COMMON CORE – NEG

Federal Funds won’t go awayTheir authors are all hype. The funds aren’t going anywhereSrauss 4/2 – Valerie Strauss, Strauss is a reporter fort he Washington Post. 2015. ("Will schools lose federal funds if kids don’t take mandated tests? Fact vs. threat", Washington Post, Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/04/02/will-schools-lose-federal-funds-if-kids-dont-take-mandated-tests-fact-vs-threat/, Accessed 7-14-2015)Assistant Education Secretary Deborah Delisle recently indicated she expected state superintendents to pressure parents to comply. She added that the Education Department could consider other fed eral education requirements to use against schools that do not receive Title I. But she also acknowledged the U.S . government does not intend to take funding away from programs that serve children! Clearly, some government officials are trying to bully parents into submission ( see , for example, Illinois, New Jersey and New York). By muddying the water with inaccurate statements about the intricacies of federal law and waivers , these officials seek to reduce opt-out numbers and buy time for discredited test-and-punish schemes. Overall, however , this tactic is failing as opt-out numbers increase and more parents and students get involved in the resistance movement.

Common Core GoodCommon core is good for Math: teaches students how to learn and evaluate STEM.French 14 – Rose French, A staff writer for the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC). The AJC is a national newspaper based in Atlanta. “In your schools; Today’s math lessons tied to tomorrow jobs.” State educators say the new Common Core standards --- controversial among some, who criticize them as a federal intrusion in schools --- should help buoy math performance . Over the past decade, Georgia has followed a pattern similar to other states: moving from a math curriculum that touched a number of topics toward a more conceptual approach , first under Georgia Performance Standards, now Common Core. Some critics complain the changing curriculum has contributed to Georgia's problems.Under Common Core math, teachers focus on fewer topics and explore them more deeply instead of teaching numerous math topics and repeating them from grade to grade because students don't fully grasp them."We teach fractions starting in third grade, and we teach them every single year through eighth grade," said Morgan Polikoff, assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California, who's written extensively about U.S. math education. "And yet at the end of eighth grade, students still don't know fractions.""I think in other countries ... they introduce them using multiple representations , and because they help students understand what a fraction is early on, then they don't have to cover it for five or six grades."Common Core attempts to mimic results in higher-achieving countries such as Singapore and South Korea , where math is thought of as something that must be learned through practice and hard work. In math classrooms in Asia, a teacher primarily le ads the teaching of math, unlike in the U. S., where students often are divided into groups or practice at their desks --- unaided by teachers. School days are typically longer in Asian countries, and a greater proportion of the time is spent on math.Thurston Domina, a sociologist of education professor at University of California Irvine, says race, class and other socioeconomic factors can influence how students perform.So, too, can the cultural attitude in the U.S. "So kids will tell you, 'I'm good at math' or 'I'm not good at math.' And that's not good for anybody," Domina said. "The culture around math is particularly unhealthy in this country."

[ this card is really good] Common core is good for Math education – prefer our author who is a mathematician. Friedberg 14 – Solomon Friedberg is the James P. McIntyre Professor of Mathematics and Chair of the Department of Mathematics.. Ph.D. University of Chicago, 1982, M.S. University of Chicago, 1979,B.A. Summa cum Laude, University of California, San Diego, 1978. 2014. “Common Core math is not fuzzy: Column” USA TODAY, Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/15/common-core-math-education-standards-fluency-column/15693531/, Accessed 7-16-2015As a professional mathematician , I 'm as firmly against fuzzy math as they come. Common Core lays the foundation for students to have a better grasp of mathematical concepts than present s t andards and sets higher expectations for teaching and learning. If that doesn't sound fuzzy, there's a simple reason: It isn't.To appreciate the changes under way, and perhaps to understand the anxiety provoked by Common Core, it's helpful to look at math before the core.

Too often, it has been "plug and chug" math . In this approach, math is a bunch of memorized rules that don't make much sense. Follow the rules, and you will get the right answer. Do something different, and you're likely to get it wrong. "Analytical thinking" consists of figuring out which rule to apply. There is limited need for originality, explanations, or even genuine understanding. Learning enough rules will allow you to solve the problems you are given. Do this for enough years, and you may firmly believe that this is what mathematics actually is. If your kids are asked to do something different, you may be up in arms.Math as rules starts early. Kids learn in elementary school that you can "add a zero to multiply by ten." And it's true, 237 x 10 = 2370. Never mind why. But then when kids learn decimals, the rule fails: 2.37 x 10 is not 2.370. One approach is to simply add another rule. But that's not the best way.Common Core saves us from plug-and-chug. In fact, math is based on a collection of ideas that do make sense. The rules come from the ideas. Common Core asks students to learn math this way, with both computational fluency and understanding of the ideas.

Learning math this way leads to deeper understanding , obviates the need for endless rule-memorizing and provides the intellectual flexibility to apply math in new situations, ones for which the rules need to be adapted. ( It's also a lot more fun .) Combining computational fluency with understanding makes for problem solvers who can genuinely use their math. This is what businesses want and what is necessary to use math in a quantitative discipline.

Here is what good math learning produces : Students who can compute correctly and wisely , choosing the best way to do a given computation; students who can explain what they are doing when they solve a problem or use math to analyze a situation; and students who have the flexibility and understanding to find the best approach to a new problem.Common Core promotes this. It systematically and coherently specifies the topics and connections needed for math to make sense, and promotes both understanding and accuracy.No revolutionThis doesn't sound revolutionary because it's not. Common Core is a list of topics everyone knows we should teach. It doesn't tell teachers how to teach them (though it does ask that they teach them coherently, with understanding). It is also not a test, not a curriculum, not a set of homework problems, not a federal mandate and not a teacher evaluation tool.But you wouldn't know it from some of the criticisms directed at it. It lays out the topics for students , grade by grade. The rest is up to the teachers, school districts and state boards. The higher expectations laid out by the Core have been endorsed by every major mathematical society president , including the American Mathematical Society and the American Statistical Association. They called the Common Core State Standards an "auspicious advance in mathematics education."Of course, the core will do best if parents can support their children in reaching these higher goals. Websites such as Khan Academy and Illustrative Mathematics have incorporated the standards and show best practices and well-crafted math problems.There is no doubt that the new standards are more rigorous. They will require more of our students, our teachers and our parents. Knowing what you are doing, instead of just knowing a set of rules, is the essential foundation for applying math to the real world.That's not fuzzy. It is smart.

STEM education is key to global competitivenessThe Hill 13 – The Hill, a Pulitzer prize winning news blog based out of Washington DC. Primarily used for political commentary and analysis. 2015 "STEM fund key to U.S. global competitiveness", TheHill Blog. Available at: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/305061-stem-fund-key-to-us-global-competitiveness, Accessed 7-16-2015Businesses , education groups and advocacy organizations have been following the progress of the legislation, but every state and virtually every community has a vested interest in the outcome as well. Last week in Delaware, Gov. Jack Markell and the state’s STEM Council issued their second annual report on STEM education in Delaware schools. One of the report’s findings illustrates a challenge we face nationally – for every unemployed person in Delaware, there are 3.8 open jobs in STEM fields . And for every non-STEM job there are 1.7 people in the stateIt isn’t advanced math, but for anyone struggling with the equation, Gov. Markell summed it up neatly: “ If you’re in the STEM fields, take your pick. If you’re not in the STEM fields, join the line . To succeed in the brave new world, my top priority is making sure our education system prepares our students.” The governor may have oversimplified the state of affairs for effect, but his priorities are no different from those of the nation’s elected leaders, and those common priorities likely explain why the national STEM education fund enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. The STEM fund, in the hopes of its supporters in Congress, business and among education advocates, will help provide a long-term solution to the nation’s STEM jobs gap by strengthening our STEM education pipeline. A stark demonstration of the depth of the crisis appeared in early April when the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services opened the application window for H-1B visas, which companies use to hire foreign high-skill workers to fill vacant positions in the U.S. The visas were exhausted within five days ; the previous year, it took 10 weeks to meet the demand for those visas. And while the nation does not currently produce enough workers trained in STEM fields, the problem if not addressed will continue to worsen, affecting U.S. global competitiveness and the nation’s standing as a leader in innovation . One study projects that future STEM jobs will be in high demand , but also notes that technological changes in other occupations means that other fields will also be recruiting STEM talent. “STEM occupations will grow far more quickly than the economy as a whole (17 percent versus 10 percent), and will be the second-fastest growing occupational cluster, after Healthcare occupations,” according to a report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce.The researchers also project 2.4 million jobs openings in STEM fields by 2018, with 1.1 million new jobs and 1.3 million openings created by workers who leave the workforce.The report says: “ America’s economic success will be driven by our ability to maintain a competitive advantage in technology and knowledge based industries . A commitment to STEM education funding within immigration reform efforts now underway will help ensure that we produce the skilled workers we need for the future. From Dover to Dubuque, every community and school system in the country has a vested interest in meeting this challenge.”

