Core 1AC



Core 1ACInherencyDespite current public interest, the United States is falling behind in STEM education and US policymakers are being called upon to act but lack interest.O’Malley 2017 (Brendan O’Malley, contributor to University World News, a network of five dozen education journalists based in more than two dozen countries, with representation in all regions. “March for science leaders pledge to build on momentum” University World News. April 28, 2017. Accessed: June 8, 2017. COB)Following the global March for Science, which was staged in 600 cities across seven continents on 22 April, the organisers have pledged to translate their volunteer network into a global outreach movement. In a joint statement, more than 30 United States science organisations have pledged to carry on fostering public support for engagement in science through their global memberships. “Collaborating with citizens and scientists around the globe, we pledge to keep the March for Science momentum going, to remain at the forefront of this public engagement with science, and to redouble our collective efforts to serve science and society," the statement said. The signatory organisations include the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Council for Science and the Environment. There were marches in Washington, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles and Chicago, London, Berlin, Paris, Sydney, Tokyo, Kampala, and many other locations. The marches in dozens of cities in the US attracted 250,000 to 600,000, according to unconfirmed reports. The US’s leading science organisations pledged to build on the momentum and continue to reach out to the public and policy-makers to promote “sound scientific policies that advance discovery and benefit society”, according to a joint statement issued on 24 April. Describing the march as having “generated an unparalleled global voice to stand up for science, the role of evidence in policy-making, and the conditions science needs to thrive”, the science organisations said that in more than 600 locations worldwide, thousands of people marched for science as citizens and scientists, parents and children, technicians and teachers, workers and retirees, doctors and patients marched to say “our collective future is more hopeful with science – and at risk without it”. They said the US and nations worldwide need a “robust and diverse scientific enterprise to drive continued innovation, a connected global scientific community, engaged citizens, and policies that advance and invest in science”. They argued that science is essential to well-being and economic prosperity and can provide solutions to key global challenges, including: Healthier, longer lives through new treatments for devastating diseases and better prevention strategies; Protection of our planet’s climate, air, clean water, oceans and lands, and protection of property from natural and human-induced hazards; Better jobs and economic strength in every state and nation; Greater agricultural yield and food security for families worldwide; Vibrant communities, civic foundations, social understanding, and economic strategies that strengthen societies; Modernised air and rail transportation, stronger infrastructure, and new defence strategies; Educational approaches that position students for new knowledge and better jobs; and Fundamental understanding of our wondrous world, solving the mysteries of the deep sea, the intricate inner workings of the cell, and the farthest expanses of the universe. “We must build on this momentum created by the marches to more actively demonstrate the value of science to local, state and national policy-makers, as well as in classrooms and local communities,” they said in their statement. Goal of the march The goal of the march was to raise awareness of the importance of science, the risks from budget cuts to agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health in the US, and the need for an evidence-based approach to global problems such as climate change and to the Paris Agreement on climate change. Marchers carried placards such as: “At the start of every disaster movie there’s a scientist being ignored”, “Act now or swim later”, “There’s no PLANet B”, “Got the plague? Me neither. Thanks science!” and “Girls just wanna have fun(ding for their research)”. One of the most pointed, which was taken up in chants on the march in San Jose, Silicon Valley, was: “What do we want? Science-based policy. When do we want it? After peer review.” Mayim Bialik, a neuroscientist and actor in US television comedy, the Big Bang Theory, spoke in San Jose of the importance of scientific training, which enabled her to learn to “set aside emotion and feelings in favour of reasoning, research and experimentation, hypothesis-formation and honesty”. She said the next generation of scientists has to “speak out on behalf of our communities, our families and our children to make science a priority”. The surge of support for the march was demonstrated very early on when a Facebook group started with 200 members and grew to more than 300,000 in a week. After the march scientists are creating new advocacy efforts. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS, was among the early partners of the march that eventually drew the support of some 270 organisations. Rush Holt, AAAS CEO and executive publisher of the Science family of journals, said it played “a very constructive role” in helping organise and frame the march in Washington. “Thousands of marchers and more than a hundred organisations rallied around the standard that AAAS raised,” said Holt, who delivered a speech to those who gathered on the National Mall, despite the rain, and marched to the US Capitol. “Now the science community turns to capturing the great energy and concern expressed in many ways through many voices during the marches and works to channel them toward the advancement of science.” Laurie Krug, an associate professor in the department of molecular genetics and microbiology at Stony Brook University, who marched in New York, told CBS News: “I think you’re going to see that scientists are going to be more active.” A new advocacy website, 314 Action, founded by members of the STEM – science, technology, engineering and mathematics – community, is taking the message further, urging scientists to stand for public office. One of its stated aims is to throw a spotlight on “members of congress who are anti-science”. It its mission statement it says 314 Action is concerned that STEM education in the United States is falling further and further behind the rest of the world, that our political leaders continue to deny scientific facts and that Congress fails to fully fund scientific research so we can solve pressing environmental issues like climate change and social problems like gun violence. On its home page it quotes Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California, saying: “When the voices of scientists are not heard, there is a price to pay.”Competitiveness AdvSTEM interest and workforce are both declining---it’s key to develop 21st century career production and must start early Sattler 6/28 [“Engaging Future STEM Leaders,” Dwayne Sattler is the Executive Director of the Chemical Educational Foundation, Pub: 6/28/17, Acc: 7/9/17 ]//SCThe legislation comes at an important time for our economy and has direct benefits to the American worker. Demand for STEM jobs is expected to grow 17 percent between 2014 and 2024, and the median wage for today’s STEM jobs is nearly double that of all other jobs. That explains why STEM is a national priority for employers and lawmakers alike. Multiple bills introduced so far and currently being debated in the 115th Congress recognize the importance of opening STEM opportunities to all Americans and the impact STEM proficiency can have on our current and future workforce. The Energy Workforce for the 21st Century Act would increase the number of skilled workers in energy- and manufacturing-related fields. The Youth Access to American Jobs Act would establish a pilot program to promote apprenticeships and other job training programs with an emphasis on STEM. The Early STEM Achievement Act would establish a grant program for early childhood STEM activities. These and other bills show Congress is signaling they understand the importance of STEM and STEM education.These developments can’t come soon enough. Today, companies are struggling to find skilled workers for STEM jobs. Next year, an estimated 1.2 million jobs in these fields will go unfilled, and the number of related degrees granted by U.S. universities has declined since the 1970s.There is a growing chorus of voices declaring that fixing the STEM employment gap and the lag in U.S. global performance in math and science starts with early science education. Many experts agree, including Bill Nye of Science Guy fame. “The reality is STEM education needs to be a priority long before a child reaches high school,” Nye said. “We have to start even earlier and make sure that the science curriculum in our schools fosters interest in STEM.”While Nye is right, it’s easier said than done. Young students love science activities, but by the time they graduate from high school only 16 percent are even considering a STEM major. Elementary educators struggle to fit science education into a school week jam-packed with preparation for standardized testing in other subjects. And since many elementary educators don’t hold degrees in STEM subjects, their confidence in teaching hands-on science lessons in the classroom can be shaky. Furthermore, science equipment can be prohibitively expensive for school districts.Addressing these challenges will require more than legislation alone. Our nation’s teachers and the classroom activities they use must engage our young learners in STEM and then keep them interested in it until they decide on their career path. Fortunately, efforts are underway to empower these teachers to instill confidence, equip them with the right tools and help students recognize the satisfaction that can be gained by grasping STEM principles. Across the country, more than 55,000 students in 40 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico competed in local and state level competitions throughout the 2016-2017 school year to be among the 42 students that recently competed in the National You Be The Chemist Challenge in Washington, D.C. While there could be only one 2017 National Challenge Champion – Ananthan Sadagopan of Massachusetts – the tens of thousands of students who participated throughout the year are reaping the benefits of learning more about the world of science and the opportunities a strong STEM education can provide.The Challenge is just the tip of the iceberg of the Chemical Educational Foundation’s year-round programming dedicated to inspiring young learners to pursue science-related education and careers. Activity guides bring fun and inexpensive hands-on science to K-8 learners while professional development workshops prepare educators and industry volunteers to engage STEM students in any setting, including public, private, charter and home schools as well as after-school programs. CEF increases accessibility to STEM through programs that are free for teachers, schools and families, and enrich science education for students both inside and outside the classroom.Supporting educators, supplying lesson plans and engaging elementary and middle school students in a competition to spark their interest in science before they reach high school are critical components of instilling a life-long love of science that can lead to more STEM majors and a 21st-century jobs-ready workforce. CEF and other STEM-focused groups look forward to working with industry partners, the Trump administration and members of Congress to continue the important work of making STEM education accessible to our future leaders in all walks of life.The plan’s investment in integrative programs is crucial to maintaining interest and skills developmentRothstein 15 (Steven M. Rothstien, CEO of Citizen Schools. Advancing a Jobs-Driven Economy STEMconnector- Higher Education and Business Partnerships Lead the Way CH 1. Published in 2015. JSTOR/OBR Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)The United States has a long, proud history of excellence in STEM. Today more than ever before, America’s economic growth depends upon continued success in these fields. However, the country’s STEM talent pipeline is currently insufficient and lacks the diversity necessary to meet the challenges of the 21st century. For our economy to reach its full potential we have to invest in the STEM talent pipeline, especially with students from underrepresented groups. At US2020, an operating division of Citizen Schools, we work to dramatically scale the number of STEM professionals mentoring and teaching students through hands–on projects, with a focus on serving underrepresented youth. We partner with companies, schools, non-profits, government agenicies, and communities across the country in an effort to reveal the promise and the possibility of STEM. Research has shown that student interest in STEM has been found to be more strongly predictive of the pursuit of a STEM degree than academic achievement. Yet a Lemelson– MIT survey found that the majority of teenagers may be discouraged from pursuing STEM careers because they do not know anyone who works in these fields and they do not understand what people in these fields do. A 2012 study by the Girl scout Research Institute found that although the majority of girls are interested in STEM– related subjects, they are far less likely to choose a STEM career; this disparity is, in part, due to gender stereotypes and negative STEM associations. Minority girls in particular have had less exposure to STEM and less adult support for pursuing STEM fields. Quality mentorship is uniquely positioned to address the barriers to pursuing STEM careers the lack of exposure to STEM and the lack of connections to STEM professionals. Research has shown that having adult role models, specifically mentors, provides academic and emotional benefits for students, particularly at-risk youth. Additional studies concluded that students engaged with STEM professionals have more confidence in their STEM capabilities and more knowledge of STEM careers. US2020’s education partners provide mentorship opportunities for students to engage with STEM professionals through hands–on activities and projects. Particularly within the sciences, multiple studies have shown that hands–on activities lead to greater student interest in science, and greater motivation to do science. Perhaps most importantly, students’ interest persisted long after participation in the hands–on activities had ended. Citizen Schools has engaged STEM professionals in hands–on, multisession apprenticeships with middle school students in low income communities for the past 20 years. In 2011–2012, Citizen Schools conducted a study and found that after participating in STEM apprenticeships, 80 percent of 8th grade students expressed interest in STEM fields and careers – more than double the national average of 33 percent. At US2020, in conjunction with our many partners, we believe that if we can scale the number of STEM mentors engaging with students in high quality, multi–session, experiential learning opportunities, we can significantly increase inspiration and achievement in STEM education and the pursuit of STEM careers. US2020 is proud to partner with best–in–class organizations in this effort, including Girl Scouts, Citizen Schools, Boys and Girls Clubs, MentorNet, 4–H, Spark, Project Lead the Way, Million Women Mentors (MWM), and many other organizations.STEM workers are critical to all facets of the economy and competitiveness---they generate huge economic activity and drive innovationDOC 12 – United States Department of Congress, in partnership with the National Economic Council, “The Competitiveness and Economic Capacity of the United States,” January 2012, ● Given the importance of the role played by technological progress and innovation in promoting economic growth, investment in STEM education is especially important. Yet the United States is falling behind in this area at all education levels, and addressing this shortcoming is needed if we are to continue to produce not only a workforce with the technical skills needed to fill current job openings, but persons with the unique blend of technical expertise and entrepreneurial spirit who will create the products and industries of the future.Education is a complex and multifaceted process that spans pre‐school through life‐long learning and involves policy issues ranging from affordability and technology, to questions of support for higher education, classroom size, equal access, and teacher compensation. This chapter primarily and narrowly focuses its attention to STEM because of the strong link between STEM skills, STEM occupations, and innovation. However, our narrow attention to STEM in no way implies that other aspects of education policy are not important in making our country more innovative and competitive. Indeed, our attention to STEM should be viewed as only one example of an area where concern has been raised about the nation’s performance relative to other countries in the world. The STEM Workforce Is ExpandingThe STEM workforce is typically defined as the set of professional and technical support occupations in the fields of computer science and mathematics, engineering, and life and physical sciences. In 2010, there were 7.6 million STEM workers in the United States, representing about 1 in 18 workers. Computer and math occupations account for close to half of STEM employment, followed by engineering with 32 percent of STEM jobs, physical and life sciences with 13 per‐ cent, and STEM management jobs with 9 percent. Over the past 10 years, growth in STEM jobs (7.9 percent) was three times as fast as growth in non‐STEM jobs (2.6 percent). Looking ahead over the coming years, STEM employment is expected to continue to grow at a faster rate (see figure 4.1).STEM workers fill our nation’s research and development facilities and drive our nation’s innovation and competitiveness by generating new ideas, new companies, and new industries. Not surprisingly, more than three‐fourths of the most celebrated inventors and entrepreneurs since 1800 had degrees in engineering, physics, chemistry, computer science, or medicine.4Commensurate with their importance in driving economic productivity and growth, workers in STEM fields earn more on average than workers in other fields. As a result, providing more students with the skills to work in STEM fields is crucial both to the nation’s economic future and to improving the incomes of our workers. STEM workers enjoy large earnings premiums over non‐STEM workers. For example, in 2010, the STEM premium earned by workers with a bachelor’s degree was 27 percent, and for workers with a graduate degree, it was 12 percent5 (see table 4.1). STEM workers are also less likely to experience joblessness than their non‐STEM counterparts.US economic competitiveness is key to global growth---that solves international warfareRichard N. Haass 13, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4/30/13, “The World Without America,” me posit a radical idea: The most critical threat facing the United States now and for the foreseeable future is not a risingChina, a reckless North Korea, a nuclear Iran, modern terrorism, or climate change. Although all of these constitute potential or actual threats, the biggest challenges facing the US are its burgeoning debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-rate primary and secondary schools, outdated immigration system, and slow economic growth – in short, the domestic foundations of American power. Readers in other countries may be tempted to react to this judgment with a dose of schadenfreude, finding more than a little satisfaction in America’s difficulties. Such a response should not be surprising. The US and those representing it have been guilty of hubris (the US may often be the indispensable nation, but it would be better if others pointed this out), and examples of inconsistency between America’s practices and its principles understandably provoke charges of hypocrisy. When America does not adhere to the principles that it preaches to others, it breeds resentment. But, like most temptations, the urge to gloat at America’s imperfections and struggles ought to be resisted. People around the globe should be careful what they wish for. America’s failure to deal with its internal challenges would come at a steep price. Indeed, the rest of the world’s stake in American success is nearly as large as that of the US itself. Part of the reason is economic. The US economy still accounts for about one-quarter of global output. If US growth accelerates, America’s capacity to consume other countries’ goods and services will increase, thereby boosting growth around the world. At a time when Europe is drifting and Asia is slowing, only the US (or, more broadly, North America) has the potential to drive global economic recovery. The US remains a unique source of innovation. Most of the world’s citizens communicate with mobile devices based on technology developed in Silicon Valley; likewise, the Internet was made in America. More recently, new technologies developed in the US greatly increase the ability to extract oil and natural gas from underground formations. This technology is now making its way around the globe, allowing other societies to increase their energy production and decrease both their reliance on costly imports and their carbon emissions. The US is also an invaluable source of ideas. Its world-class universities educate a significant percentage of future world leaders. More fundamentally, the US has long been a leading example of what market economies anddemocratic politics can accomplish. People and governments around the world are far more likely to become more open if the American model is perceived to be succeeding. Finally, the world faces many serious challenges, ranging from the need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, fight climate change, and maintain a functioning world economic order that promotes trade and investment to regulating practices incyberspace, improving global health, and preventing armed conflicts. These problems will not simply go away or sort themselves out. While Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” may ensure the success of free markets, it ispowerless in the world of geopolitics. Order requires the visible hand of leadership to formulate and realize global responses to global challenges. Don’t get me wrong: None of this is meant to suggest that the US can deal effectively with the world’s problems on its own. Unilateralism rarely works. It is not just that the US lacks the means; the very nature of contemporary global problems suggests that only collective responses stand a good chance of succeeding. But multilateralism is much easier to advocate than to design and implement. Right now there is only one candidate for this role: the US. No other country has the necessary combination of capability and outlook. This brings me back to the argument that the US must put its house in order – economically, physically, socially, and politically – if it is to have the resources needed to promote order in the world. Everyone should hope that it does: The alternative to a world led by the US is not a world led by China, Europe, Russia, Japan, India, or any other country, but rather a world that is not led at all. Such a world would almost certainly be characterized by chronic crisis and conflict. That would be bad not just for Americans, but for the vast majority of the planet’s petitiveness is crucial to stop rising powers from displacing US leadership and causing conflictWeisman ‘15 (Jonathan, Washington reporter and senior congressional correspondent for the New York Times. “At Global Economic Gathering, U.S. Primacy Is Seen as Ebbing” 4-17, ) mba-albWASHINGTON — As world leaders converge here for their semiannual trek to the capital of what is still the world’s most powerful economy, concern is rising in many quarters that the United States is retreating from global economic leadership just when it is needed most. The spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have filled Washington with motorcades and traffic jams and loaded the schedules of President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew. But they have also highlighted what some in Washington and around the world see as a United States government so bitterly divided that it is on the verge of ceding the global economic stage it built at the end of World War II and has largely directed ever since. “It’s almost handing over legitimacy to the rising powers,” Arvind Subramanian, the chief economic adviser to the government of India, said of the United States in an interview on Friday. “People can’t be too public about these things, but I would argue this is the single most important issue of these spring meetings.” Other officials attending the meetings this week, speaking on the condition of anonymity, agreed that the role of the United States around the world was at the top of their concerns. Washington’s retreat is not so much by intent, Mr. Subramanian said, but a result of dysfunction and a lack of resources to project economic power the way it once did. Because of tight budgets and competing financial demands, the United States is less able to maintain its economic power, and because of political infighting, it has been unable to formally share it either. Experts say that is giving rise to a more chaotic global shift, especially toward China, which even Obama administration officials worry is extending its economic influence in Asia and elsewhere without following the higher standards for environmental protection, worker rights and business transparency that have become the norms among Western institutions. President Obama, while trying to hold the stage, clearly recognizes the challenge. Pitching his efforts to secure a major trade accord with 11 other Pacific nations, he told reporters on Friday: “The fastest-growing markets, the most populous markers, are going to be in Asia, and if we do not help to shape the rules so that our businesses and our workers can compete in those markets, then China will set up the rules that advantage Chinese workers and Chinese businesses.” In an interview on Friday, Mr. Lew, while conceding the growing unease, hotly contested the notion of any diminution of the American position. “There is always a lot of noise in Washington; I’m not going to pretend this is an exception,” he said. “But the United States’ voice is heard quite clearly in gatherings like this.” Nonetheless, the challenges keep mounting. An overhaul of the I.M.F.’s governance structure, negotiated five years ago in large part by President Obama to give China and other emerging powers more authority commensurate with their growing economic strength, has languished in Congress. That, in part, propelled China to create its own multilateral lending institution in direct competition with the behemoths in Washington. The efforts to secure an ambitious 12-nation Pacific trade agreement, championed by Mr. Obama and recently backed by a handful of key lawmakers, has set off perhaps the biggest fight of his presidency within his own party, with trade unions, environmentalists and liberal activists lining up in opposition to the White House. There is a strong possibility that Mr. Obama could lose the battle. Even the United States’ Export-Import Bank, a lending agency similar to export financing arms in countries around the world, could be killed in June by conservatives in Congress, leaving would-be foreign customers in the cold and many American exporters at a disadvantage to competitors abroad. “I’ve been searching for a word to describe it, and the one I use is ‘withdrawal,’ best I can come up with,” said Edwin M. Truman, a former Obama Treasury official now with the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “We’re withdrawing from the central place we held on the international stage.” In Washington, that concern crosses party lines. “This is really about a crossroads for America and its leadership for the world,” said Representative Dave G. Reichert, Republican of Washington. “We set the tone, we set the path for the global economy by being leaders. And if we don’t, other countries step in.” The costs could be real. Failure to bolster the I.M.F. and other institutions weakens the West’s hand in confrontations like the one with Russia over Ukraine, which has begged for multilateral economic assistance. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, pointed to conflicts like the one in Syria, suggesting that fears the I.M.F. and World Bank will be unable to help rebuild the shattered country only opens the door to confrontational actors like Iran. “Sometimes we can only hope it’s China that steps in,” he said. But China’s rising sway in Africa, South Asia, and even Latin America could blunt efforts by the United States and its allies on a range of issues, from stemming violent extremism to slowing climate change. For much of Washington and the world’s economic leaders, China’s creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank crystallized the choice policy makers face. Earlier this month, Lawrence Summers, who was a top economic adviser for both President Bill Clinton and Mr. Obama, declared that China’s establishment of a new economic institution and Washington’s failure to keep its allies from joining it signaled “the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system.” For years, China had threatened to establish institutions to rival those dominated by the West, like the I.M.F., World Bank and Asian Development Bank — or even to establish its currency, the renminbi, as a reserve currency to rival the dollar. In 2010, Mr. Obama brokered a deal to raise China’s stake in the I.M.F. to 6 percent from 3.8 percent, still far below the United States’ vetoing share of 16.5 percent but enough to give Beijing a larger say. Congress has blocked the proposed adjustment. Meantime, China’s international lending has soared. Fred P. Hochberg, who heads the Export-Import Bank, said that in the last two years alone, Chinese state-run lenders have lent $670 billion. Ex-Im has lent $590 billion since it was created during the Depression of the 1930s. With nearly $4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, China has plenty of resources to project its rising economic power. For example, China’s president, Xi Jinping, plans to offer $46 billion to Pakistan for infrastructure assistance that would open new transportation routes across Asia and challenge the United States as the dominant power in the region. “The United States has lost its way and is rapidly forfeiting claims to global financial, economic, political and moral leadership,” Kevin Rafferty, a former World Bank official, wrote recently in two leading English-language newspapers in Asia. He blamed the White House: “Not for the first time, Obama has shown he can talk eloquently, but does not have a political clue how to get things done.” Other experts and historians, however, say too much can be made of the moment. Walter Russell Mead, a professor of foreign affairs at Bard College, noted that the rise of China as an economic force was inevitable, and that its establishment of a rival lending institution was far different from the international behavior of the Soviet Union and communist Chinese during the Cold War. Then, he said, America’s rivals were trying to destroy and replace the economic order established by the United States and Britain after World War II. Now, emerging powers are emulating it, however imperfectly. Whatever the ultimate consequences, there is plenty of finger-pointing going on. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a potential ally on international economics, echoed Mr. Rafferty. In an interview, he said he included the I.M.F. quota adjustment in an aid package last year to beleaguered Ukraine, but Mr. Obama, he insisted, did not personally intervene to push it through. He fretted that new legislation granting the president “fast track” trade-promotion authority to complete major trade deals with Asia and Europe would stall without enough White House attention. “I was in Southeast Asia in August, and the countries there know there’s no real capital being expended, and they’re worried,” Mr. Corker said, his voice rising in frustration. “They just cannot pull themselves together to push for something.” Administration officials disputed the charge. “I can tell you I have spent dozens if not hundreds of hours talking to central bankers and finance ministers,” Mr. Lew said. “They understand we are sparing no expense.” The leader of the opposition both to the I.M.F. reforms and the Export-Import Bank has been Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, backed by the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. The opposition to international trade alliances, on the other hand, is being led loudly by Democrats who had previously been the president’s most stalwart backers, with an assist from ardent conservatives who oppose anything Mr. Obama does. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia and an emerging internationalist advocate, suggested that two decades of war were turning elements of both parties inward. “The network of international rules and institutions is a peculiarly U.S. creation” that has helped foster peace and prosperity for decades, he said. “The U.S. has built this up, not only for our own benefit but for the world. That we are now stepping back from a leadership role is highly, highly problematic.” US primacy prevents great power wars – anything else escalates and goes nuclearIkenberry, 14 – [Gilford John Ikenberry is a theorist of international relations and United States foreign policy, and a professor of Politics and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, May/June 2014, The Illusion of Geopolitics The Enduring Power of the Liberal Order, Foreign Affairs, ] JeongMead also mischaracterizes the thrust of U.S. foreign policy. Since the end of the Cold War, he argues, the United States has ignored geopolitical issues involving territory and spheres of influence and instead adopted a Pollyannaish emphasis on building the global order. But this is a false dichotomy. The United States does not focus on issues of global order, such as arms control and trade, because it assumes that geopolitical conflict is gone forever; it undertakes such efforts precisely because it wants to manage great-power competition. Order building is not premised on the end of geopolitics; it is about how to answer the big questions of geopolitics. Indeed, the construction of a U.S.-led global order did not begin with the end of the Cold War; it won the Cold War. In the nearly 70 years since World War II, Washington has undertaken sustained efforts to build a far-flung system of multilateral institutions, alliances, trade agreements, and political partnerships. This project has helped draw countries into the United States’ orbit. It has helped strengthen global norms and rules that undercut the legitimacy of nineteenth-century-style spheres of influence, bids for regional domination, and territorial grabs. And it has given the United States the capacities, partnerships, and principles to confront today’s great-power spoilers and revisionists, such as they are. Alliances, partnerships, multilateralism, democracy -- these are the tools of U.S. leadership, and they are winning, not losing, the twenty-first-century struggles over geopolitics and the world order. THE GENTLE GIANT In 1904, the English geographer Halford Mackinder wrote that the great power that controlled the heartland of Eurasia would command “the World-Island” and thus the world itself. For Mead, Eurasia has returned as the great prize of geopolitics. Across the far reaches of this supercontinent, he argues, China, Iran, and Russia are seeking to establish their spheres of influence and challenge U.S. interests, slowly but relentlessly attempting to dominate Eurasia and thereby threaten the United States and the rest of the world. This vision misses a deeper reality. In matters of geopolitics (not to mention demographics, politics, and ideas), the United States has a decisive advantage over China, Iran, and Russia. Although the United States will no doubt come down from the peak of hegemony that it occupied during the unipolar era, its power is still unrivaled. Its wealth and technological advantages remain far out of the reach of China and Russia, to say nothing of Iran. Its recovering economy, now bolstered by massive new natural gas resources, allows it to maintain a global military presence and credible security commitments. Indeed, Washington enjoys a unique ability to win friends and influence states. According to a study led by the political scientist Brett Ashley Leeds, the United States boasts military partnerships with more than 60 countries, whereas Russia counts eight formal allies and China has just one (North Korea). As one British diplomat told me several years ago, “China doesn’t seem to do alliances.” But the United States does, and they pay a double dividend: not only do alliances provide a global platform for the projection of U.S. power, but they also distribute the burden of providing security. The military capabilities aggregated in this U.S.-led alliance system outweigh anything China or Russia might generate for decades to come. Then there are the nuclear weapons. These arms, which the United States, China, and Russia all possess (and Iran is seeking), help the United States in two ways. First, thanks to the logic of mutual assured destruction, they radically reduce the likelihood of great-power war. Such upheavals have provided opportunities for past great powers, including the United States in World War II, to entrench their own international orders. The atomic age has robbed China and Russia of this opportunity. Second, nuclear weapons also make China and Russia more secure, giving them assurance that the United States will never invade. That’s a good thing, because it reduces the likelihood that they will resort to desperate moves, born of insecurity, that risk war and undermine the liberal order. Geography reinforces the United States’ other advantages. As the only great power not surrounded by other great powers, the country has appeared less threatening to other states and was able to rise dramatically over the course of the last century without triggering a war. After the Cold War, when the United States was the world’s sole superpower, other global powers, oceans away, did not even attempt to balance against it. In fact, the United States’ geographic position has led other countries to worry more about abandonment than domination. Allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East have sought to draw the United States into playing a greater role in their regions. The result is what the historian Geir Lundestad has called an “empire by invitation.” The United States’ geographic advantage is on full display in Asia. Most countries there see China as a greater potential danger -- due to its proximity, if nothing else -- than the United States. Except for the United States, every major power in the world lives in a crowded geopolitical neighborhood where shifts in power routinely provoke counterbalancing -- including by one another. China is discovering this dynamic today as surrounding states react to its rise by modernizing their militaries and reinforcing their alliances. Russia has known it for decades, and has faced it most recently in Ukraine, which in recent years has increased its military spending and sought closer ties to the EU. Geographic isolation has also given the United States reason to champion universal principles that allow it to access various regions of the world. The country has long promoted the open-door policy and the principle of self-determination and opposed colonialism -- less out of a sense of idealism than due to the practical realities of keeping Europe, Asia, and the Middle East open for trade and diplomacy. In the late 1930s, the main question facing the United States was how large a geopolitical space, or “grand area,” it would need to exist as a great power in a world of empires, regional blocs, and spheres of influence. World War II made the answer clear: the country’s prosperity and security depended on access to every region. And in the ensuing decades, with some important and damaging exceptions, such as Vietnam, the United States has embraced postimperial principles. It was during these postwar years that geopolitics and order building converged. A liberal international framework was the answer that statesmen such as Dean Acheson, George Kennan, and George Marshall offered to the challenge of Soviet expansionism. The system they built strengthened and enriched the United States and its allies, to the detriment of its illiberal opponents. It also stabilized the world economy and established mechanisms for tackling global problems. The end of the Cold War has not changed the logic behind this project. Fortunately, the liberal principles that Washington has pushed enjoy near-universal appeal, because they have tended to be a good fit with the modernizing forces of economic growth and social advancement. As the historian Charles Maier has put it, the United States surfed the wave of twentieth-century modernization. But some have argued that this congruence between the American project and the forces of modernity has weakened in recent years. The 2008 financial crisis, the thinking goes, marked a world-historical turning point, at which the United States lost its vanguard role in facilitating economic advancement. Yet even if that were true, it hardly follows that China and Russia have replaced the United States as the standard-bearers of the global economy. Even Mead does not argue that China, Iran, or Russia offers the world a new model of modernity. If these illiberal powers really do threaten Washington and the rest of the liberal capitalist world, then they will need to find and ride the next great wave of modernization. They are unlikely to do that. Plan TextPlan: The United States Federal Government should increase funding for a sustained research agenda on STEM practices to implement an integrative STEM framework in primary and secondary education in the United States of America.SolvencyWith the evolution of STEM education, teaching practices and implementation must also constantly be reviewed and researched in order to maintain quality education – the plan is key to increasing and maintaining the US STEM job pipelineKelley & Knowles 16 (Todd R. Kelley, an Associate Professor in Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University, hired as a P-12 STEM educational researcher and technology teacher educator. J. Geoff Knowles, the Executive Director for Ivy Tech Community College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, with a background in environmental engineering and a PhD candidate in Technology and Engineering Teacher Education in the Polytechnic Institute at Purdue University. “A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.” The International Journal of STEM Education, published in July of 2016. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Much ambiguity still surrounds STEM education and how it is most effectively implemented (Breiner et al. 2012). STEM education is often used to imply something innovative and exciting yet it may, in reality, remain disconnected subjects (Abell and Lederman 2007; Sanders 2009; Wang et al. 2011). However, an integrated curricular approach could be applied to solve global challenges of the modern world concerning energy, health, and the environment (Bybee 2010; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 2010). Kennedy and Odell (2014) noted that the current state of STEM education: has evolved into a meta-discipline, an integrated effort that removes the traditional barriers between these subjects, and instead focuses on innovation and the applied process of designing solution to complex contextual problems using current tools and technologies. Engaging students in high quality STEM education requires programs to include rigorous curriculum, instruction, and assessment, integrate technology and engineering into the science and mathematics curriculum, and also promotes scientific inquiry and the engineering design process. (p. 246) STEM education can link scientific inquiry, by formulating questions answered through investigation to inform the student before they engage in the engineering design process to solve problems (Kennedy et al. 2014). Quality STEM education could sustain or increase the STEM pipeline of individuals preparing for careers in these fields (Stohlmann et al. 2012). Improving STEM education may also increase the literacy of all people across the population in technological and scientific areas (NAE and NRC 2009; NRC 2011). As the USA and other countries work to build their capacity in STEM education, they will need to interact with each other in order to enhance their efforts in international scientific engagement and capacity building to provide quality education to all of their students (Clark 2014, p. 6). STEM is key to solving existential threats – a shift in mindset towards STEM creates prediction models that can solve climate change and economic collapse.Nuwer 17 (Rachel Nuwer, a freelance journalist who writes about science, travel, food and adventure for outlets such as the New York Times, Scientific American, National Geographic, and the BBC with a masters in ecology. "How Western civilisation could collapse" BBC Future. April 18, 2017. Accessed: June 8, 2017. COB)While it’s impossible to predict the future with certainty, mathematics, science and history can provide hints about the prospects of Western societies for long-term continuation. Safa Motesharrei, a systems scientist at the University of Maryland, uses computer models to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that can lead to local or global sustainability or collapse. According to findings that Motesharrei and his colleagues published in 2014, there are two factors that matter: ecological strain and economic stratification. The ecological category is the more widely understood and recognised path to potential doom, especially in terms of depletion of natural resources such as groundwater, soil, fisheries and forests – all of which could be worsened by climate change. That economic stratification may lead to collapse on its own, on the other hand, came as more of a surprise to Motesharrei and his colleagues. Under this scenario, elites push society toward instability and eventual collapse by hoarding huge quantities of wealth and resources, and leaving little or none for commoners who vastly outnumber them yet support them with labour. Eventually, the working population crashes because the portion of wealth allocated to them is not enough, followed by collapse of the elites due to the absence of labour. The inequalities we see today both within and between countries already point to such disparities. For example, the top 10% of global income earners are responsible for almost as much total greenhouse gas emissions as the bottom 90% combined. Similarly, about half the world’s population lives on less than $3 per day. For both scenarios, the models define a carrying capacity – a total population level that a given environment’s resources can sustain over the long term. If the carrying capacity is overshot by too much, collapse becomes inevitable. That fate is avoidable, however. “If we make rational choices to reduce factors such as inequality, explosive population growth, the rate at which we deplete natural resources and the rate of pollution – all perfectly doable things – then we can avoid collapse and stabilise onto a sustainable trajectory,” Motesharrei said. “But we cannot wait forever to make those decisions.” Unfortunately, some experts believe such tough decisions exceed our political and psychological capabilities. “The world will not rise to the occasion of solving the climate problem during this century, simply because it is more expensive in the short term to solve the problem than it is to just keep acting as usual,” says Jorgen Randers, a professor emeritus of climate strategy at the BI Norwegian Business School, and author of 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. “The climate problem will get worse and worse and worse because we won’t be able to live up to what we’ve promised to do in the Paris Agreement and elsewhere.”Other 1AC ModulesExclusion AdvThe US must create more and better pathways to STEM careers for women and people of color – both groups have been getting increasingly fewer STEM degrees.Evasius 15 (Dean Evasius, Director of Scientific Assessment and Workforce Development, Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Advancing a Jobs-Driven Economy STEMconnector- Higher Education and Business Partnerships Lead the Way CH 2. Published in 2015. JSTOR/OBR Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)The numbers in the table below, taken from the IMU report, suggest that the United States is producing African American doctorates at a per–capita rate that is lower than the doctoral production of Algeria, Benin, Cameroon, and Tunisia. The conclusion is clear: The United States must create more and better pathways to research careers in the mathematical sciences for women and minorities.25 The data at the undergraduate level show a similar need for action. According to the National Science Foundation, over a nearly 40 year period from 1966 to 2003 the percentage of bachelor’s degrees in the mathematical and computer sciences awarded to women remained above 30 percent, ranging from a low of 30.4 percent to a high of 39.5 percent. That percentage fell below 30 percent in 2004, and has since declined to 25.6 percent in 2010. The trend in computer science is especially dire. The number of undergraduate computer science degrees awarded to women declined 44 percent between 2002 and 2011, from 13,690 to 7,700. Over the same period, 2002–2011, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to African Americans in all fields increased 45 percent, from 111,330 to 161,005. Yet the number of degrees in math and statistics did not increase and the number of degrees in computer science actually declined. In 2011, just 0.5 percent of the bachelor’s degrees awarded to African Americans were in mathematics or statistics.Federal funding of a proper research agenda for integrative STEM initiatives and implementation solves current inequality and interest issues.Kelley & Knowles 16 (Todd R. Kelley, an Associate Professor in Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University, hired as a P-12 STEM educational researcher and technology teacher educator. J. Geoff Knowles, the Executive Director for Ivy Tech Community College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, with a background in environmental engineering and a PhD candidate in Technology and Engineering Teacher Education in the Polytechnic Institute at Purdue University. “A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.” The International Journal of STEM Education, published in July of 2016. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)The proposed conceptual framework must be tested through educational research methods to determine if these concepts improve the teaching and learning of STEM content. A research agenda must be crafted to test theories under a variety of conditions to determine the best approach to integrated STEM. In the USA, the Committee on Integrated STEM Education developed several recommendations directed at multiple stakeholders in integrated STEM education including those designing initiatives for integrated STEM, those developing assessments, and lastly for educational researchers (NAE and NRC 2014). For further investigation in integrated STEM education, researchers need to document in more detail their interventions, curriculum, and programs implemented, especially how subjects are integrated and supported. More evidence needs to be collected on the nature of integration, scaffolding used, and instructional designs applied. Clear outcomes need to be identified and measured concerning how integrated STEM education promotes learning, thinking, interest, and other characteristics related to these objectives. Research focused on interest and teacher and student identity also needs to address diversity and equity, and include more design experiments and longitudinal studies (NAE and NRC 2014). Though these recommendations were made in the context of the American education system, they could prove helpful in many other countries’ educational systems as well.Diversifying STEM fields is key to solving climate change - marginalized communities affected have a better understanding of the impacts - an educational shift is key.Pryzstac 15 (Carley Przystac, a senior and founder of the Roosevelt Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “Diversity in STEM Fields Is Key to Stopping Climate Change” The Roosevelt Institute. October 2, 2015. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB) On November 30, representatives of 196 nations will converge on Paris to discuss how best to move forward in combating climate change, with the ultimate goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. At the same time, thousands of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) students throughout the United States will be preparing for final exams. Any one of these students could make the next big breakthrough in climate change mitigation technology. As such, promoting diversity in established and emerging STEM fields is no longer just a goal but rather an absolute necessity. President Obama has said that ”when Americans are called on to innovate, that’s what we do—whether it’s making more fuel-efficient cars or more fuel-efficient appliances, or making sure that we are putting in place the kinds of equipment that prevents harm to the ozone layer and eliminates acid rain.” But in order to do that, we need scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians. Take, for example, the issue of green energy. By burning fewer greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels, we get ever closer to the goal of COP21, the aforementioned conference occurring this November in Paris. Innovations in nanoscience and nanotechnology increase the efficiency of solar cells, an important fossil fuel alternative, by providing cheaper and more efficient silicon. Continued innovation in these and other STEM fields will be required to achieve long-term progress. Because of the nature of the problem they are trying to solve, the professionals developing these technologies should come from diverse backgrounds and identities. Climate change is a human rights issue because of its broad and indiscriminate effects as well as its disproportionate negative consequences for marginalized populations. Researchers and advocates have argued that we must examine not just where the most severe storms might hit, what locations will be flooded when sea levels rise, and so on, but also which groups of people are likely to be most affected by these trends. This vulnerability analysis shows that low-income communities that lack power and influence in society are in the greatest danger. So far, we are not doing particularly well at achieving greater representation in these fields. An American Community Survey report issued in 2013 found that only 6 percent of our workforce were employed in a STEM occupation. Of those, only 26 percent were women (even though women as a whole make up half of the overall workforce) and 70.8 percent identified as non-Hispanic whites. This disparity seems to result, at least in part, from unequal education: The United States Department of Education reports that “women, underrepresented minorities, first generation college students, and students from low-income backgrounds leave STEM fields at higher rates than their counterparts.” Confronting this issue of inequality at the professional level must start with confronting inequalities in our educational system. Mentorship in STEM, as in any professional occupation, is lacking. The primary responsibility for mentoring programs has not been given to any one body, and frequently starts too late in a professional’s development to have an effect on the attrition in STEM in primary, secondary, and post-secondary education. It is in the best interests of colleges, universities, and companies to leverage their considerable expertise toward this effort, as doing so will ultimately provide them with more qualified and numerous students and professionals. In order to increase opportunity in STEM for current students, the way we teach these subjects must change. If STEM students come from a diverse background, instructors teaching these students cannot approach teaching with a one-size-fits-all approach. Research has shown that traditional lecture-and-textbook approaches do not cater to women and minorities, as these groups are more likely to show interest in people than in things, and showing these ideas in isolation rather than in context disengages underrepresented groups in STEM. This was known as far back as 1990, but the educational system is slow to change. In the same way that addressing climate change is urgent, increasing the talent pool of STEM professionals in the educational pipeline must be looked upon with the same necessity. Until the people designing technologies to help alleviate the impact of climate change represent the populations affected by climate change, the technology will ultimately come up short of its full potential. STEM research and development will benefit immensely when the experiences of those who are doing the work are as diverse as the populations they aim to help. COP21 is working to establish the urgency of the fight to mitigate climate change, but in order to reduce global climate impacts, we first need to look at the educational system producing the minds that are working to do just that.Anthropogenic climate disruption has pushed humanity to the brink of extinction - food systems around the world are collapsing, threatening a billion lives in the near future. Jamail 17 (Dahr Jamail, the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last 10 years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards. “Great Barrier Reef Reaches "Terminal Stage" as CO2 Levels Rise at Record Rate” Truth-Out. April 24, 2017. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Species, ecosystems, glaciers, sea ice and humans themselves continue to absorb and pay for this human experiment of industrialization gone horribly awry. Many are paying with their very existence. Two months ago, I spent some time researching and writing in Australia. I visited the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), where I reveled in the majesty of intact towering coral structures flourishing with marine life. Yet I was also devastated during this visit -- again and again, I happened upon bleached out and silently dead areas of barren coral wasteland, which not long ago teemed with living beings. Roughly 20 percent of the coral on the outer reef were already bleached, and on their way towards death. While snorkeling on the reef during the last afternoon I was there, the signal from the boat to return was given. It was late afternoon, and time to head back to land. I took several long deep breaths, supersaturated my lungs with sea air, and dove down 30 feet to the coral. I swam alongside mostly intact coral structures in all their brilliant colors, teeming with fish. Having interviewed and snorkeled with GBR experts all day, I was preparing to break the story of this year's GBR bleaching event. I knew the reef was likely on its way out of existence, stunning as that may seem, given that the GBR is the single largest coral ecosystem on the planet, spanning 1,400 miles and easily visible from space. Coral reefs can rebuild from bleaching events, but typically need 10-15 years between events in order to recover. This was the second mass bleaching event in the last two years, and there was no sign of a let up. I swam with the coral, taking the scene into my soul, staying down until my lungs burned for air. I swam longer, holding my hands out towards the coral, feeling it, knowing this was most likely to be my farewell to the brilliant corals of the dying Great Barrier Reef. Swimming up to the surface a deep gasp refilled my lungs. I peeled off my mask and wiped my tears, then began my swim back to the boat. Several weeks later Eyewitness News in Australia reported on scientists giving the GBR a "terminal prognosis" unless ACD is slowed dramatically. By April, scientists were in shock, realizing that two-thirds of the entire reef was now bleached out. Some of them declared the GBR had reached a "terminal stage," describing the situation as "unprecedented." Thanks to ACD, Earth has lost approximately half of all its coral reefs in just the last three decades. A quarter of all marine species depend on reefs. Reefs provide the sole source of protein for more than one billion people, and they are now vanishing before our eyes. Scientists are now speculating that an era of terminal global coral bleaching might have already arrived, decades earlier than previously expected. The recent bleaching events are so severe, there is no analog in the thousands of years of ancient coral cores scientists use to study past bleaching events. "This isn't something that's going to happen 100 years from now. We're losing them right now," marine biologist Julia Baum of Canada's University of Victoria told the AP. "We're losing them really quickly, much more quickly than I think any of us ever could have imagined." Meanwhile, the World Meteorological Organization released its annual State of Global Climate report, stating that record-breaking ACD impacts have pushed the planet into "uncharted territory." "Earth is a planet in upheaval due to human-caused changes in the atmosphere," glaciologist Jeffrey Kargel told The Guardian of the report. "In general, drastically changing conditions do not help civilisation, which thrives on stability." As the reefs are dying, ice is rapidly melting away in the globe's northernmost regions. Arctic sea ice has set a low record for the third year in a row, and March data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center showed that that month was the sixth in a row of near-record or record-low sea ice extents. To add a startling layer of context for all of this, a report titled "Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years" was published in the journal Nature Communications. The study found that if fossil-fuel use continues unchecked, the atmosphere could revert "to values of CO2 not seen since the early Eocene (50 million years ago)" by the middle of the 21st century. Dana Royer, a paleoclimate researcher and coauthor of the study, told Climate Central, "The early Eocene was much warmer than today: global mean surface temperature was at least 10°C (18°F) warmer than today. There was little-to-no permanent ice. Palms and crocodiles inhabited the Canadian Arctic." The rapidly changing climate is already taking a palpable toll on human health. In February, scientists warned that increasingly severe droughts across the US over the next three decades may double the size of epidemics of the West Nile Virus. "We thought epidemics would coincide with the most ideal temperatures for (virus) transmission," Marm Kilpatrick, associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said in a statement released to the media. "Instead, we found that the severity of drought was far more important nationally." A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science has warned that ACD will damage the US's ability to maintain agricultural productivity, as rising temperatures and increasing droughts that plague areas where US food is grown are only going to increase. The study has warned that, without changes, US agricultural productivity will, by 2050, fall back to 1980 levels (for a population that was 114 million less than today's). Another recent study showed, distressingly, that as the planet warms, some mammals might actually shrink in size. The study provided evidence that the amount those mammals shrink is directly related to how warm the planet becomes. In the Arctic, signs of major shifting are afoot. Botanists studying the area have warned that ACD has taken root within the plants on which many Indigenous communities depend. Botanists, along with Indigenous peoples in Nunavik, have noted that Labrador tea, which they rely upon to treat ailments like skin problems, coughs and colds, is far weaker now than it used to be, hence, far less medicinal. Another man pointed out that, "Willows used to be stubby and sort of short, like knee high. They can now be eight feet tall, and are growing like wildfires for the last 10 to 15 years, maybe longer." He also noted that ponds are drying up, along with the ducks who used to use them. Instead, he said, pelicans and snakes are appearing. "Before, they never existed here," he said. Native people living in the Arctic are also noting that tree rings are wider, because the growing season is now longer. Meanwhile, down in Australia, more than 1,000 kilometers of mangrove forests "died of thirst" during a single month from extreme conditions, including record high temperatures, driven largely by ACD. Speaking of forests in trouble, scientists have warned that the Amazon jungle is facing a possible death spiral due to the deadly trifecta of industry, agriculture and ACD impacts. A recent study, titled "Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being," has shown that ACD is literally reshuffling the areas and ranges of plants and animals around the planet, with profound consequences for humanity. "Human survival, for urban and rural communities, depends on other life on Earth," the scientists wrote in their study that was published in the journal Science. "Climate change is impelling a universal redistribution of life on Earth."And climate change is a threat multiplier - increased interconnectedness makes the downfall worse than anything else - climate change is the greatest security threat to civilization.Doherty 17 (Ben Doherty is a reporter for Guardian Australia. He is a former foreign correspondent for the Guardian, covering south-east Asia, and for the Sydney Morning Herald, reporting across south Asia. He is twice a Walkley award winner for his foreign reporting. “Climate change will fuel terrorism recruitment, report for German foreign office says.” The Guardian. April 19, 2017. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Former US deputy undersecretary of defence Sherri Goodman told the Guardian this month that climate change was a “threat multiplier” for unstable regions around the world, but that its impacts would be felt globally, and by countries distant from the source conflict. “Climate is a threat multiplier because it aggravates others tensions and conflicts that already exist.” Militaries around the world, across the Americas, UK, Europe, and the Asia Pacific, have highlighted the “threat multiplier” impact of climate change and extreme weather events. The Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change has warned the impact of global warming will drive massive refugee movements of an “unimaginable scale”, and that climate represents “the greatest security threat of the 21st century”. The US secretary of defence, James Matthis, told his confirmation hearing in January climate change posed a real and current security threat to American troops. “Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today. It is appropriate for the combatant commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.” In March, the United Nations, in passing a resolution on the Lake Chad crisis, emphasised the “interconnectedness” of the climate and security challenges in the region, emphasising “the adverse effects of climate change and ecological changes among other factors on the stability of the region”.Poverty AdvHistorical analysis shows an economic downturn is coming now – GDP growth proves.Bruno 2017 (Alessandro Bruno holds a BA and MA in International Relations all at the University of Toronto, has been published extensively and is a frequent guest on television news programs including the BBC, CBC, and CTV and worked as an industry analyst, lived and worked abroad extensively, and served as a United Nations officer in North Africa. “A Stock Market Crash Is Now Imminent, Say Experts” The Lombardi Letter. May 16, 2017. Accessed: June 23, 2017 COB)Volatility continues to decrease: the Volatility Index (VIX) has reached levels not seen since 2007. Somehow, investors see this as a good thing. The VIX is established daily by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE). This index is calculated by averaging volatilities on options on the S&P 500. But it’s no time to trust the VIX. If anything, the possibility of a stock market crash now is higher. This index measures the level of fear, which is why it is often referred to as the “fear index.” In crude terms, right now, the index says investors are the least afraid they have been since 2007. Technicalities aside, does this make sense? From 1990 to 2015, the index has exceeded the 40 mark (see chart below) only five times. It hit 60 in October 1998, when the Russian markets crashed. It hit 58 in September 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. It hit 59 in October 2008, as the sub-prime crisis reared its ugly head in full. The VIX appears accurate at first glance, except there’s one important problem. Market risk seems to have vanished into nothingness. By all means, the volatility index suggests that we invest and be merry, because it seems to ignore obvious problems. The first of these is clear in the grandiose announcement: volatility is at the lowest level since (wait for it) 2007! Rather than cheering, that is major cause for concern. The year 2007 was when the sub-prime implosion started to affect the markets. It wasn’t until September 2008 that the general public got a taste. Moreover, the VIX optimism is highly unrealistic, given the inflated stock valuations on every front. Investors want to celebrate. Advisors are telling clients that “buy and hold” is the best strategy. But it’s far from the best advice. The best explanation for the low-volatility VIX would appear to be just the calm before the storm. Expert Predicts Stock Market Crash Nouriel Roubini, the New York University (NYU) finance professor who predicted the 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession recently issued a warning. Unlike the VIX index, Roubini doesn’t see any “calm” in the markets. Rather, he believes that a financial storm is brewing and could hit Wall Street hard in 2017. Roubini doesn’t point to specific sectors as the source of the forthcoming stock market collapse. Rather, he sees Trump’s policies and geopolitical risk in particular as having an impact. Roubini says Trump poses the greatest risk to the world economy and the markets. (Source: “Dr. Doom: Trump is the biggest risk in the world,” CNN, May 2, 2017.) The confusing results of Trump’s foreign and economic policies have bamboozled the markets. Nobody seems to know which side is up. Thus, while the VIX index might be showing low volatility, the sensation on the market floor—especially internationally—is one of high risk. An economic miscalculation from the White House affects the whole world. America, after all, remains the world’s biggest economy. Roubini is hardly alone. Ray Dalio, a leading hedge fund manager and founder of Bridgewater Associates, LP, also fears that a major stock market crash is coming. Dalio, unlike Roubini, sees Trump as symptomatic of a global political leadership problem, which he blames on populism. (Source: “Ray Dalio Says Populism May Be a Bigger Deal Than Monetary and Fiscal Policy,” Bloomberg, March 22, 2017.) Roubini and Dalio have been proven right before. You can choose to ignore them, but then a more familiar name in the stock market game comes up with similar warnings. Billionaire and investment guru Warren Buffett issued his warnings a few months ago. He said many stocks are overvalued. Buffett’s philosophy has always been to buy when others show fear. Ergo, this seems to be no time to be buying. Investors and the markets are showing the kind of boldness that borders on the irresponsible. It’s what former Fed chair Alan Greenspan described as “irrational exuberance” in a famous speech from 1995. The Strange Calm That the VIX and the Markets Are Indicating Cannot Last The stock market forecast for the next three months warrants far more caution. Rather than being bullish, the market atmosphere now should urge you to pay attention to the financial experts, who have seen a thing or two. That said, there are specific problem areas to consider. After a record week, Wall Street continues to be buoyed by technology. The mortgage industry is also making an eerie comeback in the news. Both technology and mortgages, as you might well remember, were behind two of the biggest market crashes of the last 20 years. Tech stocks gave the world the tech bubble, which burst in 2000. The mortgage industry—especially in its sub-prime variant—gave us the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the financial crash of 2009. As the technology sector pulls the stock market up, Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) continues to set records, keeping the NASDAQ at the forefront. The one stock that should trigger several bell warnings is Home Capital Group Inc (TSE:HCG). American investors might not be too familiar with HCG, but it is a mortgage lender whose stock gained more than 29% after the company announced that an independent third party had shown interest in buying up to 1.5 billion of its mortgage assets. All of this might sound favorable, but it also has a chilling similarity to what happened with the sub-prime mortgage lenders in the mortgage boom years leading to the 2008 financial crisis. HCG might be trading and operating in Canada but, if the sub-prime mortgage crisis showed us anything, it’s that markets are connected and financial crises are contagious. Canada has been experiencing a notorious housing price bubble lately. US Housing sector sucks The United States is experiencing another housing bubble of its own. The North American real estate market could be the target of a black swan event that would cause another major financial crash. As for the stock market, there are many recent entrants with unsustainable valuations. The one that keeps coming up as having a high blow-up potential is Snap Inc (NYSE:SNAP). Snap, after all, is an app for messages that disappear. That’s really it. Snap has not developed a cure for cancer or re-invented the Internet. Its best hope might be for Facebook Inc (NASDAQ:FB) to swallow it up at this point. Snap remains afloat, but it’s teetering. A Snap collapse would break that VIX low-volatility delusion. That’s when the experienced investors will start to see the light, pulling out from the markets and triggering the next major financial collapse. Analysts have cited a recent batch of quarterly results to account for the overall impression of serenity on Wall Street. That serenity is a bubble. The GDP growth figures alone should cause alarm. And U.S. economic growth is dependent upon STEM talent pipelines within our schools – investing in STEM integrative hands-on learning solves the interest issues among minority groups and women, drastically increasing the skilled work force.Rothstein 15 (Steven M. Rothstien, CEO of Citizen Schools. Advancing a Jobs-Driven Economy STEMconnector- Higher Education and Business Partnerships Lead the Way CH 1. Published in 2015. JSTOR/OBR Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)The United States has a long, proud history of excellence in STEM. Today more than ever before, America’s economic growth depends upon continued success in these fields. However, the country’s STEM talent pipeline is currently insufficient and lacks the diversity necessary to meet the challenges of the 21st century. For our economy to reach its full potential we have to invest in the STEM talent pipeline, especially with students from underrepresented groups. At US2020, an operating division of Citizen Schools, we work to dramatically scale the number of STEM professionals mentoring and teaching students through hands–on projects, with a focus on serving underrepresented youth. We partner with companies, schools, non-profits, government agenicies, and communities across the country in an effort to reveal the promise and the possibility of STEM. Research has shown that student interest in STEM has been found to be more strongly predictive of the pursuit of a STEM degree than academic achievement. Yet a Lemelson– MIT survey found that the majority of teenagers may be discouraged from pursuing STEM careers because they do not know anyone who works in these fields and they do not understand what people in these fields do. A 2012 study by the Girl scout Research Institute found that although the majority of girls are interested in STEM– related subjects, they are far less likely to choose a STEM career; this disparity is, in part, due to gender stereotypes and negative STEM associations. Minority girls in particular have had less exposure to STEM and less adult support for pursuing STEM fields. Quality mentorship is uniquely positioned to address the barriers to pursuing STEM careers the lack of exposure to STEM and the lack of connections to STEM professionals. Research has shown that having adult role models, specifically mentors, provides academic and emotional benefits for students, particularly at-risk youth. Additional studies concluded that students engaged with STEM professionals have more confidence in their STEM capabilities and more knowledge of STEM careers. US2020’s education partners provide mentorship opportunities for students to engage with STEM professionals through hands–on activities and projects. Particularly within the sciences, multiple studies have shown that hands–on activities lead to greater student interest in science, and greater motivation to do science. Perhaps most importantly, students’ interest persisted long after participation in the hands–on activities had ended. Citizen Schools has engaged STEM professionals in hands–on, multisession apprenticeships with middle school students in low income communities for the past 20 years. In 2011–2012, Citizen Schools conducted a study and found that after participating in STEM apprenticeships, 80 percent of 8th grade students expressed interest in STEM fields and careers – more than double the national average of 33 percent. At US2020, in conjunction with our many partners, we believe that if we can scale the number of STEM mentors engaging with students in high quality, multi–session, experiential learning opportunities, we can significantly increase inspiration and achievement in STEM education and the pursuit of STEM careers. US2020 is proud to partner with best–in–class organizations in this effort, including Girl Scouts, Citizen Schools, Boys and Girls Clubs, MentorNet, 4–H, Spark, Project Lead the Way, Million Women Mentors (MWM), and many other organizations.Economic growth is key to solve poverty. The Economist 13 (Offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science, technology and the connections between them, “A dollar a day,” The Economist. September 17, 2013. ) In 1991, David Dollar and Aart Kraay, both of the World Bank, published an influential paper, “Growth is good for the Poor”. It established, as an empirical matter, that when average incomes rise, the average incomes of the poorest fifth of society rise proportionately. The implication was that economic growth and its determinants—macroeconomic stability, rule of law, openness to trade and so on—benefit the poorest fifth as much as they do everyone else. This was the heyday of the "Washington consensus". The term had been coined by John Williamson of the Institute for International Economics only two years before. And the study helped confirm the then-widespread view that, as a guideline for policymakers, poor countries ought to concentrate on getting the basics of growth right, rather than on specific measures aimed at helping the poorest. They could do that too, of course. But the impact was not all that great. When Messrs Dollar and Kraay examined four interventions—primary education, social spending, agricultural productivity and improvements in formal democratic institutions—they found little evidence that these disproportionately benefited the poor. Now, Messrs Dollar and Kraay, together with Tatjana Kleineberg, have revisited their study. Using a larger and more detailed data set (118 countries not 92), they find that just over three-quarters of the improvement in the incomes of the poorest 40% is attributable to improvements in average incomes—ie, it comes mainly from growth. The title of the new paper says it all: “Growth still is good for the poor”. But the context is very different from what it was in the early 1990s. Now, the talk is all about income inequality, people being trapped in poverty and the need to help the poorest directly. Barack Obama, David Cameron, the World Bank and dozens of non-governmental organizations, for example, have signed up to the idea that extreme poverty can be eradicated by 2030 (in practice, this means reducing to about 3% the share of the world’s population subsisting on $1.25 a day or less). With hundreds of development agencies gathering in New York on September 25th to talk about "sustainable development goals" to replace the millennium goals that expire in 2015, the air is thick with talk about the problem of inequality and about how the poorest can be trapped by "business as usual". Does this mean the new paper contradicts—and possibly undermines—the post-Washington consensus? The World Bank itself has what it calls a new "overarching mission" which fits the mood of the sustainable-development goals. It commits the bank to "end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity". It is hard to resist discerning some tension—a difference in emphasis, at least —between the aim of "promoting shared prosperity" and this sentence from the new paper: "historical experience in a large sample of countries does not provide much guidance on which combinations of macroeconomic policies and institutions might be particularly beneficial for promoting ‘shared prosperity’ as distinct from simply ‘prosperity’." If it is hard to know how to promote "shared prosperity", why not just concentrate on prosperity pure and simple? Other non-governmental organizations have gone further than the World Bank. Save the Children, a charity, argues in a new paper ("Getting to Zero: how tackling inequality and governance could move us closer to finishing the job of the MDGs") that "governments must get serious about addressing income inequality and improving governance." But if economic growth produces four-fifths of the improvement in the incomes of the poorest, would it not be better to concentrate on that? UPDATE (18th September). Laurence Chandy of the Brookings Institution, and co-author of a study that argued it was possible almost to eradicate extreme poverty, has an interesting new paper describing the two basic approaches to reducing poverty as inclusive growth versus global social safety net. He argues both are needed. And, Poverty is a form of structural violence which carries three times the lethality of a nuclear war. Prefer this impact over any other within the round. Gilligan ‘96, (Dept. of Psych. @ Harvard Med & Dir. of the Center for the Study of Violence) 1996 [James, Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes p. 191-196]You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcibly and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterize their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi’s observation that the deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their virulent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence of our society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence of this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural causes of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint. By “structural violence” I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstratably large portion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society’s collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting “structural” with “behavioral violence,” by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs from behavioral violence in at least three major respects. The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavioral violence occur one at a time. Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. < Continues, page 195> The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide---or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 deaths, and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetuated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.2ACInherencySTEM fundingThe United States is falling behind in the booming sectors of a new bourgeoning economy. The situation is try-or-die for communities on the coast.The Virginian-Pilot 17 (The Virginian-Pilot editorial board, a daily newspaper based around Hampton Roads and Richmond, Virginia. “Editorial: Foot soldiers for research, data” The Virginian-Pilot. April 22, 2017. Accessed: June 10, 2017 COB)THIS MORNING in Washington, Norfolk and locations across the country, activists plan to hold rallies and marches to advocate for science and promote policies grounded in evidence-based research. Relying on science and proven, verifiable data seems a rather common-sense approach to governance, but organizers are right to believe that it’s vitally important now, more than ever, to hold these events. Considering what’s unfolding in the nation’s capital, the event couldn’t happen soon enough. Expect plenty of invective to be directed toward the White House and its wrong-headed stance on key science-related issues. During his campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump cast doubt on volumes of research by portraying climate change as false. On Twitter, he called it a Chinese hoax intended to harm American businesses through overregulation and punishing expenses. Since his election, Trump has moved quickly to try to undo the environmental legacy of his predecessor and has made noises about withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Additionally, he has made a handful of appointments to critical positions that promise to reverse efforts to reduce air and water pollution. Most notably, he named Scott Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt’s track record on environmental protection is no secret. As a state attorney general, he shielded natural gas companies whose controversial use of fracking – a technique that cracks open rock layers to free natural gas – was causing earthquakes and sullying aquifers. He also bent over backwards for oil companies and sided with large agribusiness firms that polluted waterways. Though the EPA has concluded that “carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change,” Pruitt takes a different view, which puts him in opposition with nearly every reputable climate scientist. Yet, beyond opposing the Trump administration’s backward policies on issues such as this, today’s events are intended to promote science and science education so that future generations of Americans will gain a greater understanding of their world. Sadly, schoolchildren in the United States lag well behind many of their peers in other countries when it comes to proficiency in math and science. The Programme for International Student Assessment, a global testing program comparing 15-year-old students, is a reliable benchmark for achievement. And according to a February report by Pew Research Center, “The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science.” The Pew report continues: “Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science.” Other studies and testing models show similar results and reflect a population that is falling behind in these critical areas of study. The implications are enormous, since math and science provide a foundation for all manner of technical, technological and engineering careers. A few years ago, Mariette DiChristina, the editor in chief of Scientific American, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation about the importance of the nation’s continued commitment to research and development funding and science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs. “Our nation’s ability to handle today’s pressing issues, from providing energy security to curing illnesses to living sustainably in a finite world, will require the innovations that arise from basic research,” she said. It is a succinct and accurate summary, and one that must be heeded. The people in the streets today aren’t zealots. They aren’t anti-religion. Many likely aren’t that political. But they do know that the United States has a tradition of leading on science — in our labs, in our universities and in space — and that must continue. For a region such as Hampton Roads, where sea level rise is an existential threat and where the cost of flood mitigation will be in the billions of dollars, a refusal to honestly confront the issue of climate change would be fatal.SolvencyFYI - Solvency MechanismWhat the integrative STEM framework would look like.Kelley & Knowles 16 (Todd R. Kelley, an Associate Professor in Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University, hired as a P-12 STEM educational researcher and technology teacher educator. J. Geoff Knowles, the Executive Director for Ivy Tech Community College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, with a background in environmental engineering and a PhD candidate in Technology and Engineering Teacher Education in the Polytechnic Institute at Purdue University. “A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.” The International Journal of STEM Education, published in July of 2016. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)The recent STEM education literature provides rationale to teach STEM concepts in a context which is most often delivered in project, problem, and design-based approaches (Carlson and Sullivan 1999; Frykholm and Glasson 2005; Hmelo-Silver 2004; Kolodner 2006; Kolodner et al. 2003; Krajcik et al. 1998). It could prove helpful if integrated STEM educators learned the various “STEM languages” and STEM practices outlined above. The reality is secondary education in the US silo STEM subjects within a rigid structure with departmental agendas, requirements, content standards, and end-ofyear examinations. If these barriers remain in education in the USA and in other nations, they may constrain the successful implementation of an integrated STEM program therefore jeopardizing the entire STEM movement. The authors suggest that the key to preparing STEM educators is to first begin by grounding their conceptual understanding of integrated STEM education by teaching key learning theories, pedagogical approaches, and building awareness of research results of current secondary STEM educational initiatives. Furthermore, professional development experiences for in-service teachers could also provide a strong conceptual framework of an integrated STEM approach and build their confidence in teaching from an integrated STEM approach. Kennedy and Odell (2014) indicated that STEM education programs of high quality should include (a) integration of technology and engineering into science and math curriculum at a minimum; (b) promote scientific inquiry and engineering design, include rigorous mathematics and science instruction; (c) collaborative approaches to learning, connect students and educators with STEM fields and professionals; (d) provide global and multiperspective viewpoints; (e) incorporate strategies such as project-based learning, provide formal and informal learning experiences; and (f ) incorporate appropriate technologies to enhance learning.US Federal Government is KeySquo splits federal funding between post-secondary and kindergarten through high school – increase in federal funding and coordination is key to solve.Gonzalez and Kuenzi 12 (Heather B. Gonzalez is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi is a Specialist in Education Policy. “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer” Congressional Research Service. November 15, 2012. R42642/ JSTOR Portal Accessed: June 10, 2017 COB)Various attempts to assess the federal STEM education effort have produced different estimates of its scope and scale. Analysts have identified between 105 and 252 STEM education programs or activities at 13 to 15 federal agencies. Annual federal appropriations for STEM education are typically in the range of $2.8 billion to $3.4 billion. All published inventories identify the Department of Education, National Science Foundation, and Health and Human Services as key agencies in the federal effort. Over half of federal STEM education funding is intended to serve the needs of postsecondary schools and students; the remainder goes to efforts at the kindergarten-through-Grade 12 level. Much of the funding for post-secondary students is in the form of financial aid. Federal STEM education policy concerns center on issues that relate to STEM education as a whole—such as governance of the federal effort and broadening participation of underrepresented populations—as well as those that are specific to STEM education at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels. Governance concerns focus on perceived duplication and lack of coordination in the federal effort; broadening participation concerns tend to highlight achievement gaps between various demographic groups. Analysts suggest a variety of policy proposals in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary STEM education. At the K-12 level, these include proposals to address teacher quality, accountability, and standards. At the post-secondary level, proposals center on efforts to remediate and retain students in STEM majors.Solvency Mech Ext.Integrated STEM Framework improves future learning and teaching capabilities.Kelley & Knowles 16 (Todd R. Kelley, an Associate Professor in Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University, hired as a P-12 STEM educational researcher and technology teacher educator. J. Geoff Knowles, the Executive Director for Ivy Tech Community College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, with a background in environmental engineering and a PhD candidate in Technology and Engineering Teacher Education in the Polytechnic Institute at Purdue University. “A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.” The International Journal of STEM Education, published in July of 2016. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Upon review of these practices across science, engineering, technology, and mathematics, the very nature of these disciplines as well as the context in which the practices occur provide the learner with authentic examples that could help to illustrate crosscutting STEM connections. Locating intersections and connections across the STEM disciplines will assist STEM educators who understand these practices and how they are uniquely similar and different. An integrated STEM approach should leverage the idea that STEM content should be taught alongside STEM practices. Both content and practices are equally important to providing the ideal context for learning and the rationale for doing so. Locating crosscutting practices will help students identify similarities in the nature of work conducted by scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians and could help students make more informed decisions about STEM career pathways.An integrated STEM framework can work within pedagogical approaches in order to benefit the learning process in multiple perspectives.Kelley & Knowles 16 (Todd R. Kelley, an Associate Professor in Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University, hired as a P-12 STEM educational researcher and technology teacher educator. J. Geoff Knowles, the Executive Director for Ivy Tech Community College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, with a background in environmental engineering and a PhD candidate in Technology and Engineering Teacher Education in the Polytechnic Institute at Purdue University. “A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.” The International Journal of STEM Education, published in July of 2016. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Additionally, the concept of learning as an activity not only leverages the context of the learning but also the social aspect of learning. Lave and Wenger (1991) describe this as legitimate peripheral participation when the learning takes place in a community of practitioners assisting the learner to move from a novice understanding of knowledge, skills, and practices toward mastery as they participate “in a social practice of a community” (p. 29). In a community of practice, novices and experienced practitioners can learn from observing, asking questions, and actually participating alongside others with more or different experience. Learning is facilitated when novices and experienced practitioners organize their work in ways that allow all participants the opportunity to see, discuss, and engage in shared practices. (Levine and Marcus 2010, p. 390) Integrated STEM education can create an ideal platform to blend these complementary learning theories by providing a community of practice through social discourse. As educational leaders have wrestled with the concept of integrating STEM disciplines, key elements of situated learning have emerged. For example, Berlin and White (1995) argued that efforts to integrate mathematics and science should be founded, in part, on the idea that knowledge is organized around big ideas, concepts, or themes, and that knowledge is advanced through social discourse. When engaging students into a community of practice, we suggest that the learning outcomes be grounded in common shared practices. Community of practice can provide opportunity to engage local community experts as STEM partners such as practicing scientists, engineers, and technologists who can help focus the learning around real-life STEM contexts regardless of the pedagogical approach.More Solvency-Kelley & Knowles 16 (Todd R. Kelley, an Associate Professor in Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University, hired as a P-12 STEM educational researcher and technology teacher educator. J. Geoff Knowles, the Executive Director for Ivy Tech Community College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, with a background in environmental engineering and a PhD candidate in Technology and Engineering Teacher Education in the Polytechnic Institute at Purdue University. “A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.” The International Journal of STEM Education, published in July of 2016. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Research in integrated STEM can inform STEM education stakeholders to identify barriers as well as determine best practices. A conceptual framework is helpful to build a research agenda that will in turn inform STEM stakeholders to realize the full potential of integrated STEM education. We propose a conceptual framework around learning theories and pedagogies that will lead to achieving key learning outcomes. Developing a conceptual framework for STEM education requires a deep understanding of the complexities surrounding how people learn, specifically teaching and learning STEM content. Research shows STEM education teaching is enhanced when the teacher has sufficient content knowledge and domain pedagogical content knowledge (Nadelson et al. 2012). Instead of teaching content and skills and hoping students will see the connections to real-life application, an integrated approach seeks to locate connections between STEM subjects and provide a relevant context for learning the content. Educators should remain true to the nature in which science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are applied to real-world situations. The Next Generation Science Standards (NRC 2012) suggest closer study of practices may help to provide a framework for integrating STEM subjects.Early STEM education must start with increasing teachers’ self-efficacy which comes from training them in STEM Rich et al 17 Computing and Engineering in Elementary School: The Effect of Year-long Training on Elementary Teacher Self-efficacy and Beliefs About Teaching Computing and Engineering International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, January 2017, Vol. 1, No. 1 ISSN 2513-8359 DOI: 10.21585/ijcses.v1i1.6 Peter Jacob Rich, Brian Lindley Jones, Olga Belikov, Emily Yoshikawa, McKay Perkins///SQUIDThe majority of the teachers expressed a low, but present, self-efficacy. Their statements of efficacy ranged from “dangling on the side of the edge of the cliff,” to “hav[ing] a comfort level with C&E to approach it.” Teachers attributed minor changes in self-efficacy to the participatory trainings. For example, Catherine indicated that “slowly over time...I see maybe I could do this,” and that with increased training she was beginning to feel as though she would be able to implement C&E activities in the classroom. Likewise, Wendy stated that because of the trainings, she felt as though she could more quickly pick up the engineering and “incorporate it into my science time.” Participants of the training who fell into this category also often implemented either engineering or computing on a low level. For example, some teachers took C&E activities home to a child or other elementary-aged family member, or tried a brief extension activity with their students. Every teacher who participated actively in the training and began with low levels of implementation showed some level of increased self-efficacy for C&E. Teachers themselves expressed in interviews that these trainings and experience were contributing factors to their increases in efficacy. Teachers with medium to higher self-efficacy were those who participated actively in trainings and often had background in STEM. These teachers not only participated in the training, but implemented their acquired knowledge to varying degrees. They participated in both low and higher risk implementation, such as full-classroom lessons and integration with core content delivery. Hellen shared that she “felt comfortable enough to introduce [Scratch] to the kids, and show them some of the features.” They shared that although some of these activities seemed unattainable for their teaching, that through training, implementation, and application of previous experiences, they were able to build a self-efficacy for teaching C&E in the classroom. Backgrounds of these teachers often already included previous STEM teaching experience or training in STEM areas. Curiously, even though these teachers expressed relatively higher self-efficacy, they attributed some of that to the trainings, through statements such as, “I think you helped me feel more comfortable with it and then I could help them [the students] feel like... it was an attainable thing it was useful for them to be able to code something that could be useful in the classroom.” Note, however, that it was likely a combination of the trainings, teachers’ own background with STEM and willingness to experiment with new material in the classroom that influenced reported increases in self-efficacy. The importance of implementation on self-efficacy was further evidenced by teachers who began with lower self-efficacy. These teachers implemented a C&E lesson in their classroom regardless of their low self-efficacy for C&E. They also expressed a distinct willingness to experiment in the classroom without necessarily feeling like they had the confidence to teach C&E lessons in their classroom. The willingness to experiment was not quantifiable but an expressed comfort of attempting to teach new lessons in the classroom that they haven’t had experience with in the past. Willingness to experiment led to implementation which in turn led to improved self-efficacy. Note that any level of implementation (e.g., Linda taking computing lessons home to her son) tended to result in increased self-efficacySquo Solves – Current InitiativesCurrent STEM crosscutting teaching practices are failing – only a strategic framework for implementation will solve.Kelley & Knowles 16 (Todd R. Kelley, an Associate Professor in Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University, hired as a P-12 STEM educational researcher and technology teacher educator. J. Geoff Knowles, the Executive Director for Ivy Tech Community College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, with a background in environmental engineering and a PhD candidate in Technology and Engineering Teacher Education in the Polytechnic Institute at Purdue University. “A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.” The International Journal of STEM Education, published in July of 2016. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Making crosscutting STEM connections is complex and requires that teachers teach STEM content in deliberate ways so that students understand how STEM knowledge is applied to real-world problems. Currently, crosscutting connections remain implicit or can be missing all together (NAE and NRC 2009). The Committee on Integrated STEM Education noted that: Connecting ideas across disciplines is challenging when students have little or no understanding of the relevant ideas in the individual disciplines. Also, students do not always or naturally use their disciplinary knowledge in integrated contexts. Students will thus need support to elicit the relevant scientific or mathematical ideas in an engineering or technological design context, to connect those ideas productively, and to reorganize their own ideas in ways that come to reflect normative, scientific ideas and practices. (NAE and NRC 2014, p. 5) Increased integration of STEM subjects may not be more effective if there is not a strategic approach to implementation. However, well-integrated instruction provides opportunities for students to learn in more relevant and stimulating experiences, encourages the use of higher level critical thinking skills, improves problem solving skills, and increases retention (Stohlmann et al. 2012). Building a strategic approach to integrating STEM concepts requires strong conceptual and foundational understanding of how students learn and apply STEM content. The following theoretical framework for integrated STEM seeks to propose such an approach.Squo Solves – New LawsNew laws under Trump have no substance without appropriated funding.Ciechalski 17 (Suzanne Ciechalski, News Writer for NBC Miami. "Bills Aimed at Getting Women in STEM Fields Are Incomplete Without Funding: Experts" NBC News Miami. March 8, 2017. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Two new bills that aim to promote women in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields are a positive step forward, but they don’t quite cut it, experts say. The bills, recently signed by President Donald Trump, authorize the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA to use existing programs and resources to recruit women. But existing programs are underfunded, according to some women working in what are known as the STEM fields, and the two bills do not allocate funding toward the organizations they cover. And without appropriate funding, some say, the mission of the bills is diminished. "It’s good to see backing of these programs, and to have both congress and the president support them, but the devil is in the details," said Dr. Alice Agogino, a professor of engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. "And so, it’s really important what the action item will be."STEM = BipartisanFederal commitment to STEM has historically been bipartisan, as both parties see the benefits of having a strong skilled work force, but proposed distinctions only shut out other areas of demand.Rothwell 13 (Jonathan Rothwell, Associate Fellow Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. "The Hidden STEM Economy" Brookings. June, 2013. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB) Innovation—primarily through the invention, development, and profusion of new technologies—is the fundamental source of economic progress, and inventive activity is strongly associated with economic growth in metropolitan areas and nationally.2 Technological innovation, in turn, usually requires the expertise of specialists with knowledge in fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The notion that scientific and technical knowledge are important to American living standards is embodied in the Constitution, which explicitly gave Congress the power to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by granting patents to inventors. The federal government’s explicit commitment to provide funding to enhance the STEM labor supply and promote research can be traced to Vannevar Bush, who helped initiate the National Science Foundation (NSF) with his 1945 report to President Roosevelt. Since then, reports from the NSF have emphasized the need for STEM education.3 More recently, national leaders from both major political parties have acknowledged the importance of STEM education. In 2006, President George W. Bush launched the American Competitiveness Initiative to improve STEM education and increase the supply of working scientists.4 Likewise, President Obama frequently mentions the importance of STEM education in his speeches. He also created the “Educate to Innovate” campaign to boost STEM education, and signed into law a reauthorization of the Bush-era America Competes Act, which embodies many of the same goals as the Bush administration’s STEM priorities. During the 2012 campaign, both President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, proposed policies to increase the supply of STEM workers, and the Obama administration’s latest budget has a number of initiatives designed to meet that goal, related largely to improving the quality of K-12 STEM education.5 STEM has attracted attention not only in policy spheres, but also in the research arena. Notable reports from the NSF, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce have documented significant labor market advantages for those employed in STEM fields, including relatively high wages, lower unemployment rates, and growing job opportunities.6 Academic research on the whole supports the notion that STEM knowledge is highly rewarded, at least in engineering and computer fields.7 Yet some scholars doubt the claim that there is a shortage of scientists, pointing out that research scientists earn lower wages than doctors and lawyers, which signals an oversupply, and that competition for academic positions and federal grant money is high.8 Academic debate and public policy, however, have been hampered by the lack of a precise definition of what constitutes STEM knowledge and employment. With few exceptions, previous studies have used a binary classification of jobs as STEM or not STEM, overlooking variation in the level of STEM knowledge required and relying on unstated assumptions about what constitutes STEM employment.9 Perhaps as a result, the occupations classified as STEM by the NSF as well as its critics have been exclusively professional occupations. These classifications have neglected the many blue-collar or technical jobs that require considerable STEM knowledge. Competitiveness AdvEcon Internal LinkEcon collapse kills economic leadership- that’s key to an effective foreign policy strategyOverholt 9-1-15(William H., Senior Research Fellow, Harvard Asia Center “America’s Biggest Enemy Is Neither China nor Russia — It’s Us” ) mba-albFor half a century after World War II, the United States pursued one of world history’s most successful national strategies: it nurtured the economic and institutional rebuilding of Europe and Japan, the development of other countries, especially in Asia, and bonded them economically, while protecting this strategy with superior military force. Beginning with the Marshall Plan, Presidents Truman and Eisenhower fashioned this bipartisan strategy, limiting military expenditure whenever it threatened resources for the core economic strategy, and all presidents through Clinton pursued it, the latter with particular vigor. This strategy defeated the Soviet Union, which also had a powerful military and a powerful ideology (however perverted the practice), but gave nearly exclusive priority to the military. Analogues of this economics-focused strategy consolidated the security of U.S. allies. Japan became a big power despite lacking a strong military. In South Korea, General Park Chung Hee took over a country inferior to the North politically, economically and militarily, and shifted to an overwhelming priority for economic development; today South Korea is stronger in all respects due to an economy more than 20 times the size of that of its military-obsessed adversary. In Indonesia, General Suharto abandoned territorial claims to most of Southeast Asia in order to focus on development and made Indonesia the clear regional leader. China’s Deng Xiaoping, emulating them, cut the military budgetfrom 16 percent of GDP to 3 percent in order to focus on development, and China became a great power in only 30 years. In 2001, the United States abandoned its successful economics-focused strategy. For the first time in modern history, all major foreign policy positions were held by defense specialists: General Colin Powell as secretary of state, Richard Armitage as his deputy, Donald Rumsfeld at defense and Condoleezza Rice as national security advisor, all led by a former defense secretary, Vice President Cheney. As a result, in planning the Iraq war, there was no economic voice; any development expert knew that dismissing the entire ruling class would be catastrophic. Even after great revolutions like those of France and Russia, a country can only be run by the experienced bureaucracy. In Afghanistan, expenditures on economic development were pitiful and Rumsfeld insisted that economic development must be controlled by the military; the accumulated civilian expertise and success of half a century were contemptuously dismissed. With its overwhelming military priority, the United States now has the most powerful military in world history. Because of its exceptional competence and devotion, Americans rightly hold the military in higher esteem than any other government institution. But this great military has lost every war it has fought since the change of strategy, and continues to lose. The problem lies not with the military but rather with lack of civilian leadership. Chopping off the economic arm and relying on one-armed military tactics was not partisan and was not a calculated decision. It was initiated by a right-wing Republican administration, then persisted under Democrats. It is sustained not by explicit strategy, but rather by inertia and interest group pressures. The lobby for ever-increasing military emphasis holds near-absolute sway in Congress, which imposes even weaponry and bases the Pentagon doesn’t want while starving the State Department and economic institutions. Nor is the problem lack of money for a positive economic policy. Much of the needed local institution building and international trade regime development have minimal cost. Given scarce resources, Eisenhower and Truman trimmed back the Pentagon budget. Moreover, the almost exclusively military-focused strategy has turned out to be wildly expensive. Future historians will likely say that the United States wasted at least $2 trillion on unbalanced strategy in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The problem is misallocation. Although all presidents through Clinton, indeed particularly Clinton, adhered to a balanced military-economic strategy, congressional provincialism initiated the gradual abdication of U.S. economic leadership even before 2001. U.S. Congress Abandons U.S. Economic Leadership The institutions of U.S. global leadership were the International Monetary Fund and World Bank (1944); the Marshall Plan (1947), followed by generous development assistance for the poorer countries; the U.S. dollar’s global dominance; and U.S. leadership through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization in a trade and investment regime that spread prosperity. Any enemy of U.S. global leadership must undermine these institutions. That is happening. The preeminence of the dollar derives from the superior liquidity of dollar markets and from confidence that the U.S. Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury will provide liquidity in crises. Dollar liquidity has declined but remains greatly superior to all alternatives. Trust that the United States will help in crises has, however, been shattered, particularly in Asia. In the Mexican crisis of 1994, the United States used its Exchange Stabilization Fund to prevent Mexico’s currency crisis from becoming a catastrophe. The Mexican intervention cost the United States nothing, but Congress prohibited future similar interventions. When the Asian crisis began in Thailand in July 1997, the United States therefore could not intervene and some of America’s strongest Asian allies felt abandoned. Punitive IMF conditions crashed Thailand’s economy and collapsed Indonesia’s banking system. In a precursor of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank controversy, the United States insisted that Japan withdraw an offer to create a recovery fund that the United States feared would compete with the IMF. Therefore, in Asian eyes, the United States was accountable for catastrophic IMF policies; distrust for the U.S.-Bretton Woods system persists. Key congressional restrictions continue. At the time this article was written, the United States had five standing swap agreements worth $333 billion; China had 28 worth $499 billion. While the U.S. executive has always backed the Bretton Woods system, Congress has undermined it. The World Bank and the IMF were designed, at Bretton Woods, for the world of 1944, in the scale of their resources and the structure of their governance. Afterward, presidents of both parties consistently supported augmentation of their resources to cope with a growing global economy. But from 2009, Congress has rejected this bipartisan tradition. That refusal led directly into the recent controversy over China’s founding of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Outside Washington, the AIIB debate has focused on the scale of need, $8 trillion of investment over a decade. The World Bank ($223 billion) and the Asian Development Bank ($168 billion) have a combined capital of $391 billion. China and virtually all U.S. allies and the U.S. administration pressed for that capital to be increased, but Congress refused. China wants to strengthen these institutions; it is the U.S. Congress undermining them. While the old institutions’ capital stagnates, China Development Bank is putting some $190 billion into foreign loans, the New Development Bank has initial capital of $50 billion and authorized capital of $100 billion, the Silk Road infrastructure fund will have $62 billion and AIIB will have $100 billion, overshadowing the Bretton Woods institutions. Given those numbers, the U.S. refusal to capitalize the existing institutions ensures that they will lose leadership. Refusing Governance Reform of Global Institutions Likewise on governance reform. For many years there has been a global clamor, mainly from friends and allies of the United States, supported by the U.S. president, to revise the governance of these and other postwar institutions to reflect today’s world. But Congress rejects reform. The United States has three options: update existing institutions sufficiently so that they can provide leadership; refuse modernization and embrace new institutions that fill the resulting vacuum; or refuse modernization of the Bretton Woods institutions and oppose new ones. The first two options both provide a decent chance that the United States will remain the preeminent economic leader, albeit with more influential colleagues. Ironically, congressional choice of the third option ensures that the new institutions will be preeminent and that China will be preeminent within them. Moreover, the Obama administration’s argument that China can’t be trusted to provide sound AIIB governance was worse than weak. Some dispassionate observers even think AIIB governance will be superior to that of the Bretton Woods institutions, because it will properly represent emerging countries, because China has taken the lead in promoting green financial structures and because the World Bank is muscle-bound, unable to make decisions in reasonable time at reasonable cost. China’s creation of AIIB was based on a decision that, after having lent over $600 billion unilaterally, its funding would be more effective in a multilateral institution — a decision aligned with U.S. interests and strongly supported by leading Europeans as system-supportive, not destructive. The global financial crisis degraded U.S. economic leadership in multiple ways. As China’s most respected bank reformer told this writer, “We discovered that our teacher didn’t know what he was talking about.” During the global financial crisis, trade finance suffered a severe collapse — one that for Asia’s trade-dependent economies was potentially catastrophic. Not surprisingly, Asian banks, especially Chinese banks, moved to limit the shortfall. After the global financial crisis, global financial leaders (dominated by Americans and Europeans) agreed on new bank capital standards that heavily burdened trade finance, even though trade credits are fully collateralized and self-liquidate in less than a year. These standards made trade finance relatively less attractive and thereby ensured a continued shift toward non-Western banks. That set the stage for what seemed impossible five years ago: the Chinese renminbi has surpassed the euro as the second most important settlement currency. The global financial crisis and qualitative easing have created incentives to reduce dependence on a dollar-based system. After the financial crisis, China and Russia both called for an alternative monetary system; the pain they suffered would have inspired such calls even if they were on good terms with the United States. While the United States bitterly complained about national loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs in a decade — mostly to automation — the global financial crisis cost China more in a single city in one year. Exclusion ADVSolves DiversityFederal involvement is best to fix the STEM diversity gap – maximizes and encourages interest in STEM to solve interest issues at the high school level nationally.Pells 17 (Rachael Pells, education correspondent for the Independent. "Sexism in school: 57% of teachers admit to stereotyping girls and boys" The Independent. February 8, 2017. Accessed: June 20, 2017. COB)The problem is mirrored in the US, where female employees account for less than a quarter of STEM workers – despite making up almost half the overall workforce. Almost a third of young people responding to the survey said they thought more boys chose STEM subjects than girls because they matched “male” careers or jobs. And a further 36 per cent said they were put off studying STEM subjects because they felt unclear about what careers they would support. The survey reveals a disparity between girls’ and boys’ perceptions of STEM subjects, with girls more likely to view them as “academic” and “boring”. The findings also point to a significant dip in girls’ enjoyment of traditional STEM subjects such as mathematics and computer science as they enter secondary school – among the 7-11 age group, 50 per cent of girls describe these subjects as fun and enjoyable, but this drops to less than a third in the 11-14 age group. “Girls’ engagement with STEM is clearly waning as they reach the age when they begin to consider their subject choices and future careers,” said Emma McGuigan, senior managing director for Accenture Technology in the UK and Ireland. “We have to address this by doing more to spark and retain girls’ interest in STEM at an early age, while expanding perceptions and demonstrating what a career or a person who works in STEM looks like beyond the traditional stereotypes. “Inspiring more girls to pursue STEM subjects and careers will not only help us to address the skills gap in science and technology, it will also help us to create a more diverse workforce that truly represents the world we live in.”STEM = SexistSTEM focuses on a culture of exclusion by promoting a masculine environment in some fields.Galvin 16 (Gaby Galvin, U.S. News Contributor. "Study: Inclusive Environment Key to Closing STEM Gap" U.S. News. November 23, 2016. Accessed: June 23, 2017 COB)In order to tighten the gender gap in certain male-dominated science, technology, engineering and math fields, educators must develop a more inviting culture, according to a study published in the October issue of Psychological Bulletin. The study, "Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?" draws on previous works on STEM gender gaps to account for the specific gap in computer science, engineering and physics fields. The study's authors, University of Washington's Sapna Cheryan, Lily Jiang and Sianna Ziegler and Ohio State's Amanda Montoya, knew that more boys preferred these fields than girls, but wanted to understand why. Previous research, they say, tried to write the gender gap off as individual preferences and abilities, factors they found to be insignificant. While the number of women in biology, chemistry and math have increased in recent years, the gap has widened in computer science and persists in engineering and physics fields. Echoed by the 2016 U.S. News/Raytheon STEM Index, the research reveals that the academic culture of these fields is more masculine, which deters high school girls from enrolling in the often-optional courses. An overwhelmingly masculine environment is one that conveys a stronger sense of belonging for males and increases the interest, participation and performance of boys to the detriment of girls, according to Cheryan. The study defines masculine culture as an environment that fosters "stereotypes of the field that are incompatible with the way that many women see themselves, negative stereotypes and perceived bias, and few role models for women." The stereotypical image of a computer scientist, engineer or physicist doesn't line up with how many girls see themselves or their interests, the report says. These factors contribute to why women and girls don't feel comfortable in some STEM fields.Women in STEM fields have reported having to face discrimination- historical examples proveRaymond 15 (Laurel Raymond, General Reporter at ThinkProgress, 10-19-2015, "Even With Hard Evidence Of Gender Bias In STEM Fields, Men Don’t Believe It’s Real", )There’s a growing mountain of evidence that women in the STEM fields face gender bias. This August, for example, female platform engineer Isis Wenger participated in an recruiting campaign?—?only to face ridicule based on her appearance and disbelief that she was actually an engineer. She then launched the #iLookLikeAnEngineer hashtag on Twitter, which went viral as women and minorities in STEM tweeted to combat stereotypes. And earlier in the summer, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Tim Hunt made headlines when he said that the “trouble with girls” was that three things happen when they are let into the lab: “you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry.” These are egregious examples?—?but the empirical evidence backs them up. One landmark study found that science faculty at research universities rate applicants with male names as more competent, more hireable, and more deserving of a higher starting salary than female applicants, even when the resumes are otherwise identical. Now, a new study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) shows another level of bias: Many men don’t believe this is happening. When shown empirical evidence of gender bias against women in the STEM fields, men were far less likely to find the studies convincing or important, according to researchers from Montana State University (MSU), the University of North Florida, and Skidmore College.Institutional characteristics affect persistence in STEM fields for women - qualitative and quantitative dataTalley & Ortiz 17 March 30, 2017 Kimberly G. Talley, (Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, M.S. in Engineering, University of Texas at Austin) “Women’s interest development and motivations to persist as college students in STEM: a mixed methods analysis of views and voices from a Hispanic-Serving Institution”, MTThe so-called “leaky-pipeline” metaphor describes the various points along the K-16 academic pipeline at which participants move away from or “leak” out of the preparation process. This issue describes the pathway choices that are particularly representative of women, as will be described in the following section.It has been popularly accepted that boys prefer construction toys and girls prefer doll-like toys (Connor and Serbin 1977) and that these seemingly genetic tendencies manifest themselves into future career choices. For example, current data at universities like Texas State University reveal that even within the field of STEM, women are more likely to pursue a natural science major versus a physical science major (Martinez Ortiz and Sriraman 2015), and there is certainly a gap in the gender representation of men and women in the STEM workforce. According to the Science and Engineering Indicators report (National Science Foundation 2016), although women represent 50% of the total US college-educated workforce, they only represent 15% of the engineering workforce. Investigation of the factors contributing to this leaky pipeline leads us to explore more deeply the literature examining women’s interest and motivation in STEM, from a cognitive and psychosocial perspective. For example, Eccles (1987) has argued that the differences in career choice for women result from both differential expectations for success and differences in gender-role socializations while researchers like Backer and Halualani (2012) focus on the contribution of the cognitive construct of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined by Bandura (1995, p.2) as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations.” It has been argued that self-efficacy can be a predictor of academic achievement (Bandura and Locke 2003) and persistence (Lent et al. 2003). Backer and Halualani explore the impact of student self-efficacy on interest and choice by female engineering students at California University with declining participation by women in undergraduate engineering programs. They found seemingly conflicting results because, despite their declining numbers, the self-efficacy levels of the remaining women were high. Perhaps if they had examine the self-efficacy of the women who did not persist in engineering, they may have found lower levels of self-efficacy in engineering fields of study or other contributing environmental or institutional factors.Scholars such as Bettinger and Long (2005) have examined environmental factors such as the role of faculty members as role models and found that instructor attributes may affect student interest. Griffith (2010) explored if the institution mattered or affected persistence of women and minorities in STEM by examining National Educational Longitudinal data sets. Her findings suggested that, indeed, institutional characteristics affect persistence as evidenced by higher student persistence rates at institutions with higher proportions of undergraduate students versus graduate students. Finally, Szelehnyi, Denson, and Inkelas (2013) examine student outcomes related to women who are STEM majors who participate in living-learning programs. Their findings also indicate that such a college environment also influences professional outcome expectations.Therefore, utilizing this literature base, our study was undertaken to further probe multiple factors using a methodology that allowed for both a quantitative and qualitative assessment.?Minority Inaccessibility Limited resources and lack of education keeps minorities from entering STEM fields- educational access solves job inaccessibility Torres et al 14 Summer of 2014 (Luis Torres is the ?Director of Policy and Legislation for the League of United Latin American Citizens in Washington, D.C. Before joining LULAC, Luis served as Legislative Director for Congressman Silvestre Reyes, former Chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) “STEM Education: A Bridge for Latinos to Opportunity and Success”, MT STEM Jobs Accessibility and Competition National demand for STEM-educated students is high, but demand tends to be concentrated in certain locations. Top cities for STEM employment growth in the next five years include Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, California, STEM Education: A Bridge for Latinos to Opportunity and Success 9 Seattle, and Washington, D.C.18 These cities, along with other metropolitan areas, are developing as U.S. centers for innovation to keep up with demand for a professional world increasingly oriented toward STEM.19 (See Figure A.2 in Appendix.) Due to the large number of high-paying STEM jobs, these cities tend to be affluent, and/or places of employment tend to be centered in affluent areas of the city. Cities expecting increased STEM job opportunities have income inequality gaps that are among the highest in the nation.20 (See Figure A.3 in Appendix.) Many of the states, and the District of Columbia, with the highest percentage of STEM jobs are also states with the highest Latino populations.21 22 Despite how close Latinos live to STEM cities, they are limited in their resources to tap into STEM opportunities due to the quality of education they are receiving and the general lack of STEM information provided to students and parents. It is crucial to partner and develop the current infrastructure in these key areas in order to effectively reach out to the community and provide them with the resources needed to maximize nearby STEM education and opportunities. Connecting Latinos to STEM opportunities would have a positive effect on correcting the inequality gaps in STEM cities. Sexism - Plan K2 Mindset ShiftThe aff is key to changing social attitudes – shifts the discussion towards a person’s ability to aid their field and away from their genderHuhman 12 (Heather R. Huhman, Forbes Contributor, 6-20-2012, "STEM Fields And The Gender Gap: Where Are The Women?", )“The reason there aren’t more women computer scientists is because there aren’t more women computer scientists,” she told the Associated Press. The problem starts as early as grade school. Young girls are rarely encouraged to pursue math and science, which is problematic considering studies show a lack of belief in intellectual growth can actually inhibit it. In addition, there exists an unconscious bias that science and math are typically “male” fields while humanities and arts are primarily “female” fields, and these stereotypes further inhibit girls’ likelihood of cultivating an interest in math and science. Popular culture plays a role, as well. Girls grow up seeing women in powerful positions as doctors and lawyers on TV, but the media continues to promote stereotypes when it comes to programmers, often portraying them as geeky men. So how can we promote female advancement in the STEM fields? Below are a few steps that may reverse the current trend: 1. Create programs that will encourage women to study tech. Many women are reluctant to study STEM fields because they think the boys have all the experience, and they’ll look silly when placed in classes with them. But some colleges are creating programs to lure in female software engineers. Administrators at Harvey Mudd College allow their students to choose between two beginner programming courses—“gold” for those with no prior experience, and “black” for those who have it. College programs that divide students by experience level will help to alleviate fears of women who are inexperienced in tech and thus less likely to pursue it. 2. Rework the K-12 curriculum. An interest in science and technology needs to be cultivated at a young age, but many women are standing on the sidelines as the boys participate in science fairs. K-12 educators should work to encourage young girls to pursue opportunities in STEM by offering more hands-on workshops for girls to learn about science and technology. Schools should also consider bringing female engineers to talk to students about their profession and reach out to young girls. 3. Combat stereotypes. Female engineers are the brains behind a number of Facebook’s features, such as the news feed and the photo viewer. If more women knew this, perhaps they’d be empowered to jump into the field themselves. We need more visibility when it comes to the work female engineers have already accomplished, so young girls know it’s not just men who are behind technology they use in their everyday lives. These approaches will help to encourage female participation in the STEM fields from a young age, but they aren’t hard-and-fast solutions. Although achieving gender equality can’t be done overnight, what we can do is dedicate ourselves to changing the norms and stereotypes that inhibit women from tapping into their true potential.Exposure to female experts acts as a social vaccine- creates a sense of belonging in STEM fields Dasgupta and Stout 2014 Nilanjana Dasgupta October 1, 2014 (Dr. Nilanjana Dasgupta has held several leadership positions in national and international professional societies. She is serving on the National Science Foundation’s Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (2015–17). She is an elected member of the executive committee of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, and was elected to be President of the society in 2017. Dr. Dasgupta serves on the Training Committee of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and on the steering committee of the International Social Cognition Network. Dasgupta was an elected member of the council of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues ) SAGE Publications “Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: STEMing the Tide and Broadening Participation in STEM Careers” MTStemming the leaky pipeline of women in STEM should emphasize two factors that increase social belonging— exposure to female experts and female peers. Such exposure Dasgupta and Stout 25 acts as a “social vaccine” that inoculates women’s self-concept against noxious stereotypes, builds resilience, and increases belonging (Dasgupta, 2011). Promote Opportunities for Peer Networking Because women are often tokens or solos in their academic departments, they need other venues to network, learn, and share peers’ experiences. STEM departments should support programs that help foster a sense of belonging among women in STEM, and encourage female students to attend diversity conferences and professional society meetings such as Society of Women in Engineering, which invest in students’ success. In the computing field, the Anita Borg Institute hosts an annual conference specifically for women called the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing. The world’s largest annual gathering of women in computing, this event provides a welcoming space for female students to network, present their work, and receive mentoring from female computing experts.Sexism - Skills GapSexism worsens the skills gap by forcing women out of higher STEM degree programs Cohoon & Chao 9 (J. McGrath Cohoon, the Assistant Professor of Science, Technology, & Society in the School of Engineering & Applied Science at the University of Virginia. Jie Chao is a doctoral student, Curry School of Education, Instructional Technology, University of Virginia. “Sexism—Toxic to Women’s Persistence in CSE Doctoral Programs” January 2009, Vol. 21/No.1, JSTOR. Accessed: June 23, 2017 COB)Preventing sexism in CSE doctoral programs can increase women’s retention. With funding from the National Center for Women & IT (NCWIT), CRA has been studying women in W Graduate Cohort program. This program welcomes women graduate students into the computing the CRA_community and provides them with role models and a broad range of strategies for success. Analyses have produced some interesting findings about women’s retention in CSE doctoral programs. The data indicate that observing or experiencing sexism plays a key role in doctoral women’s departure. When asked to describe any sexism (according to their own definitions) that they observed or experienced in their doctoral programs, the Cohort women identified incidents ranging from differential and demeaning to crude and offensive behaviors by some faculty and other students. A few women faced “male graduate students who openly express their opinions that the women in the program are more likely to be incompetent than the men.” Other women were subjected to behavior that would qualify as harassment. For example, this woman “switched labs because male students frequently and explicitly discussed women and their sex lives in very unsavory ways.” Even faculty members occasionally contributed to making the environment inhospitable for women. For example, “I had a male faculty member state that attendance is so important that missing class to tend to a sick child is unacceptable. In fact, he stated that women with children should “choose” between a family and an education.” His male students apparently were not expected to make a similar choice. Among Cohort women working toward a doctoral degree in 2008, 12% witnessed or had been subjected to sexism by the spring of their first year. Close to one-quarter of the more advanced graduate women observed or had experienced sexism. These responses suggest that women in CSE doctoral programs perceive less sexism than reported by women in many other settings. Nevertheless, our analyses showed that even this level of sexism is a serious issue in CSE doctoral programs. Although not a common experience in CSE doctoral programs, sexism leads some women to think of leaving (TOL) their doctoral programs. By the second year of their program, 60% of the Cohort women in our sample thought of leaving. Most often, these thoughts were motivated by low confidence in their own abilities (49% of those who TOL cited this reason), or to take a job (49% of those who TOL). Only 7% of the women who thought of leaving cited sexism observed or experienced as their reason. Nevertheless, sexism has a strong impact on actual departure, unlike other motivations for thinking of leaving. Many of those who consider leaving persist nonetheless. Comparing women who TOL and persisted with those who TOL and actually left shows that these two groups had very different motivations regarding only one factor—sexism observed or experienced. Thirty-six percent of Cohort women who TOL and left selected sexism observed or experienced as a reason for their TOL, while only 3% of those who TOL but persisted chose this reason. Calculating the odds ratio of actual departure produces only one statistically significant factor (p<=.001). The odds of actual departure are 10 times greater for women who think of leaving because of sexism than they are for any other reason women identified. In conclusion, sexism seems far from rampant in CSE, but when women perceive it, sexism is likely to be toxic to their persistence. These findings suggest that acting to minimize women’s experience of sexism in their doctoral program could have a measurable positive effect on women’s retention.Sexism - Women’s HealthLess women in STEM increases the likelihood of heart attacks, disease, and flaws in medical researchDel Giudice 14 (Marguerite Del Giudice, contributor and writer for National Geographic. “Why It's Crucial to Get More Women Into Science” National Geographic. November 8, 2014. Accessed: June 23. 2017 COB)So what difference does it make when there is a lack of women in science? For one, it means women might not get the quality of health care that men receive. It's now widely acknowledged that countless women with heart disease have been misdiagnosed in emergency rooms and sent home, possibly to die from heart attacks, because for decades what we know now wasn't known: that they can exhibit different symptoms from men for cardiovascular disease. Women also have suffered disproportionately more side effects from various medications, from statins to sleep aids, because the recommended doses were based on clinical trials that focused largely on average-size men. Such miscalculated dosages often have not been discovered until the drugs were on the market. Just last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration advised women to cut their doses of the sleeping pill Ambien in half, after learning that the active ingredient in the drug remained in women's bodies longer than it did in men's. Was the oversight in medical research deliberate? No, many scientists say. There was simply a routine procedural bias not to include sex as a variable in scientific research. A photo of six images of a variety of female scientists. "The blond girl studying apes," was how a National Geographic editor once referred to primatologist Jane Goodall. That "girl" went on to become world famous for her meticulous field studies of chimpanzees. PHOTOGRAPH BY MICHAEL NICHOLS, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CREATIVE For generations, the model used in biomedical research to design drugs and products for everyone has been predicated on the physiology of an average-size male, historically the standard reference figure in Gray's Anatomy, the medical textbook first published in the 1850s. Even the rats (and other animals) used in scientific experiments have mainly been male. For years, many researchers were concerned that hormone fluctuations in female animals would skew the results of tests, and simply assumed that males could be used to reliably predict effects in both men and women. As a result, "sex, the biggest variable, has not been systematically evaluated and reported in the same way as variables like time, temperature, and dose, even in diseases that are female dominated," says Teresa K. Woodruff, director of the Women's Health Research Institute at Northwestern University. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the primary U.S. agency responsible for health-related research, is now correcting this procedural bias. It announced in May that the researchers it funds would be required to start testing theories in female lab animals and female tissues and cells, and to consider sex as a variable in experiment design and analysis. Woodruff describes the new policy as a "paradigm shift" and "cataclysmic." "This is categorically the most important thing to happen at NIH, and therefore for the long-term health of America, since 1993, when women were mandated by Congress to be included as participants in clinical research," she says. The new policy addresses gender bias much earlier in the research pipeline, before testing is done on humans.Gender Pay Gap – Economy I/LDeconstructing gender differences in STEM fields spills over to the wage gap Islam 13 (Celia Islam, president of Children’s Trust Fund. "The Message I Want All Girl 'Geeks' To Hear" Huffington Post. November 10, 2013. Accessed: June 8, 2017 COB)Here’s why it’s so important to encourage more women to go into STEM fields. In a country in which the average women still earns 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns, and in a country in which the majority of single parents are single mothers, getting more women into STEM could both reduce the gender wage gap and ensure that single mothers don’t have to struggle to put food on the table. Not only are there currently more jobs in STEM than in any other industry, but most of these high-tech jobs are high-paying, as well. According to the National Council for Women and Information Technology, there will be around 1.4 million computer specialist job openings expected in the U.S. by 2020. Women have the capability to hold 50 percent of those jobs. Yet, in order to get to the point where women earn fifty percent of STEM degrees and hold fifty percent of STEM jobs, we need to start at the very beginning. By the very beginning, I mean pre-K, when kids are just beginning to learn basic math and science skills and most likely have not yet been exposed to the stereotypes regarding men and women in STEM. By the time women reach college, or even high school, it may be too late to change their minds about going into STEM. After all, choosing a major or a career is a lifelong process of determining what we enjoy doing. And much of what we enjoy doing is determined early on by outside forces such as parents, teachers, and society’s general expectations.The gender wage gap perpetuates economic inequality and accounts for a $500 billion dollar loss Duckworth et. al. 16 (Tammy Duckworth, U.S. Representative from Illinois' 8th Congressional District. "Closing the Gender Pay Gap" Huffingtong Post. April 18, 2016. Accessed: June 8, 2017 COB)Equal pay is not solely a women’s issue - it’s a family issue. Families increasingly rely on women’s wages to help make ends meet, and with less take-home pay women have less for the everyday needs of their families - groceries, rent, child care, and doctors’ visits. Beyond the direct impact of hurting individual families, the gender wage gap also damages the economy as a whole. The wage gap costs women who are employed full time in the United States, as a group, nearly $500 billion every year. These lost wages mean families have less money to spend on goods and services that help drive economic growth. For example, based on calculations by the National Partnership for Women & Families, if the wage gap were eliminated, a working woman in the United States would have enough money for approximately: 83 more weeks of food for her family (1.6 years’ worth); more than seven more months of mortgage and utilities payments; more than 11 more months of rent; or 4,635 additional gallons of gas.Climate Change – A2 DenialClimate denialism teaches us to view climate change as ‘normal’ which forces us to ignore the existential impacts like droughts, heat, and conflictMooallem 17 (Jon Mooallem, contributor to the New York Times Magazine. “Our Climate Future Is Actually Our Climate Present” The New York Times Magazine. April 19, 2017. Accessed: June 18,2017 COB)The future we’ve been warned about is beginning to saturate the present. We tend to imagine climate change as a destroyer. But it also traffics in disruption, disarray: increasingly frequent and more powerful storms and droughts; heightened flooding; expanded ranges of pests turning forests into fuel for wildfires; stretches of inhospitable heat. So many facets of our existence — agriculture, transportation, cities and the architecture they spawned — were designed to suit specific environments. Now they are being slowly transplanted into different, more volatile ones, without ever actually moving. We’re accustomed to hearing about the tragically straightforward cases of island nations that will simply disappear: countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati that face the possibility of having to broker the wholesale resettlement of their people in other countries. Yet there must also be, in any corner of the planet, and for each human living on it, a threshold at which a familiar place becomes an unfamiliar one: an altered atmosphere, inundated by differentness and weirdness, in which, on some level, we’ll live on, in exile. The Australian philosopher Glenn Albrecht describes this feeling as “solastalgia”: “a form of homesickness one gets when one is still at ‘home.’?” Some communities will face new problems and varieties of weather; in others, existing ones will intensify. Already-vulnerable societies — the poor, the poorly governed — may be stressed to grim breaking points. Consider the mass starvation in South Sudan, Nigeria, Yemen and Somalia, where a total of nearly a million and a half children are predicted to die this year — and that climate change is projected to worsen the kind of droughts that caused it. Consider, too, a 2015 Department of Defense report, which framed climate change as a geopolitical “threat multiplier” that will “threaten domestic stability in a number of countries,” and cited a study showing how a five-year drought in Syria contributed to the outbreak of the current conflict there. Nonetheless, denial is coming back in fashion among the most powerful. We have a president who dismisses climate change as a hoax, and a budget director who belittles government programs to study and adapt to our new reality as a “waste of your money.” Still, we insulate ourselves from the disorientation and alarm in other, more pernicious ways, too. We seem able to normalize catastrophes as we absorb them, a phenomenon that points to what Peter Kahn, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, calls “environmental generational amnesia.” Each generation, Kahn argues, can recognize only the ecological changes its members witness during their lifetimes. When we spoke recently, Kahn pointed to the living conditions in megacities like Kolkata, or in the highly polluted, impoverished areas affected by Houston’s oil refineries, where he conducted his initial research in the early ’90s. In Houston, Kahn found that two-thirds of the children he interviewed understood that air and water pollution were environmental issues. But only one-third believed their neighborhood was polluted. “People are born into this life,” Kahn told me, “and they think it’s normal.” Such shifting baselines muddle the idea of adaptation to climate change, too. Adaptation, Kahn notes, can mean anything from the human eye’s adjusting to a darker environment within a few milliseconds to wolves’ changing into dogs over thousands of years. It doesn’t always mean progress, he told me; “it’s possible to adapt and diminish the quality of human life.” Adapting to avoid or cope with the suffering wrought by climate change might gradually create other suffering. And because of environmental generational amnesia, we might never fully recognize its extent. Think of how Shel Silverstein’s Giving Tree, nimbly accommodating each of the boy’s needs, eventually winds up a stump.Climate Change – Now is KeyTrump is a threat to STEM Education - DeVos and Pence prove the administration is anti-science and this perspective pushes non-science lessons into science classes and that kills any chance of resolving climate change Powell 16 (Devin Powell, a freelance science journalist. “Trump's First 100 Days: Science Education and Schools “ The Scientific American. December 5, 2016 Accessed: June 18, 2017 COB)Yet the tone of his campaign—and his rhetoric on issues ranging from minorities to climate change—has many educators and academics worried about the future of liberal arts and STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education. “Donald Trump has shown a contempt for science, a willingness to play fast and loose with the very idea of truth and an absence of intellectual curiosity,” says Laurence Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. “This leaves me with the sinking feeling that he will have a terribly destructive impact on the entire project of making excellent education broadly available.” The President-elect’s clearest stance may be his support of school choice, the view that families—not the government—should decide where their children go to school and be allowed to use public education funds for public or private education. Opponents of school choice argue there is no evidence that it improves academic performance, and that it threatens the divide between church and state by channeling government funds into private religious schooling. Trump’s pick for secretary of education, Republican philanthropist Betsy DeVos, is chairman for the American Federation for Children, a nonprofit organization that advocates for public funding to allow families to send their children to private and charter schools. “She has been heavily involved, if not the main architect of the educational system that is in place in Detroit, where charter schools are among the worst in the country,” says Douglas Harris, a professor of economics at Tulane University. “Her general preference on these things is for as little government as possible.” Vice President–elect Mike Pence has also championed the cause of school choice; as governor of Indiana, he oversaw a tenfold increase in the number of students receiving vouchers—public funds used to cover private school costs—over the past four years. Trump has pledged $20 billion in federal funds in support of school choice for families living in poverty; whether this money would come from U.S. Department of Education funds remains unclear. He will ask states to chip in another $110 billion, according to his Web site. Much of Pres. Barack Obama’s work on education could be undone soon after he leaves office. He relied heavily on executive orders, legally binding directives that interpret existing laws related many issues, including education. “Obama’s legacy stands on clay feet,” says Jonathan Turley, professor of law at The George Washington University Law School. “It would be relatively easy to obliterate it.” Trump has promised to use his executive powers to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by Pres. Obama.” If the President-elect follows through, Obama’s federal task force investigating sexual assault on university campuses—opposed by Turley and other law professors concerned about due process—could be dismantled. His order allowing transgendered students to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools—challenged by a federal court in Texas—might disappear. Department of Education inquiries into for-profit educational institutions—which led to the closure of ITT Technical Institute—could cease. Regulations that give the federal government a greater oversight over programs that prepare new teachers—issued only recently—will die. But there are limits to presidential power. Trump said in an interview in 2015 that he might “cut” the U.S. Department of Education. Such a move would require Congress, and that body has consistently increased funding to the department since Pres. Jimmy Carter elevated it to cabinet-level status in 1979. The new administration will also have no official say over what is taught in the classroom. Consider Trump’s oft-repeated pledge to “end” the Common Core, a set of standards for math and English developed by state leaders (not by the federal government, as is often believed). The U.S. Constitution does not grant the president—nor Congress—the ability to set education standards. Each state makes its own decision. Recent legislation, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), further restricts the federal government from even trying to influence a state’s decision—as Obama did with his $4.35-billion Race to the Top Fund, which favored Common Core states when awarding federal grants. ESSA shields state adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards from federal meddling; released in 2013 by a coalition of states and scientific organizations, these research-based standards have so far been adopted by 17 states. If the Trump administration has any influence on curricula, it could well be via the antiscience rhetoric of its inner circle. Pence has publicly supported the teaching of creationism. Myron Ebell, head of transitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and director of the Center of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is a vocal climate change skeptic. So is Trump, who tweeted in 2012 “the concept of climate change was created by and for the Chinese.” (The Chinese have corrected him.) Science education advocates warn the legitimization of such nonscientific views at the highest levels of government could trickle down to local policies. Education boards in several states, such as Louisiana and Texas, have already been battling over how evolution and climate change should be taught, as have state legislatures considering bills that would allow teachers to treat these subjects as controversial. Nearly all of this legislation has emerged in states that were won by Trump. “We see 10 to 12 of the bills every year, and their intent is clearly to give teachers cover to teach nonscience in science classrooms,” says Ann Reid, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). “None have passed recently, but there’s a danger that the people introducing these bills and school boards trying to change standards will be emboldened.” According to Reid, NCSE surveys suggest that many teachers avoid teaching evolution and climate change, concerned that parents will complain. She predicts community pressure around these issues will only increase.Climate Change - WarmingWarming is anthropogenic and will lead to total extinction lest we turn to science to come up with a solution to the problem of climate changeGroome 17 (Meghan Groome is the senior vice president of education at the New York Academy of Sciences “Climate change is misrepresented and misunderstood” Washington Post. March 31, 2017. Accessed: June 18, 2017 COB)The March 29 editorial “A reckless climate reversal” and John Podesta’s Washington Forum commentary the same day, “On climate, it’s up to us now,” were correct to decry the Trump administration’s decisions to reverse U.S. policies to address the changing global climate. The science is clear that human activities are the reason the climate is changing. Business and political leaders around the world have recognized this reality and are trying to do something about it. It is a national shame that our government is headed in the opposite direction. The consequence of ignoring the threat of climate change, however, is not “an endangered planet,” as The Post and Mr. Podesta said. Planet Earth existed for billions of years before conditions allowed for life — including humans — to develop and prosper, and it will continue to exist, regardless of how high sea levels and global temperatures rise. So all who are concerned about climate change should be clear: What is at stake is not the fate of planet Earth, but, rather, the fate of humanity, in particular, and life on Earth, in general. The campaign by the Heartland Institute to disseminate unscientific information about climate change takes climate science down a well-worn path: dress up propaganda with scientific-sounding vocabulary, identify a few “credentialed skeptics,” then misuse phrases such as “It’s just a theory” to make it seem as if science and pseudoscience are equal. For more than 65 years, the New York Academy of Sciences has been hosting STEM-education programs for students and teachers to ensure we have scientifically literate citizens prepared for the future workplace and capable of making informed decisions to benefit their communities. The point of science education is to teach students how to make evidence-based decisions using data collected by fully qualified researchers through internationally recognized practices. The Heartland Institute is within its rights to have its unscientific opinion about climate change, but opinion is not fact.Climate Change – Environmental DegradationSTEM Education policy decreases environmental degradation Donovan et al 14 January 2014 (Brian M. Donovan joined BSCS as a research scientist in 2016. Before joining BSCS, he taught in Stanford's Teacher Education Program, served as a research assistant for the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the Departments of Psychology and Biology) “Revising the Economic imperative for US STEM education” MT One way an economically motivated STEM education policy can increase economic welfare is by reducing environmental degradation. Toward that end, STEM education must teach students about the benefits of biodiversity and ecosystem functions [14]– [19],[22] to redress the devaluation of ecosystems[10]–[15],[17]. Furthermore, it should teach students how to assess, preserve, and restore ecosystems in their local communities because research suggests that large increases in biodiversity and ecosystem services can result from restoration efforts carried out locally [26].To promote a nuanced view of environmental issues, this curriculum should stress that economic growth can increase human welfare up to a point, after which human welfare can deteriorate along with ecosystems [13]. We are not suggesting that lessons pit economy against ecology, but that they challenge students to envision social and technological solutions to environmental problems that are economically feasible. By the same token, these solutions should not overlook the fact that the burden of environmental degradation falls disproportionately on the poor and people of color [11], [27],[28]. Thus, the curriculum should ask students to envision equitable solutions to environmental problems. Finally, research suggests that introducing students to careers in science [29], [30] and building science related social relationships enhances students' STEM career aspirations [29],[30]. Consequently, the STEM curriculum should explicitly introduce students to gainful “Green Jobs” [31]as well as individuals who have these jobs, in order to increase the likelihood that students pursue STEM career tracks that contribute to a sustainable economy.Climate Change - ExtinctionMultiple anthropogenic climate positive feedback loops are accelerating, triggering massive droughts and resource shortages. 20 million facing starvation right now. 400 million will be displaced in the coming decades. World wide extreme natural disasters, like flooding and wild fires, kill and displace many more. Jamail 17 (Dahr Jamail, the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last 10 years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards. “Great Barrier Reef Reaches "Terminal Stage" as CO2 Levels Rise at Record Rate” Truth-Out. April 24, 2017. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Positive feedback loops are one of the most important things to understand about abrupt ACD. The most well-known example of one of these is the melting Arctic sea ice. Intact sea ice reflects most solar heating back into space. As the ice melts, more of the ocean absorbs that heat, which melts more of the ice, which causes more heating, and on it goes. In Canada, a recent scientific study has unearthed another climate feedback loop -- this one coming in the form of vast expanses of farmland being exposed by melting snow and ice over longer amounts of time that then make a larger contribution to greenhouse gases and ACD. According to the study, the thawing of previously frozen cropland is burping nitrous oxide into the atmosphere at rates much greater than previously thought, which means that agriculture's role in generating greenhouse gases has been greatly underestimated. On a similar note, recent research has shown that ACD could thaw far more permafrost than was previously expected. The study showed that more than 40 percent of Earth's frozen tundra could unfreeze if global temperatures continue trending upward. This month, the signs of how rapidly ACD is progressing in the watery realms are glaring and painful. A report published in March shows that, according to the UN, the world is facing the widest and deepest humanitarian crisis since the end of WWII, as 20 million people face starvation and famine in Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen and South Sudan, with no end in sight. Underscoring this crisis, another report from this spring has provided evidence that the Middle East and North Africa risk becoming uninhabitable within a few decades, due to lack of accessible fresh water, which has already fallen by two-thirds over the last 40 years. The 22 countries impacted by this growing water crisis are home to nearly 400 million people, who are also impacted by lack of adequate water for agriculture and food production for their populations that are continuing to grow rapidly. According to the report, per capita availability of fresh water across this region is already 10 times less than that of the world average, and ACD-driven higher temperatures may shorten growing seasons across the region by 18 days. At current trends, this would reduce agricultural yields another 27 percent -- meaning a decrease of 55 percent by 2100, despite rising populations. Meanwhile, conditions in the ocean are looking increasingly grim. An algae bloom the size of Mexico in the Arabian Sea reminded people there of a 2008 bloom that killed 50 tons of fish that were starved of oxygen. The fish that inhabit the Gulf of Arabia sustain 120 million people. As mentioned in the beginning of the dispatch, the Great Barrier Reef is struggling to survive amidst yet another major coral bleaching event. "We didn't expect to see this level of destruction to the Great Barrier Reef for another 30 years," Terry Hughes, director of an Australian government-funded center for coral reef studies at James Cook University told the New York Times. "In the north, I saw hundreds of reefs -- literally two-thirds of the reefs were dying and are now dead." Even the once-pristine Maldives are seeing their coral succumbing to mass bleaching. And there are no signs of this disturbing trend slowing down. A study published in March revealed that Earth's oceans are now warming 13 percent faster than they were in 1990, and the rate is accelerating. Another report showed that the rate of oceanic warming has nearly doubled over two decades, and the heat being added to them is reaching into even deeper waters. Earlier this month, a report revealed that approximately one-third of the Arctic Ocean is, in an astonishingly rapid transition, becoming more like the Atlantic Ocean as warm waters streaming into the Arctic are altering both its productivity and chemistry. Yet another issue besetting the Arctic due to runaway ACD is ocean acidification, according to another recently published study on the subject. It's quite simple actually: As increasing amounts of sea ice melt, an increasing amount of ocean is exposed to the CO2-loaded atmosphere. More CO2 is therefore absorbed into the once-pristine waters, thus increasing their acidification, with dire consequences to the biome. NOAA reported in February that sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic had shrunk to record lows, and it became clear that ACD was on pace to wipe out an Ice Age remnant, Canada's Laurentide Ice Sheet. It is worth noting that this has not happened in 2.6 million years. In early April more than 400 icebergs drifted into North Atlantic shipping lanes, an unusually large swarm for that time of year. These kinds of numbers are usually not seen until late May, and the average number of icebergs for the time of year this occurred is around 80. The massive flotilla of icebergs was released thanks to the melting of the Jakobshavn, the largest glacier in Greenland. Scientists reported recently that Jakobshavn is now even more vulnerable to ice losses than previously believed. Scientists also pointed out that the dramatic melting of the Arctic sea ice is already affecting weather patterns around the world by generating more extreme weather events. In an astonishingly short period of time, Peru has gone from experiencing record wildfires to record flooding. "We've rarely seen this kind of rapid and quick change in climatic conditions," Peru's Civil Defense Institute member Juber Ruiz told The Guardian. The wildfires burned furiously from September through November, as the Peruvian Amazon experienced its driest period in two decades, and more than 100,000 acres of rainforest and farm land burned. Then, in January, the droughts gave way to record-setting rains, which killed dozens and destroyed more than 12,000 homes as more than 175 districts around the country had to declare a state of emergency. In March, in the US, a wildfire near Boulder, Colorado signaled an early kick-off to wildfire season when it forced the evacuation of 1,000 people. At the time of this writing, wildfires across the US were already off to a furious start, with more than 2 million acres having burned. That number of acres burned is approximately 10 times the average for the time of year it was tabulated, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.Climate Change - TerrorismClimate change creates disparate regions with massive amounts of resource disparity- empowering terror groups and enticing people to join extremist groups.Doherty 17 (Ben Doherty is a reporter for Guardian Australia. He is a former foreign correspondent for the Guardian, covering south-east Asia, and for the Sydney Morning Herald, reporting across south Asia. He is twice a Walkley award winner for his foreign reporting. “Climate change will fuel terrorism recruitment, report for German foreign office says.” The Guardian. April 19, 2017. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Climate change will fuel acts of terrorism and strengthen recruiting efforts by terrorist groups such as Islamic State and Boko Haram, a report commissioned by the German foreign office has found. Terrorist groups will exploit the natural disasters and water and food shortages expected to result from climate change and allow them to recruit more easily, operate more freely and control civilian populations, argues the report by Berlin thinktank Adelphi. “Terrorist groups are increasingly using natural resources – such as water – as a weapon of war, controlling access to it, and further compounding, and exacerbating resource scarcities,” Lukas Rüttinger writes in the report, titled Insurgency, Terrorism and Organised Crime in a Warming World. “The scarcer resources become, the more power is given to those who control them, especially in regions where people are particularly reliant on natural resources for their livelihoods. “As climate change affects food security and the availability of water and land, affected people will become more vulnerable not only to negative climate impacts but also to recruitment by terrorist groups offering alternative livelihoods and economic incentives.” The Adelphi report cites several examples where the impacts of climate change are already spurring or exacerbating terrorism. In the drought-ravaged region around Lake Chad in central Africa, food and water shortages, near-economic collapse, and weak governments are providing a ripe recruiting ground for Islamist fundamentalist group Boko Haram. “In north-eastern Nigeria, the region closest to Lake Chad and where Boko Haram is strongest, 71.5% of the population live in poverty and more than 50% are malnourished … This kind of economic deprivation provides an ideal breeding ground for recruitment by Boko Haram.” In Syria, the now six-year civil war and rise of Isis was, not caused, but exacerbated by one of the worst and widest droughts in the country’s history, which drove hundreds of thousands from the land, and sent millions into extreme poverty and food insecurity. Isis is using water as a weapon of war, the report argues, controlling dams to harm enemies and expand its own territory. “In 2015, Islamic State closed the gates of the Ramadi dam to more easily attack regime forces further downstream. Weaponisation of water can also take the form of using it as a source of funding by taxing it, as Isis did in Raqqa. In other instances, Isis did not cut the supply, but rather used water to flood land in order to expel people from their homes.” And in Afghanistan, a country riven by internecine conflicts and acutely vulnerable to climate change, more than half of local conflicts are over land and water. Diminishing rainfall and advancing desertification are likely to spark further violent clashes between nomads and pastoralists over access to pastures and water and food. Rüttinger told the Guardian climate change alone did not cause terrorism, but “creates an environment where terrorism can thrive” and exacerbates existing tensions and conflicts.Econ ADVFunding = InterestIncreased Funding to STEM education and outreach increases interest, especially women. Dasgupta and Stout 2014 Nilanjana Dasgupta October 1, 2014 (Dr. Nilanjana Dasgupta has held several leadership positions in national and international professional societies. She is serving on the National Science Foundation’s Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (2015–17). She is an elected member of the executive committee of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, and was elected to be President of the society in 2017. Dr. Dasgupta serves on the Training Committee of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and on the steering committee of the International Social Cognition Network. Dasgupta was an elected member of the council of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues ) SAGE Publications “Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: STEMing the Tide and Broadening Participation in STEM Careers” between higher education and K-12 schools bring children and adolescents face-to-face with real scientists, engineers, and technology creators who are faculty and graduate students in STEM departments. Colleges and university administrators, as well as school principals and superintendents, should reward such collaborative efforts. Funding agencies should recognize outreach, offering small grant support. A successful example is the NSF’s CAREER award, which explicitly requires successful grant proposals to do more than demonstrate excellent scientific merit. The Principal Investigator (PI) must also demonstrate how the proposed project will have a “broader impact.” One way to achieve broader impact involves grant-related activities aimed at attracting children and adolescents in elementary, middle, and high school into STEM. This might involve PIs bringing young people into the lab for scientific demonstrations, giving a science workshop at a local school, or collaborating with the science teacher to organize a relevant field trip. The goal is to create opportunities for STEM faculty to visit K-12 classes and talk about their research in age-appropriate and interesting ways, so that young people can see concrete examples of what scientists and engineers do and meet real scientists and engineers, especially women. At least 50% of these visitors should be female scientists, engineers, and graduate students from STEM programs, given that female students are positively influenced by female role models in STEM (Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & Scircle, 2014; Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011; for a review, see Dasgupta, 2011).Lack of Skilled WorkersGrowth in the STEM job market is outpacing number of qualified workers.Torres et al 14 (Luis Torres is the ?Director of Policy and Legislation for the League of United Latin American Citizens in Washington, D.C. Before joining LULAC, Luis served as Legislative Director for Congressman Silvestre Reyes, former Chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) “STEM Education: A Bridge for Latinos to Opportunity and Success”, MT Obtaining a Higher Education is Critical to Securing a STEM Job Today’s job market requires a high level of education from potential employees. A study in 2008 demonstrated that 59% of all jobs in the U.S. economy require education after high school.10 In 2012, more than 50% of the 30 fastest-growing occupations required some level of education beyond high school. The National Math and Science Initiative also states that “all of the increase in employment over the past two decades has been among workers who have taken at least some college classes or who have Associate or Bachelor’s degrees—and mostly among workers with Bachelor’s degrees.” 11 The need for higher education is especially true for STEM jobs, which almost always require a college degree. In fact, the demand for the specialized learning of technical skills and foundational skills specific to the STEM field has led to an even greater increase in the number of STEM degrees awarded. Between 2009 and 2013, the number of science and engineering (S&E) Bachelor’s degree completions grew by 19%. Within the next four to five years, it is projected that 63% of all jobs in the nation’s economy will require postsecondary education. Of these, 92% will be related to STEM.12 However, the growth in the STEM field job market is quickly outpacing the availability of qualified workers who have completed a college-level STEM education. This situation raises serious concerns about the workforce and our education system. In light of this, it is important that students be equipped to pursue a postsecondary education, a de facto requirement for a job, which will lead them to a prosperous life. To prepare for this, we should not expect STEM education to be limited to the domain of higher education, relying on universities to transform students into experts in their field. STEM skill learning should begin at an early phase in students’ education in order to give them a running start upon entering the university setting.Current supply of domestic students perusing STEM fields is too small to fuel economic competitiveness and scientific innovation - plan solves.Dasgupta and Stout 2014 Nilanjana Dasgupta October 1, 2014 (Dr. Nilanjana Dasgupta has held several leadership positions in national and international professional societies. She is serving on the National Science Foundation’s Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (2015–17). She is an elected member of the executive committee of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, and was elected to be President of the society in 2017. Dr. Dasgupta serves on the Training Committee of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and on the steering committee of the International Social Cognition Network. Dasgupta was an elected member of the council of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues ) SAGE Publications “Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: STEMing the Tide and Broadening Participation in STEM Careers” today’s globalized world, scientific innovation is vital for American economic competitiveness, quality of life, and national security. Scientific advances fuel American economic competitiveness, quality of life, and national security. Much of the future job growth is projected in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, the supply of domestic students who pursue STEM careers remains small relative to the demand. On the supply side, girls and women represent untapped human capital that, if leveraged, could enhance the STEM workforce, given that they comprise 50% of the American population and more than 50% of the college-bound population.Yet the scarcity of women in STEM careers remains stark. What drives these gender disparities in STEM? And what are the solutions? Research points to different answers depending on the stage of human development. Distinct obstacles occur during three developmental periods: (a) childhood and adolescence, (b) emerging adulthood, and (c) young-to-middle adulthood. This article describes how specific learning environments, peer relations, and family characteristics become obstacles to STEM interest, achievement, and persistence in each period. Evidence-based policies and programs promise to eliminate these obstacles, increasing girls and women’s participation in STEM. Keywords STEM, diversity, gender, achievement, stereotype 22 Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1(1) types of science and mathematics tests compared with male peers and report less confidence and aspiration (Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010). Gender gaps in science and math performance have been closing, but gaps in STEM self-concept and aspirations remain large. Even when girls and women perform as well as their male peers on STEM tests or better, many lose interest and do not pursue advanced courses, majors, and careers in STEM, representing an exodus of talent among girls and women who could otherwise become the next generation of scientists, engineers, and creators of technology (for a review, see Dasgupta, 2011). What drives gender disparities in STEM? Research points to multiple answers at different developmental stages. The reasons for gender disparities in childhood and adolescence differ from those in emerging adulthood or early-to-middle adulthood. Interventions aimed at closing the gender gap need to target multiple time points in the developmental trajectory. This article focuses on three developmental periods and identifies obstacles in each: (a) childhood and adolescence, (b) emerging adulthood, and (c) young-to-middle adulthood. Each section below describes learning environments, peer relations, and family characteristics that become obstacles creating gender differences in STEM interest, achievement, and persistence. Evidence-based policies and programs, if implemented, promise to eliminate barriers and increase girls’ and women’s participation in STEM.US Growth - SlowThe U.S. economy will experience slow growth in the first two quarters of 2017.Fortune 17 (Fortune, economic analysis source. "U.S. Economic Growth Slips to Its Slowest in 3 Years" April 28, 2017. ) The U.S. economy turned in the weakest performance in three years in the January-March quarter as consumers sharply slowed their spending. The result repeats a pattern that has characterized the recovery: lackluster beginnings to the year. The gross domestic product, the total output of goods and services, grew by just 0.7% in the first quarter following a gain of 2.1% in the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday. The slowdown primarily reflected slower consumer spending, which grew by just 0.3% after a 3.5% gain in the fourth quarter. It was the poorest showing in more than seven years. Analysts blame in part the unusually warm winter, which meant less spending on utility bills. Economists believe the slowdown will be temporary. They forecast GDP growth will rebound to 3% or better in the current quarter. Averaging the two quarters, they forecast growth of around 2% for the first half of this year. That would be in line with the mediocre performance of the eight-year economic expansion, when growth has averaged just 2.1%, the poorest showing for any recovery in the post-World War II period.STEM Key to Competitiveness STEM education is key to US economic competitiveness- getting students involved early is key Topeka Capital-Journal 17 (The Topeka Capital-Journal Editorial Board, a daily newspaper in Topeka, Kansas. “STEM education at every level” The Topeka Capital-Journal. April 12, 2017. Accessed: June 23, 2017 COB)When it comes to science and math, American high school students are outperformed by many of their international peers. Every three years, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests 15-year-olds around the world in reading, math and science. According to the Pew Research Center, the PISA results from 2015 (the most recent year the test was administered) placed in the U.S. 38th in math and 24th in science out of 71 countries. One of the reasons for this poor performance is the shortage of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) teachers in our secondary schools. An article published late last year in Education Week outlined the significance of the problem: “A large percentage of high school STEM teachers have neither a college major nor minor in their main assignment, or they lack full certification. Forty percent of math teachers fall into one of these categories. In physics, chemistry and earth science, the number is over 60 percent.” These proportions are higher in other fields, such as English and art. A 2016 report issued by the Center for Public Education points out that it’s difficult to find qualified STEM teachers: “Schools report vacancies in STEM fields more than others.” In remarks to the U.S. Senate’s STEM Education Caucus in June 2015, the president of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Sharon Robinson, explained the impact of the STEM teacher shortage: “It is well-known that the country’s ability to succeed in the global economy is lagging and that we are losing our unrivaled edge in mathematics, science and innovation to competitor nations.” This problem is compounded by the fact that many of the people in STEM fields aren’t eager to teach. The American Physical Society Panel on Public Affairs recently conducted a survey of 6,000 STEM majors and found that more than half of them are “not at all interested” in becoming middle- or high school teachers. While much of the concern about the lack of STEM teachers is focused on secondary education, students should also be exposed to STEM during their more formative years. Primary teachers don’t need to have STEM degrees to get their students excited about science, which is why a number of departments at Washburn University are working together to help education majors teach these subjects in elementary school (and even earlier). It’s essential to have qualified middle- and high school STEM teachers, but we can’t ignore the critical years between Kindergarten and sixth grade. The chair of Washburn’s education department, Cherry Steffen, says it’s vital to stimulate interest in STEM as early as possible: “If children don’t love, feel comfortable, enjoy the STEM fields by about the fourth-grade at the latest, they’re not going to go into those fields.” As a part of Washburn’s STEM initiative, 80 second-grade students from Holton USD 336 recently showed up at the university to learn about STEM from education majors – a valuable experience for the kids as well as their teachers. Even if high schools manage to recruit more qualified math and science teachers in the future, they’ll have a hard time reaching apathetic students who never developed an interest in STEM in the first place. If we want our PISA rank to improve, we need to sustain students’ interest in STEM at every level – something Washburn is already trying to do.STEM K2 Skill GapEmployers can’t find qualified workers to fill 4.7 million jobs, despite having 9 million unemployed. STEM education can prepare students for middle STEM careers, that don’t require college degrees. This key to start to close the skills gap.Wright 2015 (Mary Wright, a Program Director, Building Economic Opportunity, Jobs for the Future, “Advancing a Jobs-Driven Economy STEMconnector- Higher Education and Business Partnerships Lead the Way” Published in 2015. Ch 3. JSTOR Portal Access OBR. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Across the country, employers struggle to find workers with the skill sets they require. Despite a 5.8 percent national unemployment rate, which translates to nearly 9 million Workers, there are approximately 4.7 million unfilled jobs.27 This “skills gap” is reported by the majority of employers regardless of industry and affects their ability to find employees who are ready to work.28 At the same time, potential employees also lament the inability to find a job using the skills they worked to obtain, believing that these skills would lead them to viable employment. This skill mismatch leads to an unprepared workforce, and costs the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost revenues. As an example, The Manufacturing Institute estimates that failure to fill 600,000 jobs due to lack of qualified workers can cost the economy $67.8 billion in exports, $47.4 billion in foreign investment and $8.5 billion in lost research and development.29 It also requires employers to skill–up their workforce. According to estimates of the American Society for Training and Development in 2012, $164 billion was spent on corporate training.30 While the portion of these costs attributed to remedial education is difficult to estimate, General Motors estimates remedial training is 15 percent of its overall training budget.31 This suggests that remedial education is costing U.S. businesses nearly $25 billion. Furthermore, The Conference Board’s 2009 Research Report The Ill–Prepared U.S. Workforce finds that, of the 46 percent of firms that offer workforce readiness training, most believe that providing this training should not be their responsibility, and many believe that it is not cost-effective. More important, however, are the costs to the nation’s unprepared workforce. Nine million Americans are out of work, struggling to get the education and training needed to enter good jobs that pay family-supporting wages. Middle skill STEM jobs offer an opportunity to address this skills gap and improve employment outcomes for the nation’s under–skilled and underprepared students. While STEM is the subject of frequent and heated disputes over labor shortages at the PhD level, middle–skill STEM opportunities have not received adequate attention until a recent Brookings Institution report revealed a “hidden” STEM economy. Brookings estimates that one in five jobs in the United States are STEM jobs – 20 percent of all employment. Half of these jobs, 13 million in 2011, are available to workers with less than a baccalaureate degree, and pay a premium; at $53,000 the average wage is 10 percent higher than the average wage for all jobs with similar educational requirements.32 Most often, individuals are prepared for these jobs through a community college. Given the disproportionately high enrollment of low-income, minority, and first-generation college-going students in community colleges, pathways to STEM jobs can be particularly effective routes to economic stability for underserved populations, and could ultimately help reduce the nation’s income, wealth, and educational attainment inequalities.The skills gap is widening and threatening America’s economic competitiveness – Unchanged this leaves 5 million jobs vacant by 2018.McKernan Jr. 2015 (John R. McKernan Jr. is the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, “Advancing a Jobs-Driven Economy STEMconnector- Higher Education and Business Partnerships Lead the Way” Published in 2015. Ch 1. JSTOR Portal Access OBR. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Today, the stability of the American economy is facing a serious threat. The skills gap is impacting the ability of our companies to compete and grow in today’s economy while shortcomings in our education and workforce development systems continue to widen the gap. Thus, an increasing number of students are struggling to manage their transition to employment and businesses are simultaneously desperate for new workers that can help them grow and succeed in the global economy. Unsurprisingly, a recent survey by Adecco found that 92 percent of executives believe there is a serious gap in workforce skills and nearly half are missing out on growth opportunities as a result.14 According to Manpower Group, 40 percent of U.S. employers are struggling to fill jobs.15 Left unchanged, the supply of skilled workers will dwindle - leaving over 5 million jobs vacant by 2018, many of them in STEM fields.16 Simply put, the skills gap is one of the greatest threats to American competitiveness both today and in the future.STEM’s key to a competitive and skilled workforce.Evans and Milgrom-Elcott 17 (David Evans And Talia Milgrom-Elcott, Opinion Contributors. "STEM education will carry our children in tomorrow’s economy" The Hill. April 4, 2017. Accessed: June 20, 2017 COB)Now it’s the entire world competing for the same jobs, the same resources, the same opportunities. It’s no longer about passing algebra; it’s about thriving in an increasingly worldwide workforce. American students should be able to compete with kids from anywhere in the world, because when they graduate from high school, technical school, or college, that's who they'll be measured against. In this global economy, one of the most effective ways to set our children up for success is to ensure they receive excellent STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education. As you may have heard, there are a lot of jobs to be found in STEM fields: indeed, ten of the top 14 fastest-growing industries require STEM training. But STEM is more than a specific set of classes or subjects. STEM education teaches kids how to think critically and solve problems: valuable skills they’ll need to succeed in school, work, and life. Teenagers taking algebra need to understand why it matters and how they might use it in real life. Whatever today’s kids want to be able to do tomorrow, they will need serious STEM skills – and the ability to use what they’ve learned when solving new problems or tackling new dilemmas. That will be true whether they become a mechanic called in to fix something they’ve never seen before, or a medical professional faced with an outbreak of a new disease.Investing in science and technology is key to maintaining the technological edge that maintains our global system. The AFF is key to boosting research, K-12 education, and the STEM workforce.Galama & Hosek 8 (Titus Galama, Ph.D., MBA, is a Senior Economist at the University of Southern California. James Hosek, Senior Economist; Editor, RAND Journal of Economics; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School at the RAND Corporation) from “U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology” Rand Journal of Economics. Published 2008. Accessed: June 30, 2017)“Americans are living off the economic and security benefits of the last three generations’ investment in science and education, but we are now consuming capital. Our systems of basic scientific research and education are in serious crisis.” —U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (2001) For decades, the United States has boasted the world’s leading system of science and technology. The domestic building blocks that formed the bedrock of this system were sturdy and stable. Now, however, experts are worried that they are slowly, but steadily, crumbling. “[T]he committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength,” reads the central finding of the National Academies of Sciences (2006) report. “The call is clear,” the President’s Council of Advisors on S&T declares, “we must protect and enhance the U.S. innovation ecosystem that has put our Nation in the global economic leadership position it currently enjoys. . . . Unless we take action to maintain our global advantages . . . we run the risk of losing our competitive advantage. . . . [T]his issue . . . is of the utmost importance and failure is not an option.” (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2004) Reports that make this line of argument typically focus on one or more of three principal S&T1 building blocks: the research infrastructure in the United States, K–12 education in science and math, and the science and engineering workforce. All of these blocks are inter-reliant and equally important: “If any of the elements of our innovation ecosystem is neglected . . . we risk undermining the whole” (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2004). Recommendations almost invariably emphasize the pressing need to refortify these building blocks to prepare for the ever-intensifying competition in S&T in the decades to come. How is this best accomplished? The answer of many who perceive a “creeping crisis” (National Academy of Sciences, 2006) is substantial policy action and government investment. We look at each of these building blocks in turn, asking whether it is, indeed, really eroding and if so, whether it is to such a degree that it might jeopardize America’s future performance in S&T. In the case of research infrastructure, we focus specifically on the issue of investment in R&D and in K–12 education, on the performance of America’s students in science and math. We ask the following: Is the United States investing enough in R&D to return to, or sustain, its leadership position in science and technology? Will the U.S. K–12 education system be able to generate the talent in science and math to meet the future demands of the global marketplace? Can America continue to meet the demand for well-trained, well-prepared S&E workers?Skilled worker influx is key to economic strength under Trump.Alden 16 (Edward Alden, Senior Fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations. " Trumponomics: Can He Move Beyond Bluster to a Competitiveness Policy?" Council on Foreign Relations. December 12, 2016. Accessed: June 10, 2017 COB)While these measures would reduce the costs of investing in the U.S., they are far from sufficient. Successful U.S. manufacturers have a hard time finding the skilled workers they need, yet Trump has been silent on worker retraining. The United States spends far less on worker retraining than its economic competitors do. Trump has promised a much-needed rebuild of aging U.S. infrastructure, which would also create good construction jobs, but his preferred mechanism—tax credits—would only help on projects that promise investor returns, such as toll roads in urban areas. No private investor is going to pay to fix the water supply for Flint, Michigan. That means Trump must take on the tax-cutters in his own party to preserve funds for these initiatives. House Speaker Paul Ryan’s tax plan is heavily skewed to the wealthy, as was Trump’s own campaign plan. It was encouraging to hear the nominee for Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, say that only the middle class, which actually needs the money, would see tax reductions under his preferred plan. And Trump quite sensibly wants to win more in global markets. The U.S. share of global exports, for example, has fallen sharply over the past decade while China’s has soared and Germany has held its ground. Yet it was the Republican Party that in 2015 shut down the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which gives a significant boost to U.S. exports at no taxpayer cost, claiming it was a tool of “crony capitalism” because it helps big U.S. exporters like Boeing and Caterpillar.STEM K2 Growth – Heg I/LScience and Technology is key to maintaining economic growth. Technological innovation is necessary for high worker output. Any decline in Research and Development leads to a decline in standards of living and hampers US hegemony.Galama & Hosek 8 (Titus Galama, Ph.D., MBA, is a Senior Economist at the University of Southern California. James Hosek, Senior Economist; Editor, RAND Journal of Economics; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School at the RAND Corporation) from “U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology” Rand Journal of Economics. Published 2008. Accessed: June 30, 2017)The U.S. economy is the world’s largest, with a gross domestic product (GDP) of more than $13 trillion in 2006, and much of the size of the U.S. economy is attributed to technological progress. As Figure 1.1 shows, the United States accounts for about one-fifth of gross world product (GWP) in 2005 at purchasing power parity (PPP)2 and has held this share since 1975. Between 1975 and 2005, the U.S. economy grew at roughly the average world rate of growth, while Japan and Europe grew at a slower pace and their shares of GWP declined. Most remarkable is the rapid growth of China, whose share increased from 3 percent in 1975 to 14 percent in 2005. Labor, capital, and natural resources alone are not sufficient to explain the U.S. share of world product. The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population and a small share of the world’s arable land and oil (see, e.g., Eaton and Kortum, 2007). In traditional views on the nature of economic strength, a nation’s labor supply, capital, and natural resources drive its wealth. Economists of the 1930s and 1940s explained long-term economic growth as a combined function of investments in capital and natural increases in the labor supply resulting from population growth (e.g., Domar, 1946). Although population growth and increases in savings are associated with increased output (e.g., Kendrick, 1956), these models could not explain a large part of the observed variation in nations’ economic productivity. In 1956, Robert Solow introduced a Nobel Prize–winning economic model that attributed growth in production over time not just to increases in capital and labor, but also to technological change. Indeed, Solow reasoned that technological progress could account for the large residual of economic growth not attributable to increases in capital and labor. He estimated that technological progress accounted for 80 percent of the growth in output per worker in the United States since the turn of the 20th century (Solow, 1956, 1957). While subsequent estimates of the role of technological change have been lower, Solow’s insight into the importance of technological progress endures. Analysts and policymakers now realize that human capital and knowledge/technology3 are a substantial source of national wealth (e.g., Warsh, 2006, 2007; Eaton and Kortum, 2007). Solow’s model assumed that technological change occurred at a given rate determined by outside factors (Solow, 1957). Eaton and Kortum (2007) suggest that until the industrial revolution, economic progress seems to have taken this form, where economies grew simply through the serendipitous arrival of ideas. But with the industrial revolution came active and