tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN June 1, 2015 11:00am-1:01pm EDT
administered. >> thank you. commissioner, you have a quick question? >> not too quick. but i'll try to do the best i can. i'm glad to hear what was said about the cal state system with regard to the community college program. i would also add there is a similar program that takes them into the curriculum to get them into a four-year college and it's showing dramatic success. to get people out of the swirl. what wasn't said but in a separate conversation i had, he was talking about the fact that you basically ran out of pell grant eligibility if you're caught in that swirl. and then you may go to the four-year institution, and then after the second semester x you know, you're off, and then you're in deep trouble. access has always been a
particular concern of mine. the impact of -- disproportionate impact of stan stanardized tests has always been a concern for me. i want to ask you this question while i have you all here. have you seen, and i'm not an advocate for or against, but have you seen any impact in terms of minority application rate or minority scores in applications with regard to the consequence of common core coming into the krim luck at the pool level. has anyone seen anything there. is it too early to tell? but it's something you could watch for and look for because that's going to deal with some critics from minority communities that are concerned the testing or curriculum may decrease the number of graduates for high school. i see the chancellor leaning forward. >> i think we're actually,
unlike some places in the country, are leaning the forward pretty strongly on common core. and as we go through the transition, recognize there's going to be white water in the numbers that emerge. and so our folks have been doing the surrogates for the stan ardized testing. and the ans like psat and so far forth, we're trying to use other varables to make sure we don't inappropriately exclude anybody, and the consequence, of color or of poverty. and we recognize it will smooth out on the back end. we just have to get through it first. >> anybody else on the panel? if not, i remind you the record is open for an additional 30 days. if any of you would like to supplement your presentations or elaborate on any of the
questions asked of you we encourage you to provide us with that information over the next 30 days. thank you, everyone. we'll reconvene at 1:00 for the afternoon panels. thank you. >> some live programming to tell you about. at 1:20 p.m. eastern we're live with the discussion hosted by the foundation for defense of democracies on the iran nuclear negotiations. 6.
we're back on the record this afternoon for oured their panel. i don't know how many were here for the first panels but i'll show how we will keep track of the presentations. each of you will have an opportunity to speak for minutes. yellow means you have two minutes to wrap up. thank you, commissioner, and then red, i'll ask you to stop so that we can then get to the next speaker and have the opportunity for commissioners to ask you question. i want to introduce our panelists, and then i will swear you all in. our first panelist is mr. neal mckcluskey. our second panelist is mr. ron
haskins from the brookings institute. our next panelist is michele michele siqueiros. and anne neal. i'll ask you to raise your right hand and ask you to swear the information is true to the best of your knowledge. >> thank you for inviting me to speak to you. my name is neal mccluskey. my comments are my own and do not represent any of the institute. all people are individuals. no sum of any person is his or her race or ethnicity. i have not previously done research to ethnic achievement gaps, but i'm familiar with the gaps from studying american education as a hole.
my areas of focus have been school choice, higher cost of social capital. importantly, low income african-americans, at least as a 2002 national bureau of economic research paper do not necessarily attend college at lower rates than low-income white students, at least among student who is have graduated high school. the report did not look at hispanics. from 1969 to 1997. the black students were generally more likely to enroll than white. by the end white enrollment exceeded black. that said, it's unclear what the trend has been sense the 1990s. the schools in which blacks have enrolled have tended to be of lower quality. perhaps due in part o the quality of access there may be disparities in completion. low and moderate income families appear to complete at lower rates than white students.
low ses white students are twice as likely than black students to finish college. note, though, the work was published in 1990. and based on only six metropolitan areas. of course, success in college can relate to academic success and preparation before college. shrinking but not disappearing black, white and hispanic gaps when scores are broken down by poverty. many factors underlying achievement need to be addressed, especially for low ses americans. one may be inadequate resources. however, research suggests this is unlikely to be a major problem. due to spending and resources for black and white students having been largely equalized. rand also reports that school factors may be four to eight times as important as in-school test scores. perhaps cultural issues at play meaning generally speaking generally held group values and
orientations. one area where there seems to be no meaningful distinction among groups is all believe education is very important. but this is not translating to equal enrollment or completion. part of this likely stems from orientations or correlated outcomes. african-american families are more likely to be single parents than white families. making it more difficult for them to get quality time with adults. this stems for the family destroying practices of slavery and gem crowe. there's a sense among african-americans that is very important, but societal structures make overall success very difficult. potentially dampening mole vags. possibly supporting this are large african-american gains that may at least partially be attributable to improving civil rights environment. feelings of powerless remains
however, and given high profile cases, possibly egregious police misconduct -- can you hear me now? let's see. >> egregious police misconduct. >> very good. you've read this before. >> the high profile case of police misconduct as well as stubborn economic gaps between blacks and whys, they could grow. there's a cig capital difference in the way parents interact with children. there are large differences in ses, in both the volumes of words to young children are exposed. and it also seems the parents interact with children in ways that enforce the expectations of their class, rather than pushing all kids to at lin rat thought. that said, how a child is disciplined appears to affect outcome. there also appears to be some racial correlation with african-american parents somewhat less likely to use
preferable parenting behaviors. for one thing the overall culture of schools with more white students is better prepared. numerous studies have found positive peer effects, likely because the college is more likely present in such schools as well as social networks that more easily enable people to get more information about colleges. school choice can help. magna schools charter schools and many private schools enable low-income schools to move to private schools, based on address, and schools focus on college. private school programs a significant effect, including increasing in college persistence. the effects of aid programs. in the short run, it makes college more affordable than if college students had to pay public prices.
logical evidence shows colleges raise their prices because they are able to. those would have little effect on private institutions, and when room and board is included, public institutions have raised prices far in excess of state revenue lost per student. this has likely hit low-income students the hardest. merit based is stacked against minorities. that go disproportionately to white students. this is particularly problematic if they are most hurt by high sticker prices. what is the rack record of federal programs intended to smooth the path to college? federal assessments of pal ent programs found limited benefits and use less than adeal measurements. there's no familiar ak evidence. as noted. there's significant evident the federal student aid programs have exacerbated.
sbu ittively it seems the deficits could be stopped by programs such as head start, the research does not support this. typically finding the benefits fade out or not following to see if the benefits last. there are no easy answers to college access problems especial lins many appear ineffectual. this suggests that we need civil society to do such things as reouch to low-income parents and provide services such as conversation intensive day care and college counseling. the message needs to be loud and clear that success is possible for all. >> thank you. mr. haskins. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman and members of the committee. thank you so much for inviting me. it's a pleasure to be here and honor as well. i would like to add a few comments and then show why education plays such a crucial role. and then i want to focus on
three specific solutions. so first, we start with test performance. neal has gone over that to some extent, but it's really extraordinary, the differences in test performance and word knowledge and so forth begins been the third year of life, but clearly evidence by age 3. and if anything, the schools increase the gaps burg the school years. so the schools are not helping to close the gap at all. a second thing that leads to the differences in achievement play a huge role in differences in household income, so that we have a huge discrepancies in household income. the average white lives in a household that has $58,000 income. the average hispanic, $41,000. and the average black $34,600. that's a 40% less income than household where black families live. we have even more impressive wealth gaps, trulies a pounding.
hispanics and gaps have 10% of the wealth of whites. ands it has declined substantially because of the recession. all their wealth was in their house, and many people lost their house. finally i want to draw your attention to something especially important for this commission, the ability of parents to pass advantages onto their children. so consider is middle of the distribution of the parent income. roughly 50,000 to 80,000. for black parents, their kids only 45% finish in middle or higher. where 70% of white kids finish 70% or higher. it's a huge problem for parents, minority parents to pass advantages onto children. so let's focus on the role of education and fighting this disadvantage. i want to begin with the first chart, and it's kind of a complex chart.
it's wor think of its study, i assure you. look at two left bar graphs. this shows what happens to parents in the bottom before $30,000. think of it that way. the one on the left are kids that did not go to college, and the right bar graph of the two on the left are kids that did go to college. as you can see from the same bottom of the distribution, the kids that achieve a college degree, it changes the whole life course. look at the bomb to the. 36% of the kids from the the bottom, if they don't go to college, they will remain on the bottom. equality of opportunity, this is not. where as if they don't go to college, they have only a 10% chance. if they go to college, only 10% chance of being in the bottom. i've been studying, and looking at studies my adult life. there are very few impacts of that magnitude.