Proper STEM education is key to global competitivenessGordon 14 – lawyer and former U.S. Representative for Tennessee's 6th congressional district, serving from 1985 until 2011. He was Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology from 2007

until 2011. He graduated cum laude from Middle Tennessee State University in 1971, where he was student body president, and earned a law degree from the University of Tennessee in 1973. 2014, "STEM Education: Key to America’s Global Competitiveness", USA Science and Engineering Festival: The Blog, Available at: http://scienceblogs.com/usasciencefestival/2014/04/19/stem-education-key-to-americas-global-competitiveness/, Accessed 7-16-2015Our nation has a long and proud history as a global leader in the development of technological breakthroughs and the development of revolutionary products that change and save lives around the world. In recent years, however, fewer young Americans are entering fields of science, technology, engineering and math ( STEM ) and as a result, our global competitiveness is in jeopardy . For the past six years, the majority of patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have been awarded to international owners , and fewer American students are pursuing advanced science degree s and the World Economic Forum ranks the United States 52nd in quality of math and science education . We can and must do better.At the same time, STEM occupations are poised to grow more quickly in the future than the economy as a whole. More than half of our nation’s economic growth since World War II can be attributed to development and adoption of new tech nologie s and this area holds the path toward sustainable economic growth and prosperity for the next 50 years . A report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the workforce projected 2.4 million job openings in STEM fields by 2018. Only by developing a generation of workers prepared for those opportunities can America secure its continued global competitiveness .

[insert generic competitiveness impact]

Its – negCommon Core standards are entirely local – they are only portrayed as federal by people looking to tear them down Birkenbuel 15 — Renata Birkenbuel is a reporter and editor for the The Montana Standard, 2015 (“Common Core debate: Local control, or federal mandate?,” The Montana Standard (Butte), 1-12-15, Available Online via LexisNexis, Accessed 7-16-15)//CMCHECKING STUDENT GROWTH Exactly what is Common Core? Contrary to popular belief, Montana Common Core standards are not comprised of mandatory federal curricula. Juneau said the standards are pathways for parents, teachers and students to follow to check student growth. "These are high-level standards and they are clear and rigorous," Juneau told The Montana Standard. "Local school districts still decide the curriculum and the books to buy. Common Core puts professional judgment back into the teachers' hands." They are voluntary standards in math and English for grades kindergarten through 12 that are "comparable across state lines," said Ed Patru, education consultant with DCI Group, which monitors public affairs. "They were not created or enacted by the federal government or the President," added Patru. "Nor are they mandatory. But in order to obscure this fact, critics of Common Core use tidy and loaded labels like 'national standards' and 'national curriculum.' " OPI touts Montana Common Core standards as a way to ensure that students who graduate are better prepared for college and the work force. One expectation is that students eventually successfully complete first-year college courses. "We have always had standards, but they have been very vague in the past," said O'Neill. "The Common Core standards are very specific, easy to understand and practical."

COMMON CORE – AFF

States CP

CP = Cuts in Funding The federal government WILL cut funding. NYC proves that the Fed Gov. aint messing around. Come on!Burke and Chapman 4/15 – Kerry Burke, Ben Chapman, both staff writers for New York Daily News, an online and print newspaper. 2015. "Feds could cut aid for NY schools if opt-outs rise", NY Daily News, available at http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/feds-cut-aid-ny-schools-opt-outs-rise-article-1.2187094, accessed 7-16-2015PUBLIC SCHOOLS across the state could lose millions in federal funding for education if the current boycott of standardized testing continues , top educators warn . More than 100,000 families across the Empire State have already opted out of the standardized reading exams that began Tuesday, according to one unofficial tally.If those numbers are accurate, the federal government could move to enact a penalty on the state to withhold funds worth up to $ 900 million for city schools alone each year. Top city and state educators are considering the possibility. "We're reviewing things," said state Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch. "But we hope the federal government decides on another option."Critics of the Common Core exams believe they are too difficult and should not be used to evaluate teacher performance. They also believe the tests and prep take up too much time.If more than 5% of kids sit out the high-stakes reading and math tests this week and next, a federal law could enable the U.S. government to begin a process of withhold ing funds for New York public schools.

Federal funding for education is important to supplement education standardsMichell 09 – Ted Mitchell is currently the under secretary of education. He has served in this post since his confirmation by the U.S. Senate on May 8, 2014, following his nomination by President Barack Obama on Oct. 31, 2013. Mitchell is the former CEO of the NewSchools Venture Fund and served as the president of the California State Board of Education. Through his long career in higher education, Mitchell has served as the president of Occidental College, vice chancellor and dean of the School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, and professor and chair of the Department of Education at Dartmouth College. 2009. (“Innovation will drive new federal funding for education”. San Jose Mercury News. Available via LexisNexis. Accessed on 07-14-2015.) The passage of the stimulus bill last week instantly doubled the federal role in funding schools , with an unprecedented influx of $ 95 billion. The question is, in education, what will that money buy? Most of the answer is jobs : fewer pink slips for teachers , and dirt finally moving on long-stalled construction project s. Yet in a welcome and farsighted move, the Recovery Act not only shores up the system, it also invests in fixing it where it's broken.In California alone, tens of thousands of school jobs are at risk now, and the vast majority of education spending in the bill rightly targets saving jobs and restoring state budgets. In mere weeks, we likely will see school building projects finally break ground, after long delays forced by the shutdown of California's bond authority.Yet the bill also takes short-term steps toward reform and innovation that will pay long-term dividends, helping to make America's economy competitive again. Reform is an essential element of recovery, because an educated work force is the core of our productivity.

That thinking underlies the $ 5 billion Race to the Top fund , which Education Secretary Arne Duncan will distribute to states to make critically needed short-term improvements that will lead to major gains for students. Within that fund is $650 million aimed at innovation to begin correcting the sore lack of research and development education.We claim no special insight on the decisions Duncan will make, but it's worth pondering: What does innovation in education look like?For starters, the federal government will inv est in building data systems, so we can stop driving without a dashboard and see clearly the progress students are making. Most states today, including California, cannot accurately track a student's academic performance subject by subject, year by year, much less week by week. That information is central to smart decision-making for teachers, parents, administrators and policy makers. Such systems will make every education dollar more effective.International tests prove that American students lag behind their peers in other industrialized nations . In part, this is because we don't ask enough of our kids. The Race to the Top fund encourages states to develop rigorous, internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards as well as thoughtful assessments that go beyond filling in bubbles.But kids in failing schools need more than just rigorous standards and assessments; they need schools that work better. Toward that end, the recovery bill includes a "Grow What Works" fund that will expand innovative programs proven to make a real difference for low-income kids. That approach will help to scale up organizations and ideas that come from both inside and outside the traditional system. Organizations like KIPP , Teach For America and Aspire Public Schools have helped to blaze this trail, creating outstanding public schools and putting thousands of great teachers in the classroom; this funding will help scale up organizations in that mold. The ideas could range from new pathways for teacher training to public-private partnerships that fix failing schools. What they will have in common is a track record of improving education.After decades of under-investment in innovation, this badly needed funding will foster new technologies , alter classrooms and, ultimately, help reverse the slide in our international competitiveness. It's more than just rescuing the schools that got us to where we are today. To fuel a lasting recovery, we have to build a system that works better.

