RAW FILE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION “CARROTS, STICKS AND THE BULLY PULPIT” JUNE 21, 2012, 10:00 A.M.

* * * This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication access realtime translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. * * *

>> Frederick Hess: ,. >> Frederick Hess: , FREDERICK HESS,. >> Andrew Kelly: ,. >> Andrew Kelly: , ANDREW KELLY, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, PETER CUNNINGHAM. >> Peter Cunningham: ,. >> Peter Cunningham: . >> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. GOOD MORNING. I'M PETER CUNNINGHAM. I'M THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH HERE AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. AND I AM JOINED TODAY BY FREDERICK HESS ‑‑ RICK

HESS WHO IS THE RESIDENT SCHOLAR AND THE DIRECTOR THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY STUDIES ADVERTISE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE AND AND WE ARE JOINED BY ANDREW KELLY WHO IS A RESEARCH FELLOW AT THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. I'M TOLD THAT THEY DON'T AGREE ON EVERYTHING. SO WE ARE GOING TO FIND OUT IF THAT'S REALLY TRUE. WE ARE HERE THIS MORNING TO TALK ABOUT A BOOK THAT THEY HAVE EDITED, AND COLLECTED ESSAYS FROM A NUMBER OF SCHOLARS. IT'S CALLED "CARROTS, STICKS AND THE BULLY PULPIT." YOU CAN SEE WE BROUGHT SOME PROPS. WE HAVE CARROTS, STICKS AND, OF COURSE, WE HAVE MICROPHONES. AND, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IS TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BOOK, HEAR FROM THESE GUYS, RAISE SOME QUESTIONS, AND THEN MAYBE WE'LL INVITE SOME QUESTIONS FROM ALL OF YOU. WE'LL SPEND ABOUT AN HOUR, MAYBE A FEW MINUTES MORE. SO LET ME OPEN UP BY SAYING THAT ANDREW AND RICK HAVE COLLECTED A GREAT COLLECTION OF ESSAYS, 12 OF

THEM WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WE KNOW. IT COVERS A WHOLE RANGE OF ISSUES, THE ROLE OF THE COURTS, ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE LOOKED AT, CONGRESS, THE COURTS AND, OF COURSE, THE DEPARTMENT, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. IT LOOKS AT RESEARCH. IT LOOKS AT ACCOUNTABILITY. IT LOOKS AT SOME OF THE OUTSIDE PLAYERS WHO HAVE BECOME ACTIVE IN EDUCATION. IT LOOKS AT INCENTIVES. IT TALKS ABOUT RACE TO THE TOP. IT KIND OF GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO ABOUT 2010 AND AT THAT POINT THEY WROTE THE BOOK. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF RECENT THINGS THAT THEY HAVEN'T TOUCHED ON. IT'S ALL K‑12, I WILL DRAW IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION AS WELL. LET'S BEGIN, RICK AND ANDREW, WHY DID YOU WRITE THIS BOOK? HOW DID IT START? AND JUST GIVE US A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON HOW YOU BEGAN THIS. DID YOU PUT IT ON? OKAY THERE. WE GO. >> Frederick Hess: TERRIFIC. I'M RICK HESS.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU AND THE DEPARTMENT SO MUCH FOR HAVING THE COURTESY TO HAVE US OVER FOR THIS CONVERSATION. WE STARTED WRITING THIS BOOK, MIKE McPHERSON, WHO IS PRESIDENT OF THE SPENCER FOUNDATION GAVE ME A CALL A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. HE READ DAVID COHEN'S NEW BOOK ON THE CHALLENGES OF THE S.E.A. OVER THE YEARS AND DAVID IS SOMEBODY WHO HAD TRACKED THE S.E.A. ALL THE WAY BACK TO '65 AND TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE REASONS THAT IT HAD HADN'T LIVED UP TO THE EARLIEST, FONDEST HOPES. AND MIKE SAID HE THOUGHT THIS WAS REALLY INTERESTING, AS A GUY WHO HAS BEEN A SPECIALIST IN HIGHER EDUCATION, HIS OLD CAREER. HE SAID IT TRACKED WITH SOME OF HIS OWN QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW IN HIGHER ED COULD WE INVEST SO MANY DOLLARS AND YET BE SO FRUSTRATED BY THE ABILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REALLY DRIVE QUALITY OR ACCESS IN WAYS THAT WE CARE ABOUT AND IT'S SOMETHING I THOUGHT ABOUT. YEAH, I'M TRAINED AS A POLITICAL SCIENTIST. I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT

FEDERAL POLICY AND THE CHALLENGES OF POLICY FOR, YOU KNOW, A LONG TIME. AND SO WHAT ANDREW AND I DID, WE GOT TOGETHER ABOUT 25 OR 30 FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION, FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, FROM THE STATE LEVEL, FROM ADVOCACY GROUPS AND HAD A REALLY EYE‑OPENING DAY‑LONG CONVERSATION WHERE IT BECAME CLEAR TO US THAT HARDLY ANYBODY WHO ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS FEDERAL POLICY HAS THE TIME OR ENERGY TO SIT DOWN AND THINK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED ‑‑ WHAT DO WE KNOW TODAY THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW YESTERDAY. AND THAT SOME OF THE ACADEMICS IN THE ROOM, THE PEOPLE WHO DO STUDY THE STUFF SEEM TO BE REMARKABLY REMOVED FROM THE INS AND OUTS OF HOW THIS ACTUALLY WORKS AND THE CHALLENGES. >> Andrew Kelly: WE ARE ALL SO BUSY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT TOMORROW'S CHALLENGES THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT YESTERDAY'S LESSONS. THE 12 CHAPTERS. >> Peter Cunningham: SO THE FIRST ONE, IT TALKS ABOUT HEAD

START, TITLE I AND RESEARCH, THE THREE EARLY ROLES OF THE DEPARTMENT. HE CALLS FOR REKINDLING THE PASSION THAT LED TO THE GREAT SOCIETY PROGRAMS AND WE ARE ALL FOR REKINDLING PASSIONS. BUT CONCLUDE THE TITLE I HAS BECOME A GREAT SYMBOL OF CONCERN BUT IS NOT A VIABLE RESPONSE, REALLY TO MEETING KIDS AT RISK ‑‑ MEETING THE NEEDS OF KIDS AT RISK. WHY IS TITLE I NOT STEPPING UP. >> Andrew Kelly: I WILL TAKE THIS ONE. ONE OF THE THEMES THAT COMES THROUGH THE BOOK, AT LEAST FOR ME, WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT ‑‑ WE OFTEN DEBATE FEDERAL EDUCATION IN TERMS OF WHAT WE THINK WOULD BE GOOD FOR KIDS IN SCHOOLS. AND THAT'S KIND OF A KEY QUESTION, NO DOUBT. BUT AN EQUALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION IN OUR SYSTEM IS WHAT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY EQUIPPED TO DO WELL? WE THINK THIS OFTEN GETS LOST IN DEBATES ABOUT THE 10th AMENDMENT. IN DEBATES ABOUT HOW BIG GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE. THERE'S NOT ALWAYS A LOT OF

ROOM TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO WELL. I THINK FOR ME, THE KEY WAY OF THE DISCUSSION OF TITLE I AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN DAVID COHEN'S TERRIFIC BOOK "THE ORDEAL OF EQUALITY." THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE ABLE TO PUSH DOLLARS OUT TO STATES. THIS WAS A BIG CHALLENGE TO STATES, THIS WAS A PROBLEM IN '65. IT WAS A 15‑YEAR PROJECT. IT WASN'T UNTIL ABOUT '80 THAT WE ACTUALLY HAD THAT GOING. THE PROBLEM IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T ACTUALLY RUN SCHOOLS. ALL IT CAN REALLY DO IS WRITE RULES FOR S.E.A.s, AND PUSH THEM TO WRITE RULES FOR L.E.A.s WHO CAN THEN SUPERVISE THE WAY DOLLARS ARE USED AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL. THE BIG CHALLENGE FOR TITLE # IS THAT ALL OF THOSE ‑‑ TITLE I IS ALL OF THOSE COME WITH THREE LAYERS OF PLASTIC BAGGING BUT NOT A LOT OF ASSURANCE THAT WE WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR KIDS. >> Peter Cunningham: THE MAIN POINT OF TITLE I IS EQUITY AND $14 BILLION A YEAR, THE SYSTEM IS 5 OR $600 BILLION, HOW CAN

$14 BILLION LEAD TO EQUITY. THE FACT IS IT DOESN'T. WE HAVE HUGE INEQUITIES STILL. HAVING SAID THAT, GETTING DOLLARS TO KIDS AT RISK STILL SEEMS LIKE A GOOD THING. FAIR ENOUGH? >> YEAH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MORRIS POINTS OUT IN HIS CHAPTER IS THAT HEAD START GOT OFF TO A DIFFICULT START ON A RESEARCH BASIS BECAUSE THE PROJECT FOLLOW THROUGH ‑‑ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT FOLLOW THROUGH IS UNEVEN. THE RESULTS WERE INCONSISTENT, BUT HE DOES HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE WAS A CONCENTRATED EFFORT TO STUDDITY IN A RIGOROUS WAY. IT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SET OUT TO STUDY THE EFFICACY OF A POLICY IN A SYSTEMIC WAY. MORRIS SAYS THAT THAT BLUEPRINT, IT WAS A BROOKINGS INSTITUTION STUDY, THAT THAT BLUEPRINT IS STILL SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD REFER TO WHEN THEY ARE THINKING ABOUT HOW TO EVALUATE FEDERAL POLICY. SO I WILL POINT THAT OUT. >> Peter Cunningham: THE

CHAPTER LATER ON RESEARCH AND THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH AND HOW THAT'S ONE OF THE CENTRAL ROLES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT DOES SEEM TO BE WORKING WELL AND MOST PEOPLE AGREE IS IMPORTANT. LET'S GO TO CHAPTER 2, ANDREW RUDALEVICH, HE CONCLUDES THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO GOOD ROLES FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. BRIBERY AND BLACKMAIL. BRIBERY HE USES AS AN EXAMPLE, RACE TO THE TOP AND BLACKMAIL HE USED N.C.L.B., THE TRANSPARENCY. HE MENTIONS A FEW OTHER THINGS, PARTICULARLY INDEFINABLE LANGUAGE, I WANT TO GET TO THAT LATER, BECAUSE WE INTENTIONALLY USE IT IN SOME AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE SOMETIMES TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY. I WANT TO DRAW YOU OUT ON THAT. HE TALKS ABOUT TALKING MANDATE IN STONES. TIED HANDS CAN BE AS DANGEROUS PRACTICALLY AS THEY ARE DESIRED LILY.  ‑‑ POLITICALLY. THEY SAY THIS IS A BAR FIGHT WHERE THINGS TAKE OFF AND FIGHT AND YOU SEE THAT IN

