i am interested, michael. you have -- the department approved of a variety of accountability systems and these waiver proposals, what bright spots do you see in the approach to accountability? are there somewhere you have kind of a hunch? >> sure. it is fascinating. providing some space, for states to come up with the means of improving outcomes and holding their own accountable. one of the more controversial proposals was creating these combined subgroups in the low performing group of kids but it has to be made clear that is in addition. everybody still has to set targets for the desegregated

groups required under no child left behind and such performance targets annual will measurable objectives, ambitious but achievable cutting the gap in half or going to 2020 or some other similarly ambitious setting of goals and use those goals to drive their continuous improvement in all their title 1 schools, use them to target intervention in a way that is meaningful. providing this face, taking some of this pressure from no child left behind one size fits all mandate. in many states you find 90% of schools not making a wide p - y --a --ayp. all your schools are labeled as failures. as that space did create innovation in the eye of the beholder.

kentucky put forward a comprehensive and thoughtful accountability framework. in addition to looking at achievement and the growth and graduation rates, they are setting up an inspector model for k-3 so they will be looking at k-3 and arts and language and building teachers effectiveness and their accountability framework. it is focused on using performance data to drive their intervention and support, and growth and achievement but they are looking at remediation rates and college going rates and timing of those back to their school. south carolina is adding a category not without controversy. they are adding male and female so they will be looking at

additional subgroups of kids. one thing about the combined group we mentioned that is really fascinating is in each of these cases they added combine subgroups and in many cases they lowered the inside. they would capture more kids in the accountability systems than they otherwise were under no child left behind and we found that -- just to get the numbers right -- road island by adding a combine subgroup is all but 13 out of 282 schools held accountable. so english learners under no child left behind, 64 schools in the state to accountable for english learners and the waivers close to 227. >> john in new york, you kept a lot of the ayp approach.

how did you develop the accountability approach? >> one reason we decided to keep that ayp approach was the subgroup and not wanting to move away from capping the attention and light on schools, and students of color. important to keep the focus on some groups. we didn't want to lose the right attention of nclb on whether schools are making gains towards proficiency. the other part of our strategy, accountability is not the accountability system of the district, the accountability for adults inside the schools that are in the sense of the waiver and appoint people towards the right set of standards and hold

people individually accountable and give them support, getting to the target shining a light on people inside of schools and change instruction. >> i do have a concern about going forward in terms of monitoring. they are going to report desegregated data by subgroup performance of students to schools and in a publicly available way, web site information to parent and community. easy to say we move from a compliance approach to performance management.

it is a much more sophisticated, higher order skills in making judgments about projects. i worry about capacity -- won't even go to capacity, it just seems to me -- new york may not be the largest state education agency. it was true of one point. i don't know of secondary education -- how are we going to get that done and each of you -- going to have to rely on advocacy groups and research groups that the state level to keep track of what is going on.

now we have instead of one approach through nclb we have 33 different approaches. how are we going to make judgments about that? >> fed levelland high order thinking skills and -- node question about it. this is required. it is required to think differently about how we do that. as cindy noted in these requests were 400 pages. how are we going to deal with this. how are we going to manage this? because this was not a competition for money, we provide unprecedented level of technical assistance. because new york was not

competing against connecticut it would provide new york the level of technical assistance as necessary or appropriate as they want it. it didn't matter that we had to provide the same technical assistance in connecticut. we had to think about the way we did our work differently. we created teams to address the state's. the requests were too comprehensive. we didn't just handled in the office of elementary and secondary education. we brought in folks from the policy shop and conferred race to the top and our lawyers and budget folks and title free folks and teacher quality folks and all of these program offices that are traditionally silos. no choice but to come together

and provide the level of technical assistance and support and office hours and working until 10:00 or 11:00 at night most were on a west coast and walking through these requests we get them to a place where the secretary felt confident we were holding states to a high bar but this is our plan. this is what we want to do to improve outcomes and it made us look at our work differently. we established relationships with these and we continue this moving forward. my point is we have already started down that road of doing business differently. >> talk about accountability to whom and for what purpose? it would be sort of natural and

