are there for the workers but they did the same corporate money and they have the same corporate agenda trade its time for a new deal which would lead to a stable prosperity. we've known for decades we need to speak to renewable energy and both of my opponents acknowledged that, but not yet. ..

i would ask you vote for your hopes and not hate. i would ask you would vote green. >> that is the end of our first congressional debate of the 2014 general election. i would like to thank the candidates. how about a hand for all of the candidates? [applause] >> we also want to thank our panelists, molly parker, jennifer fuller and beth. thanks also to the paul simon public policy institute at southern illinois university carbondale, the jackson county league of women voters, the

civic center as well as the "belleville-news democrat" and our partners, the southern illinois. the second debate will been wednesday october 29 at 7 p.m. in belleville. the debate will be streaming life. thank you all, good night from mary and. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> on c-span2 we take you live to the american enterprise institute in washington for a discussion on education policy and the common core standards. that were creative better prepare students with skills and knowledge necessary for success in college and later in their careers. panelists will examine the pros and cons and discuss the controversy over common core.

it is just getting started live on c-span2. >> he was the strategic initiative director of standard assessment and accountability where he led the development and adoption of the common core in 45 states and the district of colombia. and august campbell, and we're going to forgo the usual sort of speechmaking and talking points that begin these concepts often. will jump right into the issues. so i would like to actually with a sort of laying of the land. i think catherine, you might be the best just to give us an overview. we are hearing all across the country that schools and districts are implementing the common core your what does that mean? what are school districts doing differently this year that they were doing last year? >> i wish there was a uniform answer for the whole country, but -- >> they would make all of our jobs easier. >> things being what they are, they aren't. i think distance and schools all over the place.

you have some that haven't done a whole lot, or still get a sense of what is there supposed to do. that's different. and you have different. and you have it the other day and some districts that are really plunging in on the leading edge and making a lot of really, really good change. i spent eight months and around the district of columbia schools watching what they're doing and really on message top to bottom, thoroughgoing changes. so it varies. you have a lot of leading-edge projects that are come from grassroots levels like to think has been highlighted for efforts to do pt that came from teachers. okay, so our state isn't helping us much. will be going to do? we will create resources ourselves. it's all over the place, and a steady show, just a reason one from the center for education, excuse me, cdp report last week showed a full third of the distant are behind on some of the big pieces of it to make

this work. that means two-thirds are putting things into practice but there's a lot of holes. >> absolutely. i do want to add for those of you were following along at home on the live stream for those of your joining us on c-span, the conversation is also taking place on twitter with the hashtag whatnowcc. after we talk i will kick you two questions in the audience as well as those coming in. i have my handy phone so feel free to tweak those questions to me anytime throughout our conversation either to me or to the hashtag whatnowcc and i'll do my best to follow along while we are talking. chris, a lot of the preparation that's taking place the cafés talking about is to get in line for these new tests that are being rolled out. the two big consortia at my less confusing the great map the catherine and andrew over at education week have compiled, by my count one of the two largest

consortia 17 states participating. the other large consortium has nine face plus the district will only. 17 states are doing their own thing and seven are rated as undecided. my question to sort of how to read is landscaped and is fragmenting testing landscape and word you see this going? >> thanks and thanks for inviting me to be a come and catherine, your coverage has been great on this topic and other, you're in the details of this. if we have said in 2010 that we have 26 states participating in working together on assessments, no one would've predicted that. we have 50 states each running their own tests and so i think 26 israel progress. granted there's been some states have stepped away from the consortia and a thinker a number of reasons why. first off, the federal involvement in this has just been not helpful in every

scenario that we have been following. you see any sort of pushback around testing has usually been rooted in the fact that the federal government was involved in funding the consortia and also put incentives for folks to adopt the common core standards. i think any and we will see a group of states, most of these states have decided to give the test issue. i don't see a lot, a lot more eroding of the 26 we have right now. i think rick is onto one big thing that we have to figure out and states need to decide if they're going to stick together on what the test scores look like. i think both consortia's are really committed to doing so, best states still often think about what their own assessment might look like, how are we going to make sure that they don't back slit on expectations? because really when you call a common core or something else we know we need higher standards for kids in this country. how do we do that is really a question -- i think that is a

what's next question for us, is how do we make sure the assessments are of a level that are actually different than what we were doing before. >> rick, i'd love to hear your response on this. your read of the situation, states choosing to go there choosing to go their own way. is that a positive development for the long-term health of the common core? is it a risk? how do you see that affecting its? >> sure. i think it's a great question. first let me join chris in saint catherine's work has been invaluable. one of the reasons i think we are we are is because the common core felt like a surprised huge numbers of americans as of 2013. remember, catherine called me -- it was probably late 2009, early 2010 during the rollout of the standards and i just blogged about for jobs and education space and catherine like you don't care about this, do you? no, i do not what any of this means get. and i think most americans really have very little idea what common core met until they

started to hear relatively vitriolic or possessions one way or the other. so i think that's kind of how we got here, and i think catherine have done a remarkable job obviously their stake in the american public writ large, more to folks in education. a couple things. one, i agree wholeheartedly with chris that i for higher standards. i do know anybody who is against higher standards. i think a big part of the question is how confident we should be at the common core standards are higher. for me as i've written i will have a problem with the common core standards. i'm unpersuaded that their higher and better, especially in practice, and i am concerned that some of the stuff that goes along with common core, like the affinity for close reading, like this commitment -- i'm not sure even from the advocates understand this as well as they think they do.

or what it means in practice. so i personally would like to sometime to see how it shakes out before i know that this is a train we are all jumping on. for that reason i think a number of states edging away from the common core, is probably a good thing. personally i think to chris's point, the federal government had never waded into this back in 2009. i think 15 states, dozen states, maybe 20 but about 15 states probably would've gone ahead and done the common core on their own. i think they would have figured out a way to do a common assessment like it already been done in new england for some years at that point, three states. i think what we would've seen was a truly and genuinely kind of statement effort which if it was working and it was being implemented welcome of the states would've wanted it. unfortunately, i think that's not what we're looking at, and, obviously, it's washington's what kind of fun to spend a lot

of time arguing about how we got here. i'm happy to do that but i think also some of what we are talking about today is what are the strategies for moving forward constructively given kind of this is where we happen to be sitting in 2014. >> chris, you and rick agree on the idea that the federal government overreached. that caused a lot of the problems. d.c. an appetite on behalf of common core -- do you see an appetite to pushback more vigorously against the federal government? to take a more practiced at the same view on the to stay out of this, we want to handle this ourselves? >> i think it's pretty clear that most of us, i mean, i guess it all of us but most of us believe that sort of declaring our independence, making sure that it is, and remains to be state land is something that is critical. so figuring out how as state chief and as governors we step

into this space. i think the hard part though, we just don't have, it's a fund-raising issue on the anti-side and there's no fund-raising on the pro side. granted to our resources on the pro side of the anti-folks have passion and money, and it's going to be a hard road to change the branding of common core if we were going to go down that path. i think the bigger thing is figured out how do we landed this so that educators who believe in the standards, and i disagree with rick. i just think the shift in the common core are based on research and they also are based in what teachers tell us they want to do with their kids. they have already begun doing with their kids. i think this sort of, grant you there was no come in 2010 there wasn't the attention there is now in 2014, but i don't think, you still look at, despite all the negative attention the common core is received,

teachers pull in a positive on common core. so there's something about the standards that are really worth holding onto. that's the piece of think rick and i disagree on, but be happy to keep talking but it. but i think the bigger thing is how do we landed this thing in five years so teachers are able to teach entire standards and we've kids actually graduating at a higher rate. look at early results out of kentucky. we are making progress with kids. we can debate all we want in washington of whether this is a good thing. more kids are ready to go to college. more kids are ready to go on to with what to do next in their life. this is important. so that's the i don't want to lose. i to lose all the other stuff but i don't want to lose kids success. >> one thing i would be interested in doing, we talk about the common core in vague terms are general ideas, take a couple minutes and drill down to some of the second points and understand what's happening first. the first issue i think actually united both people on the

