Skip to main content

tv   Former Education Secretary Arne Duncan Discusses Education Policy in the...  CSPAN  January 13, 2017 9:45am-11:10am EST

9:45 am
officials. >> the anticipation of life in the democratic process is bringing about a new sense of hope and not just a new sense of hope and optimism, but also brings about a sense of economic. >> american history tv. al weekend, every weekend on c-span 3. for complete schedule, go to >> education secretary on what to expect from the trump administration in federal education policy and the goals for a new education secretary. donald trump has nominated betsy devos for that post. >> good afternoon and happy new year. i'm michael hanson, senior
9:46 am
fellow and director of the brown center on education policy here at the brookings institution. we will discuss the federal education policy under the trump administration. this event that we're holding today marks the culmination of the brown center series on memos to the president on the future of k-12 education policy. this project brought together people in a variety of topics in pre-k through 12 to write memos aimed at informing the incoming president how to proceed based on the best evidence we have in this phase and this began months ago prior to the election and those involved contributed great ideas and efforts to help be critical advisors during this transition point. i want to take a moment at the outset to acknowledge the efforts of the project's co-chairs, doug harris, sonny
9:47 am
ladd and marty west with my co-editor john valant and those who made the series happen. there are too many to name here but i encourage you to look at the brown center chalke board for t patriot great writing that has been put there. we will be archiving this event. so anyone who wishes to view this will have the opportunity to do this through the web site and as for an introduction to the event, just to set the stage, donald trump's victory has been widely viewed as a signal of change for the federal government's role in american society generally and education in particular. after all, trump has previously called for the elimination of the u.s. department of education and falling on the heels of the recent enactment of the every
9:48 am
student succeeds act in december of 2015 which once again rewrote the rules for the federal government's role in the nation's school and it's fluid, quite uncertain. and administration poses an opportunity to fundamentally change education in america though we still don't, aren't entirely sure how those details play out. so we're convening this event to have an in-depth discussion about what the trump administration may have in store for the education front, what this means for the federal role in the classroom and lots of speculation swirling around but few answers and we know that. next, we'll hear from dr. harris, a professor of economics
9:49 am
and founding director of the education research alliance for new orleans at tulane university and was one of the co-chairs for this memos to the president's series. following doug's remarks, we move to a panel discussion moderated by marty west of harvard university and introduce all panel participants at that point. doug? >> good afternoon. so to understand where we started with this project, we have to rewind back to the spring which now seems like a century ago with the world that's changed so much here. even back then, it was clear that this was fwoing to be a good time to reconsider the federal role on education. we knew we were going to have a new president and if you look
9:50 am
back in the last 15 years of education policy, you could also see a lot of it had been changing. i would say the most changed in the last 15 years since we've had in the 1960s. we had no child left behind under administration, and that followed with the obama administration ratcheting the federal role on education even further, with the race to the top, with the waivers, and then we saw this pendulum swing back a little bit with esa in the last year. so there was a lot of change going on at the k 12 level and the higher ed level the obama administration had had ratcheted all the federal role there as well. and that is -- that's something new. so in both of those reasons it was a good time to take another look. we also, as we were thinking about doing a project like this, we're looking at the fact we couldn't actually find other examples where we had somewhat bipartisan group coming together to try to figure out what we might all agree on. so that's what we aimed for with
9:51 am
this project, we wanted to do two things. one was to identify the things we do agree on, and to establish some basic principles around that, the other was to have some provocative ideas on things we might disagree on and try to do both of those things at the same time. we have both the memos on specific topics where, you know, authors were able to write on their own, you can find at the website and we have this overview piece what i focus on, that focuses on general principles for the federal role. so i said we had a bipartisan group, and so just to be specific about that, we have marty west, who is advised senator alexander, as well as mitt romney and his presidential run, mike smith who had worked in every presidential administration since carter, mike had been here, i would have sent truman, but he's been around for -- he's been around for a long time. i would advise the obama administration on policy, and we
9:52 am
all had fairly different views on some specific policies. going in, i don't think we knew how differently we would view the principles. what are the principles? what did we come up with? what did all four of us agree on? so first i'm just going to read these, we spent a lot of time wordsmithing them over the last few months. we were on the phone every week for five months, and so here's what we came up with. four principles. one, the federal government should ensure that no student is denied the right to equal educational opportunity based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability or protected status. that principle is rooted in 14th amendment, in the equal protection clause and in the supreme court's interpretation, brown v. board of education. principle two, the federal government should provide compensatory funding to facilitate access to educational opportunity for high need students including but not limited to students living in poverty, students with disabilities. so this went beyond the first
9:53 am
principle and that it wasn't just about avoiding the denial of rights, but it was about making it more affirmative case for the need to provide education to all students. these first two principles i would describe as the equity principles. they both have that orientation. third, the federal government should support education research and development and the gathering and dissemination of information about the scope and quality of the nation's education system to inform policy and practice at the state and local levels. so this principle rises just from basic economics. research and development, information is a public good. once when we do research studies, provide information, everybody can use it. it is out in the air. and it makes sense for the federal government to do it. if we left it to the states, to districts, they wouldn't do as much as we ought to do because the benefits that they would receive are narrow and benefits that all of us receive from those studies are broad. fourth, the federal government should in a manner consistent with the both the unique
9:54 am
advantages and limited capacity support the development of conditions to promote continuous improvement of state and local systems. conditions, it is about setting the conditions and it is less about telling state and local governments how to do things, but about setting conditions, providing capacity, and facilitating improvement, but not actually directing that improvement. now, the way i've just phrased that probably a lot of you are thinking, okay, well, that seems like a more moderate view than what has been taken by secretary duncan and under the obama administration. i think even among our group we would partially agree with that statement, but also partially disagree. so it is not meant as a rebuke or anything. and in that respect. in fact, a lot of the things that these principles and body are things i think the administration did follow. one example in particular is that the group believes that
9:55 am
competitive grants and more optional programs are viable and productive role for the federal government, for the federal government to facilitate experimentation in the states, to have -- to have options, provide money for them to try things without necessarily requiring them. so that is within the scope of what we're saying, not forcing the states to do anything. race to the top and the waivers fall into that category, they were formally optional. a few other observations. one is that we, as a group, we're concerned about regulations and mandates and that we have to be concerned about unintended consequences of those rules, and especially preventing and constraining the experimentation that state and local districts might try while those regulations might not intentionally have that effect, they often do unintentionally. so what does it all mean?
