tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN April 12, 2016 4:30pm-7:01pm EDT
in washington, d.c. the subject of our event today is assessment in higher education. a seemingly boring topic that i think is becoming central to a lot of the discussions you have about american higher education. i say that because i have found that assessment of higher education learning is a naughty place you end up. it's not the thing that people talk about often first when they talk about college. our national conversation is very much focused on price and cast and debt.
what you get back is a conversation about value. often college also frame the value of higher education in economic terms, and we become used to talking about return on investments and u.s. the department of education is publishing information about how much graduates individually make. so if you're going to measure the value of college in some way other how much a home is worth in the labor market, it leads
you to that. criticizing or denouncing creditors because of a dissatisfaction with the way they handle quality control and other aspects of higher education. it leads you to if not accreditation, then what? if you want to think about innovation and higher education and maybe finding new ways to use the federal financial aid system to give entrepreneurs or people the ability to create new systems or new ways of approaching higher education,
but at the same time, you're mindful of the potential for fraud and abuse, it raises the question, how would you find out whether or not some new, innovative higher education operator is really doing a good job? and more broadly, even beyond the kind of policy-type questions that we like to debate here in washington, just the central importance of our colleges and universities, the millions of students moving through them, the very high-stakes nature of that process ends in the traditional lack of a really solid research base around college student learning. there is research out there, there are studies out there, but surprisingly little, given how many people go to college, given implicitly the value proposition and the promise that is made for higher education. we don't know all that much, really, i would say, about how much students learn, particularly at the individual student level or the departmental level or the institution level. so, for this and many reasons, new america invited fredrik deboer, who is with us today, to write a white paper that was released last week about the state of college assessment today, where it is, where it's going, and what it means. and what i think you find from reading the paper, which is both an excellent synthesis of where things are now and really a provocative look at where things can be going, you'll find that there's more out there than
people realize. there are actually some very smart people, and we have some of them in the room today to talk about this who have been doing great work over the last decade and even more developing new ways of assessing college student learning. people have become very interested in these assessments. the broader idea of using standardized assessments in learning is one that is actually more familiar to us from the k-12 arena, where it has been and remains very controversial, yet very much a part of the fabric of our k-12 schools. there's a lot of, i think, trepidation, some of it warranted, some of it not, in higher education about whether or not it's either possible or appropriate to assess people at a more consistent or standardized means. there are a lot of very complicated technical questions about how to do that, and then there are a lot of, in some ways, broader philosophical questions about the meaning of assessment and how it ought to relate to higher education. so, that's what we're going to talk about this morning.
we are grateful for you in the audience and everyone watching out there on c-span, and we are going to start with a presentation from fredrik deboer, who's going to talk to us about his research and the paper that he's written. so, fredrik, thank you. >> good morning. thank you for coming. i'd like to thank kevin and new america for bringing me here and for commissioning the paper. it's really a great opportunity. i try never to read too much when i present, but i do like to hear myself talk, so if i'm going on a little bit long, you guys can throw something at me. so, i guess the thing that i really want to talk to you all about is why i would happen to come to write a paper like this when i consider myself someone who's still within the liberal arts or the humanities and someone who opposes the sort of corporate turn in higher education.
you know, why would i come to write a paper like this? it is the case that now most of my research is quantitative in nature, social scientific and empirical, but i grew up in the humanities and consider myself fundamentally a humanist. so, i want to tell you a little bit about where the research came from and how i can try to synthesize those sort of parts of myself. so, like most research, my interest in standardized testing in college came from my own local context and my own life. when i was getting my doctorate at purdue, which i completed last may, a controversy erupted there over proposed implementation of the collegiate learning assessment plus, which is one of the major tests of -- standardized tests, excuse me, of college learning today. the mitch daniels administration -- so, mitch daniels is the former republican governor of indiana and is now the president of purdue -- wanted to implement this test at wide scale in the university. they wanted a very large portion of the incoming freshmen and the outgoing seniors to take this test in order to monitor
undergraduate learning. the daniels administration has made value their sort of keystone word. for example, in indiana, it's now dotted with billboards that say "education at the highest proven value," to sort of sell purdue. this was bound to be controversial for a few reasons, the first of which is that mitch daniels' administration has been controversial at the school. this is for a variety of reasons, maybe the biggest one being that he does not have an academic background, which made many of the faculty unhappy when he was hired on. it's also the case that the way in which he was selected was controversial given that he appointed all of the trustees who, in turn, appointed him. so, when he was governor, he appointed the trustees that then appointed him as the president, which was also controversial. but assessment in particular became a linchpin of a lot of other issues that have been sort of bubbling along on the college since his appointment, and that's because the assessment in a very deep and real way asks what we value in the university,
and it is inevitable that assessment will to some degree control learning. i think that you can have minimally invasive assessment. that's part of why i wrote the white paper. it's part of what i'll talk to you about today. but there is no doubt that assessment is always going to have some impact on how learning happens on college campuses. if it didn't, why would you do it? and so, the question is then was this in the mind of the faculty a way for the daniels administration to sort of take control, to wrestle control of undergraduate learning away from the faculty senate where it had always been sort of invested? and that was sort of the proxy issue. so, the fight was about this test, but it was also about faculty control of learning and the gradual deprofessionalization of the professory that's happening nationwide. so, when i was doing my dissertation research, the point
that came out again and again from faculty is we want to assess, make sure our students are doing a good job, but the question is who controls it. and one of the biggest issues with standardized testing is it is, in fact, standardized. and what many faculty members don't like is it removes the local control and local definition of what success means. and yet, i still think that standardized tests can be useful, even though i myself believe in and understand a desire for faculty control and for local context. for a little bit of background. so, i've spent sort of the past five or six years becoming versed in educational measurement, statistics, psychometrics and related topics within assessment. i would prefer you not to try to quiz me on that stuff right now, but i've done a lot of work, and i came up with a very conventional kind of liberal arts background. i got a ba in english and philosophy, for example.
so, 10, 12 years ago i was reading thomas hardy, and these days, for some reason, i'm staring at a spreadsheet all the time, which wouldn't ordinarily be what i enjoy. but i wanted to acquire this at least basic literacy and quantitative skills, because it seems clear to me that some people -- and i don't think everybody should be this way, not even a large proportion of us -- but some of us within the humanities have to be able to speak the language of numbers in the social sciences, because that is the language of power. it is abundantly clear that the policy world speaks in a certain kind of language, and that language is statistics that language is validity, reliability, and i became concerned that that was not a skill set that was in the hands of most humanists. and so, one of the things i ended up finding in my dissertation research is humanities professors were constantly complaining that they were cut out of major policy initiatives and think tanks and
commissions, but then the question becomes, you know, what would you talk about if everyone else is talking about numbers? that's a bigger fight, but that was sort of why i'm here, and i still maintain to myself a sort of core belief that i'm pursuing what the humanities are all about. anyway, so, the story of purdue had kind of an anticlimactic resolution. it became a very big kind of local controversy. the local paper actually ran a front-page story that said "daniels and faculty in battle of wills," which, of course, made that true. like, if it wasn't a battle of wills before, as soon as the paper said that it was, both sides kind of dug in, because now they had to save face. what ended up happening is that they delayed, they sort of -- they did what, you know, universities always do, which is they had committees with subcommittees and those subcommittees had subcommittees, and there was kind of a delaying action. eventually, what happened is that the students wouldn't sign up to take the test, so they had this sort of big kind of battle
going on, but one of the major impacts and what actually happened was that you couldn't get an adequate sample size of the size that the daniels administration wanted. so, they're still going forward with the cla at the school and it's going to be interesting to see what happens, but in much smaller numbers than they had originally proposed. you know, 18 and 22-year-olds aren't exactly eager to take a standardized test that they didn't have to take in the past, so that's one of the issues with this sort of thing. but i do think that the controversy's really interesting and important, and i think we're going to see these debates play out in many schools across the united states, because assessment is not going away and standardized assessment is not going away. we've had a success in presidential administrations, both the george w. bush administration, the barack obama administration, who have had educational officials who have made a strong call for more standardized assessments going into college, and this is an issue on which the political
parties, although they have disagreements about who will do what and the sort of dynamics of how it's going to happen, there is great agreement between them on this issue, and people within higher education cannot just sort of close their ears to this. although this particular plan was eventually scuttled, the obama administration was going to try to tie performance on standardized assessments and college rankings to availability of federal aid. that is a very big stick indeed. that is the kind of thing that no college, even the really elite colleges, can afford to ignore. so, if we're going to move forward as a system of higher education that can define what's going to happen to itself, rather than have assessment happen to it -- so, there's, in my field, in composition, there's a guy named edward white, and his white's law is assess or be assessed, meaning that if you don't perform assessment yourself and if you aren't willing and eager to get involved in assessment, then you will end up finding assessment being done to you. and the reason why i'm so invested in this is for that exact reason. i think that faculty can take an active role in assessment, that we can get out ahead of these problems and that we can become
a major force in shaping how assessment happens. if, on the other hand, faculties simply say we are not going to do this, then it's going to happen anyway, and it's going to happen in a way that does not reflect faculty interests. i think that that's reality. some people see that as fatalism, but. i want to make a few things clear to people within the humanities world who disagree with me. to begin with, we're already assessing in many ways. there's already all kinds of assessment that have happened on campus. the problem is that many of these assessments are ad hoc, they're idiosyncratic, they're lacking in validity and reliability evidence, they can't talk to each other from one campus to the other. i mean, so, the entire process of accreditation that kevin mentioned, that is supposed to and has always supposed to have had an assessment function. the idea of assessing colleges is not some new neoliberal enterprise. it's always been central to the process of accreditation. the fact that the accreditation process is seen as toothless is not, you know, really a good thing. if we're going to have an accreditation process, it should mean something, right? and the fact that so many schools have become used to a context where the accreditation process doesn't threaten them means we have to reform the system.