political left and political right was data privacy. catherine, is this something in your time in schools and districts talking to parents and teachers and others, how big of a concern wasn't for those folks on the ground level, or is this more sort of a larger political conversation that is technically? >> i'm not the best person because we that other reporters focusing more on that than i have, but in all honesty, but it's a concern. i will split that another way and wander from the data privacy question because that goes right to what is hoping to get chance to say. this whole debate reminds me of when you go swimming and you hear the noise abou of the cityr the water, it's quiet here for i have gone, this is not the stuff people are talking about. the stuff people are talking about is can i find it instructional resources? how to figure out what that means? can i reorganize my school and district to get what good tv looks like with my time to do

this? is my district are organizing in such a way -- that's the kind of stuff i've been hearing about. when i come above the water and they come back to the office, that hasn't been what i've heard in schools. only they are aware of the pressure. the report shows the superintendents surveyed in districts, there's a much higher response rate of yes, i do more backlash from outside my district now than i did three years ago. they feel the backlash but in terms of doing the work, that's what i hear people talking about when i met there. i don't know about data privacy into school so much but certainly in the sphere. >> i think there's an interesting dynamic here, which is i think catherine's take way would apply pretty much across the board when talking about special education, when we talk about federal grant requirement. when you talk to educators, eugenic don't hear a lot of grumbling about this.

what you general here is people can giunta make this stuff work, and when it comes to something like federal grant requirements around title i are when it comes to questions about idpa, oftentimes what we did is we create unhelpful framework and education all the time trying to comply. i totally buy that educators are out there. this is what you. i was in mississippi yesterday. they're busy working on the vocation of common core. survey for me and i think this is kind of a good faith different the result people should build are you in a way we haven't had much is look, when i look at common core standards, they are fun. they are bunch of until he phrases, not that different to be honest from what a lot of states had on paper. but there's also a lot of stuff that goes along with the common core. some common core advocates talk about how common core exactly

smuggling and lots of content because there's a 57 word little appendage there that my good friends at fordham are very enthused about. folks who like the common core celebrate. it's not in the k-12 standards, but it is something that teachers are encouraged to do 70% informational test by the time to do in high school. not in english class which means doing a lot of reading of bpa manuals or such in chemistry and physics and i'm personally unpersuaded that reading manuals is a very chemistry instruction and doing laps. i'm not opposed to these things but i'm not sure how this is going to shake out or that it would be good for kids. and for me, therefore, the question is how do we not do this as a 40 odd state experiment? but how do we let states like kentucky, how do we let a dozen what action i think have the commitment doing this and doing it well to let them try and let

others of his kindest and on the sidelines and see whether this actually works out as advertised. >> is there a way to do that? >> there's nothing that is forcing us as a you know. we're going state-by-state white house for there's nothing forcing a state to stay in the common core. there are incentives. i always get chastised what is said there were federal incentives for the adoption of standards. but there's nothing is preventing states from doing a review process, rewriting the common core, doing what they want to do with it. i think this sort of narrative about what's in the standards and what's not, i mean, that's silly but, of course, we want kids to be doing laps. that doesn't mean they can wreak epa manuals at the same time. i think that's a false distinction. we want kids to be reading more complex text, higher level of understanding by the time they let high school. these goals are good ones. i think we're arguing about how we get to the school. i don't disagree with the goals

of what we are trying to accomplish. i also know that's been a process like this in the country with massive amounts of input we had to write this manual. i think we've written a better set of standards than any state has. i think they're fundamentally different sort think we disagree about that. >> great. another issue, catherine touched on this, i don't particularly for those on the right side of the political spectrum, one very attractive feature of the common core was the idea of a nationwide marketplace for instructional materials. so rather than just having alabama textbook market, it might be able to access folks from all over the place. i was wondering if you could talk about the sort of issues that schools have faced in trying to get good common core unlined construction material. as this motion marketplace a reason? have been challenges with that? how are folks find it is the to? >> that's easy. it's been sort of awful.

everything that we here with a few exceptions would suggest that the publishing world as we have known it up until now hasn't done a very stellar job of making these changes in its materials. be those physical materials or digital materials. the arts and things emerging that feel promising, but it is sort of few and far between. i think if there had been really, really deep input from can you talk about deep input, i mean, teacher organizations are trying to get input now that they didn't get on the front and. that speaks for itself. i think our materials being created at the grassroots level from teachers, from smaller publishers, maybe some of the big ones but that's one of the most universal and consistent complaints that shows up in research and that we here in our reporting is that the stuff is junk. it's not much different than it was before the common core. >> there's this question about alina. seems to me there's a strong incentive for folks to take the same product they have always

had and sort of slap common core a line on it just like they put on the former one. are their efforts that are at work, chris, to try and do something about that, to try to help states, district, schools sort through all the options? >> there is one organization that's been formed called edge report. it's briny baird to be enjoyed at alignment to a toaster i think this is overdue for us. i don't think we should do anything but acknowledge the fact that we been slow to provide teachers what they need to teach. i think we have to then start from the point and move forward. quite frankly catherine supporting has been very consistent on this and it's not just for i've seen this. when i go to schools, teachers are saying where's the stuff to teach these different standards? so you can't say the standards aren't that much different, and then also say we need way different makers to teach the

standards. i believe there were some significant changes in what we written in the standards come in when a better materials. i think that's something we should acknowledge as part of the transition to the standards. we will have to get better materials to give the teachers. >> i think this takes us in a good direction because at some point in the near future the rubber is going to hit the road, and the tests that are lying to the standards will be administered to students and consequences will be attached. rich, having heard all of this, looking forward what is this headed? where is come as schools and teachers are held accountable to these new standard with new tests, they're concerned they don't have the necessary materials. seems like a lot of stuff going into the meat grinder. how do you see that playing out? >> you know i mean, one of the simple truth for me is that if my employer tells me that they want to do more to hold a general for microphones to

that's recent. i do have a complaint with it. and if my employer tells me they want to change the way measure whether i'm doing a good job, that's a reasonable. i don't have a problem with it. if my employer tells me simultaneously they want to change the way the measure was a good job and they want to actually start bring consequences to bear, that starts to fill a summary of painting a target on my back. unfortunately, that's been what teacher evaluation has played out along with common core. you have seen displayed most explicitly in new york state what you see this from a lot of places. and, frankly, this takes us back to something chris flagged a couple minutes ago which is these federally induced timelines, both the race to the top and then nclb waivers. what we found up were federal political timelines for the rate at which states ought to be making the transition to common core and the rate at which the ought to be transitioning to new tests based teacher evaluation. and so what happened to these two things have been conflated in a way that strikes me as a

productive. i think the way forward again is not necessarily talk of blanket -- not with talk of blanket, you know, hold the periods of one or two or three years everywhere, but i think accountable public officials in states and districts ought to be making decisions about how they're going to serve their kids well. there are some states that are enthusiastic about common core the seem to be doing it well, that they've got the educators on board. ththe optical it can afford the optical it and report on new teachers wishing on a way that makes sense in the states for those educators. there's other states that are being tracked taking and screaming to the stuff, and i don't understand why we imagine it's good for kids but good for teachers to try to force this march on washington. i think for me a real simple place to start is by recognizing that when you were doing, when

you're trying to change the way you've evaluate performance and try to change consequences for performance, the our timelines that are based on pragmatic considerations and our timelines based on political considerations. and i think we have spent too much time working on political timelines. >> chris, one response to this ihas been through waiver processes and others is to sort of push back the consequences or the timelines in which states have to start using these tests. are we expecting to see more of that in the future? do you think that's been a productive strategy or do we need to rethink the way we sort of readjust these timelines? it seems like you're agreeing with the timelines. how do we do this? how do we set timeline? >> i think we are here to talk about the common core and it's tough to separate these issues, but the teacher evaluation peace, i largely agree with what rick just said. i think state chiefs and state