Federal funding is especially key to states post-recessionZhand 14 – Dian Zhang, Boston University, The George Washington University, University of International Business and Economics, Chengdu Foreign Languages School. Dow Jones News Fund business reporting intern at The Deal, Business Reporting Intern at Dow Jones News Fund. 2014. (“Funding for K-12 Schools Still Hasn’t recovered from the Recession” Budget and Finance, The Bond Buyer Vol. 1 No. 1. October 16. Available via LexisNexis. Accessed 07-14-2015)WASHINGTON-States are still providing less per-pupil funding for schools from kindergarten to 12th grade than they did before the financial crisis in 2008, according to a report released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on Thursday. The declines in educational investments might put states and the country in trouble, when they need well-trained workers with high technology knowledge in the global economy.The report collected data on the funding distributed through states' major education funding formulas, excluding local property tax revenue or any other source of local funding. Additional adjustments were made in a few states to reflect specific situations. Hawaii, Indiana and Iowa were not included in the report because of the lack of necessary data, the report stated.

At least 30 states, including Oklahoma, Alabama, Arizona and Idaho, provided less funding per student for the 2014-15 school year than before 2008, the report found. Among the 30 states, 14 of them reported a decrease of greater than 10% in educational funding.Oklahoma had the highest percentage cut in its funding for k-12 schools at 23.6% or $857 per student, followed by Alabama, with a cut of 17.8%. That state also had the highest dollar cut of $1,128 per student.The state funding cuts can be attributed to the slow recovery of state revenues, the rising costs of state-funded services , reduced federal aid to states, and the states' reluctance to raise new revenues, according to the CBPP report."Cuts have been particularly deep when inflation and other cost pressures are considered," the report added.Seventeen states increased funding. North Dakota had the highest percentage increase at 31.6%, at $1,329 per student. Alaska followed that state with a 16.4% increase and had the highest dollar gain, at $1,351 per student."Most states are providing more funding per student in the new school year than they did a year ago," the CBPP said in the report. "But funding has generally not increased enough to make up for cuts i n past years." New Mexico, for instance, has increased its funding for per student by $124, or 1.8%, compared to one year ago, but that is still 8.1% less than its 2008 level.State funding cuts for k-12 schools have big consequences for local school districts , which try to make up for the cuts by scaling back educational services raising more local tax revenue to cover the gap, or both, according to the CBPP. It's difficult for local school districts to find additional revenues after the recession, the group said.In addition, the cuts have slowed the economy's recovery from the recession . Federal employment data show that teachers and other employees have been cut since mid-2008. There have been 330,000 jobs cut in local school districts between 2008 and 2012, the report found . These job losses have also reduced the purchasing power of families , thus causing problems for economic recovery. More importantly, the cuts in educational funding have hindered education reforms and high-quality education provided by school districts, according to the study . When producing workers with high-level techniques and analytical abilities are demanded in the future work place, such cuts in funding for basic education will threaten the nation's economic future, the report concluded.

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

This is especially true in the context of Bobby Jindal – a presidential candidate with political swing.Education Week 14 – Education Week offers weekly news on the American education system, including nonpartisan reviews of local state and federal education policies. 2014. “Tensions Surface as States Queue Up for Early-Ed. Grants” November 5, Available for access via LexisNexis. Accessed on 07-14-2015)The friction started with Gov . Bobby Jindal of Louisiana—a Republican not up for re-election but widely considered a likely 2016 presidential contende r—who fired off letters early this month to the Education Department and to his state education chief, John White, asking for assurances that the state would not be required to use the money to promote the Common Core State Standards. Mr. Jindal , an early common-core supporter, has reversed course . He filed a lawsuit in August against the Obama administration, calling the standards a federal overreach. Mr. Jindal said in an Oct. 11 letter that Louisiana's early-learning standards appear to be connected to the common core, prompting Mr. White to respond in an Oct. 12 missive that, "The early-learning

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

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

Early childhood education is key for economic development and supporting the economy, preventing crime and solving for high prison populationsRolnick 03 – Arthur J Rolnick is a Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the Human Capital Research Collaborative at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, the University of Minnesota. Rolnick is working to advance multidisciplinary research on child development and social policy. He previously served at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis as a senior vice president and director of research and as an associate economist with the Federal Open Market Committee—the monetary policymaking body for

the Federal Reserve System. Rolnick’s essays on public policy issues have gained national attention; his research interests include banking and financial economics, monetary policy, monetary history, the economics of federalism, and the economics of education. His work on early childhood development has garnered numerous awards, including those from the George Lucas Educational Foundation and the Minnesota Department of Health, both in 2007; he was also named 2005 Minnesotan of the Year by Minnesota Monthly magazine. “Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a high Public Return”Market failures can occur for a variety of reasons; two well-documented failures are goods that have external effects and those with public

attributes. Unfettered markets will generally produce the wrong amount of such goods. Education has long been recognized as a good that has external effects and public attributes . Without public support, the market will yield too few educated workers and too little basic research. This problem has long been understood in the United States and it is why our government, at all levels, has supported public funding for education. (According to the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, for example, the United States in 1999 ranked high on public funding of higher education.2 ) Nevertheless, recent studies suggest that one critical form of education, early childhood

development, or ECD, is grossly underfunded. However, if properly funded and managed , investment in ECD yields a n extraordinary return , far exceeding the return on most investments , private or public. A convincing economic case for publicly subsidizing education has been around for years and is well supported . The economic case for investing in ECD is more recent and deserves more attention. Public funding of education has deep roots in U.S. history. John Adams, the author of the oldest functioning written constitution in the world, the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1779, declared in that document that a fundamental duty of government is to provide for education.3 Publicly funded schools have been educating

children in the United States ever since. Today over 85 percent of U.S children are educated in publicly funded schools. John Adams argued for public funding of education because he realized the importance of educated voters to the well-being of a

democracy. We suspect that he also understood the economic benefits that flow to the general public. Investment in human capital breeds economic success not only for those being educated, but also for the overall economy . Clearly

today, the market return to education is sending a strong signal. Prior to 1983, the wages of a worker with an undergraduate degree exceeded a worker with a high school degree by roughly 40 percent. Currently, that difference is close to 60 percent . The wage premium for an advanced degree has grown even more. Prior to 1985, the

wages of a worker with a graduate degree exceeded those of a worker with a high school degree by roughly 60 percent. Today, that difference is over 100 percent. Minnesota represents a good example of the economic benefits that flow from education. Evidence is clear that our state has one of the most successful economies in the country because it has one of the

most educated workforces. In 2000, almost a third of persons 25 and older in Minnesota held at least a bachelor’s degree, the sixth highest state in the nation. To ensure the future success of Minnesota’s economy, we must continue to provide a highly educated workforce. Knowing that we need a highly educated workforce, however, does not tell us where to invest limited public resources. Policymakers must identify the educational

investments that yield the highest public returns. Here the literature is clear: Dollars invested in ECD yield extraordinary public returns. The quality of life for a child and the contributions the child makes to society as an adult can be traced back to the first few years of life. From birth until about 5 years old a child undergoes tremendous growth and change. If this period of life includes support for growth in cognition, language, motor skills, adaptive skills and social-

emotional functioning, the child is more likely to succeed in school and later contribute to society.4 However , without support during these early years, a child is more likely to drop out of school , receive welfare benefits and commit crime. A well-managed and well-funded early childhood development program, or ECDP, provides such support. Current ECDPs include home visits as well as center-based programs to supplement and enhance the ability of parents to provide a solid foundation for their children. Some have been initiated on a large scale, such as federally funded Head Start, while other small-scale model programs have been implemented locally, sometimes with relatively high levels of funding per participant. The question we address is whether the current funding of ECDPs is high enough. We make the case that it is not, and that the benefits achieved from ECDPs far exceed their costs. Indeed, we find that the return to ECDPs far exceeds the return on most projects that are currently funded as economic development. The question we address is whether the current funding of ECDPs is high enough. We make the case that it is not,

and that the benefits achieved from ECDPs far exceed their costs. Indeed, we find that the return to ECDPs far exceeds the return on most projects that are currently funded as economic development.Many of the initial studies of ECDPs found little improvement; in particular, they found only shortterm improvements in cognitive test scores. Often children in early childhood programs would post improvements in IQ relative to nonparticipants, only to see the IQs of nonparticipants catch up within a few years.5 However, later studies found more long-term effects of ECDPs. One often-cited research project is the High/Scope study of the Perry Preschool in Ypsilanti, Mich., which demonstrates that the returns available to an investment in a high-quality ECDP are significant. During the 1960s the Perry School program provided a daily 2 1/2-hour classroom session for 3- to 4-year-old children on weekday mornings and a 1 1/2-hour home visit to each mother and child on weekday afternoons. Teachers were certified to teach in elementary, early childhood and special education, and were paid 10 percent above the local public school district’s standard pay scale. During the annual 30-week program, about one teacher was on staff for every six children.6

Beginning in 1962, researchers tracked the performance of children from low-income black families who completed the Perry School program and compared the results to a control group of children who did not participate.