there's a huge imspakt. there's no question a four-year college would make a difference. there is good news on education. neal mentioned the national assessment of education progress. so some closinge inging of the gap between whites and blacks and less between whites and hispanics. and as you can see on the next chart, there's huge change in the growth and minority enrollment in post secondary institutions, starting in 1976 and can almost continue the progress for all minority groups and for the minority groups combined. so that's good news. but there's bad news, too. next chart. this chart shows from the very top, which is the bottom 20% all the way up to the top 20%. first we see the stair step fashion that parents are able to pass their advantage onto their children. so kids from wealthier families are more likely to enroll and graduate. but look at the rates the
bottom chart that shows the ones that actually graduate. here you can see the graduation rates, as neal is a huge problem. many of those kids wind up with debt, and they don't get the degree that allows them to earn more money to repay their debt. so this is a really big problem that i think you should look at carefully. so there is some good news, but it's mitigated some. now the next chart i want to show you. this is really intriguing i think it's something you should pay attention to in that what this shows is the college enrollment by parents income quartile. and here you can see that both the parents' income and the kids' achievement test score makes a difference. and it's progressive across the income groups. so the top group, even the kids in the bottom third by test scores, do better than kids in
the next quartile down and so forth. so both parents' income and achievement. and here's another thing. look at all the space. especially in the the middle and the top third between 100% and the level that they are. those are kids that that's the right job to get the kids more likely to go to college. they appear to be prepared and preparation is a big deal. so next chart. i agree with neal that student aid is not the key here. we have a lot of student aid, but i don't think it's a huge problem. ch there are four huge barriers. academic preparation, which is the single most important barrier. second is selecting a college and application process. and the fafsa that i'm sure you heard about. that needs to be changed. and then the huge dropout rates
we need to address. so let me make three points about things i hope you will look into. the first one is the college prep programs that neal mentioned. there are a bunch of them. i don't think they're very successful. they don't good look, except for one. but i would look at that program and see why they're doing better and make a series of remss about how we could use that mention. second, i mentioned the fafsa. it's ridiculous that we have such a complex form for all college aid. every kid has to fill it out. it's very difficult for them and the parents have a lot of trouble helping them fill it out because many have not be to college. and finally last recommendation i would recommend major reforms in the way states finance colleges. they should make some of the money they give to colleges contingent on the clegs's graduate rate.
especially for low-income kids. if we did that, i guarantee you the colleges pay a lot more attention to the problem if half their money or more were dependent on success and helping low-income kids. thank you. >> thank you, mr. haskins. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is michele siqueiros. i previously served as commissioner on the california student aid commission which awards over $1.8 billion for kids who need it in order to go to college. you have my written testimony. it's fairly long. so i'm going to highlight a few key points. i was asked to speak about the research we've conducted on differences by race in california. so i'm going to do that. hean i have a couple of hand jt outs from our just released reports for latinos and blacks in our states that i hope you have a chance to reference and
review. you know first of all, i wouldn't be before you today if it weren't for the fact that there had been federal and state investment in my college opportunity. i'm the first in my family to go to college. i was only able to do so because i got a loan. i received a grant. i got work study. all of those things made my opportunity is to go to college and earn a degree possible. and that's exactly why i work for the campaign for college opportunity. we are founded by an unlikely a li alliance that believed strongly we needed an outside independent voice to advocate for higher education in our state but also for some of the type of reforms that ron has pointed out in terms of ensuring that we actually not just enroll students in college, but that we get them to graduation. we've played a krilt call role in advancing policy and using our research to help advance that policy.
focused really on the economy of california, but also what's good for students. sometimes that means we are on the the same side of institutions that serve our students. sometimes it means we're pressuring them to do a much better job than they are. your review of this topic is really essential you know. i would argue that this is certainly a civil rights issue of today. whether or not students have an opportunity to go to college is critical for low-income students it's actually hard tore go to college today than ever before. only 30% of students in low-income backgrounds enroll in college compared to 80% of their higher income counter parts. it is more likely for a "d accounts or a "c" high income student to go to college and graduate than it is for an a-plus honor student that doesn't have high income. that should be shameful in america today. you know if we're going to retain our position and retapture our position as a
leader in producing four-year degreeses, we certainly have to address issues of race in the country as we become more and more diverse. currently latinos represent 13%. blacks are 13%. asians are 5%. nonhispanic whites are 63%. but by 2044 the nation will be even more diverse. demographic projections show nonhispanic whites will no longer be the largest ethnic group. so making sure college opportunity and attainment is equal is going to be essential, obviously california is in many ways ahead of the curve in terms of that diversity. we are already a minority/majority state. one in two kids that are under 18 are latinos. and we are also to be commendsed, i think, for our world renowned university
system. the university of california. sour 23-state campus university system and our expansive university college system with 112 colleges and a pretty generous financial aid program targeted at students based on need, not merit. which unfortunately too many states, i believe, in the nation focus on. our own research as part of this series of papers that were just handed to you on the the state of higher education in california actually demonstrate to you i think, why race analysis still matters. latinos in our research, we found, are more, you know the good news is more and more are graduating from high school and going to college as ron mentioned before. but unfortunately they are disproportionately represented at every sector of higher education. so in spite of our expansive california higher education system latinos are not
represented in relation to their numbers of the population at any of those institutions. whether it's community colleges. for-profit colleges, inspent colleges or the university of california, and you can see in the chart before you just what those statistics look like. however, when latino students do go to college the majority enroll at a california community college, 65%. for blacks i won't go into other findings ch for blacks in higher education i wanted to point out a few things. obviously we've seen improvements over time. improved high school graduation rate. more students are likely to graduate from high school today in california than they were in 1990. however, there's still a huge gap in terms of graduation rates when compared to other ethnic groups. you also see that black students in our state are slightly overrepresented. similar to latinos if they go to
college. they enlol at community college. they're overrepresented at for-profit colleges, significantly underrepresented at the university of california and the cal state system. and we found there's been a decline in black enrollment at the cal state system since the recession. some of the concerns are obviously about college preparation. only a third of california students come out of high schools having completed the course requirements, which you need in order to apply to a university of california or a cal state system. so right off the bat, 70% of latino and black students in the state can't even enroll or apply at a university. so their option is community college. which highlights why the you know, improving outcome for students is so important. some of the findings you have before you show complete rations are dismal. unfortunately far too low, and this is where most students are going. so much more needs to be done.
if federal funding has a stated goal of helping colleges, you know, support diverse student populations, my belief is the funding needs to this be allocated better and holds them accountable for improving outcomes as well. i know my time is up so i wanted to highlight a few recommendations. we do believe that we have to support enromment for students, but completion is key. we should incentiveize. not just enrolling. we give lots of federal funding for hispanic serving institutions and black universities, we should make sure that's significant funding but also make sure we hold the colleges accountable for their graduation rates. i agree with our fellow testifyers about simply fiing
fasfa. thankfully somebody walked me through that when i applied. we should expand loans to make sure college is affordable for students. and with that, i'll stop. >> thank you. miss neal? >> thank you. i must tell you that your topic and the unique opportunity it gives -- let me start again. thank you mr. chairman and members of the commission. i must tell you your topic and the you teak opportunity it gives to examine the civil rights impact of creditors as gate keepers for title four funds is expired and long overdue. so thank you. put simply, students neat clear information about quality and financial stability to have the best chance for success. moses specially those with limited financial needs and limiteded familiarity with higher education. yet the accreditation system fails those students and i will pose an alternative. in passing the higher education
act nearly 50 years ago, congress linked accreditation and student federal aid to prevent them from squandering taxpayer money and their own. it took acreditors who had provided voluntary peer review of academic prakograms and made them gatekeepers of title four. it became a costly man did since virtually every school in the country depends on title four to survive. so it is no wonder parents and the public and many members of congress mistakenly believe it's a good housekeeping seal of approval. today nearly 7 0urkz colleges, universities and professional schools in the united states are accredited so they can receive title four funds. in the 2012-13 school year title four amounted to 170 billion.