9:56 am
i think whenever events change, right, the meaning of all these things change. when we started working on this project, it was not meant to respond to any of the candidates' policies. you're not going to see if you read these documents that we're saying, well, trump said this and here is our response, none of that. we're trying to give a bigger picture, broader view of all of this. but i do think events have changed. we now know that -- know the election results and i think the meaning of what we have done is changed in two ways that are worth mentioning. one is that i think we learned in the election that we are a deeply divided country. and i think probably even more so than what we realized beforehand. and i think having a project like this where we're trying to find areas of agreement is something that is very productive, whether you agree with what we came up with or not, the idea that we try to get together and come to agreement is especially important, i think, where we are right now. the second reason is, i think, with the election results we're
9:57 am
asking more fundamental questions than we probably would have otherwise. so instead of asking how is the budget allocation for this program going to change or some other program, we're asking does the federal government have any role at all in some of these activities? should we have a department of education? these are much bigger questions. the project is designed to answer those big picture questions in ways i don't think we realized would be relevant when we started this. so asking these big questions is healthy if you have principles on which to answer them. does president-elect trump believe in protecting civil rights within the realm of education or elsewhere? does he believe the federal government should work to ensure that all students have equal educational opportunity? does he believe the federal government should carry out widely accepted responsibilities for research and development and information and providing the conditions for improvement? i don't know. i think there are a lot of unanswered questions about those principles. the one that i think we do know
9:58 am
is that he believes in freedom of choice for families to choose schools and that there will be policies to pursue that. but one thing he's going to recognize quickly is that principle is going to conflict with some of the others that we have mentioned and somehow some judgment is going to have to be made about what those trade offs are. so we offer these memos to the president and to the administration, more broadly to congress and the public, to s k spark a debate about new ideas, find areas of agreement on principles, something we need now, and to help turn around -- to turn sound principles into effective policy. so with that, i'm going to turn it over to marty west and the panel. marty is going to be the moderator and he's going to introduce the panelists and i'm going to introduce marty. so martin west is associate professor of education at the harvard graduate school of education, deputy director of
9:59 am
harvard's program on education policy and governance, and executive director -- excuse me, executive editor of education next journal of opinion and research in education policy. his research examines the politics of k 12 policy in the united states. marty and the group. >> thanks. >> thanks. >> so thanks to doug and thank you to all of you for being here today. we're thrilled to see so much interest in this topic as we start the new year. there is so much interest, in fact, that we have a number of people standing in the back. i've been asked to let you know that we're opening an overflow
10:00 am
room next door where you'll have full audio and video. so if you would prefer to find a seat, that option is available to you. also, want to say thank you to this panel for joining us today and for being -- willing to dig into some of the ideas with us. and share their own reflections as we head into a new presidential administration. i can't imagine a better group to do it. i'm going to introduce them now briefly, you have more extended bios for each of them in the packets that you picked up on your way into the room. so immediately to my left is lindsay fryer, who is vice president at the penn hill group of professional advisory and consulting firm here in d.c. that specializes in education policy. prior to joining penn hill, she served as the senior education policy adviser to senator lamar alexander, the chairman of the senate health education labor and pensions committee. and she served as his principle negotiator in the process leading up to the every student
10:01 am
succeeds act. prior to that, she worked for chairman john kline of minnesota for the house education and workforce committee. so she has a ton of experience in federal policy, especially from the perspective of congress. immediately to lindsay's left is arne duncan who needs no introduction, but you may not know he's currently a managing partner with the emerson collective as well as being a nonresident senior fellow here at the brown center on education policy at brookings. prior to that, obviously, he was the secretary of education under president obama for seven years and before that he was the ceo of the chicago public schools, the nation's third largest, i believe, school district. and then finally at the end of the row is gerard robinson, currently a resident fellow at the american enterprise institute, both prior to and for a month following the election, gerard was a member of the
10:02 am
presidential transition team for president-elect trump and currently still serving as an informal adviser to that effort. before that, he was commissioner of education in the state of florida as well as the secretary of education for the commonwealth of virginia, not at the same time, i don't think. so let me start things off by asking each of you to reflect in different ways drawing on your experience on what we might see over the next four years what we might want to see over the next four years and i'll start with you, lindsay. you know, as i just mentioned, you recently played a key role in the negotiation of the every student succeeds act and your former boss and my former boss, senator lamar alexander, said he hopes and expects that law to govern the federal role in k 12 education r the next 10 or 20 years. how do you see esa implementation proceeding under
10:03 am
the trump administration and what else do you expect to see from the trump administration? >> thank you for the question, marty. thank you, all, for allowing me to be here today to discuss this important topic. i think there is a lot to talk about and reflect about. hopefully we can provide some insight as to what to expect for the next four years at least. a couple of framing remarks to begin. i think an important thing i thought about a lot is that there will always be a federal role in education. and whether or not it is the department of education as they are now, or just as a pass through for federal money to go to states and colleges, i think there will always be a federal role. as we have seen in the past, couple decades this will change through different presidencies and in reaction to different policies and events happening in the world as well as how high on the agenda education really is as a priority. particularly in looking at the economy and what skills are within -- needs to be successful. it isn't always the republicans that reduce the federal role in education. we saw an increase in the federal role under george w. bush, and right now we see, for example, a lot of democratic
10:04 am
members and democratic ideals pushing against a federal role in the school choice. i think that's an important framing remark for folks to think about. another thing, looking at where we are right now, certainly we have moved towards a reduce ed federal role in the k-12 education landscape and with esa we have seen the pendulum swing back to give more states authority and focus on developing their own state accountability systems and school improvement systems. and a more limited ability for the department of education to interfere with those types of systems. but that really means that it is up to states and locals at this point to step up and take on the robust role of making sure that all students including subgroups of students really get an adequate education and that as long as they continue to do this and take on this responsibility, their flexibility will stay. but if they don't, then we'll see the pendulum swing back again in the next reauthorization and more increased federal role there. so a couple of things to think about with the trump administration and what to expect. the first thing that i thought a lot about is that one of the
10:05 am
first things that a secretary secretary devos can do is signal to states they had should move forward with implementing the esa plans so we can get no child left behind and flexibility waivers off the books and really give them the message that there is stability here, we won't continue to change everything, move forward with developing your plans. and this, i say this even in light of the fact that there is some discussion around whether or not accountability and state plan regulations will stay, what will happen to other specific k-12 regulations but i think an important message from the trump administration out the gate could be move forward with developing your state education plans. and within that same vain, even with the state plan approval process, i think the message could also be there will be a lot of deference to state and local decision-making. which means a lot of room for state and local innovation in terms of how they want to spend funds. so this could be things like -- we could see title one being spent on things we haven't necessarily seen at this point, like dual concurrent enrollment or virtual learning or early
10:06 am
college high schools or even transferring funds between different titles within esa. i think that really the states will lead the way in how they want to spend their funds and the department of education is going to give them the leeway to do this. so i think that's an important thing that they could signal up front. moving away from this compliance driven environment really to promoting innovation. and i also think within this space you'll see president-elect trump using his platform to talk about things that are working and using the bully pulpit to promote different ideas that states and districts are taking on, particularly ones that lead to tangible skills and promote national prosperity as he sees education as leading to that. so i think that's one thing to think about. the second thing is one that is fairly obvious, is school choice. that will be a huge platform for secretary designate devos and the trump administration. and, of course, they want to do something large, but that will are to pass congress. so we heard discussions about tax credit proposals or a new
