1AC for cx Drill

Exercise explained

- Sit with partner- Open the Physics neg- You have 10 minutes:

o 2 minutes = decide (verbally) 1NC o 6 minutes to make it.o 2 minutes to think up opening cx questions

- We will call upon a few teams to conduct a 90 second cx

1AC – Physics

Contention OneContention 1: STEM

The US is lagging far behind the rest of the world in STEM, specifically in educationDeSilver 2/15 (Drew, a senior writer at Pew Research Center., 2-15-2017, accessed 7-4-2017, "U.S. students’ academic achievement still lags that of their peers in many other countries", Pew Research Center: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/ //ghs-st) *scatterplots omitted

How do U.S. students compare with their peers around the world? Recently released data from international math and science assessments

indicate that U.S. students continue to rank around the middle of the pack, and behind many other advanced industrial nations . One of the biggest cross-national tests is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which every three years measures reading ability, math and science literacy and other key skills among 15-year-olds in dozens of developed and developing countries.

The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science. Younger American students fare somewhat better on a similar cross-national assessment, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. That study, known as TIMSS, has tested students in grades four and eight every four years since

1995. In the most recent tests, from 2015, 10 countries (out of 48 total) had statistically higher average fourth-grade math scores than the U.S., while seven countries had higher average science scores. In the eighth-grade tests, seven out of 37 countries had statistically higher average math scores than the U.S., and seven had higher science scores. Another long-running testing effort is the National Assessment

of Educational Progress, a project of the federal Education Department. In the most recent NAEP results, from 2015, average math scores

for fourth- and eighth-graders fell for the first time since 1990. A team from Rutgers University is analyzing the NAEP data to try to identify the reasons for the drop in math scores. The average fourth-grade NAEP math score in 2015 was 240 (on a scale of 0 to 500), the same level as in 2009 and down from 242 in 2013. The average eighth-grade score was 282 in 2015, compared with 285 in 2013; that score was the lowest since 2007. (The NAEP has only tested 12th-graders in math four times since 2005; their 2015 average score of 152 on a 0-to-300 scale was one point lower than in 2013 and 2009.) Looked at another way, the 2015 NAEP rated 40% of fourth-graders, 33% of eighth-graders and 25% of 12th-graders as “proficient” or “advanced” in math. While far fewer fourth- and eighth-graders now rate at “below basic,” the lowest performance level (18% and 29%, respectively, versus 50% and 48% in 1990), improvement in the top levels appears to have stalled out. (Among 12th-graders, 38% scored at the lowest performance level in math, a point lower than in 2005.) NAEP also tests U.S. students on science, though not as regularly, and the limited results available indicate some improvement. Between 2009 and 2015, the average scores of both fourth- and eight-graders improved from 150 to 154 (on a 0-to-300 scale), although for 12th-graders the average score remained at 150. In 2015, 38% of fourth-graders, 34% of eighth-graders and 22% of 12th-graders were rated proficient or better in science; 24% of fourth-graders, 32% of eighth-graders and 40% of 12th-graders were rated “below basic.” These results likely won’t surprise too many people. In a 2015 Pew Research Center report, only 29% of Americans rated their country’s K-12 education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (known as STEM) as above average or the best in the world. Scientists were even more critical: A companion survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that just 16% called U.S. K-12 STEM education the best or above average; 46%, in contrast, said K-12 STEM in the U.S. was below average.

A lack of qualified physics teachers is the root cause of the problemMeltzer, et, al. 12 (David E., Associate Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Monica Plisch, Associate Director of Education and Diversity, American Physical Society, Stamatis Vokos, Professor of Physics, Seattle Pacific University, accessed 6/29/17, “Transforming the Preparation of Physics Teachers: A Call to Action: A Report by the Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics (T-TEP)”. T-TEP: https://www.aps.org/about/governance/task-force/upload/ttep-synopsis.pdf //ghs-st)

The Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics (T-TEP) is pleased to present this report as a contribution to the nation’s efforts to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) literacy for all, and to increase the abilities of a STEM-capable workforce as well as

the number of students who pursue STEM careers. We believe that a critical factor in helping the nation achieve these

important goals is good teaching at the high school level . Good physics teaching at the high school level is hampered by a severe shortage of well-prepared teachers . This shortage is more pressing in physics than in any other field , and constitutes the primary challenge in providing a high-quality physics education to all students. To address this challenge, the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics constituted T-TEP, with members representing all the critical parts of the system under study: physics faculty, education faculty, university administration, high school teachers, and professional organizations. T-TEP found that, except for a handful of isolated models of

excellence, the professional preparation of physics teachers is largely inefficient , mostly incoherent , and

completely unprepared to deal with the current and future needs of the nation’s students. During their training, most U.S. physics teachers took only a small number of physics courses and never developed a deep understanding of the subject, instead

devoting much of their time to generic education courses that have limited value to practicing physics teachers. Students typically receive no early experiences in teachin g physics before they begin student teaching . In contrast to this

paradigm, research and reports indicate that teachers gain much more value from courses and workshops that expose them to physics-specific pedagogy and intensive study of physics concepts in the context of learning to

teach physics— and from actually teaching it , with expert mentoring . Such experiences can incorporate recent research in

physics education that has yielded valuable knowledge of effective curricula, instructional methods, and assessment techniques. However, these potentially high-value courses and teaching experiences are usually not available at institutions that prepare teachers, and in any case they are almost always overshadowed by the time required for non- subject- specific pedagogical studies . This serious imbalance negatively affects the quality and effectiveness of physics teacher graduates . The fact that most new physics teachers have no exposure to modern knowledge of effective physics pedagogy is a terrible waste of resources and represents a gross inefficiency. Physics teacher preparation at colleges and universities generally has an “orphan” status, claimed