The research project provided reliable longitudinal dat a on participants and members of the control group. At age 2 7, 117 of the original 123 subjects were located and interviewed.7 The results of the research were significant despite the fact that, as in several other studies, program participants lost their advantage in IQ scores over nonparticipants within a few years after

completing the program. Therefore a significant contribution to the program’s success likely derived from growth in noncognitive areas involving social-emotional functioning. During elementary and secondary school, Perry School participants were less likely to be placed in a special education program and had a significantly higher average achievement score

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

Prison population reform is the internal link to solving for broader change. The CP would only worsen social movements.Gregg 13 – Carl Gregg, graduate of Furman University, he receivedhis BA in Philosophy, in 2003 he graduated Brite University in Fort Worth, Texas, earning his M. Div.In 2009 he received his Diploma in spiritual direction from University of California SF. (“The New Jim Crow:

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

evening. My understanding is that he plans to attend, and that he has spread the word as well to some of his contacts. I do not know whether other members of the NAACP will attend, but if this congregation were to become serious about anti-racist work, a strong first step might be for some of us to start attending NAACP meetings to hear from people of color directly about their stories, their struggles, and their ongoing work for racial justice.

[insert econ decline impact]

Early Education Solves preK Early Childhood Education really does solve for poverty and crime. Obama’s Federally funded programs are especially important.Kristof 13 – Nichola Kristoff has been a olumnist for the NT Times since 2001. Kristof has won two Pulitzer Prizes for his coverage of Tiananmen Square and eh genocide in Darfis \, along with humanitarian awards such as the Anne Frank Award and the Dayton Literary Peace Prize. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard College and then studied law at Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, graduating with first class honors. 2013. (“Do We Invest in Preschools or Prisons?” The New York Times, October 27. Available vie LexisNexis or at NyTimes.com. Accessed on 07-16-2015)Growing mountains of research suggest that the best way to address American economic inequality, poverty and crime is -- you guessed it! -- early education programs , including coaching of parents who want help. It's not a magic wand, but it's the best tool we have to break cycles of poverty.President Obama called in his State of the Union address for such a national initiative, but it hasn't gained traction. Obama himself hasn't campaigned enough for it, yet there's still a reed of hope.One reason is that this is one of those rare initiatives that polls well across the spectrum, with support from 84 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Republicans in a recent national survey. And even if the program stalls in Washington, states and localities are moving ahead -- from San Antonio to Michigan. Colorado voters will decide next month on a much-watched ballot measure to bolster education spending, including in preschool, and a ballot measure in Memphis would expand preschool as well.''There's this magical opportunity'' now to get a national early education program in America, Education Secretary Arne Duncan told me. He says he's optimistic that members of Congress will introduce a bipartisan bill for such a plan this year.''When you think how you make change for the next 30 years, this is arguably at the top of my list,'' Duncan said. ''It can literally transform the life chances of children, and strengthen families in important ways.''Whether it happens through Congressional action or is locally led, this may be the best chance America has had to broaden early programs since 1971, when Congress approved such a program but President Nixon vetoed it.The massive evidence base for early education grew a bit more with a major new study from Stanford University noting that achievement gaps begin as early as 18 months . Then at 2 years old, there's a six-month achievement gap. By age 5, it can be a two-year gap. Poor kids start so far behind when school begins that they never catch up -- especially because they regress each summer. One problem is straightforward. Poorer kids are more likely to have a single teenage mom who is stressed out, who was herself raised in an authoritarian style that she mimics, and who, as a result, doesn't chatter much with the child.Yet help these parents, and they do much better. Some of the most astonishing research in poverty- fighting methods comes from the success of programs to coach at-risk parents -- and these, too, are part of Obama's early education program . ''Early education'' doesn't just mean prekindergarten for 4-year-olds, but embraces a plan covering ages 0 to 5.The earliest interventions, and maybe the most important, are home visitation programs like Nurse-Family Partnership. It begins working with at-risk moms during pregnancy, with a nurse making regular visits to offer basic support and guidance: don't drink or smoke while pregnant; don't take heroin or

cocaine. After birth, the coach offers help with managing stress, breast-feeding and diapers, while encouraging chatting to the child and reading aloud.These interventions are cheap and end at age 2. Yet, in randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of evaluation, there was a 59 percent reduction in child arrests at age 15 among those who had gone through the program.Something similar happens with good pre-K programs . Critics have noted that with programs like Head Start , there are early educational gains that then fade by second or third grade. That's true, and that's disappointing.Yet, in recent years, long-term follow-ups have shown that while the educational advantages of Head Start might fade, there are ''life skill'' g ains that don't . A rigorous study by David Deming of Harvard, for example, found that Head Start graduates were less likely to repeat grades or be diagnosed with a learning disability, and more likely to graduate from high school and attend college. Look, we'll have to confront the pathologies of poverty at some point. We can deal with them cheaply at the front end, in infancy. Or we can wait and jail a troubled adolescent at the tail end. To some extent, we face a choice between investing in preschools or in prisons .

T

Surveillance – W/M Cards Common Core is a nationwide surveillance system – creates and uses databases of information. Hohmann 14 — Leo Hohmann, news editor for WND (WorldNetDaily), former managing editor of the Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, North Carolina, 2014 (“Whistle Blown On 'Womb-To-Workforce' Data-Mining Scheme,” WorldNetDaily, November 30th, Available Online at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/whistle-blown-on-womb-to-workforce-data-mining-scheme/, Accessed 07-14-2015)//CM **Hoge = Anita Hoge, a member of Pennsylvanians Restoring Education and an expert on the student assessment industry.Hoge says Pennsylvanians Restoring Education has documented evidence of a “systemic collusion” between the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics to create a national ID without the knowledge of citizens. The next step for the education database is to link it with the Department of Labor with the addition of the last five digits of the student’s Social Security number or link to the unique ID created by eScholar, she said, citing written correspondence between former Pennsylvania Secretary of Education Zahorchak and former Secretary of Labor Sandi Vito, a copy of which has been obtained by WND. Creating a modern ‘Stasi’ “This creates a database of human capital — your worth, or non-worth — to the economy,” Hoge said. “The government wants to know how you think and what you think and everything about you. This is a government intelligence operation using education to create a dossier on every family in this country. Attitudes and practices of each family are unwittingly revealed in the students’ responses in the classroom and on tests through the “Special Ed Student Snap and Student Snap.” (Source: Pennsylvania State University, PennData Grant: Project Number 062-14-0-042: Federal Award Number: HO27A130162) Every person age 28 and under, schooled in Pennsylvania, has a psychometric profile, an intelligence profile kept by the state of Pennsylvania, Hoge said. “In 10 years, every Pennsylvania schooled person, age 38 and under….In 20 years, every person age 48 and under…In 30 years, Pennsylvania will have a complete psychographic on every person in the workforce and on every child born thereafter in the workforce,” she said. “This is an American electronic model eerily similar to East Germany Stasi of yesteryear.” Common Core as the vehicle The Common Core national standards are the “vehicle” used to standardize the data collection as the autonomy of the local school district is stripped away and teachers in the classroom are reduced to virtual automatons, Hoge said. “The individual mandate, similar to the Obamacare individual mandate for health care, requires students to conform to this national agenda,” she said. “There is no privacy.” She described the system as a top-down form of federal control that bypasses state legislatures. The goal is to standardize the entire nation’s educational system. Teachers must “remediate” each child to ensure he or she is absorbing the attitudes, values, beliefs and dispositions required by the system. And teachers are constantly monitored by the system to make sure they are doing just that. This turns teachers into virtual psychologists, despite the fact they are not state-licensed practitioners and vulnerable to malpractice issues, Hoge said. If students don’t meet the required proficiency in “interpersonal skills,” teachers can be threatened with reprisals including possible termination, according to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act “flexibility waiver” issued by the Obama administration. These waivers absolved school systems from certain requirements of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, but exacted a heavy toll in the form of states losing their autonomy over classroom instruction. An organized, ‘national system of surveillance and monitoring’ The contracts uncovered in Pennsylvania refer to Common Core as the “model curriculum.” Common Core provides

