imaginary space ship and go out much farther, everything that is happening there is the same set of things. that we're kind of getting onouter product of these combinations when we go out there and wait long enough to see what is out there, if that were allowed. we're really just sampleling what is happening in another branch of the universe. now this gives you another way to wrap that infinity so it's not infinite. you describe one, you describe everything, and it will look like infinity to an imbedded on server. >> we're talking about the radius of circle, which is a finite size. so this is an example where you have a finite universe. so you would not have the his problem we were tussling with earlier. it can, absolutely.

>> i was going to say, i think our time is up. thank you so much for that wonderful, lively, and very mind-expanding conversation. [applause] >> wendy kopp is the founder of teach for america. and she recounts the creation of the organizationin' 1990 and it's goal to diminish educational inequality. she talks about teacher whos -- who teaches in low income areas.

she discusses her back with malcolm gladwell at the new york public library in new york system this is an hour and a half. >> thank you all for joining us. for what i hope will be a fun hour. wendy, this was intended to be a lovefest because you're a great hero of mine. but then paul said that i had to ask tough questions. so, i want to make it clear that whenever i say thing that is supportive and warm, that's me. when i say something that is critical, that's me just channeling paul. just we get that out of the way. i wanted to start by -- you're a very -- in a very unusual position. you're going to have this big conference in washington this coming weekend, where there will be, what, ten thousand people? >> ten thousand people. >> you have this enormous following, and you're a kind of

cult figure, and i was trying to figure out, is there any recent historical figure you think you are analogous to? people throw off the restraints of modesty. >> is it clear that 10,000 people are coming together because they want to -- because they're drawn to the same vision as each other, and they want to spend a day thinking about, and reflecting on the incredible progress we have made in the last 20 years against what is a true crisis in our country, this issue of educational inequity and what we need to do to solve the problem. >> but you will be treated as a kind of rock star. >> you know what? the sad reality is, i mean, maybe we would all wish, but there will be my critics and my friends. it will be fun. but it's not all a lovefest.

>> the closest analogy i could come up with was the marine corps. tough to get in, and then they send you to really nasty places. right? [laughter] >> i was wondering, in the movies, always the moment in that kind of movie where one tough guy meets the other tough guy and they're about to get in a fight and one says, were you in nam, yeah, i was. were you in the marine corps and yes, i was in the something-something and semper f i. is there an analogous teacher conference, where did you serve, south bronx, and they show each other their teach for america tattoos. you are creating a kind of movement. i mean, the marine corps alumni represents a kind of movement, representing a certain attitude

towards the world. >> this is exactly the idea. this is the big idea. and teach for america really isn't about -- we are about teachers are critical but teach for america is about building a movement among our country's future leaders to say, we got to change the way our education system is fundmentally, and i think in your article in "the new yorker" about the formation of movements, captured the foundational experience of teaching successfully in ways that we're creating a core of people who are absolutely determined to expand the opportunities facing kids in the most absolutely economically disadvantaged communities, who are pouring themselves into their work and trying to put their kids on a different trajectory, and having varying

levels of success, and i can tag from that experience, incredible less beyond. they realize through their first-hand experience the challenges their kid face and they realize it's ultimately possible to solve the problem and that experience is not only important for their kid but is transformational for them, and they're going through this together, and i think will leave with a common set of convictions and insights and just a common level of commitment to ultimately go out and effect fundamental changes we need to solve the problem. >> you have how many alumni now? >> we have 20,000 alums. >> you consider your alumni to be as important as your active teachers if you're thinking of it in movement terms. >> yes. >> how many alumni do you need before you have a critical mass. >> well, you know issue guess you never know what will lead us

to the tipping point. [laughter] >> you just bought yourself a good five more nights. >> i think -- i don't know. this is growing exponentially at this point. a mere five years ago we had 8800 alums and today we have 20,000, and if we can continue the growth trajectory we're on, we'll have more than 40,000 five years from now. i guess i look at what is happening in some communities where we have a critical mass of teach for america alums, communities where we have been placing people for in some cases 20 years, in new orleans, washington, dc, and oakland, california, and houston, texas, and my number of other place, and newark, new jersey, where very different things are happening today. for many reasons but if you took all the teach for america alums out of the way, you'd take away a lot of leadership in those

pictures. >> does the teach for america movement have an ideological personality? >> i think that people come out of this -- and we probably have -- we have a diverse community, and people come into it viewing the issue that we're taking on in different ways and from different sides of the political spectrum. i think people come out sharing -- largely sharing a few views. one, i think people come out of it knowing, we can solve the problem. it's not that the kids don't have the potential and the parents don't care. if you look at gallup polls -- and i'd be interested in seeing another one now that the prevailing ideology has started to shift a bit. but as of about three or four years ago, most people in our country thought that the reason we had low educational outcomes is because kids weren't motivated in low-income communities and parents don't care. our core members know for a fact

that's not true. they see their kids working harder than any kids work, and they see the parents do care when they're brought in into the process. so when the kids are met with high expectations and given support, they do well, and they also realize there's no silver bullet. >> we're going to get to that. i still want you to answer the question, i only ask it because whenever i see teach for america spoken of in a derogatory manner, it's invariably by someone on the right, which confuses me because i would have thought it was almost -- i would almost have thought it would be the other way around. do you have a sense on this? aim wrong in thinking this? >> i doubt it. i mean, you're saying folks are largely from the left? we have a diverse group of people. >> the percentage of teach for america alumni vote republican

in the last election. >> don't know. i can't answer that. it's not that high of a percentage but i'm not sure. >> apart from the comic value of that observation, isn't that weird to you? why would it have an ideological dimension? i would wouldn't you expect to be as many kids signing up who were die hard right wingers? everything is consistent with all -- >> i mean, what is the profile out there of graduating seniors today in terms of ideological perspective? what percentage vote republican? i don't know. i don't want to say. we get republican folks, too. i wonder what college students -- i'm not sure -- i don't know if we're out of line with that or not. >> okay. >> i'm sort of living maybe in a

bubble, but college -- i don't know. i think we're drawing people -- it would be interesting to look at that, i guess. >> just go back 20 -- this is your 20th anniversary. >> yep. >> when you reflect on the differences between -- let's reflect on the differences between 1990 and now. we were chatting earlier, you mentioned how that was hilarious, how the movie "lean on me" could not have been made today. >> one of the hit movies my senior year, so '89 or so. >> what is it about that movie that would be unmakable today? >> i mean, we put that school, this new school, "lean on my" up in lights as a success story. the principal was kind of a super hero at some level. that what's point of the movie. and he changed the culture of the school. but that school is number 317