the oec data shows that the the united states spends more money purr pupil in higher education than any other nation. yet, accreditation is not a reliable indicator of quality and the so-called good housekeeping seal -- students. as the professor has written it's essentially a confidential process which hides an institution's advantages and disadvantages. let me explain. harvard is accredited. yal is yale is accredited. if i'm a student at harvard, i'm nearly 100% likely to graduate in four years. but if i go to amridge university in alabama, based on the data from the 2007 cohort, i have zero chance of graduating in four years assuming i am a first-time full-time students. if i go to our lady of holy cross college, i have a 5%
chance of graduating in four years. among african-american students or a quarter of the student body. only 7% of the first full-time students graduate within six years. at brownsville, only 9% of first time, full time students graduate within four years. and admittedly there are problems with the graduation rates. they are not perfect. but it gives up a snapshot of what is happening. stools with sad stories of pmpx are accredited and receive title four funds. students have no way of knowing what they are getting into as they take out loans to pursue their dream fs. those most likely to be in debt, heavy debt are minority students. bottom line, all students are hurt by accreditation. they do not deliver good outcomes. but the negative impact is
greatest on those students who typically have the most limited financial means and are least familiar with how higher education works. it isn't if they they don't graduate, they often leave with a lot of student debt and few prospects. this is morally indefensible and the blame should be placed on colleges and their acreditors. students are also hurt because accreditation standards lead to higher costs with limited benefits. over the years akred itting associations have been happy to spend more money. they are imposed often with no obvious returns. for example, campbell university in north carolina with a 23% minority population was placed on probation some years ago buzz the standard faculty teaching load was 15 hours per week. so the schools solved the
problem by the class sessions. instead of the small class sessions, students found themselves in classes of 60 or more. what acreditors do not value is also instructive. acreditors do not assess if a school is put in place a rigorous core curriculum, a prime prescribed limited and typically -- that help point the way towards completion. annually reviews of the curriculum, nearly 1100 institutions across the country noticeably hbus do particularly well in our survey. moorehouse college is a school to receive rating of their general education programs, ensuring exposure to foundational subjects. but do they get a special shoutout? no schools that have diffuse and do it yourself curriculum are more likely to be praised. and what does a school do if it is being abused?
many hbcus over the years have criticized the interference of the acreditors. they've raised concerns about the standards, which raise cost without clear benefits. these questions are legitimate. but the fact is institutions in these have no place to go. they give no choice to institutions if they are being disserved. just one example recently of how accreditation also interferes with innovation. in ohio there is a school called tiffin. some years ago placed with the challenges of the higher ed marketplace they made available online programs for those who could not pay big tuitions and were able to show proven student learning gains. the higher learning commission, however, decided to second guess for-profit partnerships and tiffin was forced to put an end to this online innovation. many students at least 47% minority with 90% eligible for
pell grants were left without an affordable educational option. we need to put an end to the existing opaque system and create a far better and far less costly way. i'm happy to reporting this being done at the state level. most particularly in florida, where higher education leaders were frustrated and put into place an annual accountability report of key metrics. because of this the minority students and their families have been empowered more than ever before. i will be happy to talk more about the details. but just by way of example, in 2010 the university of florida, which was outlined in this accountability report proved to be one of four flagship institutions given the highest marks on measures of equity serving low-income and minority institutions by education trust. the bottom line, more money is not the answer. great accountability -- greater accountability is. it's time we eliminated the deeply flawed accreditation
system and replaced it with a transparent system of accountability that rewards schools the due right by their students. thank you so much. >> thank you. commissioner achtenberg, would you like to open up question gds? >> thank you. mr. haskins from the brookings institution: institution. >> i'm sorry. >> it's okay. common mistake. the achievement of the baccalaureate agree. the key to social and economic mobility. your figures indicate that is indeed the case. do you have any -- how can you explain why that is? >> i think it's both because they actually learned something in college. they made contacts with people that helped them later. helpful they have a four-year degree. when you apply for a job, so
there are all those. but there's also something researchers call selection effects. and that means that a kid who goes to college and you saw the data on how many drop out, the ones that finish, it isn't only because they learn more. it's because there's a whole complex set of features that they stick to it. that they work hard when things get tough and so on and so forth. they do contribute. and so college in that sense is a sorting device. i would point out to you that we can see the same things and increasingly are seeing the same things with two-year colleges and degrees and so forth. four-year colleges are not the answer, that's for sure. >> no, they're not the complete answer. but we do need to increase in sheer numbers, the number of
successful graduates of four-year institutions, do we not? >> yes, absolutely. we certainly do. and not only that we need to track them to figure out what happens. that's been a problem for a long time. we don't have great information about what happens to students when they leave. and so a number of institutions are creating the ability to follow students longitude. need to figure out if they get a job, what the wages are and so forth. that's what would have to do if you implemented the suggest i made about making the state aid to colleges contingent on their performances. we need to this know what their performance is. >> yeah, you said as much as half of the aid can make a difference. good, i'm glad to know you made that up. >> there's no scientific formula. i think a substantial amount of aid. how would you feel that if all of our spending at the federal or state level were based on no information about the results? and that's what we've been doing.
i just wanted to know where the 50% came from. >> okay. it's somebody from the brookings institution says 50%, it gives one, well, i thought i guess 50%. i would hate for the governor of california to get that information and think that he could change overnight from a system based on enrollment to a funding system at least overnight. >> it's not 50%, but here's the point. organizations being held accountability don't like it. and so if they realize it's too late, they can't get out of it. they want 5% or the money or 10%. it ought to be substantial. we could start with 5 or 10 but we got to build and make it more accountable. >> i understand. >> and that's why i use figures like that. >> i don't disagree with you. miss siqueiros i know you are deeply familiar with the
practices that work, and the practices that don't work when it comes to -- you both are able to assess the performance gaps, and you have done a lot of work in terms of assessing what helps and what doesn't help. could you talk -- part of what we're struggling with here is -- is this an issue that can be addressed successfully? i think the answer to that is yes. but i would like to know what you think the answer is and if you could delineate prakctices you have found through your research through the various forms of achievement gap. >> well the first thing i would say is that data matters. ron mentioned we do quite a bit of investing and we don't know what the end result is. we don't analyze data in a
comprehensive way. and so i think what works is are constitution institutions that use data in proactive results. yo heard from cal state fullerton. they're one of the colleges that we profiled because they have a really aggressive agenda around closing the gaps. if you're not analyzing what's happening at your institution by race, then how ary ever going to figure out solutions for addressing them? and so i think they're a perfect example of innovation in that process. we also profiled as we released the state of higher -- fk black students in california, the minority community college clab collaborative collaborative, an effort by two professors at san diego date university, that focuses on actual using research on what works for african-american students, and hepping to evaluate and assess community colleges to implement practices
that can help support completion for institutions, and they point out that a lot of the research is done in terms of what works for students at four-year universities. so i think you need good data. you need leadership that close the gaps and not afraid of how they're going to close the gaps by race and you absolutely need incentives that force them to do that. we know statewide that cal state had a graduation initiative that is about closing the gaps. i don't see how you change the results without doing that. and there's obviously the k-12 role. we have to make sure more high schools are better preparing students. you know, race matters because most of the latino and black students attend low performing schools. it's not just a cultural phenomenal that latino and black students don't go to college and graduate at higher levels.