or valued by almost no one, except as a low-priority sideline activity. This is largely due to the relatively small constituencies represented by prospective teachers of physics; the small numbers imply a large relative expense per graduate since economies of scale are lacking. The challenge is magnified since most high school physics

teachers teach other subjects as well. This implies a need for physics teachers-in-training to receive preparation in one or more additional subjects such as mathematics, chemistry, or biology, thus straining an already overcrowded curriculum and giving rise to general science methods courses that cannot attend to the many intellectual intricacies of teaching a specific

subject. The bottom line is that, with very few exceptions, neither physics departments nor education departments or colleges consider physics teacher preparation to be a significant part of their mission . Teachers end up in

a high school physics classroom through a wide variety of routes. Most often these do not include either a major or minor in physics, or specific training in teaching physics. Even the minority that do have a physics background often obtain only very limited pedagogical preparation in alternative or emergency certification programs, brief “in-service” workshops for practicing

teachers, or post-baccalaureate programs with no focus on discipline-specific pedagogy. At the school and district level, administrators are often willing to put underqualified teachers in physics classrooms out of perceived short-term needs , even if the ostensibly short-term “solution” turns into a long-term obstacle to high-quality physics instruction. To lay out a plan toward national excellence, T-TEP issues recommendations to physics departments, schools of education, university administrators, school systems, state agencies, and the federal government, as well as to foundations and the business community, all of which have indispensable roles to play to help students be prepared to contribute to a STEM-literate society. Physics is universally recognized as a fundamental and essential STEM discipline. It has been argued that since 21st-century science tackles multidisciplinary problems, school systems should teach science in the interdisciplinary manner in which real science is conducted. We wholeheartedly agree that science should be taught in ways that reflect authentic science and engineering practices, including the use of technology, the incorporation of mathematical modeling, and emphasis on the social and historical contexts in which scientific efforts are situated. That said, we recognize that there are no generic STEM professionals—multidisciplinary teams consist of individuals who have deep grounding in some subject area and are well versed in communicating effectively with colleagues from diverse disciplinary perspectives. Therefore, to prepare a citizenry able to tackle 21st-century multidisciplinary problems,

we believe that teachers need a deep understanding both of content within a specific discipline , and of the teaching of that discipline. This report represents the unanimous voice of T-TEP members. Over a period of four years, T-TEP collected and analyzed data through surveys, site visits, literature reviews, and formal and informal input from many individuals and organizations. T-TEP

findings and recommendations were combed through, debated, and vetted by every single task force member, with the ultimate goal of presenting to the nation a unified, authoritative account of the current state of physics teacher education along with specific, actionable items

for catalyzing an effective response. We believe this is our best chance to turn around the current tide of mediocrity and

to put physics in its well-deserved place in the U.S. education system , as the basis of all science and a major way of knowing the world.

Even though the number of students that are taking STEM, the lack of qualified physics teachers leaving them useless compared to the rest of the worldMeltzer, et, al. 12 (David E., Associate Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Monica Plisch, Associate Director of Education and Diversity, American Physical Society, Stamatis Vokos, Professor of Physics, Seattle Pacific University, accessed 6/29/17, “Transforming the Preparation of Physics Teachers: A Call to Action: A Report by the Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics (T-TEP)”. T-TEP: http://www.phystec.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=9845&DocID=1498&DocFID=2602&Attachment=1 //ghs-st)

In the United States there are over 23,000 teachers of high school physics who serve students in over 20,000 public and

private high schools. While many of these high school physics teachers are excellent educators, we are concerned that only a third of

U.S. physics teachers have a major in physics or physics education. While about 400 high school physics teachers are hired each year

with such qualifications, the rate at which we need new teachers in classrooms to fill gaps produced by retirement or individuals

taking other positions outside of teaching is approximately 1,200 per year. In many states, weak standards for certification or

endorsement to teach physics hide the fact that many teachers of physics lack the content knowledge and focused pedagogical preparation necessary to provide an excellent physics education for all students. The scarcity of qualified physics teachers is exacerbated by the annual increase in both number and fraction of high school students who take physics.

Scenario 1: Innovation

Creating a physics teacher program spills over to all sectors of STEM – physics is a pre-requisite – only the aff is key because we need more teachersMeltzer, et, al. 12 (David E., Associate Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Monica Plisch, Associate Director of Education and Diversity, American Physical Society, Stamatis Vokos, Professor of Physics, Seattle Pacific University, accessed 6/29/17, “Transforming the Preparation of Physics Teachers: A Call to Action: A Report by the Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics (T-TEP)”. T-TEP: http://www.phystec.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=9845&DocID=1498&DocFID=2602&Attachment=1 //ghs-st)

To be sure, the nation needs more teachers who themselves have a strong background in physics . More

importantly, however, it needs educators who can lead others in developing a deep understanding of physics. Research on the effectiveness of the high school physics course and on student learning in physics paints an alarming picture. Studies correlating effects of matriculation in high school physics courses and success in the introductory physics course in college

show that having taken high school physics has no larger an effect on success in the introductory college physics course than having taken high school mathematics instead. In addition, numerous physics education research studies conducted at the college

level suggest that the overwhelming majority of students arrive in college without deep understanding of foundational ideas in physics , such as Newton’s laws of motion. Of course there are counterexamples—there are many high school physics teachers who have a profoundly positive effect on their students’ understanding of physics and love for physics. The challenge is to identify the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of such exemplars and build physics teacher education programs that focus intentionally on the

development of these qualities in their prospective physics teachers in sufficient numbers to meet the national need. The state of high

school physics ultimately affects the health of the physics profession . Physics faculty care about providing a substantive and meaningful encounter between their intellectual passion and their students (whether these students take one physics course

or commit to becoming physics majors). Physics faculty should therefore also be concerned about the quality of that encounter before students reach them. A plausible causal chain connects students who receive sub- optimal physics instruction in high school with a decreasing fraction of physics majors relative to other STEM majors in college, which in turn affects physics department size and ability to attract U.S. physics grad uate students . Public perceptions of the efficacy of physics as an enterprise also affect public funding for science research and university budget allocations for science programs. For members of the physics community, perhaps the most alarming prospect is that of a citizenry that fails to appreciate physics as a liberal arts discipline—its unique way of knowing and its unique approach to satisfying and stimulating curiosity about the natural world. Members of the physics community, particularly physics departments, need to recognize what they stand to gain by a transformed physics teacher professional preparation system and what they stand to lose by preserving the status quo.