out of 326 in terms of educational outcomes in the state of new jersey. its kids are on a path -- we're not giving the kids in that school real life options, and we couldn't make that movie today. we couldn't hold that school up as a success, because today we know what is possible. we know it's possible to give kids who face all the challenges that are facing the kids who good to that school, paterson, new jersey, a school that actually sets them up to graduate from college. not just a few kids to beat the odds but a whole building full of kids to cullly get on the same trajectory as kids in much proper privileged communities. today we know that's possible. we have hundred office schools that do that. i think it shows that -- that movie was about someone who imposed order on a school. it was a movie about discipline. >> yeah. but also holding up the school

as a success story, and i just think we could never do that tonight. hollywood would never hear the end over -- end of it. that's not a success. it's an image that tells me how far we have come. >> the bar was low enough in 1990 you could describe it a success as a school where kids are not getting killed. so in that seasons -- sense we have made progress, i guess. >> not to underestimate how significant that is. i don't think -- we didn't know that it was possible to provide kid with a truly transformational education. kids growing up in poverty, the assumption was, and all the research backed up the fact that socioeconomic background determined educational outcome, and we knew a few kids who were beat the odd and huge charismatic teachers -- another

movie of my general era, "stand and thrivers" we saw them as outlyers. >> go on. >> but today we know -- we don't just have a few -- first of all, i think it's fascinating to become that not only "lean on me" but "stand and deliver." and i thought a lot about the fact why deputy -- why didn't i think, how did jaime escalante do what he did. it is time to deal with our exceptional teach efforts to put kids on a different trajectory. what they were doing differently. we know what teachers who teach in otherwise not very successful schools and low-income

communities do to produce incredible results with their kids. so, we know so much more at the classroom level, but at the school level, too. one thing you realize it takes a total superhero to do that classroom by classroom, but it's possible to create whole schools that foster good teaching and enable teachers to sustain that kind of work. to think we have hundreds of those schools -- it is dramatic progress. the question is different. it used to be, can education overcome poverty? and today we know that it can. the question is, how do we do it at scale? create a whole system full of transformational schools. >> you're implying something really interesting, which is that you think that the task of providing a quality education can be decoupled from the broader macro conditions of society. 20 years ago we would have said,

oh, you have poverty and disfunction and pathology, then the educational task is impossible. what you're saying is, actually, no. >> what we have learned is that it's not. we can dish mean, we should solve poverty. at it just that, while we try to do that, we don't need to wait in the meantime, we can provide kids with the kind of education that breaks the cycle of poverty, and maybe we'll realize that's the answer to poverty. >> it's interesting. this is exactly the same transformation that took place in our thinking about crime 25 years ago if you asked e-mail what would it tike bring down crime level in new york, they would say you have to solve poverty, drug abuse, discrimination. we solve none of those problems but the crime rate came down by 75%, which is good news but kind

of disturbing, not weird -- well, disturbing, that it said you can actually break off these pieces of the pathological puzzle and solve it without ever getting at the core problem. is that a paradox? >> i guess i believe that education is different. i mean, how many people dish mean, i feel like i meet in my work every day people who -- and i'm honestly i meet them because some of them are joining teach for america today. people who were not on a path to graduating from high school, let alone college, who end up going to college and graduating from college and being able to choose, what do they want to do? do they want to teach? go work for a big company? do they want to go into law? and that's how you break the cycle of poverty. >> let's just for a moment dwell on this point, which is an

important one. that for the longest time, a central tenet in liberal ideology was the reason we need to solve fundamental questions of social and economic injustice is that without doing that, problems like educational inequity and crime will be beyond our reach. the experience of the cause that you have been a part of, and the experience of crime-fighting over the last 15 years, has been that the ideology is totally false, that fundamental tenet is false. economic equality has soared and we have made inroads against crime and inroad for education. what does that mean for the

ideology? >> i would hate to conclude there's no reason to solve the fundmental challenges of poverty. as we will discover as we get into this discussion, it is possible, it is an enormous amount of hard work, and we can make it easier by taking the pressure off of schools, and absolutely we should take on the fundamentals. let's improve our economies in the rural areas and improve social services and health services and do all of that. it's just that we don't need to wait, and maybe we will discover that breaking the cycle of poverty for kids, some of whom will come back and improve their own communities, is one of the answer. >> yeah. let's pretend that you were education czar, and i gave you more powers than we normally

give czars. very often we give people that title czar, but they're not czars. they're not real classic czars right? at it just a word wey to pin on someone in washington who has a large office. but you're a real czar and you got to start over. describe your perfect educational system. >> i think we would first of all be very clear about the standards that we're trying to reach. like we would start with a very clear understanding of, here's what we think at any given level kids should be able to master. and we'd have to develop grade assessments so we can understand whether or not kids have

mastered it then. and then we would put an enormous amount into attracting and developing tremendous teachers, tremendous school leaders, educators in general, and then we would free them up to attain those results. >> would you have a union? >> i think if you had really well managed school systems and schools, you might not need them. right? isn't that what they have found in organizations and sectors where management does its job? >> i don't know. are you asking me? raft. >> i thought maybe you'd bring a crime analogy in. >> so you wouldn't have unions in a perfect world. >> you wouldn't need them because you would have schools, principals, and school district superintendents and everyone else who would know that their most valuable asset are their teachers and their people, and they would be making them happy

and they'd be listened to, et cetera. >> we sort of had an example of this -- you talk about this in your book -- in new orleans. new orleans was kind of -- after katrina, sort of blew up the school system and started over. can you talk about what happened there and what we learned from that example? i thought that was one of the most fascinating parts of the book. >> so teach for america started placing teachers in new orleans 20 years ago, and i personally spent a lot of time walking around the new orleans public schools, and you could call it a crime scene at some level prehurricane katrina. it was just -- it was tragic was was happening to our kids. after the hurricane, you know, you may remember many of the kids were displaced to houston. they were living in the astrodome with their parents, and some of our folks recite