10:07 am
competitive grant program promoting school choice or using potentially using existing money to follow kids to the school they attend. those things will all have to pass congress. i think what is less talked about is the opportunities for school choice in the existing esa space and the existing space of the department of education has to work with. so just a couple of examples, increasing funding for the charter schools program as secretary devos could out the gate advocate very directly for that. encouraging states to take advantage of provisions in the law like direct student services which allow districts to provide individual services to kids like tutoring or access, promoting different provisions in the law that talk about public school choice still being a school improvement option if states -- if school districts want to move children from one school to another. and ploromoting this idea that could exist in many different funding streams within the law, the student support an academic
10:08 am
enrichment program. and they could utilize competitive grant programs like the education, innovation and research program to promote school choice priorities as well, which we have seen under the obama administration. so i think there is a lot of other little opportunities that people aren't talking about, which could promote choice wins that a new administration should consider and think about. and then lastly, this idea of transparency is one that has been on the republican platform for a while and i think will continue to be a major focus of the trump administration, and i think this will be a two-prong approach. first, continuing the priority of providing states providing information on their websites and the federal government publishing results and pisa results and providing transparency around what states are using their funding on, and empowering local communities to make decisions about what they want, how they want to use this information to advocate for change in their local communities. but then also, promoting transparency doesn't necessarily mean new burdens in data collection, but using the bully pulpit again to say, these are
10:09 am
the things that are happening, this is how money is being used, these are the things that are working and these are the things that are not working. so local communities take advantage of the information that you have to advocate for what exactly you want your school districts to look like. and i think this power of objective information statistics really puts the pressure on communities to figure out how to change. and i'll close with just two brief questions that i still have. what will the federal role on education research be. so transparency is important. data is important. but if you don't have research to interpret what that data means, and analyses to -- that's meaningful to parents to say this is what this could mean for our community, it is not going to be helpful. so i think that it is really important that this administration think about what research and in tandem with that data privacy should be and what the federal role should be there. we haven't heard much about that yet. lastly, this idea of monitoring in states. so currently states had a lot of interaction with the department, back and forth, about what they can and can't do with their federal money. i think this relationship is
10:10 am
going to change. but states still are looking for direction from the department of ed about what things they should be thinking about. i think ideally you want to see what does monitoring -- i'm thinking about what does monitoring look like under a new administration. >> thank you. one thing i take away is that everyone has been focused on this idea of $20 billion to support school choice for low income students, but really there is a lot more in play and a lot more because of the federal government's current role that deserves attention and hopefully we can unpack some of that. secretary duncan, arne, if i may, obviously you've been at the center of this major shift in federal education policy over the past ten years. as you reflect on your experiences as secretary, what did you learn about the potential and limits of the federal government's role in american education, and what advice would you offer based on those lessons for secretary devos if, in fact, she is
10:11 am
successfully confirmed? >> let me say one thing, first, to try to answer that very specifically, but no question the election, you know, deeply divided country is how you said it, there is absolutely truth to that, the thing for me is this election was really a cry for help. and that was the commonality on the far left, with bernie, on the far right or on the right with hillary somewhere in the middle and didn't quite resonate and that's why she didn't win. i think that cry for help is there are many people who feel that their own lives and their children's lives are in jeopardy, that they can't compete in this new global economy. and i think that perception, sometimes perceptions may be inaccurate. i think that's an accurate perception. this is a very, very scary time for folks. and all of us in this room are blessed to be here and lucky to be here and one thing i know about all of us is we are all lucky enough to get a good education. and there are a whole set of
10:12 am
folks who will never be in rooms like this and people i work with every day back home in chicago who are locked out. they're excluded from rooms like this. and inner city chicago, or the rust belt or mcdowell county, west virginia, there are lots of people who aren't getting what they need. i'm convinced the only way to give them a chance is through high quality education, that that's the way to get there. and so what i would love us to think about are not -- we always talk about what i call small ball stuff, frankly. and think about big goals for the country. so i would love for us as a nation to lead the world and access to high quality, early childhood education. we're proud to have gotten high school graduation rates up to 84%. that's progress. the goal should now be to get to 90% as a nation and go beyond that. i think a goal for the nation should be to have 100% of a high school graduates actually college and career ready. able to go into the world of work, or able to go to college and not take remedial classes and neither one of those is
10:13 am
true. i think our goal for the country should be to lead the world in a college completion race, flat world, jobs go to the most educated workforces and i don't think -- i don't think there is anything left or right or republican or democrat or liberal conservative about those goals. now, i think we could have lots of vigorous debate about strategies to achieve those goals and we should try lots of different things to do that, but i think we always start on small stuff, we never get to the bigger picture. and so i would like to start on the bigger picture and see what helps us get there. having said that, what do i think is the appropriate federal role and obviously we grapple with that every single day and some days more right than other days. actually agree with a lot of what was said, for me, you had four principles, i sort of have three buckets. for me, first bucket is equity, which i put early childhood education in that, i put the office of civil rights in there, protecting people from bad things which unfortunately we had to do a lot of that. no secret, bullying and
10:14 am
harassment is up now with -- trump unleashed some very -- not blaming him, but he's unleashed a lot of bad things going on in schools that i don't think we can afford to turn a blind eye to. so equity is one piece of what the federal government should do. second, for me, excellence, high standards, and we're so happy to get in the esa law for first time ever in our nation's history that states have to have high standards. and in reaction to no child left behind, many states reduced standards, which was not the intent of that passed bill, but pretty horrific thing that happened to kids in about 20 states around the country. and then research bucket, i call it innovation. one of the things i'm most proud of was the investment and innovation fund, local ideas that have evidence that it is making things better for students. that was in rural communities, native american reservations, that was in inner cities.
10:15 am
unfortunately those funds were challenged by both the left and the right, and we can talk about why. but what kills me in education is for every tough challenge we face, it is being solved somewhere in america. i had the privilege of probably visiting more schools around the can country, maybe than anyone else in the country, a unique opportunity. what we don't do in education we don't scale what works. and putting money behind research, putting money behind best practices and principles pretty simple, you had more evidence, more money, $50 million, medium evidence, gave you 15, $20 million, $5 million for less, but if we could scale things that are working, again, not politically, not whatever, but if you're getting higher graduation rates, reducing dropout rates, high school graduates able to go on to college and be successful, we should be investing in that. for me, the appropriate federal role, equity, excellence, and innovation. >> thanks. there is a lot that i think we could unpack in that, before we dig into specifics, i want to get gerard into the
10:16 am
conversation. so in addition to having contributed to the incoming administration's transition efforts, you bring this perspective as a chief state school officer. so having served in that role in virginia and florida, can you tell us a little bit about how federal education policy supported or hindered your efforts? and based on that, what advice are you giving the trump administration about the appropriate federal role, vis-a-vis states. >> first of all, let me say happy new year to everyone. let me thank mike for extending an invitation to be part of this important discussion. let me thank doug and marty and the rest of the scholars for coming together. from the right and the left, figure out how we create a middle passage for families and children trying to make sure there is children that have a better opportunity than they did. we talk about the federal role on education, this conversation would have been very different if hillary would have won. but when trump wins, all of a sudden we begin to ask very fundamental questions, those are good things.
