has been surging
in recent weeks. From Florida and Georgia to Louisiana and Wisconsin, politicians
are no longer able to ignore the growing public outrage especially
because it transcends traditional political divides and has united a
powerful coalition of libertarians, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats,
Tea Party activists, progressives, liberals, parents, teachers, experts, and
more. Various strategies to defeat the scheme are being tested, and some are
already proving successful.

Plan popular politicians don't want to be associated with

Common Core and teachers unions oppose this is especially
true in the context of the upcoming Presidential elections.
Bidwell 14 Lawrence Delevingne, education reporter for U.S. News & World
Report, 2014 (The Politics of Common Core, U.S. News & World Report, March 6,
Available Online at http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-tocommon-core/articles/2014/03/06/the-politics-of-common-core?page=3, accessed
7/8/15, KM)
Ted Cruz made no mistake in highlighting his opposition to a set of educational
standards known as Common Core in his first presidential campaign speech. "Instead of a federal
government that seeks to dictate school curriculum through Common Core," he said to applause from the Liberty
University crowd on March 23, "imagine repealing every word of Common Core." Formally known as the

Common Core State Standards, the once low-key, bipartisan effort to improve math and literacy education
has quickly transformed into a major issue for many conservatives like Cruz,
now a Republican U.S. senator from Texas, as they believe it's just another example of
government overreach. It's also a way for Cruz and other politicians likely
to vie for the Republican Party nominationincluding Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal
and Scott Walkerto differentiate themselves from potential front-runner Jeb
Bush. The former Florida governor is a long-time Common Core supporter, a topic detractors
could seek to tie to his establishment credentials and political moderation. That combination of factors has virtually
assured that Common Core will be an important topic of debate ahead of voting in November 2016. "It will be a

major issue because of its symbolic importance," said Tom Loveless, who researches education policy as a fellow at
the Brookings Institution, a politically centrist think tank. "It's red meat for the kinds of conservative activists that a
number of the contenders on the Republican side want to appeal to." From bipartisan to blow up Until a few years
ago, Common Core seemed like a benign push to make sure American public school students were competitive in
English and math. Shaped by Democratic and Republican governors and education leaders, the benchmarks were

Common Core has fast become

controversial. Conservatives pundits like Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin helped spread
the notion of a Washington takeover of schools after some federal funding was linked to
Common Core. On the left, teachers unions that once backed Common Core expressed concerns on
its recent rollout, worried that it added to overtesting of students and unfair
evaluations of instructors. Primary action Attention to Common Core will be most visible during the
adopted voluntarily in 45 states and the District of Columbia. But

presidential primaries, according to experts. The key to that is Bush, a longtime supporter of improving educational
standards in his time as Florida governor from 1999 to 2007. As conservative opposition to Common Core has
grown, Bush has been forced to defend his stance. "Raising expectations and having accurate assessments of
where kids are is essential for success, and I'm not going to back down on that," Bush said during a congressional
fundraiser in Iowa in March, according to The Associated Press. That position has put him at odds with most other
likely opponents. Take Jindal, the Louisiana governor, for example. After initially supporting the standards, Jindal
sued the Obama administration in August over Common Core, claiming that the federal grants to states related to
the Race to the Top program were unconstitutional because they forced states to adopt the standards. (Program
grants were for general standards improvement, although much of the money distributed was related to Common
Core.) Like Jindal, several other big names initially supported Common Coreor gave it tacit approvalbut have
now turned against the standards or backed away from them. Examples include Wisconsin Gov. Walker, New Jersey
Gov. Christie and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Besides Cruz, other likely candidates who are against
Common Core include Kentucky Sen. Paul, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. " They're

all sort of moving away from it," said Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Center for
Educational Freedom at libertarian think tank Cato Institute. " I don't think you want to be called
a flip-flopper, but even worse is to be associated with a policy that people
really don't like."

Obamacore is massively unpopular Republican opposition

to Common Core is even stronger than the Obamacare fights.
Bidwell 14 Lawrence Delevingne, education reporter for U.S. News & World
Report, 2014 (The Politics of Common Core, U.S. News & World Report, March 6,
Available Online at http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-tocommon-core/articles/2014/03/06/the-politics-of-common-core?page=3, accessed
7/8/15, KM)
Strong opposition to the standards, particularly from conservative Tea Party members, could
be a reaction to failed attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as
Obamacare, points out Michael Petrilli, executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and a
supporter of Common Core. "For many Tea Party folks, they are incredibly frustrated
that they can't repeal Obamacare or get their states to pull out of it," Petrilli says. "So this is
a target where maybe they can blow off some steam. They actually could succeed in
getting a state to pull out of the Common Core because it isn't a federal mandate." While opposition to the
standards was smoldering, increased federal support for the educational standards seemed to light the fuse, Petrilli
says. " In

one word, it's Obamacore ," Petrilli says. "That is their argument, that this is to
education what Obamacare is to health care." As the issue of Common Core began gaining
traction among conservatives, the Republican National Committee succeeded in passing an anti-Common Core
resolution in April 2013, saying it "recognizes the CCSS for what it is an inappropriate overreach to standardize

even
staunch supporters of the standards have said that there's a need for
adjustment at least in the implementation. "When I said that the roll out of
these standards were worse than the roll out of Obamacare, that's a real
and control the education of our children so they will conform to a preconceived 'normal.'" Since then,

problem, particularly since I'm a big believer in the critical thinking skills that this strategy is supposed to do,"
says Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Repealing Common Core is politically and socially popular

theres a strong incentive to support the plan.
Summers 14 Juana Summers, congressional reporter on NPR's Washington
Desk, former reporter for POLITICO with a focus on political and campaign coverage,
2014 (The Politics Of The Common Core, NPR, June 20, Available Online at
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/06/20/323677251/the-politics-of-the-commoncore, accessed 7/8/15, KM)
Backlash Jindal's attempt to drop the Core comes amid a backlash in many states
against the academic standards. The move is likely to boost his profile
among conservative voters and Tea Party supporters if he mounts a 2016 presidential
bid. Critics of the Core argue that the standards are an overreach by the federal government that they create a
national curriculum, undermine teacher autonomy and local control, and put too much emphasis on standardized
testing. Supporters say too many states have long used subpar standards and that the Common Core are a
necessary gut check to better prepare kids for college and the global economy. "The standards themselves
shouldn't be controversial," says Carissa Miller of the Council of Chief State School Officers, which developed the
Common Core in 2009 along with the National Governors Association. "Higher standards for kids are something that
most people believe in." Miller points out that, despite the turmoil in Louisiana, "the Common Core State Standards
are still strongly enforced in 43 of the original states that adopted them. States are making decisions about how it
best meets their needs and adapting in the ways they need to. But high standards are still in place for those

This year alone, state legislatures have seen more

than 340 bills related to the Core standards. That's according to a tally from the National
states." The Common Core Map

Conference of State Legislatures. While much of that legislation made or sought to make minor changes to the
Core standards,

entirely.

35 bills (in 11 states) attempted to revoke state adoption

Jindal is just the latest Republican governor to publicly oppose the Core. In March, Indiana Gov. Mike

Oklahoma
Gov. Mary Fallin also a one-time Core supporter did the same. And
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley signed a bill last month to replace the
standards in 2015. Both North Carolina and Missouri could soon join the list of former Core states.
Pence signed legislation making his state the first to repeal the standards. Earlier this month,

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has until mid-July to decide whether to sign a bill passed by the GOP-controlled
Legislature to drop the standards. And, in North Carolina, lawmakers are working to reconcile competing anti-Core
bills passed by the House and Senate. "The

number of bills introduced ... has really

changed the atmosphere in many of the chambers or many of the states;
it's spiked the acrimony," says the National Conference of State Legislatures' Daniel Thatcher. "It's
really consumed the education agenda for state legislatures this year in particular." Supporters of the Core welcome
a debate but say the arguments against the Core are rarely about the standards themselves. "It does seem like, on
the right, this isn't really about these standards, that it's not about legitimate concerns that the standards aren't
good standards. But the argument about government overreach just seems to be constructed out of nothing," says
Carmel Martin, executive vice president of policy for the Center for American Progress. "The facts just don't support
that spin." Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, suggests it's a
little more complicated than that. Hess says many conservatives are worried about the quality of the standards and
that the "government overreach" argument is a valid fear about "whether the Common Core enterprise represents a
slippery slope in which the federal government will play an increasing role in shaping what schools and school
systems do." "There's

a real concern," Hess says, "that no matter how well-intentioned, that in the
U.S. federal system increasing federal involvement just means the federal
government trying to write more rules for states, more rules for school
districts, and it is unlikely to work out as intended. " While resistance to Common Core
has been most visible among Republicans, particularly in the party's base, a new poll suggests that GOP voters are
evenly divided over the standards. Forty-five percent of conservatives support the standards, while 46 percent are
opposed, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released this week. Overall, 59 percent said they either

strongly or somewhat support the standards, while 31 percent said they strongly or somewhat oppose them. Hess,
of the American Enterprise Institute, says the wording used in the poll likely influenced those results. The poll
included no mention of the role of the federal government. "This is exactly like abortion for 40-odd years following
Roe v. Wade. If you ask about a woman's right to choose, you get 70 to 80 percent of Americans saying they favor
the choice," he says. "If you frame it about the vulnerable fetus, you can get 70 to 80 percent saying there ought to
be some restrictions."

Republican Congress members oppose Common Core its

politically useful, especially for Presidential candidates.
Summers 14 Juana Summers, congressional reporter on NPR's Washington
Desk, former reporter for POLITICO with a focus on political and campaign coverage,
2014 (The Politics Of The Common Core, NPR, June 20, Available Online at
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/06/20/323677251/the-politics-of-the-commoncore, accessed 7/8/15, KM)
Voting Against The Core Many Republican lawmakers who now find themselves in
competitive primaries are using the Common Core as a wedge issue
against their challengers. And it has become an important issue among
potential Republican presidential contenders looking to win over
conservatives who are worried about the power of the federal government. Jindal's break with
the Core stands in stark contrast to another conservative who's been burnishing his presidential
credentials: former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has long been an outspoken champion of the Common Core and
unwavering in his support of the standards. On Monday, Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education urged states
to move forward with implementing Core-based assessments. "We believe that, if properly implemented, these
high-quality math and English language arts standards will raise the academic bar in American classrooms," said a
statement from the foundation, "ensuring children are ready for life after high school, whether that involves

Most other potential 2016 Republican

candidates have spoken out against the Common Core. That list includes
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz,
Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.
enrolling in college or pursuing a career."

Theres overwhelming bipartisan opposition to Common Core

states rights, fear of corporate control, and teachers unions.
Martin 14 Jonathan Martin, national political correspondent for The New York
Times, former senior political writer for Politico, 2014 (Republicans See Political
Wedge in Common Core, The New York Times, April 19, Available Online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/us/politics/republicans-see-political-wedge-incommon-core.html, accessed 7/8/15, KM)
The Republican revolt against the Common Core can be traced to President Obamas embrace of it, particularly his
linking the adoption of similar standards to states eligibility for federal education grants and to waivers from No
Child Left Behind, the national education law enacted by President George W. Bush. It underlines the ascendance of
a brand of conservatism notably different from that of the most recent President Bush. Less than 15 years after No

the conservative center of

gravity is shifting toward a state-centric approach to education. When I arrived
Child Left Behind passed with just 34 House Republicans opposed to it,

on Capitol Hill in 2001, not only was the Republican administration not devolving power to the states, the No. 1
priority of the administration was a massive expansion of the federal Department of Education, recalled Mr. Pence,
who, as a congressman, opposed No Child Left Behind. The opposition to the Common Core also captures another
shift since the Bush administration: While long contemptuous of an expanding federal government,

some

Republican activists are growing wary of big business , too, including figures like Bill
Gates, the billionaire Microsoft founder whose foundation supported the development of the standards. There
is a legitimate concern about large institutions, be they government or

others, who havent really delivered the America everybody thought we were on our way to, acknowledged
John R. McKernan Jr., a former Maine governor who leads the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. But, he said,
that fear is totally misplaced when it comes to the Common Core. But would-be presidential candidates are
paying more heed to the conservative activists holding packed meetings in their states and flooding them with
emails. The Republican Party is getting more and more responsive to the grass roots, and that is a very healthy
thing for the party and the country, Mr. Cruz said. Jeb Bush said the pivot seemed more like pandering. In remarks
this month during an event at his fathers presidential library, he affirmed his support for the Common Core. I
guess Ive been out of office for a while, so the idea that something that I support because people are opposed to
it means that I have to stop supporting it if theres not any reason based on fact to do that? he said. I just dont
feel compelled to run for cover when I think this is the right thing to do for our country. With a knowing grin, he
added, Others that supported the standards all the sudden now are opposed to it. Some other former Republican
governors who pushed the adoption of the Common Core agree with Mr. Bush. There is a great deal of paranoia in
the country today, said Sonny Perdue, a former governor of Georgia, who was also instrumental in creating the
program. Its the two Ps, polarization and paranoia. Supporters of the Common Core, which outlines skills that
students in each grade should master but leaves actual decisions about curriculum to states and districts, say that
it was not created by the federal government and that it was up to the states to decide whether to adopt the
standards. But opponents say Mr. Obamas attempt to reward states that adopt the standards with grants and
waivers amounts to a backdoor grab for federal control over what is taught in schools. Standards inevitably
influence the curricula being taught to meet those standards, Mr. Cruz said. It is not just conservatives who have

leaders of major teachers unions are also pushing

back because of the new, more difficult tests aligned to the standards that
are being used to evaluate both students and teachers. You have this
unlikely marriage of folks on the far right who are convinced this is part of
a federal takeover of local education, who have joined hands with folks on
the left associated with teachers unions who are trying to sever any
connection between test results and teacher evaluation, said Gov. Bill Haslam of
turned against the Common Core: The