but i'll name another form of assessment. rankings like the u.s. news and world report rankings, in a real sense, that is an assessment. i think that it's a very wrong-headed kind of assessment and i think it's casually destructive to what we really value on college campuses, but in a very real way, they are saying let's assess the quality of these schools. and they put out a list of rankings that many students and parents pay a lot of attention to. and one of the things that means is that through a lack of assessment data, we simply perpetuate the elite. there's many things that elite colleges do well -- harvard, yale, stanford, university of chicago. i don't mean to demean them. they do a lot of things well. but the notion that we know that they teach undergraduates better has no evidentiary basis, right? so, the sense that harvard is the best university in the world has almost nothing to do with how well it teaches undergrads. that data does not exist. and because they skim off the top and they take only the truly elite high school students, you could probably put those students into any particular university and see them excel. and so, when they sort of report how well their students do after graduation, you can fairly ask, well, does that come from your undergraduate education? in my hometown, i went to public high school, the local private
high school always bragged about the standardized test scores, like s.a.t. scores, that its graduates got, which they would ignore the fact that you had to do well on a standardized test to get in, so it's like, you know, having like a height minimum and then bragging about how tall your student body is, right? that is sort of the system that is perpetuated right now. a lack of assessment data allows elite institutions to maintain the fiction that they teach better without having to provide any evidentiary basis to do so. and this is one of the reasons why assessment is a social justice issue, because if we want to make colleges true vehicles for equality, we have to be able to generate data that says, in fact, what is perceived as being a sort of elite university has no solid basis for saying that it is. so, i mean, you guys -- you know, every year there's a controversy about one school or the other slipping or rising or falling a little bit in the rankings of "u.s. news & world report", but it's not like harvard's going to show up tomorrow and be at 50, right? that doesn't happen. so, we're just shuffling around these very elite institutions at the top. but it's also the case, and i think that, you know, in the simplest terms, higher education
is under really profound threat right now. we have had massive amounts of defunding at the state level. we have a lot of people in the policy world who think that physical colleges in the traditional liberal arts should be replaced altogether with online-only programs, certifications like that. i think that it is profoundly naive to think that online education is going to sweep in and within a generation we'll see a reduction of colleges of 90%, something i read a lot about. for one thing, i think that just underestimates the persistence of institutions and the inertia of how hard it is to change these large institutions. but i also think that we do a much better job of educating than online-only education. i think what limited evidence we have now suggests that that's true. but if we're going to say that, we have to generate data to say it.
you know, the same people who tell me that we shouldn't be assessing hate the idea of online-only education. they hate the idea of the demise of the liberal university. well, if that's the case, then you need to be able to say to the rest of the world, we do something very well. i think that we need to assess more in college, and i think this can have a lot of benevolent institutions. and the message should read everyone involved, we take a lot of resources from society. college is very expensive. we are draining hundreds of thousands of dollars on the backs of young people who then graduate into an uncertain economic climate. colleges receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the
federal government. and we have an invested college with dysfunction, somewhat unfairly, but dysfunction of being an absolutely key linchpin of having a healthy economy. and there's no enterprise in the world where we pay hundreds of millions of dollars and no one bothers to ask how well we're doing, besides the defense industry. so, i think that we can do more assessment, but i also agree with skeptics that this kind of assessment is very hard, okay? and one of the things that i want to insist to everybody, i think it's useful in a context like this in the policy world, is these problems are not just political or theoretical in nature. one of the frustrations of being a humanist and talking about assessment is when i'm in the other world, in the policy world or the educational testing world, the psychometrics world, assumption is that resistance to these tools are always about political resistance or self-interested resistance of the faculty. that when we say these are hard to do, it's really about we just don't want anyone to check our work. but from a pure social science, it's hard to run these
large-scale assessments. i think there is a lot of data we can collect to guide decisions, but we can't underestimate that. one of the biggest things, for example, we know that colleges have profoundly different populations coming in every year, right? resources in their admissions process to make it truly exclusive is because they know that it works to pull sort of the cream off the top who are going to go on and excel. so, one of the things that we see that's true of these standardized tests in college is that the best predictor of how well both your freshmen and your senior populations will do is their s.a.t. scores coming in. in other words, we know very well with a great deal of certainty, with some variation, of course, in the world of variability, but we know very well how most colleges are going to stack up in rankings simply based on how they stack up on their average s.a.t. score incoming. so, we need to use value-added models and things like that in order to correct for differences in incoming population. purdue is a fantastic public university with a great student body. we still accept about 60% of our
applicants, which, by the way, you know, that is actually quite elite in context. so, i don't think most people understand this. going to an exclusive college is extremely rare. this is one of the things that people in journalism and the policy world i think often underestimate. there is over 3,000 accredited, or about 3,000 accredited four-year institutions in the united states. maybe 125 of them -- and that's a generous estimate -- reject more students than they accept, okay? so, the vast majority of colleges are taking a majority of the students who apply. and in fact, most colleges take essentially any student that applies. they need to simply for pure economic reasons. so, if we're going to compare colleges, we need to bear in mind that they have very different populations, and we need to have a way to correct for that. there's also all kinds of issues with scaling, traditional sort of testing things. we know how to address those things pretty well, but let's be clear that they are empirical problems. they are not just political problems. they're not just self-interested
professors saying we don't want to be tested. it's a false choice is my major point i want to make here, between sort of invasive testing, testing everyone all the time, constantly testing these students, having them have a sort of teach to the test kind of attitude, dramatic in college or no assessment. this is one of my great frustrations, is conversation so often boils down to either we enact something like no child left behind for college or we continue to do almost nothing that's replicable. that's a false choice. i think we can have minimally invasive college standard assessment that can still provide a lot of good data. we don't need to test all the students all the time. one of the frustrations with k-12 debate is that it is often premised on the idea that we need to do a census style for testing. in other words, in k-12, almost all students are tested almost all the time, right?
and this is part of what parents hate about it. but we have the power of inferential statistics. one of the things we know well how to do is to fort stratified samples n s that are representa of a student body and to be able to extrapolate from the sample. we know how to do that. we can take a sample of students from the average college, make sure it is adequately diverse in terms of the racial makeup, gender, the majors involved, whatever you want, and we can develop a sample, have students take these tests and understand very well how our student body are doing. that's an ability that we have, and it is frustrating that that ability from both people who push more testing and those who resist it is often ignored. we don't have to test everybody all the time. we have the beauty of a stratified sampling. i want to say it's essential to involve faculty at every stage of the process, and that's true whether you like faculty or not. luckily, there is still some power invested in faculties, even in a lot of institutions where the higher administration has clawed back a lot of power.
at purdue, for example, you know, president daniels has a real strong mandate -- and i should say that although i'm critical of him on some things, i have agreed with some of his initiatives, by the way -- but he has a strong mandate. he has the backing of the board of trustees. some people can say he's still the most powerful politician in indiana, even though he's not the governor anymore. but he still was unable to just sort of implement what he wanted. you have to work with the faculty. in my paper i talk about this at length, and you can read my recommendations that you let a faculty-controlled disciplinary assessment. i think academically adrift is a flawed text for a variety of reasons. one of the things that bothers me about it is they didn't even really try to assess disciplinary knowledge. so, these tests that we're going to talk about today, these are tests of general ability, so often defined as like critical thinking or academic aptitude. they don't attempt to assess what you learned in your major classes.
in other words, they are not even attempting to say how well did a nursing major learn nursing, how well did a computer scientist learn to code? you have to do that because obviously, you can't have a standardized test that works across the institution testing major knowledge for people who are not in that major. but what that means is that when people say there is limited learning on college, often they're talking about not looking at what most people are considering the most important thing you learn in college, your major. that's an excellent way for us to involve faculty. say you will always control disciplinary assessment. the computer science program gets to define success for computer science. we need that to be more standardized. we need that to be more interoperable, so we need people to talk with other kinds of assessment, but you are in control of that. that's a great way to involve faculty. finally, let me close by saying this while i have maybe the attention of the testing industry. i think that we have to have greater access to data and information and mechanisms of standardized testing instruments if we're going to implement
these at scale. we need to open up the books on these tests a little bit. to their credit, major test developers do a lot of internal research and they have proven themselves willing to publish research that is critical of their own instruments. so, ets, for example, who's often a boogieman in these conversations -- and i have a list of problems with them -- but they're very progressive in having independent researchers investigate their instruments and say, you know what, this is the problem. they're very willing to do that, and the testing industry in general is willing to do that. the fact of the matter is internal research can never replace truly external review. even the most principled researchers can't audit themselves. and so, some information is made available by testing companies. it's my opinion that not nearly enough is made available and that what is made available frequently has requirements for access that are too onerous. i'll tell you a story. when i was still in course work, i was taking a seminar in language testing, and i needed a data set. my professor said, well, you can
use this data set i have from a testing company that will remain nameless. so, i did research, i did the papers, turned it in. i turned it in. she thought it was very good. i said, well, i'd like to publish this paper. she said, well, here's the problem, that data set is a proprietary data set of this educational testing company. so here's what you have to do. so, you have to write up the paper, you have to submit the draft to the testing company. the testing company then will decide whether to review it or not for you. if they decide to review it, that could take six months. they would send it back and say this stuff has to change. i would change it and send it back for review again. if they thought the reviews were good enough, they'd send it back to me. then i could submit it to be an academic journal, which would take three months or longer to referee the paper. the journal would send back the paper to me with their recommended revisions. if i made those revisions, because the draft had changed, i would then need to submit it back to the testing company. the testing company could then sign off on the revisions or give me revisions to the
revisions. once the testing company was satisfied, then i could submit it back to the journal, but of course, i would have revised it again in ways that the journal hadn't advised me to, so they could come back and tell me again. it can easily take three years or more for this process to play out when you're trying to publish this kind of data. early career academics, time is of the essence. if you are a grad student, you need to publish and get stuff on your cd to get a job. if you are pretenure, you need to get stuff in there when your tenure clock has run out. so, this poses a powerful disincentive for people to publish. there's got to be a better way to do that. i think that it's possible -- now, the concerns of the testing industry, which i recognize, are number one, test security. so, the fear that giving people data will make it easier to game or cheat on the test and industry trade secrets. i do think that we can provide data and still sort of address those things. i mean, a test like the s.a.t., people have been trying to game it for years, and still, it's
remarkably durable to cheating. so, whatever "princeton review" or another test prep company tells you, they have not been able to demonstrate that they can really game those tests up. and i think that, you know, the core of assessment is saying trust us is not enough, right? i mean, what we're talking about here is universities saying, trust us, our students are learning, and policymakers and stakeholders saying, trust us is not good enough. if that's true for the faculty, it has to also be true for the testing companies. in other words, testing companies can't expect for us to accept trust us either. okay? and i think that there's all kinds of data that you can put out there. so, for multiple-choice tests, we should, you know, external researchers should be able to do traditional item analysis, things like facility index and discrimination indices and stuff that really test developers can tell you much better about than i can. for written responses for essay tests, i think it's appropriate for test developers to provide a
research corpas, so a collection of real essays that have been generated and scored internal to the organization. give us those scores, give us the essays, give us the prompts that they were used, make the machine readable so we can use corpus linguistics and things like that. ultimately, what is appropriate and fair for test companies to reveal and put out there will be a matter of negotiation and they're going to tend to err on the side of giving less and we'll ask for more, but i think we need to have more access to information than we do now. and that can help the test companies, too, because one of the major bones of contention with faculty is they say we can't look behind the curtain. i'm an expert in educational testing or i'm an expert in developmental psychology or i'm an expert in statistics, a professor might say, why can't i look at your mechanism? and i think we can both sort of serve the interests of test security and trade secrets and open up the books a little bit. anyway, i'm going to stop talking now. but i want to close by saying,
again, the notion that we either have to have no expansion of assessment or we have to have a high-stakes, perpetual testing regime that dramatically changes the university is just wrong. there is plenty of opportunity, there is many opportunities for us to gather data, to make that data publicly available, to better understand how our students are doing in college. how well our institutions are serving students who are graduating again with hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt. we can gather information and still keep all the good things about college, but there has to be external pressure on institutions because the default sort of institutional response of colleges and universities to is to never change, and we're in crisis, so we need to change. thank you. >> that was terrific. in your remarks, you mentioned both at purdue university, the cla plus being the instrument
there, also the very well-known and controversial book "academically adrift," also based on the cla plus. we are very pleased to have roger benjamin, the president of the council for aid to education, the man who in many ways is responsible for the cla plus. joining us today. i have to also note that we invited alberto asereda from ets to speak today. he was on his way down from new jersey and there was a problem with traffic, so he's not going to be able to make it, but he did send me his remarks and i am going to reflect some of those, and i suppose you can be a little tougher on ets now, not that we wouldn't have been anyway. so, roger, i would love to start by hearing some of your thoughts on freddie's white paper and presentation today. >> well, i enjoyed it. and first let me say that i am the director of cae. i'm a political economist, and i
also was an academic for a long time and still think the title professor is the one i like the best. and then in that role, i was dean of the arts and sciences, and i view myself as fundamentally a product of the liberal arts. and i'm married to an extremely distinguished art historian, and her world is illuminated french manuscripts, and she wouldn't be bothered to attend this subject because she's totally focused on the data in that world. and let me just say something on behalf of ets. one of the problems that we've got is a paucity of measurement scientists, psychomatricians, there are only a handful each year being turned out by iowa,
iowa state, illinois, minnesota, places like that. and yet, as kevin noted in his intro. and yet as kevin noted in his intro, increasingly assessments being recognized is a very important subject. we just don't have the numbers, let alone the quality of people in that field that we're going to need going forward. the importance of ets cannot be overstated. i think the -- for example, the director of research for ce, steve kline, who just retired is a young person worked under sam messic to design the nape and materic sampling approach.