easy to think about accountability. states are accountable to the federal government and accountability between the department that is accountable to the u.s. department. the whole theory of exchange behind no child left behind was to have much greater transparency so you could be accountable to parents and the public as a whole. for what purpose? to create a dynamic with sufficient political will to change a school when in fact it showed up as leaving many kids behind and one of the reasons we have gotten to where we are today is that premise didn't play out as fully as we hoped it would and i do think to your point earlier that there is a very important role for entities outside. that closed loop of accountability between different levels, federal, state and local

government. one of the most beneficial was this tremendous probe of data, all kinds -- greatschools.net or state advocacy groups, putting report cards on the web, traffic and independent advocacy group websites with school performance data and report cards in most states far exceeds traffic to the state department of education's website. why? because advocacy groups are trying to prevent the data in a way that is useful and actionable for parents and the public. this waiver process, we need to be mindful about making sure the data outside groups have relied on in the past does not go away. likewise for states that may hold out there may be one or two

that don't apply for a waiver. my guess is the federal government is not going to be terribly effective in driving change. to the extent those states are going to be held to account. state based groups and others in those states say this is not acceptable. is not ok to step away and put are heads in the sand. >> probably true. the two largest states do not apply but they have strong reform advocates within them. the third largest state -- the way your agency is approaching reform and accountability. >> a couple things. we have a capacity challenge even though the department is fairly large because we have

regulatory response for k-12 and higher education and adult education and job creation and develop museums and i could go on. so we have that broad range of responsibility so the portion of the department is fairly small. we got to be smart about how we will leverage our limited resources. one thing we are doing is trying to work with other states are implementation because they are schools where it is going to improve. we work with massachusetts and rhode island on a common rubric for curriculum material against a common chord and working with states on developing maturation assessments. and also how we use technology at the department so we launched a website to provide material for school and a common core on

evaluation and engage and that website has gotten a lot of traffic because it is immediately useful material for teachers and principals. performances of where they want it to be, how do they get better? where do they go to get better? thinking about how we use technology, network of regional through the race to the top funding and jobs for professional development and features -- our challenge in this environment is how to match accountability with high support. the other piece of want to raise about state and federal capacity in addition to people power there is also courage capacity questions. on the end, hold the line on task divisions. i give the example in new york. the school improvement grant program. we have ten district with school

improvement grants. all of the district's show transformation model and some wore all of their schools which means they committed to did teacher and principal evaluation in those schools and our what sets the framework for a teacher and principal evaluation relying on districts to bargain with the details. by december of last year our district hadn't completed bargning around evaluation and the question was where we going to let them keep the money and we decided know so we suspended all ten school improvement grants and created a lot of controversy. people made a set of promises. a superintendent i won't name said just because we didn't do was in the grant fuhr going to take the money away? actually yes. i do mean that.

we took the money away and in the subsequent month nine of ten districts negotiated evaluation agreements and took it seriously. as one district leader and one large district in new york city still struggling to work out they will eventually get there and the governor has now said and got the legislature to agree if they don't have the valuations in place by january they will use the state aid increase for the year. that kind of line drawing we are willing to do if we're serious about accountability, used race to the talk that way to say we will take your money and do these things. they have a tough conversation. that is the key.

advocacy groups, and committed to these reforms that sounds really good and committed to execution and willing to make hard choices. >> one of the challenges with no child left behind has been the federal government has never wanted to take title one money away from states and schools precisely because it is targeted at students we all agree are most in need. that enforcement mechanism has in many ways been an empty threat. it is different when you say you applied for a grant and we will take it back but there are lots of states that never wanted race to the top money and the rest of accountable for waiver plans and i wonder if the federal government is going to be able to do what john just described with the core federal funding because that hasn't happened in

the past. >> there is no doubt in my personal opinion that teacher and leader evaluation pieces, the most difficult aspect of the waiver plan and i got to tell you it was difficult for many states to meet our requirements but this is about flexibility and as long as they are moving forward to develop guidelines that use multiple measures and student growth is a significant factor and work with their districts to develop those teacher and leader evaluations and put those evaluations so they're ready to be implemented by 2014-15 there's so much flexibility within that framework that states can't do this and won't be able to do

this. and it takes some courage and some kind of flexibility within. as long as you kind of adhere to your principles there is this space and it is going to be hard about where we ended up, this gets to a point both of you are making this will be a shared responsibility. there's no way we will fully be able to insure 100% compliance with what states said they were going to do. we will do our best to provide technical assistance and support on going so we don't come to place in two or three years where states are woefully out of compliance but we can head that off at the pass. we can monitor and what tools do we have? we have tools to change the way we do business so we can at least mitigates the end game

