early days of the bush of ministration we saw all kinds of cases coming before the supreme court about the rights of detainees in guantanamo bay, how much they have a right to challenge the conditions of their confinement and how much the courts had to entertain them. ..

and then i think what we've seen in the last 11 years things have settled down and stabilized and there's more political consensus. look at what the obama administration is doing right now it's not that many believe could different than what the bush administration did in the two terms especially at the end and given that there is that consensus that's one of the reasons they are not issued in the political campaign but i think it's also one of the reasons why things are in the national security area. >> this will be the last security to that question. >> i think a lot will depend on who the next president is, because i think that there will be several justices who are getting older but i think most of them would feel if they are voluntarily retiring and not forced to do so by health concerns or some other extenuating circumstances the honorable thing to do would be

retiring during the term of the party that appointed you in the first place so you could see justice ginsburg now that she's accomplished. i think she's trying to make a record for how long she's on the court and she will accomplish that in 2014. you may see scalia or kennedy retire if they get president romney. it makes a huge potential shift in the court based on the next president. you could have one, two or even three additional nominees not fallen to retirement but that will give president obama the opportunity to a majority of the members of the supreme court given the previous nominations or it would give the president romney the chance to possibly shift the balance and any one replacing justice kennedy affect the balance to make a solid liberal or so the court assuming the president knows how to pick the right kind of person that

they want, which is always a challenge. >> you said retirement's during this term, my prediction would be none. they all seem to be pretty healthy. >> for four years i think they can sit there and think it would be great to have so and so in place but for years is a long time. we will worry about that later. i'm having fun now. >> would you join me on behalf of the federal society thinking that panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

wisconsin has become one of the most interesting senate races in the country. you have a state that has been publicly rolling for over two years and the presidential race for a while it seems a very competitive. president obama seems to have pulled ahead by about 5.4 in the latest polls and some of that has helped change the trajectory of the race. earlier this month governor tommy thompson, republican come seemed to have the momentum and at this point, his democratic rival representative tammy baldwin seems to be within the margin of error or a little ahead. >> why is that? >> it seems my best guess is the

baldwin surge if you want to call it that corresponds president obama and governor romney. in august it really seemed competitive and it still is. governor thompson was perceived as the best republican nominee. he had a very republican primary and representative paul ryan nominated for the vv come see you have this it seems like suddenly wisconsin was back in the republican column or possibly in the republican column. >> and abby livingston, is denied the first debate and only debate or is there a series? >> i don't know off the top of my head, but it is going to be an interesting evening because governor thompson is a statewide brand known and not as governor thompson, but tommy and he's going to be seeking to label the representative baldwin as a liberal. that is the latest, the liberal for nancy pelosi, and she is one of several members of congress who is from the single district trying to run statewide is she's going to define herself in a positive way and definitely

going to define her negatively. >> that the date will be live from wisconsin. we will broadcast it live on c-span, 9 p.m. eastern time. tommy thompson and tammy baldwin. did the leaders and top down

economics. they basically think if we spend another $5 trillion on tax cuts that favor the very wealthy -- don't boo, load. i admit there's one thing he did not do in the first four years he's if he's going to do the next four years which is to raise taxes. is their anybody that thinks that raising taxes will help the economy? no, his plan is to continue what he's done before. the status quo has not worked. we cannot afford four more years of barack obama and we are not going to have four more years of barack obama the first thing in

the article here is getting medicare costs under control is the number-one priority and the most untouchable thing, but that is critical cause more trouble than any of the problem we've got fiscally in the united states. getting medicare costs under control is the number-one thing. >> you say we also surcharged smokers and the obese for their medicare coverage. where did that idea come from? >> i am the person that put it in the memo but i didn't have to fight very hard for it. also, i ran into this, something i ran in "the washington post" install of calling people morbidly obese i called them

mega fatties and i was refuted by "the washington post" for being insensitive, which i guess i probably am. this is another thing where everybody knows this to be true and someone has to pay for it. there should be penalties. i'm not really a democrat but i'm certainly democrat compared to him. you have to be responsible to some extent for your personal behavior. someone is going to pay for it. >> quite right. we should point out also we are not only ones making arguments like this. there are other bipartisan commissions and so forth. the task force that was headed by a was rivlin and pete domenici, a democrat and republican. also said that with regard to medicare we need to do something about the op east and smokers and they have a proposal which was more complicated than ours for restricting spending on end of life care. by the way, these are difficult,

painful decisions, but we are going to have to face them. and now the american security project holds a discussion on the prospects of passing the comprehensive test ban treaty. the u.s. has observed a moratorium on the nuclear testing for the past 20 years but have still ratify the treaty. this is about 45 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, i am steve chaney, ceo of the american security project and welcome to asp. if you're not familiar with asp we are a 501c3 non-profit and take on national-security issues from a non-partisan perspective. we were founded in 2006 by senator hagel, senator kerry, heart and governor christine todd whitman who will remain on the board today.

and one of the points they raised them and it's still pertinent today was a lot of these issues when anyone mentions them they get paid into it one way or the other republican or democrat. we tend to feel they should get painted in the perspective of national security. and you will see we have a number of publications outside that we study all of them. energy security, nuclear security, climate change, american competitiveness, asymmetric terrorism among others. so i would encourage you to go on the web site and look at them and see how we take it from the perspective we put it in there. we put out the facts. we don't balance it one way or the other. today we are so pleased to have rose here. let me lay out a few ground rules as you can tell c-span is here and they are going to analyze it for us. rose will get up and talk for 15 or 20 minutes i presume and then we will have a q&a to lend dignity but would otherwise be i

will choose who will speak and we will have a microphone over on that side of the room so you will have to come over and queue up to the microphone. when you ask a question please identify yourself and try to keep it a little bit short. we are here to listen to rose and not necessarily to you. if you would do that we can get as many people and as we can. most of the familiar with rose speed integration is designated as the undersecretary for arms control, and in this month the president announced his intent to the committee undersecretary of arms control and international security. what wonderful news this is for the country. especially considering, rose, what you've done for us. with regard to new s.t.a.r.t., the p5, working conventional forces in europe, and working with russia. and we know that you are a tireless worker and an advocate in the united states interest abroad, and a great leader here in washington, and i know you work across the aisle and both

republicans and democrats. timely today because it's been 20 years since we've conducted a nuclear test. a lot has happened since. we've created a stockpile stewardship program. we have signed the ct bet yet to be ratified, develop there were nuclear test monitoring systems. rose is going to give us her view on where we are now some 20 years since the last nuclear test. ladies and gentlemen, secretary rose gottemoeller. >> thank if you very much. it's a great pleasure to be you very. it's the second time i've had the opportunity to speak on the podium, and is a great pleasure to be back. there is always a very knowledgeable audience in the room coming and so i look forward very much to our discussions. 20 years ago this past sunday, the united states conducted its last underground nuclear explosive test. the test called divider was

followed by an official moratorium on explosive testing that was put in place less than ten days later. over the past two decades the united states developed the capability to ensure the safety, security and reliability of the stockpile through the use of state-of-the-art technology research while maintaining a moratorium on nuclear testing. the administrator commented on the anniversary the past weekend. he said in april, 2009, president obama shared his vision of a world without nuclear weapons. as we work towards the goal we had the world's leading scientific authority, the fastest computers, and the brightest minds. working to ensure that we would never again have to perform nuclear explosive testing in the united states. the effort that tom describes entails a number of programs and tools that work together to maintain a safe, secure and