EDUCATION. YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CLEAN ARGUMENT GOING AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. THEN HE TALKS ABOUT WHAT WORKS, THE COERCIVE, THE REMUNERATIVE AND THE NORMATIVE. TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIS POINT OF VIEW IF YOU CAN. >> I THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST CHAPTERS. I THINK IT SETS UP THE REST OF THE VOLUME REALLY WELL, AND HE'S TRAINED AS A POLITICAL SCIENTIST. SO HE COMES AT THIS IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE HAS A PROUD HISTORY IN POLITICAL SCIENCE. IT'S FALLEN OUT OF FAVOR, MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S MESSY AND HARD TO STUDY. YOU KNOW, I THINK ANDY'S PERSPECTIVE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING BACK ON THE EFFORTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO AFFECT DISTRICT AND SCHOOL LEVEL CHANGE, WHAT YOU SEE ALWAYS IS THERE'S A PROBLEM OF JOINT ACTORS, RIGHT? THERE'S SO MANY ACTORS OPERATING IN THE SAME SPACE. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE WITH

IMPLEMENTING. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLS THEM WHAT TO DO, BUT YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY TELL THEM TO DO IT WELL OR THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED OR WITH FIDELITY. >> Peter Cunningham: IT'S HARD TO FORCE PEOPLE TO DO ANYTHING. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO IT WELL. >> THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK ACTUALLY ANDY'S POINTS, YOU KNOW, THAT HE MAKES ABOUT ‑‑ PARTICULARLY ABOUT BLACKMAIL, RIGHT, WHICH THE OTHER WAY TO SAY BLACKMAIL IS TRANSPARENCY AND MAKING INFORMATION THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO MAKE PUBLIC PUBLIC, RIGHT? AND THIS IS A THEME THAT COMES OUT IN THE REST OF THE BOOK AS WELL. THIS IS A BIG PLACE WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS PLAYED AN INVALUABLE ROLE HAVING N.A.P. SCORES OUT THERE AND COMPARING THEM TO STATE STANDARDS AND COMPARING THEM TO HOW MANY STUDENTS THEY SAY ARE PROFICIENT. THAT KIND OF THING, AND WE THINK IT COMES OUT IN THE BOOK AND A STRONG THEME AND IT'S A STRONG ROLE FOR THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. >> ONE OTHER POINT THAT YOU HAVE MADE, ANDY'S MULTIPRIZE‑WINNING POLITICAL SCIENTIST. IF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH HIM, IT'S GREAT STUFF. ONE OF HIS POINTS IS GOOD POLITICS CAN MAKE FOR BAD POLICY. HE SAYS, LOOK THE GENIUS OF BEING A GOOD LEGISLATURE, YOU FIGURE OUT HOW TO SMOOTH OVER DIFFERENCES. YOU FIND AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE THAT LETS EVERYBODY GET PAST THE POINT. THE TRICK IS ONCE CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN A BIG SPRAWLING AMBIGUOUS BILL WHERE EVERYBODY GETS SOMETHING, FOLKS OVER HERE, AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ED OR ANY OTHER EXECUTIVE AGENCY ARE STUCK TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS. SO THE TRICK, THE BETTER THE POLITICS, THE MORE AMBIGUOUS THE STATUTE, THE HARDER IT IS FOR EVERYBODY TO KNOW WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS TO IMPLEMENT IT WELL. >> Peter Cunningham: SO THAT'S A GOOD TRANSITION TO CHAPTER 3 WHICH IS WRITTEN BY CHARLES VERONE AND THAT'S ABOUT CONGRESS.

THEY BEGIN BY SAYING THAT CONGRESS. THEY WERE NOT IN THE EQUITY BUSINESS UNTIL BROWN vs. BOARD OF EDUCATION. AND THEN THEY FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS TOO MUCH INEQUITY AND THEY HAD TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT KIDS AT RISK AND KIDS WITH DISABILITIES AND THEY HAVE A LONG, AND PROUD HISTORY OF BOOSTING COLLEGE ACCESS, WHICH LEFT TO THE MARKET OR LEFT TO THE STATES ALONE WOULD NOT BE NEARLY WHERE WE ARE TODAY. SO THEY TALK ABOUT GOOD ROLES FOR CONGRESS, INVESTING IN RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND THEY CITE THE REHAB ACT OF 1973 AND RACE TO THE TOP. THEY TALK ABOUT THE BAD PARTS. THERE'S SLOWNESS AND INEFFICIENCY. WHILE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH GOT A LOT OF CRITICISM FOR THE SLOW RESPONSE TO HURRICANE KATRINA, IN FACT, CONGRESS TOOK FOUR MONTHS JUST TO PASS EMERGENCY LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR KATRINA. SO THEY WERE FAR WORSE OFF. WE TALKED ABOUT OTHER EXAMPLES, SITE TURNAROUNDS

IS ONE THAT THEY THINK IS PROBABLY NOT APPROPRIATE AT OUR LEVEL. AND LIST TWO CHALLENGES. ONE POLITICAL POLARIZATION, WHICH WE ALL KNOW ABOUT AND WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF AND SECONDLY, POLICY DIFFERENCES WITHIN PARTIES. THE FACT THAT WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE PRO CHARTER, LIKE THIS ADMINISTRATION, FOR EXAMPLE AND SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AND WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY YOU HAVE SOME WINGS THAT ARE CALLING FOR ELIMINATING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS SAY LET'S DO BLOCK GRANTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS: HOW BAD IS THIS POLARIZATION? IS IT REALLY PREVENTING REAUTHORIZATION? AND IS POLICY DIFFERENCES WITHIN PARTIES A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING? I WILL LEAVE IT TO EITHER OF YOU TO RESPOND. >> SURE. THE FIRST ANSWER IS YES. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMES OUT IN LIZ AND CHARLIE'S CHAPTER IS THEY TALK A LOT ABOUT HOW THINGS

CAN COME ON THE AGENDA, AND SOMETHING LIKE SCHOOL PRAYER, RIGHT, THAT GETS TACKED ON TO AN EDUCATION ‑‑ A PIECE OF EDUCATION THAT GOES HAYWIRE. AND ALL PROGRESS SCREECHES TO A HALT ON A BILL THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF FEDERAL POLICY BUT THEN SOMEONE TACKS ON SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT A POLITICAL ISSUE. POLARIZATION IS A BIG PROBLEM. I THINK THE DIVISION BETWEEN PARTY, THE DIVISION WITHIN PARTIES IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CHARLIE BARONE CARES A LOT ABOUT. IT MAY BECOME SO WIDE THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A SLICE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THEY MAY FIND LITTLE COMMON GROUND WITH MAIN STREAM REPUBLICANS AND I THINK THAT REMAINS TO BE, THAT THE FRESHMAN REPUBLICANS DON'T SOUND THE SAME. >> THERE'S SORT OF A REFORM‑ORIENTED GROUP THAT'S PUSHING A LOT OF CHANGE AND CHALLENGING SOME OF THEIR ‑‑ YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEIR OWN FRIENDS IN THE PARTY. >> JUST TWO QUICK POINTS TO

ADD ON THAT. ONE WE OFTEN LAMENT THAT EDUCATION IS MORE PARTISAN TODAY THAN IT WAS A DECADE AGO AND I THINK THIS IS TRUE BUT I THINK THERE'S TWO PHASES. ONE IS UNHAPPINESS AND THE OTHER THING IS, ONE REASON EDUCATION IS MORE PARTISAN IN WASHINGTON TODAY IS BECAUSE IT MATTERS A LOT MORE. BOTH UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, WE MADE MUCH BIGGER, MORE IMPORTANT DECISIONS ABOUT EDUCATION. AND ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHEN YOU ARE DOING THINGS THAT MATTER, IT NOT JUST RUNNING A CONVEYOR BELT WITH CASH OUT TO STATES AND LOCALITIES, PEOPLE HAVE A LOT MORE TO ARGUE ABOUT. SECOND POINT, WHICH CHARLIE AND LIZ MAKE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES FOR STATUTES IS COALITIONS ARE UNSTABLE. IF YOU FOLLOWED NCLB, YOU KNOW THIS. TWO YEARS LATER, THEY ALREADY HAD 50 OR 60 REPUBLICANS SAYING WE WERE SOLD A BILL OF GOODS BY PRESIDENT BUSH. SO PART OF THE TRICK OF

DOING BIG EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON IS NOT ONLY WINNING THE LEGISLATIVE VICTORY TODAY BUT MAKING SURE YOU MAINTAIN THE LEGISLATIVE COALITION THAT WILL SEE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OVER TIME. >> Peter Cunningham: LET ME REMIND EVERYONE OF THE HISTORY OF RACE TO THE TOP. IT WAS A $4 BILLION PROGRAM, TUCKED INSIDE $100 BILLION OF EDUCATION FUNDING THAT WAS TUCKED INSIDE AN $800 BILLION RECOVERY ACT BILL THAT WAS PASSED IN TWO WEEKS WITHIN THE FIRST WOULD WEEKS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. NOT A OF BIG DEBATE, WAS THERE? THE LONG AUTHORIZING RACE TO THE TOP IS ABOUT HALF A PAGE LONG. AND YET MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE IT AND A LOT OF PEOPLE IN YOUR BOOK BELIEVE IT'S A PRETTY GOOD PROGRAM AND DRIVEN A LOT OF CHANGE S. THAT A MODEL OF CONGRESSIONAL/EXECUTIVE BRANCH COOPERATION THAT WE SHOULD BUILD ON? REPLICATE? REPLICATE SUCCESS, ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU SAY? >> FOR ME, NO. I SPEAK NEITHER FOR ANDREW