where we have to make decisions that are very difficult to make. >> most of us are very concerned about sequestration and possibility of forced cuts as part of a budget but the fact that the issue has been raised and school districts and states are taking it quite seriously might actually create an opportunity in the debt resources string which people use to count on as inviolate for complete the different reasons is now one that people look at and say we might not be able to count on that. might that degree of uncertainty about that resource creates an opportunity for the federal government to think about how to win gauge around the issue of accountability for what they said? >> i want to turn to one more topic. what is the state role in

individual school improvement? we have seen some states set up special school districts, achievement zones, louisiana, michigan, tennessee, i think connecticut will be established in one. you haven't set one up. what do you see as the state's role in school turnaround? you can talk about that. >> two things we have a tradition of in new york is the department ought to be providing professional development, resources and tools and diagnostic resources and tools to improve and we ought to be the place where you come to data that is clear and interactive and shines a light on

underperformance. the thing on race to the top ads feature and principal accountability and a way in which the evaluation law may make changes and personnel when they need to. the peace that is missing and we have a bill the legislature to achieve it is we don't have a good lover of accountability at the district level particularly with respect to district governors. in some of our district is clear the board the struggling to manage the district effectively and their mindset about their job as board members is not focused on student achievement but other things. we have a bill in the legislature we hope will get taken up next year that would allow us to remove a board in a district that is chronically underperforming because our view in our districts is the

government's level where the superintendent and school leaders are not able to move the system forward so we do feel we are missing that full and hope that over time the u.s. d o e will create incentives either financially or flexibilitywise to push the district more accountable. district leadership is a place where there are not a lot of members. >> we sought innovation through flexibility about holding district accountable. i hope i get this right. massachusetts -- holding its district accountable for the lowest performing full in the district so they will actually be held accountable for that. that is a pretty big deal. john in new york creating their

efforts on closing achievement gaps at the district will. how they're working with the district the lot of states are local control states and a lot of energy and ownership, and provide supports. >> we need to mandate is not as a programmatic challenge but as the structural and systemic challenge. one thing that is concerning, understandable but concerning is with the push for states to invade just distract around turnaround we have seen a lot of providers pop up to come as consultants to district and implement almost like a turnaround program. we know a lot about what works

in high performing high poverty schools. it is not the case, and getting the lessons we could learn particularly from high performing charter schools but certainly examples of traditional public schools incredibly motivated hard-working talented people working inside a structure that reinforces the behavior's between students and teachers in a way that would be transformative. until we create those conditions turnaround is something we wish would happen but it's not going to happen. there's a balance between new school creation and turnaround and politically a lot easier to wish turnaround will come true than to say we each create 10,000 new schools in this country or whatever we think the

number might be. an important way for the federal government to engage districts is to encourage districts to think of themselves in a portfolio fashion they have responsibility but they are open to having a variety of school providers in different ways in the same district and jimmy that will allow turnaround in some cases to start over which is often -- >> a great point. another theme, waiver across the board is low performing districts with high performing districts and sharing best practices and partnership across districts so they can learn from each other and try to facilitate that the state level through the school improvement grants but that is an exciting new

opportunity for folks to really own the improvements of all kids and partner in and sharing best practices. >> commissioner schools and reward schools under the waiver would be able to compete for a grant that would allow them to capture best practice and partner with low performing schools to share best practice. the irony of the child left behind is low accountability. the kids are accountable and the burden of not having education they are entitled to but there are schools that were low performing before no child left behind started after no child left behind was implemented and performing today and adults in that building, and no child left

behind and local superintendent may be the same in the local board as it did. in a funny way, talk about no child left behind in terms of stronger accountability and transparency maybe but not a lot of accountability for the adults and the teacher and principal evaluation component like the achievement districts and so forth that change the adults with responsibility. those are important and that is real accountability. >> i have the last question, last thing to comment on. looking back over the past few years what do you think are the biggest challenges going forward with reform? hold that in mind and if we were to hold this event in five years what will we be talking about

that we covered today or haven't covered today? challenges and where we are going to be in five years? >> challenges what i talked-about around school closure and school creation, politically it is so hard. the evidence is strong that we need to be much older so we will be talking about that five years from now. i think we will be talking about teacher evaluation in the same way five years from now that we are now. i hope we will be talking more about teacher preparation and professional development and teacher recruitment because evaluation is a management tool and we are obsessively focused on it in policymaking an it is