governors need to decide where they should go on this. i think it needs to be in the hands of the states because quite frankly the scenarios are so different from state to state depend on side -- size. i think a single federal time i was always hard. i do think though that we've seen real commitment from states about stepping into this. we hear the most from states that are having the hardest time with the. there are a lot of states moving forward in a positive way about how we are evaluating, helping teachers get better. that's the big thing. i really don't care that much about the evaluatio evaluation f his buddy dick your teachers getting better feedback about how they're doing in the classroom. i was hopeful that whole initiative would land in that spot, not the spot where we can use the examples brick used. i don't see the valuations being taken off the table but i do think that states and this is a good have to decide how to do this, not the federal

government. >> katherine, your experience in schools and districts as the sort of landscape changes underneath teachers, how do they see -- to they see themselves -- one question, did they see the goalpost then moved on to feel like they're part of the process? are they saying this transition to new common core tests that they are more about assessment and, therefore, just better? how are they responding to all of these changes taking place at once? >> i think they're just been figure out how to do a good job and they're feeling frustrated -- >> kids showing up on monday. >> especially as this that a lot of my time has been hanging around in the district and i for teachers doing to some degree pretty excited about what was in the standards. some of those feeling overwhelmed, special they were aware of timetables. in fact, the thing i kept saying was is taking timeclock but they were always look at the clock and will and realizing they'll

have so much time to do something they didn't feel they had enough time to do. they are dealing with all kinds of challenges, all kinds of kids coming from every which way on the skills and opportunity learning spectrum, and with very, very little support. that's the huge missing piece i keep running across with talk to schools and teachers is, we've got the standard, made we do have good instructional material, that's bad, but even worse brittle strategy or support our understanding for how to deal with kids who have the greatest needs, who had the greatest way to go before getting with the standards envision them being. >> absolutely. it was an interesting story today in my little google alert for the common core, which fills my inbox every morning, and a story by danielle in new orleans this morning, caught my eye because headline was in first common core year, louisiana public schools grade improved

slightly. a lot of the narrative rather common core is that when increase the standard we should expect to see larger and larger numbers of students failed to make the new definition of proficiency and we need passionate this is where secretary duncan got in trouble by but what the implications might be, but as i read into the status, one of the things i thought was interesting was how could this be? it says the grading of the test, and use of common core assessment, lessened the impact of the new standards, john white's superintendent of education, acknowledge that the questions were tougher this year, the grading was easy. students had to get fewer items right to reach the passing mark of basic and he did in 2013. chris, in your opening comments you said you want to be on guard against this backsliding, against lowering standards. but in these timelines were talking about it seems to me a perfectly reasonable response would be if we can't go back the time of the test we just make the test easier.

what does that portend for the going forward to? >> we would have a repeat of what happened right after no child left behind essentially states are allowed to set the standards. we saw what happened. we have to guard against that i think this number was to do the first one is to make sure that as states are thinking about setting a standard performance, that's a really important piece of this. if th a state decides to go in a different direction i think i have to really be think about what that means for the kids, that the kids aren't able to achieve at the same level as the other 16 states in the group, or the other eight states and the crew. so i don't see that part being a huge problem in the states that are working together. it's the individual states that a given own assessment or writing their own assessments that a think we will have to continue to work with him on. i see a different attitude about the new assessments than they did five years ago.

five years ago, states were some to try to do it as cheap as possible. and i think states are recognizing that they need a higher quality set of assessments in order to grade against those standards but the last thing imagine is that you think the consequences of peace needs to be looked at and everything individually. because it depends on where you are. kentucky shouldn't take a delay. there should get one year delay consequent on kentucky. they're doing fine. everyone working together. therthere are other states that probably needs another year or probably need these tests rule out for you before you are consequences. this should be a single conversation. >> rick, i would highlight earlier this week there was a bloomberg headline that read andrew cuomo concedes defeat in the common core wars. i guess he put out an ad that was saying that has the quote we won't use, quick test scores for at least five years and then only if our children are ready. but i wonder but sort of changing this.

it seemed like states like kentucky that was highlighted have really sort of led the fight which had to be tough politically in a lot of places to toe the line for these high standards. with these sort of laggard estates don't live up to the standards come into we are sort of cutting the knees out from under the folks who've been making a tough decision to actually toe the line? >> sure you are. in fact, kentucky superintendent who is one of the more outspoken leaders increases organization said wait a minute, all of this national concentrate is make it harder for them to do what they were doing. absolutely. by trying to drag everybody along on the common core train, instead of letting the 15 states or 20 states that wanted to do this do it, what's happened is give those guys riding up in first class and given of two dozen states getting dragged along in coach, and they're kicking and screaming, and the noise is affecting everybody and

it's making this more controversial in the states that want to do. let's also be clear that part of this problem is that by making something that everybody should do instead of a true coalition of states that were excited about it, you have funded with all kinds of design complications. one of the reasons we suppose we needed the common core was because we had all this gameplaying in the no child left behind era where states would finagle with their scores and we take lousy come easy test answer nobody was getting good, accurate readings on how kids were doing. that's fine. the solution to that, of course, is what you really want artest that folks can't finagle. there's this thing called testing windows for instance. smart balance, recommends to state something like a 60 day testing window. this is because schools and states start at different times and so if you'll test folks in 85% market the school year in

flexibility. there's also a long, proud tradition it comes to testing of school districts pushing back the test to the window because that means the kids get a lot of extra days of instruction and their schools look good. the way you would combat this issue would make a condition of joining a test consortium that you don't get to play games with your testing window, that they're going to look at the master schedules and work with folks and this is when you're going to test. that wasn't part of it because they're trying to as many guys as possible to play the part of what you would want is an agreement that this is how we going to judge whether kids are passing or not, and you only get to be part of our testing consortium is to actually agree to abide by the spirit that was never part of the commitment to join because the goal to try to get as many guys as possible to play. so part of the problem with treating common core is something that we want everybody to do rather than as an activity that would be led by states that

were passionate about it is we funded fundamentally compromising the way in which these tests are going to generate their result. personally fairly can despond on this but i strongly suspect that in more than 70 or 80% of states it's going to feel in 2018 exactly like itself in 2008 as far as how much faith i have in which the results show. >> i need to get in on this. first off, i just could not disagree more about the testing window thing. i can give you a better example of something, but i think the states all start at different times. they're trying to test on technologies. i think this is the only decision this consortia was to make with you people all time to take this test. people are going to push us along as they can in the testing window. i don't think that's a problem. i think we can work that out. i would just add, i think the

bigger question is whether or not states will stick together on this in terms of at the end d of the day they're giving this test, getting these results. aren't we going to show at the country, we're going to have a more fair benchmark across the country with 26 states working together on these tests. i just think that's a real positive. and in the end the common core was never built for 50 states. we didn't think we are going to 50 states. and so we never encouraged 50 states. and so are the states coming along taking and screaming? i don't know of any states that really wants out of the common core they can't get the legislature to pass that. we have 45 states to start with, and we have to states back out. we 43 still. what's the deal here? if so ms. dentzer kicking and screaming, if only benefit to that of less. so i don't understand. >> one thing, rick, it seems to

me you're highlighting like a catch-22. that in order to come i into a more built to participate in something, you have to sort of lower the requirement for what it takes to get in, but the whole point of being in it is you hold each other accountable to keep high expectations. i was wondering how you would respond to that? if you need people to be in these consortia nor to hold themselves accountable and you were about to ask lighting outside of that, how do you navigate that? >> that's the question i would rather debate. so how are we going to put systems in place to make sure that when we get to brass tacks on this estates are still in the game. that's the thing i think rick has hit on that i want to continue the conversation about it what are the structures the consortia can put in place? what are the policies we could enact as a group, not federal, but states working together to make sure that in the long run the consortia's are successful. because quite frankly getting a