kids and running a school for enemy houston. they did the diagnostics and discovered the eighth graders were on the second agreed -- second grade level, and that's what we knew to be the case in new orleans. and of course, post-hurricane career, talk about a place where we can see the incredible burdens of poverty. but the storm basically created a window of opportunity for some people who had been working for a long time to try to improve the schools without gaining much traction, to actually just blow up the system. i think after the school board announced they aren't going to open schools for a year they decided, no more, and they basically created a new system where -- >> you say they. who do you mean? >> you know, when i'm saying "they" i'm thinking bat real advocate for change from the

business community. one ended up being the school superintendent at the state level, and there was the state legislative change. but essentially they created a system of charters. this is a slight oversimplification but they created a world where they slowly shut down the schools that were still under the management of the central ed department, and anyone could apply to run a charter school. they created a rigorous accountability system so that very few of those applications to run charter schools were approved, and if they didn't work, they would be shut down. the people in that puzzle knew it wasn't as easy as that. they knew that charter laws don't create transformational schools that put kids first -- kids who are starting hip and putting them on a different trajectory. in order to do that, we would

need extraordinary leadership, and they went about finding it. they went outside of new orleans and inside new orleans and they scaled up teach for america, and brought in a new teacher project to help recruit people from the local community. >> how many teach for america people did they bring in post-katrina. >> we have 600 people there now. we were placing about 120, probably, total. >> is that as many as you have in the cities? >> new orleans is our biggest. our core members are reaching one out of seven students in new orleans. >> they started looking for -- when you say looking for leaders, are you talking about looking for principals? >> they did everything. the went about all the various plans. they brought in a group that sets up local teacher recruitment initiatives and

trite tried -- tried to recruit people who didn't have teaching bounds. teach new orleans or whatever it is called. and they brought in new leaders to recruit nontraditional folks to be school principals, and they recruited the operators of high performing charter schools and said, come to new orleans. we're going create the model urban school district. they set up a support organization for the purposes of recruiting people to run charter schools, making it easier to find buildings, et cetera, et cetera. and as i write about in a chance to make history, i spent two days in new orleans last spring, and i was just shocked by what i saw. i had heard what i was going to see and had been talking to everyone and assumed it would be great. but is was shocking, given the comparison i had from the previous years. >> what too we know, what kind

of statistical members of improved performance? >> the jumps are completely dramatic. they're making in some cases, depending on the grade levels, between six and ten times the kind of improvement over one or two years at the other schools in the state of louisiana are making. i think about -- so what was so shocking when is was there was that i didn't go visit just one school that was making great things happen. i spent two days going from school to school to school, and meeting these very entrepreneurial people who were on a mission to get their kids on a trajectory to graduate from college. and i kept thinking, i would send my kid to this school. that was a shocking thought from a mere three or four years ago. one of these schools is run by a guy named todd pervis, and when

he recruited his fifth graders, they were -- about 8% of the kids were proficient in reading and 8% proficient in math. now his kid, his seventh graders, were three-quarters of a year above grade level. so he has his kid on a trillion, by the -- on a trillion, on a trajectory, by the time they finish eighth grade he wants them to be able to go to any school. >> scrines the -- so katrina is the best thing that ever hand -- >> people say, you know what, this could never happen anywhere but new orleans because of the hurricane. i'm thinking, a we had crisis in new orleans that was as beside before the hurricane. we have a crisis in philadelphia and any number of places right now that should merit the kind

of action that was taken when that school board decided not to open the school, and we're not acting, but we could. >> i mean, you could make the case -- let's just say, given the single most important measure of a city's health, long-term health, it's ability to properly educate it children. if new orleans was utterly failing before and now has some signs of succeeding beyond other schools in the state of louisiana, the city is better off for having hurricane katrina. >> it's sort of to your point before, though. i'm not going to say that -- it's not. there's so many people who are in worst condition because of the hurricane. here's the other interesting thing about this. it's not quite -- it's convenient to look at it -- . >> wait. you can't say that. >> yes, i can. >> you're wrong. >> it might have happened

without the hurricane. it might have that was the interesting thing. >> you just said it's not happening in detroit and all these other place but -- >> it could, and what's different -- here i swear this is the difference and the whole point. right? actually in new orleans there was a group of leaders who were absolutely bound and determined to fix this problem for kids. they existed and were working before the hurricane. in fact, i remember when the hurricane happened, my first thought was, oh, no, like, all the progress that these people had made, which we thought was going to be revolutionary, went down the drain because everyone was dealing with a huge natural disaster. put they revived and made dramatic change happen name. i don't know what would have happened before the hurricane, but what is interesting in most communities, we would have had a hurricane and we wouldn't have taken advantage of it, of the circumstances of the day to actually revolutionize the

schools. we probably would not have thought, let's actually create a system of charters, and most certainly -- because this is the problem and why we haven't moved the needle against this issue in an aggregate sense -- we wouldn't have realized, that's not enough. changing those laws is not going to do it. we better go out and find the leadership necessary and cultivate over time the leadership necessary to actually run transformational schools. >> the lesson of new orleans is surely that one of the best strategies for turning this around is blowing it up. >> you could take that. >> that's one strategy. >> why are you so reluctant to -- >> i'm thinking and making sure -- >> can't you be a little bit of a revolutionary?

it distresses me that our revolutionaries have lost their revolutionariness. >> you know what concerns me is when -- honestly in order to create true, sustained, dramatic change, we need -- the reason i'm being careful is it isn't about one simple thing. it's about doing a lot of different things right, and i fear -- i really believe that a lot of the problem right now is that we like to play, like, the blame game and the silver bullet lurching, and when you say, so the answer is to blow up the system, right? i have to think. aim -- am i sure? i think this illusion -- i think it depends. the real key in new orleans

wasn't the hurricane. the key was leslie and paul, a whole generation of people in new orleans, many of whom were teach for america alums, who were deeply determined to address what they viewed as the single most unconscionable cries in our country, and who understood, there isn't a silver bullet to this. you change a law, that's not going to fix the problem for our kids. >> you had a nucleus in place, poised to take advantage of an opportunity. the opportunity was katrina. and that allowed an awful lot of changes to happen in a very short period of time. >> yes. >> knife argument -- i have argument with that. drew have any argument with that version? >> we have these -- we could put