2,394 fool-proof validated scripts with which to “remediate” each child to achieve proficiency in the “interpersonal skills.” “We have also discovered that these Interpersonal Skills Standards are also embedded in other academic areas of Career Education and Work, Family and Consumer Sciences, and Health Safety and Physical Education,” according to the statement from Pennsylvanians Restoring Education. “The test contract in Appendix B for the Keystone Exams states, ‘The diagnostic assessments are intended to be easily administered online and provide immediate feedback of students ‘strengths and weaknesses.’” This is nothing more than a sophisticated method of brainwashing, Hoge said. “Clearly this data-collection system has utilized education funds to set up a national system of surveillance and interventions on our students that is structured from the federal level down into each classroom,” she said. “Huge amounts of our taxpayer money have been used to fund this system of surveillance creating a dossier on each student and their family for the purpose of creating the worker desired by big business and enforced by the arbitrary, authoritative state.” She said the plan to transform America’s school into factories that churn out “human capital” began in 1990 when the U.S. Department of Labor established the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills or SCANS. ACT was awarded the contract to develop the list of skills seen as necessary for the 21st century global economy. This skill list formed the basis of what would later become Common Core State Standards, which was copyrighted by the Council of Chief State School Officers and adopted by 43 states. In 2013, the Council decided to add non-academic “soft” skills to the list. “We are requesting Gov. Corbett to stop the data collection, stop the invasion of privacy… We want legislation NOW, to protect our families, protect our children, and protect our children’s future,” stated Pennsylvanians Restoring Education. The group ended its statement with a chilling conclusion. “America used to educate its children and let them create their own world. Now, we are creating their world and forcing them to live in it.”

The state has ultimate power over the data it collects – even if testing data doesn’t occur immediately, the government has uninhibited access to it in the future – means data collection is surveillance, and also has means to prevent crime. Rozeff 12 — Michael S. Rozeff, Professor Emeritus in the Finance and Managerial Economics Department, University of Buffalo, published articles on stock market pricing, earnings forecasting, corporate dividend policy, corporate divestiture, insider trading, and the Asian stock markets, former associate editor of several finance journals, 2012 (“What's Wrong With the Surveillance State?,” Lew Rockwell, December 31st, Available Online at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/12/michael-s-rozeff/whats-wrong-with-the-surveillancestate/, Accessed 07-14-2015)//CMWhat I envision is creeping totalitarianism, also one can call it democratic totalitarianism. It is a totalitarianism in which a facade of democratic or republican government, call it what you will, is maintained, but the actuality is increasingly detailed and oppressive control over ordinary life. The State will know where you are and what you are doing, and it will have the means of punishing you if you do not obey its rules. Surveillance is a key component of such totalitarianism. Imagine that the State controls currency and eliminates hand-to-hand cash altogether, replacing it by electronic transactions. These can be monitored and collected. The State can know every item that you buy or sell. The State then can pass a law, according to its whim, that outlaws a certain food or item or service, or it can do the opposite. It can pass a law requiring a certain food or medical procedure. Surveillance gives it the means of enforcing its laws by knowing who is obeying and who is not. The State can turn anyone into

a criminal ex post facto by passing a law and then searching past records, communications and transactions to find evidence of their previous wrongdoing. The U.S. Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, but it also forbids fiat money and requires declarations of wars by Congress. Many other constitutional provisions are ignored. What's wrong with the surveillance state? The balance of power between citizens and government in America is already lopsided and becoming increasingly so. The surveillance state opens up new opportunities and new vistas for government control of its citizens.

Common Core is a federal program used to survey students through data mining – this monitoring stays with children for their entire lives Gabbay 13 — Tiffany Gabbay, Graduate of the National Journalism Center, Assistant Editor and Foreign Affairs Editor for TheBlaze, contributor to FrontPage Magazine, and The Jewish Voice, reporter on Capitol Hill, fellow for the TriBECA Disruptor Foundation, 2013 (“Indoctrination and Data Mining in Common Core: Here’s Why America’s Schools May Be in More Trouble Than You Think,” TheBlaze, March 27th, Available Online at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/27/indoctrination-and-data-mining-in-common-core-heres-why-americas-schools-may-be-in-more-trouble-than-you-think/, Accessed 07-14-2015)//CMTheBlaze has been at the forefront in uncovering the disturbing details of the nationalized curriculum standard known as Common Core. One of the most troubling aspects of this federal program is that government bureaucrats are currently mining sensitive and highly personal information on children through Common Core’s tracking system. The data will then reportedly be sold by the government to outside sources for profit. To discuss Common Core’s practice of data mining, Glenn Beck hosted an array of guests on TheBlaze TV Wednesday, including documentarian Andrew Marcus, columnist Kyle Olson, Kris Nielsen, author of “Children of the Core,” Jane Robbins of the American Principles Project among others Watch part of the segment via TheBlaze TV below: [video] According to the conservative think tank American Principles Project, Common Core’s technological project is “merely one part of a much broader plan by the federal government to track individuals from birth through their participation in the workforce.” As columnist and author Michelle Malkin has pointed out, the 2009 stimulus package included a “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” to provide states incentives to construct “longitudinal data systems (LDS) to collect data on public-school students.” In other words, an aggregation system to mind personal data on children including information about their health, family income, religious affiliation and homework. Even more off-putting is the revelation that a 44-page Department of Eduction Report released in February indicates that the Common Core data-mining system could one day implement monitoring techniques like “Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging” (scanning one’s brain function), as well as “using cameras to judge facial expressions, an electronic seat that judges [a child's] posture, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse and a biometric wrap on kids’ wrists.” “This is like some really spooky, sci-fi, Gattaca kind of thing,” Beck said. Through the stimulus bill, Americans’ privacy has been increasingly compromised. Now, permission that once had to be granted by parents to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to release students’ data has changed with a January 2012 regulation mandating that all information collected by schools since 2009 can be shared among federal agencies without consent.

Common Core standards survey students with the intent to determine what they should do in the future Logue 13 — Gretchen Logue, education activist and founder of Missouri Education Watchdog, 2013 ("Education Reform is Really About Surveillance.," Missouri Education Watchdog, January 3 rd, Available Online at http://thebellnews.com/2013/01/03/education-reform-is-really-about-surveillance/, Accessed 7-16-2015)//CM edited for gendered language It’s the same for Common Core Standards. The grab of educational direction by the Department of Education is unconstitutional, but trying to get them out of your state legislatively promises to take several years. Look bigger picture. WHY is the government so interested in establishing common core standards? Like the NSA and the tracking of financial transactions, the tracking of student data will be able to determine your student’s place in a managed workforce. Your students will be placed in a position based on his/her [their] data set. So what’s the problem? If Americans want a nanny state, CCSS is the answer to figuring out what type of job your student will secure in the future. No hard decisions for your little one to worry about:The mandated Longitudinal Data System (a nationwide computer system connected to states using Common Core standards) will be connected not only to other states for educational information, but also to various federal agencies, such as the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services for information to supply the workforce:The term workforce is defined as consisting of the workers engaged in a specific activity, business or industry or the number of workers who are available to be assigned to any purpose as in a nation’s workforce.The public workforce system is a network of federal, state, and local offices that function to support economic expansion and facilitate the development United States workforce. The system is designed to create partnership with employers, educators, and community leaders in order to foster economic development and high-growth opportunities in regional economies so that businesses find qualified workers to meet their present and future workforce needs. (Emphasis added)Your student’s data (educational and personal) is to be fed into the LDS to determine his/her [their] strengths and weaknesses. This is surveillance most taxpayers/parents probably don‘t even know is occurring. Do you remember signing a permission form giving the government the right to share your child’s information with a network of federal, state, and local offices that function to support economic expansion? Is this what you envision for your child as he/she sets off for school each day?

Common Core tests collect hundreds of data points on children and create a database – these databases serve to determine student weaknesses Hohmann 14 — Leo Hohmann, news editor for WND (WorldNetDaily), former managing editor of the Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, North Carolina, 2014 (“Education? No, It’s About Data-Mining,” WorldNetDaily, May 10th, Available Online at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/education-no-its-about-data-mining/, Accessed 07-16-2015)//CMWill Estrada, director of federal relations for the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the assessments tied to Common Core collect more than 400 points of data on every child.“It’s their likes and dislikes, grade-point average all the way through school, their home situation, health questions,” he said. “It’s an incredibly invasive collection of information that they are trying to collect in what they call P-20, or pre-K through workforce.”

The idea behind opting out is to “starve the beast,” a reference to the corporations and nonprofits that feed on the $8 billion student assessment industry. They analyze the test data, come up with recommendations on how to “remediate” the students’ weaknesses, then sell that information back to the school districts at a profit.This type of student data mining by private contractors was made possible only after the Obama administration moved unilaterally to dilute privacy restrictions in the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. The new rules took effect in January 2012 without congressional approval.Even before FERPA rules were weakened, some in Congress had concerns about the U.S. Department of Education’s “cradle to career education agenda,” as DOE Secretary Arne Duncan described the president’s plan.Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, sent a February 2010 letter to Duncan saying the department’s efforts to “shepherd the states toward the creation of a de facto national student database raises serious legal and prudential questions. Congress has never authorized the Department of Education to facilitate the creation of a national student database. To the contrary, Congress explicitly prohibited the ‘development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information’ under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and barred the ‘development, implementation or maintenance of a federal database of personally identifiable information …including a unit record system, an education bar-code system or any other system that tracks individual students over time.’”Fordham University Law School’s Center on Law and Information Privacy published a study in late 2009 warning that private student data was at risk and that many school systems across the U.S. were not following the rules under FERPA, basically ignoring key protections of the nation’s school children.Fordham found that sensitive, personalized information related to matters such as teen pregnancies, mental health, family wealth indicators and juvenile crime is stored in a manner that violates federal privacy mandates.Some states outsource the data processing without any restrictions on use or confidentiality for K-12 children’s information, the Fordham study found. Access to this information and the disclosure of personal data may occur for decades and follow children well into their adult lives.Catastrophic results“If these issues are not addressed, the results could be catastrophic from a privacy perspective,” warned Joel Reidenberg, a professor at Fordham Law School. He urged Congress and state officials to take “rapid steps to ensure the data is collected and stored properly and used in compliance with established privacy laws and principles.”Two years later, instead of heeding those warnings, the U.S. Department of Education went in the opposite direction and watered down the FERPA protections with respect to releasing data to third-party private contractors.The Obama administration also required all states receiving federal Race to the Top funds to put in place longitudinal databases capable of tracking students’ progress over time. These databases are designed to be “interoperable,” essentially creating a uniform data chain across the 50 states.

Its – W/M Cards Claims that Common Core standards are anything but national are only scare tactics used by administration – Common Core standards are entirely federal. Mihelbergel 15 — Eric Mihelbergel is a parent and education activist involved with the opt-out movement, 2015 (" Another Voice: Common Core has taken away local control ," 7-16-2015, Available Online at http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/another-voice-common-core-has-taken-away-local-control-20140908, Accessed 7-16-2015)//CMI am writing in response to the Aug. 28 article headlined "Orchard Park school officials worry over impact of spring test refusals." In the story, Orchard Park school administrators make broad unsupported claims stating that parental refusal of Common Core tests will lead to loss of local control for school districts. This is far from being truthful. These Common Core tests are designed in line with the national Common Core standards. Pay particular attention to the words "common" and "national." They are not called the "Local Core" tests or "Local Core" standards. They are called common and national because they have taken away local control through federal mandates, which is why parents refuse these tests. Teachers have far less opportunity to help children on a personalized level because state and federal governments now force teachers to rush through curriculum and course material, all to get higher scores on Common Core tests that look good on paper. These federal mandates have resulted in great loss of local control. Parents will not tolerate such abuse of their children and are taking back local control themselves. In the story, Orchard Park administrators use broad statements such as, "We lose the ability to drive our local program" in reference to parental refusal of Common Core tests. This statement is completely unsupported by the administrators in the article, and it appears to be used only as a scare tactic against parents. New York State has been granted a waiver through June 2015 that would not allow greater loss of local control in many cases. But even without that, are administrators saying that the state is going to take over Orchard Park schools? This is an unethical scare tactic used so that Orchard Park administrators can look good in the eyes of government officials while falsely trying to persuade educated parents to do what is wrong for their children. The statements in this story were not made for the betterment of children. They were made so that school administrators can look good on paper. Orchard Park school administrators should make a greater effort to work with parents rather than instill fear with exaggerated or false claims. Parents who refuse Common Core tests are fighting to regain local control in our schools. School administrators must take the time to educate themselves more thoroughly on the real problems and solutions rather than use short-sighted scare tactics to try to look good in the eyes of government officials. Kids and parents don't care if the school district looks good to government officials. Kids and parents care if they get a good education. Administrators need to stop fighting educated parents and start working with them.

Common Core federally controls every element of education by gathering and storing data Schlafly 13 — Phyllis Schlafly, American constitutional lawyer, conservative activist, author, and speaker and founder of the Eagle Forum, 2013 (“Backlash Against Common Core,” The Eagle Forum, May 15th, Available Online at http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/backlash-against-common-core.html, Accessed 06-22-2015)//CM

The national news media haven’t discovered it, but the issue that is bringing out hundreds of citizens who never before attended political meetings is Common Core (CC). More precisely, it is the attempt of Barack Obama’s Department of Education to force all states and schools to adopt specified national education standards for each grade level that will dictate what all kids learn and don’t learn. Common Core means federal control of school curriculum, i.e., control by Obama Administration leftwing bureaucrats. Federal control will replace all curriculum decisions by state and local school boards, state legislatures, parents, and even Congress because Obama bypassed Congress by using $4 billion of Stimulus money to promote Common Core. It’s not only public schools that must obey the fed’s dictates. Common Core will control the curriculum of charter schools, private schools, religious schools, Catholic schools, and homeschooling. The control mechanism is the tests. Kids must pass the tests in order to get a high school diploma, admittance to college, or a GED. If they haven’t studied a curriculum based on Common Core, they won’t score well on the tests. Common Core cannot be described as voluntary. Since CC is so costly to the states (estimated at $15 billion for retraining teachers and purchase of computers for all kids to take the tests), CC is foisted on the locals by a combination of bribes, federal handouts, and as the price for getting a waiver to exempt a state from other obnoxious mandates such as No Child Left Behind. Don’t be under any illusion that Common Core will make kids smarter. The Common Core academic level is lower than what many states use now, and the math standards are so inferior that the only real mathematician on the validation committee refused to sign off on the math standards. He said the CC standards are two years behind international expectations by the 8th grade, and fall further behind in grades 8 to 12. The CC math standards downgrade the years when algebra and geometry are to be taught. Parents will have a hard time helping their children with their math homework. CC standards call for teaching kids to add columns of figures from left to right instead of right to left. CC advocates claim that the new standards will make students college-ready. That promise is a play on words: students will be ready only to enter a two-year nonselective community college. Common Core means government agencies will gather and store all sorts of private information on every schoolchild into a longitudinal database from birth through all levels of schooling, plus giving government the right to share and exchange this nosy information with other government and private agencies, thus negating the federal law that now prohibits that. This type of surveillance and control of individuals is the mark of a totalitarian government. Common Core reminds us of how Communist China gathered nosy information on all its schoolchildren, stored it in manila folders called dangans, and then turned the file over to the kid’s employer when he left school. The New York Times once published a picture of a giant Chinese warehouse containing hundreds of thousands of these folders. That was in the pre-internet era when information was stored on paper; now data collection and storage are efficiently managed on computers in a greater invasion of privacy.

Corporate Control Impact Backlines Corporate Control and influence in academic spheres leads to an inverted totalitarianism which precludes any concern for morality. Seybold 14 — Peter Seybold is an associate professor at Indiana University/Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI), Department of Sociology,2014 ("Servants of Power: Higher Education in an Era of Corporate Control," Truthout, 6-22-2014, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24305-servants-of-power-higher-education-in-an-era-of-corporate-control, Accessed 7-16-2015)//CMOver the last 40 years, we have witnessed a dramatic change in the structure of power in the United States.

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

completely out-organized left and progressive social forces and changed the landscape of social and political discourse. Business ultimately benefited the most from this cultural war, although its major concern was - as always -

commodifying more and more areas of life, expanding profitability and reconstituting ideological control, rather than engaging in the politics of morality. The long-term consequences of this orchestrated campaign have resulted in the degradation of life in the United States as the institutions which previously undergirded the social safety net have come under fierce attack. In the process, the opportunity for the American people to hold the powerful accountable has been reduced to rituals of democracy which are more about form than substance. As Sheldon Wolin has eloquently argued in his book, Democracy Inc. (2008), the net result of this extended campaign by elites is a managed democracy with a demobilized public that blurs the lines between corporations and government and eviscerates concerns about the public good. Wolin maintains that the present social and political formation in the United States might best be described as "inverted totalitarianism." The political arena is structurally incapable of addressing the major problems facing the American people. Taking the Powell Memorandum seriously and understanding what Wolin has asserted about the US political system does not involve embracing conspiracy theory. It is not the case that elites in the United States developed a plan to recapture major institutions and bend them toward the interests of business and did so without encountering resistance. As Marx was so fond of reminding us, capitalism always generates its own opposition and in the period from the mid-1970s to the present, there has been considerable resistance bubbling underneath the surface of American society. The long-term consequences of a successful cultural war by the right have been to shift the balance of social forces and institutions in the direction of business and to marginalize social justice movements. As the Occupy Movement illustrated, efforts by elites were unable to stamp out the opposition or contain the outrage generated by running the country solely for the

interests of mega corporations. As Antonio Gramsci argued, hegemony is never completely successful; it has to be constantly defended, revised and reproduced, and this involves a struggle between different social

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

facing the American people. The height of hegemony is when even the form and content of the opposition has been affected by the institutionalized thought structure. This is exactly what has happened in the United States when

social movements have been marginalized or repressed, and when critics of society have been effectively contained. Consequently, the range of debate has been narrowed and the institutions that previously were independent and served as the conscience of society have been integrated into the social order. Wolin's nightmare of inverted totalitarianism no longer seems far-fetched.

Without changing educational institutions and resisting neoliberal control, we risk a fundamental erosion of democracy and social justice movements, especially those centered in academia Seybold 14 — Peter Seybold is an associate professor at Indiana University/Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI), Department of Sociology,2014 ("Servants of Power: Higher Education in an Era of Corporate Control," Truthout, 6-22-2014, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24305-servants-of-power-higher-education-in-an-era-of-corporate-control, Accessed 7-16-2015)//CMSo how does academia fit into the grim picture painted above? Higher education, I would argue, has mimicked the trends in the larger society and can often be seen as a microcosm of this larger struggle. More and more universities and colleges in the United States have fallen into line and have functioned as servants of power. Fittingly, in 1984, I was asked to make a presentation at another university. I entitled my talk "Toward a Corporate Service Station." I believed at the time that the university was being pushed and pulled in a direction that threatened its goals and ideals. Thirty years later, I believe even

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

disturbing is that universities and colleges are aligning themselves with corporate America. In 2008, I published a short essay called "The Struggle Against Corporate Takeover of the University" in Socialism and Democracy. I continue to be interested in the university as a microcosm of the larger struggle in American society involving the commodification of culture and the attack on the commons. I am also interested in linking what is happening in higher education to the attack on the middle and working classes: the growing polarization of American society, and the weakening connection between education, the American Dream and the promotion of democratic principles. As

Henry Giroux has so aptly put it, we are experiencing "the near death of the university as a democratic sphere."

Things have become considerably worse for universities and colleges since 2008, and the attack on these institutions has further degraded campus life and has put the traditional mission of higher education in peril. Faced with budget cuts, hostile legislatures, university administrators who increasingly identify themselves with corporate CEOs, and communities which have been buffeted by the forces unleashed by the economic crash, universities are increasingly being run like mega corporations. In Giroux's

words, "Casino capitalism does more than infuse market values into every aspect of higher education; it wages a full-fledged assault on public goods, democratic public spheres, and the role of education in creating an informed and enlightened citizenry." We don't have to accept the assault on university ideals and programs as

inevitable or as another example of "there is no alternative." Instead we need to forge a common understanding across sectors of the university community to resist corporate takeover of academe. To be successful in this project will require going beyond the academic community and reaching out to students, parents, workers and community members who have been

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

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

students, parents and the community. Commodifying education alienates people from each other, from the institution, from their work, and diminishes people's expectations. Corporate logic changes priorities and changes the allocation of resources for the institution. To argue against the corporatization of the university is not

to harken back to the "good old days" in academe because, as Noam Chomsky has argued, "we should put aside any idea that there was once a 'golden age.'" As Chomsky describes it, "things were different and in some ways better in the past, but far from perfect." (Chomsky, 2014). He goes on to say that "traditional universities were for example, extremely hierarchical, with very little democratic participation in decision-making." While his description is accurate, academe still maintained relative autonomy from society, and also paid lip

service to ideals that go back to the Enlightenment. The university did provide a rather unique public space to think, debate and criticize, and at least at one time, tried to teach students to be better, more engaged, public citizens. It was also generally the case that those who worked in academe believed that the institution was exempt from some of the pressures which affected other institutions, and that the university, despite what was happening in the larger society, would be successful in protecting itself from the corrosive effects of capitalist society. To be sure, in a previous era, many sought work in academe to maintain their independence, escape the restrictions imposed by capitalist society and work in a more humane and less commodified workplace. All of this has

changed in the last 30 years or so as universities have had to adapt to a rapidly changing social, political and economic environment. Instead of leading the fight against the decline of the public sphere and the erosion of democracy,

universities have accepted the conditions imposed on them by neoliberalism and have adjusted to the new status quo. Instead of speaking truth to power they have more often become servants of power. The consequences for academe have been catastrophic for the institution and its mission, for the general public, and for the wellbeing of democracy. If the university fails to perform its functions to teach students to think critically and to serve as the conscience of society, what other institution in American society will assume these responsibilities? As Giroux suggests, "Critical thinking and a literate public have become dangerous to those who want to celebrate orthodoxy over dialogue, emotion over reason, and ideological certainty over thoughtfulness."Wider Implications of Corporate Cooptation of Academia The wider implications of the corporate cooptation of higher education and the success of the cultural war waged by elites since the 1970s are

clearly explained by Sheldon Wolin: Inverted totalitarianism, although at times capable of harassing or discrediting critics, has instead cultivated a loyal intelligentsia of its own. Through a combination of government contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects involving university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors, universities (especially research

universities), intellectuals, scholars and researchers have been seamlessly integrated into the system… During the months leading up to and following the invasion of Iraq, university and college campuses, which had been such notorious centers

of opposition to the Vietnam War that politicians and publicists spoke seriously of the need to 'pacify the campuses,' hardly stirred. The Academy had become self-pacifying (Wolin, 2008:68). College has become "the great unleveler." The seamless integration of higher education into the logic of corporate capitalism has created a new natural order of things where critics of the new social arrangements are chastised for not keeping up with the requirements of the post-modern economy and holding on to the past as the world passes them by.

The university, it has been argued, had to reinvent itself to adjust to the current circumstances or it would lose out in the competition. The market would now dictate what the best practices would be in higher education and the guidelines for leading the institution would be adapted from the corporate world. What follows is an account of the corrosive effects of embracing corporate logic on higher education. Corporatization of higher education has taken its toll on an institution, which previously was considered one of the great triumphs of the American system. Combined with rampant inequality, a college education is now more the province of the privileged and, as The New York Times recently pointed out, college has become "the great unleveler."