better test is really what's going to push this across the goal line i think because we've had come you're asking which would be different in 2010 to a test on any different we will have the same problem. >> so chris's challenge is what are some constructive alternatives? let me throw a couple on the table. i would love your -- love to hear how any this strikes you. one for instance, would be i would like to see the consortia layout is a nonnegotiable commitments. if you're going to be a member you have, they're going to agree in concert that the look of start dates and they will tighten the window to specific states, 60 day windows, but then within a given state it should be much tighter. that something's governing board could agree to and that you should have to play by those rules. they should have a mandatory scoring schedule so the scores

should be mandatory, not something you can be a member of the consortia and still opt in or opt out of. we don't know yet how translatable the results are from the computer assisted assessments to the kids who are taking a paper and pencil. they're looking at this for based on spring results. i suspect there are going to be some issues with that. i would like to see states require to use whatever translation table so on, not to see this made. so for me, for instance, i think the point is that it want to see if you're going to be part of a consortium to ensure integrity and cover buildin billy of testi want that to mean something. i suspect that probably means some steps will say that's not quite for us. for mean that's a good result. >> catherine, i would just like to hear your response of that, so if there are the sort of were stringent things folks would have to agree to to be part of that. how to set trickle-down to the schools, to the teacher speak

with out not sure i the clear edge to the. i do think that it's situational and i think that's going to the different in district to district. but it does occur to me that even though that might not to like a mandate from washington or really be one, in the current environment what would that feel like? one more thing handed down that states need to do -- they already have like when chris talked about the common core and how to visit that there could be and russia states that we want to get out but they can't? the things like wafers they have bigger things like race to the top money and they made certain agreements and we have already seen what the u.s. department of ed did in revoking one waiver because the standards were not up to snuff. all these things are still operational and clearly the environment is still heavy with it. i don't know what requirements within the consortia we do, but it does seem to me that one of

the questions about the test scores is what are you going to do with him? in other words, you have to report them, right? there's power in having states when they could consortia all have to publicly disclose what those look like but then there's the question of what you attach to the but is that going to be your high score? are you going to beg high school exits to the court and college readiness? that's a whole different thing, pick a different store and don't be down here and that's what we will base exit exams on. the political effect of that, those things will be completely different. what part of your higher ed system is going to accept these scores for placement or all of these things about what you do with the scores and not to mention teaching evaluation, i feel like those have a whole lot more kind of hanging in the air and the question of a testing window, sorry. >> i think it's fair. but i think part of the challenge your is that if we

have spent all of this time and passion the last several years and over the next several years doing this, and what we wind up this kind of a good faith hope that states are going to administer the common core assessment and smart ways, and the public officials are not going to fudge the results. well, that's pretty much where we were from 2001-2009, and i'm not sure that any of this will have been worth it if all we're doing is winding up with tests that are written by the consortia rather than state test but it seems to me for any of this to have been worth all of the effort and to deliver on the promise, that what we want is i actually, my answer on all the things you raised is i don't want the feds touching any of it. i want states to make decisions as they see fit on all of those scores. but for all of us have been worth while it seems to me i want an idea that these results are going to be, feel much more like the sat, or feel much more

like the ap and they feel like the old state assessments. for this to have been worthwhile. >> chris, i would be interested in hearing your site. some governing body that is not the federal government. so someone there who will do things like set scores and hold people to account when they don't do those things. arthur efforts to create that? is the work of something to be done to create a body like a? >> not that i know of, but i would say i agree with rick. i think making sure the states that are in these, that are in these two groups really want to be in these two groups, is really an essential part of it. i don't see any way that we can count on the other side with stitches kind of sort of giving the test and okay with it -- states kind of sort of giving the test and not sticking to get us grew. i would agree with that. i don't know what it is

long-term. that's an issue we will have to resolve. writing another set of standards or the country would be very difficult at this point, right? they would be a lot of controversy, and i don't think we would be able to get through the process, especially from washington, d.c. so i do think the states need all of these processes in their states, but 17 and then i'm working together once they got out of update the standards together as well. >> so that brings us to think an elephant in the room that we need to talk about, which is politics. so the politics of the common core -- yet, we were a bleakly referencing is a want to bring it to the forefront. because there was a lot of conversations the last several months of the role common core my plate in these midterm elections. there's and it doesn't discussion to be had with the common core my plane 2016. rig, he published this morning in the "washington post" an interesting study about just how

much or how the people are actually talking about the common core. i was wondering if you could share that and talk about its implications for the broader conversation? >> sure. turns out that when you look at what the candidates for governor and just senate have formally said on the websites, only three of the 35 democrats running for governor mentioned the common core. only 10 of the 35 republicans running for governor mentioned the common core. nine that they're opposed to, one supported. frankly, what's interesting is about how the republicans running for u.s. senate mention the common core all negatively, but you can't do very much about the common core for the u.s. senate which makes it, suggests there's more, you know, noise going on there. look, i think the bottom line here is one recent visit been so

politicized like we've talked to is because it is got wrapped up in federal politics and things that look very good to the quote-unquote reform community in 2009 when president obama was pulling 65, 70% looked let's go to the reformed community when president obama is much less popular. that is true of several elements that have wrapped up in, particularly in race to the top. and i think one of the opportunities, especially for folks who are, like i said in this intelligence squared debate last month, i'm not opposed to the common core. i just want to see how things shake out before we jump on this as a nation. and so for folks were confident -- often is the right way to go, i think one of the opportunities is how do you separate this in washington politics where it's an issue that governors can address in a much more problem-solving kind of state

standard fashion? a target think senator lamar alexander has offered, there's language in the statute that created the u.s. department of energy. there's a statute and no child -- language in no child left behind that says the federal government won't touch curricula, won't touch instruction. so there's this whole question about, well, isn't touching standards? does this have anything to do with instructions? senator alexander said let's close the door but let's say the federal government will not touch anything in this whole bailiwick. one of the real opportunities that chris alluded to is for folks who really embrace the common core and abrasive at the state led initiative just about jump on that train. for them to be saying, look, this is the kind of link everybody should be able to agree on, democrats and republican. whatever has happened in the last that this has happened but looking forward let's make it clear who ever gets elected president in 2016, this is something that is to open the door and make decision. this gets us back to the

question of how much of a role, if any, the federal should have and improving -- approving state assessment. that opens the door for the department of ed, whether not they are behaving appropriately. and my personal preference is not to have the u.s. government telling states whether or not their test passed or failed to muster spent do you see it carefully spent? it sounds interesting. i would just say my experience nears what rick just say, that there's a lot of fervor in the medium -- media with a few people in every state about the common core. but when we actually start talking people that aren't actively involved in politics, there's i guess a lower level of understand what the common core even as the the polling that i've seen recently is still one

in two people have an understanding of the common core. if half the country doesn't know what we're even talking about, there's a real opportunity for us to just start explaining. as rick said, sort of independence from the federal push on this would be really helpful for us. granted there is a proper federal role in education, and it should be won to make sure states are doing bad things to kids in terms of equal opportunity and things like that, like i think in this case i think rick is right that we need to make sure it's clear that the states are the ones that made the decisions to raise the standards and they've got to keep owning the. whatever we need to do to make sure that's clear, i'm in. >> so before i turn it over to the audience, and ca begin thosf you watching at home feel free to tweak the questions. i want to ask to kind of lightning round questions to all members of the panel. i will ask each of you to weigh in in turn. the first question, what do you

see as the biggest threat to the common core effort moving forward? so maybe we'll start with chris and move down the line. >> other than rick? i'm kidding. the biggest threat to? i think the transition of this year to the tests will be a big challenge, making sure that we are able to honestly tell kids how they're doing against the standards and without to the process. what catherine identified as the materials gap i think it's a big challenge. >> rick. >> i think overexuberant advocates. i think the more folks like chris are often talk about the common core and addressing kind of legitimate concerns, i think about its prospects. the more the folks who say that this is awesome, phenomenal to raise any concerns means you're a bad person, i think that just is a recipe for people to say

absolutely. >> catherine. >> quality and results of test. >> you took lightning round quite literally on that one. thank you. i appreciate it. you must write about education to you spend time in classrooms. so then one question also, what does success look like? maybe the question would be phrased something like what does winning look like? so if catherine were to write a story 10 years from now that education week this is great retrospect is a looking back on no child left behind or looking back on a nation at risk of looking back -- award for her to include the sentence, the common core has been a success. what are the types of things that would need to have that happen? in this way i think i will go in the reverse. i won't put you on the spot first. catherine, what other types of things you would need to have seen? >> i guess, i mean, i would have