they go to the best performing schools where they have the least performing teachers. there are constitution factors to be addressed and they can only be addressed through policy and funding. >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> thank you mr. chairman. >> you're welcome. >> i don't know if we underinvestment in higher education in the absolute sense. maybe we do. maybe we don't. but i'm really worry that had we overinvest in higher education relative you know, to other investment in human capitol. vocational education of various sorts. not everybody wants to go to college. many people prefer other kinds of vocations, other kinds of learning. not every subject is best taught in a classroom situation. i am wondering if any of you have a comment on the other
kinds of vocational education, other kinds oaf f investment in human capital. are we underinvesting there? >> i think that's a good point. this can't just be about higher education. there's a whole lot that happens before that. and i think the k-12 part is important. and if you look at a lot of other countries, they have much more robust vocational tracks than we do. if you don't want to go to a school where you have to take a liberal arts core and then get the the liberal engineering degree or something like that. and that term has negative connotations, but you can do that. there's a danger, of course, with that. if you think about germany for a long time, it was you took a test and you were trapped into that. we definitely don't want a system where your future is determined by a test. we one if you have an interest or ability to do something that takes you away from a
traditional college, you should be able to do that. enwe see a lot of that within school choice. there are charter schools where you can learn everything right down to underwater welding which i don't have experience with underwater welding but i understand that it's lucrative. you can get a lot of valuable skills. skills that can't be easily outsourced through the alternatives. and there is something else important in your question. which is that we have a lot of money going into higher education that by all indications this is translating into more learning. there's credential inflation. there's the arms race and amenities and buildings and things like that. and so i think it's hard to make the argument that we need more money. maybe we need it better targeted. i think more important is we need to allow people to choose what is best for them, even before college. >> i agree with all of that. we should place much more emphasis than we do now on
non four-year, not just two-year colleges but all kinds of degree programs and this area brings up another very interesting topic, which is online work. there's a lot to be done online now, and a lot now being done. people that qualify iffor various certificates based online this has a real impact on the debt that they carry, and also the programs where you work and get practical experience at the same time. many of these programs start in high school. georgia and wisconsin both have ideal programs that start kids in high school to get experience in work. and we have something like 5,000 career academies across the country that do the same thing, and there's very good high-quality research that shows that those kids, the boys in those programs, eight years later, they're followed eight years. they make $2,000 more. and mair more than 20% more likely to live with their children and be married.
so these programs and oh by the way, does it shout them out of four-year schools the kids had the same probability of going onto a four-year institution as similar kids who did not participate in the program. so it doesn't necessarily shut them out. it doesn't close the doors. so these programs need to be looked into. they should be a part of what the commission focuses on i believe. >> my fear is, yes, i agree we don't want to follow the german tracking system. but there are a lot of people bored to death in the classroom, and would much prefer jobs that are, you know, what we call sometimes disparagingly vocational education. but i condition see why that bias should be something we should cater to. >> i have a few questions here. miss sequeiros you mentioned that race matters a lot in this context still and that there's
an overrepresentation, i believe, of i think it might have been latino students or maybe minority students in for-profit schools. could you clarify that for me? >> yeah. so for black students in california f you look at the chart in front of you if we analyze the young adult population, 18 to 25-year-olds, and we see they're overrepresenteded in for-profit colleges in that age group and thened eded at the four-year universities, we find it's significant for black students in particular in our state attending for-profit colleges. we know that there's a regional issue, for example in the inland empire where we have a growing population in our -- it's -- there's only a couple public universities but if you drive down the 10 freeway
heading east, you will see for-profit colleges up and down. we know that some of things for-profit colleges do in terms of intense profit marketing and hand holding are things that are student who is are first generation going to college need. i think in some ways they're looking for a direct way to get trained into a particular job, or given a particular guide post for that. and so those are some of the practices that community colleges, for example, don't have the resources to necessarily do, but those are the things that work for students who don't have anybody else guiding them to a four-year university. and we see high numbers of latino students sochlt, so it's a common thing. >> and yesterday during the panels it have brought up that many of these for-profit schools end up with large amounts of students that not complete and end up with substantial debt.
and some of these schools target those students for the purpose of obtaining some of that financial aid, and some of them who may complete the work find that their education is not what they do you know anything about that? >> this is what is really disturbing. you have essentially for-profit colleges and universities, some of which are actually good performers. i don't want to make a blanket statement. some of which really do target enrollment because they are completely publicly funded. so, the idea that they are private institutions is really concerning when they rely on students that are low income, will qualify for pell, for grants, qualify for these federal subsidized loans or private loans. so, if -- i think there should be a federal expectation if these institutions are receiving
federal money that they have some skin in the game. if they are being funded entirely through federal and state dollars, they don't have any skin in the game in terms of producing better outcomes for some students. we find that disturbing. as a member of the california student aid commission, we instituted the legislation that the governor passed new rules around limiting pell grants to institutions that have a high cohort loan default rate for their students. that means a lot of their students graduated or not, but not able to pay their loans and had a very high, or very low six-year graduation rate. there are mechanisms by which we can put minimum requirements. this was done in california in response to the recession and the fact that there are limited dollars. you have to pick and choose how
to disperse them. in actuality it's good practice. it is why corinthian in particular has been so affected, because many of those colleges in our state were kicked out of receiving cal grants. if they are receiving public dollars and that is the only mechanism by which they survived we should be a little concerned. >> yes? >> i want to add to that. i would agree that all for-profits are not superb, but i think it would be unfair to single them out for single-digit graduation rates. as i indicated, we are looking at many nonprofits at single-digit graduation rates. the issue is one across the board and i think it would be wrong to single out one sector for that problem. >> thank you. >> if you look at these
different sector there seems to be a correlation between the outcomes and who they are serving. a lot of this appears to have a lot to do with the preparations of people who attend those schools before the even get to college. there are plenty of atrocious for-profit schools. but like ann said, if you look at community colleges, they have terrible outcomes and there seems to be a connection between the preparation of the students that go there. that's why this is also a k-12 problem. where often through eight, giving money to people going to college who are not necessarily prepared for it. you see that in huge remediation rates and people that are mediated are less likely to finish. that is something that needs to be focused on whenever we talk about higher ed. what is going on from birth to high school graduation. >> there are no perfect players in this entire system. my recollection from yesterday was that in terms of students that have default on their loans, it
is well represented students coming from for-profit universities. it was something like 47% of all of the defaults. if my memory serves correctly. clearly, there is something happening there as it relates to these funding issues that merits a little closer attention. not everyone should be painted with the same brush. >> just in response, i don't disagree that preparation in k-12 matters, but colleges should be serving the students they have, not the ones they wish they had. i think it gets to the question of if you have students that are coming in less prepared, what are you doing as an institution to better provide service to them? we know there are institutions and community colleges that are addressing remediation in a way that is very effective. so, i would just push back a little bit that it cannot just blame k-12. there is a responsibility for institutions as they serve students.
>> mr. haskins, i had a question about one of the charts you showed us. i think it was chart number three which shows latino college attendance now exceeds the african-american college attendance. earlier today, we had testimony from professor florezs who indicated some of this might be peer demographics. the growing population of latinos which naturally there will be morer representated in colleges, not necessarily that we have come up with a magic program that has put more latinos into the path of college. do you have any opinion on that and how that might be represented? >> it could be true. i'm not positive. my charts are percentages. so i don't think -- it is not just the numbers. it is the percentages that have been coming up. that does indicate that
hispanics are, in fact, more likely -- a rate of increase of being in college is greater than for blacks. >> do you know why that might be? >> i have opinions about it, there is some research about it. family background makes a big difference. the quality of high school makes a big difference. one thing that has happened in the hispanic community, apparently -- people in chicago have talked about this -- there has been a change within the family. many hispanic families, at least in chicago and other places i have heard of, don't necessarily pressure their kids to go to school. they want them to earn money, contribute to the family. they were actually a force that kept kids from going to school and that appears to be changing a lot. parents come to realize how important college is. they want what is best for the kids. the views of parents are
changing. that could be another factor. >> i could attest to that. i'm from chicago. it was something not just in chicago but a lot of immigrant latino families in particular would encourage their children when the family needed to the step out of school and help the family. in the latino community we made an overwhelming effort to educate parents about that. it is a challenge, but most ore folks are talking about that. >> that is a good factor as to why hispanics are increasing more rapidly than blacks. >> you had some questions? >> we were talking -- thank you, mr. chair -- we were talking before about the default rates and for-profit colleges and universities. my recollection is there are certain limits or guidelines placed on our public colleges and universities where if they
reach a certain default range, there are penalties attached to include loss of government money. are our for-profit colleges and universities subject to the same default rates? the same kind of penalties? i seem to recall there are not. >> in california, the rules do apply across the board. there is -- in california, they do. in terms of federal policy, i'm not quite sure. >> i was inquiring about federal policy. >> i could be wrong but i'm pretty sure it is the same for all schools. they are changing how they calculate the default rate but i think it is the same. as long as you are taking title
iv money. where there may be a difference, i would have to look. there is a question on how you incorporate gi money. i don't think it is connected to the default rate. if i am correct, there is no difference. >> thank you. >> i can say within the accreditation system of the for-profits, they have been held to certain baseline requirements that the nonprofits have not. in terms of certain basin requirements higher expectations for for-profit. it has been up for grabs as the what was acceptable and what was not for nonprofits. credit tore -- correctedors have no baselines for graduation rates. although there are baselines for for-profits. >> thank you.