and the the nape is the gold standard for the kind of test that makes a lot of sense. and richard shavelson was also important for cae was heavily involved with us. he is a professor at stanford has ties to ets. ets is doing excellent work. lydia lu is distinguished researcher there working in -- with assessment in higher education. dan mccaffery who used to be a colleague of mine and steve kline's when we were at rand in the late '90s now has a chair -- he is one of the most thoughtful people, a statistician who really knows a great deal about the issues that fredrik was talking about. i want to say a little bit -- the bottom line is fredrik's
paper is a serious critique and he poses problems that are important. and what i want to do is just make a couple of comments that are stimulated by his argument. and then i want to just tell you a little bit about a new way we might think about framing research on higher education, leading perhaps with educational assessment but going beyond that a little bit. i think that accountability did have a lot to do with the ramp up of assessment in higher education. i'm talking about the spellings commission and so on. but i want to note that in the case of our group, reform and not accountability was the principle motivator.
steve and i, some other colleagues at rand in the late '90s began to think about introducing assessment to higher education because we felt that it was a good idea. and steve had introduced performance assessment to the bar association via the clinical part of the bar exam, which is in all the major states in the late '70s, early '80s. and we thought that in the knowledge economy it's very important for the next generation students to be able to improve their critical thinking skills, their ability to access structure and use information, because you can google for simply facts and you really need to be able to be stronger critical thinkers. and my colleagues and i set out
with that premise and we still hold it. the board, for example, led by richard atkinson, former president of the university of california, doug bennett from urelam. michael low max, sara tucker who ran the national hispanic association, michael crow and others really believe that this was a worthwhile undertaking and we still do. we focussed on no stakes value added approach because we thought the improvement question was a good way to start for post secondary education. we were starting to do research and development at a period in which no child left behind and the test corruption in k through 12 was at issue. and so we decided to really take
this value-added approach to scale. and it is a worthwhile endeavor. it turns out that there's about a .44 standard deviation of growth, at least based on the cla across 1,200, 1,400 test administration. and that's a very significant growth in social science. controlling for entering competencies through the s.a.t. or the a.c.t. and now a matching model that we created. and the amount of growth in similarly situated institutions varies as much as 1.0. there's a large number -- there are about 20% of the colleges
that really do demonstrate best practices in important ways. obviously those in the middle and then 20% at the bottom are in somewhat problematic. about four years ago we began to develop a version of the cla that was reliable and valid at the institutional -- sorry, at the student level. and the no-stakes approach did not cause problems for motivation -- motivational problems. it affected the institutional level results but it did affect student motivation, so we've created badges, mastery levels for the cla plus results for students and we have cla plus career connect and employers are
beginning to actually ask students whether or not -- indicate that they would be interested in getting these results. so we're trying to solve the motivational issue that way. i think it's true that we could have more -- much more reliability and validity data, but the truth of the matter is also we have a paper on our website the case for critical thinking test and performance assessment and it has about 100 external publications. and all peer reviewed papers that are published by cla, ets papers and there are many, many dozens of them are peer reviewed several independent reviewers take a look at them. that's on our website.
now, the idea -- it's under the label of going forward, pasters, give you something to think about this morning. pasters quadrant in higher education. it's a name of a paper that i've just drafted. if you're interested, i'm going to leave my card somewhere and i'll be glad to send you the draft. donald stokes wrote an intriguing book called pastry quadrant, the relationship between basic research and technological change. and in it, he reverses the time honored assumption that basic research drives applied research. that's the way it goes. in fact, he has numerous -- he points out numerous cases of which practical problems drive research and narrative kind of
is his major exhibit. he was passionate about doing something about tainted milk that was killing millions of babies. and along the way in his professional career, he invented the building blocks for micro biology. and stokes himself talks about its importance, democracy, use-inspired research to help frame the way we think about public policy issues. and i came up with three or four historical cases in which this approach focussed interdisciplinary research using the value system of science, peer review transparency and the ability to replicate results as guiding principles. we in the middle of the civil war, congress founded the land grant university and the purpose of the land grant university was to make agricultural more of a science.
and over time we've done a very good job at that. to me, the green revolution, et cetera, yes, there are complaints about modified genetic crops today, but i think it's a success story. health after the flexner report in 1910, there was a commitment to make health much more of a science. and that's been a steady climb. and in the recent decades with molecural -- molecular biology, i think basically most -- the tide has turned. there are tensions between the clinicians, the practitioners and the scientists, but again it's been a good story. finally rand, which i've just noted where i was for a decade, they're at the end of the war
when we got worried about the soviets, congress founded rand and the goal was to task a group of researchers to come up with better objective tools of decision making for national security decision makers to make better decisions. and in the first decade they invented game theory, cross benefit analysis, prototype for the internet. not bad. and i just then would say that my argument in this paper is that higher ed is the next obvious candidate for this kind of focussed approach. why? well, first of all, i think there is increasing agreement that human capital is our principal resource any nations principal resource and the k through 16 system is the formal venue for preserving and enhancing that capital.
and there is, therefore, reason that policymakers at every organization more and more focussed on how to make sure that the system improves. the hiring sector is very important because it's the apex. it sets the standards for parents, students and teachers to move toward. that's why it's important. what evidence of problems are that make it warranted specifically? i really won't go into them, but they're the usual suspects. but i would say if you just look at the higher education price index and its growth over the last 40 years compared to the cpi, it shows cross disease problem abundantly in evidence. and therefore any increase in
funds that come into the sector for public or private institutions goes with inflation and i think the primary symptoms that we read about, the student loan debt, is a huge problem. cost is a big problem. and then one that i'll mention that i think is very important and that is almost unnoticed is the demise of the tenured track and the tenured faculty actually running the sector. now, we only have 25% or less of the whole sector that are tenured or tenured track and they're primarily in the top institutions. and department governance is the way we set about organizing the sectors decisions about what to teach, recommend who to recommend to teach it and who to assess.
so, big problems. in addition, you've got an absence of equal opportunity. that's something i'm very interested in. you don't have a level playing field for the students in the less selective colleges that are of high ability to have a crack at the good jobs as they leave college. it's true that 30% of the students who graduate from the selective colleges score in the top 5% or 10% of our test, and only 10% in the less selective colleges. when you actually do the math, you're talking about a million, 1.5 million students in the less selective colleges, pell grant students and also students from underrepresented groups that should be given opportunities. so there's an inequality -- feeds into the inequality problem. that's a huge issue that tony is
talking about that i think is one that's a major public policy issue. finally, there's a big debate about whether it's education is a public or private good. and it's frozen. adherents on both sides are not moving. it's becoming what we call a common pool problem. leaders don't have tools to address this. and that's my argument. now, the faculty are -- when you talk about scrutiny and bringing research to bear on the sector, people -- leaders, higher ed leaders, faculties are worried about scrutiny causing negative publicity, other budget issues and so on. and there's something i call -- the department-based governance itself is a double edged sword. the relative autonomy afforded
our college is one of the principle reasons we have one of the greatest research universities on the planet. you don't -- and you don't want to do anything to disturb that. at the same time, those same principles mean that the faculty in departments view their role as sank rosink in determining what subjects to heech, how to teach, and how to determine success, et cetera. third party interventions from the outside are not looked at favorably. well, all right, so i think not only do we need -- we need to really consider upping our game, this youth inspired basic research notion in which the fields of inquiry that share adherence to the value system of
science led -- not just led by joined educational assessments one but joined by cognitive science, micro, macro economics, educational technology really can be very, very helpful joined with practitioners who are very, very important, which is a point that fredrik makes to move forward. and the principles for engagement i'm just going to simply assert are these principles of peer review and transparency in results and the need for rep -- to be able to replicate results. is it too costly? impossible to join what we have done in agriculture or health or national security? well, no. we now have data-mining tools
which allow the data that we generate from these cross disciplinary activities to be fed to the right groups, and i think it is possible and i talk about that in the paper as well. so, those are my comments on an important discussion in front of us. >> thanks, roger. i have a couple of questions for both of you but you should feel free to ask questions of your own. i'm going to start with this question of disciplinary assessment, which i think is really interesting. and by way of anecdote, a couple years ago, i was talking to a man named carl wineman, who i think was director of the white house council of science advisers, was that his title? something like that. so carl won the noble prize in physics and then having done that decided to do something really hard which is to think about how to do a better job of teaching undergraduates physics.