10:17 am
let me give you a fundamental approach. march 2nd of this year, the department of education will be 150 years old. even though it was a cabinet level position in 1980. in 1867, they created the department, shortly after the civil war, when the states and weak construction governments, many in the south, formerly enslaved africans who helped create the first universal public school concept that we know of in the nation, they're trying to figure out what is the federal role of education? and they said, let's create a department of education. so they did so with congress march 2nd, 1867. guess what happened a year later? they abolished the department of education. and why? because they said they didn't want the federal government to tell states what to do with teachers and with the curriculum. that should be a state and a local issue. now, that was 1868. it might as well be 2017. we have the same discussion. but let me put into context what this means.
10:18 am
in 1867, 37 states already had a constitution and all of those states, in fact, had an education clause. 20 of those, in fact, had what i call an encouragement clause borrowed in part from the 1787 northwest ordinance. so the idea of states being involved in education is older than the constitution and older than the bill of rights. more importantly, there is always been a federal role in education. the question is, what will it be under a trump administration? well if we take the republican approach, it will be a light footprint approach. not very massive, not a big push. you saw that under bush one and two, you saw that under reagan. under clinton and obama, bigger. i would make a value judgment of good or bad, but a small footprint versus a big foot prescript. the small footprint works well for state chiefs because there are opportunities for us to do things. one thing i had a chance to do in florida was to oversee our
10:19 am
application for waiver for no child left behind. one thing that arne did to support our effort in florida, because we have a large number of students who come to the united states, was when do you create the clock to tick for when those test scores will be counted for the kids and for the school. back and forth with doe? absolutely. but we actually got the waiver we needed. that was a way of the department of education looking at a state, with a population that is radically different than most states. most of our students are free and reduced priced lunge. most are hispanic and african-american, which is now the majority. in fact, white kids are the minority now. we talk about public education. and the fact they said, yes, you can do this, that was a smart move for the federal government to work with the state, given where we are. where arne and i disagree is on changing our formula for high school graduation. we had 80% graduation when i had to use the department of education's part and drop it to 70%. so suddenly i had to explain to
10:20 am
our parents what happened. those are nuances, but things that the federal government can do. from a trump perspective, he was pretty clear in his gettysburg address. he had ten items he wanted -- i was glad to see education was number four. he said he wanted to make sure that school choice worked. but when you guys hear school choice, you think vouchers, charters only. when in fact we had school choice longer than charter schools and vouchers. we have magnate schools. we have traditional interdistrict choice. so i've seen public schools also getting taken care of within the traditional public school piece. for me, i think we focus too much on the or school choice or public schools. it should be the conjunction and. school choice and traditional schools. because no point in american history going back to the founding and going back to those who are on the margins of society, women and -- never saw a one size fits all monopoly approach to education.
10:21 am
>> thanks, gerard. so i want to actually pick up the theme of waivers that you use as your example of when the federal government was helpful to you by offering a waiver. offering waivers from federal laws to deal with unique state circumstances is something republicans have generally been in favor of. i think it was interesting to see that actually become one of the more contentious elements of the obama administration's education policy, especially during the second term. i think what became contentious was the idea that, yes, waivers were offered for some of the more problematic requirements of no child left behind, but with strings attached to them. in particular, with requirements that states ensure that their standards were high, that they intervene in low performing schools, in specific ways, and overhaul their teacher evaluation systems. i'd like to use that, arne, to get you to sort of look back at
10:22 am
that decision, help us understand what happened there, why you chose that route and what you learned from it, in particular what you learned from the, i think, backlash that the teacher evaluation policy in particular seems to have generated and how that contributed to maybe some of the broader pullback with respect to federal education policy. >> happy to. and where i always start, try to start, and again, don't get it right or anywhere near perfect, you know, most days, is what is right for kids. and a lot of the drama is around what is right or wrong for adults and for me that's a very second or third tier issue to be very blunt about it. and i just think there are far too many children today across america who are poorly served by education. and we fail to education, we condemn them to poverty and social failure. i talked about our pride, and genuine pride that we have high school graduation rates up to all time highs as a nation, lots
10:23 am
of hard work by tons of people around the nation, 84%. the truth is that means there are about 7,050 young people off black and latino leaving our schools for the streets each year. and they have no chance to have a successful life. no chance to enter the middle class. and so much of the pushback on many issues we got was that we were going too fast. myself critique is that all of ru us are going way too slow. until we make sure that every child in this country has access to great education, we have to work with real urgency, we have to make ourselves uncomfortable. we have to move outside our comfort zone, we have to challenge each other's adults because rooms like this are pretty comfortable. life for a lot of people around the nation now is very, very scary. and until we're walking in their shoes, until we're understanding that, i think we get complacent. so, yes, we insisted on high
10:24 am
standards. because i would defy anyone to give me a good reason why low standards are good for any child in america. yes, we insisted on intervening in low performing schools because we had 2,000 high schools in the nation producing half our nation's dropouts, and 75% for minority community. i am thrilled, we cut that number from 1,000 to 2,000. our goal for the nation should be to eliminate dropout factions. we should go to zero. we have schools that year after year sometimes for generations were the vast majority of kids dropping out, what chance do they have. we insist on teacher evaluation, we think that great teaching matters. and we think that great teachers change lives in a positive way, teachers who aren't as good hurt kids. and i get the example of california, california has about 300,000 teachers. i would argue that the top 10%
10:25 am
in california, top 30,000, are not just great california teachers, they're world class teachers, can teach anywhere in the world and be great. i would argue the bottom 10%, the bottom 30,000, probably shouldn't be teaching, should be doing something else with their lives. there is not one person in california who can tell you who in the top 10% and who is in that bottom 10%. if we care about kids, and we generally care about minority kids and poor kids and getting good resources and good teachers to them, if we don't have the conversation about teacher quality, we're not in the game. and it is a difficult conversation, it is an uncomfortable conversation, and lots of ways to debate teacher evaluation, but if we're unwilling to state great teachers matter and great principals matter, i think we're lying to ourselves and we're not serious about closing the achievement gaps. and so on all of those things, those were difficult. i don't apologize for any of them. i think a fair critique of us
10:26 am
could be that we try to do a lot too fast. again, i think frankly we didn't go fast enough. let me back up the context in the waivers is i actually wanted to do waivers the year before because no child left behind was so far out of date, had so many flaws, the world had changed, we had a dysfunctional congress. and people in congress pleaded with me, wait a year, work with us, and we frankly wasted a year and had teachers and kids under a bad system for an extra year. i regret not doing waivers the year before. that's my regret. at the end of the day, for all the noise, we had 33, 34 states, you know, came forward and took that opportunity, across the political spectrum, from the left to the right. so we can fair critique of -- we ask for too much, did too much, you take any one of those principles, high standards, turn it around, underperforming schools, saying great teachers matter, if we want to compromise
10:27 am
in that, for adults, we can do that. i just -- i struggle to understand how that helps kids we're trying to help. >> lindsey, how did you all look at that policy from the perspective of congress in there was the concern about procedurely new requirements were being imposed outside of the statute, but as arne points out, congress wasn't exactly sort of operating in peak efficiency during that stretch. and but, you know, i think people who share arne's concern about the urgency of addressing underperformance had concerns about how this plays out. >> yeah. i think, you know, i understand why the waivers were necessary. i think the issue here is no one is doubting the laudable goals that secretary gduncan talked about. the underlying issue was, yes, everybody wants fantastic teachers, yes, everybody wants
10:28 am