effective nuclear stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear testing. they include the stockpile stewardship program run by the national nuclear security administration, which maintains the continued safety security and reliability of the nation's nuclear in the absence of the nuclear explosive testing. the key goal of the ssp is the understanding if of a nuclear device perform as well as the agent behavior of the weapons material and components to ensure safe and effective nuclear deterrent. second is the life extension program, often called lep. they extend the life of the current weapon in the stockpile by using only the nuclear components based on the previously tested designs, thereby eliminating the need to conduct nuclear explosive testing. amsa including modifications to

the stockpile to sustain the warheads that underpin the u.s. nuclear deterrent. advanced simulation and computing capabilities provide a greatly increased confidence in the devotee to model and evaluate the performance and safety of nuclear weapons without nuclear explosive testing. computers have become at least 100,000 -- of read that again at least 100,000 times more powerful and modern integrated design codes now more realistically captured the behavior of the nuclear devices and enhanced surveillance tools play a critical role in providing information essential to assessing security and performance changes that can affect the military effectiveness of the weapons. the use of data from the surveillance of a nuclear weapons enables us to predict how the weapons will form over time without using underground nuclear testing. the annual assessment process of the u.s. nuclear stockpile is

the authority of that it for the dod to evaluate the safety reliability performance and military effectiveness of the nuclear weapons stockpile and it is our principal tool and gives us an ability to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent without the nuclear explosive testing. finally, infrastructure modernization is being conducted in accordance with of the nuclear posture review. mssa on modernizing the structure with of a nuclear explosive testing. this modernization is implemented by focusing on the capitalization and refurbishment of existing infrastructure for the plutonium, uranium, trivium, high explosive production, then on nuclear component production, - lynndie testing and waste this position. so it is a very thorough from cradle to grave kind of approach. all of these programs will be described in greater length in the fact sheets to the

department and mssa hendee all copies. we will be putting out on the website over the coming weeks a comprehensive series of fact sheets on the stockpile program. last test is not the only anniversary and is happening this week. 16 years the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty was open for signature and the united states signed the treaty on the very same day. ct dt is in the national security interest. as stated in the 2010 nuclear posture review, ratification of the ctbt is central to leading other states towards a world of the mesh reliance on nuclear weapons. reduced competition and eventual nuclear disarmament. since we have maintained a 20 year moratorium on an explosive

nuclear testing, our policies and practices are consistent already with the central provisions of a comprehensive test ban treaty. the ratification would be a significant affirmation of the importance the united states attributes to the international non-proliferation regime. more importantly, the treaty enters into force u.s. ratification would concretely contribute to reducing the role of nuclear weapons and international security. for the global ban on the nuclear explosive tests the states interested in pursuing the nuclear weapons programs would have to either riss to torian weapons uncertain of their effectiveness or face international missions for conducting nuclear tests. the ctbt would subject the suspected violators to the threat of intrusive on-site inspections to read a further deterrent to the states attempted to carry out nuclear testing in the hope it can be covered up. it has been 12 years since the

senate voted against ratification of the treaty. this administration has been reviewing the lessons learned in this clear that the lack of support stemmed from the concern regarding verify ability of the treaty and our ability to ensure the continued safety and reliability of america's nuclear deterrent without explosive testing. as i've already of light with regard to the nuclear deterrent from our extensive surveillance mud and computational alana the stockpiles stewardship program over the past 15 years has allowed the nuclear experts to understand how the nuclear weapons work and age even better than with the explosive testing was conducted. as the national laboratory directors have affirmed for the vice president. the treaty's verification regime has also grown exponentially over the last decade. today the international monitoring system or imf is roughly 85% complete and when fully completed there will be facilities in 89 countries spanning the globe.

entry into force the full body of technical data gathered by the international monitoring system will be available for a verification purpose to of the parties. the system is already at work to read it detected the two nuclear explosive tests announced by north korea and the capabilities will continue to improve as the system is completed. in addition, with the nuclear crisis we have seen the utility of the imf for the verification related purposes such as the tsunami warnings and tracking the radioactivity from the reactor accident. entry force also will bring to bear the options for the on-site inspections which will clarify ambiguities regarding any potential nuclear test. taken as a whole, the treaty's robust verification regime which supplements hour own state of the art capability for monitoring the national technical means all of these

will challenge any state trying to conduct military significant exports of nuclear tests and trying to escape detection to read as we look to a ratification of the ctbt we acknowledge the process will not be easy to read with that said, the new s.t.a.r.t. ratification process in which i was deeply involved reinvigorated interest in the topic of nuclear weapons and arms control of the capitol hill and i am optimistic that interest will continue as we engage the members and their staff on this important treaty. i like to think of the efforts both far as the information exchange working to get the facts out to the members and their staffs many of whom have never dealt with this treaty. we know the key underlying issues are very technical in nature and we want people to absorb and understand the rationale behind it, that the treaty is in the u.s. national security interest. there are no set time frames to bring the treaty to the vote we are right to be patient, but we

will also be persistent. to aid in the further the understanding the administration convinced the commission on a number of classified and unclassified reports including an updated national intelligence estimate and an independent assessment by the national academy of sciences to assess the ability of the united states to monitor compliance with the treaty and the ability of the united states to maintain in the absence of nuclear explosive testing of safe and secure and effective nuclear arsenals so long as these weapons exist. those reports on the related material will provide a wealth of information as the senate considers the merits of the ratification of the ctbt. of course we do not expect people to be in the preseason only mode. we anticipate and look forward to many substantive questions and items of discussion and debate that will undoubtedly come from our colleagues from capitol hill. looking upward from the administration has been calling

on all the remaining to join us in moving forward towards ratification. there is no reason for them to delay their own ratification process waiting for the united states to ratify. the administration realizes this will be a difficult task on many levels, but it is nonetheless committed to moving the treaty for word so as the national security of the united states and all states will be enhanced when the ctbt enters into force. with that, think you for your attention and we look forward to your questions in the discussion. thank you very much. [applause] >> as moderator and bring to the privilege of asking the first question. when you look back at how hard it was getting the new s.t.a.r.t. through, and of course asp is nonpartisan but we see sort of a tremendous national security of changes to your s.t.a.r.t. and we also see in the convention and we certainly see at the ctbt that

it seems like it's turned into almost a purely partisan fight that it's not a matter of the devotee of the edges and the disadvantages of the treaty. it's a matter of giving a victory to a democratic administration. you see any hope in the lame-duck session that there is a possibility that it could even be considered and second, how -- what kind of a time line would you lay out in the next year or two if it doesn't come up in the lame duck? >> let me take a general question. i did work very hard on the new s.t.a.r.t. ratification as many of you are aware and participated in that process. i actually found working with senators on both sides of the of the took their national security responsibilities very seriously. they really dug down deep to understand the technical details of the verification regime and the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and the implications for the national nuclear deterrent. they really wanted to understand. and i can see and i hope for the

same approach to the ctbt that they will see it as a matter of our national security have something that they really dig down deep to try to understand. so, whereas it is no secret to anybody around washington or around this room that there is a lot of partisanship on capitol hill, nevertheless, i have seen myself in the ratification process is situation where both sides of the al qaim together and worked very hard to understand the national security benefits of the treaty and to bring it forward across the finish line and give the advice and consent so the treaty could enter into force. i see no reason why we can't pursue the same effort with a comprehensive test ban treaty. it is as i said in my remarks avery complex treaty. many, many difficult and technical issues and i think for many around town they haven't really engaged with it for over a decade now.