these in place in different cities, but you can do an awful lot of good by blowing it up. >> if we had real leadership, determined to solve this problem if we viewed it as the crisis that it is, we would blow it up to use your terminology in lots of other contexts. >> i'm going to ask you about what you mean by other contexts because of katrina. >> absolutely. >> in other contexts. we're in the situation in a number of different areas in our society where objectively what we look at the institutional structures we have, we realize if we were starting from scratch, we would never, ever have anything even remotely reseemling what we have now. health care, everyone would agray if we were starting from scratch we would have a system that would bear zero semblance,

but we tweak it at the edges, even though -- if we had a katrina that just systematically wiped out the culture of health care in this country, we would be better off. >> let me say one thing in reaction to this. what you are saying is what needs to happen. we have a very systemic problem right now. most people, i think, misunderstand what is going on. why do we have low outcomes, low educational outcomes in our lowest income communities? why do you think? teachers are pathetic? that's what you would think if your read headlines. people aren't committed to kids. the real reason we have this issue is we have kids who face absolutely unimaginable challenges that kids in other communities don't face. they show up at schools that

don't have the extra capacity to meet their extra needs, and it becomes one big vicious cycle. so we can blame the kid, the parents, the teachers, school principals, but we can also just change the picture. we can decide -- right now our public schools -- i grew up in dallas, texas in a very privileged community, and went to one of those public schools on the top ten lists of public schools. that was not a transformational school. we showed up on a trajectory to graduate from college. we came out four years later on the same trajectory. perfectly hard working nice teachers. some of them made a great impact. but it did not change our trajectory. if you took that school and put it in the bronx, it would crash and burn. maybe it would take two years but its results would be no better than most of the schools unless it completely changed the

way it operated. what we discovered over the last 0 years, we can change the way we operate. when we do it actually works. so that's -- in that sense i think we completely do need to start over. >> yeah. i want to make one last point about new orleans before we move on. in the -- in your book you talk about the amount of autonomy given to individual schools, that is to say so long as they do their job, they get maximum freedom. when they fall down, they lose their freedom, which i -- i have -- that struck me as being incredibly convincing as a philosophy. but my first thought was, are we prepared for the kind of social and institutional anxiety that that kind of process creates?

in other words, a system where you have that kind of -- as long as you perform, you're on your own, when you don't, we're going step in, a system with a lot of turmoil in a good way, it's messy. some cools are going to do great and others very visibly are going to be crashing and burning. if we're going to institute that kind of culture, which i think is totally the way to go, do we also have to have a kind of conversation with parents and the public about what it means? the kind of -- >> i think that parents want a great education for their kids, and i think what they're doing in new orleans is exposing patients -- parents to what is possible. and truly there are more and more schools in new orleans that are actually -- the parents are thrilled. they see the potential. they see, this is going to change my kid's trillion, --

kid's trajectory, but if you're not in a school like that in your neighbor is in a school like that, this creates the context that will be conducive. >> i want to move on to your silver bullet. it is the -- one of the most interesting parts of the book is when you run down the list of the usual suspects and kind of go, you know -- shrug a little bit. you're not crazy about the argument this it about funding, and you tell us a wonderful -- not wonderful -- depression story of the school of the future in philadelphia. can you -- >> yeah. so, there's a very big corporation, maybe people remember this -- about six or

seven years ago there was a lot of talk about this big technology company that was going design the school of the future, and they spent 62 million decide designing the school in philadelphia. a beautiful building. i remember meeting an executive at this company, and asking him, actually, do you think the people who are designing the school have spent time in this then still small number but growing number of very high performing schools in low income communities so they know what accounts for success? i could tell they haven't so chance are not go. i visited the school. >> describe it. >> it is a big, beautiful facility. this school has managed to underperform the average philadelphia public school. some of their proficiency rates

are in the single digits. this is a school that parents fought to get their kid in. i went and visited the only classroom they will open to the public. there's one, it's led by a teacher who has been there since the beginning. and i stood in the back of the room, and i made sure i had my facts right, saying, i was in the process of writing this book. i watched every single kid engage in the following activities. they all had laptops. they were either fixing the computer, iming their friends or surfing the enter neat while the teacher talk as loudly has he could to get them to listen to his lecture. and honestly it might have been funny if you didn't stop to realize that literally this school is shutting off these kids' process. they will have no prospects, and

if you know anything about philadelphia, and the communities where these kids are living in, this is like life-threatening, and honestly, it's right down the street -- i could have said this seven years ago but today there's a growing number of schools in philadelphia serving the exact same student population three or four blocks away and putting them on a trajectory to graduate from college at much the same pace as kids in more privileged communities and they don't have any technology. they might. maybe they have some white boards but definitely not the core of the school. the core of the school is a school leader who is absolutely determined to put the kids on a different trajectory. is obsessed with everything a great teacher is obsessed with, right? building an incredible team. they obsess over attracting and developing teachers and build this culture where the get the kid is and parents and teachers aligned on the same mission, and

they manage well and they do whatever it takes, which is a big thing. they know their kid face challenges. they lengthen the school day, bring in extra support, social services. they're redefining schools and getting different outcomes. >> are you suggesting that having constant unimpeded access to the internet is not going to solve every social problem? that's so -- wow. an eye-opener, given that everything that is happening in the world right now, from egypt to tunisia. >> 8% of the kids in the school are proficient in reading. >> charters. >> one thing that is -- one thing on the side of charters and then i'll go after them as a silver bullet.

this growing number of school is keep talking about, many, many more of them are charters than traditional schools. there are traditional public schools in the regular system that are getting these kind of results but they are few and far between, and i think that's for a reason. the charter laws provide talented, committed educators with an incredible opportunity to say i'm going to assume responsibility and have complete freedom over who i hire, how i spend my budget. so an incredible enabler. but unfortunately -- if you look on average at the charter school results and public school results, they're no better. in fact, i've seen charter schools, because teach for america places in some of them -- where you wonder if we should be putting these people in jail. they're so much worse than the dysfunction we see in the regular system. and it's an example -- the best

of intentions. people wanting to solve the problem tomorrow, change the laws and everything will be better soon. but unfortunately, it's not that easy. we still need to cultivate the leadership necessary to take advantage of the charter laws and that is the most precious resource in all this, because it's hard to find school leaders who have the kind of foundational experience necessary to actually run a transformational school. ...