all kids to achieve, yes, everybody wants low performing schools to be turned around. question is, the devil is in the details. senator alexander talked about this quite a bit. while a lot of this was framed as flexibility for states these are the four models and that turned into six or seven and what to do to turn around your low performing school. this is how you evaluate your teachers to say this is what a good teacher looks like. i think that limited the options that states and districts could think about and grow from the ground up and have a community swell of how to create a great teacher, and it was coming from a very top down approach with very specific requirements around what you had to do. and i think from -- i will defend and say the states actually asked for waivers and ended up supporting them initially and, you know, they changed once they realized what they were going to -- all the requirements that went into it and all the requirements that were hampshiring them to making certain decisions. the fundamental problem was everyone has laudable goals, but the federal government's top
10:29 am
down approach to dictating how to achieve those goals and what results those were going to achieve, but also what local policies and local context that were going to come into conflict with, the goals and the requirements of the federal government was putting in place. i think we saw that as, again, this problem of perceived flexibility but not really t was this is how you have to do all these things in order to get this perceived flexibility. and also just general congressional understanding that it is our responsibility, their responsibility, i'm not with them anymore, to reauthorize the law, and although we couldn't do it, there probably could have been better ways in the interim to deal with this needed flexibility than saying this is the whole new system you have to adopt to get it. >> i hear a concern that the specificity of the requirements placed on states in this case as conditions received waivers, but also the same structure, conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds that
10:30 am
serve as the basis for federal education policy under no child left behind, under the every student succeeds act. there is a concern that the more specific that we get, the more of a compliance mentality we might see adopted at the local level, that might sort of limit the federal government's capacity to actually pursue this goal, despite the urgency of the problem. gerard, i see you -- >> so when president obama signed essa, i was one of the people that cheered. good to see bipartisan work. you had to realize a lot of state chiefs understand the importance of state and local control and that's great. we also understand there is certain responsibilities and things we can't do alone. and there should be a role for the federal government. department of labor, federal is larger than that. what i would definitely champion for the state chiefs and superintendents of school board is when people say you're free,
10:31 am
one of the hardest things to do is accept freedom. you don't know what it looks like. you say it is good. but now we give it to you. and so one thing that the department could do either through its local offices, but also using technology to get the word out, is to say when we say you have flexibility to do a, here are examples of what you can do. because we have a president first time in government, no track record of what he would have done in other states, we're going to have to use technology and people in the department of ed to get that done. as i said before, this is in 2016, this is a great time to be a state chief. >> two things, we're focused on k to 12, happy to focus on, i want to, for the audience, there is a very important federal and state and local role on early childhood education and on higher education. the federal investment in higher education is 2.5 to 3 times more than the k to 12 investment. and the lack of accountability
10:32 am
is stunning. and, again, all about outcomes. let me just push -- >> i should mention briefly, closely related to the project that we're discussing today, brookings, has under way the development of a parallel set of memos on higher education policy. there was a -- a strategic decision to organize the work. >> let me just -- for me, an issue that has got a little buried with the trump election, but for me, just epitomizes frankly the falsehood or the disingenuousness of this tdebat about being prescriptive, the simple goal is to have title one money, for poor kids, actually go to poor kids. that's how the law was written, that's the intent of title one. what folks in the department now were trying to do was actually make sure that money goes to
10:33 am
poor kids and poor schools. and there is massive pushback from both the left and the right. and, again, how can we say we actually want to add more resources for poor kids and for english language learners or homeless kids if we're unwilling to do what the law actually requires us to do. so this is not an additional burden this is not additional mandates, it is simply saying money for poor kids shouldn't go to middle class kids, and to wealthy kids. and somehow that is, again, wildly controversial and hard and difficult for adults. how do you justify that? how do you justify that? >> this refers to draft regulations that the department has in the regulatory process right now that would tighten up the enforcement of supplement, not supplant, under the every student succeeds act. >> these aren't more requirements, this isn't going further, it is saying we he need toed ah ed adhere to the purpos
10:34 am
all your money, the taxpayer money, supposed to go to poor kids, trying to say it should go to poor kids and to poor schools. >> lindsay what are the concerns that members of congress have as arne says this has generated a lot of pushback from both sides that would sort of illustrate this divide? >> i think when congress did -- tweaked a few things in the supplement, not supplant requirement, in place i think since the '70s, to make it easier for states to comply, and to show where their money is going and how their money is title one neutral, meaning i'm not taking away money from a title one school because i'm getting title one dollars. the issue with the regulations, i think, is the goal of having money, this title one money go to serve poor kids is laudable, the regulations set forth these are the options that you have to do in order to make that happen. the law intended for states to publish their methodology for
10:35 am
how they make sure the title one is used and give them flexibility to demonstrate this in a large number of ways. the new regulations say, these are the four ways you have to do it. and all of these four ways are very disruptive to the current system you have in place, whether it is or isn't working. so i think the concern was why don't we let the districts try and figure this out before telling them these are the four things you have to do in order to meet that. the other thing i think we haven't talked about here is that, you know, there is this idea there is disparities within title one schools and nontitle one schools in terps of federal money. and i don't think anyone with debate that, but we don't have very good data to show specifically where those disparities lie or the ability to use that data to fix that problem. so congress put in place this requirement for first time that down to the school level, they're going to have to report actual per people expenditures including teacher salaries which the law says nothing about, to enlighten the fact there are
10:36 am
disparates and empower communities to say this is a problem and this is how we want to fix it. so i think the regulations are a little premature, and saying these are the four things to choose to fix the problem before knowing what disparities do or do not exist. >> i think this is a fantastic analysis, i agree with the analysis. i think the difference, it is not a judgment here, that lindsay raises, is being disruptive as a problem. i think the intent is to be disruptive. so do you see disruption as needing disruption or see disruption -- we got this great system, let's not disrupt it? it is a difference of opinion on that one. on the facts i absolutely agree with the analysis. >> it is very wonky. i agree, but it is a very nice one because this discussion i think illustrates this difference after approach, both with respect to willingness to disrupt and also sort of going back to lindsay's opening remarks, the emphasis on transparency first, and trying
10:37 am
to hope shah shining a light on this, or on achievement, will drive a response versus jumping to here, we're going to tell you what to do about it. >> again, theoretically i agree with that i love transparency. few people mention transparency. but i -- what trump's transparency for me is urgency. and where we have kids in communities, poor kids who have been denied the resources they need for decades. who have been denied this and no outcry, no pushback, because no one understands this stuff, no noise about this, for us to say, let's be transparent for the next ten years and see what happens, that for me is not good enough. >> so in a place like florida a few years ago, you had $800 million in title one in virginia, much less than that. and we know where that money was going. it was going to help poor kids, also some middle class kids that benefited as well. this would be a good time for us to go back, just as a nation,
10:38 am
and go back and look at number one, jack jennings, he wrote a good book, he did a good deep dive into the history of the creation of elementary and secondary education act, but title one in particular, which caused me to go back and dust off old reports. but to go back and look at what augustous hawkins, a former congressman from los angeles, he was at one point my congress member when i was a kid in los angeles, member of the black caucus, what was his role, what did he think was the important role of title one? and what were the debates then? and how did it play out in the south, which at that time was democrat. and how does it play out today? while we talk about poor kids, i mean, my career has been focused on that kind of stuff, let's also take a look at the election and let's look at the signals we choose not to hear. there are a lot of white, poor,
10:39 am