it's important to take time, study the details, try to understand as i said dig down deep to get a technical understanding of what the treaty is all about and to debate and discuss the questions that arise. i see no question why we can't have that kind of discussion. but it will take time. it will take time and that's why i said in my remarks we are not setting out a timeline for bringing the treaty to the vote, but rather to go through a careful process and ensure that everybody understands what the treaty is all about and that it is to our advantage. >> got to love an optimist. as i mentioned on the question earlier we are going to have a microphone over here on the side and if you can please -- let me throw this out there are there any questions or have we stunned you into silence? if you could please come over to the microphone on the side and state your name and brief

question we will attempt to let rose answer. >> we need a longer microphone cord. >> [inaudible] i am wondering i understand for patient yet persistent strategy and i am wondering if you can -- if you have some thoughts on how the american public and particularly the women who were members of your deposition who long struggle for the nuclear test standard what le should be why? >> i really value the public involvement that we had in the process of the ratification of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty to get the fact that the comprehensive test ban treaty is a very complicated document with a

history all in its own will require even more careful and extensive work with the public interest groups around the country, so i very much welcome the kind of partnership that we had on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and would like to see it extended and strengthened as we proceed forward in working on the comprehensive test ban treaty. i think there are some slightly different interests at play. the new s.t.a.r.t. was in some ways a little but maybe how should i put it matters of nuclear deterrence or a way out there for a lot of people they can't get their arms around them but in the case of the comprehensive test ban treaty, we have some factual issues that affect public communities around the country and issues for some of the states out there for nevada, for utah, for example, so i think there are ways that we can connect more intensively with the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty which people saw as u.s. overall

national security interest but didn't quite i think connect at the community level. so i see some new opportunities with the ctbt command once again, kathy will look forward to working with you and your organization and others who are great partners for these types of efforts. >> thank you. >> yes, sir, over in the back. >> thank you very much. you mentioned many of the technical changes in the last consideration of the treaty. tomorrow the foreign minister is going to be meeting in new york to meet to discuss ways to accelerate the force of the treaty. what is your take. what is your assessment of how the treaty is viewed by our allies most of which support the treaty.

what is the level of the global support of the treaty today relative to 1996 and what affect would the u.s. action have on strengthening the global effort? >> i always believed that the united states has a significant influence on all aspects of the global nonproliferation and all the control policy where one of the big dogs after all, and i still like to remind everybody that we have the russian feration still have over 90% of the weapons in the world. so, i think it is incumbent on us and the russians to take some special responsibility for both of the nuclear reductions and also for working to strengthen and develop in positive ways the non-proliferation regime. so, we will continue to take those responsibilities very, very seriously here in washington. i know that for a fact.

the particular issue -- by the way i will be there tomorrow for the event at the united nations. it is a very important even that well for one thing take stock of where we are with the ratification process for the treaty. there were major countries in the past year that completed the ratification process in indonesia for example so they will have the opportunity to speak and talk about in this sense the progress with the ratification. there will also be opportunities for all ministers to reflect on where we go from here and so i am glad to have the opportunity to be there and lend my support to the effort but also to hear what others have to say. as far as what is going on in the rest of the world i did want to reiterate the point i made at the outset. i am telling other countries don't sit on your hands and wait for the united states. there is a sense out there that

the u.s. has to go next and i will drive progress forward. i think that when the united states ratifies the comprehensive test ban treaty it will drive progress forward, and other states will step up to the bar and complete the ratification process. but i am also telling the states not to wait. they should go ahead and complete their legislative process and move forward on the ratification of the treaty so we will continue to underscore that message because i think it is an important one and the low united states lend is a momentum that we are not the only one. all states as they participate in the effort drive this process forward so we will continue to encourage that message overall. >> next question, yes, sir.

>> i was hoping you could talk about the modernization and how it has an effect on the chances for the ratification especially the can endanger the chances for modification. >> there is no question we have to work with congress in order to ensure the request put forward by the national nuclear security administration, by the administration overall for the infrastructure modernization piece of this as well as the stewardship program that that funding is forthcoming. we've got a very complicated situation on capitol hill right now with the so-called fiscal cliff approaching, we've got the problem of sequestration looming out there. all of these issues are in front of us, so the message that i

would really like to underscore is one of the partnership between executive branch and the legislative branch to try to get through. it is a very, very difficult fiscal situation right now and the budget austerity is staring all of us in the face, the president has been very clear. and he has really emphasized the priority on ensuring the funding for the infrastructure modernization and also for the stockpile stewardship program. he has been clear in that commitment so we will continue to drive forward with our efforts to get the budget that we need for those goals but we are going to need close partnership with our colleagues on capitol hill to make it happen. >> yes, ma'am. if you can come over and use the microphone.

>> i wonder if you cannot win whether or not the obama administration and the potential nomination at obama doesn't when. >> welcome you know, this treaty as i have said time and time again is in the u.s. national security interest. i think it is worth while emphasizing two points about that. the first point to emphasize is the one that i made in my remarks today,hich is about the added burden that this treaty when in force will place on a country attempting to cheat. they would face on-site inspection and they will face the full force of the ctbt verification regime. and so, it really, really helps the level of uncertainty for any country that is considering cheating and that is very

important. the second important point about the national security interest of this treaty are that it will really place a significant block in the wake of the further nuclear arms race in. and we are concerned about countries particularly in asia developing the nuclear weapons capability, so it pleases a significant block in the way of that. the third point that i would like to emphasize is that for 20 years the national law and policy have lived with the contents of the comprehensive test ban treaty in any event, so why don't we get the advantage of it by bringing the treaty into force and holding other countries around the world to the same standards? so those three points are very important ones to remember and for anybody in the white house, whether from republican or the democratic side of the nile, those national security interests i hope will come into play and be determinative in what decisions they will take about the treaty.

but i am no magician. i cannot predict the future in that regard. >> yes, sir. >> you mentioned the treaty is very complex. i wonder if you could expand on the complexity aspect and also the text of the treaty had to be changed since 1996 to reflect on the verification methods. >> the verification that it in the treaty is in the treaty, and in fact i think that it has stood well the test of time since it was negotiated in the mid to late 90's. i see people in the room who are actively involved in the negotiation process, and really i think it is a great tribute to

the multilateral community that is expert in this area because it does have a great deal of expertise and experience folded into it from our on-site inspection practice. but also work that we have done previously, for example, with at that time the soviet union experiments that we did back during the course of working on the treaty's a there was a great deal of expertise and experience the was folded into the treaty as it was negotiated. so i think it has borne very, very well the test of time to be honest and that is why keep emphasizing that it would be important to get it into force as we could get the full one advantages of it. >> good question. next question. yes, sir.