like a lot of people who come to washington from the outside for a limited time at some point, society, gee, i would like to get something done before i go that's real. the thing he decided he wanted to get done was he had this idea of requiring any university that took federal research money to report back how they were assessing the quality of their instruction in undergraduate physics. i said to him, as long as we're having crazy, crazy ideas -- because of course this didn't happen, as long as we're having crazy ideas, why not have them give the same exam to their undergraduate physics students on my theory that physics is maybe one of the less contested realms particularly at the introductory level and report how well their students are doing. and he just laughed at me and said you're a fool for even bringing that up. and if i said something like
that, it would torpedo this effort which of course was torpedoed any way. i want to take seriously, fredrik, what you said, which is that the resistance among institutions and faculty to assessment is not just political. it's easy for someone in my position to sort of frame it as such and i do because i do think it is sometimes as such, but if you take learning seriously, cognition seriously, assessment seriously and want to do a good job, you have to recognize how complicated it is. are there, however, opportunities in some realms where we could move relatively quickly to high quality disciplinary assessment? where are the opportunities now? >> so, i guess the -- i agree with your colleague in saying that i think that sort of trying to impose from the outside like a -- this is the national physics knowledge test is precisely what will make faculty holler the most and probably should. that is the kind of local control i want to maintain.
to make sort of the case for that local control, some fields people will acknowledge off the bat are sort of have a political component that influences these decisions so maybe the first or one of the first mitch daniels controversies at purdue was over howa howard zinn, who is a controversial figure in history, and mitch daniels indicated he was not a serious historian. and that sort of -- and that sort of thing, if you try to sort of impose from the outside a test on top of those people, it feels like history we expect that. look at a field like computer science. a lot of people they know tend to think of computer science -- the teaching is teaching of coding. coding is one aspect of the practical layer of computer science when, in fact, computer science is filled with theory, right? computer science programs differ enormously in terms of their approach to teaching theory in practice to the kind of languages that they think students should be learning to what order they should be learning them in.
within individual departments you will find professors with very passionate disagreements over how to teach computer science and what's the way to prepare students for the workplace of the future. so that's the kind of sort of top down thing that i would like to avoid. now, i do think that there is what i would view more of a bottom up kind of approach which we're seeing more and more which is, for example, and i'm blanking on the name, but the american historical association or something like that, it's sort of the professional organization of the history professors has recently been coming out with policy documents about here is how to do an assessment that reflects the breadth of knowledge everybody should have if you're graduating with a degree in history. here's the kind of competencies you should have while still maintaining that individual local control over sort of the actual curriculum. the ncte the national council teachers of english, for example, will have a major conference in a couple weeks. one of the things they get to do is get together and vote on
these policy documents, for example, they have a goals, means and outcome student for every student leaving freshman composition should do. that empowers faculty. there's plenty of people who don't agree with those policy documents. they come from a mutual agreement from faculty in these professional organizations that can then define their own standards. that's the way you do it. if it seems like some fed is sort of saying here is what you have to teach in your political science class, that becomes a profound problem, i think. also we have to acknowledge -- so purdue has a huge ag program. it's not surprising that purdue's agriculture program does a lot of work in soy and corn and not pineapple. that is sort of a reflection of local context. those local contexts, education is a really big one. your educational program will be deeply influenced by what is in the required curriculum of k through 12 public schools in your local context. i do think there is the opportunity for professional
organizations of faculty to use their decision making powers, however democratic that might be to create standards. but one test that is sort of applied to all programs does not seem feasible to me. >> just to add to that, the gates foundation is just publishing now a study in which they've engaged the professional associations of 12 to 14 of the core disciplines and they've got -- they each field in physics and chemistry and history and so on set up committees to do the kind of thing that fredrik just indicated. and i haven't seen the results of that yet, but that's going to be quite interesting. now, the problem is one of the problems is the only metric that is the basis for the incentive
system for faculty right now is research based. and frankly unless and until we get an adapted incentive system that encourages faculty to spend more time on these issues, guess what, not much is going to happen. so that's another problem. >> so is it possible, however, that one federally posed test on everyone that sounds bad. that's on one extreme on the choice where we could find some middle ground on that or nothing for anyone. i was interested in what you said about the use of statistics. we know we can do. we have things like the nap the faculty -- national narrative of stagnation is a testament to the power of statistics because every two years we pick a different group of 17 years olds, give them the same test and get exactly the same number. that's amazing. we know the testing part is working well.
but when you start to break things up by discipline and have differences of philosophy as you said inside of departments, you quickly get to pretty small numbers, even in big numbers institutions which are themselves ultimately not as big as they seem. they're more collections of smaller discreet things. but there might be 10 or 15 or 20 departments around the country that should have enough of a shared philosophical basis where if they got together they could voluntarily agree upon some set you want to call them standards, assessments, et cetera, the pool of students you would be enough to start drawing conclusions. am i right in saying that basically never happens. >> it doesn't really happen. again, so i love purdue and i've had a great time there, so i don't seem to be bashing it during my doctoral thesis. i interviewed a lot of people for it. i interviewed provost who said
purdue is more like 11 private colleges that are loosely affiliated than like one public university. even in the institution, part of the concern is everyone has their own system, it's a futile instruction. within the institution you don't have a consistency in undergraduate. you can use the accreditation process if we reform it, yod cuuse it to say we believe it's fundamentally in the value of facally control of curriculum. however, we think that faculty should be able to point to some kind of sort of curriculum guidelines that have been generated interior to a discipline. created by faculty on a national level. say this is a document that we believe in. here is our general goals, means and outcome statement. within that, there will still be a lot of opportunity for students to specialize in different areas and for faculty to teach in different ways, but that we have this framework. when we assess, we are assessing based on that framework. i think it's appropriate and
possible to generate that sort of thing. in order for that to happen, there has to be some kind of a policy lever to make it happen because, again, inertia is the most powerful force in higher education, right? so this hasn't happened in the past, so it will continue not to happen unless someone provides incentives for it to happen. you mentioned the nape. a lot of times when people ask me what i want in terms of a national assessment regime, i say the nape for college sounds good, right? we have all these problems with standardized tests and yet the nap manages to avoid almost all of them. no kid is coming home crying because they had to go through yet another round of the nape, right? teachers aren't complaining that the nape is disrupting their classroom and forcing them to teach to test. pearson doesn't -- the pearson company doesn't exert too much control over k through 12 curriculum because of the influence of the nap and sort of the testing materials that they put together.
and again, that is relatively very small numbers of students are taking it. the same students aren't taking it over and over again. and it is minimally invasive and yet we have very powerful data on what is going on in the k through 12 level thanks to that test. >> to both of you, have we backed into something through the piac test. either of you can explain what that is or i'm happy to. >> well, no, because that focuses on non-18 to 22-year-olds. it is very important for -- >> international test of adult literacy. >> there is, of course, oecd has the 15-year-old pisa test, and there is still an effort that's actually being renewed to develop a higher education version of that, which is
another subject. but actually we're involved in that. we suggested years ago when we got started at cae something like the college nap and my friends and colleagues at dupont circle said in your dreams, roger. you've lost your mind. they were not happy to go down that road then. probably not now, but i don't think -- these problems are going to continue to grow. i'm talking about the need for -- there is a role for standardized assessments with anything that has stakes attached to it because if you can't -- if you can't see the results of a test being reliable and valid, how can you make decisions on it? that's the problem. and yet fredrik has correctly
identified the importance of staying true to academic relative ougautonomy and local control for assessment. >> yeah. let's talk about that. i think the purdue example is instructive. as you said, mitch daniels is in some ways almost an extreme test case of a politically empowered college president. i didn't realize he had appointed all the trustees who hired him. >> i didn't either. >> i suppose it's possible to envision in sort of a small, not well known private college, president having more power, but at a big consequential institution like purdue, you couldn't come in with more backing than he had. and yet it ends up being as any kind of thing is, a negotiation with the faculty. so, is there -- you kind of framed your remarks, fredrik, towards the faculty, you said assess or be assessed. is there a more positive message
that could be given to them as in if you're serious about your teaching, this will help you be better at your job? >> sure. i mean, again -- so i frame it -- one of the frustrations for me is that almost no one of the people who object to assessment likes the status quo when you sort of break things down. i say do you like the news and world report, no, i hate it. then the reason that the u.s. news and world report exists because parents and students don't feel like they have information about what's a good college. and as reductive as they are and as many parts of their instrument i disagree with, if you're an 18 or 19-year-old, you're looking at, hey, this is at 3 and this is at 7, i know which school i'm going to. i also say to them -- if we think about why students are choosing to go to college. it's really important to remember our conception of college is very much bound up in a kind of elite school where you go away to school somewhere in the northeast and all your peers come from all over the world.