working class kids who are not in urban areas, who also voted for trump, because often when they hear school choice, how we define it, they're, like what about our kids? is it always the black kids? always the hispanic kids? and you start to see at the state level, rule, white republicans voting against bills or before they had not because they try to figure out what happened. and if you look at the map, a lot of the people who voted for trump, they live on what i call choice deserts. got to keep that in mind. >> one thing just to add, caveat, hopefully folks understand, for me, money is never, ever the only answer. this is not just unfettered turn on the spigot. the transparency part is so important. one, i want the poor money to go to poor kids. two, i would argue many places that money is not actually helping poor kids learn more. and if that money is not being effectively used, we got to find out more effective ways to do it. the goal is not just to get the money and walk away, the goal is
10:40 am
to change our life, and that money is a tool, a vehicle, a strategy to do that. i want to be explicitly -- >> how can the federal government do that? part of it is that was really the basis for accountability requirements in the first place, which as we talk about in the memo, you know, first the idea was just make sure you're testing your title one kids, that was expanded more broadly and so that the rational actually became a little less clear. there is also the federal role in research, which appears to be sort of a consensus, certainly was among our working group, but you seem to be talking about something beyond that. >> no, no, i think you're hitting -- for me, it is three checks. first, again, the accountability. like, taxpayer money, asking any of us for an additional nickel for education, we have to be able to demonstrate how that is helping the kids. if we can't do that, we can't ask for that money. can can't do it. it is not fair. so there has to be accountability. and i think at the federal level that has to be -- if it is just not happening at the local levels, not the state level,
10:41 am
something has to happen. and so i think that one is important. secondly, the r&d is huge. third, i would push again, just the innovation, scaling, what works. where you have great and local ideas, where more poor kids, more english language learners, black, white, latino, more kids being successful, that's helped them scale that and serve more kids of whatever they're doing. i think those three things are ways to take to hold ourselves accountable but take to scale what is working. >> one of the things about education is we know how much we spend, but that's not the same as saying we know how much it costs to educate a student. you would be surprised, i think this is where arne and the department of ed did a great job in terms of the money they were giving to states to enhance their technology system, but also their database. we know what we spent on kids. not the same as saying we know how much it costs.
10:42 am
so at the state level, independent of the feds and what they say, we need to get better, razor like focus on how much does it cost to educate a kid in eighth grade in algebra and student maybe in the grade six. some of our technologies and databases are -- as strong as we want it to be, some of that has little to do with the feds and i think states should take the lead on this independent of what the feds say. >> so we have danced around a little bit the centerpiece of what we know about the trump administration's education agenda or ideas as it enters office, which is this idea of a $20 billion investment in expanding choice for low income students. i want to get you all to talk about that a little bit, both from the perspective of what would you like to see them do to try to operationalize that commitment, to bring it to reality, if anything, and
10:43 am
secondly, what are the politics of that? as lindsay mentioned, something at that scale would need to get its way through congress. the -- and despite the fact we have republican majorities, we certainly don't have 60 votes in the senate in support of that type of agenda and it's not necessarily clear that the debate over this issue follows exactly on party lines. so lindsey, can you first help us understand the politics of the promotion of school choice at the federal level? as well as the challenges from a policy perspective. >> yes, you know, this idea of school choice, a lot of people equate school choice vouchers. i think it's a broader discussion that includes magnet schools, charter schools, virtual schools and vouchers and school choice has grown significantly in the past few decades from state led efforts and local efforts to promote school choice.
10:44 am
one caution i would have for the trump administration is not to force anybody to do school choice or force school choice in such a way that a state or district might want to take on. that's something to think about. the other thing i will say is it's not necessarily republican or democrat issue. you have a lot of republicans on congress in rural areas where school choice just doesn't exist for them and they don't want to take on the fights with their unions or school boards or school districts to potentially allow other folks to take advantage of this opportunity. the politics are not as clean as r versus d. a lot of republicans just don't see school choice as a benefit to them. >> a lot would oppose a spending program of any kind in education. >> that was another point i was going to make and then the third thing i would say is more recent, if public dollars go into private schools, some would maybe be religious schools, what
10:45 am
ins feern interference, what ability does that give the federal government to intervene? a lot of conservative members are concerned about this idea of expanded federal role in the private or parochial school space. the politics are not clean for those policy reasons and then marty's point, the spending reason, where are the $20 billion going to come from? not many folks, i won't say nobody, would be hard pressed for congress to vote to collapse all funding into a voucher that follows the kid to the public or private school they attend. i think there is not support for that. we have seen that voted on several times in past few congresses, so where is this new $20 billion going to come from? and one thing that i think has been talked about is this idea of a tax credit. and where individuals or organizations or whom ever could donate dollars that would support a school choice type program, that, you know, there is a lot of details that need to be worked out there. but i think the questions i have
10:46 am
in that is who is the program focused on? is it going to help low income kids or the kids that need the choices? and how exactly does it work, like, who is going to oversee this program and how are you going to ensure that these dollars are ultimately helping the kids they're intended to serve. >> gerard, school choice is a topic you mensed edmentioned a times, something you worked on. how you to see them moving this issue forward? >> we can think creatively about how to find $20 billion. we focus on the department of ed. remember, there are other departments that have a role in education for native american education, department of interior. you have free and reduced price lunch, that's agriculture. there are ways of actually repurposing $20 billion within the existing amount of money that you have, without raising any new money and possibly trying to dress iaddress it. there are other ways to do it other than doe. that's part one. part two, if we're going to use a term low income, how do you
10:47 am
define it? do you use the milwaukee program, which first voucher program in the country, 1990, '91, or the new orleans program, 300%. i would like to see something, if we make it -- i would like to see universal. not going to happen. but i would like to see a universal. in is a revelation over last five years, wasn't my focus. we can get into that another time. if you piccok low income, maybe 300 makes sense. the anger among working class families, wait a minute there are people i know who didn't get married because their income would go up. i can't qualify for it any longer. so if we're going to raise it, i guess we can look at existing states of 300 or so, let's make sure that work class families are included. and number three, we continue to target this as a black and brown issue only, versus an american
10:48 am
kid issue, you're going to raise a lot of interesting challenges. and, remember, back to the debate about essa and founding in 1965, it was johnson who had to cut -- he had to use his office to work with the southern democrats to make them address desegregation. and how that was going to happen. if we're going to have school choice, trump and betsy should think of ways on what they want from states as well. shouldn't be a give without an ask. teacher accountability something else, we'll see. >> so in just a minute, i want to open up to the audience for questions, but, arne, i still don't think i've gotten you to give a word of advice to betsy devos. as she thinks about the agenda -- >> lots of advice. i was very clear, let me try to be clear once again. i think my advice would be she should set a goal for the nation to lead the world in access to
10:49 am
high quality early childhood education, set a goal to get graduation rates up to 90%. she should set a goal to lead the world in college completion rates. everything else flows from that. that's as clear as i -- lots of details we can get into. we haven't talked a lot about career and technical ed, voc ed, i'm a big fan of, i think we got to agree on goals. just to answer this one directly, for me, $20 billion, it is small ball to me. if you tell me this money is going to help reduce the dropout rate by this percent, then i start to pay attention. you tell me resources are going to help increase high school graduation rate by this percent, i start to pay attention. short of that, it is politics. it is -- there is no there there. i don't -- i have not heard anyone -- this is not a critique of trump or of her, i didn't hear anyone that campaigned
10:50 am