>> i was wondering what about the rising specter over the next four years assuming that is the november favorable is there an agenda on how you see the pieces fall into place? and then there is a specific thing. one thing we face is the progress of technology and the events of the increased efficiency of technology and missile defense which probably is grain to have different kinds of arms control going down to the ctbt among other things. >> thank you. it's good to see you. picture of arms control over the next four years. welcome from the perspective of

president obama come he has made no secret of the fact of his so-called prague initiative that he is eager to pursue a continued step by step productions in the nuclear weapons. so that is one priority goal for this administration. it is a goal by the way that is laid out in the preamble to the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. so it is a goal that the russian federation and the united states have both articulate it. sir, i think that we will be looking for ways to accomplish those reductions. the president the day that he signed the treaty leigh of three goals for the next round of negotiations. he said we want to seek reductions in the non-strategic nuclear weapons as tactical nuclear weapons, non-deployed nuclear weapons, that is weapons tel dan the storage facilities, and reductions in the deployed nuclear weapons. now, a lot of people don't realize that two of the three categories are new to the arms reduction process.

we have never tried to tackle the non-strategic nuclear weapons or the non-deployed nuclear weapons. we were not going after the weapons that are deployed on the delivery vehicle. so the war had on an icbm on an intercontinental ballistic missile is a deployed weapon and that is what we have always counted and reduced because that is what you can see from the overhit satellites for the national technical means. it's important to recognize the next stage of arms control president obama has laid out is very in vicious and will require us to take a good look at the verification technologies and how we conduct inspections and monitoring. it is a significant challenge, but i think frankly we have arrived at a plant with a great deal of experience. we have accumulated over the last 40 years. we have arrived at the point we can begin to tackle some of those more ambitious tasks on the nuclear arms control front. here and some of you have heard

me talk about it before coming here i think the technological change can be our friend. i think there's been so much progress in the information revolution for example but we should be looking at new ways to monitor and verify treaties where we can be helped by some of the tools provided to us by the information revolution but that isn't the speeches about today. anyway, enough to sink new technologies to be our friends. but also committed this has been the case throughout history there is always a technological driver moving the kind of weapons offense and defense balance forward so we are looking for ways obviously to work cooperative ways with our partners and that includes the russian federation. we are looking for ways to work with, rather than opposition to it and so i think we are going to try to continue to develop that type of an agenda going

forward. as well with our allies and partners are of the world. and finally in the area that i wanted to stress, which many of you i don't think have paid much attention to for long, long time has been very much on the back burner because it has been quite a successful and that is the conventional arms control. i think that there is a necessity to look hard at conventional arms control in europe and to consider very precisely what we need today. the conventional arms control in europe was a great success and resulted in the destruction of 72,000 pieces of the treaty limited equipment. that is the kind of overhang from the cold war. we have gotten rid of that now. we have been applied success. so what we need now to bolster security, predictability and mutual confidence in your of? so that is another area that we will be looking out over the next several years. i think it is a multifaceted

agenda. but the last point that i would like to stress about this is that we are trying to look beyond what we have done in the past. and the approaches that we have taken in the past and try to incorporate some of the new technologies that i mentioned and also some of the evidence is in the cooperation and the mutual policy over the last 40 years. the reason that i have frequently cited the success of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty negotiations, and by the way, it is being very well implemented now. it's moving forward very smooth and its implementation. yes, there are problems but we have been dealing with them in the bilateral commission which is the implementation body for the treaty but by and large it is growing well in its implementation. why was it so quick? it is because we have accumulated already over at that point combining the imf and s.t.a.r.t. with accumulated over 20 years of experience with the

on-site inspections. we tend to experience in the past and looking forward, and i think we need to do that across-the-board whether we are talking about further nuclear reductions, whether we are talking about the conventional modernization of the conventional arms control modernization, or whether we are talking about developing cooperative ways to work together on the missile defense. >> yes, sir. >> [inaudible] you mentioned -- [inaudible] [laughter] you mentioned the two issues from the 1999 senate action. it's my impression that on the other side of that was a convention on the part of people

that want to support by didn't do much for us you've laid that out. the arms control side in this agreement [inaudible] >> yes, it's important to take note of the obligations that come to us as the result of the non-proliferation treaty, and clearly the united states and the other weapons states under the npt have an obligation across-the-board to look for ways to move towards the zero nuclear weapons towards the nuclear disarmament article 6 of the npt poses that obligation. the there has been a series of i would say efforts under way

since the late 1960's. the npt of course itself with its other regime aspects. there have been the bilateral efforts with the soviet union and the united states, now russia and the united states to reduce and eliminate the nuclear weapons by the way when s.t.a.r.t. entered into force, we had, i should say when it completes its implementation in the next now eight years we will be down to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads, and at the time that s.t.a.r.t. entered into force in 1994, both we and the russians had approximately close to 12,000 deployed nuclear weapons. so, the numbers are coming steadily down, and we need to continue that process. now moving beyond what is deployed. moving beyond the delivery vehicles with all missiles.

going now next to get at the weapons that are non-deployed and held in the storage facilities and also the non-strategic for the tactical nuclear weapons as well. so all of those goals have been important and they are consistent over time. although with fits and starts depending on what the relationship between what moscow and washington has been. so that is one area that you can see the arms control responsibility closely meshed up with the nonproliferation treaty. but there have been two other major multilateral regimes contributing to the goal of nuclear disarmament. the first, the comprehensive test ban treaty we successfully negotiated but we haven't yet managed to bring into force. second, and this is an area that i am working on very, very hard at the conference on disarmament is a fissile material cut off treaty to cut off the production of the material for weapons

purposes. and we have been working on that i feel some days like i am beating my head against the wall but we have been a working on that very hard at the conference on disarmament. we are facing an impasse that's been imposed by a single country but we are doing everything we can to develop a kind of confidence among all parties at the conference on disarmament that they can understand that their interest will be dealt with if the if come to the negotiating table. so, that -- without the price and terms of the negotiation it hasn't been fully delivered because it hasn't entered into force. the next big negotiation is in this realm a fissile material cutoff treaty to cut off the production of fissile material for weapons purposes. so we will continue -- i don't know if i am mixing metaphors not beating my head on the wall but walks on the hill at this case we will definitely keep at it with regards to that goal.

there are a number of ways that we are trying to work together on the multiple fronts to ensure not only that the disarmament goal is laid out in a nonproliferation treaty but also to ensure that proliferation of nuclear weapons does not occur around the world, and so that also is the effort that is carried forward in the multilateral realm was, for example the work of the iaea and with iran but it is also of course carried forward in the special negotiations such as 85 plus one that is now ongoing and by the way very active discussions on the wing right now and new york during the general view an assembly. so, we are working all of these problems on various fronts, but they are quite believe to tightly intertwined and i think we can't lose sight of the fact that what we are doing and working in the disarmament problem serves the goal laid out in the non-proliferation treaty

as well >> yes, sir. we are ready for one more and then we are going to call it that day. >> i have a very important question you mentioned works very well in s.t.a.r.t. one of the treaty sites is that requires a majority or two-thirds vote in the duration [inaudible] they would never agree to that. but they are not being agreed to

where that has happened to the large boats? >> i think one thing i would like to point to when talking about the on-site inspection under the trety is in this very year we are working in vienna on preparing for a block onsite inspection under the ctbt as a kind of preparatory effort it's part of the effort for the treaty to enter into force. i can see first of all the very serious technical commitment of all of the countries participating to work on establishing procedures and methods from the inspection. that kind of commitment extends to even the voluntarily providing technical equipment and that type of thing. the countries are working together very well. so, i don't see any evidence out there that this is kind of what the russians in the old days used to call the tuscan village. this is going to be an on-site inspection capability the

develops under the treaty. and i think that there will be important, i think first and foremost an important deterrent for those who might think that they can get away with a invasive tests we do think it's important to focus on that important deterrent aspect of this and as far as speculating about whether we would get off the ground or not i don't want to speculate on that. i really can't say what is right to happen once the treaty enters into the force but i will say that we will have a very capable procedure and system laid out to which the states will be accustomed to those who are inside of the treaty regime and that in itself will be very beneficial in bolstering the strength of the deterrent aspect