NOR ANY OF THE AUTHORS, MANY OF WHO VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH ME HERE. FOR ME, NO, I MEAN, I THINK RACE TO THE TOP, THERE'S TWO ISSUES HERE. THINGS THAT GOT VERY MUCH RIGHT AND THINGS THAT GOT WRONG. I THINK THE THINGS THAT GOT RIGHT WERE AS WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A BIT, I THINK IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE OTHER CHAPTERS, IT GAVE STATES THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND POLITICAL COVER TO UNCAP ANAK ROWISMS SO THE COVER TO KNOCK DOWN DATA FIREWALLS AND CAPS, I THINK THEY WERE TERRIFIC. I THINK IT DID WHAT JOHN MEDA AND STEVE TELLIS CALL JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE. IT PROVIDES SUPPORT TO FOLKS WHO ARE USUALLY FIGHTING THEIR WAY UPHILL IN STATES WHERE THEY ARE TRYING TO DO WORK DIFFERENTLY. MY TWO BIG CONCERNS WITH RACE TO THE TOP ARE, ONE, THAT I THINK, AGAIN, IT ‑‑ THERE WAS A LACK OF THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO WELL, VERSUS WHAT WE THINK WILL BE GOOD IN SCHOOLS IN GENERAL. AS I WRITTEN, AS I GO DOWN THE

19 PRIORITIES THAT EMERGE, I THINK MOST OF THEM ARE NOT OF THE CLEAR TRANSPARENCY, BRIGHT LINES THAT CHARLIE AND LIZ POINT OUT. I THINK MANY OF THEM LENT THEMSELVES TO SPRAWLING, JARGON‑LADEN GRANT WRITING FOR HIRED CONSULTANTS WHICH CREATE ENORMOUS CONCERNS ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION. MY SECOND CONCERN ABOUT RACE TO THE TOP, WE TALK ABOUT THE LESSONS FROM READING FIRST UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, WHICH I THOUGHT DID A POOR JOB OF HOW DO YOU DRAW FIRM BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE POLITICAL AND THE APPLICATION OF A SEARCH, AND ABOUT ESTABLISHING A REVIEW PROCESS THAT WAS GOING TO BE DEFENSIBLE OVER TIME. AND TO MY MIND, I THOUGHT RACE TO THE TOP BOTH BECAUSE IT WAS ‑‑ YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF A.A.R.A. AND BECAUSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S PREFERENCES, REPEATED MANY OF THOSE MISTAKES. >> I JUST WANTED TO PICK UP ON ONE THING THAT RICK SAID, SORT INFORM PASSING AND THAT IS THAT ONE OF THE CASES THAT CHARLIE AND LIZ MAKE AND THEN

IN THE LATER CHAPTERS AS WELL THIS IDEA OF BRIGHT LINE POLICIES. RIGHT? AND SO THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD AT THAT, THAT YOU CAN WRITE DOWN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR RACE TO THE TOP IS KNOCKING DOWN DATA FIREWALLS AND RAISING CHARTER CAPS. THAT'S A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD REQUIREMENT. IT'S AS AN OUTCOME THAT WE CAN MEASURE AND SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES. WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR IT AND NCLB'S REQUIREMENTS IN DATA TESTING, ANNUAL TESTING AN SETTING STANDARDS. YOU CAN'T TELL PEOPLE TO SET RIGOROUS STANDARDS. YOU CAN'T TELL THEM TO SET RIGOROUS STEPS. I THINK THAT'S THE PIECE OF RACE TO THE TOP THAT I WOULD SAY WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE. >> Peter Cunningham: SO LET ME STAY WITH THAT FOR A SECOND. SO CLEAR BRIGHT LINES IS SOMETHING YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT BUT TAKE THE POLICY WE HAVE ON TEACHER EVALUATIONS, WHICH EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT MUST BE A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF A TEACHER'S EVALUATION AND WE INTENTIONALLY DID NOT DEFINE SIGNIFICANT. WE LEAVE IT TO STATES TO DEFINE IT. NOW, IS THAT GOOD POLICY MAKING? OR IS THAT BAD POLICY MAKING? IT'S CLEARLY AMBIGUOUS. IT'S INTENDED TO BE AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN PICK THAT NUMBER FOR EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD. SO GIVE ME YOUR REACTION TO THAT. FOR EITHER ONE OF YOU TO ANSWER. >> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION FROM THE FLIP SIDE, WHICH IS. WHAT IS THE RIGHT PERCENTAGE? AND AS LONG AS WE CAN'T ANSWER THAT WITH CERTAINLY, THE ROUTE THAT WE HAVE CHOSEN IS PROBABLY BETTER. RIGHT? >> OKAY. THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN ENDORSEMENT. RICK? [ LAUGHTER ] YOU KNOW, ANDREW AND I ARE FAR APART ON MANUFACTURE THESE ISSUES.

 ‑‑ ON MANY OF THESE ISSUES. >> I THINK THE QUESTION IS RIGHT. PART OF MY CONCERN IS I DON'T THINK WE TALK ABOUT IT THE WAY YOU JUST DID. IT'S USUALLY, ARE WE FOR USING VALUE ADDED OR NOT, RATHER THAN WHAT SHOULD THE FEDERAL ROLE BE IN ENCOURAGING THAT DEVELOPMENT. MY STANCE IS, LOOK, WHICH IT WAS HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER BACK IN NCLB OR THE ENCOURAGEMENT THAT YOU ALL ARE PUSHING. I THINK TEACHER QUALITY IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES WHERE IT'S HARD TO ESTABLISH BRIGHT LINES THAT ARE USEFUL. SO, FOR ME, GOOD BRIGHT LINES WOULD BE THINGS LIKE MAKING SURE STATES DON'T HAVE BARRIERS, THAT TALENTS PEOPLE ENTERING THE PROFESSION, MAKING SURE YOU ARE ESTABLISHING BRIGHT LINES ABOUT PORTABILITY OF FUTURE CREDENTIALS. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY NOT AN OPTIMAL FEDERAL ROLE TO TRY TO GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF SUGGESTING HOW STATES OUGHT TO BE EVALUATES. >> Peter Cunningham: GOT IT. SO I'M GOING TO ZIP THROUGH

A COUPLE OF CHAPTERS HERE BECAUSE I WANT TO GET TO SOME OF THE KEY POINTS. CHAPTER 4 IS ON THE COURTS. OBVIOUSLY THE MODERN ERA OF PUBLIC EDUCATION STARTS WITH BROWN vs. BOARD, HUGELY IMPORTANT DECISION THAT SAYS SEGREGATION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT QUOTES STATE SENATOR BARACK OBAMA WHO SAID THAT COURTS ARE POORLY EQUIPPED TO DRIVE CHANGE AND HE CALLS FOR ACTION. OUTLINES THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR, AND IT CONCLUDES THAT COURTS SHOULD SET CLEAR PRINCIPLES BUT NOT MAKE POLICY. ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ONE, OR SHOULD WE JUST CRUISE RIGHT ALONG? >> I THINK I.D.E.A.s, YOU KNOW, JOSH OFFERS AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN THE COURTS PLAY A POWERFUL ROLE. THERE WERE MILLIONS OF CHILDREN WHO GOT THE SHAFT AND ENSURED THAT THE CHILDREN WOULD GET BRIGHT LINE PROTECTIONS. THE FLIP SIDE IS COURTS AREN'T VERY GOOD AT NUANCE OR TRADE OFF. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAS EMERGED 40 YEARS

AFTER THE INITIAL KEY COURT DECISIONS IS THAT WE NOW HAVE OUR HANDS TIED AND WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE SENSIBLE ‑‑ HAVE SENSIBLE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE SURE WE ARE SERVING KIDS EFFICIENTLY AND COST EFFECTIVELY. >> COURTS CAN ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF THEM. IT SOUNDS LIKE A SIMPLE POINT, BUT IT'S TRUE. THEY DON'T ATTACK PROBLEMS LIKE A RESEARCHER WOULD ATTACK A PROBLEM. THEY CAN ONLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AND THAT LEADS TO ALL KINDS OF NEGATIVE, YOU KNOW, EXTERNALITIES AFTER A DECISION POTENTIALLY. >> Peter Cunningham: GOT IT. CHAPTER 5 GOES INTO RESEARCH. THEY MAKE THE POINT THAT RESEARCH IS AN APPROPRIATE FEDERAL ROLE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. IF THE FEDS DON'T DO IT, NO ONE ELSE WILL. STATES AND DISTRICTS ARE NOT REALLY GOOD AT SHARING KNOWLEDGE. THEY SAY THEY ARE. THEY WANT TO CHECK BEST

PRACTICES BUT THE KNOWLEDGE JUST DOESN'T REALLY GET SHARED. QUITE OFTEN THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THINGS GOING ON IN THE NEXT COUNTY, LET ALONE HALFWAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THERE'S A NEED FOR SOME KIND OF COMMON METRICS AND YOU TALK ABOUT THREE THINGS. HE TALKS ABOUT IT ‑‑ THEY TALK ABOUT THREE THINGS, RIGOR, RELEVANCE AND POLITICS. RELEVANCE, IN PARTICULAR, I KNOW IS A PARTICULAR CONCERN OF JOHN EASTON, MY FRIEND WHO IS HERE, WHO ALSO RUNS I.E.S. AND TALKS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THIS RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE. YOU ALSO TALK ABOUT THE TENSION BETWEEN ‑‑ YOU TALK ABOUT THE NEED TO KEEP POLITICS OUT OF RESEARCH, WHICH I THINK IS BEYOND DEBATE AND THEN THE TENSION BETWEEN RIGOR AND RELEVANCE. WHY IS THERE TENSION BETWEEN RIGOR AND RELEVANCE? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULDN'T BE. >> I MEAN, I THINK THAT THIS IS ‑‑ THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IT'S AN INTERESTING SOCIOLOGICAL TALE.

YOU HAVE THE BUSH ERA, OF I.E.S. UNDER RUSS. HE BELIEVES THAT THINGS ARE RANDOMIZED OR THEY ARE NOT ANYTHING AT ALL. SO RUSS BELIEVES THAT YOU CAN ‑‑ AND I.E.S. WAS ORGANIZED AROUND THIS PRINCIPLE, THAT THERE'S A GOLD STANDARD. LIKE A DRUG TRIAL, RIGHT, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THAT WE CAN'T ALWAYS ENSURE THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT LED TO A SUCCESSFUL DRUG TRIAL THAT EVERYBODY OUT IN THE PUBLIC WILL BEHAVE THE SAME WAY AS THE SUBJECTS THAT RECEIVED THE TREATMENT, RIGHT? IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM IN THAT YOUR BEST RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL OF, SAY, A CURRICULUM EXPERIMENT OR SO ON, RIGHT, THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS MAP DIRECTLY ON TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE STATES AND DISTRICTS. >> Peter Cunningham: AND IT TAKES A LONG FREAKING TIME TOO. >> SURE. >> Peter Cunningham: IF YOU NEED AN ANSWER WITHIN TWO OR THREE YEARS, IT'S REALLY HARD TO DO RIGOROUS RESEARCH THAT WILL GET YOU THE ANSWER IN TIME. >> RIGHT.

>> SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T QUITE APPLY TO THE REAL WORLD AND YOU THINK, OKAY, IT'S NOT RELEVANT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PERFECTLY RIGOROUS ALL THE WAY, IS THAT IT? >> I THINK IT'S RELEVANT, BUT AS RICK SAID, IT TAKES A LONG TIME. I THINK IT'S NOT ALWAYS CLEAR HOW RELEVANT A PARTICULAR RANDOMIZED STUDY WAS TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN A PARTICULAR CLASSROOM. THAT'S A NATURAL PENDULUM SWIFT TO WHERE WE WERE IN EDUCATION RESEARCH IN THE '80s AND '90s. I THINK THAT FINDING THE MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, SO‑CALLED RANDOM EISTAS WHICH ARE PEOPLE WHO LOVE RANDOMIZED TRIALS. >> Peter Cunningham: SO THERE'S BROAD CONSENSUS THAT RESEARCH IS ESSENTIAL AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE TO PLAY THERE. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BRIGHT LINE CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR BOOK. >> ABSOLUTELY. AND IF YOU LOOK, FOR INSTANCE, AT THE FEDERAL INVESTMENT EDUCATION RESEARCH, VERSUS THE FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN HEALTH RESEARCH, YOU SEE THAT WE ARE SPENDING

LITERALLY PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. A REAL CONVERSATION, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, JIM SHELTON HAS TRIED TO PUSH THE CONVERSATION AROUND AARPA AHEAD. AND JOHN EASTON HAS MADE THE CASE THAT WE NEED TO UP OUR FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH. I THINK THE AUTHORS ACROSS THE BOARD WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THESE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS. >> AND JUST ONE LAST NOTE ON, THAT I THINK ONE OF THE POINTS THAT MARK AND JAY MAKE IS THAT N.C.S. A LOT OF FOLKS WHO WORK AT N.C.S. ARE CONTRACT MANAGERS. THEY ARE MANAGING CONTRACTS WITH THE EXTERNAL FIRMS AND, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT HOW DO WE DEVELOP SORT OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN. IN C.S. TO DO MORE DIRECT RESEARCH IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION. >> INCENTIVES INFORMATION AND RESEARCH, THEY LOOK AT R.T.T.I. AND I.3 AND THE HISTORIC ROLL IN PROMOTING INNOVATION HERE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, PROJECT FOLLOW THROUGH WHICH WAS

TO BUILD ON HEAD START. TALKS ABOUT DIRECT INSTRUCTION. IT WAS VERY PROMISING, BUT IT WASN'T FULLY SUPPORTED. IT TALKS ABOUT SUCCESS FOR ALL WHICH REMAINS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL INNOVATION AND PROGRAM. IT'S BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME. IT TALKS ABOUT CHALLENGES, GOING TO SCALE, MAINTAINING FIDELITY, NOTES THAT S.E.S. WARNS AGAINST POLITICAL PRESSURE AND ULTIMATELY CONCLUDES THAT WE NEED FEDS TO FUEL CERTAIN THINGS, IT CALLED AARPA ED. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS: WHERE DO WE NEED FEDERALLY DRIVEN INNOVATION? WHERE SHOULD WE LAY BACK AND LET THE FIELD SOLVE THE PROBLEM? IS IT EFFICIENCY? WE TALKED ABOUT EFFICIENCY OVER AT A.E.I., TECHNOLOGY, STEM, BULLYING, ASSESSMENT. WHERE SHOULD WE BE PUSHING INNOVATION? >> ONE OF THE TENSIONS THAT LARRY BERG, YOU KNOW THAT LARRY AND DAVID AND PAT POINT OUT IS MADE SURE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS LEGISLATORS LIKE TO SPREAD THE GOODIES. SO THERE'S A TENANCY

WHENEVER YOU ARE PASSING ANY LEGISLATION, EVEN S.E.A., WITH THE FOCUS ON MAKING SURE WE ARE DELIVERING RESOURCES TO, YOU KNOW, POOR KIDS, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL S.E.A. PUT MONEY IN 98% OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AND ONE THE TENSIONS THAT THEY POINT OUT WHEN IT COMES TO FEDERALLY FUNDED INNOVATION IS THERE'S A TENDENCY TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY TO A LOT OF PLAYERS RATHER THAN TO ACTUALLY MAKE THE BIG BETS WHICH HISTORICALLY ACTUALLY DRIVE BIG PROBLEM SOLVING. >> UNTIL NOW. [ LAUGHTER ] >> WELL, THIS IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION. IF WE LOOK AT THE I3 WINNERS. ONE THE QUESTIONS THAT HAS COMP. I SUGGESTED, FOR INSTANCE, THAT I3 IS REALLY LESS ABOUT INNOVATION, AND MUCH MORE ABOUT RECOGNIZING SOME OF THE MORE EFFECTIVE MODELS THAT HAVE EMERGED IN THE PAST DECADE OR TWO. I WOULD SUGGEST TO TEACH FOR AMERICA AND KIP, WERE BOTH ARGUABLY INNOVATIVE IN THE EARLY '90s COULD SEE EITHER OF THEM AS

PARTICULARLY INNOVATIVE TODAY. >> BUT STILL WORTH SCALING UP? >> SURE, ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. SO THERE'S REALLY TWO KINDS OF INNOVATION TO YOUR QUESTION, PETER. YOU CAN RECOGNIZE AND PUT ON STRONGER FOOTING MODELS THAT HAVE EMERGED THAT ARE GOOD FOR KIDS AND GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY AND I THINK THAT'S THE KEEP OF INVEST ‑‑ KIND OF INVESTMENT IN KIP AND F.T.A. AND THE OTHER IS TRYING TO CULTIVATE OR LAUNCH TRULY INNOVATIVE MODELS THAT WE HAVEN'T YET FIGURED OUT AND THAT AREN'T ANY MORE THAN A GLIMPSE IN SOMEBODY'S EYE. >> Peter Cunningham: HAVE WE DONE THAT ANYWHERE, YOU WOULD SAY? >> NO, NOT REALLY. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE IN DOING IN FIELDS LIKE AEROSPACE, OR THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, AND THERE IF YOU THINK ABOUT FEDERAL ROLE, THERE'S BIG FEDERAL INVESTMENTS ON THE FRONT END IN WHAT WE CALL BASIC RESEARCH. PEOPLE FIGURING OUT THE

BUILDING PIECES THAT YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY USE TO GO MAKE MONEY, BUT THAT ‑‑ BUT THAT SOMEBODY NEEDS. THEN THERE'S THIS HAND OFF TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR TYPICALLY, AND THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STEPS BACK IN, SAY AT THE FDA WHERE THERE'S AN APPROVAL PROCESS, WHERE WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PROTECTING US AGAINST THINGS WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT IN THE MARKETPLACE. >> Peter Cunningham: SO I THINK THE DISTINCTION YOU ARE MAKING, JUST TO BE CLEAR, OUR INNOVATION PROGRAM, YOU THINK, IS IDENTIFYING INTERESTING AND SUCCESSFUL MODELS AND SAYING, LET'S SCALE THEM BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE GUYS IN THE LAB COATS WHO ARE BLUE SKYING THE ISSUES AND THINKING OF THE OUTLANDISH NEW WAYS TO EDUCATE ‑‑ >> I THINK WE THINK ABOUT THE ENORMOUS FEDERAL INVESTMENT AND THE SCIENTISTS SLAVING AWAY AT CAL TECH OR M.I.T. OR OHIO STATE THAT THE BASIC THINGS THEY ARE DISCOVERING IN THEIR LABS, BECOME THE BUILDING BLOCKS THAT THE BLUE SKIES

USE. >> Peter Cunningham: WE MOVE TO CHAPTER 7. THEY TALK ABOUT OUTPUTS, OPPORTUNITIES AND OUTCOMES. OUTPUTS ARE BEING, YOU KNOW, POLICIES AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. OPPORTUNITY BEING EQUITY AND WHEN YOU HAVE THE KIDS WITH THE OPPORTUNITIES. AND THEN OUTCOMES, OF COURSE, BEING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND BASICALLY POINT OUT THAT YOU HAVE TO MEASURE WHAT YOU TREASURE AND IT WILL RECEIVE LOWER PRIORITY AND YOU NEED SOME KIND OF STANDARDIZED TESTING OR SOME KIND OF ASSESSMENT. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DRIVE ACCOUNTABLE FROM ONE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TO ANOTHER. YOU NEED A LOT OF CREDIBILITY AND CARROTS AND STICKS MAY A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO FOCUS ON SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH, BUILDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE DATA SYSTEMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND FINALLY TRANSPARENCY BUT BEING IN THE OUTCOMES BUSINESS WHERE WE ARE SUDDENLY TRYING TO SHAME

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTS, WE ARE IN THE CLASSROOM, IT'S JUST TOO FAR TO GO. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS, FIRST OF ALL, DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE PERFORMANCE TARGETS THAT ARE SET ANYWHERE NEAR WASHINGTON? WHY DON'T YOU START WITH THAT QUESTION. IS THE WHOLE IDEA THAT CONGRESS OR EVEN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAN SET PERFORMANCE TARGETS JUST OFF BASE IN YOUR OPINION? IN THE OPINION OF SOME OF YOUR AUTHORS. >> RICK AND I MAY DIFFER ON THIS. WE PROBABLY DO. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT THE PERFORMANCE TARGETS ARE MEANT TO DO. ARE THEY TIED TO A BLUNT SANCTION OR A SERIES OF CASCADING REMEDIES THAT DISTRICTS HAVE TO IMPLEMENT WITH ABSOLUTE FIDELITY TO HAVE THEM WORK, OR ARE, YOU KNOW, THE DEPARTMENT VIA, YOU KNOW, N.A.P. OR, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY NOT CONGRESS, BUT, YOU KNOW, SCORE KEEPERS ROLE.