in fact, for -- for a public university, the median distance from home to school is 18 miles. okay? a majority of college students go to school within 30 miles of where they grew up. geography is number one for the large majority of students. that's the number one determining factor. and in fact, one of our problems we have we have these higher ed deserts where there's no institutions. it seems impossible. there are no institutions that are appropriate for students. talking about the median student, not attending an exclusive college, graduated near the middle of their high school class and mostly going on geography. for the kind of students that are cross shopping that are looking at different institutions, that are saying this is a good school, this is a good school, which one do i go to? what is motivating their choice? i'm someone who complained to the gyms, dorms, and dining halls. part of the reason why tuition is so incredibly high is because
we are building things like at purdue $95 million gym, which construction began in the heart of an employment depression. in that $95 million gym, we have, for example, a pool with a vortex so you can run against the current. we have a 55 foot climbing wall. many colleges now have dining halls with full time sushi chefs. we have lazy river rides. we have dorms that many of which are now based on the idea that we should get as many singles as possible instead of the traditional let's squeeze four kids into the room because it's cheap. why are colleges investing in that? number one, it's their own fault. you have to act and make good decisions for your student body. the real reason they're doing it is because their research shows it works. right? they invest a lot of money and decided when we had the student we wanted, they didn't go to our school, they went to a competitive institution. that research tells them it's not because of the quality of the faculty which students don't care or understand about. it's not because of the faculty
to student ratio which is a made up number that means nothing. because on the campus visit the dorm looks nice, the gym looks nice and the dining hall looks nice. when you're 18, 19 years old, you don't always have maybe the most sort of long-term thinking in mind and it sure would be cool to have that 55 feet of vertical climbing surface for the next four years and 22, 23 might as well be 73 as far as your long-term planning goes. this is the source of a lot of problems in college, which is at the center of it, there's a decision of a 17-year-old. and unfortunately parents aren't doing, in my opinion, their job in dissuading students from being pulled into that sort of thing. if you want to make the positive case to professors, you can say, the system through which students are choosing a college right now is no good for a variety of reasons. if we can assemble powerful data that demonstrates we teach people well and teach them cheaply, that can create an incentive that can hopefully change. i do think as long as students
know about gyms, dining halls that will be a powerful pull. there needs to be more external pressure to stop people from judging those things. but i can foresee a situation in which actual educational quality becomes a factor in determining a college. right now, it simply isn't at scale. it's just not a very big factor. >> so i want to take a few seconds just to read a few of the comments that were sent in by alberto from ets. i'm going to cherry pick them but we'll make them available so you can see everything he wanted to say. largely i think in agreement with your paper he talks about higher education remains the only american institution not driven by evidence of effectiveness. of course, i find ets to be a fascinating organization for many reasons, partly because even as you correctly say, in this one way of thinking about standardized testing or higher education, we're nowhere. but in many ways they drove the
development of standardized testing through the creation of ets and has used it to sort students forever. not just at the elite level but also the sorting remediation level which brings in the majority of students one way or the other. they're all about that for getting in. the gre, the mccat, the lsat, et cetera, et cetera. it's testing in between where we end up a mirror image conversation. he talked about one of the reasons we were hoping to hear from ets they also fair to say in some ways a competitor to cae and i would say from my observation and i've been watching cla for more than ten years now in response to the attention that came to the cla i think ets felt like it needed to step up and be able to say we can do this also. so, they've developed something called the heightened tool,
which is -- i'm just reading this, suite of six assessment tombs for critical thinking, written communication, digital information literacy, civic competency, that's interesting and engagement and then intercultural competency and diversity. building on what you say you can do and getting even more things that colleges are interested in. so, it seems like we're developing more of these tools going forward. do you think roger will more people jump in to this market opportunity if i can call it that? are there other players out there who will want to try to be the providers of these assessments? >> well, right now it's a bit like the wild west because the people -- the space that everybody is focussed on is from college to career and there's a recognition that there's an opportunity because, for
example, of great inflation students particularly in the less selective colleges when they leave college their transcript doesn't really differentiate them very much from other students. so, employers are searching for assessments which allow them to differentiate incoming students. you have some of these tests, these cognitive skill tests like the cla or the cap or a chunk at least of proficiency profile, but you have a tremendous amount of interest now in gallops wellness assessment based on surveys but persistence, collaboration, entrepreneurship, things like that. there's a whole range of tests by providers who want to fill that space.
the challenge they have is are their measures reliable and valid? if proficiency profile and cla plus are contested, frankly these really soft kinds of measures have got even more difficult along those lines. >> that's -- starts to move as farther outside -- >> i'll ask one more question and then we'll go to questions from the audience. and this is actually a little more of a technical question but something that seems important to me, one of the ways that these instruments including the cla have been validated is by comparing s.a.t. scores. the fact that there's a strong positive correlation between these results is seen as an indicator of validity. but we don't say that they're measuring the same thing. the same is true for the gre. this is an exam that's designed
for graduate admissions. what is the difference between what you're trying to measure and what those more traditional exams measure and do those differences show up in the data? if you give the same person the two tests, why would they score differently? >> well, they do score differently. the cla adds about 19% of variance on top of the s.a.t. generally. the cla is a performance assessment and therefore by definition it's actually measuring the extent to which students are able to perform and demonstrate their writing ability and their critical thinking skills. >> everything in the s.a.t. and more? >> no, no, no. they're different tests. they're different tests. and there's an important role for the s.a.t. the s.a.t. predicts freshman
grades. it predicts -- it will -- it is a predictor of senior gpa, but i don't think anybody -- the ets would not assert that they're actually measuring the skills that students need to be successful in college and actually in the workplace. these performance assessments -- by the way, when we started they were very novel, but because of the race to the top and all the testing -- all of the money put into other development, they're becoming pretty common place now and not just -- >> talking about the exams -- being developed to go along with common core? >> yeah. one of the attractions is they mimic real world problems and
they actually provide clues for faculty or teachers or the students to figure out what it is they need to do to improve. >> a few things i want to say. the first is, i have issues with ets and the s.a.t. i find it unhelpful when people try to attack them based on their validity or reliability. because that's attacking their strengths other than a weakness. and one thing i hear is people say the s.a.t. just predicts how well you do on the s.a.t. i can't tell you how many times i have people confidently assert that the s.a.t. doesn't predict college success. the s.a.t. is remarkably strong predictor of your grades and four-year and six-year graduation rates. it's important to say that one of the original justifications for the test was to keep students who were not adequately prepared for college out of college, which you can say that's just sort of function of sort of keeping the elite elite and that's true, but it also might have the benefit of keeping students from taking on student loan debt when they
won't graduate. one of the biggest problems we have is this chunk of people who can report some college on their resume but not a degree who have tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt which is a big larger conversation. the ets does have problems but we know their tests are very predictive. in terms of how the s.a.t. and the cla plus are different. the mechanisms are very different in the sense that cla plus has a performance test which is a written response which tries to show a lot of different things in concert together. ets is among other things addicted to multiple choice tests because multiple choice tests are much easier to determine sort of reliability data and it's easier to get a higher reliability number, but a lot of college professors, including in the hard sciences, don't like multiple choice tests because they think frankly it's too much of a reduction of what we're actually trying to do. ets will counter that.
in fact, if we have a written test like a performance test, those will tend to correlate strongly with multiple chose so let's use mullple chose. in the paper i provide a qualifier of the cla plus. i think that we should not be investing so much in multiple choice testing of college students because one of the things that we should know college students can do is to take a look at lots of different kinds of data which is what the performance task provides. come to a decision on issue of controversy and articulate that decision in writing. the fact that those scores will tend to be highly correlated with the s.a.t. scores or multiple choice scores is not a question of interest to me. i want authenticity in my instrument and many professors agree. as far as the sort of relative placement let me just quickly say so at the institutional level, cla plus is an r squared. the way in which the two test scores vary together. the amount of the variance in one test that explains the other is about .75, around there. in other words, you can expect
s.a.t. scores to explain about three quarters of the variance in scores of the cla plus. for the proficiency profile, ets is higher, .85. for prot fi these are very high numbers. this is something much bigger than college education but refers to education at large which so dirty little secret that people don't talk about because that'simpolite. of course there's variation and individuals can rise and fall. but if you look at students who are in the low groups, in first grade, and third grade and fifth grade he they will continue to be in the low groups in 8th and 10th and 12th grade. third grade reading level is a predictor of whether or not you will complete college in six years. that is something that is a very large conversation in which people don't spend a lot of time
talking about because it does seem to curse people to bad educational outcomes. there is a lot going on there, but we should expect any valid test of academic preparedness to have at least a fairly strong amount of staticness between levels because that's what we see throughout education, throughout life. it doesn't mean learning isn't happening, right? just because the cla test results correlate so highly with the s.a.t. doesn't mean students aren't learning, it means their relative placement is remaining. can you look at how schools are doing and as dr. benjamin said, almost every institution is showing strong gains. we can look at senior administration and some aren't large enough, some are large but the relative placement is the same. there is so much of a higher level, middle state universities are, even though middle state
universities learn so do harvard kids and the relative place tends to remain static. >> all right. we are going to go to questions from the audience. three things. one, wait for the microphone. two, identify your name and affiliation and three please phrase your question in the form of a question. ben? >> thanks, i'm ben with the rockefeller institute at suni. my question is, you've talked about all of this is a pretty heavy lift. as you said, this culture of colleges and universities, you've talked about the cla, cla plus institution level, testing, you have talked about individual assessment again with cla plus and you talk about the nape like approach which could give national results, regional results, institution type results. given how hard all of this is, where would you start? what's most important? >> i would start with number one that yes, the lifting is heavy
but stakes are high. when i say we are in crisis i mean we are graduating thousands of students into a brutal job market remains even with all of the recovery and the job market remain the case of graduating students, continuing to face high unemployment numbers, and the amount of student loan debt they are carrying is unc unconscienceable. i think the system should feel incredible shame over the fact that within ten years $100,000 tuition is probably on the horizon. that's a failure for an institution invested with an inedible responsibility. where would i start? we are already starting. tests like cla plus are implemented in a lot of places. the problem is that they are
implemented piecemeal and implemented with a lot of -- what intends to happen now, i agree a no-stakes approach is bet are than high-stakes approach. institutions will have this test come out and if their school looks good, they put it on the web side. if it doesn't, it is put in a drawer somewhere. so we will create incentives to say okay we are putting together this college score card anyway. the data is great but again has these gaps in terms of if we don't know how to compare student from different institutions, harvard kids, sorry to say, come in with structural economic advantages. people will read that data incorrectly. by say, if you want to be able to sort of correct those problems, you can look at actual test result that talks a little bit about testing. we have mechanisms. i understand that people don't want to have the federal government say this is the one test. because this is a very big business and that will end up
rewarding one institution if you do that. but these tests, we can compare their scores because they are norm referenced, in other words, because they are compared to relative placement to other students, we can develop a system where student can look up on the college score card. okay, in addition to this economic data ten years aft graduation or whatever, here is the change in their cla plus score or average change in the proficiency profile. bigger picture, you know, i understand why people were horrified about the obama administration idea of cutting off federal aid. but if there's one thing i know about college is that they aren't going to move unless someone can provide a strong interse int incentive to say you have to change. again we were in moral crisis right now. we cannot demonstrate our idea to the young person who are impoverished the first 10, 15, 20 years of their lives.