systematic efforts to discover and apply new technologies. Innovation today results from substantial R&D investments by firms. Romer (1990) introduced a model in which the pace of technological discovery is driven by economic agents in response to market incentives, and his model implicitly places importance on the institutional infrastructure—laws, policies, and regulations—that support research and innovation. Thus, capability to innovate and adopt new technologies, including those invented elsewhere, is crucial to the employment, sales, and profitability of U.S. firms and hence to the U.S. economy and standard of living. Science and technology have historically contributed significantly not only to economic growth but also to well-being (improved public health, longer life expectancy, better diagnoses and treatments of many illnesses, etc.), standard of living (refrigerators, cars, iPods, etc.), and national security (atomic bomb, radar, sonar, etc.). The strength of the U.S. economy and military provide it with the foundation for its global leadership. If claims of diminishing U.S. leadership in S&T are true and its future ability to compete globally is in question, the prognosis is indeed serious. S&T is directly linked not only to America’s economic strength but also to its global strategic leadership.And US Leadership solidifies international peace – past policies prove retrenchment incentivizes great power wars.Bresler 15 (Robert J. Bresler, Penn State Harrisburg professor emeritus of public policy, 6-24-2015, Obama-led US withdrawal has destabilized the world, Lancaster Online, ] JeongAmerican leadership need not mean involvement in endless wars. Past history gives us examples. The Marshall Plan allowed worn-torn allied governments to provide their people with political stability and economic development. NATO was an effort to build Western European unity, end the quarrels that had produced two world wars, and deter Soviet aggression. The United Nations, disappointing in many ways, was a vehicle for broad international efforts against disease, illiteracy and regional wars. The International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs were designed to facilitate international trade, prevent currency wars and assist in economic development. These initiatives prevented another great power war, achieved a large degree of European reconciliation, and eased the transition for post-colonial countries in Africa and Asia. None would have happened without strong and persistent American leadership. The U.S. negotiated a series of defense treaties with more than 35 nations, designed to deter aggression, that also eased their burden of self-defense and allowed them to place more resources into the reconstruction of their economies. In the Middle East, the Arab States and Israel saw the U.S. as an honest broker, assisting in the negotiation of peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. During the Obama administration there has been a steady American retreat from world leadership. NATO is far less effective. Allies such as Israel, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, the Baltic States and Iraq are no longer confident of American support. Hence, China, Russia and Iran are asserting hegemonic claims. The world is now torn by devolution and fractionalization. The forces of global and regional cooperation are in disrepair. The United Nations stands helpless against Russian aggression, civil war in Syria and Libya and atrocities by the Islamic State across the Middle East and North Africa; the European Union is facing possible revolts and threats of secession by the United Kingdom and Greece and waning allegiance in much of Europe; and NATO offers Ukraine no more than its good wishes as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military swallows the country bit by bit. Our allies are far from steadfast. Their governments are weaker, and vivid world leaders are hard to find among them. Putin, the insane leaders of the Islamic State and the Iranian mullahs have put fear in the hearts of our allies. Why are these second- and third-rate powers able to intimidate their neighbors far more effectively than did the far more powerful Soviet Union? Our democratic allies in Europe, lacking a clear sense of direction, are ruled by unstable coalitions. Even Germany, perhaps the strongest of our European allies, refuses to confront Putin in his efforts to destabilize Ukraine. When the Obama administration made concession after concession to the Iranians over its nuclear program, our negotiating partners in Europe lost any interest in taking serious steps to keep Iran out of the nuclear club. In the Middle East tribalism and religious fanaticism have left Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen virtually ungovernable. Iraq, left to its won devices by Obama’s withdrawal after American troops sacrificed so much to establish a nascent democracy, is now falling apart. In Egypt, a military regime is trying to forcibly contain the boiling pot that is the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf States, feeling abandoned by Obama’s rush to a nuclear agreement with Iran, are sensing the quicksand beneath their feet. Warlordism and radical Islam plague the economically depressed countries of sub-Saharan Africa. A combination of devolution and chaos becomes normal state of affairs absent a strong centripetal leadership. In the last half of the 20th century, America provided that force with persuasion, assistance, assurance and trust. As the Obama administration allows the U.S. to slip into the shadows world politics, the danger of war increases.Heg – Ext.Heg - DiseaseHegemony is key to prevent diseaseMeier ’10 – Asst. Professor of Global Health Policy @ UNC Chapel Hill (Benjamin Mason, The Obama Administration’s Global Health Initiative: Public Health Law, U.S. Foreign Policy & Universal Human Rights, Public Health Law, 2010)Global health is fast becoming an explicit goal of U.S. policy – with legislation, regulations, and policy statements guiding our funding, activities, and programs to address public health abroad. At the intersection of foreign policy and health policy, this global health imperative for public health law is poised to grow under the Obama Administration’s Global Health Initiative. With contemporary institutions of global health governance now over 60 years old, the nature of the global health architecture has changed considerably as the United States has shifted its global health priorities.[i] As a leading progenitor of the global health governance framework, the United States has long sought a place for global health policy to alleviate suffering in an increasingly interconnected world. However, with U.S. policymakers harboring suspicions that global governance would advance “socialized medicine” in the midst of the Cold War, the United States constrained international organizations to medical “impact projects” that would advance U.S. foreign policy interests.[ii] Despite fleeting U.S. support for global health policy in the 1970s,[iii] the 1980 election of President Reagan—and with it, principled opposition to international organizations—would limit opportunities for global health governance.[iv] Given a growing leadership vacuum in global health, the global health architecture began to shift toward greater U.S. hegemony in global health policy, with scholars increasingly noting that “the U.S. domestic agenda is driving the global agenda.”[v] Moving away from a model of working through international institutions for global health governance, the United States is bypassing multilateral organizations and pursuing a herculean expansion in bilateral health assistance, increasingly making U.S. foreign policy a singular force for global health.[vi] As the largest donor to global health—in absolute dollars, albeit less committed relative to GDP—foreign health assistance is fast becoming an anchor of U.S. soft power – answering the call for global health leadership in a post-Cold War world.[vii] Where once this role was defined by uncoordinated medical approaches to select high-profile diseases, the United States is moving toward coordinated foreign assistance to public health systems. With U.S. health diplomacy once grounded solely in the containment of the Cold War—to combat the “unsatisfactory living conditions on which Communism feeds,” influencing minds as much as bodies[viii]—the 1961 establishment of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) galvanized foreign assistance for public health, administering technical and economic assistance for the provision of health services.[ix] However, even as extended by President Bush’s 2003 Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), these ambitious global health commitments would be criticized for excessive reliance on medical services and for “crowding out” public health systems in the developing world.[x] In spite of burgeoning efforts to address HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, these fragmented U.S. efforts continued to lack coordination across government agencies, attention to health systems, and strategy for foreign assistance. But as ethical claims and human rights have renewed attention to the plight of the world’s poor,[xi] the United States has moved to coordinate foreign assistance for global health. Given the need for a comprehensive strategy to govern U.S. engagement with global health[xii]—a need that grew dire as the global financial crisis decimated global health[xiii]—the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended that the United States engage more deliberately in global health leadership.[xiv] To reshape foreign health assistance across U.S. agencies, programs, and partners, the Obama Administration’s Global Health Initiative (GHI) seeks to develop a unified global health strategy to integrate and organize U.S. global health efforts. Focusing on public health systems (specifically health financing, information management, and workforce capacity-building institutions)—adding onto existing disease-specific efforts (with 70% of funds earmarked for PEPFAR, notwithstanding a stabilization in HIV funding)—the GHI seeks to shape how the U.S. government coordinates its resources across global health activities and engages with developing countries in meeting nine targets for global health (delineated in figure 1), achieving these targets through seven key principles (delineated in figure 2).[xv] While it is unclear to what extent this foreign policy effort will meet its targets and principles for health system strengthening, preliminary coordination among agencies has begun to identify areas in which the United States could have the greatest sustainable impact on public health outcomes.[xvi] With $63 billion requested for this Initiative over a six year period, the GHI will seek to prioritize country-led efforts to reach the most effective and efficient improvements for public health systems. These changes in U.S. policy will greatly influence disease prevention and health promotion throughout the world, with public health lawyers holding key positions in shaping this policy. With an imperative to create policy frameworks to guide our innovative programs in global health, the need has never been greater to rethink how we in public health law endeavor to meet global health needs – viewing ourselves as key actors in the global health architecture and viewing our work as medicine on a global scale.And, the risk of existential pandemics is on the rise – lack of health infrastructure means infectious fungal pathogens kill whole populations.McGinnis et al 13 – Shannon McGinnis a researcher at Temple University. McGinnis cites a litany of scientists including Arturo Casadevall, Matthew Fisher, Daniel Henk and many more. Arturo Casadevall has an MD and PhD. He is a professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology as well as a professor in the Department of Medicine (Infectious Diseases) at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University. He is also the Director of the Center for Immunological Sciences, a Chair in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, and a Leo and Julia Forchheimer Chair in Microbiology and Immunology. Dr. Matthew Fisher is a professor of fungal disease epidemiology at Imperial College in London. Dr. Daniel Henk works alongside Dr. Matthew Fisher at the Imperial College in London. He specializes in fungal ecology and evolution, and indicates that fungi are emerging as a surprising threat to biodiversity and human welfare. (“Fungal Diseases in Wildlife: Factors that Affect Disease Dynamics in the case of Two Newly Emerging Pathogenic Fungi”, , June 27, 2013)In the perpetual race of adaptation, microbes and pathogens are often greatly underestimated in their ability to evolve and thrive in earth's dynamic environment. Whether they are developing into never before seen strains or infecting previously untouched populations, newly specialized diseases are emerging so fast that scientists are struggling to keep up. Current trends exhibit a steady increase in disease emergence since 1940, even when controlling for reporting bias (Jones, Patel et al. 2008).These novel infectious pathogens present the potential for devastating consequences in the form of massive mortality events or even local extinctions. Of these various types of diseases, fungal pathogens pose a greater threat to plant and animal diversity than any other class of pathogen, and that threat is increasing (Fisher, Henk et al. 2012). Unlike other pathogens, fungi have the unique capacity to drive their host population to extinction due to the fact that they are not completely reliant on their host for survival. One reason is because fungi have the ability to survive in host-free environments, and many species of fungi possess a resting stage in their development that allows them to lay dormant in their environment even in the absence of a host (Laakkonen 1999; Lorch, Meteyer et al. 2011). Because fungi do not rely on their host for survival, their population does not decline alongside the host and does not fit the typical population pattern that is observed in most host-parasite relationships (Fig. 1A). This is significant in that the extinction of the host species would not also cause extinction of the pathogen (Fig. 1B), and even as the host population declines there is still the possibility of transmission of the disease through environmental or animal vectors. Additionally, many fungal pathogens are generalists, meaning they can infect large number of host species some of which can carry very large infection loads, leading to increased transmission rates of the fungus (Fisher, Henk et al. 2012). Although fungal pathogens seem to be both highly resilient and adaptive, they are typically not considered to be “primary pathogens” as they are usually unable to cause disease in otherwise healthy individuals and for this reason have traditionally not been much of a concern in ecology (Laakkonen 1999; Casadevall 2005; Fisher, Henke et al. 2012). However, in recent years the emergence of two novel fungal diseases has challenged this attitude. White-nose syndrome (WNS) in bat populations and chytridimycosis (chytrid) in amphibians are causing die-offs of host populations at an unprecedented scale with significant consequences on local communities and have threatened numerous species with local extinctions (Berger, Speare et al. 1998; Blehert, Hicks et al. 2009). The loss of these key species represent a major threat to global biodiversity, ecosystem function, and key ecosystem services which could potentially devastate the global biosphere (Daszak, Cunningham et al. 2001). Their high virulence, infectious nature, and significant effects on host populations cause these diseases to contradict typical assumptions of fungal pathogens and have forced scientists to begin to take the threat of emerging fungal diseases more seriously.So do air- and water-borne diseases.Carpenter and Bishop 9 --- Graduate Program in Studies of the Future, School of Human Sciences and Humanities, University of Houston-Clear Lake, Houston, TX, USA Graduate Program in Futures Studies, College of Technology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA (2009, “The seventh mass extinction: Human-caused events contribute to a fatal Consequence,” )That was when the moles acted. They inserted a virus into the vaccine (a long latency virus) that would produce symptoms only after all the people in the region had been inoculated. And, just in case, the symptoms also produced air- and water-borne versions to infect those few people who did not get inoculated and to render the region uninhabitable. Of course, the terrorist group knew about the stealth virus so they had themselves immunized before they distributed it. The result was the destruction of whole populations within each region. People began to get sick, and the infected died almost immediately. The virus had spread throughout the whole region so it did not need to keep its hosts alive. Those who were inoculated first became sick and died first; but they were also those who were the most equipped to mount a defense. The remaining population did find the new virus and sequenced it almost immediately. But the apparatus to manufacture the defense and immunize the population had already broken down during the epidemic. Furthermore, the immunization process had been compromised once so it was not seen as a reliable way to counter the disease anymore. In fact, there was no way. This pneumonic virus, like its pneumonic plague cousin, has a 100% mortality rate if left untreated, with death occurring within a few hours [24]. Ninety-eight percent of each region’s population died within just three months. The approximately four billion people alive in 2070 had been reduced to less than a billion after the terrorist attack in 2072 just prior to the comet’s impact.NEGSolvencyNo Solvency – Climate ChangeSTEM based GDP growth will exceed biocapacity- standard environmental education model won’t solve - inaccurate models can’t produce change.Donovan et al 14 January 2014 (Brian M. Donovan joined BSCS as a research scientist in 2016. Before joining BSCS, he taught in Stanford's Teacher Education Program, served as a research assistant for the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the Departments of Psychology and Biology) “Revising the Economic imperative for US STEM education” MT Wetland destruction also provides a unique perspective for examining the purported economic benefits of STEM education [i.e.], [2,8]. Approximately 5,119,000 hectares of wetlands were destroyed between the mid-1950s and the late 1990s in the US[20], and it is estimated that each hectare of wetland produces US$14,785 worth of ecosystem services each year[17]. Thus, the total cost of US economic development in the latter half of the twentieth century, in terms of wetland destruction, could be estimated as US$135 billion (estimated 2013 US$ value). Yet this cost of wetland damage does not figure into models of the future economic value of STEM education [i.e.], [2,8], even though these damages occurred during the period of economic development upon which the models of its value were based. Indeed, reviews of the modeling methods used in studies on the relationship between STEM based human capital and GDP growth include no discussion of how to correct per capita GDP estimates for the ecological costs of economic development[7], such as reductions in US biocapacity [13]. But, if STEM education produces STEM based human capital—capital that is responsible for technological innovations and economic growth—what responsibility does STEM education bear for the economic costs associated with reductions in US biocapacity? The same science related human capital that allows one to improve the productivity of farming, construct new dams, engineer urban sprawl, or produce new chemicals is the same human capital that reduces the biocapacity of wetlands [19]. And when markets undervalue natural capital, the same human capital that produces technological innovations can, and often does, result in the rapacious consumption of natural capital [10]. Furthermore, the standard environmental education model offers little promise of remediation because it often operates upon inaccurate models of human behavior change and so often fails to produce the lifestyle changes that reduce ecological degradation[21]. Thus, STEM education creates future economic costs by teaching the knowledge and skills that enable ecological degradation, albeit unintended, while failing to promote the kinds of behaviors that might effectively mitigate such degradation.No Solvency – Economy?STEM is a one-dimensional solution- can’t solve multidimensional problems Billimora 2017 May 4, 2017 Jaroo Billimora (Jaroo Billimora is a globally respected speaker and advocate of economic empowerment for children and her social and humanitarian work has reached the lives of millions of children around the world. She has been a speaker at the World Economic Forum, the Skoll World Forum for Social Entrepreneurship and several international corporations and universities. Founder of Child and youth finance international) World Economic Forum “Is STEM education all it’s cracked up to be?” addition, STEM offers only a one-dimensional solution, which is inadequate for the multi-dimensional reality of economic development and growth. Rapidly changing technologies and global competition make it very difficult to predict occupational needs. While there is a need for scientific and technological knowledge in all countries, it has been suggested that there is not as big a shortage of STEM-related workers as previously thought. In addition, too much focus on STEM alone runs the risk of over-saturating certain sectors rather than producing a well-rounded workforce. There continues to be heavy emphasis on supporting STEM education as an answer to contributing to educational opportunities, strengthening the national workforce and supporting the economy for both emerging and developed economies. However, focusing on STEM is not enough. Educating young people in these subject areas may ensure they are experts on specific topics, but it does not necessarily create conscientious citizens who are capable of making responsible social and financial decisions.No Solvency - Teacher QualificationSTEM teachers aren’t qualified.Gonzalez and Kuenzi 12 (Heather B. Gonzalez is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi is a Specialist in Education Policy. “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer” Congressional Research Service. November 15, 2012. R42642/ JSTOR Portal Accessed: June 10, 2017 COB)Many observers look to the nation’s teaching force as a source of shortcomings in student mathematics and science achievement. Research on teacher quality conducted over the last 20 years reveals that, among those who teach mathematics and science, having a major in the subject positively affects student achievement.42 Unfortunately, many U.S. mathematics and science teachers lack this credential. For example, nearly all high school teachers have at least a baccalaureate degree; however, mathematics teachers are less likely than teachers of other subject areas to have majored in the subject they teach. In the 2007-2008 school year, roughly 17% of all high school teachers did not major in the subject they taught, while 28% of mathematics teachers did not major in mathematics.43 Moreover, among those who majored in the subject they taught, mathematics teachers are less likely to be subject-certified than other teachers. Solvency Turn – InnovationDismissal of broad-based education kills innovation – exposure to a variety of fields is key to fostering critical thinking and creativity.Zakaria 15 (Fareed Zakaria, a columnist for The Washington Post and author of “In Defense of a Liberal Education.” “Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous” The Washington Post. March 26, 2015. Accessed: June 30, 2017 COB)If Americans are united in any conviction these days, it is that we urgently need to shift the country’s education toward the teaching of specific, technical skills. Every month, it seems, we hear about our children’s bad test scores in math and science — and about new initiatives from companies, universities or foundations to expand STEM courses (science, technology, engineering and math) and deemphasize the humanities. From President Obama on down, public officials have cautioned against pursuing degrees like art history, which are seen as expensive luxuries in today’s world. Republicans want to go several steps further and defund these kinds of majors. “Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists?” asked Florida’s Gov. Rick Scott. “I don’t think so.” America’s last bipartisan cause is this: A liberal education is irrelevant, and technical training is the new path forward. It is the only way, we are told, to ensure that Americans survive in an age defined by technology and shaped by global competition. The stakes could not be higher. This dismissal of broad-based learning, however, comes from a fundamental misreading of the facts — and puts America on a dangerously narrow path for the future. The United States has led the world in economic dynamism, innovation and entrepreneurship thanks to exactly the kind of teaching we are now told to defenestrate. A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Exposure to a variety of fields produces synergy and cross fertilization. Yes, science and technology are crucial components of this education, but so are English and philosophy. When unveiling a new edition of the iPad, Steve Jobs explained that “it’s in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough — that it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing.” Innovation is not simply a technical matter but rather one of understanding how people and societies work, what they need and want. America will not dominate the 21st century by making cheaper computer chips but instead by constantly reimagining how computers and other new technologies interact with human beings. No Solvency – Skilled WorkersSTEM focused education doesn’t increase worker applicability – recent survey concludes a large majority of business leaders would still hire workers despite lack of technical skills.Zakaria 15 (Fareed Zakaria, a columnist for The Washington Post and author of “In Defense of a Liberal Education.” “Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous” The Washington Post. March 26, 2015. Accessed: June 30, 2017 COB)No matter how strong your math and science skills are, you still need to know how to learn, think and even write. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon (and the owner of this newspaper), insists that his senior executives write memos, often as long as six printed pages, and begins senior-management meetings with a period of quiet time, sometimes as long as 30 minutes, while everyone reads the “narratives” to themselves and makes notes on them. In an interview with Fortune’s Adam Lashinsky, Bezos said: “Full sentences are harder to write. They have verbs. The paragraphs have topic sentences. There is no way to write a six-page, narratively structured memo and not have clear thinking.” Companies often prefer strong basics to narrow expertise. Andrew Benett, a management consultant, surveyed 100 business leaders and found that 84 of them said they would rather hire smart, passionate people, even if they didn’t have the exact skills their companies needed.Status Quo Solves – New LawsTrump administration’s current STEM initiatives solve the aff in the status quo. Sattler 17 (Dwayne Sattler, contributor to Real Clear Education and Executive Director of the Chemical Educational Foundation. “Engaging Future STEM Leaders” Real Clear Education. June 28, 2017. Accessed: June 30, 2017 COB)In February, President Donald Trump signed the Inspire Act and the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act, two laws aimed at increasing the number of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) jobs. The science and education communities collectively rejoiced to see STEM – and particularly initiatives to break down barriers many face in accessing STEM education and entering STEM fields – elevated as a national priority so early in the new administration. The legislation comes at an important time for our economy and has direct benefits to the American worker. Demand for STEM jobs is expected to grow 17 percent between 2014 and 2024, and the median wage for today’s STEM jobs is nearly double that of all other jobs. That explains why STEM is a national priority for employers and lawmakers alike. Multiple bills introduced so far and currently being debated in the 115th Congress recognize the importance of opening STEM opportunities to all Americans and the impact STEM proficiency can have on our current and future workforce. The Energy Workforce for the 21st Century Act would increase the number of skilled workers in energy- and manufacturing-related fields. The Youth Access to American Jobs Act would establish a pilot program to promote apprenticeships and other job training programs with an emphasis on STEM. The Early STEM Achievement Act would establish a grant program for early childhood STEM activities. These and other bills show Congress is signaling they understand the importance of STEM and STEM education. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download