ARE YOU SETTING AND KEEPING SCORE? SETTING STANDARDS AND KEEPING SCORE SUCH THAT WE CAN TELL WHICH STATES AND WHICH DISTRICTS ARE DOING WELL AND WHICH AREN'T? >> SO OTHER GUYS IN THE BOOKS SAY SCORE KEEPING IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO DO WELL. >> YES, I THINK THAT'S THE DISTINCTION I WOULD MAKE. AS LONG AS IT ACTUALLY FREES UP SPACE FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO DEPEND MORE AND FOR LOCAL DECISION MAKERS TO ACTUALLY EMPOWER THEM TO MAKE CHANGE. THAT'S WHERE I THINK TRANSPARENCY IS MOST POWERFUL. I THINK TYING IT TO ‑‑ TO REMEDIES THAT ‑‑ RIGHT. YES. EXACTLY. >> NO STICKS. >> NO STICKS. NOT NO STICKS, BUT ‑‑ YOU KNOW, TYING IT TO REMEDIES THAT NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITH SOME FIDELITY IS A MUCH MORE DUBIOUS PROPOSITION TO ME. >> RICK, ANYTHING ON THAT? >> SURE. >> PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND

APPROPRIATE THINGS. LET ME PIVOT TO ANOTHER QUESTION. WE ANSWERED. THIS I WANT TO GO STRAIGHT TO YOU ON, THIS RICK, BECAUSE I FOE YOU HAVE STRONG OPINION OZ ON IT. WITH THE WAIVER PROCESS THAT WE BEGAN THIS YEAR, WE ARE ESSENTIALLY SITTING DOWN STATE BY STATE AND SAYING, OKAY, NCLB HAS HAD SOME NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOU. SO WE WANT TO WORK FOR YOU. WE WANT TO HAVE A COMMON BAR THAT KIDS GRADUATE COLLEGE READY. THAT'S OF THE NORTH STAR FOR EVERYBODY. WE WILL WORK WITH YOU TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT AND HOW YOUR ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM WILL DO AND HOW THE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM WILL CAPTURE THE KIDS AT RISK. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT APPROACH IN TERMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY? >> NOT A LOT. I THINK IT'S PREFERRABLE TO THE NCLB MODEL. THE TRICK WITH THE NCLB MODEL IS WHEN YOU SET ARBITRARY PERFORMANCE MODELS AND YOU DON'T

CONTROL THE LEVERS TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, YOU EITHER SET THEM TOO HIGH IN WHICH CASE YOU CREATE LOTS OF INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE TO GAIN THE SYSTEM OR YOU SET THEM TOO LOW AND THEY DON'T SERVE THE PURPOSE. I'M A HUGE BELIEVER IN STRUCTURAL INCENTIVES, CARROTS AND STICKS. I'M MUCH MORE EXCITED ABOUT KAIIA HENDERSON, THE CHANCELLOR IN WASHINGTON, D.C., SETTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE CHILDREN OF WASHINGTON, D.C., BECAUSE SHE CAN EFFECT THOSE AND SHE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE THAN I AM FOLKS ON CAPITOL HILL OR IN THIS DEPARTMENT COMING UP WITH WHAT THEY THINK KYA'S GOALS OUGHT TO BE. SO AT THAT LEVEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO SAY, LOOK, CONGRESS WANTS TO CONDITION YOUR FEDERAL AID ON THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY IN THE BUSINESS OF PAYING ATTENTION TO WHETHER YOU ARE SERVING ALL CHILDREN WELL, AND THAT WE WANT TO KIND OF KEEP SOME PRESSURE ON YOUR WAY, THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE AND USEFUL WAY TO USE THE BULLY PULPIT.

>> Peter Cunningham: I KNOW YOU HAVE WRITTEN A LOT ABOUT THE FACT THAT WAIVERS SEEM TO BE MAKING LAW THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS AND THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE, BUT THE GENERAL IDEA THAT AN ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM THAT VARIES BY STATE, AS LONG AS THE OVERALL GOAL IS THE SAME, IS NOT SOMETHING BAD FROM YOUR STANDPOINT? >> NO, THAT'S A DECIDED IMPROVEMENT FROM WHAT NCLB PUT IN PLACE. >> CHAPTER 8, UNCLE SAM AND THE GREAT CITY'S SCHOOL DISTRICT BY MIKE CASTERLIE. I THINK HE MIGHT HAVE MISSED HIS CALLING AS A POE YET. FOR THE PAST 60 YEARS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN URBAN IS A MIX OF RHETORICAL HIGH MINDEDNESS, AND TIMIDITY, AND GRAND INTENTIONS AND OPERATIONAL HAPLESSNESS. TELL US WHAT YOU REALLY FEEL, MIKE! [ LAUGHTER ] MIKE IS A GREAT PARTNER WITH US. HE TALKS ABOUT THE BULLY PULPIT AS AN IMPORTANT ROLE AND HE DISCOURAGES MANDATES, SOLUTIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE, DOESN'T LIKE THOSE

AT ALL. HIGHLIGHTS A COUPLE OF FAILURES AND POINTS TO N.C.S. AS ONE THAT DOESN'T WORK AT ALL. HE CALLS TO RESEARCH AND SUPPORT FOR HIGH STANDARDS BUT NOT MANDATES AND DIRECT ENGAGEMENT WITH THE FIELD. GIVEN THAT MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS, GIVEN THE SCALE OF LARGE URBAN DISTRICTS ONE OF WHICH I WORKED IN, CAUGHT, WITH ARNE, SOME THAT ARE BIGGER THAN STATES IS THERE A ROLE BETWEEN DIRECT RELATIONS AND BIG DISTRICTS. WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE DISTRICTS VERSUS THROUGH THE STATES? NOTHING, SOMETHING, ANYTHING? WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? >> GREAT QUESTION. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I'M INCREDIBLY LEERY OF THAT, BECAUSE DISTRICTS ALREADY HAVE LIMITED BANDWIDTH AND ASKING THEM TO BOTH HANDLE THE NEGOTIATION, THE REPORTING PROCESS WITH THE S.E.A.s, AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME. THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY ON EFFORTS

TO SUPPORT INNOVATION OR WHAT JAL AND STEVE CALL JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE, NEW SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION LIKE RELAY AND SUPPORTING NEW SCHOOL PROVIDERS AND THE ADOPTION OF PORTFOLIO MODELS, I THINK FEDERAL AID FLOWING DIRECTLY TO THOSE ENTITIES, RATHER THAN NECESSARILY BEING FUNNELED THROUGH S.E.A.s IS APPROPRIATE AND CONSTRUCTIVE. >> BUT S.E. A.s, IMPLEMENT AT THE GROUND LEVEL. WE HAVE SOME GRANTS THAT GO DIRECTLY TO THE DISTRICTS BUT FOR THE MOST PART, YOU THINK WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT. IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? >> SO, AGAIN, IF WE THINK ABOUT THE TRIPLE BAGGING. WHEN THE FEDS FUND THE S.E.A.s. THEY ARE NOT FUNDING KIDS. THEY ARE PASSING ALONG FUNDS TO L.E.A.s. SO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE FEDS TRYING TO SHORT CIRCUIT THAT. THE FEDS ARE TRYING TO INTERACT DIRECTLY WITH DISTRICTS. MY CONCERN IS, A, I SUSPECT THAT OVERLOADS THE BANDWIDTH, EVEN IN MOST LARGE DISTRICTS WHICH WHICH I

HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH. >> Peter Cunningham: THE CAPACITY TO APPLY AND MANAGE A BEGAN ‑‑ >> AND TO MANAGE ‑‑ IT'S EXACTLY LIKE WHAT WE TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF LINES OF AUTHORITY IN ANY ORGANIZATION. BUT THE SECOND AND POTENTIALLY BIGGER CHALLENGE IS, FRANKLY, THAT DISTRICTS ARE EMBEDDED IN LOCAL POLITICAL CONTEXT, AND IF THEY ARE GETTING SUPPORT OR MARCHING ORDERS FROM AN ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT ADMINISTRATION CHANGES DIRECTION, EITHER BECAUSE THINGS CHANGE ON CAPITOL HILL OR BECAUSE THERE'S AN ELECTION OR WHATEVER ELSE, THEY ARE NOW GOING TO BE BUFFETTS BOTH BY CHANGES IN THE NATIONAL POLITICAL LANDSCAPE, AS WELL AS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, AND I THINK OVER TIME, IF WE THINK BACK TO KIND OF WHAT CHARLIE AND LIZ WROTE ABOUT, THAT THIS ACTUALLY CREATES A LOT MORE CHALLENGES FOR LEADING DISTRICTS EFFECTIVELY. >> OKAY. CHAPTER 9. AND BEFORE I GO ON, LET ME

JUST SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO Q&A IN A FEW MINUTES. THERE'S A MICROPHONE OVER HERE AND I HAVE A MICROPHONE HERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP, I WILL GIVE IT TO YOU. BUT CHAPTER 9 IS CALLED A NEW FEDERAL ROLE, JAL MEHTA AND STEVEN TELLIS. THIS OPENS UP WITH A POINT THAT ALMOST EVERYBODY MAKES, WHICH IS WE ARE INHERENTLY DESCENTERRALLIZED 50 STATES AND 100,000 SCHOOLS AND THEREFORE IT'S NECESSARILY DIFFICULT TO DO ‑‑ TO DRIVE CHANGE FROM THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT LOTS OF OTHER HIGH PERFORMING COUNTRIES ARE IDENTIFIED. NO ONE THINKS WE SHOULD MOVE TO CENTRALIZATION. NO ONE THINKS THAT THE FEDERAL ROLE SHOULD BE TO RUN ALL SCHOOLS AND WE DON'T EITHER. IN ANY CASE THIS TALKS ABOUT ‑‑ YOU WERE JUST REFERRING TO IT, SUPPORTING NEW AGENTS, THAT ONE OF THE ROLES WE CAN HAVE HERE AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE FEDERAL LEVEL IS TO START IDENTIFY NEW AGENTS OR REFORM GROUPS OR

OTHER AGENTS OF CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM. AND SO MY QUESTION TO BOTH OF YOU IS THIS, WOULD THE CHARTER MOVEMENT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT FEDERAL SUPPORT? WE PUT IN LESS THAN 1% OF OUR BUDGET SUPPORTS CHARTER SCHOOLS AND THAT AMOUNT IS LIKE A TINY SLIVER OF WHAT IS SPENT ON CHARTER EDUCATION IN THE COUNTRY. WOULD THE CHARTER MOVEMENT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT US? I GUESS IT DID HAPPEN WITHOUT US. WHAT ROLE DO WE STILL HAVE IN SUPPORTING REFORM? >> WELL, I THINK FROM WHERE I SIT, IT'S LESS IMPORTANT THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF FUNDING THAT GOES TO CHARTER SCHOOLS FROM THE FEDS. THIS IS WHERE THE BULLY PULPIT COMES IN, TAKING A STAND, AND THE FACT THAT CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE A LEGITIMATE PIECE OF EDUCATION PORTFOLIO, THAT'S A POWERFUL MOMENT. I MEAN, I THINK THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT HAS GOTTEN SO MANY ACCOLADES FROM SOMEBODY LIKE A DAVID BROOKS