>> we have done of what to record lots of good folks. >> aren't those things, is it possible that those things, that experience with charters and that kind of selectivity and high standards is in part it function of the existence of the charter cap? doesn't the restriction on a resource make use it wisely? >> you could argue that. but, i mean -- >> would you argue that? >> no. well, it all -- i think that it is a very -- i think it is a fact that it is a very hard to find and develop the leaders necessary to run a high-performance school of any sort, including a charter school, but i think that we can find a lot more than the cap. >> icy. what is the cap now?

do you know offhand? >> who knows, is and it's a hundred? the raised it last year. >> you don't have -- 200. to you have the figure? do you have a kind of optimal figure? >> i would bring the principles of charters into the system. so i think -- but i would -- i would do that, and i would also do something else. you know, really worked very hard to do exactly this. this is exactly what they have done in new orleans. you know, the bottom line is wherever you see one of these transformational schools and talk about always, always, always they are run by someone who feels such deep passionate commitment and full ownership over ensuring that their kids get on a different path.

if they don't have the freedom they take the freedom to do whatever it takes to get to that end result. i think we really need to ground our policies in an understanding of that dynamic, and i think the implication is that our central system should spend an immense amount of energy attracting and developing real leaders, which is a process. we can snap our fingers and have great leaders. we need to at increased them into the classroom, insure they are highly successful, keep some into the classroom. with others and to the other roles. an aide to obsess over talent development the way that any high performing organization does, but at the same time we need to empower our leaders to get results. and so i think that kind of restructuring is probably the answer overall. >> yeah. unions. >> i think that unions need to change, just like at the

district's need to change and loss of other things need to change. but i think the idea that we fix the unions or just wipe them off the face of the earth. >> the one earlier who said he would not have them in your perfect universe. >> right. it's just that we don't live in a perfect universe. at think that it is not totally -- i think the assumption that if we lifted -- let's assume that we remove them all tomorrow. anyone who works in and around schools, just imagine. what to you think will be different the next day? we have so much further to go. in states where there is very low unionization and collective bargaining is a non-issue we have 1 percent teacher dismissals rights. we have 1 percent teacher dismissal rates whether there are strong unions and unions are not. and why is that? that is because there is no culture of discipline in our school districts. i mean, literally when you think

about how high-performing organization operates or how these very high performing schools operate and compare that to how most of our public schools and school districts and even probably private schools for that matter operate, there is no, we don't do what we know it takes to run a high performing organization. so we need to, you know, unions to change, but when the districts and our schools to change as well. >> does all of this become, dealing with, this making -- what she is saying is and all of these cases funding, chargers, unionization, these are all variables that can make a difference provided you have in place first and organization and culture with effective. by the way, it is, on the horse here. >> right. exactly. i mean, i think anything short of that gets us incremental

progress in a world where incremental progress is not affordable. you know, i mean, we haven't really grounded ourselves in the magnitude of the issue here, and it's so easy to not recognize what is going on in our country. we live in a country where the 15 million kids who grew up below the poverty line, half of them will not graduate from high school. if you don't graduate from high school today your options are -- i mean, lots of -- i mean, we have communities that are putting more kids into the prison system and into college. the kids to do credit from high-school who we applaud for walking across the stage have on average and eight great skill level. a few percentage points on standardized tests does not mean you have chains the kids' lives. that is what any of these interventions at their best would get you. and what we have learned over the last 20 years is we have

something different. we could have meaningful change. we could actually put whole buildings of kids on a different trajectory. to me that create a moral imperative. now that we know that and we know how to replicate that, it's on us to figure out. okay. we need to treat this like the crisis that it is given that now we know we can solve it and go after it. any time any of us have a true crisis in our lives are in our midst, you know, and truly view it as that we view it in all its complexity and go at it with an equally complex solution. it is no one thing. there is no way around the hard work of building high-performance organizations essentially. >> let's talk about the practical impact of importing. essentially imports large numbers of motivated college

graduates into the teaching profession. so let's talk about what that means on a practical level. first of all, to teach for america teachers, are they -- how do they compare on average to the media and teachers? are they better teachers? what do we know? >> the growing body of research out there which shows that they are more effective than other beginning teachers and some subjects and grade levels, there are more effective than the experienced teachers. but not by the impact levels that i just described that we need. you know, like if you look at the studies, researchers think statistically significant positive results and we think, this isn't changing kids' lives. some of our people are changing its lives, but on average. and honestly, this experience is kind of part of what i think teach for america is an enormously good thing. you are better off as a kid in school if you have a teach for

america corps member the not. our people are obviously then going off and staying in teaching for an average of eight years, but also moving into other positions and taking that experience with them and affecting broader change. but this experience is why i say that, you know, teaching is the latest silver bullet. i think that we somehow think that we can reengineer the way 37 million teachers are recruited and trained. our own experience, we have poured an immense amount of energy and the smartest people i confined to millions of millions of dollars. literally. we have a continuous learning live in our organization that is kind of mind-boggling. we can do to understudies to understand the most effective people. i mean, what differentiates them? we can see it. what they doing differently? how does that influence our training? every year and still we are

where we are. i guess all of that has led me to think, we need to take this on at the school level. this is an organization problem. if you run a big organization or company you don't fix problems by sending brain waves directly to all people in your organization. you think. okay. who are managers? i need to work with them. when you appear, you see there are incredible, incredible results. you ask them. he has gone out and attracted and developed and retained to beat utah to the teachers. why have this statement because of the culture of the school. a team that i want to be part of. so i think ultimately we just need to come at the teaching question differently. >> does this represent an evolution in your thinking? you would not have said what you just said 20 years ago, mri? >> i probably don't know. twenty years ago i was saying, why aren't we being recruited as

aggressively to commit two years to teaching high amenities as the were to working on wall street. >> yeah. >> but i think once i got into this, i don't know when i started. i have felt this way for some time. i have to admit. >> i concede, it is my one -- it's not a criticism, but an observation. >> yeah. >> these two strands that are in some sense complementary and in some sense contradictory and they run through. i suspect legitimately the run-through. >> at the request one is this notion that we have to find new sources of talent and bring them into the system. the other is that, well, that is not really what it's about. it's about building a system that allows people to flourish. they overlap. you know, the van diagram. like this. >> but they are kind of -- >> and it is the same.