STEM innovation is key to a LL of impactsLips and McNeill 9 (Dan, worker at the heritage foundation, daily signal, Goldwater Institute, US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and currently works at US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, got a BA in ptx from Stanford, Jena Baker, is the Senior Director, Government Relations at U.S. Travel Association, has worked in the Department of Homeland Security, Senate, and the Heritage Foundation, graduated from U of Arkansas, and U of Maryland College Park, 4/15/9, accessed 7/7/17, “A New Approach to Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education” Heritage Foundation: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505676.pdf //ghs-st)

the limited number of students who complete elementary and secondary school with the skills and knowledge to pursue STEM coursework in

higher education and succeed in many parts of the workforce. The American education system is supposed to be a pipeline that prepares children in elementary and secondary school to pursue opportunities in post-secondary education and in the workforce. It is well known that this pipeline is leaky—that millions of children pass through their K–12 years without receiving a quality education. Too many students drop out and, all too often, those who do earn a high school degree lack the academic qualifications to succeed in STEM fields in college or in the

workforce. Improving learning in STEM education should remain a priority for American policymakers . For

students, succeeding in K–12 STEM classes will open the door to future opportunities in higher education, and in the

workforce. Also, ensuring that the next generation of American workers has adequate skills and training in critical areas is vital to America’s national security and economic competitiveness . If the United States

lacks the tools to combat aggressors, America’s future is at risk . Wars are won partly with superior technologies—and America’s survival depends on its ability to maintain an advantage over its enemies . U.S. scientists and engineers work every day to develop new tools to protect Americans from terror ism , such as lasers and

explosives-detection devices. Tackling pressing global problems — from energy security to vulnerable cyber infrastructure—will require the intellectual curiosity and creativity of STEM-educated individuals .1 Given the importance of addressing these needs, policymakers should recognize the need for a new approach to STEM education in America.

Scenario 2: Inequality

Large amounts of race disparities in STEM now – a good education is key to solveRandazzo 5/17 (Matthew, the chief executive officer of the National Math and Science Initiative., 5-10-2017, accessed 7-4-2017, "Students Shouldn't Live in STEM Deserts", US News & World Report: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2017-05-10/the-us-must-address-disparities-in-access-to-stem-education //ghs-st)

More than ever, a high-quality math and science education is the foundation for opportunity . By 2020, almost two-thirds of all jobs will require post-secondary education or training – education that is supported by the critical thinking and problem-solving skills learned in math and science . In the same period, almost as many jobs will require basic literacy in science, technology, engineering and math. Yet, we as a nation continue with a familiar pattern in which

access to high-quality STEM learning is unevenly distributed. Millions of students across the country live in what we call STEM deserts – school communities without access to rigorous and engaging math and science courses. Lack of STEM access is a critical equity issue in education, particularly for students in urban and rural communities, where access to high-level math and science

courses is often out of reach. Soon, the impact of students living in STEM deserts will not only be reflected in those students' high

school and college competition rates, but will also take a toll on the country's technological superiority , its

economy and national security .

The plan solves the racial disparity which allows people of colour to succeedMeltzer, et, al. 12 (David E., Associate Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Monica Plisch, Associate Director of Education and Diversity, American Physical Society, Stamatis Vokos, Professor of Physics, Seattle Pacific University, accessed 6/29/17, “Transforming the Preparation of Physics Teachers: A Call to Action: A Report by the Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics (T-TEP)”. T-TEP: http://www.phystec.org/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=9845&DocID=1498&DocFID=2602&Attachment=1 //ghs-st)

In addition to impacting negatively the nation’s economy and security, inadequate science education threatens the very foundation of our democracy , as our educational system fails to provide members of racial and ethnic

minorities and the poor with the knowledge and skills they will require to participate meaningfully in crucial social decisions of ever increasing scientific and technological complexity. For instance, on the 2005 eighth grade National Assessment of Educational

Progress in science, the achievement gaps between Caucasian and African American students , between Caucasian

and Hispanic students, and between low-poverty and high-poverty students were roughly equivalent to three whole years of learning . Unequal access to good science extends to our nation’s high schools. While the percentage of African American and Hispanic high school students taking physics is increasing , their participation (23%

and 24%, respectively) still lags behind that of Caucasian students (36%). High poverty schools, which also tend to have high percentages of students from groups underrepresented in the sciences, are less likely to offer advanced physics (AP or second year) and more likely not to offer

physics at all. For example, 23% of high school students in New York City attend schools that do not offer physics,

and these students are disproportionately poor and members of underrepresented groups.