Tennessee, a Republican who supports the Common Core. But it is on the right that the anger is growing. A recent
forum on the Common Core in Columbus, Ohio, drew 500 people, most of them concerned parents, said Jane
Robbins, a senior fellow at the American Principles Project, a conservative group opposed to the program. Such
meetings reflect discontent that is bubbling up at the local level, where some county Republican committees are
moving to punish legislators who do not oppose the standards. I think the establishment in the party has been slow
to recognize how big this is, Ms. Robbins said.

Public misperceptions about Common Core make it politically

popular to oppose the standards.
Clement and Brown 15 Scott Clement, survey research analyst for The
Washington Post that specializes in public opinion about politics, election
campaigns, and public policy, and Emma Brown, an expert in national education,
2015 (Poll: Widespread misperceptions about the Common Core standards, The
New York Times, February 20, Available Online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/us/politics/republicans-see-political-wedge-incommon-core.html, accessed 7/8/15, KM)
Many Americans are confused about the Common Core State Standards,
according to a new poll that finds widespread misperceptions that the
academic standards which cover only math and reading extend to topics such as sex education,
evolution, global warming and the American Revolution. A 55 percent majority said the Common Core covers at
least two subjects that it does not, according to the survey that Fairleigh Dickinson University conducted and
funded. Misperceptions were widespread, including among both supporters and opponents of the program and
peaking among those who say they are paying the most attention to the standards. The Common Core is a set of
guidelines that describe what children should learn and be able to do in math and reading from kindergarten
through 12th grade. It began as a bipartisan, state-led effort and does not contain classroom curricula: States and

The poll
findings show that advocates for the Common Core face a major public
relations challenge as they seek to bolster support for the national
school districts decide how to teach the skills and knowledge that the Common Core describes.

academic standards, which have been adopted in more than 40 states but have become a target for
some conservatives and many parents across the country. People are receiving bad
information, said Blair Mann, a spokeswoman for the Collaborative for Student Success, a pro-Common Core
group that is funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which donated hundreds of millions of dollars
to develop the new standards. There are a million different Web sites that you can go to that have the truth about

Mann blamed politicians such as

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), both of whom
have presidential aspirations, for spreading misinformation for political
gain. Pauls political action committee sent a fundraising e-mail last month criticizing the standards as antithe Common Core that are just perpetuating these myths.

American propaganda, revisionist history that ignores the faith of our Founders. Jindal also suggested in a recent
speech about Common Core that the standards address U.S. history lessons. What happens when American history
is not the American history that you and I learned about, but rather it becomes a history of grievances, of
victimhood? Jindal said. Asked to explain, Shannon Bates Dirmann, a spokeswoman for Jindal said: Governor Jindal
wasnt talking about current curriculum, but what type of curriculum to expect if the federal government continues
to control what our children learn from Washington. President Obama and bureaucrats in D.C. have proven over the
last several years that they do not believe in American exceptionalism, and if they continue to garner control over
K-12 education that view could be passed to our children. Paul has said he is a proponent of state and local control
when it comes to educational standards. Common Core is a prime example of federal overreach into academic
standards which have been traditionally set by the states and localities, said Sergio Gor, a spokesman for Paul. As
educators, parents and other experts are finding out, the standards of Common Core are just the tip of the iceberg
in a much larger federal education agenda. It would be dishonest to say that the Common Core State Standards do
not inform curricula, textbooks and assessments. A distorted and problematic view of American history is evident in
Common Core aligned textbooks and the readings it recommends and omits. The issue could play a role in the
upcoming 2016 presidential primaries, separating candidates like Jindal, Paul and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
who recently changed from supporting Common Core to saying he has grave concerns about it from Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush, a longtime advocate for the standards who has maintained his support for them. Previous polls have
found mixed support , with wide-ranging results depending on question wording. In this poll, which described it
simply as the new Common Core Standards initiative, 17 percent approved while 40 percent disapproved. A
significant portion of respondents 42 percent offered no opinion. The wide uncertainty is unsurprising for an
issue that large swaths of the public, not having children in school, has ignored. Just more than half of respondents
said theyve heard just a little or nothing at all. But misperceptions were more common among those who said
they were paying more attention. Sixty percent of those who said they have heard a lot about Common Core
incorrectly said that the standards cover at least two of the four subjects that it does not cover. Among those who
report having heard nothing about the program, only 45 percent said Common Core includes at least two such
programs. Forty-four percent of all respondents incorrectly said that the standards address sex education, and
about the same share said that the standards include teachings on evolution, global warming and the American
Revolution. Fewer than one in five respondents correctly said that those subjects were not included in Common
Core. The poll found similar levels of confusion about Common Cores content among Democrats and Republicans,
supporters and opponents of the program and among people of different education levels. No matter their level of
misperceptions, more people disapprove of Common Core than approve. And even
among those who have the most misperceptions, disapproval is not especially steep. For instance, among poll
respondents who incorrectly thought the standards include all four subjects tested in the poll, 36 percent
disapproved of the standards, compared to 24 percent who approved. But the impact of Common Core confusion on
the programs popularity differed across political groups. Republicans who incorrectly believed Common Core covers
teaching on evolution, sex education and global warming were more apt to disapprove of the program. But among
Democrats and independents, support did not grow or fall with greater levels of knowledge. The Fairleigh Dickinson
Public Mind poll was conducted Dec. 8-15 by live interviewers among a random national sample of 964 adults
reached on conventional and cellular phones. The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus three
percentage points, and is higher for results among subgroups.

Federalism DA

2AC Federalism Net Benefit

Turn State repeal of Common Core increases federal control
The Daily Oklahoman 14 The Daily Oklahoman, 2014 (Repeal of Common
Core would increase federal control, The Daily Oklahoman, March 19th, Available
Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
OPPONENTS of Common Core often claim that its academic standards
represent a federal takeover of schools. No real evidence exists to support that
claim. Instead, the initiative most likely to increase federal control of
Oklahoma schools is actually the move to repeal state Common Core math
and language arts standards. Here's why: Oklahoma was granted a waiver
from the federal No Child Left Behind law.
The waiver was based in part on the state adopting either Common Core academic
standards or equally rigorous alternatives. Immediate repeal of Common Core
standards could therefore result in the loss of that waiver. The
consequences would be dramatic. Under NCLB, schools failing to meet certain
student-achievement benchmarks lose control of up to 20 percent of Title I
funds, federal cash used for low-income children. More than 1,700 of 1,784
Oklahoma schools have yet to meet those benchmarks. "We applied for a waiver,
which allows us to continue to use our Title I money at the district's discretion," said
Amber England, government affairs director of the Oklahoma branch of Stand for
Children. "If we lose our No Child Left Behind waiver, 20 percent of Title I
funds will be directed by the feds." Thus, she notes, Common Core repeal
means lawmakers would be "ceding more federal control," not increasing
local control . Some schools use Title I funds for teacher salaries, so
Common Core repeal could translate into teacher layoffs. In addition, state
government and local districts have spent millions implementing Common
Core standards since 2010. If lawmakers order an immediate repeal, "all
that money goes out the window." Stand for Children, which works to ensure all
children have access to a quality education, has been a vocal supporter of Common
Core standards. In a meeting with The Oklahoman's editorial board, the group
warned the unintended consequences of repeal aren't limited to finances. For
teachers, repeal would mean they wasted three years implementing
Common Core standards, only to be undermined at the last minute. England
says such disrespect and instability could lead more teachers to leave the
profession in a state already facing a teacher shortage." When teachers don't know
what's expected of them, they're less likely to want to stay in a hard environment
and work," she said. Some lawmakers appear aware of these problems. Although a
bill passed the House calling for revision of the standards, it delayed that process
until 2016 when a review was already scheduled. The bill also requires any new
standards adopted to essentially match or exceed Common Core standards. Those
provisions are intended to preserve Oklahoma's No Child Left Behind waiver. Still,
given the potential for enormous negative consequences, why push this
change at all? Although lawmakers voted in 2010 to adopt Common Core
standards, some now claim massive voter opposition has prompted a reassessment.
Yet polling shows the majority of Oklahomans have no strong feelings about the

standards. Only 29 percent hold unfavorable views. Once voters are given a
straightforward description of the standards, 78 percent shift to a favorable view.
And opponents rarely criticize the actual standards. Most opposition is based on
innuendo, conjecture, misinformation and disinformation. It would be beyond
ironic if, in responding to the unfounded fears of a minority about federal
control, state lawmakers actually opened the door for far greater federal
control of Oklahoma schools while wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and
undermining teachers in the process.

Terrorism DA

2AC Terrorism DA
Education key to long term prevention of terrorism.
Council on Foreign Relations 12 The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
is an independent think tank dedicated to being a resource for its members in order
to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the
United States and other countries, 2012 (U.S. Education Reform and National
Security, CFR Independent Task Force Report No. 68, March 2012, available online
via http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-education-reform-national-security/p27618,
accessed on 7/8/15)//CM
The 9/11 Commission highlighted four U.S. shortcomings that opened the
door to the terrorist attacks. One of these was a failure of imagination on
the part of U.S. security agencies.113 In 2001, the failure to spot and
connect the dots was catastrophic for the United States. The Task Force
believes that all young peoplethose who aim to work in national security
and those who aim to work in corporations or not-for-profit organizationsmust
develop their imaginations from an early age. This is increasingly important as
information becomes more and more abundant and as the world becomes more
interconnected and complex. The United States has traditionally led the world
in patent applications, inventions, and innovation. The Task Force members
believe that to retain this important competitive edge, lessons in creativity
whether in the arts or in creative analysis or imaginative problem
solving, must begin in early elementary school. These vital skills should be
incorporated into extracurricular programs as well as woven into lessons
of math, literacy, language, science, and technology and tested through
interdisciplinary simulations. The same goes for civics. As detailed in this
report, students in the United States are not currently learning the basic
rights and responsibilities of citizenship, which is leaving them both
globally unaware and oblivious to the opportunities they have as U.S.
citizens. The Task Force believes that this fundamental knowledge set should
be integrated into students formal and informal instruction, starting in
the earliest days of their educations.

Counterplans

AT: States CP

2AC States Counterplan

Perm: do both.
Perm shields the net benefit states would get the
[credit/blame] for the opt out.
States would lose hundreds of millions of education dollars if
they reject Common Core and testing.
Petrilli and Brickman 14 Michael J. Petrilli, executive vice president of the
Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education-policy think tank, where he contributes
to its Flypaper blog and weekly Education Gadfly newsletter, and Michael Brickman,
national policy director for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where he is a
commentator on education-reform issues and a regular contributor to the Flypaper
blog and other publications, 2014 ("Common Core: The Day After," Voices, a
publication of the Governing Institute, April 28 th, Available Online at
http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-what-happens-when-statesreject-common-core-education-standards.html, Accessed 7-6-2015)
Like a dog that finally catches the bus he'd been chasing forever, what happens
when opponents of the Common Core State Standards finally succeed in
getting a state's policymakers to "repeal" the education initiative ? Early
signs from Indiana and elsewhere suggest that the opponents' stated goals
are likely to get run over.
We acknowledge, of course, that Common Core critics aren't monolithic, even on
the right. Libertarians want states to reject standards, testing and accountability
overall; conservative opponents urge states to move to what they see as "higher"
standards. Both factions would like to remove the taint of federal influence from
state-based reform. (On that point, we concur.) On the left, the National Education
Association sees an opportunity to push back against a policy it never liked in the
first place. The union is using the standards as an excise to call for a moratorium on
teacher evaluations as states move to Common Core-aligned tests. Still others
worry about the standards being "too hard." (On these points, we do not concur).
So how's it going? Indiana has hit the reverse button hardest, enacting a bill that
requires the state board of education to adopt revised standards. Oklahoma seems
on the brink of doing much the same thing. No state is rejecting standards and
testing entirely. That is partially because they would lose hundreds of
millions of dollars of federal education funding and partially because few
lawmakers trust the education system to do right by all kids once it's free from
external benchmarks and measures. (Sorry, libertarians.)

Cant solve Critical Thinking cuts in education funding force

schools to eliminate programs, turning critical thinking.
Bryant 11 Jeff Bryant, associate fellow for Campaign for Americas Future,
former front page blogger for OpenLeft.com and independent communications
consultant, 2011 (Starving Americas Public Schools: How Budget Cuts and Policy

Mandates are Hurting our Nations Students, National Education Association,

Available Online at https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&ur
l=http%3A%2F%2Fourfuture.org%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fstarving-schoolsreport.pdf&ei=Ud6dVeCKKoXDggTa4oGADA&usg=AFQjCNHLXOra85oXprlX72aaTfIELA0EA&sig2=D6WKAnU51ZseE0mSmRAtNw, Accessed 07-082015)
3. Well-Rounded Curriculum
In a recent address to the National PTA, U.S. Education Secretary Arne
Duncan spoke about the importance of students receiving a well-rounded
education. The President and I reject the notion that arts, history, science, writing,
foreign language, [End of p. 13] physical education, geography, and civics are
ornamental offerings that can or should be cut from school when times are tough,
he said. In fact, in the information age, a well-rounded curriculum is not a
luxury but a necessity.22
He was obviously preaching to the choir here, as most parents and
teachers understand that children need a 21st century education that
includes classes in the arts, music, health and physical education, social
studies, and vocational training.
Here again, the research supports parents and teachers observations. A report
released in 2011 by Common Core, a respected Washington education advocacy
organization, confirmed the importance of a well-rounded education.
The report, Why Were Behind: What Top Nations Teach Their Students But
We Dont, examined the curriculum and assessments in nine countries that
have have outperformed the U.S. on the Program for International Student
Assessment, or PISA. The report found that a standard feature of those
countries school systems is the demand that students receive a broad
and diverse education. According to the report, the common ingredient
across these varied nations was a dedication to educating their children
deeply in a wide range of subjects.23
The report concluded, Too many American schools . . . are by contrast
sacrificing time spent on the arts and humanities.
Since passage of No Child Left Behind, the federal policy that mandated
rigid accountability measures for student achievement in reading and
math, schools have spent substantially more instructional time preparing
for tests in those subjects at the expense of science, social studies, art,
music, and physical education.24 Budget austerity measures can only
exacerbate that negative trend.

Cant solve Corporate Control when the government makes

budget cuts in education, corporations step in this leads to
bias and incomplete curricula Chevron proves.
CSW 10 Climate Science Watch, nonprofit public interest education and
advocacy project dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate
research effectively and with integrity in dealing with the challenge of global climate
disruption, with a primary focus is on U.S. national policy developments, 2010

(Corporate funding in public education is anyone watching?, CSW, December 23,

Available Online at http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/12/23/corporatefunding-in-public-education-is-anyone-watching/, accessed 7/8/15, KM)
Californias new environmental education program, the Education and the Environment Initiative (EEI), is another
victim of

the state budget crisis. Although the K-12 program was developed with state funding, the

state is not providing further support. In order to implement EEI, the program is soliciting $22 million in outside
funding from governmental, business, and philanthropic sources. Weve been looking into this issue out of concern

increasing private, particularly corporate, sponsorship of

public education, and for the lack of oversight by outside groups. The Education
for the ramifications of

and the Environment Initiative will have a wide reach; it is being positioned to serve as a national model, and the
new standardized K-12 environmental curriculum will reach 6.2 million students statewide and countless families,
communities, and businesses in our state and beyond. In a previous post, we discussed the state energy reader
(The Energy Source Buffet), which downplays the impacts of burning fossil fuels and doesnt address climate
change. We received a response from the California EPA, and are continuing to research the program and the issue

Corporate funding in science education is widespread in

nationwide, and in energy education specifically, a number of large
energy corporations and industry associations have produced their own
materials for distribution in schools. Large corporate energy interests
have made substantial investments in K-12 education programs, giving out
grants, bringing teachers to conferences and workshops for training, and handing out classroom materials, all
without significant oversight by environmental non-profit or watchdog
organizations of the ramifications for curriculum content. In one major example,
of corporate funding in education.
California and

Chevron Corporation is a large funder of science education and community engagement investments in California.
Through Chevrons California Partnership, an initiative announced in 2009, more than 20 nonprofit organizations
and multiple public school districts across California have received investments, totaling approximately $28
million. In one example, Chevron awarded $1 million to community development organizations in Richmond,
California, the site of one of its oil refineries that has been in high priority violation of Clean Air Act compliance
standards since at least 2006 and has had disproportionately high health impacts on Richmond residents. Chevron
is also a sponsor of the National Energy Education Development Project (NEED), a nationwide program working to
provide energy education curriculum and training to every appropriate classroom in the nation. The project has
been in existence for 30 years, and is sponsored by a range of energy interests, including large energy corporations
and industry groups like BP, ConocoPhillips, the American Petroleum Institute, Pacific Gas and Electric, and
Halliburton. Supported by a grant from BPs A+ for Energy Program, NEEDs California program provides educators
with access to grants, NEED training, and NEED curriculum. BP and NEED hosted seven Energy Conferences for

Chevron has also purchased and is promoting Energy4Me

energy education materials presented by the Society of Petroleum Engineers for distribution in
Educators in 2005.

schools. The Energy4Me kit includes classroom activities and presentations, teaching aids, and speaker resources.
Materials are available free to teachers when an energy professional gives a classroom presentation, or when
teachers attend a science teacher professional development workshop, with substitute reimbursement provided.

Teachers can also be provided with the Oil and Natural Gas book, which
shows kids how petroleum and natural gas shapes our world , or an "Energy
Sources of the World!" booklet that discusses the pros and cons of different energy sources. Materials from this
energy education module were distributed by Chevron representatives at the recent California Science Teachers
Association conference. The front of the "Energy Sources of the World!" booklet reads: A Gift from the People of
Chevron. The ramifications of corporate energy funding in academic research have been studied and written about
recently, but to our knowledge the same scrutiny hasnt been extended to the influence of corporate money in K-12
education programs, at least outside of the professional education community. Should gifts from Chevron be

The conflict of interest involved in for-profit

corporations sponsoring education programs in subject matters coinciding
with their business interests is clear, but the issue hasnt been fleshed out, especially with
anywhere near the classroom?

more nuanced cases like EEI, where corporate support will come after the program has been developed. Well be
continuing to write about EEI as an example of this dynamic in action, and welcome any feedback.

Uniform 50-state fiat is a voting issue its mechanism

disconnected from literature, hurting students civic
knowledge magical thinking about state capabilities fosters
a race to the margins of domestic topics, sidestepping core
surveillance controversies dramatically weakens students
expertise and decision-making competence. Our
interpretation: the neg gets to devolve responsibility and
incentivize state behavior, but they cannot fiat uniform 50state action reject the team to preserve competitive equity.
Equality DA
Repealing Common Core takes away states necessary Title I
funding
Fisher 13 Sierra Fisher, Clerk at Karczewski Bradshaw LLP, J.D. and Magna
Cum Laude at Texas Tech School of Law, former Policy Analyst, Texas House of
Representatives, B.A. in Government and Communications from The University of
Texas at Austin, 2013 (Compulsory Accountability Renders The No Child Left Behind
Act Unconstitutional: The Texas Education Agency's Ultimate Tool To Ensure Its
Waiver From The Department Of Education, Texas Tech Administrative Law Journal
(14 Tex. Tech. Admin. L. J. 467), Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via LexisNexis)
Congress is struggling to amend the ESEA-operating under its current title
NCLB- leaving states and school districts stuck with a ten-year-old law [*478] that
needs retooling. n123 As a result, President Obama and the Department of
Education agreed to grant state education agencies waivers exempting
states from some of the NCLB's requirements, including obtaining 100%
proficiency by the year 2014. n124 In exchange for the reprieve, the Department
of Education "require[s] states to adopt standards for college and career readiness,
focus improvement efforts on 15 percent of the most troubled schools, and create
guidelines for teacher evaluations based in part on student performance." n125
States that adopted the Core Curriculum State Standards Initiative (Common
Core)-the national curriculum the Department of Education pushes that Texas and
other states refuse to utilize-meet the college readiness standards
requirement. n126 However, the states that adopted their own curriculum can
meet the standard only if their university systems approve the curriculum as
college-ready. n127 These waivers force states to implement the Common
Core or forgo the necessary flexibility to continue receiving their Title I
funds. n128 Critics speculate whether or not the waiver process is an
attempt to force national curriculum, which infringes on states' rights to
develop and implement their own curriculum standards. n129 Some states are
not in the position to choose between Title I funding and their desired
curriculum , forcing a concession into national curriculum. n130

Title I funding provides assistance to low-income families

Deparment of Education 14 United States Department of Education,
2014 ("Title I, Part A Program," No Publication, 6-4-2014, Available Online at
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html, Accessed 7-8-2015)
Program Description
Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended
(ESEA) provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs)
and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from lowincome families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state
academic standards. Federal funds are currently allocated through four statutory
formulas that are based primarily on census poverty estimates and the cost of
education in each state.

Ensuring equal education opportunities for disadvantaged

children is a moral obligation
Hayes 12 Kelli A. Hayes, PhD in Applied Philosophy Ethics from Stellenbosch
University, 2012 (Our Moral Obligations To Disadvantaged Children, Dissertation
for Stellenbosch University, 2012, Available Online at
http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/71680, Accessed 07-08-2015)
There are, however, six pragmatic reasons for individuals to help
disadvantaged children. First, such assistance strengthens the economy by
increasing growth, improving labor productivity, and reducing the budget
deficit. Next, it increases civil participation. Furthermore, investing in
disadvantaged children improves national security and reduces population
growth. It also [End of p. 312] enhances quality of life by increasing
innovation and technology, reducing crime, and improving health. Finally,
reciprocity provides another pragmatic reason to assist disadvantaged
children.
Although pragmatic arguments are necessary for convincing certain skeptics, it is
the moral arguments that contain the most important reasons for assisting
disadvantaged children. As a result, the dissertation first explored the nature of
moral obligations and, specifically, obligations of beneficence. Interestingly,
globalization lessens the impact of the geographical distance and more
closely links humanity. Due to both this and the moral arbitrariness of nationality,
special obligations do not override the arguments contained in this dissertation, and
the case for cosmopolitanism remains strong.
Having established this, the dissertation continued by exploring the moral
arguments for helping children and examining the institutional and individual
aspects of fulfilling such obligations, concluding although institutions are
important, individuals maintain ultimate responsibility. People have
obligations to children due to both the benefit of being in society as well
as the nature of moral luck. What do these obligations entail? They entail
establishing a substantive equality of opportunity for children , and can be
grounded in ideas of equal moral status and the common morality. It is
acceptable that the latter is incompletely theorized grounding, and disagreement
over these ideas actually enhances them.

With the philosophical case for the central premise established, what are the
specific obligations individuals have to children? To answer this question, one must
understand the idea of a childs best interests and *his [or her] need for
nutritious food, clean drinking water, adequate sanitation, good
healthcare, decent shelter, a proper education, and love and guidance. It is
important to note these obligations are indivisible and can be fulfilled through time,
money, or in-kind donations.
[*Edited for gendered language]

2AC Funding Competitiveness DA

Education funding cuts cause economic decline and
competitiveness lack of quality of education including highlevel technical and analytical skills
Leachman and Mai 14 Michael Leachman, Director of State Fiscal Research
with the State Fiscal Policy at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, former policy
analyst for nine years at the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP), a member of
the State Priorities Partnership, Ph.D. in sociology from Loyola University Chicago,
and Chris Mai, Research Assistant at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Master
of Public Policy from the University of Virginia's Frank Batten School and a B.A. in
Foreign Affairs from the University of Virginia, 2014 ("Most States Still Funding
Schools Less Than Before the Recession," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
October 16th, Available Online at http://www.cbpp.org/research/most-states-stillfunding-schools-less-than-before-the-recession, Accessed 7-8-2015)
The cuts undermine education reform and hinder school districts' ability to
deliver high-quality education, with long-term negative effects on the
nation's economic competitiveness. Many states and school districts have
undertaken important school reform initiatives to prepare children better for the
future, but deep funding cuts hamper their ability to implement many of
these reforms. At a time when producing workers with high-level technical
and analytical skills is increasingly important to a country's prosperity,
large cuts in funding for basic education threaten to undermine the
nation's economic future.

Large cuts to state education budgets cause economic decline

job loss and no technical or analytical skill training
SCAD 14 a group of multidisciplinary designers at Savannah College of Art and
Design for the Design Management Design Futures class of Winter 2014, 2014,
(The Future of Education in the American South, Design Futures, Available Online
at http://www.slideshare.net/laurennp/the-future-of-education-in-the-americansouth?from_action=save&from=fblanding, Accessed 07-08-2015)
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE SOUTH
States large cuts in education spending have serious consequences for
the economy, in both the short and long term. Local school districts
typically have little ability to make up for lost state funding on their own.
As a result, deep state funding cuts lead to job losses, slowing the
economys recovery from the recession.
Such cuts also counteract and sometimes undermine important state
education reform initiatives at a time when producing workers with highlevel technical and analytical skills is increasingly important to a countrys
prosperity. State education budget cuts prolonged the recession and have
slowed the pace of economic recovery by reducing overall economic activity.
Special programs are also being cut as a result including those that assist
students with special needs as well as Advanced Placement courses,

extracurricular activities and special academic programs for science,

foreign language and technology.
Cuts to education has yielded a downward spiral effect, as hundreds of
thousands of educators have lost their jobs. They also force the
termination of school programs and services, which hinder education
reform efforts that are often disproportionately focused on low-income
communities, furthering the education and achievement gap among
students of varying economic backgrounds.

2AC CP Links to Politics

CP Links to Politics: the cuts to grant money generated are
politically divisive splinters democrats
Education Week 14 Education Week offers weekly news on the American
education system, including nonpartisan reviews of local state and federal
education policies. 2014. Tensions Surface as States Queue Up for Early-Ed.
Grants November 5, Available for access via LexisNexis. Accessed on 07-14-2015)
Although a majority of states put in for a share of the $250 million the U.S.
Department of Education has allotted for a grant competition to expand
preschool, even so popular a program could not escape some partisanship.
Some high-profile GOP governors — in Indiana, Louisiana, and
Wisconsin—either didn't apply for the federal money or threatened
not to do so. And Democratic politicians who support the Preschool
Development Grant program have, in some cases, used that as a way to
criticize political opponents.
In all, eight states and Puerto Rico are competing for a share of the $80
million in grants that are allotted for states that are just launching
preschool programs. An additional 27 states are seeking a share of $160 million
for "expansion" of already-existing programs. The remaining $10 million will be used
for technical assistance and program monitoring.
The number of applicants matched a prediction that U.S. Secretary of
Education Arne Duncan made in San Francisco last month, at an event to
drum up support for the administration's early-learning initiatives.
"I think we're going to get in something like 35 or 36 states applying, which I think is
amazing," Mr. Duncan said. "Realistically, we'll probably fund six, eight, nine,
something like that. That's the challenge. There's always so much more demand,
and there'll be so many more great states that we want to fund than we're going to
have dollars available. So we'll go as far as we can down the funding slate, but
again, as a nation, this has to become a greater priority."
Political Battles
But the grant offer got a particularly rocky reception in a few states.

This is especially true in the context of Bobby Jindal a

presidential candidate with political swing.
Education Week 14 Education Week offers weekly news on the American
education system, including nonpartisan reviews of local state and federal
education policies. 2014. Tensions Surface as States Queue Up for Early-Ed.
Grants November 5, Available for access via LexisNexis. Accessed on 07-14-2015)
The friction started with Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana—a
Republican not up for re-election but widely considered a likely 2016
presidential contender—who fired off letters early this month to the
Education Department and to his state education chief, John White, asking
for assurances that the state would not be required to use the money to
promote the Common Core State Standards. Mr. Jindal, an early common-

core supporter, has reversed course. He filed a lawsuit in August against

the Obama administration, calling the standards a federal overreach.
Mr. Jindal said in an Oct. 11 letter that Louisiana's early-learning standards appear
to be connected to the common core, prompting Mr. White to respond in an Oct. 12
missive that, "The early-learning standards equip children with skills like how to hold
a pencil, how to identify a color, and how to be polite. Children equipped with these
skills will be prepared for any kindergarten using any standard." The governor's
office eventually agreed to sign the application.
Indiana was among the states that had signaled an intent to apply for the funds, a
step that's not a prerequisite for grant programs, but offers the Education
Department a clue about the popularity of a given program. However, with the
application complete and ready to be transmitted, Republican Gov. Mike Pence, who
has supported a state-funded preschool pilot program, said he would not move
forward. Instead, the state should focus on its own preschool pilot program just
starting in five counties, he said.
His change in position brought a stinging public rebuke from Glenda Ritz, the state's
elected superintendent of public instruction. "Gov. Pence's about-face with little or
no notice to those who had worked in concert with his administration on the grant
application is bad for our state and our children," she said, in a statement carried in
the Indianapolis Star.
Capacity Concerns
Wisconsin did not indicate any intent to apply for the funds, and state Democrats
used that to criticize Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican. Wisconsin has accepted
federal funding for early education before; the state applied for Early Learning
Challenge grant funds and was awarded $34 million in 2013.
Opponents of Gov. Walker said that the failure to apply for the new funds showed a
general neglect of federal funding opportunities. "Playing political games with these
federal grant opportunities, while neglecting our infrastructure, ignoring our most
vulnerable citizens, and running up a projected $1.9 billion deficit is inexcusable,"
said U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, a Democrat from Wisconsin.
However, Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for the governor, said that Mr. Walker
deferred to the state education department and department of children and families
regarding the grant. But Tom McCarthy, a spokesman for the state Department of
Public Instruction, said the agency did not advise the governor to forgo the grant.
The election-year timing of the grant may have played a role in the
wrangling in some cases, but governors may have also been facing some
specific state political issues, said Sara Mead, an early childhood policy
analyst with Bellwether Education Partners in Washington. For example, in
Indiana, Mr. Pence had proposed a larger preschool program, but had to
overcome opposition in his own party to get the smaller program now
underway.

2AC PreK DA
Status quo federal funding is key to maintain and broaden
access to early childhood education especially in minority and
lower income communities.
DOE 14 US department of education, internally quoting Arnie Duncan who
serves as the Secretary of Education for the Barack Obama Administration. 18
States Awarded New Preschool Development Grants to increase Access to HighQuality Preschool Programs DOE Press Release, Available at
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/18-states-awarded-new-preschooldevelopment-grants-increase-access-high-quality-preschool-programs. Accessedon
"Expanding access to high-quality preschool is critically important to
ensure the success of our children in school and beyond," said Secretary
Duncan. "The states that have received new Preschool Development
Grants will serve as models for expanding preschool to all 4-year-olds from
low- and moderate-income families. These states are demonstrating a strong
commitment to building and enhancing early learning systems, closing equity
gaps and expanding opportunity so that more children in America can
fulfill their greatest potential."
Under the grant program, states with either small or no state-funded
preschool programs were eligible for development grants, while states with
more robust preschool programs, or that have received Race to the Top-Early
Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grants, were eligible for expansion grants. Twelve
states that have not previously received funding from RTT-ELC will receive funding
from the jointly-administered Preschool Development Grant program (see list
below).
Through these Preschool Development Grant awards, more than 33,000
additional children will be served in high-quality preschool program s that
meet high-quality standards in the first year of the program alone. States
receiving grants will develop or expand high-quality preschool programs in
regionally diverse communitiesfrom urban neighborhoods to small towns
to tribal areasas determined by the state. Preschool programs funded under
either category of grants must meet the criteria for high-quality preschool
programs. To support states in planning their budgets, the U.S.
Departments of Education and Health and Human Services developed
annual budget caps for each state that is eligible to receive a Preschool
Development Grant. The departments developed grant funding categories by
ranking every state according to its relative share of eligible children and then
identifying the natural breaks in the rank order. Then, based on population, budget
caps were developed for each category.
The grants were part of more than $1 billion in new federal and private
sector investments in early childhood education announced by President
Obama during today's White House Summit on Early Education. The
President also announced a new public awareness campaign called "Invest in US" in
partnership with the First Five Years Fund.

Early childhood education is key for economic development

and supporting the economy, preventing crime and solving for
high prison populations
Rolnick 03 Arthur J Rolnick is a Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the Human
Capital Research Collaborative at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, the
University of Minnesota. Rolnick is working to advance multidisciplinary research on
child development and social policy. He previously served at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Minneapolis as a senior vice president and director of research and as an
associate economist with the Federal Open Market Committeethe monetary
policymaking body for the Federal Reserve System. Rolnicks essays on public policy
issues have gained national attention; his research interests include banking and
financial economics, monetary policy, monetary history, the economics of
federalism, and the economics of education. His work on early childhood
development has garnered numerous awards, including those from the George
Lucas Educational Foundation and the Minnesota Department of Health, both in
2007; he was also named 2005 Minnesotan of the Year by Minnesota Monthly
magazine. Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a high
Public Return
Market failures can occur for a variety of reasons; two well-documented failures are goods that have external
effects and those with public attributes. Unfettered markets will generally produce the wrong amount of such goods.

Education has long been recognized as a good that has external effects
and public attributes. Without public support, the market will yield too few
educated workers and too little basic research. This problem has long been
understood in the United States and it is why our government, at all
levels, has supported public funding for education. (According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, for example, the United States in 1999 ranked high on public
funding of higher education.2 ) Nevertheless, recent studies suggest that one critical form of
education, early childhood development, or ECD, is grossly underfunded. However, if properly
funded and managed, investment in ECD yields an extraordinary return,
far exceeding the return on most investments, private or public. A convincing
economic case for publicly subsidizing education has been around for
years and is well supported. The economic case for investing in ECD is more recent and deserves
more attention. Public funding of education has deep roots in U.S. history. John Adams, the author of the oldest
functioning written constitution in the world, the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1779,
declared in that document that a fundamental duty of government is to provide for education.3 Publicly funded

Today over 85 percent of U.S

children are educated in publicly funded schools. John Adams argued for public funding
schools have been educating children in the United States ever since.

of education because he realized the importance of educated voters to the well-being of a democracy. We suspect

Investment in human
capital breeds economic success not only for those being educated, but
also for the overall economy. Clearly today, the market return to education is sending a strong
signal. Prior to 1983, the wages of a worker with an undergraduate degree
exceeded a worker with a high school degree by roughly 40 percent.
Currently, that difference is close to 60 percent. The wage premium for an advanced
that he also understood the economic benefits that flow to the general public.

degree has grown even more. Prior to 1985, the wages of a worker with a graduate degree exceeded those of a
worker with a high school degree by roughly 60 percent .

Today, that difference is over 100

percent. Minnesota represents a good example of the economic benefits
that flow from education. Evidence is clear that our state has one of the most successful economies in

In 2000, almost a third of

persons 25 and older in Minnesota held at least a bachelors degree, the
sixth highest state in the nation. To ensure the future success of
Minnesotas economy, we must continue to provide a highly educated
workforce. Knowing that we need a highly educated workforce, however, does
the country because it has one of the most educated workforces.

not tell us where to invest limited public resources. Policymakers must identify the educational investments that
yield the highest public returns. Here the literature is clear: Dollars invested in ECD yield extraordinary public

The quality of life for a child and the contributions the child makes to
society as an adult can be traced back to the first few years of life. From
birth until about 5 years old a child undergoes tremendous growth and
change. If this period of life includes support for growth in cognition, language, motor skills, adaptive skills and
returns.

social-emotional functioning, the child is more likely to succeed in school and later contribute to society.4

However, without support during these early years, a child is more likely
to drop out of school, receive welfare benefits and commit crime. A wellmanaged and well-funded early childhood development program, or ECDP,
provides such support. Current ECDPs include home visits as well as center-based programs to
supplement and enhance the ability of parents to provide a solid foundation for their children. Some have been
initiated on a large scale, such as federally funded Head Start, while other small-scale model programs have been
implemented locally, sometimes with relatively high levels of funding per participant. The question we address is
whether the current funding of ECDPs is high enough. We make the case that it is not, and that the benefits
achieved from ECDPs far exceed their costs. Indeed, we find that the return to ECDPs far exceeds the return on
most projects that are currently funded as economic development. The question we address is whether the current
funding of ECDPs is high enough. We make the case that it is not, and that the benefits achieved from ECDPs far
exceed their costs. Indeed, we find that the return to ECDPs far exceeds the return on most projects that are
currently funded as economic development.Many of the initial studies of ECDPs found little improvement; in
particular, they found only shortterm improvements in cognitive test scores. Often children in early childhood
programs would post improvements in IQ relative to nonparticipants, only to see the IQs of nonparticipants catch up
within a few years.5 However, later studies found more long-term effects of ECDPs. One often-cited research project
is the High/Scope study of the Perry Preschool in Ypsilanti, Mich., which demonstrates that the returns available to
an investment in a high-quality ECDP are significant. During the 1960s the Perry School program provided a daily 2
1/2-hour classroom session for 3- to 4-year-old children on weekday mornings and a 1 1/2-hour home visit to each
mother and child on weekday afternoons. Teachers were certified to teach in elementary, early childhood and
special education, and were paid 10 percent above the local public school districts standard pay scale. During the

Beginning in 1962,
researchers tracked the performance of children from low-income black
families who completed the Perry School program and compared the results to a control
group of children who did not participate. The research project provided reliable
longitudinal data on participants and members of the control group. At
age 27, 117 of the original 123 subjects were located and interviewed.7 The results of the research were
annual 30-week program, about one teacher was on staff for every six children.6

significant despite the fact that, as in several other studies, program participants lost their advantage in IQ scores

Therefore a significant
contribution to the programs success likely derived from growth in
noncognitive areas involving social-emotional functioning. During elementary and
over nonparticipants within a few years after completing the program.

secondary school, Perry School participants were less likely to be placed in a special education program and had a

Over 65 percent of
program participants graduated from regular high school compared with
45 percent of nonparticipants. At age 27, four times as many program
participants as nonparticipants earned $2,000 or more per month. And
only one-fifth as many program participants as nonparticipants were
arrested five or more times by age 27.8
significantly higher average achievement score at age 14 than nonparticipants.

Prison population reform is the internal link to solving for

broader change. The CP would only worsen social movements.
Gregg 13 Carl Gregg, graduate of Furman University, he receivedhis BA in Philosophy, in 2003 he
graduated Brite University in Fort Worth, Texas, earning his M. Div.In 2009 he received his Diploma in spiritual
direction from University of California SF. (The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Age of Colorblindness

Accessed 08-21-2015)
And at least in my opinion, a commitment to principles such as The inherent
worth and dignity of every person and Justice, equity and compassion in
human relations requires working for a shift from a Criminal Justice
System primarily characterized by Punitive Justice to one primarily
characterized by Restorative Justice that is, a focus less on punishment than
on rehabilitation, restoring right relationship for all concerned, and on repairing the
problems that contribute to crimes being committed in the first place. For
example, in the U.S., we spend more on prisons than police, but those
numbers were reversed before the rise of the Prison-Industrial Complex
began in this county. And communities such as New York City have been
able in recent years to decrease prison populations and crime rates
through increased police work, although those statistics are complicated
by use of stop and frisk rules that disproportionately stop and frisk
people of color.6 We relatedly need to do a much better job about teaching,
promoting, and protecting our Fourth Amendment rights: The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause.... Disturbingly the trend in recent years has been many
court rulings that seem to many to undermine the Fourth Amendment and
encourage unreasonable search including rampant racial profiling,
contributing to a disproportionately high rate of incarceration for racial
minorities (63-64, 69). To name one further possibly response to The New Jim
Crow, as some of you know, many decades ago this congregation became a lifetime
member of the NAACP, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People. I know that some of you have been involved at various points in
working with the NAACP. And we have invited the President of the local
branch of the NAACP to our discussion this evening. My understanding is
that he plans to attend, and that he has spread the word as well to some
of his contacts. I do not know whether other members of the NAACP will attend,
but if this congregation were to become serious about anti-racist work, a strong first
step might be for some of us to start attending NAACP meetings to hear from
people of color directly about their stories, their struggles, and their ongoing work
for racial justice.
Article published through Frederick Oversight.

[insert econ decline impact]

1AR Early Education Solves preK

Early Childhood Education really does solve for poverty and
crime. Obamas Federally funded programs are especially
important.
Kristof 13 Nichola Kristoff has been a olumnist for the NT Times since 2001. Kristof
has won two Pulitzer Prizes for his coverage of Tiananmen Square and eh genocide
in Darfis \, along with humanitarian awards such as the Anne Frank Award and the
Dayton Literary Peace Prize. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard College and
then studied law at Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, graduating with first
class honors. 2013. (Do We Invest in Preschools or Prisons? The New York Times,
October 27. Available vie LexisNexis or at NyTimes.com. Accessed on 07-16-2015)
Growing mountains of research suggest that the best way to address
American economic inequality, poverty and crime is -- you guessed it! -early education programs, including coaching of parents who want help.
It's not a magic wand, but it's the best tool we have to break cycles of
poverty.
President Obama called in his State of the Union address for such a
national initiative, but it hasn't gained traction. Obama himself hasn't
campaigned enough for it, yet there's still a reed of hope.
One reason is that this is one of those rare initiatives that polls well
across the spectrum, with support from 84 percent of Democrats and 60
percent of Republicans in a recent national survey. And even if the program
stalls in Washington, states and localities are moving ahead -- from San Antonio to
Michigan. Colorado voters will decide next month on a much-watched ballot
measure to bolster education spending, including in preschool, and a ballot measure
in Memphis would expand preschool as well.
''There's this magical opportunity'' now to get a national early education program in
America, Education Secretary Arne Duncan told me. He says he's optimistic that
members of Congress will introduce a bipartisan bill for such a plan this year.
''When you think how you make change for the next 30 years, this is arguably at the
top of my list,'' Duncan said. ''It can literally transform the life chances of children,
and strengthen families in important ways.''
Whether it happens through Congressional action or is locally led, this may be the
best chance America has had to broaden early programs since 1971, when
Congress approved such a program but President Nixon vetoed it.
The massive evidence base for early education grew a bit more with a
major new study from Stanford University noting that achievement gaps
begin as early as 18 months. Then at 2 years old, there's a six-month
achievement gap. By age 5, it can be a two-year gap. Poor kids start so far
behind when school begins that they never catch up -- especially because
they regress each summer.
One problem is straightforward. Poorer kids are more likely to have a single teenage
mom who is stressed out, who was herself raised in an authoritarian style that she
mimics, and who, as a result, doesn't chatter much with the child.
Yet help these parents, and they do much better. Some of the most astonishing
research in poverty-fighting methods comes from the success of programs

to coach at-risk parents -- and these, too, are part of Obama's early
education program. ''Early education'' doesn't just mean prekindergarten for 4year-olds, but embraces a plan covering ages 0 to 5.
The earliest interventions, and maybe the most important, are home visitation
programs like Nurse-Family Partnership. It begins working with at-risk moms during
pregnancy, with a nurse making regular visits to offer basic support and guidance:
don't drink or smoke while pregnant; don't take heroin or cocaine. After birth, the
coach offers help with managing stress, breast-feeding and diapers, while
encouraging chatting to the child and reading aloud.
These interventions are cheap and end at age 2. Yet, in randomized
controlled trials, the gold standard of evaluation, there was a 59 percent
reduction in child arrests at age 15 among those who had gone through
the program.
Something similar happens with good pre-K programs. Critics have noted
that with programs like Head Start, there are early educational gains that
then fade by second or third grade. That's true, and that's disappointing.
Yet, in recent years, long-term follow-ups have shown that while the
educational advantages of Head Start might fade, there are ''life skill''
gains that don't. A rigorous study by David Deming of Harvard, for example,
found that Head Start graduates were less likely to repeat grades or be
diagnosed with a learning disability, and more likely to graduate from high
school and attend college.
Look, we'll have to confront the pathologies of poverty at some point. We
can deal with them cheaply at the front end, in infancy. Or we can wait
and jail a troubled adolescent at the tail end. To some extent, we face a
choice between investing in preschools or in prisons .

1AR Education Funding Links

Common Core repeal risks hundreds of millions in federal
funding for each state crippling quality education
Charleston Daily Mail 15 Charleston Daily Mail, 2015 ("Bill to repeal
Common Core draws concern from state school board," Byline Samuel Speciale,
February 24th, Available Online at
http://www.charlestondailymail.com/article/20150224/DM01/150229598, Accessed
7-10-2015)
Repealing the standards may be even more harmful though.
Federal law, under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, requires
states to have education standards and aligned student assessments.
States that are not compliant risk forfeiting federal funding.
Pasdon said she and others within her party are aware a repeal of Common Core,
if not done correctly, could jeopardize the $362 million the federal
government allocates to West Virginia. In drafting the bill, she said the goal
was getting rid of the standards in a way that doesnt risk that funding and still
ensures students are held to high academic standards.
The set of national math and English standards has been controversial since they
were adopted in 2010 by more than 40 states. Created through a partnership of
governors and state school officials in 2009, Common Core guarantees
public school students across the country get the same basic education.
After the standards were released, the U.S. Department of Education supported
the standards and, with the help of President Barack Obama, offered $4.3 billion
in competitive grants to adopting states.
Pasdons bill asserts that the federal government coerced states into
adopting Common Core by issuing money and waivers, calling it an
inappropriate usurpation of state sovereignty over public education.
While many Common Core opponents make that claim, state Department of
Education officials have long defended the standards, which they retooled to better
reflect West Virginia students. They also renamed them the Next Generation
Content Standards.
State Superintendent Michael Martirano and school board members have
repeatedly said West Virginia must stay the course in implementing the standards
because they help students learn on a deeper level and compete internationally.
In a statement released Tuesday evening, Martirano said there will be
significant consequences , which will ripple through our states education
structure and cripple high-quality teaching if the state board is forced to
repeal the standards.

Repealing common core risks up to 581 million dollars in

funding for a single state
Arizona Daily Sun 15 Arizona Daily Sun, 2015 ("Ducey: Keep Common
Core," Byline Howard Fischer, March 23rd, Available Online at

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/ducey-keep-common-core----fornow/article_af5755f5-d280-59ef-8378-0020fa96e127.html, Accessed 7-10-2015)

But it was Ducey's direction to the board to review -- and not scrap -- the
standards, that was the key point.
"I am calling on this board to make right the situation,'' he told them.
Ducey's complaints about federal intervention aside, there is real money at
issue here.
In a briefing paper, state Department of Education said federal law requires
Arizona to assess students according to standards. Failure to comply
places about $324 million at risk , with the possible loss of another $257
million.

29 million dollars of Title I funding are also tied to Common

Core
Politico 14 Politico, 8-28-2014 ("Common Core repeal costs Oklahoma its
NCLB waiver," Byline Caitlin Emma, August 28th, Available Online at
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/oklahoma-common-core-no-child-left-behindwaiver-110421.html, Accessed 7-10-2015)
Stripping the waiver means at most Oklahoma schools, 100 percent of students
performing math and reading at grade level by this school year. The Education
Department expects the state to use student test results from last school year to
determine which schools are meeting the bar. Some schools that fall short
arent will have to take steps toward improvement, which could include a
total restructuring of the staff or a private or state takeover of the school.
The state will have to set aside about $29 million in federal Title I dollars
to pay for tutoring and school choice.

Education waivers bought state compliance with Common Core

repealing cedes funding
Arizona Daily Sun 15 Arizona Daily Sun, 2015 ("Ducey: Keep Common
Core," Byline Howard Fischer, March 23rd, Available Online at
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/ducey-keep-common-core----fornow/article_af5755f5-d280-59ef-8378-0020fa96e127.html, Accessed 7-10-2015)
In many ways, Monday's speech amounted to Ducey backing away from his
arguments during the campaign that Arizona does not need Common Core. In fact,
when Ducey spoke Monday he suggested that all the vocal objections to
the standards, developed in part by the National Governors Association,
are misdirected and mistaken.
"There's a lot of misunderstanding around this,'' he said. "I think it's because of the
very real fact that Washington, D.C., did get involved in the funding.''
And Ducey said that issue predates Common Core, saying Arizona has to get
waivers from the No Child Left Behind standards approved by Congress in
2001.
"It's purchased obedience from the states for these waivers,'' he said. That,
said the governor, is a separate question from the adequacy of the standards.

Opting out of Common Core costs states tens of millions of

dollars not only do they lose federal funding, but they also
need to rewrite standards and tests and retrain their teachers.
Times Picayune 14 New Orleans Times Picayune, Byline Julia O'Donoghue,
2014 ("Education Department says scrapping Common Core would cost Louisiana,"
NOLA Times Picayune, March 28th, Available Online at
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/03/education_department_says_comm.h
tml, Accessed 7-6-2015)
Louisiana would have to spend millions of dollars if it scrapped the
Common Core educational standards and associated tests for primary and
secondary education, according to an internal memo issued by the state
Department of Education.
The state would spend anywhere from $20 million to $25 million to get rid of
Common Core, depending on whether it reverted back to old academic standards
and assessments, bought off-the-shelf tests or developed brand new material
afterward. Local school districts would also have to spend millions of dollars
retraining teachers and purchasing new instructional materials, according
to the document sent from Deputy Superintendent Beth Scioneaux to Louisiana
Superintendent John White.
"In every case, the cost implications reach well into the tens of millions of
dollars," wrote Scioneaux to White in the memo.

States that reject Common Core testing will lose federal

education funding.
Swasey 13 Christel Swasey, MA in Communications, Certified Teacher, founder
of Utahns Against Common Core, 2013 ("The Federal Fist: No Formula Funding if
States Reject Common Core," COMMON CORE, September 3 rd, Available Online at
https://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/the-federal-fist-no-formulafunding-if-states-reject-common-core/, Accessed 7-6-2015)
First, the federal government forces Americans to choose between giving our
hard-earned educational tax dollars to them or going to jail. Next, they
promise to give back some of that money so we can stretch it tightly across
our educational budgets after the feds pay themselves most of it.
So far, so bad.
Then, the feds threaten that they will withhold even that little bit of our
money if we dont merrily skip to the illegitimate tune of Common Core.
Do the fact check.
The Department of Education in the Departments Blueprint for Reform uses these
sweet sounding words: The goal for Americas educational system is clear: Every
student should graduate from high school ready for college and a career Nice.
(Note to self: whenever the government says something deafeningly obvious, to
which nobody could raise any argument, beware: watch what the other hand is
doing.)

And meanwhile the Department slyly alters and sets in stone the new definition of
what it will mean in their documents and funding formulas to be ready for college
and career.
See their official definition:
College- and career-ready standards: Content standards for kindergarten through
12th grade that build towards college- and career-ready graduation requirements
(as defined in this document) by the time of high school graduation. A States
college- and career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that are common
to a significant number of States; or (2) standards that are approved by a State
network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who
meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level.
(As far as I know, there is no state that has chosen to use option #2 which is using
higher ed to certify that state standards are college and career ready.)
So, college and career ready standards MUST BE COMMON to a significant number
of states?
Why? On whose authority? Since when is everybodys doing it a legitimate reason
to jump off a cliff?
What if every state in the USA had lousy standards and yours alone had good ones?
(Hello, Massachusetts!)
What if your state defined college and career readiness in a completely different
way than a significant number of states defined it? Why the choke-collar? Why the
peer pressure? If Common Core is so great, why the need for federal bullying?
Is bullying too strong a word? Read on.
Back in 2011, the Department of Education was already promising to
punish those who push back against Common Core, saying:
Beginning in 2015, formula funds will be available only to states that are
implementing assessments based on college- and career-ready standards
that are common to a significant number of states .
So if your state refused to administer a common core aligned test, youd
lose federal dollars.

Even just rejecting the tests imperils state funding.

Petrilli and Brickman 14 Michael J. Petrilli, executive vice president of the
Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education-policy think tank, where he contributes
to its Flypaper blog and weekly Education Gadfly newsletter, and Michael Brickman,
national policy director for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where he is a
commentator on education-reform issues and a regular contributor to the Flypaper
blog and other publications, 2014 ("Common Core: The Day After," Voices, a
publication of the Governing Institute, April 28 th, Available Online at
http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-what-happens-when-statesreject-common-core-education-standards.html, Accessed 7-6-2015)
What about states that decide to keep the Common Core standards but
reject common, comparable, aligned assessments? A report last year from
Indiana's nonpartisan legislative staff predicted tens of millions of dollars in
costs to adopt new tests, plus additional ongoing costs to administer

them. And a new report out of Louisiana suggests a similar fate for the Bayou State
if sudden big changes are made to standards and tests.
Nor do such estimates include the cost to local school districts, which have
spent millions getting ready for the higher standards of the Common Core.
If states change their standards yet again, many districts will be
compelled, once more, to recalibrate their materials and professional
development -- and teachers will once again have to adapt to a new set of
standards. This does nobody any good.

State repeal of common core causes teacher layoffs.

The Daily Oklahoman 14 The Daily Oklahoman, 2014 (Repeal of Common
Core would increase federal control, The Daily Oklahoman, March 19th, Available
Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
OPPONENTS of Common Core often claim that its academic standards
represent a federal takeover of schools. No real evidence exists to support that
claim. Instead, the initiative most likely to increase federal control of
Oklahoma schools is actually the move to repeal state Common Core math
and language arts standards. Here's why: Oklahoma was granted a waiver
from the federal No Child Left Behind law.
The waiver was based in part on the state adopting either Common Core academic
standards or equally rigorous alternatives. Immediate repeal of Common Core
standards could therefore result in the loss of that waiver. The
consequences would be dramatic. Under NCLB, schools failing to meet certain
student-achievement benchmarks lose control of up to 20 percent of Title I
funds, federal cash used for low-income children. More than 1,700 of 1,784
Oklahoma schools have yet to meet those benchmarks. "We applied for a waiver,
which allows us to continue to use our Title I money at the district's discretion," said
Amber England, government affairs director of the Oklahoma branch of Stand for
Children. "If we lose our No Child Left Behind waiver, 20 percent of Title I
funds will be directed by the feds." Thus, she notes, Common Core repeal
means lawmakers would be "ceding more federal control," not increasing
local control . Some schools use Title I funds for teacher salaries, so
Common Core repeal could translate into teacher layoffs. In addition, state
government and local districts have spent millions implementing Common
Core standards since 2010. If lawmakers order an immediate repeal, "all
that money goes out the window."

The federal government WILL cut funding. NYC proves.

Burke and Chapman 4/15 Kerry Burke, Ben Chapman, both staff writers for
New York Daily News, an online and print newspaper. 2015. "Feds could cut aid for
NY schools if opt-outs rise", NY Daily News, available at
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/feds-cut-aid-ny-schools-opt-outsrise-article-1.2187094, accessed 7-16-2015
PUBLIC SCHOOLS across the state could lose millions in federal funding for
education if the current boycott of standardized testing continues, top
educators warn.

More than 100,000 families across the Empire State have already opted
out of the standardized reading exams that began Tuesday, according to one
unofficial tally.
If those numbers are accurate, the federal government could move to enact a
penalty on the state to withhold funds worth up to $900 million for city
schools alone each year.
Top city and state educators are considering the possibility. "We're reviewing
things," said state Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch. "But we hope the
federal government decides on another option."
Critics of the Common Core exams believe they are too difficult and should not be
used to evaluate teacher performance. They also believe the tests and prep take up
too much time.
If more than 5% of kids sit out the high-stakes reading and math tests this
week and next, a federal law could enable the U.S. government to begin a
process of withholding funds for New York public schools.

1AR Funding Impacts

Federal funding for education is important to supplement
education standards
Michell 09 Ted Mitchell is currently the under secretary of education. He has
served in this post since his confirmation by the U.S. Senate on May 8, 2014,
following his nomination by President Barack Obama on Oct. 31, 2013. Mitchell is
the former CEO of the NewSchools Venture Fund and served as the president of the
California State Board of Education. Through his long career in higher education,
Mitchell has served as the president of Occidental College, vice chancellor and dean
of the School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California,
Los Angeles, and professor and chair of the Department of Education at Dartmouth
College. 2009. (Innovation will drive new federal funding for education. San Jose
Mercury News. Available via LexisNexis. Accessed on 07-14-2015.)
The passage of the stimulus bill last week instantly doubled the federal
role in funding schools, with an unprecedented influx of $95 billion. The
question is, in education, what will that money buy?
Most of the answer is jobs: fewer pink slips for teachers, and dirt finally
moving on long-stalled construction projects. Yet in a welcome and farsighted
move, the Recovery Act not only shores up the system, it also invests in fixing it
where it's broken.
In California alone, tens of thousands of school jobs are at risk now, and
the vast majority of education spending in the bill rightly targets saving jobs and
restoring state budgets. In mere weeks, we likely will see school building
projects finally break ground, after long delays forced by the shutdown of
California's bond authority.
Yet the bill also takes short-term steps toward reform and innovation that
will pay long-term dividends, helping to make America's economy competitive
again. Reform is an essential element of recovery, because an educated
work force is the core of our productivity.
That thinking underlies the $5 billion Race to the Top fund, which Education
Secretary Arne Duncan will distribute to states to make critically needed short-term
improvements that will lead to major gains for students. Within that fund is $650
million aimed at innovation to begin correcting the sore lack of research
and development education.
We claim no special insight on the decisions Duncan will make, but it's worth
pondering: What does innovation in education look like?
For starters, the federal government will invest in building data systems,
so we can stop driving without a dashboard and see clearly the progress
students are making. Most states today, including California, cannot accurately
track a student's academic performance subject by subject, year by year, much less
week by week. That information is central to smart decision-making for teachers,
parents, administrators and policy makers. Such systems will make every education
dollar more effective.
International tests prove that American students lag behind their peers in
other industrialized nations. In part, this is because we don't ask enough of our
kids. The Race to the Top fund encourages states to develop rigorous,

internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards as well

as thoughtful assessments that go beyond filling in bubbles.
But kids in failing schools need more than just rigorous standards and
assessments; they need schools that work better. Toward that end, the recovery
bill includes a "Grow What Works" fund that will expand innovative
programs proven to make a real difference for low-income kids.
That approach will help to scale up organizations and ideas that come from
both inside and outside the traditional system. Organizations like KIPP,
Teach For America and Aspire Public Schools have helped to blaze this
trail, creating outstanding public schools and putting thousands of great
teachers in the classroom; this funding will help scale up organizations in
that mold. The ideas could range from new pathways for teacher training to publicprivate partnerships that fix failing schools. What they will have in common is a
track record of improving education.
After decades of under-investment in innovation, this badly needed
funding will foster new technologies, alter classrooms and, ultimately, help
reverse the slide in our international competitiveness. It's more than just
rescuing the schools that got us to where we are today. To fuel a lasting
recovery, we have to build a system that works better.

Federal funding is especially key to states post-recession

Zhand 14 Dian Zhang, Boston University, The George Washington University,
University of International Business and Economics, Chengdu Foreign Languages
School. Dow Jones News Fund business reporting intern at The Deal, Business
Reporting Intern at Dow Jones News Fund. 2014. (Funding for K-12 Schools Still
Hasnt recovered from the Recession Budget and Finance, The Bond Buyer Vol. 1
No. 1. October 16. Available via LexisNexis. Accessed 07-14-2015)
WASHINGTON-States are still providing less per-pupil funding for schools
from kindergarten to 12th grade than they did before the financial crisis in
2008, according to a report released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
on Thursday. The declines in educational investments might put states and
the country in trouble, when they need well-trained workers with high
technology knowledge in the global economy.
The report collected data on the funding distributed through states' major
education funding formulas, excluding local property tax revenue or any other
source of local funding. Additional adjustments were made in a few states to reflect
specific situations. Hawaii, Indiana and Iowa were not included in the report because
of the lack of necessary data, the report stated.
At least 30 states, including Oklahoma, Alabama, Arizona and Idaho, provided
less funding per student for the 2014-15 school year than before 2008, the
report found. Among the 30 states, 14 of them reported a decrease of greater
than 10% in educational funding.
Oklahoma had the highest percentage cut in its funding for k-12 schools at 23.6% or
$857 per student, followed by Alabama, with a cut of 17.8%. That state also had the
highest dollar cut of $1,128 per student.
The state funding cuts can be attributed to the slow recovery of state
revenues, the rising costs of state-funded services, reduced federal aid to

states, and the states' reluctance to raise new revenues, according to the CBPP
report.
"Cuts have been particularly deep when inflation and other cost pressures are
considered," the report added.
Seventeen states increased funding. North Dakota had the highest percentage
increase at 31.6%, at $1,329 per student. Alaska followed that state with a 16.4%
increase and had the highest dollar gain, at $1,351 per student.
"Most states are providing more funding per student in the new school year than
they did a year ago," the CBPP said in the report. "But funding has generally not
increased enough to make up for cuts in past years." New Mexico, for
instance, has increased its funding for per student by $124, or 1.8%, compared to
one year ago, but that is still 8.1% less than its 2008 level.
State funding cuts for k-12 schools have big consequences for local school
districts, which try to make up for the cuts by scaling back educational
services raising more local tax revenue to cover the gap, or both, according to the
CBPP. It's difficult for local school districts to find additional revenues after the
recession, the group said.
In addition, the cuts have slowed the economy's recovery from the
recession. Federal employment data show that teachers and other employees
have been cut since mid-2008. There have been 330,000 jobs cut in local
school districts between 2008 and 2012, the report found. These job losses
have also reduced the purchasing power of families, thus causing
problems for economic recovery.
More importantly, the cuts in educational funding have hindered education
reforms and high-quality education provided by school districts, according
to the study. When producing workers with high-level techniques and analytical
abilities are demanded in the future work place, such cuts in funding for basic
education will threaten the nation's economic future, the report concluded.

1AR Equality DA Links

Education budget cuts force tradeoffs with other less
important subjects at the expense of a well-rounded
education that balances technical skills with encouraging
creativity, critical thinking, and passion. And, marginalized
students are disproportionately affected by these policies.
Walker 14 Tim Walker, has over 30 years of experience in the field of
education, holds a Master of Arts degree in human development from Pacific Oaks
College, Masters degree in education, and an Educational Specialist degree from
Point Loma University, 2014 (The Testing Obsession and the Disappearing
Curriculum, National Education Association Today, September 2, Available Online at
http://neatoday.org/2014/09/02/the-testing-obsession-and-the-disappearingcurriculum-2/, accessed 7/8/15, KM)
Not that long ago, elementary schools were places where students could discover what they were good at, explore
the subjects that appealed to them, or maybe just be content with enjoying school. But for many elementary school
teachers who joined the profession during the last decade, and especially those who work in high-poverty schools,
classrooms that provide vigorous learning opportunities to all students never existedthanks, in large part, to the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Today, more than a decade later, the law is uniformly blamed for stripping
curriculum opportunities, including art, music, physical education and more, and imposing a brutal testing regime
that has forced educators to focus their time and energy on preparing for tests in a narrow range of subjects:
namely, English/language arts and math. For students in low-income communities, the impact has been
devastating. Shouldnt these early grades be a time to discover, play, and explore? asks Los Angeles art teacher
Ginger Rose Fox. We talk all the time about making our kids college and career readyeven at such a young age.
Lets make them life ready first. But I guess that doesnt fit into our testing obsession. Like countless

educators across the U.S., Fox has witnessed the way critical subjects have
been crowded out of schools or even eliminated entirely by the lethal one-two
punch of deep budget cuts and the singular focus on improving reading and math. In Los Angeles alone, onethird of the 345 arts teachers were given pink slips between 2008 and 2012 and arts programs for elementary
students dwindled to practically zero. The good news is that money has begun to trickle back into California, at
least. But slowly improving state budgets can only go so far. Breaking the nations fever over high stakes testing is

nudged aside visual arts, music,

physical education, social studies, and science, not to mention world
languages, financial literacy, and that old standby, penmanship. Our schools, once vigorous and
a steeper challenge. Across the nation, the testing obsession has

dynamic centers for learning, have been reduced to mere test prep factories, where teachers and students act out a
script written by someone who has never visited their classroom and where achievement means nothing more
than scoring well on a bubble test. NCLB has corrupted what it means to teach and what it means to learn,
explains NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garca. Teachers have to teach in secret and hope they dont get into trouble
for teaching to the Whole Child instead of teaching to the test. In July, NEA launched a national campaign to bring
an end to the testing obsession around the country, and to move real student-centered learning back to the
forefront of public schools. Its our job to bring back the arts and Social Studies and world languages and whatever
it is our students need to leave behind the corrupting, unconscionable testing culture of blame and punish by test
scores and move forward with an education that opens their minds to the infinite possibilities of their lives, Garca

many academic
subjects had been crowded out by an increased focus on math and language arts. About half
said art and music were being marginalized, while 40 percent said the
same for foreign language; 36 percent for social studies; and 24 percent
for science. The results were particularly striking at the elementary level, where 81 percent of teachers
says. The One-Size-Fits-All Agenda In a 2011 national survey, two-thirds of teachers said

reported that extra time devoted to math or language arts meant less time for other subjects. Over 60 percent of
middle school teachers and 54 percent of high school teachers reported the same in their schools. The culprit? More
than 90 percent of teachers blamed state tests in math and language arts. Ive seen students reduced to tears
from these tests, says Tom McLaughlin, a drama teacher in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Were robbing our students of the
joy and adventure of learning. It wasnt supposed to be this way. When NCLB was implemented more than a

decade ago, its promoters trumpeted promises about raising accountability and providing adequate resources to
lower income students in struggling schools. But the law, with its sweeping mandates for standardized English and
math tests in grades 4-8 and its crushing consequences for schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress,
merely created a toxic culture of teaching to the test in order to raise test scores. It wasnt long after its passage

High-poverty schools across

the nation have been forced to narrow the curriculum much more
drastically than wealthier schoolswith worse consequences for lowincome students. While their more affluent peers may routinely visit museums or other cultural resources,
that a narrow, scripted curriculum blanketed schools coast to coast.

many poor urban and rural students rely on their teachers to expose them to the kind of background knowledge
that is essential to subject mastery. It has been a disaster for social justice , wrote E.D.
Hirsch, a University of Virginia education professor who has championed the link between content knowledge and
reading comprehension skills, in his book The Knowledge Deficit. But the architects of these test-driven policies do
think they are addressing equityand thats frightening, says Richard Milner, a professor of education and director
of urban education at the University of Pittsburgh We should be appalled. Its tremendously short-sighted, says
Milner. They think they are being responsive to kids who are underserved. But theyre clearly not looking at the
lasting damage they are inflicting. While opposition to NCLB and testing has strengthened over the past few years,

the devastating impact of

these policies on students of color in low-income communities hasnt been
given the national attention it deserves. Its really sad when you walk into these classrooms
in these urban communities because these kids sit all day, Milner adds. Were taking away all the
things about school they could attach themselves tophysical education,
arts, history. All because some adult in some office, somewhere far away,
has determined that they dont need any of that in order to achieve.
Milner has been underwhelmed by the level of outrage, believing that

Integrating DisciplinesBut at What Cost? Thanks to the burgeoning STEM movement (science, technology,
engineering and math), Brian Crosby believes science education may soon be removed from the endangered
curriculum list. Crosby taught science in the Washoe County School district in Nevada for more than 30 years,
recently leaving the classroom to become a STEM facilitator for the state. I do think there was what you might call
an oops moment, says Crosby. Decision-makers basically recognized that you cant educate students, especially
at-risk students, by hammering reading and math all day long. At least for science, theres some good news. Were
getting the curriculum un-narrowed if you will. Unfortunately teachers of other marginalized subjects cant say
the same. In January, Texas lawmakers passed a bill that, among other things, cut the graduation requirement for
social studies from four courses to three. The states social studies teachers protested, wondering aloud how they
would counsel their students to choose between classes: World history or world geography? Civics or U.S. history?

If its not outright cutting of

requirements, states are commonly rewriting curriculum to more easily
integrate sidelined subjects into core areas. Physical education becomes part of math.
Art becomes part of reading. But tossing a ball with numbers on it isnt really physical education,
and writing about Van Gogh isnt the same as developing a passion for color
or practicing brush technique. While integrating subjects can foster collaboration between
How do you make that choice between such valuable courses?

colleagues, a good thing, notes drama teacher Tom McLaughlin, he warns what might be lost in the long term. I do
think integration can be dangerous if (any one subject) becomes too consumed or morphed into reading or math.
We run the risk of putting these other subjects out of business. Social studies often falls victim to subject
integration with reading, notes Margit McGuire, director of teacher education at Seattle University and a social
studies specialist. It doesnt foster a very sophisticated treatment of the subject matter, she says. Lisa Steiner, a
social studies teacher at George Fischer Middle School in Carmel New York, also has seen her subject receive less
time, staff, and professional development opportunities compared to school districts chief priorities: math and
English arts. Still, integration can work, she says. Social studies as a discipline can reinforce core reading and
writing skills. I have a background and certification as a reading specialist, so I see the close relationship between
reading and writing in the content areas and it has influenced my teaching philosophy and approach. For many
music educators, the most compelling case to be made for music in schools is its value as a stand alone subjectto
bring the focus back to the benefits to students, not to their standardized tests. In April, the National Association for
Music Education (NAfMe) began challenge the assumption that music is merely a supplement to the core
curriculum, and said the organization would no longer frame the importance of music around its potential to raise
test scores. Every time we profess that students should have access to music so that their brains become better
wired to solve math equations, we provide ammunition to the camp of education experts who proclaim that music
is an interchangeable, or, even worse, expendable, classroom experience, explains Christopher Woodside of
NAfMes Center for Advocacy and Public Affairs. The Inconvenient Truth: Many Students Cant Catch Up While no

defenders of the status quo

claim that glossing over science, arts and social studies is merely a
fleeting elementary school experiencelater to be recouped in middle and later high
school. But by then, says Rich Milner, its probably too late. Without learning
opportunities, these kids cant develop the competencies and skills that
will help them transition from elementary school , Milner says. Kids in urban
areas are in most need of a well-rounded education and yet they are the ones who
one discounts the very real problem of students who cant read or do basic math,
often

have had it stripped from their classroomsand they dont have other avenues available to them that students in
suburban communities have to at least partly supplant what is missing in schools. Brian Crosby recalls shaking his
head in disbelief when he would hear school discussions asserting that it wouldnt matter in the long run if certain
subjects for at-risk elementary students were suspended so they could focus on reading and math. The assumption
was, you could catch the students up in middle school because by then they would have a science teacher, Crosby
explains. But they couldnt just catch up. And by the time they got to high school many of these students were so
far behind they were put into remedial classes. And people would wonder why kids were dropping out of school.

What kind of citizens are these practices creating? Margit McGuire believes that
continually pushing aside U.S. History or Civics robs low-income students
of the opportunity to tell their stories and become invested in democracy.
We marginalize our students when we dont allow them to bring their own lived experiences into the classroom,
says McGuire. Maybe well get their test score up, but at what cost? We need to help young people, particularly
children from impoverished backgrounds, understand or value our democracy and their role in society. Thats why
we have public education.

1AR Equality DA Impacts

Education without discrimination or exclusion is a human right
UNESCO No Date United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, no date ("The Right to Education," UNESCO, Available Online at
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/right2education, Accessed 7-8-2015)
Education is a fundamental human right and essential for the exercise of
all other human rights. It promotes individual freedom and empowerment
and yields important development benefits. Yet millions of children and adults
remain deprived of educational opportunities, many as a result of poverty.
Normative instruments of the United Nations and UNESCO lay down
international legal obligations for the right to education. These
instruments promote and develop the right of every person to enjoy
access to education of good quality, without discrimination or exclusion .
These instruments bear witness to the great importance that Member
States and the international community attach to normative action for
realizing the right to education. It is for governments to fulfil their
obligations both legal and political in regard to providing education for all
of good quality and to implement and monitor more effectively education
strategies.
Education is a powerful tool by which economically and socially
marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and
participate fully as citizens.

They Say: Common Core is Expensive, Too

Its much cheaper to keep Common Core state opt-out is
incredibly expensive.
Fordham Institute 13 Fordham Institute for Advancing Educational
Excellence, 2013 ("Indiana Common Core Implementation: Fiscal Impact Report,"
Fordham Institute Blog, September 12th, Available Online at
http://edexcellence.net/indiana-common-core-implementation-fiscal-impact-report,
Accessed 7-6-2015)
Among the provisions of Indianas so-called Common Core pause
legislation was a requirement that the states Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) provide an estimate of the cost of implementing these
standards and their assessments. The results are in, along with OMBs
conclusion: Local schools had already or were capable of transitioning to
new standards with existing levels of funding. The report examined a
number of scenarios for assessment implementation, comparing annual costs for
adoption of PARCC tests ($33.2M); Smarter Balanced tests ($31.4M); a hypothetical
state-developed, CCSS-aligned assessment ($34.8M plus $23.5M in one-time
development costs); and a hypothetical state-developed assessment not aligned to
the CCSS ($34.7M plus $19.1M in one-time development costs). Yes, you added
correctly: Sticking with the Common Core and its assessments is the
cheapest option. This analysis, we suspect, may turn the tide in Indiana and help
convince wobbly policy makers to stay the course. But the impact of this fiscal
impact study should really be much broader. Leaders in any state with a
raging Common Core controversy should give it a look.

AT: Debate Counterplan

2AC Debate Counterplan

1. Perm do both
2. The counter plan cant solve critical thinking: Until Common
Core testing and standards are removed, these standards will
continue to ruin critical thinking and drive students away from
education.
Natale 14 Elizabeth Natale, English and language arts teacher for more than
15 years, in an Interview with Breitbart News, Byline Dr. Susan Berry, 2014
(Connecticut Teacher's Op-Ed Against Common Core Goes Viral, Breitbart News,
January 26th, Available Online at http://www.breitbart.com/biggovernment/2014/01/26/connecticut-teacher-s-op-ed-against-common-core-goesviral/, Accessed 06-23-2015)
Breitbart News: Supporters of Common Core say the standards are
rigorous and teach critical thinking, and will prepare students for
college and career and a global 21st century economy. You said in your
op-ed that Common Core is a system that focuses on preparing workers rather
than thinkers, collecting data rather than teaching and treating teachers as less
than professionals. What about this huge discrepancy in how the standards are
viewed?
Elizabeth Natale: Im not opposed to rigor and critical thinking. Given the
emphasis on non-fiction reading, however, I dont think this curriculum is
preparing students for college and career or for the global 21st century
economy. Since when is reading and analyzing fiction irrelevant in the 21st
century? Students need to do this type of critical thinking in their careers,
in college, and in the 21st century. When I worked in public relations at Trinity
College in Hartford, the alumni magazine ran a story about graduates
employed on Wall Street. The largest percentage of them were religion
majors. Why? Because religion majors have to think critically . They can be
trained to do the work in any sort of career.
BBN: It seems that many parents still dont know much about the new standards.
Are parents becoming more informed and, if so, whats your impression of their
reactions to them?
EN: I dont think the majority of parents know that much about it. I especially dont
think they know much about the SBAC [Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium]
testing. Again, my argument is less with Common Core than with the associated
testing. I have had a few parents write to me about talking with their children about
SBAC for the first time after reading my piece and being shocked at the negative
comments made by their children. Parents should sit down and look at the test with
their children. They should ask their children what they think about it. I also have
had a few parents write to say they are opting out when it comes to SBAC testing.
BBN: If a parent came to observe your classroom, would he or she see a difference
because of Common Core, and what would that difference be?
EN: Im trying to resist changing everything I know is good just because of Common
Core, but the test looms over all of us . We give many more assessments to
collect data. We give the student assessments that are contrived to

resemble SBAC testing, which is so counterproductive. Im more stressed,

and I know the students sense that. I dont think learning has to be fun every
minute, but Common Core and testing is certainly hurting everyones ability
to be excited.

3.The counter plan wont result in less corporate control the

eradication of these standards is necessaryCommon Core
builds workers, not thinkers in an attempt to drive 21st
Century Skills it is creating a generation of bored, apathetic
automotons.
Natale 14 Elizabeth Natale, English and language arts teacher for more than
15 years, 2014 (Why I Want To Give Up Teaching, Hartford Courant, January 17 th,
Available Online at http://www.courant.com/opinion/hc-op-natale-teacher-ready-toquit-over-common-cor-20140117-story.html, Accessed 06-23-2015)
Surrounded by piles of student work to grade, lessons to plan and laundry to do, I
have but one hope for the new year: that the Common Core State
Standards, their related Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium testing and the
new teacher evaluation program will become extinct.
I have been a middle school English teacher for 15 years. I entered teaching
after 19 years as a newspaper reporter and college public relations professional. I
changed careers to contribute to society; shape young minds; create good
and productive citizens; and spend time with youngsters lacking adults at
home with time, energy and resources to teach them.
Although the tasks ahead of me are no different from those of the last 14 years,
today is different. Today, I am considering ending my teaching career.
When I started teaching, I learned that dealing with demanding college presidents
and cantankerous newspaper editors was nothing. While those jobs allowed me time
to drink tea and read the newspaper, teaching deprived me of an opportunity to use
the restroom. And when I did, I was often the Pied Piper, followed by children intent
on speaking with me through the bathroom door.
Unfortunately, government attempts to improve education are stripping the
joy out of teaching and doing nothing to help children. The Common Core
standards require teachers to march lockstep in arming students with
"21st-century skills." In English, emphasis on technology and nonfiction
reading makes it more important for students to prepare an electronic
presentation on how to make a paper airplane than to learn about moral
dilemmas from Natalie Babbitt's beloved novel "Tuck Everlasting."
The Smarter Balance program assumes my students are comfortable
taking tests on a computer, even if they do not own one. My value as a
teacher is now reduced to how successful I am in getting a student who has eaten
no breakfast and is a pawn in her parents' divorce to score well enough to meet my
teacher evaluation goals.
I am a professional. My mission is to help students progress academically,
but there is much more to my job than ensuring students can answer
multiple-choice questions on a computer. Unlike my engineer husband who
runs tests to rate the functionality of instruments, I cannot assess students by

plugging them into a computer. They are not machines. They are humans
who are not fazed by a D but are undone when their goldfish dies, who
struggle with composing a coherent paragraph but draw brilliantly, who
read on a third-grade level but generously hold the door for others.
My most important contributions to students are not addressed by the Common
Core, Smarter Balance and teacher evaluations. I come in early, work through lunch
and stay late to help children who ask for assistance but clearly crave the attention
of a caring adult. At intramurals, I voluntarily coach a ragtag team of volleyball
players to ensure good sportsmanship. I "ooh" and "ah" over comments made by a
student who finally raises his hand or earns a C on a test she insisted she would fail.
Those moments mean the most to my students and me, but they are not
valued by a system that focuses on preparing workers rather than
thinkers, collecting data rather than teaching and treating teachers as less than
professionals.
Until this year, I was a highly regarded certified teacher. Now, I must prove myself
with data that holds little meaning to me. I no longer have the luxury of teaching
literature, with all of its life lessons, or teaching writing to students who long to be
creative. My success is measured by my ability to bring 85 percent of
struggling students to "mastery," without regard for those with advanced
skills. Instead of fostering love of reading and writing, I am killing
children's passions committing "readicide," as Kelly Gallagher called it in
his book of that title.
Teaching is the most difficult but most rewarding work I have ever done. It is,
however, art, not science. A student's learning will never be measured by
any test, and I do not believe the current trend in education will lead to
adults better prepared for the workforce, or to better citizens. For the sake
of students, our legislators must reach this same conclusion before good teachers
give up the profession and the children they love.

4. The plan is necessary to enact actual reformwithout the

removal of common core standards the American Education
system is going to continue to lag behind. The counterplan
doesnt ensure that every individual is actively participating
and doesnt solve for the continual testing that common core
mandates. That means that critical thinking will never
effectively be solved forthis directly affects our ability to
solve for things such as climate change and endless wars. Not
having young learners move into positions where they can be
effective policy makers etc. means we wont be able to
generate solutions to these issues that threaten the future
thats Rugh.

Critiques

2AC Gender K
Hostility to critical thinking also provides a platform for antidemocratic views like the hatred of women. People make
arguments without any sense of social or moral responsibility.
Giroux 14 Henry A. Giroux, Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the
English and Cultural Studies Department & Chair in Critical Pedagogy at The
McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning, Distinguished
Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, member of Truthout's Board of Directors,
author of dozens of books on learning and pedagogy including Youth in Revolt:
Reclaiming a Democratic Future, America's Educational Deficit and the War on
Youth, Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education, 2014 (Data Storms and the
Tyranny of Manufactured Forgetting, Truthout, June 24 th, Available Online at
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24550-data-storms-and-the-tyranny-ofmanufactured-forgetting#/, Accessed 06-25-2015)
How else to explain, for instance, a major national newspapers willingness
to provide a platform for views that express an unchecked hatred of
women - as when The Washington Post published George Wills column in
which he states that being a rape victim is now "a coveted status that
confers privileges"?[8] Will goes on to say that accusations of rape and sexual
violence are not only overblown, but that many women who claim they were raped
are "delusional."[9] There is a particular type of aggressive ignorance here
that constitutes a symbolic assault on women , while obscuring the
underlying conditions that legitimate sexual violence in the United States.
Will expresses more concern over what he calls the "pesky arithmetic"[10]
used to determine the percentage of women actually raped on campuses
than the ever-increasing incidence of sexual assault on women in colleges,
the military, and a wide variety of other private and public spheres.
The clueless George Will, evidently angry about the growing number of women
who are reporting the violence waged against them, draws on the persuasive
utility of mathematical data as a way to bolster a shockingly misogynist
argument and flee from any sense of social and moral responsibility . While
such expressions of resentment make Will appear as an antediluvian, privileged
white man who is truly delusional, he is typical of an expanding mass of
pundits who live in a historical void and for whom emotion overtakes
reason. Increasingly, it appears the American media no longer requires that words
bear any relationship to truth or to a larger purpose other than peddling rigid and
archaic ideologies designed to shock and stupefy audiences.

2AC Capitalism K
We link turn the K education is the only proven solution for
reducing income inequality we are a better option than their
idealism.
Crotty 15 James Marshall Crotty, business of education contributor for Forbes,
holds a Masters in Liberal Arts from St. Johns College, over three decades of active
involvement in American education, including teaching and/or coaching gigs at
Columbia University, LaGuardia College, Stuyvesant High School, Bronx High School
of Science, and the Eagle Academy for Young Men, 2015 (Education Is Answer To
Income Inequality: Part One, Forbes, February 27, Available Online at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2015/02/27/knowledge-is-power/,
accessed 7/7/15, KM)
In an op-ed entitled Knowledge Isnt Power, in the February 23 New York Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist

Paul Krugman argued that soaring inequality isnt about education; its
about power. Because of my own preference for diversity, I welcome Mr. Krugmans well-meaning and
learned viewpoint. Unfortunately, like other bright, beloved and left-leaning public intellectuals such as Krugmans
fellow MIT grad Noam Chomsky (whose remedy for the ills he diagnosed in Manufacturing Consent was a global

Mr. Krugman is great at articulating capitalisms flaws (his

but weak at
prescribing workable real-world remedies. In eschewing education as a
solvency to income inequality, Mr. Krugman argues that we should,
instead, place higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy , and invest the
proceeds in programs that help working families. Never mind that those programs would
inexorably center on job training (i.e., education), unless the Princeton University
Professor merely plans to give a man a fish while failing to teach him how to fish. Income Inequality Mr.
Krugman also proposes we could raise the minimum wage. Nothing against this
idea in moderation, but studies and reports show that if we suddenly passed a
minimum wage increase sufficient to dramatically ease income inequality,
small business employers (the primary job creators in America) would
compensate by shortening hours, instituting labor-saving capital improvements, reduce the
pay of employees earning more than the minimum wage, and eliminate job training and
other non-wage benefits. As these now significantly more expensive lowskill jobs were outsourced overseas or replaced by investments in new
technology, Mr. Krugmans working class heroes especially those without sufficient
education to nab the higher-skilled jobs engendered by a dramatic minimum wage increase would find
themselves back on the unemployment line, worse off than they were
before Mr. Krugman generously intervened on their behalf. In his op-ed, Mr. Krugman kicks
education to the curb, despite his gratitude for it. This is because he sees
talk of education as a dodge that distracts us from the real cause of
inequality: entrenched corporate power. However, education is not some soporific idly
proclaimed by those seeking to ease their conscience about income inequality. Education empirically
works in eradicating inequality. In fact, its the only long-term solution
that ever has.
system of kibbutzim)

take on the contagion effects of highly leveraged financial institutions was spot on) ,