>> yes, in the back. >> hi, you haven't disappointed in the provocative things said today. i'm having a hard time figuring out what to ask with. my problem with nape, i thought it was interesting that you started your presentation talking about learning about numbers and policy discussions because i think anecdote becomes so much of how policy is made these days in washington. so nape allowed for an argument that all k-12 was failing. and as a parent of a first and a fourth grader, i can tell you, the testing regime is a disaster. how do you avoid that with national assessment and i didn't introduce myself, sorry. debbie resner. he is a chemistry major, he wants to be a chemist, why is he
taking a test on the critical thinking? we have a hard time getting student to take the different surveys. we have to offer $5 gift cards and things like that. why are students taking the test? so those are my two questions. how do you avoid the questions you've seen in k through 12 and why would student take this test? >> that's a very good question. very good questions. i also think the standardized regime in k through 12 is a disaster and why i want to put a better system together is less invasive to avoid that problem. one of the things that are romantic, and i share this too, we have a romantic national idea about colleges. one is that they are an inmembersly political policy. there are different college in every state. they are in tight with senators,
districts. this obama plan was snuff bid college presidents when they pushed back. relative power between institutions be a between public elementary school or university, the difference is just vast. particularly because the most elite with the most weight are also private by and large. and again my fears that we're going to do too little and not too much. i also think it is relative to i have a that we have lived through no child left behind. we are seeing a bipartisan recognition that there were many disastrous outcomes from that. i would like to think we would be informed by those negative outcomes to not do a similar thing in college. and finally, you know, college avoids some of the problems that
k through 12 school does because it remains the fact that only a third of americans over age 25 have a college degree. going to college remains rare. hardest to educate student are filtered out which isn't necessarily a good thing depending on what you think college should be for but it does remove some issues of sort of accounting for that problem when you're doing this kind of testing. i will say, you know, we've never been very high on comparative educational testing. one of the lies of the current moment is we have fallen from some peak where we used to be good with educational testing. as long as there has been national comparisons be, the u.s. has performed poorly. there is research making its own instrument looks bad when that's what data says. i admire that about them. they split into two groups, control and experimental. one group of students was told
the test score would follow them. going on to transcripts and the control group was not. test group outperformed the control group by a powerful effect size. the kind you don't see in education. student performed significantly better if they thought the test mattered. we know student invest max effort into the s.a.t. because it has stakes for their life. right now this testing does not have high stakes for them. we can motivate them to take the test but motivating them it invest their top effort is one of the hardest things. that is, to me, the major challenge is motivation. how can that change over time? one of the things happening right now is, so the cla plus for example purdue proposing student put that on transcript, on resume. right now employers don't know what that means. if i say to somebody in college, this student got a 1200 on s.a.t.s, the test is so
widespread that people can interpret that the. you would hope that over time, as more and more of these tests happen and you can say i scored in x percentile of the test i took, that would be more meaningful to employers. one of the things that this whole regime, there is screening argument for college that colleges valuable not because of how it educates you but acts as screen to remove certain people from the population and that employers want to know you've been vetted by something like the harvard admissions department. this is a good opportunity to find out if that is true. if this really is just a screening process then the test results wouldn't matter to employers. i have identified that as the biggest problem. >> another couple of quick comments. if the common core was a good idea, is a good idea, it is a move toward deeper learning, same effort in k through 12 that
i referenced in terms of higher ed. but the roll-out has been a disaster. now compare that to what happened when in the reagan administration, we adopted medicare and medicaid, and in order to in fact decide co-payer kind of norms and premises that would make sense when you ended up rolling it out, hew then did an rfp and spent $100 million on 16-year random experiment. it was run by rand, which really gave policy makers on all sides of the equation very solid reference about at least what to do in terms of where the price -- the paying points were in co-payments and what made sense. imagine if we had done something
like that for this common core that we actually went out and did a test, beta test, pilot test. the point i'm trying to make, testing when it's actual important and cost significant amounts of money really can pay off. then finally to comment on the ch chemistry major, if you look at the network of the department of labor, there are hundreds upon hundreds of jobs occupations that as requisites, require these critical thinking skills. most student won't get a job based on their undergraduate major. they will be looked up first because of their employability more generally. >> questions? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. it has been provocative.
association of american colleges and universities. and i know the focus here is on standardized tests. but the recommendations, frederick, in your paper, is your conclusion that nobody is working on those? that there are no alternatives? that the heavy lifting isn't already going on and that there are results from it that are positive? >> i wouldn't say that there is no work on it, no absolutely not. i think there are many institutions interested in these questions working on solving them. the problem is they are working on them at the institutional level. it is not clear to me, one of the issues with sort of the local control we have in the university system which i agree and a want to preserve, is that you know, there is a very weird mix of federalism inside the american university system where if you were to design a system from scratch you would not have the kind of mixture of things that colleges have local control over and those which they don't.
right? one of the things that happened is that we built a university system as a finishing school for elite white male wasps and expand that and grew it into being a system for everybody. and so there is all these weird legacy sort of situations in terms of who has control over what in this system. i believe that many institutions are working hard. i believe that many professional organizations are working hard. i do not believe that there is the necessary kind of concert of movement that there is necessary coordination and necessary information gathering to assure that is actually resulting in outcomes that will work for everybody. but i don't at all mean to imply that other people aren't doing these things. i think it is important for the kind of people that are in my world, so people sort of who are inclined to be skeptical, toward the exterior assessment of any kind to recognize the moment of danger that we are in. does that answer your question?
>> sorry. i'm not supposed to do a follow-up. quite frankly, the value rube ricks are exactly what you're talking about. utilized by many institutions reflecting the local. but they also have validity and reliability. do they have the scale ability in terms of the nation-wide experiment? the reality is that there is a 12-state, multistate collaborative learning assessment that will come out with the validity at scale. we have a lot of less than national reliability and validity data around it but it addresses all of what you're talking about in terms of local could be troll, control by faculty. and other educational professionals. it has standards without the standardization of a single test. it is based upon the work student are already doing. in the curriculum and
co-curriculum assigned by faculty. if they have motivation, they will have it because it results in a grade that allows them it move forward. but we are also validating it on a national scale. it is way beyond what you're suggesting. but it's not quite there yet. but it'll be and will have results from that in august and september. 12 states, 100 institutions participating in it. hundreds of faculty validating it and judging it and scoring in it. >> i think that's fantastic. i think that we need to expand that 100-university scale to a 200-university scale. we also need long-term -- validity is never a destination, right? validity is a vector. we need to validate these things over time. i'm eager and collecting as many different kind of information as i can in part because that's the
only way to not fall victim to any one instrument. i applaud what is going on there. i can't wait to see the results. and i also want to keep the pressure on to continue to bother more and different kind of data so eventually these things can cross-validate each other. one thing i'm interested in is not allowing a single test to become the criterion of success so i appreciate that faculty controlled kind of assessment and i think that hopefully in 10 years, 20 years, we will have the information to validate each other so we can continue to work on it. i think that's very important work. >> we are out of time. thank you in joining our panelists. >> the latest poll from nbc news the wall street journal and marist showing that donald trump and hillary clinton holding on to a significant lead in advance of next tuesday's new york state
primary. joining us from new york is dr. lee miringoff. from the marist institute of public opinion. thank you for being with us. >> my pleasure. how are you. >> a lead of john kasich over ted cruz in the new york state primary. why such a commanding lead? >> i think there are several factors at work here. first of all when you look at republicans in new york, it a different ball game that republicans elsewhere. new york doesn't have the tea party numbers, white evangelical numbers, very conservative numbers of people that cruz has been, you know, propelling his campaign with. kasich is not very well known here. he has only done well in ohio really, his home state. that leaves it donald trump who is from new york. and on the republican side,
looking very, very favorably towards him, that's why he is running up the score here. not second choice favorite of most people but that's been the case a similar pattern elsewhere. he gets the number he gets and right now the kind of numbers he's getting could be that he might win all 95 delegates from new york and that would be a delegate indeed. >> he has an event in watertown new york which is near the canadian border. not a lot of voters there, so what the strategy. >> and cruz also in the bronx at one point. so you know, it is done each by congressional district. if they can keep trump below a majority, then there's a few delegates to be had here and there. but these are long shots. right now the lion's share of the delegates, if not all from new york, are heading trump's way. >> three new yorkers on the ballot of course donald trump
former senator hillary clinton and senator bernie sanders who has from brooklyn, can you recall a new york primary that's gotten this much attention this late in the process? >> not certainly on both sides, you know, both democratic and republican, no. this is really very unusual. you know, new york is a different ball game and this time we are requesting to demonstrate that in terms of whether on the republican side trump can erase some recent set backs and right now looks like hillary clinton may break sanders' winning streak in caucuses he has been able to corner as well as wisconsin. so the front runners are situated in new york. trump and clinton on the democratic side, to do very well. >> let's talk about the democrats, hillary clinton with a 14-point lead over senator bernie sanders. >> yeah. all about age here. in other words when you look at the people who are under 45,
that's going sanders' way. when you look at people over 45, that's going clinton's way. and there are more of them than younger folks. so clinton is running 14-point lead. new york is a closed primary. democrats only can vote. so sanders has been doing well with independents elsewhere. doesn't have that option here in new york. they will not be, if you're not enrolled in a party, you don't get to vote in the primary. also there are more latinos in new york that there have been elsewhere. right now it is going clinton's way. she was senator here. she had a very good approval rating, when she finished, 62%. it is no accident. and she talked about when she was senator how proud she was to
represent new york. new yorkers look back at her term very favorfully. she does very well in new york city. upstate is breaking even between them. but the lion's share of the votes come from new york city and suburbs in the primary and that's why clinton is in front as she is. >> secretary clinton and senator sanders will meet thursday. a cnn debate airing at 9:00 eastern time. then bernie sanders is in italy. at the vatican for a couple of days, off the campaign trail. back in brooklyn sunday. does this impact whatever momentum he might be trying to get to lead up to sunday's new york primary? >> that's why they do campaigns. it is a choice he made to change the deck a little bit. you know, make things go in a different path. right now the path he was going down is one he wants desperately to chip away at number of pledge delegates going clinton's way.
right now in new york, doing just the opposite for sanders. adding to clinton's largin, not make it -- not narrow the gap. so sanders is looking to change the equation and who knows whether that will have an impact favorably for him or not. he has to change the pattern in new york because he is looking at a situation more likely to pick up more delegates than actually close the margin and that's what he so badly needs right now as we get down to the numbers that candidates need to clench the nomination. >> and finally, hypothetical, if it is a trump/clinton race in the fall, will new york be competitive? >> new york, at this point, new york would not be in play. hillary clinton would get and our current numbers 61% to trump's 32%. that's 29-point edge when you match up sanders against trump.