OR SOMETHING IS BECAUSE HE'S BEEN OUT AND OUT A CHARTER SCHOOL SUPPORTER FROM THE START AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WITH THE CHARTER SCHOOL MOVEMENT HAVE HAPPENED? PROBABLY. AT THE SAME SCALE THAT IT HAS HAPPENED ‑‑ THAT IT HAS GOTTEN TO NOW? PROBABLY NOT. >> THAT'S RIGHT AND CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON WENT OUT TO DON CHAVIS' SCHOOL AND SIGNED THE CHARTER LEGISLATION IN '94. THAT HAD A BIG IMPACT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JAL AND STEVE TALK ABOUT, THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN LEGITIMIZE CERTAIN KINDS OF PROVIDERS, ESPECIALLY INNOVATIVE OR NONTRADITIONAL PROVIDERS. AND AS ANDREW SAID, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, PRESIDENT OBAMA AND SECRETARY DUNCAN DESERVE REAL, YOU KNOW, CREDIT FOR, IS THEY HAVE SPOKEN MUCH MORE EXPLICITLY ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLING, ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS OF PAYING TEACHERS, ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS OF RECRUITING TEACHERS AND ANY PRIOR

ADMINISTRATION. SO THERE IS THIS ENORMOUS FEDERAL ROLE, AND IT'S BOTH THE BULLY PULPIT BUT IT'S ALSO THE SIGNAL SENT BY THE DOLLARS. SO WHEN WE GO BACK TO I3, THE FACT THAT T.I.P. OR T.F.A. HAVE NOW WON WHAT HAS SON AS A FAIR AND PERFORMANCE‑BASED COMPETITION FOR $50 MILLION IS SOMETHING THAT WILL INEVITABLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO GROW AND SUCCEED GOING FORWARD. >> DO YOU THINK WE CAN EFFECTIVELY PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS? >> IT DEPEPS. THIS ‑‑ IT DEPENDS. THIS GOES BACK TO THE QUESTION OF RACE TO THE TOP. I THINK WE DID NOT DO IT WELL. IT DID NOT DO IT WELL LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE BUILT THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS PROBLEMATIC. I'M NOT PERSONALLY CONFIDENT IN HOW RACE TO THE TOP CAME OUT, FOR INSTANCE. I CERTAINLY DO THINK IF WE LOOK AT I.E.S. COMPETITION OR N.I.H. INVESTMENT OR, YOU KNOW, N.S.F. INVESTMENT THAT ABSOLUTELY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CAPABLE OF BUILDING RIGOROUS AND

RESPECTED COMPETITIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY ARE NOT PERFECT, BUST I THINK ALL OF US WILL FEEL ARE IRRELEVANT FAIR AND COMPETENTLY RUN. >> Peter Cunningham: CHAPTER 10, THE BULLY PULL IT WRITTEN BY CHESTER FINN. BILINGUAL ED HE WAS TOUGH ON. HEAD START HE'S TOUGH ON. AGENDA SETTERS HE GOES FROM BROWN TO E.S.A., AND THE NATION AT RISK, N.A.P., AND SO HE THINKS THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF CASES WHERE THE BULLY PULPIT HAS BEEN EFFECTIVE BUT HE SAYS CHANGE HAPPENS WHEN THE STARS ALL ALIGN. WHEN YOU HAVE A PROBLEM THAT'S BIG ENOUGH AND AFFECTS THE WHOLE COUNTRY AND THEN YOU HAVE A FAVORABLE POLITICAL CLIMATE. HOW ALIGNED OFFER UNALIGNED ARE THE STARS TODAY? ANDREW, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THAT ONE? >> RIGHT NOW, I WOULD SUGGEST THE STARS ARE NOT VERY WELL ALIGNED. I THINK THAT ‑‑ >> Peter Cunningham: POLITICS FOR SURE. >> POLITICS FOR SURE. >> Peter Cunningham: IS THERE A

PROBLEM BIG ENOUGH? IS EVERYONE AGREED THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM? >> I THINK WE HAVE AGREED WE HAVE A PROBLEM. I THINK THAT PART OF ‑‑ I THINK THAT THE WINDOW THAT PRODUCED RACE TO THE TOP, WHICH CHESTER CALLS THE FROSTING ON TOP OF A BIG SPOT OF DOLLARS, WE WERE IN THE MIDST OF A RECESSION AND YOU WERE ABLE TO PUSH OUT SOME POLICY CHANGES THAT STATES AND DISTRICTS DESPERATELY NEEDED. I THINK THE STARS ARE NOT ALIGNED. POLITICALLY IT'S TOUGH. WE CERTAINLY HAVE A TOUGH ECONOMY, BUT I THINK THAT THE POLITICAL DYNAMICS ARE NOT SET. >> OKAY. >> ONE OTHER IMPORTANT QUESTION, SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BULLY PULPIT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT, DO YOU THINK THAT THE BUDGET FOR THE COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH SHOULD BE INCREASED? [ LAUGHTER ] ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON. WE'LL MOVE ON. SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE?

ANYBODY LIKE TO POSE A QUESTION TO OUR TWO SCHOLARS HERE? PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COME ON OVER HERE TO THE MICROPHONE OR STAND UP. WE WILL TRY TO GIVE YOU THE MIC. I THOUGHT I SAW ONE HAND GO UP OVER HERE. THERE ARE A COUPLE MORE CHAPTERS I MIGHT REFERENCE, BUT LET'S TAKE A FEW QUESTIONS. STAND UP, IF YOU CAN. >> I'M INTERESTED IN HEARING YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE ROLE OF PHILANTHROPY IN EDUCATION, IN PARTICULAR, PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS, AND JUST LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT. IT SEEMS RELATIVELY NEW ERA IN TERMS OF ITS INFLUENCE BUT MAYBE YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT. AND ALSO, IN ADDITION TO INDIVIDUAL PHILANTHROPISTS OR FOUNDATIONS, YOUR THOUGHTS ON KIND OF CONSORTIUM MOVEMENTS LIKE 100K AND 10 AND THOSE SORTS OF TRYING TO BUILD MOMENTUM AROUND AN ISSUE BY BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER IN A DIFFERENT KIND OF A WAY. >> SURE.

THIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT SOME. THREE KEY POINTS, I GUESS. ONE IS IT CAN FEEL LIKE WHAT PHILANTHROPY IS DOING TODAY IS NOVEL. I THINK IT'S NOT NEW. IT'S JUST A BIGGER SCALE. THE FORD FOUNDATION WAS AGGRESSIVELY PUSHING FINANCE EQUITY. IT WAS SUPPORTING LAWSUITS AND RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY. YOU CAN GO BACK A CENTURY, THE BILLING OUT OF AMERICA LIBRARIES WAS VERY MUCH A OF THE POLICY PUSH BY THE BIG FOUNDATIONS. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TODAY, THOUGH, AND WHAT IS DIFFERENT, IS THAT THE NEW FOUNDATIONS THAT HAVE EMERGED IN THE LAST 15 YEARS, GATES, WALTON, BROAD, FAMILIAR NAMES TO THOSE IN EDUCATION, HAVE VERY AGGRESSIVELY AND ACCOUNTIVELY DECIDED THAT THEY NEED TO PLAY WHEN IT COMES TO POLICY, IF THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A BIG IMPACT. I THINK THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE RIGHT DECISION. THIS WAS A HUGE PIVOT FOR GATES, FOR INSTANCE, IN ABOUT '04, WHEN IT MOVES OFF THE SMALL HIGH SCHOOLS.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BECOME MORE OBVIOUS AT A NUMBER OF NEW FUNDERS LIKE THE ARNOLD FOUNDATION, FOR INSTANCE. AND I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT CALL BECAUSE WHILE ALL PHILANTHROPY COMBINED IS MAYBE 3 OR $4 BILLION A YEAR IN AMERICAN K‑12, TOTAL K‑12 SPENDING IS ABOUT $600 OR $650 BILLION. SO PHILANTHROPY, AS JAY GREEN WROTE, "BUCKETS INTO THE SEA" IT'S A FRACTION ON THE PENNY ON THE DOLLAR. THIS BRINGS UP THE THIRD POINT, WHICH ONCE YOU ARE INVOLVED IN POLICY, YOU ARE INEVITABLY GOING TO BE WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH OFFICIALS AT THE STATE LEVEL, THE DISTRICT LEVEL AND THE FEDERAL LEVEL. YOU WILL BE ENCOURAGING THEM TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. YOU WILL BE SITTING IN ROOMS WITH THEM, IN PLACES LIKE I3, YOU WILL BE INVOLVED IN PARTNERSHIPS. I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE FOR FOUNDATIONS TO PLAY IN POLICY. I THINK THIS IS PART OF THE GENIUS OF OUR SYSTEM THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE

WITH DIFFERENT LEVEL OF RESOURCES ARE FREE TO WADE IN AND TRY TO MAKE ‑‑ PUSH FOR THE CHANGES THAT THEY THINK ARE BEST FOR OUR NATIONS AND OR FOR OUR KIDS. I DISAGREE WITH MY FRIEND DIANE RAVAGE. ON THE OTHER HAND, PERSONALLY, I GET VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, A, WHETHER OR NOT WE ACCIDENTALLY STIFLE HONEST CRITICISM. IF YOU ARE SOMEBODY LIKE ANDREW OR I WHO HAVE TO DEPEND ON THE LARGE FOUNDATIONS, IT CAN BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO BE CRITICAL AND TO SAY THINGS THAT YOU THINK FOUNDATIONS MAY NOT WANT TO HEAR. AND WHEN FOUNDATIONS ARE IN PARTNERSHIP, PARTICULARLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, I CAN TELL YOU FROM WHERE I SET, THAT GETS TEN TIMES AS SCARY, BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE FEDERAL INITIATIVES ARE ALSO INITIATIVES OF THE GATES FOUNDATION, FOR INSTANCE. FOR SOMEBODY IN MY POSITION, WHO MIGHT HAVE HONEST CONCERNS, WE MIGHT THINK THREE OR FOUR TIMES BEFORE ACTUALLY SAYING THEM. SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS THAT WE DON'T ALLOW