almost inverted. >> hopefully reflecting on all the success in closing achievement gaps and improving college and career readiness and try to work towards every day. one of our biggest challenges is needing to confront the myth that schools don't matter. i am shocked by the extent to which people are prepared to argue that kids are low income or parents are and whatever is their rationale. in reform circles, that is a victory won but i think that is a continual conversation to remind that schools can make a huge difference in kids' lives and the adults who managed the schools are responsible and putting them on the right

trajectory. that culture shift remains a central challenge. more practically, executing well on these initiatives is the challenge we have had and the challenge we will have going forward and will determine whether we are reflecting on the or sadly when we get five years from now. are we able to do a good job not just adopting questionnaires but insuring implementation in the classroom work able to turn the evaluation from an identification system to a tool for professional development and management. >> i am with that. the capacity to implement i do think these are innovative. may not be orbit shattered. but the fact that new york and

john in their requests have focused standards as the core of their reform strategy in a comprehensive way is actually different. really meaningful. the capacity to implement these plans is a great challenge. today the political will is difficult whether it is school turnaround -- i agree with both of these guys that in five years i am hopeful that teachers lead revaluations face evaluations are -- we put out teacher incentive for 2012 and that is what it is about. using the evaluations to informed decision making at the local level that will drive improvements in teaching and learning and how it is aligned

with improvement and how you're going to use evaluation tools to make the decisions to get the best teachers where they are needed the most or need more math teachers or more professional development or how do you recruit and that is where we are trying to go. we are going to be there in five years. >> thank you. let's turn it over to the audience. any members of the media who have questions? i will start with you. there seem to be. please tell us who you are and your affiliation. >> david from building america. commissioner to continue the conversation you just spoke about in your last comments. a decade ago i studied all 140 elementary schools in the 29 school districts in new york which for the rest of the audience is the buffalo area.

i found that in the room district level among 29 districts the expenditure per pupil ranged from 7,635 in akron central to $11,416 in lackawanna city. the correlation between expenditures for pupils and out comes in state administered fourth grade reading, science and math scores was zero. at the school by school level where the data was available school by school, the pupils/teacher ratio in terms of class size range from 10.4 pupils in baltimore and buffalo public schools 72 to 20.8, 1

hundred%. what was the correlation between class size and outcomes? zero. by contrast, the percentage of low income children school by school accounted for 75% variation in fourth grade math scores. 70% of the valuations in fourth grade science scores and 87% variation in fourth grade english scores. if you had time the percentage of low income children i would have predicted the state english scores less than 1% on the scale 95% accuracy. these are not revolutionary findings by me. socioeconomic status to outcomes

since james coleman's reform port and trying the socioeconomic status and socioeconomic status of the child's class needs and outcomes but shows consistently that low income children learn best and dramatically better when surrounded by economic classrooms and that very report presented in this very room a year ago by heather schwartz. my question is why do you and fellow educators continue to ignore the fundamental role that economic segregation and integration would play in the performance of american schoolchildren? >> i might take a crack.

>> let me start with that. the premise of your question i would challenge. is it about the kids or how adults organize themselves. it is not about the kids fundamentally. if that is true it is about how we the adult organized ourselves and decisions we make as adults. not decision the kids are making. the premise of your question troubles me somewhat. i am intrigued by the notion of trying to organize a school systems and dependent zones in a way that enhance economic integration and spoken about that frequently.

i quoted many papers and concerns about practices that results in high concentration in particular buildings without adequate reports. i am concerned about that. we also know that all around the country including schools that i ran there are schools there are 100% african-american kids and 90% kids in poverty and outstanding academic results. i do not accept the contention thatch the concentration insures that outcomes -- that indeed schools can have high concentration with kids in poverty and do the right things and dedicated talented principal and extensive learning time and use forms of assessments and

teaching and engage families effectively, things we can do to make schools work even with high concentrations of poverty but i am hopeful of socio-economic integration related to a governance question to contrast illinois with lots of school districts with states with county systems like maryland and virginia were county systems that achieve higher degrees of socio-economic integration with tax base diversification and systemic benefit from that. i am open to that and encourage that conversation but i fundamentally believe every kid shows up with the potential to achieve college and career readiness to organize ourselves.