>> let me thank everybody for coming here today and visiting asp. on the web site you will find all kinds of publications on the related topics. we can of the fact sheet this month in particular. we are holding about an event each monday we will do another one on climate change towards the tail and we are going to release a significant report on it. rose, we couldn't be more pleased and we are honored to have you here today, and of course we are excited and pleased to have you in the state department. let's give rose a big hand. [applause]

september 11th 2001 as a day that changed my life forever and changed america's life. i'm going to go through a power plant presentation which is going to outline the account of the historical account of the attack that has happened and has transpired since that day. it gets pretty intense give a lot of things happen very quickly. i would ask you to sit back, clear your mind, put yourself in that room and get a sense of what it was like to be at top of the food chain, the national command authority as a nation of 300 million americans attacked by the 19 al qaeda terrorists.

>> i was always shocked as anybody that spent a lot of time not campaigns. most of the people talked to couldn't explain to me why they did anything that they would do and how do you know that and why do you do that? and at some point they did it because there would always do that they were they had some sort of rules that wasn't really based on any research. so i sort of went on the campaigns with a degree of skepticism about a lot of the practices that were taking place and people were devoting time and resources, and as i learned about people starving in academia that were doing these field experiments, these randomized trials that were then being adopted by people in the political world and learn more about all of the innovations and the data and targeting but

basically revolutionized the campaigns of the last decades and was convinced this was a major generational shift and that in addition to all of these sort of new forms of research changing the way the campaigns operated that you had a kind of cultural tension between a lot of the old practices that defined the way the campaigns of what you did this sort of new empirical movement. >> mr. the hamilton project was the policy expert on the success of charter schools and how they can be implemented to public schools. we will hear from to charter school superintendents who will discuss innovative approaches the schools have taken by increasing time in school and the higher quality curriculum. this is an hour.

>> one of the hottest issues. as the peter points out, and i really urge everyone to read if you haven't yet had a chance to do so, it is quite important and excellent. as it points out, charters are perhaps the most important innovation in public education over the last generation in the united states. but there are many myths and misconceptions about charters and about the motivation and the goal of many in the movement. use of some of that play out in the recent chicago future strike. beyond that there are many people in the united states to the best charters are either an

unmitigated good or alternatively, an existential threat. ..

>> if we are going to get back to the living standards of america, we are only going to do that by lifting up and truly changing public education in this country. that is the only way that is ever going to be achieved. so with that, let me introduce roland fryer. he is going to summarize his paper. he is going to do 34 slides in one hour. >> thank you very much. it is great to be here again and to see so many familiar faces.

>> let's start with this first. good morning. we all know that education in america, visited the show that our performance has grown over the last 30 to 40 years. if you look at the latest statistics as to how many schools didn't make it in 2011.

if you look at the project, it shows that roughly 40% of our eighth graders are proficient in math or in reading. one of the things that is most disturbing to me, of all the school district, there was not one of them in more than 25% in math or reading. in places like detroit, more than only 3% are proficient.

roughly two years ago i stumbled on the work of jeffrey. i was blown away to see that after, those who are lottery then, after four years, there was an achievement gap in math to apply for the lottery and the average licensing and all of your city. i have to say this on c-span just in case she is watching. one christmas i was alone in

cambridge, massachusetts, and i was feeling the holiday blues and i wanted to make my grandmother's coconut cake. and she said oh, it's really simple. you start with two cups of sugar, you boil it. and i said, dan? and she gave me directions that sounded like -- i went to my grandmother's house around thanksgiving and i just annoyed her in the kitchen. but she would grab the flour with her hands and i would put up underneath. and i would sprinkle the flour in and i backed out the recipe. again, it annoyed her, but i had a recipe that i can now give my children and grandchildren. we spent two years trying to do

something like that with charter schools. the average charter school is no different than the average public school. that is an important fact. what is interesting about charters is that there is a huge amount of charter schools are doing phenomenal things for kids. they are not doing good things at all for kids, some schools. but as an economist, what we wanted to do, we wanted to do the distribution, people the freedom to make choices. so we took this freedom and this variant in the outcome, and we really wanted to understand what makes some good and others not so bad. essentially we found icings

explained, 50% of the variant of what makes some charter school is good. some of them may be thinking, wow, you are at harvard and you can only explain 50%? and others may be saying that in the stock market, we can have a variance to the markets. i'm going to say besides and i don't want to leave the room. bear with me. >> i think it is like a cruise ship. i'm a couple moves behind. i don't want to leave the room. the first one was how often

schools give teachers feedback. feedback on their instructional processes. the second one was how they actually use data to drive the pace and scope of instruction. when we talk about data school and education reform, there is so much data, it actually might be a liability more than an asset in some schools. in fact, i'm pretty sick of data at this point. what is interesting is what they did as you can talk to the teachers and they knew how to alter their lesson plans and instructions as part of the information they were getting into. the third thing was how they broke students down into very small groups. groups of six or less. the poor thing was just in shock. that is pretty personal to me. my expectations are very

important. others will tell you one tiny story. when i was 15 years old and i went to my high school, and my father had just gone to prison over the weekend, he had been convicted over the weekend, and i went to school on monday, like it was a regular monday. i'm not trying to be funny or flippant. it was just not that big of a deal. all right? so i went to school and my guidance counselor, who was the most well-meaning guy around came up to me and had these sad eyes. and he said well, we saw was in the newspaper and we just think it is awful. and i said oh, it's not so bad. and he said, well, we were thinking, given the extraordinary circumstances that happen, you should not have come to school all day. and i said, you know what? it was kind of bad. [laughter] and he said yes, we have this new program. you can come to school at 8:00 o'clock and go home at noon.

and i said, it's so bad, i'll leave at 10:30 a.m. >> high expectations. but we talked to the leaders of the schools, kids will live up or down for whatever the expectations you have for them. but we did is we looked around the country for someone willing to let us implement these five things, and frankly, it was very difficult. then i ran into terry grier. i knew that i was going to get married two years ago. i just had no idea that it was going to be two terry grier. we are still honeymooning, are we? [laughter] and so we implemented these five tenants. twenty of the lowest performing schools and seven of the lowest performing schools in denver. on the slide here you have the

results. these results, again, the math is also enough to eliminate the achievement gap in four years. these are enough to reduce by one third in the same time. math. they don't have the average school done by an evaluation, and then i have houston and denver, the first-year results of there. will this continue, how do you scale it, all of that. what it shows is that you can take these strategies, these basic strategies of teacher feedback and teacher of professional development, which i am a huge proponent of, implement them in traditional schools where you take the kids, folks always ask, shouldn't there be parental involvement, and i don't want folks to have to do that, [inaudible]