Racial and economic inequality is a form of structural violence that condemns entire populations to preventable suffering and death. Bezruchka 14 — Stephen Bezruchka, Senior Lecturer in Health Services and Global Health at the School of Public Health at the University of Washington, holds a Master of Public Health from Johns

Hopkins University and an M.D. from Stanford University, 2014 (“Inequality Kills,” Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality, Edited by David Cay Johnston, Published by The New Press, ISBN 9781595589446, p. 194-195)

Differences in mortality rates are not just a statistical concern—they reflect suffering and pain for very real individuals and families. The higher mortality in the U nited States is an example of what Paul Farmer, the noted

physician and anthropologist, calls structural violence . The forty-seven infant deaths occur every day because of the way society in the

United States is structured, resulting in our health status being that of a middle-income country, not a rich country. There is growing evidence that the factor most responsible for the relatively poor health in the U nited States is the vast and rising inequality in wealth and income that we not only tolerate, but resist changing. Inequality is the central element , the upstream cause of the social disadvantage described in the IOM report. A political system that fosters inequality limits the attainment of health. The claim that economic inequality is a major reason for our poor health requires that several standard criteria for claiming causality are satisfied: the results are confirmed by many different studies by different investigators over different time periods; there is a dose-response relationship , meaning more inequality leads to worse health; no other contending explanation is posited; and the relationship is biologically plausible , with likely mechanisms through which inequality works. The field of study called stress biology of social comparisons is one such way inequality acts. Those studies confirm that all the criteria for linking inequality to poorer health are met , concluding that the extent of inequality in society reflects the range of caring and sharing, with more unequal populations sharing less. Those who are poorer struggle to be

accepted in society and the rich also suffer its effects. A recent Harvard study estimated that about one death in three in this country results from our very high income inequality. Inequality kills through structural violence . There is no smoking gun with this form of violence, which simply produces a lethally large social and economic gap between rich and poor .

Contention 2: NSFContention 2: NSF

Trump is massively cutting the NSF’s budget – that comes from CyberCorps and EPSCoR – even if the budget is dead – specifically NSF internal cuts are inevitable in the squoJeffrey Mervis, Reporter on Science Policy in the United States and Internationally, Covering Science Policy for 30+ Years, including work at Nature and with ScienceMag for 24 years, “NSF Offers Arms-Length Defense of Trump’s 2018 Request,” Science Magazine, 06/27/17, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/nsf-offers-arm-s-length-defense-trump-s-2018-request

President Donald Trump’s proposal for an 11.3% cut in spending at the National Science Foundation ( NSF ) may be dead on arrival in Congress. But that doesn’t mean congressional appropriators will be able to avoid any squeeze on NSF’s budget .¶ Representative John Culberson (R–TX), who chairs the House of Representatives spending panel that oversees NSF, opened a hearing yesterday on NSF’s 2018 budget request by saying he will work “to ensure NSF is appropriately funded” in the

fiscal year that begins on 1 October. But after the hearing, Culberson declined to say whether that would require preserving its 2017 budget of $7.47 billion.¶ “I’ve personally ensured that NASA has received an appropriate level of funding because of the work that they do,” Culberson explained, referring to boosts this year in both the agency’s overall budget and its space science programs.

“NSF is also a national treasure.” But when asked whether “appropriate” funding for NSF rules out a cut,

Culberson would say only that “I’ve already given you a great answer.”¶ It was clear from yesterday’s hearing that

neither Culberson nor the Democrats on the spending panel are fans of Trump’s budget request for the agency. And NSF Director France

Córdova did what she could to distance herself from the results of an exercise in which NSF officials were forced to propose $820 million in cuts from current spending .¶ “That wasn’t your idea, was it?” Representative Matt

Cartwright (D–PA) asked Córdova, putting her in an awkward situation. “NSF is an executive branch agency , and this is the president’s budget ,” replied Córdova, a Senate-confirmed appointee of former President Barack Obama who is halfway through a 6-

year term.¶ After the hearing, Córdova described how NSF followed White House orders to slice the agency’s budget to levels last seen a decade ago in current dollars—and 15 years ago if inflation is factored in . The goal, she said, was to

preserve “core” research programs while also throttling back on programs that had expanded rapidly in recent years.¶ “There isn’t another agency that just allows researchers to submit their own curiosity-driven research ideas ,” she explained. “We call that the core, and to me it means principal investigator–driven research. And we wanted to be sure that there was still an agency on the planet that would continue to fund curiosity-driven, fundamental research.”¶ “But we also looked at the growth of everything

over the last decade, by major program,” she added. “And we saw that some programs had experienced really, really big growth,” ticking off NSF’s graduate research fellowships, the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

( EPSCoR ), and the CyberCorps Scholarship for Service. “So we took those off the table .”¶ Under the 2018 request, the

next class of graduate fellows would be cut in half , from 2000 to 1000. EPSCoR , a long-running program begun by

Congress that helps states that receive relatively few NSF research grants, was trimmed by $60 million, or 37% , and the new CyberCorps program would drop by 20% , or $10 million .¶ That pruning reduced the overall size of the cut needed to around 9%, she said. Each of the agency’s research directorates were then told to find ways to cut that amount from their budgets. “We didn’t

want to just spread it like peanut butter across every program,” she explained. The cuts to the three major activities were done in consultation with Trump budget officials , she added.¶ In her testimony, Córdova insisted that “we still have a lot of

money” to do the cutting-edge research that has been a hallmark of the agency since it was created in 1950. But she also signaled her

hope that Congress would come to the rescue . “The budget presents us with challenges ,” she acknowledged, “but it is not final until Congress weighs in. And scientists are anxiously waiting to see how it all unfolds.”