-- i guess it seems to me that from the states and districts perspectives that from educators, not states in the political sense but educators in states and districts, seems to me they would have to have some sort of evidence that kids were really doing better, and in particular also just because of the kind of thing i'm interested in, that the kids who are the farthest behind have actually made the most progress in their clothing with it need to go. opportunity gaps close, and achievement by some standard of measurement, whatever that is, is better. college success rates. in other words, remediation and other measures freshman year, that it is made impact on kids success in higher education. because i think that often what gets forgotten in this debate is the original intent of this college readiness. let's not talk about the career

part, but college readiness. if there's looking back, nobody in and out of impact on college readiness, what are we talking about? >> writ, your shot. >> yet, and i think the outcomes that catherine just alluded to in terms of employer satisfaction come in terms of kids performance post-secondary. i think the second one is, but that will be kind of contingent on resolving some of these questions about what does it mean to teach common core well. i get lots of e-mails from folks, including teachers, were frustrated about what is -- we see some of the outrageous stuff online. there's other folks who say that's crazy, that's not at all what the common course trying to push. this stuff has to be resolved and has to be resolved in a way that's not about goofiness. and, frankly, i'm not sure which was going to get sorted out. for catherine to write the story it's got to get sorted out in

ways that don't encourage bad instruction. >> i agree with rick, especially mathematics site. we've got some work to do to help teachers be up to talk about mathematics, and we are really repented a set of math wars that event 10, 15 just go. they have come back. we need to have that conversation. success i think of for the first for i think we've been successful in a major way already. i think we have moved the discussion in the country towards the idea that kids need access to these higher expectations, no matter what. no matter what you call them, no matter what happens in the states from you on now. i think we've had a measure of success on that and that is largely the legacy of folks who came before me. in terms of what we're looking towards, i think some the things catherine mentioned, remediation rates in universities and colleges, kids are paying for classes that they should have had in high school. that rate needs to drop in states.

i think we are going to have more kids graduating with meaningful credentials. so whether or not they have a certificate to go to postsecondary training programs or go right into university or community college. those are the two in terms of data points i think we're looking for. >> want to tack onto the end of the lightning rod because chris, you've been such a good sport, do you worry some of the advocates have been setting up the common core to fail by setting such a high bar? one from rick's bees, secretary duncan come he's been going after all day but myers will pile on here, the common core state thinks may prove to be the single greatest thing to happen to public education in american cents brown v. board of education. in some way like are you worried come you could be a great thing. you to talk about what rick talks welcome what you talked about could be conceivably

achievement are you worried about that gap? >> i can only advocate the way i advocate. there's a lot of advocates in this room that i know of, and we all have our own style. my sense is that this is a big deal and we shouldn't under emphasize the fact that we are asking more out of kids across the country this year. like we're giving you assessments. secretary duncan i think is done a pretty good job, and i think, i think his push to look at standards come look at assessments, those were all okay pushes. i think when we've gotten to the place where incentives and other things, i think that's what ended up in a challenge. am i concerned about the way we're doing this? rick and others can debate that. the biggest thing as state she's we care about kids getting the e stamps and that's what our organization is focus on. we are willing to have whatever discussion it takes to actually realize these standards. otherwise they'r they are just .

>> i think we're going to turn over to the audience. i've been getting some questions on twitter which is outstanding. if you will remember the hashtag is whatnowcc, and i am mqmcsha mqmcshane. i think we will start with the twitter question to move to the audience. two things. one for those of you are tweeting, i'm going to probably try and combine a few of your tweets because sensing a lot of them are sort of in the same area. sal put them together. might not read your tweets exactly another two for those of you who are joining us if you have been to an aei education event for which i don't have two rules for questioners. the first one is that we ask that you identify yourself and with the folks with microphones that will come help you and number two, you actually ask a question. we are trying to go light on soliloquy, i am questions but i cannot receive from the twitter interest and from the smattering of fans became i've a lot of

people who want ask questions. i want to get as many of them is possible. if you get that nice quick budget question. think tweet, 140 characters. get it out there. the first question that i've seen through different variations of that committee will start with catherine and asask of this, a lot of people have been asking about the effect of the common core on non-tested subjects. so people been asking the arts, about phys ed, a lot of other issues we want schools to do good in your experience in schools, have you seen any evidence of a narrowing of curriculum onto these, or any evidence of fear of narrowing curriculum that by focusing on what the common core does you might push out these other subjects? none of the other panelists respond as well. >> so i will signal you by saying neither. what i've seen is there's a genuine attempt in a lot of places, not every place, a lot of places don't quite get this,

but there's a junior attempt in places that i've hung out to implement these cross disciplinary expectations of the common core. there's a huge misunderstanding in a lot of places about what that really means. i have routinely heard them referred to as social studies standards. they are later see standards specific to certain disciplines. so developing later see skills specific to the scientist. how do you deal with scientific material? how do you make sense of that? in social studies but i've been in places that are trying to do that. they're having to involve science teachers and social studies teachers into the i saw that in kentucky of years ago. those folks didn't seem concerned about a narrowing. the narrowing was happening after no child left behind anyway but if anything a little bit of a broadening to the they are not social studies center that everybody in the buildings having to get involved to figure how to teach a literacy in their

subject. >> rick, you have expressed some concerns about this. i would love hear your take. >> again i think it just comes back to common core feels to me very much like a pig in a poke. and i like to see things before i buy them. i think catherine's first off, look, we've been undergoing schools have been under pressure to focus on math and english language arts for 12 years now under no child left behind. i don't think common core changes that dramatically one way or the other. ..

and interesting instruction more often than not. >> i don't know. i don't have much to add other than we have to guard against what richard said and that is any set of standards. whatever standards the states have it's been happening in the past and narrowing and i think my experience the teachers have told me this is giving them more space rather than less but i'm sure there are places where this is not working the way that we

would want it to. every state has science standards to and social studies standards so as teachers if we are not teaching to the state standards in those areas that is a problem so i hope we are and always does advocate for the common core we should be advocating for those things as well. >> let's take one from the audience. a gentle man if you would be so kind to identify your self and then ask a question. spank the question is mainly from the natural standpoint and i'm going to give an example of what i mean but the question is are you finding that teachers are finding that they even understand what it is the standards are asking them to do

or are they finding that it's a bunch of educational bureaucratic gibberish? >> argue going to talk about these questions? >> i'm going to quote one thing from the introductory part in the common core. this is telling them that they need to get it across to. students should have two other buddies. they should have the ability to decontextualized, to abstract a given situation and represented symbolically and the symbols as if they have a life of their own and without necessarily attending to their reference. the second is the ability to contextualize the deposits needed in the manipulations process in order to probe into