other than a little bit on the early childhood talk about the four goals i'm talking about. nobody. and so that for me, that's my clear unequivocal advice, whether it was her or anybody else, doesn't matter, let's agree on the anybody else, it d not matter, but agree on the goals and have a lot of vigorous debate and try different stuff to try to achieve the goals. >> and don't forget about the role of the bully pulpit in the sek ta of the education help us to understand the issues in front of us. >>er arne said something, and one thing that i want ted to congratulate him on and it is a tough job that he had is that he made accountability sexy, and that is important. >> well, i have never heard that befor before. >> and that is important to know, because as i talk to the parents and the stakeholders in not only two states, but in my work as the other areas, the people are now talking about accountability in ways that they had not and i wanted to thank you for that. you mentioned higherer ed, and if there is something that trump and betsy could do looking at the $20 billion for the low
10:51 am
income kids is to do a better job of pipelining the kids in the grade schools, but also, they have an opportunity to do some great things with historical black colleges and universities who are many of them partnering with the no-excuse models, and more food for thought. >> well, actually, we could talk all day, but i want to make sure that we let some of the audience into the conversation, and raise you hand, because you have figured that part are acknowled identify yourself and try to be brief and make sure that the remark ends the in a question mark. jim? >> great. my name is jim calmoose representing the carnegie foundation for advancement of teaching, a and really, what a great panel and it could go on all afternoon and i really appreciate the comments. i would like to go back to doug's four principles and the
10:52 am
final two were about r&d and continuous improvement, and a lot of concern in the field right now is that you have thesele tools, but there is not a xcapacity at the local level o really use evidence to make the decisions, and then to apply it to continuous improvement processes rather than compliance-driven education system. so i am wondering if you think that federal role should actual actually focus on building this continuous improvement evidence-driven infa sfrauk chur at the local level? is there a federal responsibility there given the new requirements and the trump administration's desire to f further devolve the authority to the local and state levels? >> you want to take a crack at that? i have thoughts. after you. >> and so carnegie and several other groups e-mailed me one to two-page ideas on what they would like to see. i wanted to mention that,
10:53 am
because i want to say that the documents are put in the right place, and most of you won't hear from any of us before the inauguration, but know that the ideas are being collected. the short answer is yes. most presidents dnr have come in with an idea, and what is particularly interesting is that having one, the president and the new secretary of education, they are interested in the evidence, and analytics, and so i could see something that is used in u unique ways, and i would definitely support it. >> and one thing, too, i will say, again, yes, and there is a federal role there and if not one of the most important federal roles to support r&d and make sure that we are looking both from the eval toir program to to make sure that the tax dollars are used to fund thing ths that work, and developing for the good of the field what does work in education in both the applied and research sense. one thing i would do is to challenge the are research community, and you talked about capacity, and there is programs
10:54 am
for the locals to find out what works and help the locals to make the decisions is to really let the field drive the research rather than the researchers say that these are the topics that we think are good and this is what we want to focus on. and what are the practice that local people are asking, and how can we as researchers with the limited a amount of federal dollars help us. >> i like the need to build local capacity for the variety of reason, and one is that what works in one place does not always work in another place, and this idea of funding what works and maybe a little bit too simple, and secondly, just local decision makers finding edcompe had three reasons, but i will leave it at two and there. and so how do we go about building the capacity, and that has to be a state role to take on and that is a framework put forward in essa, and the federal
10:55 am
government has to find a way to help states take advantage of these data systems that they have developed over to the past years to build local xcapacity for evaluation, and i hope that we see it going forward. yes, ma'am? please wait for the mic. >> thank you. my name is edna rock and i'm on the board of drirectors of the district of columbia early learning collaborate which is an ngo 501 c 3. k is tear duncan mentioned early childhood several times much to my pleasure, and i would like to hear the other two people, and well, both, and you, say something about the early childhood, because we know that so much about what that can mean to the children and yet, the resistance to providing those services, ooet meither in the t public schools or in the community-based programs is
10:56 am
lacking, not enough. >> so i think that there is general agreement that early childhood education is important, and you have seen the republican governors taking a serious look at the early childhood and funding it and making it a priority of the states. at the federal level, i think that the discussion has center ed around what investment do we make right now, and is that working? is it serving the the kids intended to serve and having an effect, and i know that particularly amongst the republicans, they see it, and i think that there is a $25 billion investment across the different programs and not all focused on the early childhood education, but ho can we exist the coordinating funds that we have to better promote early childhood education a rather than creating a brand-new p program. we have seen the federal government in the k-12 space struggle with what their role should be and how they can
10:57 am
support good work. if we add a brand u new program in the early childhood space, is the federal government the one to be setting the rules about the high quality early education looks like and early ed teaching lo looks like. so there is a little resistance to have a new large investment with the requirements at a tached to it, but a big desire to look at the existing funds that we spend, and perhaps changing those or allowing them to be more flexible and coordinate and head start, and child care development bloc grant which was are reauthorized in 2014 and a new education focus within that which did not exist before. there is a movement with the small changes in this area, and the idea of the new federal investmen investment, and large one with strings attached and new are requirements is not where the republicans are at this point. >> i will say that many of the topics that we have discussed, there is a related memo that is part of the project in the early childhood education, and an
10:58 am
excellent one that i would recommend if you are interested, and it does recommend an increased investment, and interestingly, not just in the prele school, but the child care front which it sees as a a necessary compliment to that. of course, that need s s to be just child care custodial child care, but complemented by efforts to enhance the program quality as well. so there is some interesting thoughts there that actually end up coincidentally aligning with what the trump administration has said on early childhood education which is that, that the focus would be on child care and not everything. it is consistent to the extent that there is overlap in what that they have said. yes, sir? >> what is the future of the
10:59 am
u.s. department office of civil rights especially under a trump administration, and especially given the efforts that you have secretary duncan put into the school-to-prison pipeline and increasingly the tensions on the college campuses with the sexual harass lttment and the like? >> well, these guys are much more experts than i am am, but to state the obvious as i said earlier is that the level of violence, and the level of harassment, and the level of bullying with those already too high is markedly gone up. again, i don't blame trump personally, but he has unleash ad level of hate and vitriol that is undeniable, and in his own political self-interest for them to turn a blind eye to that would be a challenge. and my hope and prayer and the
11:00 am
self-interests for them to not take these things seriously is a challenge. and i have shared with folks, and that maybe some of the cases that we is had to take on, and the zil righ civil rights is no something that we go seeking to do. and one of the cases is a high school girl in alabama getting raped at school, and then she is given discipline for lewd behavior. that is the kind of the thing that we get. again, not what we want to do and not that we like the to do it, but that is the kind of thing that we deal with. it is not easy to talk about. but we don't address those things. if he is choosing to taurn blind e -- to turn a blind eye, i think that the costs are, troord th r extraordinary. >> and any insights? >> well, we have to see who is going to be appointed as the secretary of the office of civil right, and having known betsy for near ly a decade, i can't se
11:01 am
her having coming into the office with a commitment to not support or a commitment to more discrimination. we will have to see. but these are the questions that are periodically raised for the republicans, and the same thing said for bush w. and the same for h. and understandably so, so we will have to, you know, wait and see how it works out over time. >> i will add one thing to that. the office of civil rights is not going a wway, and it is statutorily mandate and so you need congress to get rid of it. there is a lot of discussion of whether to move to judiciary and the people can debate the merits off that or not. but i think that i just wanted to point it out that i sit not going away and it is still going to exist. >> and a lot that the arne is doing from the federal level, the states are going to address the issues that are addressing it as well and multiple levels and not just federal. there is a state role as well.