>> the assertion that schools are powerful and that poverty is a real factor that impact students are not mutually exclusive. it is unfortunate that we have gotten to a place in this country where that seems to be the case. in reality, educators in high poverty schools have a much more nuanced since what is going on in the lives of their children outside the school but the critical difference is they are not waiting for everything outside the school to be fixed before they engage and do everything they can as an educator and when that happens you see the results. this really is a question of being able to hold these ideas and to feel comfortable as the country asking educators that they work in schools that are

powerful and this gets to the systemic issues. we don't organize many schools to allow for the very intervention john described. we absolutely have to change the way we do business in the schools because we can't expect educators to change their behavior if we don't change the system and the structure in which they are embedded. >> i don't have much to add. i want to get other people. >> i know the positive scoring dealing with a dancing economic integration. >> i was going to make a comment related to that. socio-economic integration of schools is a positive value and more schools should do it. the better we would be as a society not just because of

education outcomes but a lot of other outcomes about how we relate to each other in our communities and the federal government and state governments provide incentives for schools to do that but it is naive to think it is one strategy to improve a variety of outcomes but it cannot affect all kids because of the segregation in this country that has gotten worse in many ways and may never get corrected. i myself who started my career on school desegregation decided i couldn't wait for schools to be desegregated and was more interested in improving the quality of education in every school and we need to keep it as something we strive for and have an incentive like you just said

and cannot be the only mission for achieving improvement. other questions? middle of the room? >> i have a sinus infection. i am not usually but today. roberta stanley with the national school board association. my question is directed to the chancellor. new york state has a wonderful system, regional education service agencies which lot of states try to emulates jealous of. have you not utilized them? what are your plans to do so? >> one of the key questions was to rely on a our professional development teams with teacher

and principal evaluation and top application was submitted and there would be professional development experts and assessment experts that would support each set of schools and those are based on regional service providers. that is powerful because historically they have been great providers of services and career and technical opportunities and race to the top created an opportunity to play a major role regionally and approach professional development curriculums and thinking about teacher and principal evaluation together. that has been very powerful. we hope over time as a response to economic challenges we

regionalize more challenges. >> that policy century foundation, teacher in new york city for six years. there's a lot of talk about accountability and that is the buzzword and principles which is heartening and schools and districts. anybody who's spent time in a classroom heard a kid ask those discount? are you rating is? do the waivers have any proposals for substantive or tangible accountability or are they still the fatal flaw where teachers are being measured by something they have no control over? is there real accountability for students in these or is it passing it up the line? >> i would argue accountability

frameworks that are looking at how schools are closing achievement's and how students access and perform on a pea exams or have access to industry certs that are built into these accountability system this, college going rates or remediation rates. i think those do absolutely count for kids and that is what matters. >> one thing i would add is a long tradition of high school research exams there part of graduation requirements as well as transcript they will use when they apply for post secondary opportunities and for our high school measure those exams are playing a central role including a shift in the waiver toward focusing on college career ready levelland performance on those

assessments rather than the passing threshold so the accountability system on a level of performance that correlates to enrollment in and success in first-year college credit bearing courses which is a shift for the stake because our threshold and accountability system is significantly lower than the performance necessary. >> a quick thought on the intersection of accountability for students and educators. there are number of states like new york with graduation requirements that holds students accountable. we are seeing early literacy intervention and policies that block social promotions third to fourth grade from florida or colorado but the whole premise, high and dry, performance

standard, educators are in fact accountable for helping them and the state commissioner in massachusetts when they implement the high school graduation requirement the affect that we decided politically -- once we help students accountable the adult had to step forward and do what they needed to make sure students were successful. >> when kids are held to higher expectations they do better so adults in classrooms have to set those expectations with their kids with disabilities or english learners and higher expectations. >> a couple people in the back? >> capital community news in

d.c.. i was struck by the enthusiasm for rhode island's plan to keep children from having teachers rated two years and a row. in d.c. there are so many neighborhoods where scores are so low and tied to teacher effectiveness ratings it seems kids would get new teachers every two years and i am wondering how this could keep schools like that from having greater instability in neighborhoods where the kids already see instability in homes and neighborhoods and add to the situation and kids don't have a chance to get acclimated to the school because of the scores their rated ineffective. >> moving to a system of student growth so if they are starting behind white they are in several schools looking at whether the teacher is able to show growth