Scenario 1: CyberCorps

The Cyber Corps program is critical in strengthening public cyber security by providing scholarships in exchange for service – the NSF has above a 93% government placement rate nowWennergren et al, October 15 – David Wennergren et al., Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer at Professional Services Council, Previously Worked at US Department of Defense, and Ramon Barquin, President & Chief Executive Officer at Barquin International, and Shelley Metzenbaum, Seniorr Fellow & Self-Employed, Previous Good Government Catalyst at Open Data Enterprise Event, Previous Founding President of the Volcker Alliance, Previous Associate Director of Performance and Personnel Management at the White House Office of Management and Budget, and Alan Shark, Executive Director and CEO of Public Technology Institute, All Authors are/were Fellows of the National Academy of Public Administration, “Increasing the Effectiveness of the Federal Role in Cybersecurity Education,” National Academy of Public Administration, October 2015, http://napawash.org/images/reports/2015/Increasing_Effectiveness_of_Federal_Role_in_Cyber_Education.pdf

The CyberCorps®: SFS program is an interagency program for scholarships and grants to colleges and universities, administered by the NSF with cooperation from DHS , NSA and the Office of Personnel Management

( OPM ); it has been operating since 2001.13 According to the NSF, the SFS program is designed to increase and strengthen the cadre of federal information assurance professionals that protect the government’s critical information infrastructure . It supplies grants to schools for student scholarships . Grants are administered by the receiving school and the school takes responsibility for awarding scholarships to students. The students are required to find employment (including an internship) in the public sector upon

graduation, to keep the scholarship from turning into a loan that has to be repaid to the government. As of FY 2010 (latest available data), the government placement rate was above 93%, according to NSF.14 The SFS program provides additional grants to the participating colleges and universities to improve their cybersecurity education programs , including capacity-building in academic departments (facilities, professors, and so on). These capacitybuilding grants in recent years have ranged from $300,000 to $900,000, ranging from one to three years in length15 The grants are renewable if NSF approves an acceptable renewal grant application which includes a review of the past use of funds. The program was recently reaffirmed by Congress in the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014.16 The Director of NSF is charged with determining the “eligible degree programs” and the “qualifications” a college or university must meet to participate in the program.17

A steady supply of cybersecurity experts is critical to protect the nationals critical infrastructures – lack of workforce makes attacks extremely likely and damagingGAO 4/4 – GAO, United States Government Accountability Office, “Federal Efforts Are Under Way That May Address Workforce Challenges,” GAO, 04/04/2017, http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683923.pdf

Federal agencies and our nation’s critical infrastructures —such as energy, transportation systems, communications, and

financial services— are dependent on computerized ( cyber ) information systems and electronic data to carry out operations and to process , maintain, and report essential information . The information systems and networks that support federal operations are highly complex and dynamic, technologically diverse, and often geographically dispersed. This complexity increases the difficulty in identifying, managing, and protecting the myriad of

operating systems, applications, and devices comprising the systems and networks. The security of federal information systems and data is vital to public confidence and the nation’s safety , prosperity, and well-being. However, systems used by federal agencies are often riddled with security vulnerabilities —both known and unknown. For example, the national vulnerability database maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) identified 82,384 publicly known cybersecurity vulnerabilities and exposures as of February 9, 2017, with more being added each day. Federal systems and networks are also often interconnected with other internal and external systems

and networks, including the Internet, thereby increasing the number of avenues of attack and expanding their attack surface. In addition, cyber threats to systems supporting the federal government and critical infrastructure are evolving and becoming more sophisticated . These threats come from a variety of sources and vary in terms of the types and capabilities of the actors, their willingness to act, and their motives. For example, foreign nations —where adversaries possess sophisticated levels of expertise and significant resources to

pursue their objectives— pose increasing risks .¶ Cybersecurity professionals can help to prevent or mitigate the vulnerabilities that could allow malicious individuals and groups access to federal IT systems . The ability to secure federal systems depends on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the federal and contractor workforce that uses, implements, secures, and maintains these system s. This includes federal and contractor employees who use the IT systems in the course of their work as well as the designers, developers, programmers, and administrators of the programs and systems . However, the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has noted that the federal government and private industry face a persistent shortage of cybersecurity and IT talent to implement and oversee information security protections to combat cyber threats. In addition, the RAND Corporation2 and the Partnership for Public Service3 have reported that there is a nationwide shortage of

cybersecurity experts, in particular in the federal government. According to these reports, this shortage of cybersecurity professionals makes securing the nation’s networks more challenging and may leave federal IT systems vulnerable to malicious attacks.

Cyberattacks threaten nuclear response – the DoD is willing to go nuclearBiddle 13 – Sam Biddle, Senior Writer at Gawker, Internally Citing the Pentagon’s Report: Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat, “Pentagon: Let’s Threaten Nuke Strike Against Hackers,” Gizmodo, 3/06/13, http://gizmodo.com/5988914/pentagon-lets-threaten-nuke-strike-against-hackers http://gizmodo.com/5988914/pentagon-lets-threaten-nuke-strike-against-hackers

Most of us are content keeping hackers away with a firewall and decent password. But the Pentagon isn't nearly content, and in a

new report, insists we should keep our nuclear arsenal ready for Internet retaliation. What could go wrong?¶ The

report, "Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat," was prepared by the Department of Defense's Defense Science Board, and

over the course of 138 pages makes one very clear point: if China ever hacks us, "Protect the Nuclear Strike as a Deterrent." The phrase is repeated again and again—the word "nuclear" appears 113 times in a report ostensibly dealing with computer

warfare. The entire thing is riddled with jargon, euphemism, and rosy military metaphor—climbing the ladder of deterrence!—but the notion that American nukes could (and should !) be part of the "cyber war" equation (and insulated against any

electronic disruption) is unequivocal .¶ Let's put it plainly: China should know that we have nukes, tons of 'em, and if China's stellar

hacker platoon s ever tried to, say, bring down a n American satellite , destabilize a dam, or switch off an

enormous chunk of the power grid as part of an open military attack, they should be thinking about our nuclear missiles coming back in return. The US government has already said that it'd consider internet-based offensives an act of war that'd

have IRL consequences, but nuking as a response to DDoS has never been so explicit . "The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in 'extreme circumstances,'" the report says. And that's always been the case: you nuke us, we'll nuke you.