>> commissioner? >> thank you. so, mr. haskins just testified that their recommendations at brookings is to take programs to reform them and create a more general flexible grant program to provide that kind of support. i was wondering whether you also -- what is your response to that recommendation? >> quite frankly, i have not analyzed a lot of those programs myself. my concern with that recommendation would be that in many instances, it is those programs that have really high graduation rates for underrepresented students. i think just more research would be needed before i could feel comfortable. i do think that we have to get to a place where resources reach more students.
some of the challenges are those programs only reach a small number of students. we need to get to a place as we have a student body that the majority now is first-generation -- all of the students could benefit from those kinds of services that is provided. how do we scale that kind of intervention? we know there is limits, especially some of the programs are really high touched. you can only do with a small amount of people to be effective. i think one of the things that the provost at cal state fullerton says is that they use the data to identify the programs that are barely affected by closing gaps and serving students and that can be scalable. i think that is the direction we need to move in because there may be some of those programs that are effective but they are not scalable. we need scale. we need more of the students to access some of the benefits these programs provide.
>> i have one more question. >> i want to clarify one thing. >> is it about what you wrote? >> it is not a brookings recommendation. it is my own recommendation based on research. >> thank you. the other question i have is -- i got the impression from the most recent testimony from this panel. at least some people believe we are spending enough on higher education support. you testified in your written testimony that we should consider spending more on pell grants and making them more available throughout the year to help people who go to school and the nontraditional students. i'm wondering what your view is on whether we are actually spending enough on financial aid and where you would put it if we were to try to either reorganize
what we are spending or try to spend more. >> that is a really tough question. i don't believe we are spending enough. the research is pretty clear that the pell grant, while it has grown in size in terms of cost for the federal government, because our population growth has increased, has not kept pace with the cost of getting a college education. the research indicates it is harder today for low income students to go to school full-time. when they do go to school, many of them have to work. making summer pell available with better support those resources. in california, we are not spending enough on higher education. there is a huge wage premium for folks today that is very different than what it was in the 1960's or 1970's. that's when a lot of these programs were instituted.
before you could get a high school degree and that was enough to put you into middle-class life and get a job that you could sustain over a career, could afford you a house. that simply is not the case today. we know that whether it is a vocational degree or a four-year degree, that is what makes the difference in students abilities today to get into the middle class. if we care about growing our middle class, i don't see how you could do it without investing more, especially in getting more low-income students to be able to afford to go to college full time. i don't know what the magic number is. i think making pell year round is a good first step. simplifying fafsa so more eligible students apply and get the financial aid they are entitled to. those would be the more
immediate recommendations. >> i had one more to add on to that. mr. haskins slide showed there is a decrease in work-study, if i read the slide correctly. is that a concern that we are spending less on work-study? the prior panel felt one of the most important things was to address the fact we don't have the traditional, old-fashioned kids just out of high school going to college, but now we have older students with families who do need to work. so, one of the bigger challenges for successfully getting to would a degree is if you could stay in college if you are working full-time, even if you're getting your tuition taking care of. >> i think work-study is really critical. the research indicates the longer a student is on a campus, the more likely they will feel
like they belong. the more likely they will succeed and get to graduation. work study helps you that. i think part of it is federal funding. the other part of it is northeastern university is a good example of private-public partnership where they have students that go to school part-time and work part-time in their chosen field. it is not like having a job at the gap. it is having a job as an intern at an engineering company, where that company actually covers some of the cost. i would say that it may absolutely be increasing federal funding, but also how do we increase public and private partnerships that want good quality interns that they can potentially grow in their leadership and address the fact
that students need to work? is it better to have them working on the field or on campus? yes. >> thank you to the panel. it has been very informative. a couple of questions. we have talked a lot about funding. as i mentioned in the previous panel, i was troubled by slides that shows we are spending trillions of dollars. as i mentioned before, i'm troubled by the 23 year period, the gap of black and white achievement has narrowed by only two points. there could be a lot of ropes for that. i hope if you spend several hundred billions to close the gap, there would be more than two points. and that we wouldn't have to wait 300 years to close that gap. if we go by today's measurements. it would take more than 300 years. i'm fine because it is not my money. at least, not directly. if we want to spend more money on something, i'm hoping to do so smartly.
i was struck by the fact that there is really no measurements -- no transparency, no accountability standards. yet we are giving more money to failed programs. it isn't doing anything. it is not seem to be closing any gaps. if you were to suggest a policy prescription for narrowing achievement gaps, increasing college access, persistence and attainability, would it be to increase funding, increase transparency, or accountability standards? which is the most effective of those three? >> do all three. [laughter] >> money is something. we are talking about money -- we have all kinds of money, but the chinese government's money frankly. we don't have any money. i would like to know how we get
this stuff done the smartest way. i'm interested in outcomes more than inputs at this particular point. >> i want to certainly agree with you. as i indicated, we are spending two times per student average than any other industrialized country with worse results. i mean we're looking at four year graduation rates that however around 40%. looking at this as a problem that needs more federal dollars thrown at it -- we need to be looking at it as holding institutions accountable. we have heard more skin in the game. that is an important issue. these institutions need to have more skin in the game. we need to basically accredit those that are succeeding and not accredit those that are not. but as i've indicated, students will not know the difference between a school that is doing well and having students gains as opposed to schools that are not. we need to approve the existing accreditation system that
essentially rewards schools no matter how they are doing. if they were doing 90% versus 5%, does not matter. we need to move to a transparency system which would allow institutions to show their financially stable, would require them to show certain key metrics of performance and last but not least, would insist in order to get title iv money, it would have to show student learning gains. and it is not a question of giving somebody a degree or a piece of paper, it is actually showing students have gained value with the money they have spent. study after study, whether we look at it academically or the national assessment of adult literacy, the vast percentage of college graduates are emerging after spending lots of money -- many of them in debt -- without the skills that are needed to be effective in the
workplace. the system is skewed in favor of access and not in favor of student success once they are there. >> mr. haskins. >> i agree with everything she said. she did not exactly say this, but accountability is key. we will have problems with money. we have not talked about it here, but i do a lot of work on federal debt and deficit. we have are ready started cutting spending on children in the last few years which we had not done in the previous 30 years. there is a real issue on how much money the federal government will spend. and the states are even more financially strapped. what we have to learn to do is do better with what we have now and accountability is definitely the answer. accountability in the k-12 schools, in the community colleges, at the university. two of three recommendations i made were basically accountability recommendations. i think it is very important
that we spend $1 billion now for example on these college prep programs that are supposed to be focused on low income kids. there are very good research studies that show they produce modest or no impacts with some exceptions. why wouldn't we make it more demanding, force them to evaluate -- a condition of them getting the money. they have to do good studies that show they are producing an impact and if they are not, give the money to somebody else. that should be a principle -- >> what should be the metrics in that evaluation, in the accountability? would it be just not a diploma, but a five-year income rate? a longitudinal study of what the person does with that particular diploma? >> i think a high school graduation will be the least desirable but a good measure. college entry is a good measure. college completion is a better measure. did they get a job when they graduated and what is the wage would be best of all. >> i want to say that funding is
absolutely not the answer. more funding is not the answer. we spend more on education at all levels than almost any other country. there's lux elm -- lux demburg and a few other countries. at higher ed, we spent more than any other country. what we have seen this funding translate into this largely a lot of waste. if you look at -- i know it is cherry picking to say look at the water parks that are springing up in colleges and universities. there is a reason for that. what we have seen his research evidence that shows what most people do when they are choosing between colleges now, they don't choose based on academics -- they choose based on amenities. this is because we are using third-party funding. it is partially grants. it is a bigger problem of loans. you can get them very easily at any amount from the federal government. it is the same at the k-12
level as a result of it. i always wary about accountability because accountability sounds good but we need to look at something like we have seen with no child left behind which was supposed to be about accountability. what we found that was that people who will be held accountable are pretty good at finding ways out of being held accountable. no child left behind said we would have all kids proficient by 2014 and what did states do? in most cases, they had a definition of proficiency which was incredibly low. we have to be realistic about how much an accountability system -- >> you can fudge anything. if you look at five years out from the time somebody graduates, if he has a job in making $50,000 a year, you know that is a metric you can look to as opposed to someone in another college where 30% of their
students five years out have a job of a $50,000 or more. >> i can already tell you one problem. then you have to adjust for the situation of those people when they went to those schools because there will be schools that deal with kids or students who are well -- less well-prepared. if your students are less well-prepared, you don't have to earn as much and then you start to see all sorts of loopholes working their way into regulation. that is what we have seen repeatedly when we talk about accountability. >> with some transparency, would that assist in terms of if you provide students with all the information you possibly can, a number of metrics, there is no perfect metric, right? you can fudge almost anything. if you have a number of metrics, give them a lot of information on which institution they want to go to and inject competitiveness into the process. college a competes against college b for the same student knows i have to be better than this guy.