>> you may be thinking, we are not interested in test scores. i am with you. i'm a little wary on test scores as well. we had just completed the survey of medium-term outcomes who went through in 2004 and 2005. they spent a million dollars tracking down 500 of the [inaudible] these are other outcomes that we are observing in the data from the impact of attending the school. all i wanted to see his denver and houston here, they are very similar in results. and we don't have these turnouts from houston and denver, but we do have them here. when you see is an 80% increase on who took the sat is and those being accepted to college, other

outcomes are also positive, i want to point to two of them, which i think are phenomenal and distressing at the same time. number one, the presidency. just imagine this for a second. april 14, 2005, kids sitting in a auditorium. half of the girls get a ticket to go to a high-quality school. the other half go to whatever school that they're going to go to. seven years later. the ones who did not go to that school are five more times likely to be pregnant. for the boys, those that did not go to the good school, they are five times more likely to be incarcerated. this is not just about test scores. i totally agree with folks who say high test scores with kids who are in danger are likely to be in prison.

a bunch of kids with no they could be locked up, i'm not interested in that, but i'm interested in the long-term outcomes. in the end, these three pieces of evidence gives me incredible optimism and concrete proposal for how i think we can move forward. it's not perfect, we need a lot of work, terry grier will tell you, we are on the 40-yard line with 60 yards to go. that we have these pieces of evidence. one is we have a sense of what makes some schools effective and others not. we have it all figured out. 50% of it. secondly, we know that if you take these things, there is nothing special about them being implemented in charter schools. we can put them in traditional public schools and you get similar results. third, those test score results, at least in one example, lead to better health. the proposal is to take the bottom 5% of schools and implement these strategies.

those are the kids that are most formidable. we can argue over the other 95% all day long. but let's take a bottom 5% and try to turn those kids around in those schools. all right, thank you. i'm not. >> on the panel, again tonight, to my immediate left, seth andrew. he is the founder of the democracy prep schools and has been moderator since 2005. he has been a model for a number of different things, and we have transfixed on my right, and also, at the school of policy and law at berkeley law school.

yesterday very extensively on education and important topics. i am going to start with terry grier, if i may. one of the most important things that roland fryer said, i think, at least, is the great promise of charter schools were traditional public schools, by the way i might point out, if you try to actually have a public school in america like the charter schools, obviously that's not a viable goal. nor is that not the movement of the charter school in general. but my comment is where does yours and roland fryer we be

experimental from here? additional time is required in those schools throughout the point that roland fryer dismay. >> it's hard work. in talking to jeff about this, they started to deliver again in the last five years the schools did not get that bad marks. many of these were failing 12 years ago or 15 years ago. we didn't have the political

will to do things that we are talking about to change this. so change in public education is top. that is something that you don't see a lot of success with, some of the charters have basically kept doing the same thing that the people did before they became charters and you have innovative and creative leaders that are not going to keep the status quo. in our school district, we are spending about $2000 more per student than the charter schools than we do in our traditional schools. we added an hour to the school day. seventy minutes a day, these schools go two weeks longer. it takes more money. what i thinks people sometimes

forget is there no longer can be a one-size-fits-all model. some kids simply need more time and more help. one of the things that we will tell you about, we required all the teachers to reapply. we've replaced as many as 80% of the teachers and some of those schools. we replace all of the principals in certain schools. the big challenge is to find the human capital and teach these children and have these high expectations and the ability to be able to differentiate learning to the degree that we need in the schools, which has been a big challenge, and it's something that takes a lot of political will to bear. >> i worry about and roland has

an idea of them doing a lot more tutoring. which has given some interesting results. we want to find out more about that as well. but we have to get away from this idea that we fund schools on a per person basis. we are talking about this bottom 5%. the bottom 15% in all states, children are to be funded at a higher level, and hold students accountable, making sure that you are getting a good investment on the return. one of our biggest criticisms that people have said to me as how are you going to sustain a long-term when this program is raised up. we have raised about $18 million just to build a foundation to

fund the program. we have spent some local and state dollars, but most of it has been money that has been raised. the person that sent this to me was one of the big supporters, financial supporters of our effect of charter schools in houston. i said do you want to tell me how long that network can be sustained if you didn't raise money and get a million dollars per year. >> how could it be sustained if we weren't having to go out and raise money? and i am not critical of that. i think it's absolutely sad that he has to do that, the children he is educating require more time, more tutoring, they are doing a phenomenal job. but why should you have to raise that kind of money.

all of our children deserve a quality education. all of them. some just take more time, some take more resources and more energy. >> okay. i want to turn to seth andrew. tell us more about the democracy prep schools. tell us how many there are, tell us the mix between elementary and other levels. tell us a little bit about the last point that terri was talking about, which is very important in this debate. how much are you spending beyond what the schools spend and how are you financing that? >> welcome and thank you for having me. it is a pleasure to be here. it has consistently been named the highest performing schools for progress. what he is looking at is the

impacts, we are proud of the growth, but there is a long way to go. our first kids have not yet graduated college and they are about two this year. that is a long time away. we have to measure the metrics to make sure that this works for the long-term. we have a lot of early indicators and some of the research shows that in the findings. what we have done is taken the great work that has happened in charter schools before us. charter schools, just really a little bit, charter schools were not good. i want that to be noted. how do you spell that? [laughter] that is not why we have public charter schools. they are the innovation

laboratory for american public innovation to figure it out. even if we assume that the study is right, 50% or 70% are equal to that work. we are finding that some schools have the ability to impact the lives of 3 million kids we're talking about today. one that we disagree upon his money. anybody who reads your thinking money is the issue is not listening carefully enough. democracy spends less money per pupil than new york city and per pupil than charter schools and new york. once we opened from day one, we don't need a dollar of philanthropy to run our school. one of the reasons we have done so well is because i don't have to talk to anybody else raise money. i can actually focus on schools. the problem is the problem. we don't have enough great

leaders. we don't have the principals come to school leaders, teachers, in this country right now in the pipeline of the caliber that we need. that is what i see the biggest barrier is being. we spend less money and can do it on public funds. let me give you a great example. america spends about $10,000 on average. that's a lot of money. that means a classroom of 25 kids, spends a quarter million dollars per year. where is that money going? let's hire a teacher and a $75,000 a year. let's give him another $75,000 like we do. up to $200,000 a year. and then say, okay, we also need some administrative support. i get $13,500 off of that. so where's the where is the

money going if we are not spending a lot. we have 97% of attendance, but that's because kids want to be in school. it is safe and clean and that's where their friends are. that's where they want to be every day. every kid gets all of the things that get cut out -- we just put them in the day school and put them in for every kid. this is a scalable problem with scalable solutions. the thing that is missing is the political will. we are a democracy for a reason. the reason we are is because we have more than a problem of education. there is a problem of politics. which are fundamentally broken. a democracy that we live in. we don't have enough people like

others standing up saying they were going to try this and figure out how to do this and we are going to take big risks and we are we're going to try to get these thrilling kids in the nation's worst schools to college and beyond. in most of all, to become great citizens of a it can fix the democracy that is broken. [applause] richard, i would like to ask you about this issue of cost in money and support. is that just made the point that is not the issue at all. you can extrapolate this and take rowan's analysis which shows the initiatives to cost about $200 per student. therefore it would cost $60 billion a year to actually implement those for the students. while that is not a large sum,