But now the definition of what circumstances are extreme is entirely remade : "Presumably one would characterize a catastrophic Tier V-VI adversary cyber attack on the United States as 'extreme circumstances.'"¶ Wait—

what's a Tier V-VI adversary cyber attack? That's simple: "States with the ability to successfully execute full spectrum (cyber capabilities in combination with all of their military and intelligence capabilities) operations to achieve a specific outcome in political, military, economic, etc. domains."¶ States like us.¶ Careful, Pentagon—this is one hell of a precedent.

Scenario 2: R&D

The EBSCoR program is essential to help states compete in R&D developmentHarris 1/12 – Luke A. Harris, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy, “Establish Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR): Background and Selected Issues,” Congressional Research Service, 01/12/2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44689.pdf

National Science Foundation NSF’s EPSCoR program was established in 1978 by a resolution of the National Science Board (NSB). 8 Congress directed initial

appropriations for the program in FY1979. 9 NSF’s EPSCoR was formally established in statute in 1988 to assist states that “historically have receive d relatively little Federal [ R&D ] funding ” and have “ demonstrated a commitment to develop their research bases and improve science and engineering research and education .” 10 The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 directed NSF to continue the program “with the objective of helping eligible States to

develop the research infrastructure that will make them more competitive for Foundation and other Federal research funding.”11 According to NSF, the overall program mission is to advance excellence in science and engineering research and education in order to achieve sustainable increases in research, education, and training capacity and competitiveness that will enable EPSCoR jurisdictions to have increased engagement in areas supported by the NSF. 12 NSF states that EPSCoR’s goals are to provide strategic programs and opportunities for EPSCoR participants that stimulate sustainable improvements in their R&D capacity and competitiveness ;

[ and ] to advance science and engineering capabilities in EPSCoR jurisdictions for discovery , innovation and overall knowledge-based prosperity . 13 EPSCoR program objectives further include broadening participation of diverse groups in EPSCoR projects and establishing science, technology, engineering, and math ( STEM ) education , training , and professional development opportunities that advance research and workforce development needs identified by each jurisdiction. 14 NSF’s EPSCoR program is broadly set up as federal-jurisdiction partnerships . To participate in the EPSCoR program, an eligible jurisdiction is required to form its own EPSCoR

steering committee15 and to develop a science and technology (S&T) plan specific to the jurisdiction’s needs and goals. Each steering committee is expected to

undertake “a recent comprehensive analysis of the strengths, barriers, and opportunities for further development of its institutions in support of overall objectives in research, education, and innovation.”16 Through these activities, steering committees work closely with partners in academia, government, and the private sector to build statewide networks. The funding awards structure for the NSF EPSCoR program has changed over time. In 1980, NSF awarded the first EPSCoR planning grants to seven states to support establishment of state steering committees, identify barriers to research competitiveness, and suggest possible remedies.17 Building from that work, five states subsequently developed successful research grant proposals and received five years of initial funding, primarily to support individual investigators. In the 1990s, award levels increased, and the grant focus changed to support for research clusters and statewide proposals for infrastructure development. 18 In the 2000s, NSF’s EPSCoR program was moved to the Office of Integrative Activities (OIA) and developed to include the three current investment components: Research Infrastructure Improvement (RII) awards, co-funding, and outreach/workshops.

State-by-state R&D is the key internal link to innovation and economic success – but a state’s “go at it alone” approach fails.Andes and Muro 13 – Scott Andes, Senior Policy Associate and Associate Fellow at the Centennial Scholar Initiative, Mark Muro, Senior Fellow and Policy Director at the Metropolitan Policy Program, “State Government Step Up R&D Investment,” The Brookings Institute, 11/20/2013, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2013/11/20/state-governments-step-up-rd-investment/

Conventional wisdom holds that some areas of public policy impact the entire country and are therefore inherently national. One obvious case in point is national security, where a single, unified security policy is essential for the country’s defense. Another is the nation’s research and development (R&D) enterprise, which has also typically been viewed as the special province of the federal government.¶ Yet now with federal paralysis pandemic, state and local leaders are taking control of their economic destinies and asserting themselves in many areas traditionally left to Washington—and R&D is no exception. ¶ According to recent data from the National Science Foundation, state government R&D expenditures increased by 11.3 percent between 2010 and 2011, while federal investments declined 9 percent during the same time period.¶

The academic literature on innovation systems has generally placed nations at the center of the analysis , emphasizing national tax, trade, intellectual property, and education policies. More specifically, the argument goes, R&D provides the nation with a number of positive externalities that are diminished when state and regional competition creates barriers to interstate knowledge exchange. Better to leave the federal government at the helm of large-scale investments and to drive coordination across multiple sub-national jurisdictions. While this may have been a valid point in the 1980s and 1990s when “national innovation systems” research was in its heyday,

the way in which R&D is performed today is fundamentally different . ¶ In the past R&D has been organized vertically by a few very large domestic firms, universities, and national labs. Think Bell Labs. In such a climate there is no need to “go regional,” as national leaders can interact directly with the handful of major research-performing firms. Today,

however, R&D is increasingly organized horizontally through thousands of small-and medium-sized firms across hundreds of complex supply chains . In such a climate, clusters, not countries, matter. Nevada R&D may be motivated by rapid tech nology transfer to young software firms, while Tennessee needs greater large scale investments in lightweight composites. What works in one region doesn’t work everywhere . ¶ To be sure, states can’t go it alone —the federal government can and should ramp up national R&D investments . But in the

meantime, successful state and regional leaders —public, private, and philanthropic—recognize R&D investments are a critical fuel of regional economic success . Innovation precedes exports, foreign direct investment, higher wages, and better standards of living . No wonder these leaders aren’t waiting for the federal government but are investing in research that supports their firms and unique industry clusters today.