there is the same kind of -- you also run into the that entirely fair observation when one reads your book it you saying that virtually all students can thrive given the appropriate culture and environment. but then is it the same true of teachers? and virtually all teachers drive given the appropriate culture and environment? if we can help virtually any kid, but can't we help virtually any -- or is there, is this apples and oranges? >> this is such a very complex set of thoughts. i do -- so, first of all, but we can't understand teach for america as a teaching organization. i think this is the biggest thing that we fight in the world. we are a development organization. there is no other way to look at it. we go out and say, we need future leaders to channel their

energy against our most fundamental injustice, and we are going to get them to commit two years the teaching high poverty communities. make sure they have the leadership characteristics that reason to differentiate. we will invest massive amounts in the training and support in pursuit of ensuring that they are highly successful with children. we know that that experience is going to be important for kids and for them and every single decision that they make thereafter. it proves to be. need them to go out and engineered the changes. read them to go start rates schools. in fact they have to be would not have the smile that we have that everyone is out their trying to replicate to read you would not have the energy and there an effort to replicated without a bunch of teach for america alums. we would not have the revolution we have in new orleans and d.c. at think we need some of them to get take on the challenge and the poverty to make the whole thing easier. at think we need that. at the same time what many of our people, out of this thinking

is we need to change the way these systems attract and develop talent. there is no doubt. i mean, i have concluded the same thing. what are the system achievements we need? that is one big central issue. i think what we have seen is beacon do that, too. you know, you get to norland. one of the most interesting things about my time there was talking with some of our teachers who replaced their overtime pay said, you know, i came here for two years. just going to teach for two years and then leave. i just bought a house seven years later. what did they buy a house? because i'm a hot commodity. i can pick whatever school of want to be a part of. they even pay me a lot because they can control what they pay the teachers. by the way, the other part of your question, this whole conversation then went on. don't think it is just the outsiders coming in. good people came out of the

system. you know, that can take us down a whole other path, but it speaks to your point. most people who come into education are coming into it because they want to do good things for children. they come into the system. i think about the people we hire, the best of the best. 4,547,000 applicants this year. if we brought them into a completely non riggers and this and culture and just let them go, no management, honestly lots of good things would not happen. some good things, lots of not great things. overtime people have to operate in strong, rigorous cultures. so i do think that there are tons of people out there who would operate in a very different manner if the culture and the overall structure was different. >> but to go back to my point, this does represent an evolution in your -- >> hard to track of my various

solutions. which part? we have always viewed ourselves as a program. >> but the part of it, 20 years. just imagine that we are having this conversation 20 years ago. i would never have known what i was doing. i mean, you would not have spent as much time talking about the importance of culture i'm guessing. >> i'm sure i would not. i really, we placed our first 4809 teachers 20 years ago. they went in with the same level of commitment and idealism as the core members replacing today. i think they would say it would be fair to say that they hit the wall. they went and started teaching and saw their kids from all of these social challenges into their classrooms. you know, it became a downward spiral. downright impossible. what happened was a few of our people rose above it all. persevered and figured out how to change things, how to

actually teach successfully, how to create the islands of excellence. they did it by teaching differently. we did not know how to tell our people to teach. now we can say, here is what it takes. it takes being very clear about what vision you are working toward. where are we going to be by the end of the year? what are you going to accomplish with the children this year that will make a meaningful difference in their lives? once you have figured that out in you spend half your time getting the kids, the children's families, their influence as to believe. that is important. if they work harder than they have ever worked before they can get there. you get your kids working with you and then everything is so much easier to reach you have to be incredibly goal oriented to maximize every second. he realized i don't have enough time. i have to get them to stay late. many other things happen. you realize this level of resourcefulness required to meet all of your children's extra needs. you know what, they accomplished the goals. you sort of redefine the role of

the teacher. that was the first learning experience. and then i think again, and just learning from our people basically. some of those people went off and said this is not sustainable. others that i agree with. you need the super heroes who can teach that way. even if -- they could probably sustain it. it is just that there are only some many of those people who live that -- i mean, it is humbling to spend time with them. but then they went off and started the schools but actually make it much more sustainable and much easier to teach successfully. >> it is like -- i mean, forgive me for obsessing about your personal journey, but it is like, you have gone on this road that starts with a noble ambition which is -- but which is kind of an elitist ambition to the spring the best and brightest. now you are -- not that sound like a marxist, but in the best sense of that word, not

criticizing you at all. i will say, not a total marxist because when we were back there and they ask you to a test of the microphone by using the word peak at that you require to say peter picks a pumpkin. >> i would have. but paul went to princeton. i was talking to him. yap. i mean, honestly this has been an unbelievable journey. and just and eliminating one. it is just, i am learning from our people and others that we are working alongside and communities, and that is exactly what i wanted to write this book. such a mystifying experience. you know conceptually of course kids and low income communities have full potential and could, you know, have an excellent education. now we know actually really it is within our reach to do this. it is not, there is nothing magic about it, nothing out of reach, but there is also nothing easy about it. it is going to take -- honestly,

it takes the same kind of thing cannot discipline and leadership that it takes to attain really ambitious outcomes in any undertaking. that is why i say in the and the question is, do we believe this is a crisis? if we do then we need to approach it in the same way that we would approach any great crisis that we know we can solve. that is what i fear we are not doing. >> to switch gears for a moment, i don't think we have much more time. forty -- how many -- thousand applicants this year. >> 47,000. >> for how many positions? >> well, it depends what happens to our federal funding, but if all goes well 5300. >> so you are as selective as princeton at this point. >> although, i don't view this as an elitist. >> now, i've was establishing a. [laughter]

but my point was, and how many -- ten years ago, for example, what would those two numbers had been? >> we had 4,000 applicants and gesink dividend probably brought in five or 600 people. >> yap. and part of that dramatic increase in your popularity has to do with this movement catching fire. part of it also has to do with the economy. am i right? you are beneficiaries. >> honestly what people don't know because added they view it as an outpouring of idealism or from this generation with a view it as, you know, the economy. i mean, we are out there building a movement. we have every year we take some of our most successful teachers. we probably have about 70 and recruitment directors who each have, you know, partners in crime who are recent college

graduates. we give them three or four campuses and we said, go find not just anyone, but the people you believe have the leadership ability necessary to be transformational teachers and to have real positions of influence long-term. they sit down one-on-one. we probably met with 40,000 of these college seniors this year, people are going to law school and that school and all sorts of other things or who at this point we are meeting lots more people who are interested in teach to america because of their sons before and what not, but we are completely changing their minds in these meetings. our recruitment directors sit down and share their personal experiences. they say, you know, at think about a guy who had just happened to spend the day with you used to be a record the director who is now running are boston office who basically says, was placed in phoenix. i started teaching fourth grade. my kids came into my room at the second grade level. i fell in love with my kids.