the reference for the symbols involved. the question is what does that mean. to me that sounds like gibberish. >> how have teachers been translating the standards in practice? it's the same answer i guess it depends on where you go. we have a lot of teachers in this country and there's going to be a be able to variation how well they are supported and they've been trained and they've been doing their job, how good the district is explaining these things. i guess it depends on where you go. i spend i spent time in places that are doing a great job getting stuff together. they know the story that's going on in cleveland where i've hung out with those folks when they talked about using empty school buildings for the entire day wrestling with the standards what does this mean for us

translate in it into what it means with the units and lessons. teachers do that. it didn't seem like they were really baffled that they need support to do that and in other places they are completely moved. so they do need help understanding. i'm sure in every place there are teachers that are confused and that that feel like they are ready to go and everywhere in between. do you have a response to that? >> one of the hardest things we've wrestled with is how do we make sure that it's the standards represent what mathematics is so the mathematicians can interact as well as parents and kids. so obviously it was more complicated than most folks would engage with so that was a balance we tried to strike a writing the standards and if you

go to most state standards before common core i think we can get better getting them to understand. i don't have the standards with me but it's very straightforward language also. the balance we were trying to strike is complicated enough for the mathematicians that are going to teach this in high school and in addition to parents and kids. there seemed to be some people confused but that is what wikipedia is for. on the new tests that are designed to be taken on computers and the capacity within the schools to actually do this so i would assume they are talking about bandwidth and

software and hardware in order to meet this and its timeframe so if you are interested about how the schools try to get up to speed with this and do they need more time, is it money spinning as you can imagine it depends but there is the reality that there've been tremendous investments. whether it is sufficient that remains to be seen. the report from last week identified that work being technologically ready for the assessment and one of those where the few districts were able to say i'm good, i'm ready. i'm reporting on the field testing. given all of the level of anxiety around technological

readiness would be a more dramatic problem. they were well-established in the surveys. any time. those of us that were around there with all of the back and forth among those of us that talk about these kind of things and then educators were like yes the district leaders and teachers and everybody else but one of the big challenges is one

reason folks are going to be able to get a lot of kids at the fest is because they are using a medley of devices. when you talk to the educators you hear a lot of different stories, consider using different devices for the first time and again, i'm kind of this hasn't been a problem for the progress that they end up with the computers and and the tape everything down and there's a pencil everywhere and it's a tightly orchestrated. this gets down to the question of how much confidence we should all have and the liability that could come out. this is a project maybe we pay more attention getting it done

than necessarily on the then necessarily on the thesis of how it gets done. i think that the point we need to be attending to as the go forward i was in 2000 then 2000 when we began shifting the online assessment of the directors there and it took us five years. i think some states will have it easier than others. i also think that this one-year transition is going to be really hard.

it's just going to happen in this country. i think we can take one from the crowd here. if we wait for the microphone to show up and identify yourself. >> for the center of education reform i think you've asked the most important question how it gets done. it's from the largest elephant in the room but the schools actually may not even be equipped to do this stuff because the governance isn't it their. they don't care about common core they just get it done so shouldn't we be focused more so teachers have to do freedom to figure out the classes clicks the >> i think that's probably to you.

>> that's a great question. there's two answers. one answer is this is something which i think is partly it's the monitor on the fields of common core and for my friends that are very enthusiastic about the potential they say you know we care about the governance but we have to fix classrooms and this is what's going to give us the lever to change practice and instruction and i think that leads to the second issue which is a disconnect between those of us could hang out inside that hang out inside the beltway's and a lot of time talking about systems and institutions in how the schools are run and folks out there that think it's all a bunch of noise and about what happens with a teacher and a student and their curriculum and part of what has made the debate is unproductive talking past

each other that i'm somebody obviously as you know that thinks a lot about governance issues and i think these matter of time but i think it is easier to be agnostic about what happens in classrooms and it's easy for people to say we are doing the real work can you turn down the noise clicks and for me the reason common core matters so much is because i think some of these conflicts speak very directly both weapons and structurally but i don't have any room talking about but it's also going to play out immediately for the kind of decisions to leaders make for how the dollars are allocated and how they prioritize schools and i think we have been so heated a new version initially or so dismissive of the questions or concerns that it spurred a backlash and i think now the backlash is so focused on motives and outliers that we

are not having a productive conversation. part of what i'm hoping we can move forward on going forward as an honest discussion about windows common core get in the way, when does it facilitate the ability of the schools to deliver top shelf education and how do we think this stuff through without necessarily questioning each other's motives >> i will take another one from bitter that a lot of folks have asked about which is teacher preparation. making sure come and i see you smiling over there, that the teachers that are entering there seems to be sort of two nuts to crack at once once is to get the teachers that are currently in the teaching force up to speed in the professional development they need to be spent some time talking about but there's this other question about getting the teacher preparation programs aligned in the common core to

prepare the teachers that are necessary to teach it. again and what you saw i will allow the smile feel free to tell the tale of the teacher preparation for alignment in the common core. >> i don't have a tale to tell. i checked before getting here and the world hasn't changed in an overnight resolution but i did want to check to be sure and in general the teachers programs once again it does vary. there are some places that are looking at the common core and incorporating that into the fresh programs but there's a philosophical device also. there are teacher programs that feel like this is not their job for a given set of standards. it's pedagogy and theory and not so much so there are places that don't feel like that's what they do and there's nothing happening there so there's been an all over the response of the teachers prep programs more

doing nothing or nothing at all. on the side that's a whole different ball of wax. there are some good deep teacher preparations but there's a lot that's shallow. >> i want you to respond from the place of the common core advocates the university professors have a great deal of autonomy so it's about convincing them they want to get involved. there doesn't seem to be a letter that they can push to get onboard so what are these efforts to get the teacher preparation programs on board >> the need to be more active in the programs in their area to sort of establishing that we are teaching common core in our school districts and the

candidates we are expecting would be able to teach these standards. i would also say whether or not we have the common core there are good programs that need to be scaled and far too many programs preparing teachers for our schools. so i think a separate lens we could spend an hour and a half talking about teacher preparation because that is an issue that we have to work together on solving. from my perspective right now, we need to highlight the colleges and universities that are doing great things because we can see a big difference and i know some of the programs doing great work with teachers and preparing themselves it's not like we don't know how to do this it's just every university isn't preparing it equally. >> do you see the effort to sort of accelerating the efforts to reform the preparation is is and is it bringing the broader

political fight into the other fight taking place and how do you see them interacting with one another? >> i wrote a piece about a decade ago on something like the more things change the more they stay the same. every five or ten years you will be told that any critique of teacher preparation or leadership preparation is invalid because they presented themselves and then you go and look at what they are teaching them and to spend time with faculty and it feels very much like it fell to 1995 but they will insist that it's very different and i think it depends on the matter of respect. if they think what they are doing is different in the common core and they can give you chapter and verse and i think that if you are sitting down with them you're like nothing feels like it's changed. universities are buffered from this. the only way that the teacher prep programs are going to feel much urgency about changing anything is if the people that are taking their graduates

actually insist on what they need as long as we take high school math teachers who were poorly trained and so long as we take folks who don't know how to do things particularly well, it is hard to actually generate the leverage internally to fundamentally change what they do. i think again this is just if you think about the common core, chris said a few moments ago that look if they are just on paper it doesn't matter which i think is exactly right. my preferred way to think about the common core is that mission statement on the wall like mcdonald's or any fast food restaurants. they say pretty much the same thing. they want to get your delicious food and that may or may not have any relation at all to your experience in a fast food establishment. and what actually matters is how the employees are commended the work of art they hoped accountable somehow that organization is managed and frankly it feels like adding

from here to there that getting it adopted within the enormous political but compassionate but only started them on a 26-mile marathon i think there are only a couple miles down the road and this is why i know it frustrates my friends i want to see them get to the ten or 12-mile mark before i'm actually kind of confidence that this is good or bad and i know they say wait a minute we are pretty much there and i think that they have oversold how far along the road to schools and systems really are. >> we can take another one from the crowd if he would be so kind. >> you raised the issue before what are the measures and don't we have to be more creative in what we think about what those