11:02 am
>> yes, sir? >> sure. >> yeah. >> we will try to get everybody in. >> a first victim of the new york education system i'd like to say. i like the discussion, but the problem that comes to me with the goal setting of the left and the right is that there are fundamental differences and one of which which is not discussed is pension reform at the state level and sor i rrsorry, secret duncan, but you democratic and white politicians colluding with the public sector unions who are refusing to reform the pension systems and larger amounts of the education budget has gone to pay white retired white suburban teachers instead of to poor black kids. i think it is particularly sinister. and i also think that the idea
11:03 am
of throwing money at the problem is some that the coastal elites have decided that it is no longer relevant and to build the country with the rest of america, and boys in the number of schools as well are doing particularly bad especially in the rural areas that have been impact impacted by technological change. so pensions, and the failed structure i guess of the progressive state and then boys. and those things seem to be real issues. the democrats are not going the budge on the pensions, and chicago is kind of like the worst place where this is happening, and where other government services are suffering because of the overblown state pensions. >> all right. so let me try and -- the pension issue is a really nice one i i think to inject into the conversation, because there is no dispute that it is a real iss issue, and increasingly constraint of the state budgets and chicago is a great example
11:04 am
of that and it is an interesting question then, what is the role or the responsibility of the federal government with respect to that problem, and with the specific settings and nationally, and do you have thoughts on that? >> again. i am happy to take on the question, and what is federal, state, local. to me, the crux of the issue is how do you reward and compensate teaches and the historic payoff is that they are paid a modest amount, but have the security of having a secure retirement. i think that people who have taught for 30 or 40 years deserve to not pay in poverty, but i would flip it. i would pay teachers a heck of a lot more money up front, and pay them a heck of a lot more money to work in poor communities, and be it inner city or the rural are or the native american reservation, and upend the whole system. can you do it at the federal level? no, you can't. that is a state and local issue, but we have, i think dramatically undervalued
11:05 am
teachers in the teaching professi profession, and the cost the teachers and the cost to taxpayers and the cost the students has been high. i am having radical idea ss abo a different way to reward and train and compensate teachers and again, think about the degree of difficulty, and to be specific, i have one high school in chicago where i have had four kids killed already thisser year. and being a social worker at that school, and counselor is a fundamentally different job than being a social worker or counselor at one of the gold coasts in chicago. we don't talk about that degree of difficulty, and i believe that we need to. >> yes, sir. >> chris mccray of the mccray foundation, and back on this stage, the education commission which is comprised of 30 national leaguers and including gordon brown, and kim-kim, and it basically started with a different track, and i wonder
11:06 am
how your work connects with it, and like a list of every way in which the system is totally broken around the world. and locally, it is going to be d different, but the five things that have come up -- jobs, jobs, jobs, but small enterprise jobs have nothing to do with the paper curriculum, and the technology, and the technology so that students can be great at apps. and the opposite one, that you were talking about and why is it that we have to go to dubai to study a million dollar teacher prize if we love them and want to are replicate what they do. mass media is terrible and it does not help the scale in any other answer, but it causes scale and different divides and the last thing is why don't we take down some congressmen to west baltimore which is where thurgood marshall started and a huge experimental issue going
11:07 am
on, and the chinese are coming all of the way over to see it, and it is working up from the ground from someone we call hathaway, but it is the 100 times more community is doing it. >> and what is the question for the panel? >> how does your work connect with the systematically broken things, because i did not hear much about technology, and i don't think that you have specifically mentioned jobs or hardly heard the things that which the education commission are talking about, and i don't really hear it at your level. >> okay. let e let's pick up the issue of the jobs and educating people for careers and that is a theme of your opening remarks, lindsey, and it is a topic of one of our memos. the perkins act which is the federal investment in career and technical education is the next k-12 law up for reauthorization, and some work has been underway. what should the agenda look like on that topic from the federal
11:08 am
level making sure that students are getting the skills they need for the workforce? >> well, i'd say to take a look at what is taking place in the states. so in 010 one of the first e pieces of legislation that governor mcdonald signed into law was a college laboratory bill. what that resulted in is the university of virginia partnering with the engineering and the educational school, a community college and charlesville public schools and i believe it is buford school. they have had a downward spiral in enrollment for decades. but all of the sudden, education, engineering and community college come together to teach s.t.e.m. ill skills to kids in the middle grades. first time you will see an uptick in the families wanting to stay in the system and particularly middle-class families and two, the parents are saying, wow, my kid is coming home to ask a lot of questions they did not know, and all of the sudden, the private
11:09 am
school families who would have gone private are looking public. and this is not a radically, you know, input of the money, but maybe a $150,000. and now other schools are doing that, and the federal government can look at that and give a grant to keep going and expanding within your state. >> and not just the competitive grant idea, but it is doing things that but not spending, because we spend 7 to $9 billion on new textbooks that are basically obsolete the day they show up in your classroom. and the median has moved are from print to digital and we have to move away from paper to other devices. watch


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on