GROUP THINK TO TAKE HOLD BY MISTAKE. >> AND JUST ONE THING TO ADD, ONE THAT CAME UP IN THE BOOK AND IN THE CONFERENCE ITSELF WAS AN INTERESTING DISTINCTION BETWEEN A FEDERAL MOVEMENT AND A NATIONAL MOVEMENT. SO FEDERAL POLICY BEING, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PASSES AND IMPLEMENTS, VERSUS A NATIONAL MOVEMENT THAT BUBBLES, UP. FOUNDATIONS WILL PLAY A MUCH BIGGER ROLE IN THE LADDER EVER HAPPENING. WHERE ARE THE IDEAS AND THE MONIES TO FUND THAT NATIONAL MOVEMENT GOING TO COME FROM? >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HERE'S A QUESTION OVER HERE. WHY DON'T YOU STAND UP. >> Audience Member: HI. I'M A TEACHER IN PHILADELPHIA. LOOKING BACK 50 YEARS, I WONDER TO WHAT EXTENT YOU SEE TEACHER VOICE OR TEACHERS AS PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN THE POLICY AND GOING FORWARD IF THERE'S A GAP THERE? AND I WOULD SUGGEST THERE IS. GOING FORWARD TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT OR NATIONAL MOVEMENT BE ORCHESTRATED TO BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURES THAT TEACHERS HAVE THE TIME AND RESOURCES TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE POLICY OR INFLUENCE IT? >> THIS IS A FABULOUS QUESTION! WHEN I TEACH, ESPECIALLY PRACTITIONERS THIS COMES UP ALL THE TIME. I THINK THE TEACHER VOICE ‑‑ AND FRANKLY, ALSO THE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP VOICE HAS BEEN LARGELY ABSENT. I THINK THERE'S TWO KEY FACTORS HERE. ONE IS THAT POLICYMAKERS ARE BUSY AND THEY DON'T LISTEN TO RESEARCHERS AS MUCH AS RESEARCHERS WISH THEY WOULD. THEY DON'T LISTEN VERY MUCH AT ALL AND THEY DON'T LISTEN TO PRACTITIONERS VERY MUCH AT ALL. THEY ARE BUSY DOING THEIR WORK IN THEIR ORBIT AND THEY DON'T ENCOUNTER A LOT OF PRACTITIONERS IN THAT ORBIT. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT I THINK PRACTITIONERS ARE MASSIVELY TO BLAME IN. MY EXPERIENCE, WHEN THE PRACTITIONERS DO GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT

THE POLICY MAKERS ON WHAT THEY OFTEN DO, THEY TELL POLICYMAKERS THAT THEY WANT MORE STUFF, MORE RESOURCES, MORE FREEDOM TO WHATEVER THEY FEEL IS GOOD FOR KIDS OR THEY TELL POLICIES WHAT THEY REALLY NEED TO DO, WHAT THEY SHOULD DO, AND WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY. POLICYMAKERS, THE BEST SCAMY OF THIS WAS '94 REAUTHORIZATION OF THE S.E.A. THE POLICYMAKERS AND IN PARTICULAR THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, THEY THOUGHT THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME COMPARABLE REPORTING ACROSS THE NATION. THEY WANTED TO ENCOURAGE STATES TO TEST KIDS IN READING AND MATH, ONCE IN ELEMENTARY, AND ONCE IN MIDDLE SCHOOL AND ONCE IN HIGH SCHOOL. NO CONSEQUENCES. NO STICKS. JUST A PUBLIC REPORT CARD READING AND MATH, ONCE A YEAR AT ONE GRADE LEVEL. WHEN PRACTITIONERS AND RESEARCHERS WERE AT THAT CONVERSATION THEY SCREAMED, THERE'S NO WAY. THEY SAID THIS IS DESTRUCTIVE. ALL YOU WANT TO DO IS MEASURE THINGS.

AND THEY BASICALLY STOMPED OUT OF THE ROOM. THAT'S WHY WE WOUND UP WITH VOLUNTARY REPORTING UNDER I.I.S.A. IN '94 AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS FOLKS LIKE TED KENNEDY AND GEORGE MILLER WERE SO FRUSTRATED BY THAT RESPONSE, THAT WHEN IT CAME TO NCLB, THEY BASICALLY SAID, LOOK, GUYS WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. FOLKS LIKE MIKE CASSERLY WERE AT THE TABLE BECAUSE THEY WERE WILLING TO COOPERATE. I THINK PRACTITIONERS NEED TO GET INTO THE HABIT OF HELPING TO SOLVE PROBLEMS RATHER THAN SIMPLY SHARING WHAT THEY WISH THE WORLD WOULD BE LIKE. >> I CAN MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. AS YOU MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE THE TEACHING AMBASSADOR FELLOW PROGRAM. WE ARE REALLY, REALLY PROUD OF IT AND WE ARE ESPECIALLY PROUD OF THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE THIS YEAR, REACHING OUT TO THEIR COLLEAGUES AND REFORMING THE TEACHING PROFESSION. THAT WORK, I BELIEVE, WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES, FOREVER.

AND SO WE ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. THE SECOND THING IS WE ARE WORKING EQUALLY HARD WITH UNIONS DIRECTLY ENGAGING WITH THEM TO REALLY MAKE THEM PARTNERS IN REFORM, AND DESPITE SORT OF THE NATIONAL NARRATIVE AROUND THEM, AND THE HOLLYWOOD NARRATIVE OR WHATEVER, WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE WORK ‑‑ WORKING WITH RANDY AND WORKING AT THE LOCAL LEVELS. SO JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB THAN WE HAVE DONE. AS RICK POINTED OUT, MAYBE THE CONVERSATION HAS GONE THE WRONG WAY. SOMETIMES IN THE PAST, BUT JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T SUCCEED, YOU CAN'T QUIT. SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IT'S VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT TEACHERS BE AT THE TABLE AND THEIR VOICE BE HEARD AND SO WE'RE WORKING HARD TO DO THAT. I SEE A QUESTION OVER HERE NOW. RIGHT BEHIND THE POST. >> Audience Member: THERE'S A NEW GALLUP POLL OUT THIS WEEKS THAT SUGGESTS CONFIDENCE IN U.S. SCHOOLS IS

AT AN ALL‑TIME LOW. MOST PEOPLE GET THEIR INFORMATION ABOUT SCHOOLS FROM MY COLLEAGUES IN THE MEDIA WHO ACCORDING TO GALLUP THEY TRUST EVEN LESS THAN THE SCHOOLS. AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU THINK THIS IS JUST SORT OF A BITE BACK FROM THE OVERWHELMING EMPHASIS ON REFORM, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT SCHOOLS ARE SOMEHOW BROKEN? IS THAT A BAD THING OR IS THIS A GOOD TIME TO BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF I DON'T WANT TO SAY MASS PANIC BUT A SENSE AMONG THE PUBLIC THAT THINGS REALLY HAVE TO BE BETTER? >> I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. >> ANDREW, DON'T LET HIM ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS, OKAY? >> I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT THAT OBVIOUSLY THE LARGER DEBATES AND THE NARRATIVE MATTER. I WILL LET ANDREW ACTUALLY GIVE THIS ‑‑ WHAT I WILL JUST SAY IS THAT ONE OF THE INTERESTING TRENDS IS IF YOU GO BACK TO THE VERY FIRST GALLUP POLLS ON EDUCATION IN THE LATE '60s AND TRACK THEM TODAY, WHAT YOU ALWAYS SEE IS HUGE NUMBERS

OF AMERICANS EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT THE NATION'S SCHOOLS IN THE WHOLE. BUT A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS GIVING THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS, THE SCHOOL THAT THEIR OLDEST CHILD ATTENDS AN A OR A B. THIS IS VERY MUCH LIKE THE PROBLEM WITH CONGRESS. EVERYBODY HATES CONGRESS BUT LIKES THEIR CONGRESSMAN. WHEN IT COMES TO REFORM. IF THEY LIKE WHAT THEY HAVE GOT, THEY ARE RELUCTANT TO CHANGE IT. SO THE CHALLENGE IS I THINK WHAT MATTERS IN TERMS OF OUR ABLE TO REALLY CONVINCE PEOPLE WE NEED TO DO BETTER FOR KIDS, IT'S NOT THAT NUMBER OF HOW DO THEY FEEL ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS OVERALL. IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THEY FEEL LIKE THEIR SCHOOL NEEDS TO CHANGE AND WE HAVE NOT SEEN THAT MUCH MOVEMENT IN THAT NUMBER IN THE LAST FOUR DECADES. >> YES, I WOULD JUST SAY YOU STOLE MY DATA POINT, BUT THAT'S FINE. IT'S NOT MINE. IT'S GALLUP'S. RICK MAKES A GREAT POINT AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD TACK ON TO THAT, THAT

SUGGESTS ALSO A DIFFICULTY IN GENERATING A LASTING COALITION AROUND NATIONAL ‑‑ A NATIONAL COALITION AROUND SCHOOL REFORM THAT DOESN'T JUST INCLUDE URBAN PARENTS THAT INCLUDES MIDDLE‑CLASS PARENTS AND SUBURBAN PARENTS SAYING THIS IS AN ISSUE WE CARE ABOUT AND THIS IS AN ISSUE WE WILL GO TO THE POLLS ABOUT AND VOTE ON. WE THINK THE SCHOOLS DOWN THE STREET ARE TERRIBLE, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE THAT YOU NECESSARILY SEE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT WILL ANIMATE YOU AS A VOTER AND A CITIZEN. >> Peter Cunningham: WHAT I WOULD SAY, OBVIOUSLY HAVING A BIG HAND IN SHAPING THE SECRETARY'S MESSAGE, WE BELIEVE THERE'S A BIG PROBLEM. I ASKED ABOUT THE CHESTER FINN CHAPTER, YOU NEED A CONSENSUS THIS THERE IS A PROBLEM AND YOU CAN ONLY CONVINCE PEOPLE THERE IS A PROBLEM IF YOU SAY THERE IS A PROBLEM. WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IS MAYBE THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT COMMUNICATION STRATEGY, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CONSEQUENCES OF, YOU KNOW, COMPLACENCY IS AN EVEN

WORSE PROBLEM. SO IT'S NOT AN EASY ANSWER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THERE IS ONE QUESTION I WANT TODAY GIVE YOU TO GUYS BECAUSE WE HAVE A ROLE HERE IN HIGHER ED. THE BOOK IS ALL ABOUT K‑12. I WANTED TO RAISE ONE QUESTION ABOUT HIGHER EDUCATION. WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY FROM FUNDING HIGHER EDUCATION FROM THE LAND GRANTS AND PELL GRANTS AND WE GIVE A LOT OF MONEY TO KIDS TO GO TO COLLEGE, $30 MILLION IN PELL GRANTS AND $100 BILLION PLUS IN STUDENT LOANS. STUDENT LOAN DEBT IS NEAR A TRILLION. IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR US NOW HAVING FUNDED A LOT OF THIS STUFF TO BEGIN TO LEAN FORWARD IN TERMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE HIGHER ED SPACE? AND AS EVERYONE KNOWS WE STARTED TO DO THIS WITH THE FOR‑PROFIT COLLEGES BUT MAYBE THERE'S A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT WE SHOULD EXTEND THE ACCOUNTABILITY ROLE HOWEVER MINIMAL INTO OTHER COLLEGES AS WELL. QUICK THOUGHTS ON THAT?