measures are in are the only quantitative? probably are responding to and we decided to break the standards was too many kids are going to college and having to pay for classes that they should have had in high school. it's that simple to me. they were not writing at a level that they could enter their freshman year. i'm sure there are other measures we should be thinking about what that such a basic one is kids leaving high school ready to do its next whether it be college or go to a career training program or whatever else they want to do so i can't get past the fact if we don't get that number i think that is a sort of essential for the movement that we have to see more kids being successful and quite frankly we are seeing that success even in just the first

three years so i agree we have a long way to go. i think we are closer to the tube to do to the nba team to the tube in the 18 that maybe somewhere in the middle. but so this is still an open question whether or not we can deliberative out of high school ready to go and if the standards are not doing that in some way i don't think any of the other measures really matter. >> this ties into the conversation we were having earlier what gets measured is what gets taught. i would like to hear your response to this. do you ever worry that though they say you want to bring in outside content matter to do well on those that there might be strategies developed to maximize the reading and math scores and that could have been to the detriment of students? >> i don't think it is fundamentally different from much of the era.

i think it's the same recommendations but many of us would us would have long encouraged the states. let's make sure we are looking at how many students master the world languages and let's make sure we are looking at the completion of passing the ap exams. but for me, i don't think it's fair to blame this on the common core. i think that other pieces the same challenge we had since 01. >> there is a new opportunity and it seems to me that when we are talking about what's measured you are talking about what's measured and what's the assessment tool as well as what actually is being measured in the underlining stuff. we mentioned this before but we need to keep in mind only 27 states are using the test and the others while we will see. and they have the common core standards but how well those

tests measure is anybody's guess at the moment because we don't really know and the flip side is you can independently analyze how well you think the balance really gets at what's in the standard. we are not talking about are we getting the chance to measure social studies differently we are still talking about mapping the la but are they going to be better and get out more deeper nuanced kind of stuff which is what do they do so was were they not. wait and see. we don't know the answer to that yet. >> i will take another one from twitter. this is something you referenced earlier about the measures of success is how well the common core helps almost bought a couple students. a healthy number of questions is students for special populations into special needs, english-language earners. when you were out in schools and classrooms or english-language learners how do you see them interacting in the common core?

>> i didn't take out with teachers and special populations as much as teachers that were solving all their kids and we were talking about a very wide spectrum. we saw teachers trying to do their best and feeling that one of the places they need it the most support getting at is teaching special populations. and the survey data that we've seen backs that up. it's one of the areas that have the least to support and they've they've gotten the least enslaved and they are struggling with how to write you with kids with special needs developmentally and intellectually that stuff is the weak sun that i've seen in my reporting of the research not just kids with special needs part that behind academically. >> it's my experience with whatever state standards we've had in the past. i do think we have a challenge

as a country about what we do with kids below grade level and at the current testing structure so how do we make sure we are scaffolding so the children can advance and we are measuring growth and not just the accountability system so these are all things that need to be looked at to make sure the special needs students and kids are behind academically and get their. >> we have time for one more question from the crowd. people go to the fronts front so if you would be so kind. roberto stanley. in which respect do you think it was a mistake for the school officers and governors to sign this compact and have it go top down instead of another method? >> they've been traditionally responsible for standards in the

state, so i don't know that -- i don't think it was a mistake. there was a mistake made by the path we were not that ferocious and our defense but this was bit by the school chief officers and the governors. >> [inaudible] >> there is some that are built in the state governments, the chief and the state governor are in charge of the education system in the state if it had emerged that might have been a possibility but i don't think the strategy was wrong. we just were not strong enough that the federal government needed to not incentivize us to do this if we needed to stay in control. we needed to get that back. >> do you think it's possible for them to get that back packs >> that direction i think will

be productive and constructive. i have a modest proposal that might help, for instance under the race to the top comedy over, administration was delighted that congress led the carved out cardinal to 350 million to fund the consortium. as the states are backing out, it is a waste of money and it's going to undo a couple of years of work so i think it's appropriate that the secretary says maybe we pushed you into something you were not excited about so i would like to see them find 350 million carveout priorities to a word of the states that want to drop common core. you could have a national contest for states that are not excited about common core and they could do it the application to the grand contest and the 350 million bowlby divvied up among the states to offset the cost of the developing the standards got training teachers

and adopting others. i think something like that would go a long way towards putting symbolic heft behind the government putting whatever rule is going to relate differently than going forward. >> can we give a round of applause for our panelists? i see lots of people conversing with each other. please continue to do so. it's great to have you. thanks for coming an update on the shooting at the canadian

parliament this is canada's attack on one soldier killed, one suspect dead. a canadian soldier shot at the war memorial has died. conservative mps were informed that the canadian armed forces member passed away. ottawa police said of the the member would not be identified until the next of kin are notified. that's from the globe and mail. meanwhile, reaction in washington, d.c. at the nation's capital president today did have a conversation with the canadian prime minister david cameron about the shooting and we expect to hear from david cameron later on today. capital police released a statement saying that the u.s. cp remains at a 9/11 the level of awareness with no significant modifications to our security posture and reaction from capitol hill -- bring you some

reaction in just a moment. we did want to show you what the globe and mail posted earlier video from inside of the parliament building. take a look. [inaudible] [background sounds]

>> video from canada's globe and mail and confirmation that one of the soldiers in the incident died. the associated press also said they suspected gunman is also dead. from capitol hill reaction from the members closely following the developing story in canada's parliament building my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and also from diane black similar thoughts keep your thoughts and prayers with other friends and neighbors in canada today. on the washington journal viewer going to hear from the former chief of police for the capitol police. also the sergeant at arms will be talking about the incident today in the ottawa and calling for major security changes in the capitol complex that comes up tomorrow morning on the washington journal of 7:45 y. on the c-span. back to a look at the campaign 2014 coverage last night in new

hampshire in the florida senate race rather than the florida governor race, rick scott met his democratic challenger charlie crist and debated last night at jacksonville. governor scott is running for his second term that will air again tonight and leads off the coverage at 8 p.m. eastern. coming up at 9 p.m. more debate leading up in rhode island with the democrat and republican alan at 10 p.m. the south dakota governors debate and independent michael myers and finally at 11:00 the arkansas race between the republican and former congressman democrat mike ross. all of that tonight on c-span2. last night in the new hampshire senate race incumbent democrat jeanne shaheen faced republican scott brown but they met for an hour-long debate and we are going to show you a look at that but first some of the campaign ads running in the state.

>> i'm jeanne shaheen and i approve the message. >> too often that is and how he votes. scott brown sponsored a bill so employers could deny women insurance coverage for birth control. >> i can't support limiting access to birth control. >> and he pushed for a lot of postponement to look at photographs of developing fetuses. no wonder anti-choice groups in massachusetts and worst scott brown. >> i don't trust scott brown. >> he may you may have seen senator shaheen is calling to question my support for women's health care healthcare and i want you to know the facts. i'm pro-choice and i support continued funding for planned parenthood and i believe women should have access to contraception trade after six years of voting with president obama senator shaheen has resorted to a campaign to her record. senator shaheen knows better. the people of new hampshire deserve better. i'm scott brown and i approve

this message. >> i'm jeanne shaheen and i approve this message. >> the big oil companies are profitable on the planet scott brown voted to give them more than 20 billion of taxpayer subsidies. >> i don't trust scott brown for a minute. >> they gave thousands of dollars. >> scott brown doesn't care about new hampshire. >> now they are spending millions to get it back to washington. >> i know what you're thinking. another ad but hear me out. senator jeanne shaheen says that she puts you first. she votes with obama 99% of the time. 99. obamacare, come on. we can fight your jeanne shaheen now.