The corporatization of education has serious implications for teaching, innovation, and social justice movements – these all spill over into society Seybold 14 — Peter Seybold is an associate professor at Indiana University/Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI), Department of Sociology,2014 ("Servants of Power: Higher Education in an Era of Corporate Control," Truthout, 6-22-2014, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24305-servants-of-power-higher-education-in-an-era-of-corporate-control, Accessed 7-16-2015)//CMFor those from the richest fifth, the annual cost of attending a four-year college has inched up from 6 percent of family income in 1971 to 9 percent in 2011. For everyone else, the change is formidable. For those in the poorest fifth, costs at State U have skyrocketed from 42 percent of family income to 114 percent. A tiered system has evolved where the top 20 percent of the population is able to afford a university education. The bottom 80 percent is increasingly burdened with debt if they pursue post-secondary education, and they are consigned to schools in which the college experience often resembles vocational education. These trends are consistent with the imposition of a neoliberal

agenda on a variety of American institutions. The impact of corporatization distorts and reshapes the university, which in turn affects American society. I will focus on four areas which come to mind when examining the corrosive effects of corporatization on the university: 1) the way in which universities are administered in this corporate age, 2) the state of academic labor and how it has changed over time, 3) the redefinition of university education and the alteration of the curriculum to meet corporate influences, and 4) the decline of public intellectuals and the diminished role of universities as independent centers of thought and debate. Henry Giroux, in his

piece entitled "Beyond Neoliberal Miseducation," cites Debra Leigh Scott who points out that "administrators now outnumber faculty on every campus across the country." The top-down control of university governance by administrators has severely compromised faculty governance. Universities now recruit former CEOs of major companies or former prominent politicians to run complex university systems. Many of these recruits have no prior experience in academe and are not steeped in the traditions of the university community which they seek to lead. At Purdue University, the former governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, now serves as president of the university. Almost immediately after Daniels took over at Purdue, a firestorm of protest by faculty

and students ensued. This is just one example, but the time-tested way of doing things in a university system has been systematically dismantled. Like the larger society, an illusion of democratic participation in decision-making has replaced actual participation in university decisions and dissenters have been threatened with sanctions for questioning the current institutional arrangements. Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina illustrates clearly the mentality of conservative politicians and their attitudes toward university education. McCrory has argued: "If you want to take gender studies, that's fine, go to a private school. But I don't want to subsidize that if that's not going to get someone a job." As I mentioned earlier, university administrators have largely adopted business management principles, and units within a university are now evaluated as stand-alone units responsible for paying for themselves. This practice has seriously affected cooperation between departments and interaction with service units on campus, and has set off a wave of competition between schools within a university. Running a university like a business is relatively easy to institutionalize, but its intended and unintended consequences degrade the university environment and

negatively impact the morale of everyone on campus. Under this system, the university runs more efficiently within a very narrowly conceived understanding of efficiency, but over time it tends to distort the allocation of resources on campus by shifting money and personnel to segments of campus that generate profits, attract grants and embrace neoliberal orthodoxy. An illusion of democratic participation in decision-making has replaced actual participation in university decisions and dissenters have been threatened with sanctions for questioning the current institutional arrangements. The area of campus in which the harshest effects of corporatization can be seen is the organization of academic labor. More and more faculty these days are hired off tenure-track in order to cut costs and establish greater control over academic labor. In 2007, according to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 70 percent of the faculty on college campuses were adjuncts and other contingent employees. These trends continue as tenure-track faculty who retire are replaced by adjunct faculty. The pay of adjunct faculty is deplorable and their working conditions are just as bad as they travel between part-time teaching jobs and have little time - or even an office in which - to talk with their students. As James Hoff and other critics of the current practices of utilizing adjuncts assert, the system of low pay creates a hierarchy within academia and creates even more tiers within the system (Hoff, 2014). Ever mindful of the threat to their economic livelihood,

contingent faculty have to toe the line and are not accorded the common courtesies extended to full-time faculty because their job security is at risk. Hoff goes on to argue that universities now spend more on administration than they do on teachers. According to Benjamin Ginsberg's book The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-

Administrative University and Why It Matters, between 1985 and 2005 administrative spending increased by 85

percent and the number of administrative support staff increased by a whopping 240 percent. At the

same time spending on faculty increased by only around 50 percent. Hoff also goes on to make the important point that

students who are most in need, poor and working class students, first generation students and students of color are most frequently taught by adjunct faculty. The casualization of academic labor thus affects the quality of instruction by restricting the time that faculty can spend with students and the possibilities for mentoring opportunities. In addition, low pay for contingent faculty also calls into question whether someone can maintain an adequate standard of living by teaching in college or junior college. Mirroring the inequality in the larger society, the average administrative salary, for instance, at the University of Vermont was $210,851 per year. This was more than seven times the annual salary of maintenance workers at the university (Jacobs, Counterpunch, Feb. 21-23, 2014). As tuition and other fees on campus skyrocket, the money generated is disproportionately allocated to the most privileged segments of campus, while the lowest wage workers on campus often qualify for food stamps. In a piece in Salon, Keith Heller has called the current practices at US colleges

and universities "the Wal-Mart-ization of higher education." He argues that more and more faculty are underpaid and undervalued. The casualization of academic labor is gaining increased attention nationwide as parents, students and the university

community come to grips with the skewed priorities of University, Inc. Some of the basic principles underlying effective pedagogy, such as small class size, individual attention and the importance of mentoring, are being sacrificed in order to increase head count, limit labor costs and create a one-size-fits-all educational experience. Some of the basic principles underlying effective pedagogy, such as small class size, individual attention and the importance of

mentoring, are being sacrificed in order to increase head count, limit labor costs and create a one-size-fits-all educational experience. A key aspect of the movement to reorder the priorities of higher education is the redefinition of the university experience in line with neoliberal principles. Reflecting the inequality in the larger society, the college experience is being segmented by the kind of school that students are able to afford. Students from the top tier continue to enjoy the benefits of practices which are now increasingly only found at elite universities and colleges. In other tiers, for instance, a liberal arts education is devalued and in public universities that are not in the top tier, the educational experience emphasizes finding an area of study that will yield a

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

Education remains open to corporate control and abuse – this precludes critical thinking and questioning the world around us. Seybold 14 — Peter Seybold is an associate professor at Indiana University/Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI), Department of Sociology,2014 ("Servants of Power: Higher Education in an Era of Corporate Control," Truthout, 6-22-2014, Available Online at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24305-servants-of-power-higher-education-in-an-era-of-corporate-control, Accessed 7-16-2015)//CMThe promise of the university has been subverted by corporate power. The orchestrated attack on the university

has taken its toll. The university used to be a place where critical thinking was encouraged, where the imagination was expanded, and democratic practices were extended. Corporate influence over the university has fundamentally changed the trajectory of the institution. Of course, universities bolstered the

status quo in the past, as well, but they did provide opportunities for radical thinkers and they were not as dependent on corporate funding in the past. The struggle against the corporate university is part of a larger struggle for social justice in American society. As I have argued in this paper, higher education is not exempt from the social and political

forces that impacted other key institutions in American society. However, the fate of higher education has not been decided and the corporate restructuring of the academy is being resisted. Higher education and its professoriate have been targeted because they represent a major reservoir of resistance to corporate control and the erosion of democracy. As Antonio Gramsci reminded us, hegemony is not easily accomplished. It involves social, political and cultural struggle to produce and reproduce the

dominant order. According to Gramsci, hegemony is never complete - it is constantly resisted even if only in a fragmented way. Just as there has been a war waged on women and the poor in the United States, there is a cultural war being

waged on the ideals of the American university. Higher education and its professoriate have been targeted because they represent a major reservoir of resistance to corporate control and the erosion of democracy. The last thing that elites want to encourage is a space in which critical thinking is nourished and a liberal arts education is valued. Universities naturally are places where one might find people who are trained to "think big," and who have developed an understanding of the inherent contradictions of capitalism. It is for this reason that a campaign to restructure the academy into a corporate service station has taken place. In the struggle for hegemony in American society, the university as traditionally understood is contradictory in nature. On the one hand, it has the potential to be a very unique commodity - one which makes bundles of money and one which helps elite ideas and elite ideology become hegemonic. On the other hand, it can play a crucial role in questioning the dominant ideology and producing critical thinkers. The contradictory role played by universities in American society has made higher education

an arena for struggle over the last 30 years. Corporate elites seek to enlist the university in its battle to impose its will on the rest of society. They seek to blunt the critical impulses of the university and reinforce its role as a defender of neoliberalism. The challenge to everyone in academia is to resist corporatization of higher education. We still have the capacity to imagine a different university that contributes to the fight to create a different, more peaceful and more democratic society. The goal should be to build a broader coalition for social justice, to reimagine the future and to create a counter hegemony. To do

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