in student outcomes. maybe not the grade level but making progress that way. >> road island too identifies the opportunity for schools to develop student learning objective. they are using multiple measures. using growth in a meaningful way and breeders in the decision the state--reversing the decision they made and classroom observation and student learning and a whole set of needs that hopefully will provide rich information to teachers and leaders in schools to really make the necessary improvements that are appropriate. >> thanks for taking of a question. yesterday at an event -- former

secretary margaret spelling said her assessment of the waiver application led her to conclude that they would lead -- that they would hold the growth of charter schools and other, quote, choice options. i'm wondering if you think that is a fair assessment. >> deal with starter growth in new york. >> i can't speak for the rest of the states but certainly in new york. we maintain the choice component of nclb in our waiver. what has driven the access to additional charter advocacies is the raising of the cap that was part of how we won race to the top. the biggest challenge to the growth of high performing charters a capacity challenge. we are being very selective about which charters will give them only given to organizations

that demonstrate capacity at a very high level land larger providers on common schools with achievement first, many of them are stretched with the schools they have and trying to figure out how to build capacity to grow. the challenge in new york is a statutory challenge and a regulatory challenge and a capacity challenge to continue to grow these organizations. >> don't know if it is related to the waivers but there remain states with statutory framework for charter schools is not what it should be. in terms of funding parity and continued obstacles to growth and back to the idea of structural change and creating a district with a portfolio approach there is a place for high performing charters in the district level strategy around

managing performance and insuring that all kids learn. i am not aware of specific things states have done in waiver applications that step away from that but unless we have a real continued push in that direction it is challenging and we need to move in that direction. >> to the contrary, we have seen in a couple instances states where there are high performing charters have the opportunity for greater flexibility within the package. we know that in many states charters are autonomous and policies and procedures around teacher evaluations are different and we are recognizing and supporting that for high performing charters as long as they meet our requirements they don't have to do what the state says they have to do. in some states it is prohibited by law. utah for example has a waiver. there is great opportunity to

hold charters' accountable to high standard and still give them the flexibility and autonomy -- >> i want to address the choice division in nclb. i was enthusiastic when it was put in. is a myth that it accomplished anything. before i came to the center i did a study of choice provision in nclb and at best at its high point maybe two% of the kids were eligible to choose their low performing school and go to another major the transfer. there was interest in the families and other high performing schools available for them to transfer into. and because they were surrounded by large numbers of low

performing schools, there was no requirement for district choice. if you don't have interdistrict choice you don't have much opportunity. this country has in many places divided -- draw on their school district's lines which around more affluent communities and poorausfñoin1 o

most major unintended consequences being the narrowing of the curriculum so because of proficiency targets have shifted from federal ayp mechanism to a state based or waiver states have that responsibility do you think the unintended consequence of narrowing the curriculum because of its connection to testing do you think that improves the solution for addressing those consequences and the state based advocacy groups can address it more clearly as well in their states?

>> great question. that is without doubt a priority for secretary duncan. what we believe and hope we achieved but ultimately it is having advocates in the field by taking some of the pressure of the punitive nature of the child left behind off of the system that it creates opportunities and we see in some of the states being bold and difference and kentucky actually building arts in to their accountability framework. states are looking at different subjects. looking at college readiness factors. different sets of factors we do believe and hope will change the focus to broadening the curriculum. this is a shared responsibility and it is up to you all and

advocacy community to make sure it doesn't happen. >> parents and students want a diverse curriculum. in a system where there is choice and flexibility and transparency schools that provide that have an opportunity to attract students while still being accountable for student achievement and that is what we are all after here. >> what we need to do is correct the pedagogical mistakes people make which is thinking narrowing the curriculum you will improve your performance and looking at the role of cultural literacy in student reading achievement and information about the world or the evidence on the influence of art and music. what we know is actually attending to science and social

studies will lead to better student outcomes and high performing urban schools serving low-income kids. many of them have dedicated time for the arts and enrichment programs and time for science. those are things that have got lost because of accountability but by fixing the accountability system will change and we will always focus on mask. colleges are always math and writing and math skills and reading and writing and math skills. don't think that will go away but the question is how we get to college readiness is something we have to change people's hearts and minds about what good instruction is like. >> i want to thank you and thank our panel for talking to us and to you for being interested.