>> I WOULD SAY THAT THAT ‑‑ I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT THIS IS A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PLAY THE SCORE KEEPER ROLE. THERE'S A REASON WHY WE HAVE A SIX‑YEAR GRADUATION RATE THAT'S COMPARABLE ACROSS ALL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES THAT RECEIVE TITLE 4, IT'S BECAUSE CONGRESS PASSED A LAW TELLING THEM HOW TO CALCULATE IT. WE WOULDN'T HAVE IT OTHERWISE. I THINK THE EFFORTS TO INFORM CONSUMERS AND GENERATE A BETTER MARKETPLACE, WE CAN JUDGE RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND VALUE, IT'S STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I WOULD BE HESITANT AS, I THINK RICK PROBABLY WOULD, TO TIE HAM HANDED SANCTIONS THAT ARE BASED ON SOME ARBITRARY MEASURE AND THRESHOLD OF WHAT WE THINK DEBT‑TO‑INCOME RATIO SHOULD BE TO THOSE NUMBERS. I'M MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE EMPOWERING CONSUMERS TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS ON THEIR OWN AND I THINK THESE ARE STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THAT'S WHERE ACCOUNTABILITY

WILL COME FROM. I THINK THAT THE HIGHER ED LOBBY WILL FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL ANY TYPE OF ATTEMPT TO DIRECTLY REGULATE THE OUTCOME. >> SO ULTIMATELY USE TRANSPARENCY AS AGGRESSIVELY AS POSSIBLE BUT DON'T GET INTO THE SANCTIONS BUSINESS, LIKE LINKING STUDENT AID TO OUTCOMES, GRADUATION RATES, THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU THINK THAT'S A BRIDGE TOO FAR? IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? >> I WOULD SUGGEST, YES. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO RELY HERE ON THE FACT THAT WE CLAIM THE HIGHER EDUCATION IS A MARKET AND SO WE EXPECT MARKET FORCES TO EXERT ACCOUNTABILITY. THEY HAVEN'T BUT THE RESPONSE IS NOT NECESSARILY THAT THEY HAVEN'T BECAUSE THE MARKET ‑‑ BECAUSE IT'S NOT A MARKET. IT'S BECAUSE IT'S A MARKET WITH TERRIBLE INFORMATION. HORRIBLY IMPERFECT INFORMATION. WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS UNTIL WE EQUIP CONSUMERS TO MAKE THAT DECISION. >> I HAVE TWO KIDS ONE WHO COMPLETED COLLEGE AND ONE

WHO IS DEFERRING AT THE MOMENT BUT THE PROCESS OF THEM CHOOSING A COLLEGE CONFIRMS THAT THE MARKET DOES NOT WORK. [ LAUGHTER ] THE WEATHER ON THE DAY THAT THEY VISITED THE COLLEGE WAS A VERY BIG FACTOR AND, OF COURSE, INFORMATION THAT THEY GOT FROM THEIR CLASSMATES WAS A BIG ONE. SO I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BUT I CERTAINLY WELCOME THEM. WE'RE A LITTLE OVER AN HOUR. SO MAYBE WE'LL JUST SUMMARIZE HERE. YOU HAVE A CLOSING CHAPTER WHERE YOU TALK ABOUT STRENGTHS, CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS, NATIONAL CHALLENGES, INCENTIVES AND TRANSPARENTY IS AS ALL BEING THINGS THAT YOU BELIEVE ARE GOOD THINGS DEMANDING STANDARDS BUT NOT SETTING THEM. DEMANDING OUTCOMES BUT NOT NECESSARILY SETTING THE MEANS, IF I'M WRONG, YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ME. BE AN ALLY OF RADICAL CHANGE RATHER THAN AN AGENT OF INCREMENTAL CHANGE, YOU TALK ABOUT DEFINITIONAL

AMBIGUITY, CONGRESS AND THE COURTS AND STAY OUT OF THE CLASSROOM! SO CLOSING THOUGHTS FROM EITHER OF YOU AND IF I MISCHARACTERIZED YOU, PLEASE CORRECT ME. CLOSING THOUGHTS ABOUT THE FEDERAL ROLE, WHAT IS GOOD, WHAT IS BAD, BRIGHT LINES, CLEAR DIRECTION. HELP US. >> YOU KNOW, LOOK, I MEAN, ONE THING IS I THINK, YOU KNOW, ANDREW AND I ARE WELL AWARE AND WE TRY TO REFLECT THAT IN THIS BOOK, THAT THERE ‑‑ PEOPLE BRING A LOT OF DIFFERENT PRIORITIES WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO. PART OF THAT CONVERSATION IS WHAT PEOPLE THINK IS GOOD FOR KIDS AND WE HAVE HONEST DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT HOW MUCH CHOICE WE THINK IS GOOD, ABOUT THE KINDS OF INSTRUCTION THAT WE THINK IS GOOD AND THE REST. WHAT WE SUGGEST IN THIS BOOK IS THAT WHAT'S OFTEN MISSING IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS, IS A CONVERSATION OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY EQUIPPED TO DO WELL.

WE NEED TO DEBATE WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN, AND WE ALSO NEED TO BE EQUALLY COGNIZANT OF THE WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY IN A POSITION TO DO WELL. AND WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS ‑‑ THIS GOES BACK ‑‑ I STARTED OUT IN THIS BUSINESS AS A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER IN LOUISIANA, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN TWO DECADES AGO AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT THESE DEBATES, DRILLING BACK TO THOSE DAYS OR SUPERVISING THE TEACHERS, PART OF IT IS, ALL RIGHT, WHAT ARE THE TOOLS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS FOR DRIVING TURNAROUNDS? WHAT ARE THE TOOLS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS FOR MAKING SURE THE DISTRICTS ARE MAKING BETTER PERSONNEL DECISIONS? AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES, IT'S OFTEN IN THE SPIRIT OF TITLE I, LANGUAGE LIKE MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT OR SUPPLEMENT NOT TO PLANT. YOU CAN'T USE THE TITLE I, THE $14 BILLION TO SERVE THOSE KIDS DO. WHAT IT CAN DO IS WRITE A LOT OF RULES AROUND THE UTILIZATION OF THOSE FUNDS.

>> THAT'S A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING? >> IT'S A REASONABLE THING AND TO SOME EXTENT, IT'S A NECESSARY THING, BUT MY OWN EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IS THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF ALL OF THE FEDERAL GUIDANCE AND REGULATIONS AND ALL S.E.A.s HAVE TO DO ON TOP OF THAT TO PUT THAT IN EFFECT, AND EVERYTHING THE L. E.A.s HAVE TO DO CAN MAKE IT MUCH HARDER FOR FOLKS IN SCHOOLS AND SYSTEMS TO MAKE GOOD FLEXIBLE DECISIONS ABOUT HOW TO SERVE KIDS WELL. SO FOR ME, THE BIG TAKE AWAY HERE IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A CRITICAL ROLL TO ENSURE THAT POLICYMAKERS AND PARENTS HAVE GOOD COMPARABLE INFORMATION TO ENSURE THAT VULNERABLE KIDS, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE BEING RESPECTED, TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE MAKING INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE THAT CAN DRIVE IMPROVEMENT, TO PROVIDE THE KIND OF COVER AND POLITICAL SUPPORT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO DIG OUT AND RETHINK ACT ROW IN ANY

EVENTIC ROUTINES, I WORRY A GREAT DEAL WHEN WE TRY TO SAY LOOK, I KNOW WE ARE NOT DOING WHAT WE NEED TO DO. WHAT CAN WE DO IN WASHINGTON TO MAKE SCHOOLS OR CLASSROOMS RUN BETTER. I THINK WHAT WE ACCIDENTALLY WIND UP DOING IS PUTTING MORE IMPEDIMENTS IN THE WAY OF SCHOOL AND SYSTEM LEADERS THAN WE DO TO HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. >> Peter Cunningham: ANDREW, FINAL WORD? >> I THINK RICK SUMMARIZED, I THINK OUR CONCLUSION IN THE BOOK VERY WELL THERE. SO I WON'T ADD MUCH. I WOULD SAY THAT ONE THING THAT COMES OUT IN THE BOOK IS THAT FEDERAL POLICYMAKERS IN PARTICULAR THINK THAT ‑‑ THAT MAKING ‑‑ THAT DOING SOMETHING IN EDUCATION POLICY EQUALS CREATING A NEW PROGRAM OR A NEW POLICY OR SOME KIND OF NEW BAG OF MONEY THAT GOES OUT WITH A GOAL IN MIND AND GOES TO STATES OR DISTRICTS, RIGHT? I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS YOU RECOGNIZE AS YOU READ THROUGH THE BOOK, IT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT, CREATING SPACE FOR ENTREPRENEURS AND INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS,

ROLLING BACK THINGS THAT MIGHT BE IN THE WAY, THAT MIGHT BE IN THE WAY OF LOCAL DECISION MAKERS. EXPOSING PLACES WHERE STATES AND DISTRICTS ARE NOT DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN WILDLY SUCCESSFUL AT. AND IT'S THE OTHER THINGS THAT IS SORT PROGRAMMATIC, LET'S WRITE THIS DOWN, LET'S GET THE MONEY OUT AND LET'S SEE IF IT WORKS STUFF THAT SEEMS TO HAVE LESS OF AN IMPACT. >> Peter Cunningham: OKAY. WITH THOSE CONCLUSIONS, I HAVE THREE WINNERS OF OUR RAFFLE WHO CAN COME UP AND GET A COPY OF THE BOOK, DR. MICHAEL SCHOOLIE. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS. COME ON UP, DR. SCHOOLIE. YOU GET YOUR BOOK. SVEHLA GONZALEZ, O.U.S., PLEASE GET YOUR BOOK AND EMILY VAN DUSEN OF THE OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH. EMILY, COME UP AND GET YOUR BOOK AND PLEASE GIVE A HAND TO OUR TWO GUESTS.

[ APPLAUSE ] >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, PETER. >> Peter Cunningham: AND IF YOU WANT TO BUY THE BOOK, YOU CAN BUY IT ON AMAZON. >> AMAZON.COM. >> Peter Cunningham: AND IF YOU WANT TO GET IT SIGNED, MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH RICK AND ANDREW. THANKS, EVERYBODY.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful