1NC — Educational Competitiveness DA First, Common Core is improving education now — rigorous standards allow US students to compete globally.
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 master’s 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-got-where-we-are-today, accessed 7/6/15, KM)
In many ways, the report succeeded: It brought a revolution to American public education. The report laid the groundwork for a movement bent on exploding the traditional way of doing things at relics like Curtis High School, where murals honoring graduates who died in the world wars flank banners celebrating sports championships. Now, the landscape of schools looks very different from the way it did three decades ago. Boston Collegiate, a charter school unfettered by teacher union rules and district red tape, is one of the new generation of schools spawned by the report that offer alternatives to – and in some cases replace – older neighborhood institutions such as Curtis. The charter school, founded in 1998 in South Boston, has a single-minded mission to send each of its graduates – most of them low-income students – to college. To make that happen, Boston Collegiate students attend Saturday classes and late afternoon tutoring and homework hours, teachers undergo intensive annual evaluations and can be fired at will, and educators have embraced standards shared by schools across the nation. The school prides itself on the high achievement of its students, including top scores on state standardized tests. At Boston Collegiate, most of the school leaders were students themselves when “A Nation at Risk” was issued. Yet in many ways, the school embodies the report’s definition of excellence as pushing students to reach the “boundary of individual ability.” On an afternoon near the end of school in June, Nairobi Fernandez, an outgoing and confident junior, was discussing her college plans. After having done an internship in the labor and delivery ward at a local hospital, she wants to become a midwife. But she has struggled to keep up her grades, so she said she was thinking of enrolling in community college instead of a four-year institution. Sarah Muncey, the school’s director of operations, interjected. Nairobi should not settle for community college, Ms. Muncey told her. She should at least apply to a four-year school. According to Boston Collegiate, 100 percent of its students not only apply to a four-year college, but are accepted. “Our mission is to prepare students for college,” says Shannah Varón, executive director of the school. “We’re focused on whatever it takes to get them there.” Educators and education advocates from across the political spectrum – teachers unions and their critics alike – praise this outcome of “A Nation at Risk.” Expectations for students have increased, and confronting the achievement gap between haves and have-nots has become a priority in education reform. • • • Principal Curtis is among those who link this shift back to “A Nation at Risk.” Common Core is an ideal example of how expectations are rising, and she’s thrilled to witness her teachers encouraging students to think deeper and more critically. “I fundamentally agree with the premise of standards, and the Common Core standards,” she says, noting that her school has adopted the rigorous International Baccalaureate program for one of the academic “houses” students join. The curriculum is based on tough standards that call for critical thinking and creative problem-solving and have helped boost the school to new levels of success, she says. Curtis High has appeared on lists of America’s best high schools, and despite a high rate of poverty – 72 percent of its students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches – the graduation rate mirrors that of the nation as a whole, about 80 percent.
Second, Common Core is the key internal link to economic competitiveness — the standards improve quality of education while maintaining educational flexibility.