>> i think intuitively it would work. we have seen lots of that as already available for colleges. mike's "u.s. news and report" evaluations but they do tell you stuff like graduation rates and things like that. federal government has had a college navigator now for several years. what we have seen is that people tend to not use a lot of information we make available. i think part of that problem is we want to do good with aid, but part of what aid does is make this decision, we will pay for this decision, and it is not necessarily your money or money you have right now that is part of that. i think part of the solution is counterintuitive but people selecting schools need to have more of their own money involved rather than third-party funding because that incentivizes making more disciplined decisions and that actual accountability and especially when people using their own money and they hold a school accountable when that school is not giving them what they want. >> i have three other commissioners who want to ask
questions. we're getting close to the end. >> it seems to me from the testimony i've heard that everybody has a different dog in the fight although they are looking for the same tlugs. it seems these schools and different colleges and education in k through 12 have the same issues. are they different issues towards accomplishing a goal of getting more students, minority students towards higher education. i would like to hear some priorities and programs you propose and whether you believe that sacre statement that different schools face different problems and how will you
evaluate them? it seems like a very sprawling problem here very unwielding situation from all the testimony. so i was wondering can you give some commentary, more focus on solutions and how you go about that. >> going back again to my suggestion that we allow title iv money to flow to schools showing they are having success with students by showing student learning gains. why is this a good solution? because it's not a one size fits all sort of exam. in other words these nationally norm tests such as cap or efficiency profile take the students where they are and determine whether or not they are at or above predicted learning gains for those cohorts so it's a wonderful way for a
school to be able to establish it's doing a very good job in certain demographics in the population. we do need to go to a system that will reward and showcase institutions that are transparent in terms of their financial stability, what they are able to do and the fact that they are actually providing value to students because if the students are leaving with student learning gains, that presumably will be a helpful predictor they will succeed once they get out of the institution. >> the schools are competing regionally to ensure these different gains and go about it in different ways? >> i am proposing we move away from the accreditation system which is opaque and has money flowing to every institution regardless of its performance. as i indicated we're seeing single digit graduation rates at
schools receiving title iv funding. what i would like to see is a system or title iv flows directly to institutions that show they are providing education to students and students are graduating at or above predicted learning gains. this way, we are able to highlight schools that are successful at whatever price and we are able to show those who are affected and the students who are looking to find a schools that are doing well with their particular work and they would have data to make an informed decision which they can not do under the current system. >> anyone else on the panel? >> i would like to endorse the idea and defend the idea that we have to measure what we want to do. process measures are almost always a mistake. we need to specify the outcomes we want and pay for those and it at least has to be part of an accountability system and we can measure these things. we have all kinds of good statistical techniques to adjust for where the student started so it doesn't throw the whole system off just because some schools specialize and kids graduated in the top of the
class and other schools of specialized were kids are around the middle or below. we can adjust for that and compare institutions and out of those kind of break and are funding would be based on starting with low income kids. there are lots of things we can do. accountability has got to be part of the system and based on outcomes not processes. >> i guess my job is to throw a wrench in ideas. you still have problems though. we talked about controlling for your student population is. when you get to college, you run into big problems. do you measure what every student knows when they leave that college? do you measure it by the program they are in so you have some set example for engineering students? english majors? accounting majors? is it supposed to be a measure like we have seen in critical thinking? what does it mean to be critical thinking?
i say these things to point out that using the term accountability is certainly intuitively -- it is something we want to have. we want accountability but we have seen repeatedly that operationalizing accountability becomes a difficult thing because we are talking about very fine-grained decisions ultimately that are made by lots of individuals. >> it is a fine-grained thing and there are problems but we are getting better all the time and if we continue, we will get better and better. where are we without accountability? that is a counter question. >> how are the colleges and universities accept your form of accountability? >> if you control the purse strings, you can make them to your tune. the government has a right to say if you want our money, you have to meet these criteria. that is not very difficult and the government does it all the
time. >> we also might take some examples from what is happening in the states and i don't know the details to a great deal, but i believe in wyoming and massachusetts, they have a set up where students take a particular test and based on how they are assessed in terms of college readiness, it will give them access to community college, access to a four-year college. there is actually calibrated on a system so that if someone needs, for example, more remediation, that student then gets state aid to go into community colleges which is a cheaper way to deliver remediation and also they can succeed there and moved into the four-year college. it is a graded system designed to keep students where they are not push ahead to a four-year school when they are not college ready, but to give them access to college post secondary education at a level where they can more likely succeed and continue to move up as they do so.
>> i am going to move on to commissioner and then the vice >> i would like to take us back to where we started. if the achievement of the baccalaureate degree from an accredited university is the goal -- is one of the goals. i'm not saying certificates that lead to middle income jobs and the resurgence in advanced manufacturing that we also want to be promoting and there is a lot of other good things going on and technical training of all kinds could make us more -- could make students -- some students who choose to pursue
that much more employable with skills that are translatable and career paths that are pursuable and all of that is absolutely true. this is not meant to suggest that everyone should go to college or only the four-year degree is the only thing we need to be focused on. it happens to be with this hearing is focused on and trying to figure out whether or not the federal investment that is being made could be made better by focusing on practices that work in institutions that have shown by virtue of enrollment persistence, and current graduation rates that they have an inclination, some level of expertise, and a commitment to
graduating students in general and specifically to addressing some of the gaps in attainment that we see in particular communities, which of course, that being the particular issue of concern to the united states commission of civil rights. so having said that, all of these other things are of concern and, you know, certainly are truly the case. with regard to that particular issue, if there were to be reformulation, relocation of existing dollars -- reallocation of existing dollars spent, so we are not talking about more money. let's talk about how we might spend the current assessment
better to achieve more baccalaureate degrees in general. we need that. we also need more achievement in underachieving communities. we need both those things, so that is my proposition. to the extent that we need both those things and we have the opportunity to reallocate existing dollars, mr. haskins? what would you focus those dollars on? you said we had accountability and i don't disagree that we should not be paying for things we are not getting or conversely we want to pay -- we would even be willing to pay more if we were getting the thing that we wanted, right? accountability is extremely important, focusing on outcomes.
i agree with that as well, not so much inputs but who is achieving the goal here? what other things might that money be focused on to get better outcomes? >> i have very simple answers and one of my recommendations was states should base more of the money that they give to schools on performance. their performance should be graduation rates, employment, and wages. those are the main outcomes we are looking for. and the system would be skewed so that if you could do that achieve those ends, graduation rates, employment and wages with kids from low-income families, that you would get some kind of extra credit, extra money of some sort. that is the way i would do it. >> thank you. >> i think the answer to your question is, yes. the federal investment in higher education in this country can
help address these issues of either producing more graduates if that is a defined goal. the investment has multiple goals, right? i think probably the first step is, do we get commonality or do we have a common goal of baccalaureate attainment is important then closing the gap amongst diverse population and ensuring that everyone, regardless of income status, has access to a higher education is important. if the answer to those three questions is yes, then the investments could be targeted in a way that we ask the next question which is how do we scale? because we could invest and continue to invest a lot of resources and private institutions that have good results that are not necessarily scalable or we could focus more of our resources on
comprehensive universities that will have greater scale in terms of producing graduates that we need and going back to your question, commissioner, around what is most important, i think all three of those things are important but certainly having transparency so you can have accountability around the outcomes that you want with your resources is clearly important. i would just add to what mr. haskins has said is that you do have to be thoughtful about what that accountability looks like, but i don't think it is too much to say that every institution that gets federal resources should be demanded to improve their graduation rates and close their gaps at their institution and do a better job than they did before. but until we articulate that as a goal and hold the purse strings to achieve that, i am not sure that that will happen.