hainaut, a couple years of progress in the first year. actually, they came in at the first grade level. ask the principle that i could teach them again. two more years of progress. i realized, first of all, can you think of anything that would give you a bigger responsibility and bigger impact? and secondly, this is something our generation can take on and fix and be part of a group of people who are going to fix the problem. so i actually think -- i mean, the economy was a great enabler. as we ran around and told everyone the silver lining in this economic environment is that it has given the true leaders real license to think even more broadly about their futures. the most precious resource and education is talent, we have to jump into that. we have a solid left out of that. the foundations were already there. >> the same thing that we were talking about with the train up to rebuild the structure and

then you have to be poised to take it that it. >> ready to take advantage of the crisis and turn it into an opportunity. >> it's funny. the last time this happened in this country was during the depression. the well-documented effect of the depression was that the contraction of the private economy caused an awful lot of incredibly talented people to go into the public school system and the generation that emerged from the schools in the depression which was one of the most successful generations, well educated generations we have would be an intended beneficiaries of this economic calamity. i hate talk. it is fascinating. we spent so much time bemoaning our misfortune whether it is a hurricane or economic hard times. we forget there are incredibly fertile times. you can build. >> yes.

it is a compelling point. and we have lots of crises that we should take advantage of to solve the true crisis. >> a terrible thing to waste. i don't know. i don't know. where is paul? the spa want to ask some nasty questions to back there he is. no. i think i -- why don't you come and make big. [inaudible] >> i have one nasty question. policy. you can tell it is written by me. i'm curious. how many teach for america alumnus currently in the program are here? pretty amazing. first question, was there a time when american education was not in crisis?

you can say just yes and no if you want. [laughter] >> no. i mean, i think we have had this issue. you know, i have limited historical knowledge myself, but i am sure we have had these issues forever. at think we have been in denial about this particular issue that we are working to address. i think 20 years ago a lot of people were in denial about the very existence of what we call today educational inequity. >> security officers and police in the hallways, less and less recess time, school menus that require a law degree to decipher what rule upon rule. longer school days. why would a child, do you think, want to go to school? [laughter] >> you know, the kids -- i think

about the schools that are, you know, we have been talking about this transformation schools. kids are dying to be in schools because, first of all, the principals and teachers of these schools love their kids. you know, they have built such a community among them. the kids know they are going to work incredibly hard. there is a huge payoff for that. so i don't know that there is a place where they would rather be. >> lots and lots of questions from alum of the organization. this one begins with, being an alumni and completely on board with the belief that all students can learn. however, earlier this school year the new york times covered a study that pointed to statistics showing that when stripped of all society and economic factors african-american boys are underperforming when compared to their female african american peers as well as other non black

students. what are you and t fa thoughts on this? what do you think -- what do you think of the ways to shift education focus to add just the statistics to back. >> meeting, meaning even outside of the context of low income communities, and i understand. >> right. you know, i feel like it will take me out of, you know, i think about my own kids to go to, you know, public schools. very diverse, but, you know, not , not as economically disadvantaged. there are kids from all system of economic backgrounds, all racial backgrounds. honestly i think the puzzle of how to make that schoolwork for all kids is very different from the apostle of making this school that i have been talking about work. and so am hesitant. actually think what we need to understand is where the schools have their that are working for african-american kids, you know,

across all socioeconomic backgrounds. let's find out because there are schools. i'm sure there are schools working. let's find out. even if there is just one, what are they doing differently? at think therein lies the key to unlocking the answer to that question. >> by the way, you can step in whenever you want. any of these questions, if you have comments to add. for instance, is there a conflagration to expanding teach for america to training and supporting administration to back. >> know because we are going to stay focused on our core mission of channeling a lot of talent and energy in this direction, but we do, you know, have a whole priority at around accelerating the leadership of our alumni in ways that are strategic for the broader reform movement, and we think that supporting them to become

principals is one huge important focus. among others. helping support them to run for elected office and advocacy organizations and start social enterprises or others, but we partner with others to do those. we partner with the feds out there, a charter school management organizations are districts or universities or other school leader training programs to set our people of the streamlined paths to school leadership. >> you bring up joel klein quite a lot and quite often. you seem to admire him. what do you think of joe klein's successor? [laughter] >> i think his it is too early to tell. at think that her commitment -- i mean, i think she is clearly very committed for all the right reasons. you know, i guess we will see what happens. after 7i think we should reach a

point where we are trying to figure out who should be the superintendent of our nation's largest school system or newark, new jersey for that matter which is in the midst of a superintendent search or atlanta or may be sent to the chicago where some of the best jobs on the planet should be. we should be considering slates of people who have all the foundational experience necessary to do that job. they should be people who taught in transformational ways, ran transformational schools, supported lots of other transformational schools. can you imagine gec a selection just stepping back and deciding that someone who had not even worked in corporate america should be the ceo? we would never do it. again, this is why i say sometimes i wonder, you know, if we think this is a true crisis.

you know, we can't blame the mayor fully because the fact is we don't have that. we don't have the people pipelines. that is what we need. the longer we stayed off the development of true people development systems the longer we just have to lurch from silver bullet to another and try random things and pray that the work. that is pretty much where we are at the moment. [laughter] >> when schools strive toward excellence and they keep competencies' of reading, writing, math, they do so at the expense of the arts and physical education. do you believe these subjects are necessarily a part of an educational system and if so, how. >> i think -- i think about what i want for my own kids, and i

think that is what, you know, all kids should have access to arts and physical ed and all sorts of other enriched and opportunities. i think, again, that, you know, go visit if you have not already, the schools that are actually not only getting the test results, but they're really trying to set the kids up beyond a level playing field with kids in communities where parents are giving them. and i think absolutely. i think we need to. at think we need the whole picture. >> when you come back to the new york public library in 20 years now what picture, what difference to you think we will find in the education system to mack. >> you know, i think it is so hard to predict. you know, i think about the fact that, you know, even four years ago if we had come together and you had said, one of the most