Bush 13 – Allie Bush, public policy coordinator for the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, focusing on education and tax issues. Bush previously worked in the Michigan House of Representatives as a policy advisor for the House Republican Policy Office. She holds a master’s of public administration from Grand Valley State University, 2013 (“Common Core: Giving students a competitive advantage”, mLive, September 5, Available Online at http://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/09/common_core_giving_students_a.html, accessed 7/2/15, KM)
Today’s competitive and global economy requires education standards that reflect the changing realities of tomorrow’s workplace. Companies across the state and here in West Michigan look worldwide for resources and individuals to create value and deliver high-quality products and services. Regardless of business size, employers are constantly seeking the best talent. This means students need every tool and opportunity to maximize their potential. It is critical that our approach to education reflects the skills that employers are seeking. Currently in Michigan, 68 percent of third graders read proficiently, 76 percent are graduating high school, and only 20 percent of high school graduates are considered to be career- or college-ready. These statistics are a call to action. In response, Michigan adopted the Common Core State Standards in 2010 and is expected to fully implement the standards by the 2014-2015 school year. Common Core has been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia, and was developed to provide a clear set of K-12 standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts. These standards improve upon Michigan’s previous standards and empower local schools and educators to develop their own curriculum and lesson plans to best meet the needs of their students. Over the last three years, Michigan school districts and educators have spent a significant amount of time and resources preparing, developing and implementing the new standards. Unfortunately, there are efforts in the Michigan Legislature to retreat from Common Core. Unfounded criticism has stalled the success of this program while the legislature determines whether or not to continue funding. Opposition to the implementation of Common Core is based on several misconceptions. Some argue it will lead to federal takeover of the public education system. However, Common Core was not developed or mandated by the federal government. The State adopted standards to promote equality by ensuring all students have the same goals. For families that must relocate, Common Core creates a consistent educational experience where students can adjust quickly, pick up where they left off, and remain competitive with their peers. Common Core creates a level of assurance regarding the value of a high school diploma for students, employers and higher education institutions. Opponents have also expressed concern that Common Core will “dumb down” Michigan’s standards or create a “one-size-fits-all” program. This is not the case. Common Core does not direct curriculum, but sets standards for achievement that will better prepare students for the future. Educators will continue to have the flexibility to create individualized lesson plans and may utilize non-traditional courses to help students apply their lessons to situations they will encounter after high school. If we are to remain competitive with the 21st century global economy, our students and their families deserve every opportunity to succeed. The Common Core State Standards are a piece of the larger puzzle to help ensure our children can grow and prosper. On behalf of the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, we urge the legislature to continue with the implementation of Common Core.
Economic Competitiveness is vital to prevent great power conflict.
Baru 9 — Sanjaya Baru, Visiting Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Institute of South Asian Studies (Singapore), 2009 (“Year of the power shift?,” Seminar, #593, January, Available Online at http://www.india-seminar.com/2009/593/593_sanjaya_baru.htm, Accessed 05-21-2013)
There is no doubt that economics alone will not determine the balance of global power, but there is no doubt either that economics has come to matter for more.
The management of the economy, and of the treasury, has been a vital aspect of statecraft from time immemorial. Kautilya’s Arthashastra says, ‘From the strength of the treasury the army is born. …men without wealth do not attain their objectives even after hundreds of trials… Only through wealth can material gains be acquired, as elephants (wild) can be captured only by elephants (tamed)… A state with depleted resources, even if acquired, becomes only a liability.’4 Hence, economic policies and performance do have strategic consequences.5
In the modern era, the idea that strong economic performance is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul Kennedy. ‘Victory (in war),’ Kennedy claimed, ‘has repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base.’6 Drawing attention to the interrelationships between economic wealth, technological innovation, and the ability of states to efficiently mobilize economic and technological resources for power projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations that were able to better combine military and economic strength scored over others.
‘The fact remains,’ Kennedy argued, ‘that all of the major shifts in the world’s military-power balance have followed alterations in the productive balances; and further, that the rising and falling of the various empires and states in the international system has been confirmed by the outcomes of the major Great Power wars, where victory has always gone to the side with the greatest material resources.’7
In Kennedy’s view the geopolitical consequences of an economic crisis or even decline would be transmitted through a nation’s inability to find adequate financial resources to simultaneously sustain economic growth and military power – the classic ‘guns vs butter’ dilemma.
Finally, The impact is large: economic growth is crucial to address all global challenges.
Silk 93 — Leonard Silk, Distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University, Senior Research Fellow at the Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and former Economics Columnist with the New York Times, 1993 (“Dangers of Slow Growth,” Foreign Affairs, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump has fanned the firs of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world. Economic hardship is not the only cause of these social and political pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back on economic development. They also undermine efforts to deal with such global problems as environmental pollution, the production and trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine, AIDS and other plagues.
Growth will not solve all those problems by itself. But economic growth – and growth alone – creates the additional resources that make it possible to achieve such fundamental goals as higher living standards, national and collective security, a healthier environment, and more liberal and open economies and societies.
Share with your friends: |