it is part of the gdp right now. so if you want, if you would comment on this whole question of costs. many people who don't like charter say, you know, we do this almost every single day that we cannot as a bunch of wealthy people. helping education the way they wanted to be. >> let me say that the major issue in funding these days -- over the last four or five decades, is primarily towards education. not to the kinds of things talked about in a typical classroom. what we have done over the last 40 years as we have made a commitment to educate to the extent possible, the children who 40 years ago, were taking care of a home and who were not in school, so the biggest share

of the growth of spending over the last four years in this country has been special-education and not regular education. forgive me, but i am not as enthusiastic about roland's presentation and presentation of seth andrew as much as you are. it drives up the theory of american education, there is a frenzy around this theory. we began by citing it as our schools and education outcomes have become stagnant. outcomes have been declining. it wasn't always so. including the national assessment of education progress. the reality is that our school

system, our public school system, the regular public school system and has been improving the achievement, particularly of minority students at a phenomenal rate over recent times. i know you will be skeptical because they are so convinced of this story. the reality is that, for example, to take the most extreme example, a fourth-grade scores for black students, this is the most extreme example, the average score for black students in math today at elementary schools is higher than the average white scored was 20 years ago. that is a phenomenal improvement. there has been a full stamp of deviation in improvement of black mathematics course of the last 20 years. it is almost as good at the eighth-grade level. it comes from the conviction in

which i don't know where it comes from. that our system, which is the quite successful system is in a state of collapse. the fact that the average charter school is not only no better, but does less than the average public school. some charts to phenomenal works. some charter schools do that work. there are some public schools doing phenomenal work. for the same kinds of students. why is all of our policy attention not being devoted to those public schools, which are doing phenomenal work. why are we wondering what in the other ones learn from the public schools and only worrying about what the public schools learn from charter schools.

presumably, it would be a lot easier to identify the characteristics of good public schools and transfer them to other public schools that would be to identify the characteristics of charter schools and public schools. i'm not suggesting that these don't exist, but i'm saying that we are not looking at the biggest source of ideas for improving public education, which are the public schools in this distribution, and which are moving the whole distribution slightly to the right with the distribution and charter schools are. so that is the fundamental. it is not so much, although i do have a lot of questions about the five characteristics that roland mentioned. the fundamental question i have is the full context of this story, which is based on a flawed narrative about what is the nature of public education when it has been and is, and

basically looking at a place which is not the most obvious place to look. if you were really telling a true story about the trajectory of public education in the last 20 years. >> i do i'm going to respond. go right ahead. >> i disagree with richard. with this, particularly, these two points. if you look at the average scores for 13 and 17-year-olds, you can just look at them. they are exactly flat. number two, why did we use charter schools in some public schools, one thing i do agree with you on is that there is substantial variation in effect, the same area that exists in fairfield elementary school, one of the best i have seen, 99% be reduced once, 100% in the course of that.

it is because number one, if you want to overly an outcome of the other choices they are making, charter schools have -- you can have a better estimate of their effectiveness because of the lottery. it is very difficult for traditional public school when they have their standard admissions process and you estimate the value out of that school, and everyone should agree with that. number two, on the right-hand side of that equation. you want as much very and as you can in the types of things that schools do. so that i can pay my teachers more for my teachers less. and they will say i do this or that. there is a lot more variant. variant on what they are actually doing. some of it is successful in some of the disaster. we actually need not be able to find these correlations. the correlations are a tremendous amount more believable when you have a

variable that you believe in. >> i find it fascinating that you said that when you get to be my age, in 1970, a guy named ron edmonds he did a lot of research around effective public education. it is kind of fascinating to me that that is when i first met roland. i thought, a lot of what he found is exactly what they found a in great public schools back in the 70s.

a lot of public schools use of strategies to improve their schools today. so i don't see the work is that this is just something from charter schools. to me, this is something that works. do you have to be brilliant to realize that you need a great is the leading school? how many of us have ever seen a truly great school without a reasonably good principle? >> i've been doing this a long time and i can't think of one. this stuff is not magic. it is why it takes to much political will to do what we know. it's not that we don't know what works. it's not that we don't know about funding. we are spending about $6000 per student in houston. we don't spend $13,000.

i paid my teachers under $5000 per year, too. again, this is not rocket science. but it is hard political work. the political will to meet the needs of children whose needs have never been met. >> it is tremendously hard. >> richard's argument is incredibly frustrating and it is personal, honestly, and it is because stephen is sitting here and the statistical likelihood of some graduates would be less than 50%. we can't say that's okay. like that is not okay. we have to take a totally different look at what we are doing in public education, rethink it, and said how say how we going to take things that we found in small isolated places and figure out how to get them to millions. that is a massive challenge.

none of us are under estimating the size of the challenge. all i am trying to argue is that we actually have some really good indications of what those elements are. the likelihood of me graduating at the time was 5%. 5% of kids graduated at as a special education students. i went on to graduate from high school and had the luck of having great teachers and having great principles or luck of where your zip code is. it should be high-performing schools are in public schools across the nation, and public charter schools and we are giving parents the choice to pick what is the best for them. one last thing, which is we decided last year to try to understand turnaround because we started out with our models.

so we have the lowest performing schools in harlem. it was in the bottom 1% of the new york schools overall. and we took that school over and we applied this and this year we will be in the 90th percentile. we keep kept the same students and what we did was change the name on the door and the adults in the building, we would change both of them and now we are in the 96th percentile. we can't say anymore that is impossible we should say that we expect that it is predictable and possible for every child in america and that we have an obligation to give it to them and let them say that we should get off the hook. should say that this money is there, the researchers are there and we have to create the political will and talent there so it transforms the lives of

millions of kids and not just the thousands that i'm just the thousands that i'm working up to work with. >> i really don't want to turn this into anything crazy or a debate about richard's point of view. because that would take longtime. [laughter] although i would like to know more about it. but i want to ask about something quickly that you raised. >> this is a difficult issue, let's talk about. you just said that we had to replace the adult in the schools. okay, let's talk about that, and i will ask each of you to talk about it. so, terry, why was that necessary? >> had to do about values and believing that these children in the schools can learn at high

levels. and the we asked different questions. it was fascinating was the one question that has student growth was this. we kept you on this faculty to help turn school around, which of the five colleagues would you insist that we also try to keep at all costs. the more frequent that we had a faculty member's name included in that list, there was a higher correlation between that teachers path and ability to get kids goal one or more years academically. what i told us is that teachers know who the other good teachers are. they know who the teachers are to get good results. students and parents know that as well. so what we found is that in one of our schools where we replace 82% of the teachers and kept 18%, the following year, we

hired them, and we turned over 22% of those teachers. we didn't get it right the first time. >> i would say that the surveys and the attitudes are huge. if you just correlate their answers when teachers say things like what i need is more support and instructional leader. their growth under this model was pretty tremendous. there were just a handful of them it just drives me crazy. a handful of them said we need smarter kids.

this is a potential take away here. you cannot cut your way to excellence. it's just not going to happen. there is a lot of reform now because of you just cut the teachers, you can open up a magical tour and pull them out and stick them in. i have not been able to find that magic sure. if you know where it is, could you please let me know. what i have found is that, you know, in our turnaround, folks, for whatever reason, that is difficult to work around. but they do believe that all kids can learn, don't have the support and skills to do this work. tremendous support for the teachers can be very effective, and you can't cut your way to excellence, there is no easy way around it. we need good teachers to make them great teachers.