impossible school systems in the country, i would have said new orleans and washington d.c. set to think that those are two of the fastest improving right now, you know, i just think things are moving pretty quickly. the snowball is moving down the hill. so i think it will be easy to underestimate the progress that we can make in 20 years. what i am hoping is that in the way that we have growing numbers, you know, hundreds of incredibly high performing schools today that we could never have imagined even 12 years ago but you would have, i hope we have proof points at the whole system level. and i think once we -- i think once we do the proof that this is possible, i do. we can talk about contributing plus all the time. reechoing to get to the tipping point where people realize, okay, we can completely do this. one thing leads to another. hopefully we are doing all the right things. at think it is within our reach. in 20 years we should see in an

aggregate sense the achievement gap closing in big ways. >> we are getting to the tipping point. what is the relationship between teachers excellent performance and pay? >> i think we need to ana, you know, absolutely think completely differently about the whole human capital picture. excuse the terrible jargon term. we need to free our districts and our school principals ultimately up to think. i mean, they need to be obsessing at all times are out how they attract a select people and develop them and retain them and compensate them. alternately at think we need to a give them lots more flexibility over their compensation dollars so that they can retain and value the people who are making the biggest impact. >> and if they are paid more are they better teachers?

>> well, i think ultimately, you know, i mean, i don't know. what with the research show? we would have to look across sectors as well, but we should devaluing our most effective teachers accordingly from my compensation perspective. certainly from even the research we have done ourselves, you know, even what we might consider $15,000 paid jobs for teachers who are effective in years for-aid would have serious retention gains. >> charlie the issue is not so much absolute levels of compensation but comparative compensation. so much of what you have been trying to do is to rehabilitate the profession, right, to get us to take it more seriously and attractive and as a people to it. part of the way we rehabilitate professions is that we give, we pay people comparably to other

professions that we esteem. the issue with teaching is not whether they make x or y but that the amount of money we pay equity teacher is not commensurate with the amount of money we pay someone in another profession that is not nearly as important socially. >> and i also think that, you know, people with lots of other actions, you know, i mean, there is this reality. you have to raise a family. we have to make it financially viable to state and teach. >> different ways of expressing this question, but what if your greatest regret or what is the greatest mistake you think kia made? >> oh, gosh. there have been, you know, of course. >> miscalculation? >> you know, the most significant one i would say in

recent days would be, i think it is tough. teach for america has grown a lot. we have big priorities around not only becoming bigger and more diverse on the one hand which, you know, they just to put an enormous amount of energy into our recruitment process is and also requires us to scale up. we have run a lot, from 1,000 to 8,000 teachers and the last ten years. but we have equally ambitious goals around increasing the measurable impact of our teachers during their two years. we think it is critical for their kids and because we think it is critical for the lessons that the line. and in pursuit of that you know we have tried many different things. put in place measurement systems are self that were very well intentioned. and all sorts of, you know, we tried lots of different strategies. i think ultimately if we get into the ins and outs of that

ultimately you see the limitations of kind of meeting with measurable -- i mean, measurable results are critical, but it is about more than that. i think the culture that you build and keeping everyone grounded in what this is all about and the spirit of, you know, charlie putting kids on a different trajectory, creating the right balance between of focus on measurable results and keeping everyone grounded in that spirit at the same time, it's a puzzle. at think we sort of the year too much. we are trying to now we gear. i hope we are making it happen. >> and finally, what are you most proud of? >> probably sticking with it. i mean, i think this is very challenging work. blogs said many other people i think to accomplish great things takes time. i think persevering and just a

constant learning, you know, grounding ourselves constantly. what are we learning from our most successful core members and alumni and others in communities and just keeping the constant evolution of thought. i mean, that is probably what i think is the strength and what i am proud of. >> think you very much. [applause] >> for more information about wendy kopp and teach for america visit teach for america duck or. we would like to hear from you. treat us your feedback. twitter dot com / book tv. >> back to education. as you pointed out, the u.s. used to be at the top. now we are among 31 countries to

something like that. we are down around 20. but we spend more than any country at think of the that switzerland. it is not a question of resources. we are just not allocating resources intelligently. what is wrong? >> this is exactly the point. it's not about quantity of money, it's about the quality of education that has been delivered. i have to say having spent a lot of time reading about the american education system but also listening to experts its focus on the education system, it really reminds me of the eight industry, especially aid to africa. two things in particular. one, people are being rewarded for poor performance. you know, it is quite clear that if american education funds are going down and you have these last and first out that the policies getting rid of teachers regardless of performance that because they came in last, to be there seems to be some dislocation there. the other thing is that we are a

society essentially being held hostage by a vested interest. the teachers' union specifically. at think it is rather problematic that we are sacrificing our children's education and education performance and ability to compete internationally and therefore the ability for america to compete in the interest of teachers' unions. there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but i think there is something particularly sort of wrong with an idea that we conspired to conceive education is going down, but we are not penalizing people for lack of delivery. >> is the problem structural? we talked about how the u.s. has higher corporate tax rates in europe. but also in europe you find a lot more school choice. sweden is a huge school choice system nationwide. substantial school choice. even germany has a lot of school choice. we only have a few tiny little programs. is that the solution? to be actually need a

competitive model at its parents in charge? >> at think absolutely much more involved. the question then becomes what can we do to make parents more involved in ensuring that this does not happen. and not too sure about whether it really boils down to this idea of more choice and less choice. if you look at the education performance across europe, they too are seeing a backslide. we essentially under the standards, but the rest of the world. if it really were about choice than you would not have expected them to be with the united states sliding down. at think one of the things that you talk about in my work, you know, possibly something working about, this idea of conditional transfers to be very simply put, very popular in mexico and brazil and also being rolled out as a pilot program by mayor bloomberg in new york is the idea of paying people to do the right thing. your child goes to school 90% of the time, good attendance record, you get $100 to read you get immunized, a child gets

aryanize for a particular disease, you get $100. there is this question about whether or not people start getting paid for their children's going to study mathematics or science, things that the united states and european countries need to continue to remain competitive. i mean, obviously this is not what we expect of society. do we really need to start paying people to do the right thing? but, you know, given where societies are, everything seems to be on the table. the idea of congressional -- conditional transfers as one possible solution to the problem we're seeing now. >> could some of the problem whether we are talking about education or any of these other areas simply the fact that one country has become rich and get lazy? >> well, i hope not. actually, i don't subscribe to that at all. singapore last year was the fastest-growing economy on the planet. had about 15 percent gdp growth. that is really mind-boggling to