Innovation’s key to maintaining US Hegemony. Every tool that retains foreign policy leadership hinges on strong innovation. Troyjo ‘16

Marcos Troyjo, Adjunct Associate Professor of International and Public Affairs and Global Affairs Scholar at Columbia University. Troyjo is the founder of the Center for Business Diplomacy, an independent think-tank on global entrepreneurship. He holds a PhD in sociology of international relations from the University of São Paulo and pursued postdoctoral studies at Columbia University. An economist and political scientist, he is an alumnus of The Rio Branco Institute (Instituto Rio Branco), the graduate

school of international relations and diplomatic academy of Brazil's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He undertook additional graduate studies at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. “The New Age Of Talent” – Huffington Post - Oct 14, 2016 - - #CutWithKirby - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-new-age-of-talent_us_580140b4e4b0985f6d157076

The emergence of ‘Talentism’ as a key factor in the global economy is revolutionizing traditional notions of power, prosperity and prestige The relative weight of a ny country in international relations can be

traditionally measured at three levels: its dissuasive strength in terms of defense forces ; the prosperity of its citizens

and companies ; and its influence as projected through intangible values. As far as all of these are concerned,

innovation is the key . And innovation is something that is produced by elites. This has been well explained from the time of the

pioneering Schumpeter up until Acemoglu and Robinson and their essential book Why Nations Fail . Those who turn their backs on the knowledge, business, and policy-making elites that can bring about innovation become increasingly irrelevant nations. The outcome is diminished traditional power , a low degree of technological density in the economy, and a limited soft power projection. The only way forward is to encourage elites to adopt one of two types of innovation strategies: either

creative destruction or creative adaptation. The former means that the economy is in a permanent state of ‘evolutionary chaos.’ Innovators are the only ones to survive in a context of constant mutation. The replacement of typewriters by computers is a typical example of creative destruction. Argentina used to be a wealthy country at the beginning of the 20th century thanks to agriculture and livestock. Its elite was well educated but little disposed to innovation. As a result, it

entered the 21st century relatively poor. Meanwhile, the United States has been progressing since the 19th century thanks to its radically

innovative elite. It became the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.

Failed US leadership causes global wars and extinction. No alternative to US hegemony will safely emerge. Brzezinski ‘12

Zbigniew K. Brzezinski - CSIS counselor and trustee and cochairs the CSIS Advisory Board, holds honorary degrees from Georgetown University, Williams College, Fordham University, College of the Holy Cross, Alliance College, the Catholic University of Lublin, Warsaw University, and Vilnius University. He is the recipient of numerous honors and awards) February 2012 “After America” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/after_america?page=0,0

For if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent successor -- not even China. International

uncertainty, increased tension among global competitors, and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes. While a sudden, massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis -- would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to

global political and economic disorder, a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or endlessly widening warfare

with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor. No single power will be ready by then to exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play: the leader of a new,

globally cooperative world order. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive realignments of both global and regional power , with no grand winners and many more losers , in a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global well-being . Rather than a world where dreams of democracy flourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and

religion could ensue. RELATED 8 Geopolitically Endangered Species The leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and some European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of U.S. decline on their respective national interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters and China

rises. Russia, while perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain prospects, will almost certainly have its eye on the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Europe , not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in several directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure

Central Europe in favor of a politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within the EU while preserving its

special relationship with a declining United States. Others may move more rapidly to carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area of the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of these countries, however, will have the requisite combination of economic, financial, technological, and military power even to consider inheriting America's leading role. China, invariably mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive imperial lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system's dramatic collapse but on its evolution toward a

gradual redistribution of power. Moreover, the basic reality is that China is not yet ready to assume in full America's role in the world. Beijing's leaders themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every important measure of development, wealth, and power,

China will still be a modernizing and developing state several decades from now, significantly behind not only the United States but also Europe and Japan in the major per capita indices of modernity and national power. Accordingly, Chinese leaders have been restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership. At some stage, however, a more assertive Chinese nationalism could arise and damage China's

international interests. A swaggering, nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally mobilize a powerful regional coalition against itself. None of China's key neighbors -- India, Japan, and Russia -- is ready to acknowledge China's entitlement to

America's place on the global totem pole. They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly assertive China. The resulting regional scramble could become intense , especially given the similar nationalistic tendencies among China's neighbors. A phase of acute international tension in Asia could ensue . Asia of the 21st century could then begin to resemble Europe of the 20th century -- violent and bloodthirsty . At the same time, the security of a number of weaker states located geographically next to major regional

powers also depends on the international status quo reinforced by America's global preeminence -- and would

be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion to America's decline. The states in that exposed position -- including Georgia, Taiwan, South Korea, Belarus, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East -- are

today's geopolitical equivalents of nature's most endangered species. Their fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left behind by a waning America, be it ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving and expansionist. A faltering United States could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy. America's economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by

such sensitive neighborhood issues as economic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A decline in American power, however, would likely undermine the health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political systems. A waning U nited S tates would likely be more nationalistic , more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others' development. The worsening of relations between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the emergence, as a major issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims

justified by history and ignited by cross-border incidents. Another consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generally cooperative management of the global commons -- shared interests such as sea lanes , space, cyberspace, and the environment , whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth of the global economy and the continuation of basic geopolitical stability. In almost every case, the potential absence of a constructive and influential U.S. role would fatally undermine the essential communality of the global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of American power creates order where there would normally be conflict. None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that America's decline would generate global insecurity, endanger some vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North American neighborhood an argument for U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategic complexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But

those dreaming today of America's collapse would probably come to regret it. And as the world after America would be increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative that the United States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign policy -- or start bracing itself for a dangerous slide into global turmoil.