>> i was baffled by this work that we did we just started to try again with a low performance charter school and said, let's change the leader, the curriculum come and professional development schedule, let's keep the teachers in place that were the lowest performing schools and see how that goes. we are in the middle of that right now, i am optimistic and i feel good, but we will see how that goes when we try to change and develop the good teachers and the bad teachers and i think we are going to have some exciting things to share. >> let's ask some questions from the audience. yes, sir, here over here. >> my name is mark and i have a question for seth andrew. the issue is not money, but it's talent. isn't it one of money?

detracting one of the highly motivated graduates of colleges to go into teaching and teach for two years, but then they want to have a viable family life or at least some of them, and my understanding is those teachers are incredibly dedicated, 24/7 they are available, and they need a break if you could pay them more come you can track more people than attract them in. because you could have additional assistance for them. so money is an issue. >> stuff i had to do what he does it would be tough to pay the salaries of i pay. new york has a different cost of living. it is not to say that money doesn't matter, it's how you spend the money that exists that matters. what we build is a longevity incentive model. not bonuses, but raises to a

high-performing teachers, making 10% year-over-year rating. what that means is you stay with us for 10 years and he will make $125,000 as a teacher. that is pretty good. we can afford that on public dollars are right now in our system. not adding any new money in. the model is not that complex. i didn't need roland to figure that out or macarthur or anyone else. this is math. president clinton said it. this is arithmetic, and we can take that money that we are spending, $225,000 per year and spend the copley to get teachers that want to come into the profession. about that difficult, hard work. at the end of the day, it's marginal. it is symbolic.

it's about like a child in the family, and it's about those who need to do their homework. that's not what makes the difference. it is the expectation that they will do their homework and they will not show up the next day without it. >> hold on for second, let's get the microphone. >> hello, i work for in metropolitan detroit. i would like to talk about something regarding not being able to cut your way to excellence. it is really good teacher but a pilot program, but when we are talking about taking the success and charter and making it large-scale, rolling it over to a public school, how do you get

the best teachers and how do you motivate the teachers who are already in the system. i would like for either one of you to address that. >> it is a very contentious five-day training program and this year we will implement the training. it was optional for teachers. we are looking at who is going through the training over the summer and who signed him up for a semester. art teachers who got the very best results in the past two or three years, those are the teachers who went through the training. some of our very lowest performing teachers did not go through the summer training and have not as of yet.

a lot of that comes into values and beliefs. and behaviors. you have a difficult time demanding teachers going through training, even when you are paying them to do that. and he says if you're going to go through training, you are going to go through training. your point is exactly right. we select the top 1% of people and that is almost unheard of. what is the way we train and prepare and pipeline the teachers and that would be top to bottom in this country, the pipeline and the training of the teachers in this country. keeping the teachers that are in place for the second thing, and dennis mentioned this earlier is two trains of thought on

international comparisons. there are the people who think about is the model. finland has always been rich. they are very rich and they're going to stay rich. south korea is one of the poorest nations in asia. just six years ago, it was colonized. what they did is they elevated the teaching profession to the highest stature. they said teachers are golden. in america, we give titles to military and clergy and elected officials, what do we get to teachers? it is an honored and valued profession so that everybody thinks about being a teacher. not because of the money, but because there is honor and prestige and respect in the profession of teaching and we have to bring that to the country. if we do that, we would see a pipeline change in the american

classroom and that would be worth it. [applause] >> it is a rather homogeneous decided, i might point out. [laughter] >> what i say applies to every kid in america. this is good for everybody. wartime, better culture, that is not bad for middle class, but for everyone in the country it is good. >> i am just pointing out that comparing the united states of any real respect, yes, sir, in the back? >> institute of public policy, i would like to emphasize individualized tutoring and interventions and yet most of the programs we are talking about in the interventions, the lessons learned are for within one school. i have not heard much variation

among schools and allowing the way that richard cowan suggested altogether now we're ideally, over time, one school would be, maybe the all boys school, which is best for some kids or the school where they have a choice. parents get 95% of their first school. we can attend any school in the district so long as you can get transportation and the principal decides to accept you. we have one of the best school programs in the country. choice is huge in our school district. at the same time, what happens

when the challenges that we have in the struggle to we have is what happens to the schools that no one chooses. the schools that no one chooses. we have one of our high schools now have as many as 1400 students and is now down to about 500 students read it is now 34% special education. that is a huge challenge about school. a huge challenge. so the choice is good if you are the one who gets the choice. but what happens when you are left in an isolated school and you are left or? what happens when that school is not performing at high levels? we have all kinds of choices and programs. we have an all boys rule, we have an all girls school. we think that we have the finest performing and visual arts school in america. we have the finest school that produces kids that want to be

doctors and a wonderful medical prep school. and i could go on and on about baccalaureate diplomas, a school that is fine and great in the country. parents can choose to do whatever they want. the question happens to be, the real question is what about the schools that no one is choosing? those failing schools didn't become failing last year. >> i hope that this panel illustrated how important this issue is is in all the implications and the debates about charter. i want to thank roland fryer especially for the paper that he you would be icons. we really appreciate the work you have done with us. i want to thank terry and richard. i promise richard, you have another opportunity to expand upon your point of view. thank you all and we really

appreciate it. we will take a short break. >> more from this education summit hosted by the brookings expert on 10 institution. ways to improve k-12 education. about bringing technology to all classrooms. this is a little bit more than an hour. >> okay, it is time to get started for the third panel. this is our excellent panel, which we are very excited to have. i would thought i would start with two concessions. the first is i would think that might've been one of the first recipients or victims. i was in the sixth grade of elementary school in chicago and all of those commercials from

1984 for apple. it raised all kinds of money for her our school, we got the macintosh computers, and put them all in the room and they even have a spare closet that haven't been used before and suddenly we had technology in grade school. that lasted for about a month. no one knew how to use the computers. i think sometimes people have the experience but it promises so much, and everyone feels like it should just work. i think that that is why we haven't found the important exceptions. the second thing i want to say about technology is just as from a potential consumer of ed tech,

i have a six-year-old daughter who comes and says that club penguin is an educational game and she really needs to be allowed more screen time to play club penguin. and i cannot possibly sit through hours of watching her play club penguin figure out if it is true. i am more or less looking at her merciful way. there is so much hope and also so little information. the kind of information and the number of miles per gallon, none of that exists without ed tech. except the violence ratings. we are very fortunate to have today with us aaron chatterji and ben jones, who have authored a fine paper. it is one of those papers that when you read it, you think to yourself, why didn't someone think of this earlier.

there is a lot of good intentions in a potentially large market. and it is not functioning well. i think ben is going to give us a presentation on them we will have a q&a period. >> thank you to the hamilton project for helping my co-author and i further develop this idea. thank you to you all for joining us today. i will continue without the slides for the moment. what is the idea?

economists know that education is really a foundation. not only for individual opportunity, but also for our collective success as an economy. towns and cities and regions and an educated workforce, we are less likely to succeed in a global economy. we have heard about challenges. this morning, in the education system, economists know that looking back over history, a capacity to educate and innovate and to build is how we have developed economic prosperity and americans have come to enjoy this on average, including help in all the things that come with us. we also know that the ingredient for innovation, education, at least k-12 education starts to look like an increasingly weak link. a crack in the foundation about