>> you can have the last question. >> thank you. thank you very much, mr. chair. this is for mr. mccluskey and mr. haskins. i have been following the arguments that we have been hearing regarding outcomes and accountability and at one point, mr. mccluskey, it seemed that you are saying that you would measure success by graduation, jobs, wages, and then you went on to put a value around $50,000 in terms of income and i guess what i found myself thinking is that when we are talking about educating in an educated citizenry, must we put an income
on it, a wage value on it? understanding of course that there are many occupations and roles and services that are -- that our states and federal government needs that there isn't a really big value income placed on it. you were not saying that there is not success if you fail to make, after attending college and graduating, x-number of dollars. >> i don't think i was saying that. i was saying i don't want measures because i don't want accountability. just kidding. i do want accountability but brings up an important point. there doesn't seem to be agreement about what the outcomes should be. should it be graduation rate, what you earn as you get older? that one of the things that concerns me is that in the state of florida the year or two ago, the governor said, should we really be spending money to
produce anthropologists? >> that same argument has been made by some of our leaders in the state of north carolina. for liberal arts education as worth anything? >> and that concerns me because i don't think education is something you can necessarily monetize but i am sympathetic over the concern that we spend a gigantic and not of money on higher education and we don't seem to be getting anything of commensurate outcomes. this is why i think and it is counterintuitive, a lot of the problem is we have a lot of money that comes from somebody other than the student that consumes education. they may to stay to study anthropology. but i don't want to go a system that says you have a bureaucracy
if you don't earn $50,000 within three years of graduating there was something wrong with your education. >> can i just add a quick point? i am all for institutions and the students having skin in the game, but want to make the opposite argument that high-income students don't have any skin in the game when their parents fund their college education. i don't think anybody would object to having parents fund their kids' college education, so i think we need to be careful that we are not putting additional barriers for low income folks that really should not have to put anything in because if your family is barely surviving on $16,000 a year, why should you have to put anything into your college education? well that concludes this panel. thank you, everyone. we appreciate it. we'll now take a few minute break until 2:45. then we'll come back on the record with the final panel of
the day. thank you. >> coming up on c-span 3 the director of the navy's undersea warfare division talks about nuclear deterrence and submarines. at 1:00 p.m. eastern we have a live discussion on the iran nuclear the negotiations. then a subcommittee hearing for the veterans affairs health care contract. >> next the head of the navy's undersea warfare division. he spoke at an event shotted by the air force association on nuclear deterrence and submarines. this is a little under an hour.
>> i want to welcome you all here today. on behalf of the air force association and the national defense industrial association reserve officers association i want to welcome to you this our next in our series seminars on nuclear deterrence missile defense, prolie e -- proliferation control. we are honored today to have joe tofalo as our speaker. i also want to make a note of welcoming our friends from the united states military, the entire staff of the navy is here today. we want to thank our guests from an number of embassies and our sponsors. i want to make a note that a number of our seminars have been held and i posted the transcript
on our website as well as the cds who presented remarks this week on china. i want to remind you that next week we have jim miller, admiral breckenridge on the 4th. we have a space event with congressman on june 12. invitations will go out shortly for triad event we are holding here on the 17th of september here in washington, d.c. if you are interested in getting an invitation, please talk to me. as you know, he is the director of undersea warfare at the navy staff and the pentagon. in this capacity, he is the resource sponsor for the submarine force and that includes the ohio replacement program.
and the virginia class submarine. before this assignment, he commanded the submarine group 10 in georgia and he brings submarine and acquisition of experience of our sea based deterrent deterrent. please welcome rear admiral joe tafalo. >> thank you for that introduction. it's great to come and talk -- there's so much stuff up here i don't know what to move. i was talking with joe in the back of the room whose grandfather was a world war ii submariner. sitting over here is midshipman zach, he is getting ready. he came here to hear the talk this morning. heading off to join the submarine force. we've got the whole gamut here represented. that's great.
i know that many of you come to these sessions from time to time and i want to commend you for doing that, keeping yourselves involved and informed about strategic deterrence. there are many who don't understand all of the moving parts associated with strategic deterrence. it's important for us to put the facts on the table and i thank you for your commitment in being here today and being part of that dialogue. peter mentioned my biography. in '97 requirement officer for submarine force and ohio replacement and virginia class are the centerpiece of my portfolio. because of my previous job working in submarine group 10 and this current job i am fortunate to have this perspective on the sea based deterrence. it is something that helps me do what i am doing.
today, we are at a critical point in determining the future of our national strategic deterrent. examples include our country's actively engaged in negotiations with iran's nuclear program which will go a long way to defining the nature of the second nuclear age as it unfolds in the future. treaties and agreements are being made and implemented and in some cases violated. russia and china are aggressively modernizing and expanding their nuclear capabilities. iran is seeking to knock on that same door. north korea whether you believe what they say or not is unarguably provocative. with this backdrop it is easy to get caught up in the swirl of events, the drumbeat of newspaper headlines and the draw of the 24-hour news cycle. this short term churn makes it difficult if not impossible to maintain focus on the long term
nature of nuclear deterrence and doing what is required. robust nuclear deterrence is the result of long-term sustained efforts of a large group of professionals who carefully tend to technical issues, policy matters, fiscal resource allocation, adversary changes, and alliance dynamics. someone has to be working the near-term, the midterm, and the long-term in these areas. all the time. many of you are involved in some aspect of this. it is vital and challenging work. that is what is required. the admiral knew a thing about infighting and doing what is required. he emphasized that good ideas such as a solid foundation is not protected by the system. he wrote, "once implemented, good ideas can easily be overturned or subverted through
apathy or a lack of follow-up. a continuous effort is required. too often important problems are recognized but no one is willing to sustain the effort needed to solve them." today, we as a country are confronting a number of issues that are testing our willingness to sustain the continuous effort needed to keep a robust deterrent in place. i am concerned about how things are going on a number of fronts that make up this battle and i want to talk to you about my part of those battle lines which is sustaining an effective undersea leg to our deterrent. for today's americans, the horror of 9/11 remains an indelible memory. our losses on 9/11 as catastrophic as they were, were
less than 1% of our country's total losses in world war ii. 11 years ago, the world war ii material was dedicated on the mall right here in washington, d.c. if you have been there, you have seen the wall of stars across the back and those stars are a reminder of the ultimate sacrifice of the 400,000 americans who died in that conflict. take those huge american losses in world war ii and multiply them why 100. that number 40 million represents a low estimate of global losses during world war ii. we don't know how many people died in that war. some estimate up to 70 million died. most experts round the number up to the nearest five or ten million people.
think about that. millions of human lives were lost in the round off error. when our best experts try to calculate the human for tallies in the last large-scale major power war. if i were to say that world war ii must also be our last major power war, i am confident that all of you would agree. there is no question about the end point we seek. we want to from prevent a large scale power war in the future. the issue is not the end point we seek, it is how we will achieve it. we must remember that we have been down this road before. in the 1920s, we looked back on world war i and said it never again. we got the desired endpoint right. no more large scale power war. we got the means to that end point wrong. we passed some unenforceable treaties. we outlawed war. in the kellogg-bryant pact. we did not build a structure to
deter future war. where were we 20 players later? right back in the middle of the new major power war, this time world war ii. after world war ii and strongly motivated by the cold war, we were smarter in many ways. this time the united states remained engaged and built a mutual defense treaty organization and armed ourselves with an effective nuclear deterrent. we were not apathetic. we followed up. we applied the continued effort needed in keeping that deterrent effective. challenging words for sure, but again it's what's required. then the cold war ended. there was a feeling that as long as the world remained benign we hope we could get away with less than a full effort at nuclear deterrence.