1AC — PlanText: The United States federal government should develop a discipline-specific teacher professional recruitment, preparation, and development program for physics teachers that includes high-quality physics-specific pedagogy.

Contention 3: SolvencyContention 3: Solvency

An increase of funding and preparation is critical to solve, prefer our reverse causal evidenceMeltzer, et, al. 12 (David E., Associate Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Monica Plisch, Associate Director of Education and Diversity, American Physical Society, Stamatis Vokos, Professor of Physics, Seattle Pacific University, accessed 6/29/17, “Transforming the Preparation of Physics Teachers: A Call to Action: A Report by the Task Force on Teacher Education in Physics (T-TEP)”. T-TEP: https://www.aps.org/about/governance/task-force/upload/ttep-synopsis.pdf //ghs-st)

The U nited S tates should take significant steps to alleviate the severe shortage of qualified physics teachers . 12. Physics departments and schools of education should design certification pathways for individuals in various populations to become well-prepared physics teachers: undergraduate students who have not yet chosen a

major, undergraduate STEM majors, graduate students in STEM disciplines, STEM teachers who may not yet be prepared to teach

physics, and STEM professionals such as engineers, scientists, and laboratory technicians. a. Active recruitment of STEM students into physics teaching is necessary to increase the number of physics teachers . The recruiting pool should be 27 T-TEP broad and include undergraduates as well as graduate students, physics majors as well as other STEM majors who have

sufficient physics background or can acquire it. b. Teacher prep aration programs should have streamlined pathways for STEM research professionals as well as for experienced STEM teachers, respecting and capitalizing on the

different experiences of each of these groups. While STEM professionals and experienced STEM teachers both require high- quality instruction in physics content along with physics-specific pedagogical education , the physics teacher endorsement program should not require an extensive amount of time to complete and should be designed to accommodate the special

scheduling constraints of these professionals. c. Special pathways for STEM professionals and experienced STEM teachers will have significant intersections with pathways designed for undergraduate teacher preparation. To promote interaction and discussion among diverse student groups and to increase enrollment in courses on physics- specific pedagogy , these courses should be structured to simultaneously

enroll undergraduate STEM majors, in-service STEM teachers, and post-baccalaureate STEM professionals.

An increase of NSF funding into education leads to an increase of the overall NSF budgetMoore 3/28 (James E., professor and vice dean for Academic Programs in the University of Southern California’s Viterbi School of Engineering, and a professor in the USC Price School of Public Policy., 3-28-2017, accessed 7-9-2017, "Why Trump is right to question research funding: Guest commentary", LA News: http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20170328/why-trump-is-right-to-question-research-funding-guest-commentary //ghs-st)

President Trump ’s “America First” budget blueprint calls for eliminating about 20 independent agencies, and eliminating multiple agencies and programs across federal departments. While disquieting to many, and silent on the crucial matter of entitlement programs, the president’s budget proposal still forces an overdue examination of the legitimate role of government. All of the agencies and programs the president calls for eliminating serve constructive purposes. But are the purposes important enough to justify expropriating the taxpayer funds needed to support them? Even if the benefits of most of these programs exceed their costs, do these benefits exceed the benefits that would otherwise flow from leaving more taxpayer dollars with taxpayers? Households and firms do only one of two things with

their money. They spend it or they invest it, and both activities expand the economy. Some of the agencies the president’s budget eliminates are highly visible, such as the National Endowment for the Arts. Some are more obscure, such as the Corporation for National and Community Service. None of them, though, are engaged in activities so compelling that public authority necessarily should be reaching into the pockets of taxpayers to enable the work. Proposing their elimination forces an examination of this question, and in many

cases the right answer will be pull back from the activity. The budget blueprint calls for a funding reduction of 18 percent for the National Institutes of Health, largely as a function of reorganization. Similar opportunities exist at the National Science Foundation. But the NSF is absent from the budget proposal, and universities across the country are anxious to know whether the NSF will be affected by the president’s agenda. This is because one of the ways universities measure quality is by the number of doctoral graduates each institution produces, on the sometimes fanciful assumption that more doctoral graduates translates

into more placements on faculties. Federal research funds are of central importance to doctoral programs , and reductions in funding would force a change in the way universities compete . The NSF mostly supports research in basic science and engineering . Both NIH and NSF research funds are awarded in intensively competitive processes. The long-run economic benefits provided by the results these research projects generate very probably justify the tax burden necessary to achieve them. If we could remove the past century of physical and natural science research results from our lives,

the quality of our existence would be dramatically diminished. However, there are elements of the NSF agenda that do not pass this test. The NSF’s fiscal year budget request for 2017 was just under $8 billion. The support requested for research in the social, behavioral and economic sciences is only a small portion of this, under $300 million, but the most appropriate level is zero. If we could

eliminate the last century of social science research results from our lives, it is hard to know what would change. The NSF’s request for Education and Human Resources accounts for just under $1 billion. Most of these expenditures could cease with little

or no impact on the quality or volume of scientific research done in the United States. They should. The most important expenditures, such as support for graduate research fellowships , are a reasonably small share of this total, and if retained could be folded into the foundation’s competitive research funding programs . If half of the NSF’s EHR budget was shifted to research, and the other half conserved , NSF research funding could still be expanded by 3 percent , even if social science research funding was completely eliminated. Total agency expenses would be reduced by over 9 percent, half the NIH benchmark. Completely eliminating social science and EHR expenditures would

reduce the NSF budget by over 15 percent, and the NSF could still fund just as much meaningful research as ever . Many such reforms are possible, but this means more attention to priorities than we have paid in the past. The president and his budget advisors are on the right track.