31-point edge. in both instances, new york, very blue state, would remain so in a match-up with clinton or sanders against donald trump. >> dr. lee meringoff from marist college in poughkeepsie, new york, thank you for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio and c-sp c-span.org. ohio governor and republican presidential candidate john kasich spoke at the women's national republican club in new york city today. primary voters go to the polls next week in new york state. from the road to the white
house, this is 30 minutes. ♪ ♪ ♪ [ applause ] thank you and thank you to the women's national republican club. it's great to be here this morning. you know, this is really a wonderful and historic clubhouse. the organization is so steeped in history. the women's national republican club was founded by leaders of the suffrage movement. the white house was a place intended to be a place where women could meet and share knowledge with political issues, so as to be better informed participants of course in the electoral process. as new voters, women can
participate in the choice between candidates and their ideas. it is in that spirit that i speak to all of you today. i'm going to talk about the choice america faces in this election. and it's frankly a choice between two paths. two very different paths. and as we make this choice, don't kid yourself. the entire world is watching. the world is watching because america is civilizations brightest beacon. freedom-loving people depend on our leadership for peace and for stability. civilization's enemies only seek, only seek for us to fail. you know, presidents come, presidents go. while a president does really
matter, it's the democratic principles that have made us that leader for more than two centuries and have been sturdy enough to transcend political and ideological differences, a civil war, two world wars, and century of technological and societal upheaval. through it all we have remained history's greatest force for good because we stayed true to who we are. one nation under god, with liberty and justice for all. this election may well be one of the most consequential of many generations because the next president will face so many complex pressures, both from within and from without. they will force tough decisions from not only our leaders but from every one of us. and we won't always like our options.
the issues we confront from fighting isis, handling russia, china, north korea and the middle east to addressing displaced workers, civil rights, the new plague of drug addiction at home as well as slow economic growth and rising debt. think about it. they're all critical. the importance of making the right choices certainly cannot be understated. it can overload us if we let it. but even in the face of this multitude of complex thorny problems, clarity can emerge. from the fog of anxiety the seemingly endless choices can be reduced and reduced again and then reduced again. and they eventually are whittled down to just two. and here they are, when we turn our backs on the ideals of america that have seen us
through more than two centuries, or are we going to reaffirm that america is in ronald reagan's words, this last best hope for man on earth. ladies and gentlemen, this is our choice. for some, the challenges we face, myriad choices, potential changes that each decision presents, it could and maybe in some sense has given rise to fear or anger. and of course that can be polarizing. the response for some is to retreat into the past to yearn for the way things used to be. to these people, today's america's only seen as a broken place and the people who did the breaking are the other people with more money, or less money. people with different sounding last names. or different religious beliefs or different colored skin or
lifestyles or whatever. you get the idea. we have been told that because of all this change, america has become dark. that we have succumbed and we are no longer strong. we are told we are no longer respected in the world and in fact we're even told that foreign governments are actually controlling our destiny because they have become smarter than us and tougher than us. this picture of america in economic and world decline is of course always followed up with warnings of our impending destruction. for many americans, these fears and outlook is as real as the building we are in today. and the anger they cause is real. it is true, we are fighters in america and it is good and we
fight for what is right and when we do that we win, don't we? we win. don't let anyone tells you otherwise. when we unite as a country, i want to ensure you there is no better way to deal with this. some exploit and feed their own insatiable desires for fame or attention. that could drive america down into a ditch and not make us great again. just as disturbing are the solutions they offer. we have heard for proposals to create a test for immigration. to target neighborhoods for surveillance and deport 11.5 million people to impose
draconian tests or crush trade or destroy american jobs. we have heard proposals to drop out of nato. abandon europe to russia and possibly use weapons in europe and our defense partnerships in asia and tell our middle east allies that they have to go it alone. we have been offered hollowed promises to impose balanced budgets through simple and whimsical cuts, waste, fraud and abuse. there is no office. that has the title of waste, fraud and abuse. we have been promised for a law to be repealed through the will after strong man in the white house and supreme court justices will be empowered with some new extra constitutional ability to investigate former public officials. i've stood on the stage and
watched with amazement as candidates wallowed in the mud. viciously attacked one another. called each other liars. aep dispuraged each other's character. they are not worthy of the office they are seeking. [ applause ] as for me, as i have said repeat l edly, i will not take the low road to the highest office in the land. i will simply not do it. just as all consuming end in decline ends in american destruction, placed on exploiting americans, instead of
lifting them up, inevitableably leads in division, paranoia, isolation, and promises that can never ever be fulfilled. i say to you, that this path to darkness is the antithesis of all that america has meant for 240 years. some have a different response to the pressures they see bearing down on america and themselves. it would never occur to me that america would break or could break from challenges to our economy, or to our security. we harden with resolve through ingenuity and coming together. we can't sit by idly and expect fate or destiny to sweep in and rescue us. you see, we always roll up our sleeves and get to work when the going gets tough. and we have never, never ever
seen the american spirit fail. america's strength is that we are bound by shared ideas, by communities and families and people who are free, creative, and giving. this is what makes america great. not some politician or law. the spirit of our country rest in us. you and you and you. all of us. and notwithstanding all of our challenges, america is still great. take my pleasure. whether it is life secretary ancy, medicine, technology, transportation, and even economic power. america's economy is the largest and pro productive in world. we're bigger than the next two economies, china and japan combined. america still leads the world in
making things. america is among the largest exporters of goods and services in the entire world. america's home to six of the top 10 universities in the world. america is the world's innova r innovator. world's inventor. and we lead in intellectual property. don't let anybody particularly a politician tell you that america is not great. that doesn't mean we aren't capable of drifting. we can drift and we have been. and too many other americans are left behind and betray bid a system that's become too big it fail. too many feel that government and politicians have bestrad them. there are a lot of americans who ask, why is no one speaking for
me. why is it no one is working for us. why is to you hear all these promisees from politicians and nothing ever comes from it? and of course, those who are keshed about this a concerned about this are right. polling, focus groups, or what politically expedient. this is not leadership, ladies and gentlemen. leadership is the willingness to walk a lonely road with the team of people, with their eyes fixed on the horizon, focused on solving problems and healing our country. leading is serving. you know, there is a better, higher path, true leadership means pursuing it. even if it's hard. the sacrifice is part of the job however, because leaders can't lead unless they are servants first. you have to respect the dignity
after job where close to 320 million people depend on you. our campaigns should be full of ideas that provide ideas, innovations and excitement. for whatever office we are running for. because we all have to look our family in the eyes. i want to be able to look at my wife and my daughters in the eyes and know that they're proud of me and the type of campaign that we are running. american leadership is at its finest when it buckles on that irrepressible can-do spirit that says anything is possible and that everyone can participate in america's blessings. you see, i have no doubt that we can restore our economy. we can rebuild our military. we can make america safe from
terrorism and reengage as leader in the world again. we can do this with reasonable and proven solutions, rooted in the american ideals that have seen us through tough days before. the proven collusion, ladies and gentlemen, are right in front of us and we know what needs to be done. there's no better and quicker cure to america's challenges than to grow the economy and stimulate private sector job creation, to have the resources to solve problems, we need economic strength. and the 1990s when we balance the federal budget, paid down the federal debt or a large portion of it, cut taxes and created surpluses, the result was a sustained period of economic growth lower interest rates, job creation, and national prosperity. we weren't talking about income and equality for lack of wage increases because it was happening. becauses were growing.
unemployment was at historic lows. and nearly everyone who wanted a job could find one. in fact, the labor market became a buyer's market for the job seeker. but this was no small feat. think for a moment about what we did. for the first time since americans walked on the moon, the federal government had a balanced budget. for the first time since man had walked on the moon, we finally got it done. and we didn't only balance the budget, we were also able to reform welfare which ended generational dependency. we were formed the pentagon to strengthen defensees. cut capital gains tax and did much more. you know, i tell younger audiences about this and they look at me like i'm crazy. they don't believe it ever happened. but we know that it did and it can happen again. it just takes leadership.
the willingness to change the status quo and willingness to work across the aisle. yes, we have to be willing to work also with the other party. you sigh, i think americans are not only fed up with what washington is not doing but i think they are also tired of the partisan bickering, and that doesn't mean you compromise your principles. you know, ronald reagan worked with tip o'neill, no one ever accused the giper of giving up his principles even though he accomplished things. that's because ronald reagan was a leader. folks, i want to remind you of that period of time. in 1994 the republicans captured house and senate and had majority for the first time in 40 years. people who showed up during period could care less about polling, focus groups,
reelection or anything else. they came committed to building a stronger america and when you think about it, cutting taxes, paying down debt, reforming welfare, reforming pentagon and rebuilding military strength, all that was accomplished in a short period of time but a because we threw politics out the window and we were focused on helping the american people. that's what leaders need to do. one of the things i've learned through this campaign is it is the job of the leader to first slow down. we all need to slow down. and listen to noernls who sometimes are never listened to. and we need to listen carefully. then you set an agenda that meets america's needs and you bring everybody together to make it a reality. there is no place for dividing,
polarizing and pointing fingers or trading on short term political gain. i hold to this philosophy of leadership because i have watched great leaders practice it. they've been successful and frankly i've seen it in my own experience. i worked for ten years it pass that balanced budget. it was hard work. when i became chairman of the budget team, our committee got it done, even with a democrat in the white house. we were proud when we reformed welfare. we all came together to reform the pint gone and realign our military services that resulted in a central command structure that allowed the services to work together.resulted in a cen structure that allowed the services to work together.that command structure that allowed the services to work together.r structure that allowed the services to work together.milit in a central command structure that allowed the services to work together. frafrpgly, it is the same formally we used in ohio. in a few short years, we turned the deficit into a surplus of $2
billion and gave ohioans the largest tax cut of any state in the country. [ applause ] we even repealed the death tax. ohio created 417,000 private sector jobs up from the loss of 350,000 and it's working. and we continue to work to make sure that no one is left behind. this can work for america again as well. and ladies and gentlemen, today across our country, when a politician's lips are moving, people think that they're being lied to. you see, a lot of people have wondered, why does he keep talking about what he has done? why? you see, folks, i'm a citizen
too. and when somebody comes to my door, and they want to know if i will vote for them, and they tell me what their promises are, i look them in the eye. and i say, you know, i know what you say you're going to do, but i like to know what you've done. because i've had enough people tell me what they're going to do who never got it done. so what have you done in your lifetime? see we don't have time for on-the-job training. we don't have time for empty promises. we've got to have somebody with the experience, knowledge, know-how and record of success to deal with our problems in a turbulent time. now based on the fact that my experience in washington and ohio have been successful using a formula to get everybody to work together to rise and provide opportunity for everybody, i proposed 100-day agenda for when i am president and i can tell you, be rest assured, we will enact this. we will restore our economy with
the fiscal plan that will balance the budget. we will freeze all federal regulations for one year except health and safety and rebuild the rule-making system to stop crushing small businesses which kills jobs in our country. [ applause ] we will simplify and we will reduce the taxes on individuals so all-americans can keep more of what they learn. and will help our small businesses. will reduce taxes on businesses and end double taxation to the businesses will invest in america and not have their money trapped and invested in europe. we will send welfare, education, medicaid, infrastructure and job training back to where we live in the states so the states can be the laboratories of innovation and laboratories of modeling what works. we'll protect the border and use common sense on immigration reform that will include a guest
worker program. and we will fix social security so that we can keep the promises to our seniors and future generations. for when we do these things, we will unleash economic growth which means more jobs. higher wages. and the restoration of the american dream that our children wi will inherit a better america than what we received from our parents. with increased stability and strength, america can rebuild its military while at the same time reforming the pentagon to operate like a 21st century enterprise. we have no room for waste in that building. because it takes money from the front line to our men and women who protect us everyday. we will clean it up. [ applause ] we will resume leadership of the world. as we did that, we will treat our veterans with respect and
lift them to make sure they have what they need whether it is health care needs or housing. when america's strong, less dependent on debt and growing economically, we can, we must, reclaim our place as the leader in the world. and finally, when america is strong and actively engage in the world, the world is a safer place. america then is a safer place. you know, this is why we do these things. this is about how we want our country to be. you see, economic growth, i have never believed is an end unto itself. it is a means to make possible everything we want for our nation and our community. and our families. and by the way, as we have growth, we have the ability to bring in from the cold those who live in the shadows.
those who have been forgotten. the poor. the mentally ill. the disabled. as americans, or what i believe, too, so sincerely, is that everyone deserved a chance. everyone deserves a chance to realize their god-given purpose. we give them the chance when we give them a hand. and everyone should have that opportunity to pursue their god-given destiny. you know, yes with be there's much to fix in our country. there are reasons for our anxieties and fears. our country has been drifting. why? because we have forgotten the formula that makes us strong. and we've caved to political considerations instead. not leading. not being servants. worried too much about ourselves. and what feels good and what's easy. that's not the path to success
in our country. we seem to have lost our way as a result and we are stalled and we are at the risk of jeopardizing a better future for our kids. you know, i do understand why americans are fearful and distrustful and looking for a reason for the way they feel. you know, i was raised in that small pennsylvania steel town of mckie's rocks. where if you wind blew the wrong way, people would be out of work. it's awful to feel that insecurity. to feel that circumstances are out of your control. to feel like nobody cares and all the institutions in our land have abandoned you. but we americans have overcome so many challenges and some many bigger than what we faced today. some think that anger, some americans are expressing is
define bid some nostalgic look backward for simpler times. i simply do not agree. what americans are looking for is that quality of leadership we are sorely missing from the past to address today's problems. at each moment of crisis in america we have united as a country and as a people. it's been our secret weapon all throughout our history. and it's so simple that it is also invincible. i spoke earlier about the spirit of our country. let me say, with all the strength i have, our strength and spirit does not reside with the president or with a politician. our strength resides inside of us. the knowledge that we can change the world. the knowledge that we have been
made special. you see, the spirit in our country rest in the neighborhoods. the spirit of our country rests in our people. we are the ones, we, you and me, are the ones to change the world. the powers are within each and every one of us and a united america is undefeatable. and we are an exceptional country and that's because we are the exception in history. we are not an ethnic group or religion or language. we are that last great hope for earth that ronald reagan often spoke of. because we have shown that when people from many different backgrounds and ideas and beliefs come together with a common noble purpose to be free and just, we're unbeatable. to paths, one choice, the path that exploits anger, encourages resentment, turns fear into hatred and divides people.
this path solves nothing. it demeans our history. it weakens our country and cheapens each one of us. it has but one beneficiary. and that is to the politician who speaks of it. the other path is one america has been down before. well trod. yeah at times very steep. but also solid. it's the same path our forbearers took together and this higher path we are offered the much greater view. and imagine for a moment with me that view. fear turns to hope. because we remember to take strength from one another. uncertainty turn it peace because we reclaim our faith in the american ideals that have carried us upward before. and america supposed decline becomes its finest hour. because we come together to say
no to those who would pray on our human weakness and instead choose leadership that serves, helping us look up, not down. this is the path i believe in. this is the path that america believes in. and this is the america i know all-americans want us to be. please join me on this higher path. together. united, we can claim the america we love and hold so dear and lift all of us up to partake in its and the lord's many blessings. thank you. [ applause ] ♪ ♪ ♪
these so antigovernment and owe your entire fortune to the government's -- >> author and investigatest journalist sally denton talks about her book "the profit eers." which looks at one of the largest construction and engineering companies of the world. >> who else is the united states government going to got to build these projects throughout the world and i think that, you know, it is fine for it to be bectal, but if the american taxpayers are paying for it, it seems the american taxpayers should have some access to information about their -- the contracts, amount of money, workers' safety, the political relationships. >> sunday night at 88:00 eastern on c-span's q & a.:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. >> c-span's washington journal
live everyday with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning south carolina republican congressman tom rice on the passage of a republican budge went tax reform proposal, cybersecurity, taxpayer information and the 2016 presidential campaign. pennsylvania democrat congressman boyle will join us to talk about his thoughts on the upcoming 2016 presidential candidates. and mark warren, executive editor or esquire magazine will talk about his views. join the discussion. >> president obama designated a national monument today in honor
of women's rights and suffrage movement. it is adjacent to the u.s. capitol. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you, very much, everybody. thank you. very much, everybody. thank you. thank you. everybody, please have a seat. have is a seat. hello, everybody. thank you for the introduction. it should be noted that today is equal pay day. which means a woman has to work about this far in 2016 just to earn what a man earned in 2015. what a better place it commemorate this day than here at this house where some of our country's most important history
took place and where this history needs to inform the work that remains to be done. i members of congress like senator mu cull ski who's fought to -- longest serving woman in the united states senate. we are so proud of her. our secretary of the interior, sally jewel and her team as we celebrate the 100th birthday of the national park service this year. one of our greatest athletes of all time, one of the earliest advocates of equal pay for professional female professionals and a heroine of mine when i was still young and fancied myself a tennis player, billy -- billie jean king is in
the house. and the national woman's party board of directors paige harrington, the executive dir t director of the house and the museum. [ applause ] over the years, pairge and her staff have built a community and repairing for this house, repairing every leak and roof. i know it was not easy. you know, equal pay for equal work should be a fundamental principle of our economy. it's the idea that whether you're a high school teacher, a business executive or a professional soccer player or tennis player, your work should be equally valued and rewarded. whether you are a man or a woman.
it's a simple idea. it's a simple principle. it's one that our leader of the democratic caucus in the house nancy pelosi has been fighting for for years. but it's one where we still fall short. today, the typical woman who works full-time earns 79 cents for every dollar that a typical man makes and the gap is even wider for women of color. typical black woman makes only 60 cents. a latino woman, 55 crepts. er if every dollar that a white man earns. if we truly value fairness, america should be a level playing field where everyone who works hard gets a chance to succeed and that's good for america. because we don't want some of our best players on the sidelines. and that's why the first bill that i signed as president was the lily ledbetter fair pay act. earlier this year, on the anniversary of that day, the
equal employment commission and the labor department acted to collect data. and this action will strengthen the enforcement of equal pay law that is are already on the books and help employers address pay gaps on their own. and to build on these efforts, congress needs to pass the paycheck fairness act to put sensible rules in place and make sure -- [ applause ] and make sure that employees who discuss their salaries don't face retaliation by their employers. but i'm not here just to say we should close the wage gap. i'm her to say we will close the wage gap and if you don't believe me -- [ applause ] -- then -- if you don't believe that we're going to close that wage gap you need to come visit this house. because this house has a story to tell. [ applause ]
this is the story of the national woman's party whose members fought to have their voices heard. these women first organized in 1912 with little money but big hopes for equality for women all around the world. and they wanted an equal say over their children, over their property, their earnings, their inheritance, equal rights to their citizenship and a say in their government, equal opportunities in schools and universities, workplaces, public service and, yes, equal pay for equal work. and they understood that the power of their voice in our democracy was the first step in achieving these broader goals. their leader alice paul was a brilliant community organizer and political strategist. and she recruited women and men from across the country to join their cause. and they began picketing, seven days a week, in front of the white house to demand their right to vote.
they were mocked. they were derided. they were arrested. they were beaten. they were force feedings in hunger strikes. and through all this, women young and old kept marching for suffrage. september protesting for suffrage. and in 1920, they won that right. we ratified the 19th amendment but the sufficient ra gists didn't stop there. they continued their work from this house. from these rooms steps away from the capitol they drafted speeches and letters and legislation. they pushed congress and fought for the passage of the equal rights amendment. they advocated for the inclusion of women in the u.n. charter in the 1964 civil rights act. they campaigned for women who were running for congress. this house became a hotbed of activism, a centerpiece for the struggle for equality. a monument to a fight not just
for women's equality but ultimately for equality for everybody because one of the thingless we have learned is that the effort to make sure that everybody's treated fairly is connected. and so, today, i am very proud to designate it as america's newest monument. belmont-paul women's equality national monument right here in washington, d.c. [ applause ] to do this, we do this to accept tell the story of the sufficient ra jets. they pursued ideals that shouldn't be relegated to the archives of history. shouldn't be behind glass cases because the story they're fighting is our story. i want young girls and boys to come here, 10, 20, 100 years
from now to know that women fought for equality. it was not just given to them. and i want them to come here and be astonished that there was ever a time when women could not vote and ever a time when women earned less than men for doing the same work. i want them to be astonished that there was ever a time when women were vastly outnumbered in the board room or in congress. that there was ever a time when a woman had never sat in the oval office. [ applause ] now, i don't know -- [ applause ] i don't know how long it'll take to get there, but i know we're getting closer to that day because of the work of generations of active, committed citizens. one of the interesting things as i was just looking through some of the rooms, there was susan b.
anthony's desk. you had elizabeth katie stanton's chair. and you realize that those early suffragist proceeded alice paul by a generation. they had passed away by the time th that, you know, the vote was finally granted to women and it makes you realize, i say this to young people all the time, that this is not a sprint. this is a marathon. it's not the actions of one person, one individual, but it is a collective effort where each generation has its own duty, its own responsibility, its own role to fulfill in advancing the cause of our democracy. that's why we're getting closer because i know there's a whole new generation of women and men
who believe so deeply that we have got to close these gaps. i have faith because what this house shows us is that the story of america's a story of progress. and it will continue to be a story of progress as long as people are willing to keep pushing and keep organizing, and yes, keep voting for people committed to this cause. and to full equality for every american. and so i'm hoping that a young generation will come here and draw inspiration from the efforts of people who came before them. after women won the right to vote alice paul who lived most of her life in this very house said it is incredible to me that any woman should consider the right for full equality won. it has just begun. and that's the thing about america. we are never finished. we are a constant work in progress. and our future belongs to every free woman and man who takes up
the hard work of citizenship to win full equality an shape our own destiny. that is the story that this house tells. this is now a national monument that young people will be inspired by for years to come. it would not happened without the efforts of the people in this room and the active support of this house and the outstanding example that they're setting. that you are setting. i'm very proud of you. congratulations. thank you very much, everybody. [ applause ] ♪ ♪