redeferred capitalization and modernization. we tore down our infrastructure. we shrank our numbers. we reduced margins and redundancy and to abuse a favorite expression, we took risk. now it's clear that the benign world we hope for is not going to be the world that we face. the world that we are going to face is not that bipolar world. it is a more complex multibipolar world with players that are equally if not more aggressive. let me give you some examples. russia has an ongoing nuclear weapons production program, a new ssbn a new sslbn, new silo-based icbm, plans for at least one or perhaps two
nuclear bombers. they have increased their operations near u.s. and nato states. moscow has overtly adopted strategy that endorses the limited use of de-escalatory nuclear strikes. china is poised to have an operational deployment this year. this puts the cut metal united they will be capable of holding targets at risk for the first time. china is not part of the new start or any treaty that includes any inspection regimes. and they are taking territory in the agencies. you've seen the new mexico rows articles in the press here in the past couple of weeks and
working to create a carrier strike group capability. north korea depends on newark forces to extort the international country. they are the only country to conduct a nuclear test since the turn of the century they have done three. they are fueling a ballistic vessel and just publicly executed their minister of defense with an anti-aircraft gun. iran has endured substantial sanctions to continue its nuclear program. their pursuits are concerning to other allies in the region and countries like saudi arabia are now openly talking about their own nuclear capabilities needed to match tehran. taken together it is clear that we are facing a world that is not benign. and there are a number of key players out there with varied strategic objectives who are investing in or aggressively pursuing their own nuclear
capabilities. with all of this as background i want to address four concerns here with you this morning. concern number one. maintaining a triad. maintaining an effective strategic deterrent will continue to require a triad. the navy has long made clear that it strongly supports sustaining the triad. this position has been endorsed in ever important document produced by this administration. iran cbms provide a responsiveness that's much faster than bombers or ssbns. they deincentivize. bombers provide flexibility. they can signal our intent to allies and adversaries a like in a manner not possible by the icbm or ssbns. they can approach a target from many directions complicating an adversary's ability to defend
against them. plus nuclear capable bombers dual use an efficiency that mother part of the triad can claim. ssbns are clearly the most survivable. they assure our capability to deliver a large scale independent of overflight restrexsictions and much more difficult to defend against. each of the triad's legs brings unique strengths that together provide a strong deterrent against a variety offed a adversaryies and threats. there's a synergy here where the integrated whole is greater than merely summing the individual legs. concern number two, covering our strategic obligations as our current ohio classa abns age. what drives our at sea obligations? our ssbn force size is driven basically by three things geography, survivability, and
target coverage. note that i did not say the words number of warheads. there is always a tendency by some to derive the number of platforms needed from the number of warheads in the u.s. arsenal. think about this comparison. imagine that you are responsible for guarding a fort's perimeter, and you determine based on threat vectors, your weapons range, fields of fire, lines of sight, those kind of things, that you need ten sentries to guard this fort. you have 100 bullets, so you give each of the sentries 10 bullets. something happens, and now you only have 90 bullets in your inventory. would it make sense to drop to 9 sentries each with 10 bullets and leave one part of the perimeter unprotected? of course not. you would keep ten sentries so you could cover the whole perimeter. it's the same idea.
the point being that the number of warheads or bullets is not the main driver. the main drivers are geography survivability, and target coverage. we have to cover two oceans at once and all of the targets that go with each of these oceans. we have to anticipate changes that might occur between now and the 2080s when ohio replacement will still be on patrol. who knows what new threats there will be, new friends to assure, new technologies of offense and defense to be concerned about. so we have a demanding strategic obligation today and 55 years of ssbn patrols has taught us to expect change. in addition to the rising threats, there are also other reasons to expect the challenge to grow. let's talk about readiness and the age of our force. today our ssbns carry about 55% of our nation's accountability nuclear warheads but that
percentage will rise to about 70% of our accountable nuclear warheads by february of 2018 when the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is fully implemented. today our average ssbn is 24 years old. in 15 years just before we'd start deploying the ohio replacement submarine, our ssbns will average 37 years old. that's older than we have ever taken a single nuclear submarine, and we're talking about taking an entire class with an average age of 37 years old. and we will have to depend on that average 37-year-old submarine or force rather to reliably maintain the same patrol cycles as they did when they were brand new to the force. today our ohio class ssbn is meeting all mission requirements as you would expect, but there are challenges and only because of the significant efforts by
our incredible sailors, marine airmen, coast guardmen and civilians who are dedicated to this strategic mission are we able to continue to do so. we are still overcoming the impact of previous years fiscal cutbacks and short balls, previous sequestration government shut downs all of it. some of those things have had cascading effects on maintenance and training. these meant delayed preparations for deployments and it required us to extend deployments for those units already on station. a perfect example of this from this past year is the "uss pennsylvania" who was extended for a record 140 days due to the maintenance issues on another submarine. the good news is that our fantastic sailors and navy civilians were able to keep "pennsylvania" at sea for that record amount of time with absolutely to loss in strategic coverage. the whole thing was pretty much
transparent to everybody. our ssbn force doesn't cross that red line of not meeting our strategic coverage but it's that margin to the red line that has continued to be chipped away at over the years. pressures like this have imposed a cost to the resiliency of our people, the sustainability of our equipment, the service lives of our ships. to help address those president bush pressures, the navy is investing $2.2 billion in the president's request to store and maintain acceptable margin by adding more shipyard workers shifting some maintenance period to prifs shipyards, private shipyards and increasing funding for operational support to the tri dend d-5 weapons systems. it's vital to putting acceptable risk margins back into this critical mission. as i said earlier 70% of the
accountable nuclear warheads will be on ssbns, 70%. that's a big number. we have got a lot of eggs in this basket. we have got to get this right. we have got to do what's required. concern number three he be suring ohio replacement is surviveable survivable, effective, and timely. looking into the future, we not only have to make sure that the ohio class stays on track, but we have to ensure that the ohio replacement meets its obligations. the recapitalization of the sea based leg of the strategic deterrent is a solemn duty that falls to this generation. the first patrol of our first ssbn "uss george washington" occurred in december of 1960. the first patrol of the next generation ssbn, the "uss ohio" occurred in 1981, 21 years later. the first patrol of the ohio
replacement will take place in 2031, a whopping 50 years after ohio's first patrol. we have effectively skipped an entire ssbn generation but in doing so we have consumed all of the available margin for error and surprises. in order to cover our requirements, we need ten operational ssbns. that is ten ssbns that are loaded with their missiles and certified for patrol. to ensure we always had at least ten operational ssbns, we have 14 ssbns in our force structure today. right now we're going through the refueling overhauls and modernizations that put us right up to the limit of ten available operational platforms. for ohio replacement, we have sharpened our pencils and figured out how we can meet our obligations through the 2080s using fewer ships.
to do this, we are working to extend the ship's nuclear power core out to 42 years so that no refueling is required during the mid-life overhaul. we are also adjusting the overhaul maintenance process to be more efficient. combined, these steps will allow us to get the same ten operationals ssbns from a force of only 12 ohio replacement ssbns, not the 14 ohios we have today. spending the money up front to get the design right enables us to do this. we expect to save more than $40 billion in life cycle costs by not having to build man, and operate those two additional submarines. we must also ensure though that the ohio replacement ssbns show up for duty on time. if we reduce design funding in response to budget pressures, that will mean less efficient construction and later entry
into service creating unacceptable gaps where we could fall below ten operational ssbns. to illustrate how much of a challenge the navy has accepted in this program of record consider this. we must build the first ohio replacement ssbn in the same amount of time it took to build the first virginia class submarine, yet the ohio replacement is 2.5 times its size. concern number four, minimizing the impact of ohio replacement on the rest of the navy. there are three ways to minimize the impact of ohio replacement on the rest of the navy, and we are pursuing all of them. first, we are making the ohio replacement as affordable as possible. the ohio replacement will have 16 tubes not 24. we have maximized the use of previous systems. the trident d-5 strategic weapons system designed for the ohio as well as virginia ssn
define features, that has all been pulled through into the ohio replacement. we're on track to reach our objective cost of $4.9 billion per follow on submarine in 2010 dollars. in the end, the procurement of a higher replacement ssbn will cost less than 1% of one year of the dod's budget. when you consider that it will carry 70% of the nation's accountable nuclear warheads and be on patrol preventing that major power war we talked about through the 2080s, that is a tremendous return on investment. second, we have to reduce the number of ohio replacement submarines to the minimum. and we have wrung out every ounce of efficiency from this program. we have gone from 41 ssbns to 18s sbns to 14 ssbns and now we're headed to a force of 12