okay. here's your video. >> in some ways i approve in some ways i don't approve. like those questions we deal with as policymakers there aren't simple answers yes or no. >> moderator: user >> moderator: user that you were the candidate for the citizens of new hampshire and he often says i don't date people you u-boat with president obama 99% of the time but because of the approval rating is at an all-time low in new hampshire recount 3840%, how does your voting record sort of jive with serving the citizens of new hampshire? shaheen: i work for new hampshire and scott brown talks about one survey and 99% of the time but i voted with the president put the but the numbers i'm the proudest of are the 359, the 259 people now working at the prison because i was able to get the prison

present of it after it sat empty for two years. it's the 1200 people who were being foreclosed on in their homes and our office worked with to keep in their homes and they can now get care close to home because of the legislation that the senator and i got into the veterans reform bill. what we need is a senator that is going to work for new hampshire and make sure that we address the concerns we hear from our constituent and that's going to be willing to work with democrats, republicans and independent, anybody independents, anybody in washington who can help us get the job done for this state brown: she just described me because i was the most bipartisan senator in the senate. any survey that have come out is one of the most partisan. she's voted over 99% of the time and what does that mean for the people in new hampshire, she was a deciding vote for obamacare.

she didn't vote for every ability to keep the doctors and hospitals doctors in hospitals and care facilities people trusted and loved. as a result of the deductibles are going up traumatically. and the costs are going up. care and coverage is going down and they are voting to put in place a system where we have more and more gridlock voting with her party over 99% of the time so that's part of the problem right now we need to have an end to that river. the current congressman congress and is running for the lieutenant governor in the state leaving the gop house seats open. the district is located in the central portion of the state including little rock and conway and the rothenberg political report called it leaning republican. major funding for 2014 is

provided by aarp arkansas welcome everyone. the arkansas educational television network. the second congressional district candidates alphabetical order patrick hayes of north little rock the democratic party candidate, french hill of little rock the republican party nominee and debbie standiford of north little rock libertarian party candidate. the nominees will be questioned by the panel of arkansas journalists including michelle,

nathan vanderburg of speed of the public radio into steve and an independent journalist. each candidate will have two minutes for an opening statement and each will have two minutes to respond to a question. while the rebuttals are limited to one minute. and at the conclusion of tonight's broadcast from each candidate will have two minutes for a closing statement. the order of opening statements, questioning the rebuttals from a closing statement all determined prior to the broadcast life going in which the candidates or his or her representative participate. our timekeeper tonight is elizabeth and with the that, the first opening statement is from mr. hayes. hayes: to the panelists it's good to be with you on behalf of my family, certainly the

campaign that we have waged today. three weeks and one day the voters will be going to the polls one week from today early voting begins. and let me add about today i would like to ask everyone to join me in welcoming isabella who turns ten today. one year ago what happened in the honor of the birthday the government shutdown. as i fought back of what we did and the compromises and how we don't really care that we sold the problem other than picking sure that in the broader context of central arkansas they were made better bitter with the top

of our priorities and they bubbled up in the soul and the grandchildren and what their lives were looking forward to. for the citizens of the community just swelled up in a forward direction wasn't acceptable for me so we made a commitment to move forward for congress and to try to make the lives of our grandkids. i would like to thank you for inviting all the candidates and i appreciate the opportunity to be here. by now you probably are familiar

with my opponent in the race but you might not know much about me. i'm your libertarian candidate for congress in the district. you'll probably hear my comments i would like to tell you about the solution called the nonaggression principle of non- principle simply states that it is wrong to initiate divorce, the only legitimate use of force is in the defense of the natural rights to life, liberty and property. each of us has those same equal rights and each of us gives up a small portion of the rights to government that will collect all of the rights together. all of the laws of matter how

small come with the implied threat of force against those that do not comply. that's why it's so important that the force of government be reserved and restrained to protect individual rights. as we go through the topics i will attempt to demonstrate how to get the government out of our lives and back into the role of defending the rights where it belongs. thank you. >> mr. hill. thank you aarp and thank you pat and debbie for joining on the stage tonight after 30 years in the private sector i felt a calling to go back to public service and focus on bringing common sense business show

solutions. i brought people together, i told businesses and other people create jobs, grow my own businesses and focus on helping people make a better life for themselves whether they are planning a new church is having a doctor's practice or starting a small restaurant. that's what i devoted my life to the last two decades. little rock as a banker. i want to go to washington because i want to bring that commonsense leadership and problem solving to the challenges that we face in the economy because here in the second congressional district there are fewer people working than there were seven years ago if dot economic opportunities. i think my experience and my leadership techniques can help create a system that will help give more opportunities, fewer government mandates, fewer big government one-size-fits-all

solutions because that is what has gotten us in trouble with the career politicians that have run the congress and the executive branch for the past few years. if i have the trust of the people in arkansas i will take that commonsense leadership to washington. thank you for the questioning to begin. michelle lieberman has the question tonight and it goes to mr. hayes. >> moderator: the united states united states is the world leader in research and discovery and business, however the level of a youth compared to others our young people on average do not demonstrate efficiency in many areas and in others the access to universities and tuition costs. what would you do to improve the level of the efficiency and

access at schools with higher education and how would you find this education? hayes: in terms of job production the foundation is the skill training and to be able to go to the increasing changing job market this education is absolutely critical part of the future. it would be a great opportunity for example terms of student loan rates, that kind of a burden that our young people have when they leave college is damned credible. i don't understand why maybe we don't charge the same interest rate for our student loans as they charge the banks that would lower the interest rate significantly and make paying student loans easier.

the program for example is another approach that can help our young people. increased emphasis on technical education and the type of job skills people need to find good, a good, quality education to take those skills and go into the workforce. the technical college during the 24 years that i was at a city hall we partnered with them in different aspects of helping them grow and foster the opportunity they had from over 4,000 students to access of 10,000 students so the role the congress has to play partnering with state and local governments and our educational system is absolutely critical and we have to do more in the partnership and reduce the cost of higher education. without that we are not going to have the skill levels or job applicants that we need to have.

>> it's a good question and i think that our country really suffers at the k-12 level. they must do a better job of trying to connect the job of the future with a good quality education. for example, we need to have people have an aspirational track when they are in middle school or high school. i think it would be useful for not every student to recognize that not every student is college-bound and there are many good jobs afforded to the high school graduates in the vocations. we need those workers for the advanced manufacturing and over 50% of the stem jobs in arkansas are in fact available to people without a four year degree. like a lot of things these don't

work. we spend something like $18 billion on workforce education across some 47 different programs scattered across the government. they do not need to be reduced in total scope and just send back to the states were perhaps the form of a block grants to governors and what the governor's work for local businesses to decide what kind of job training would be best for people in their local state we will turn it into a tax credit for employers to do their own training and get the kind of training that would be relevant for their own jobs and their own locale under its manufacturing or healthcare or whatever their growing business opportunities are in the local area. brown: education hasn't worked and what we need to do is to allow parents to make the

decisions about educating their children. we need to institute school choice and allow the market competition to improve the product that our children are receiving and to lower the cost. my children could go to private school and i pay about a third of the cost to the that costs to educate a public school child. the classrooms are less than half the size of a public school. they are allowed to emphasize in the areas that they want to cut the emphasize in other areas. not every child will be will be great in math but they may in other areas so rather than waste their time equally in all of the subjects it would be better if they were allowed to focus. my answer would be to include free market competition and choice and as far as public

education goes, even if the subsidies. if the subsidies that have allowed higher education costs to explode while the rest of the economy has remained stagnant. education and health care is the two areas you've seen this phenomenon and it's because the excess government subsidies. >> moderator: mr. hayes: , one minute rebuttal. brown: hayes: one thing we haven't mentioned and i think it's important that we note. my wife is a teacher for years and that kind of support the teaching community gets i think that ought to have a real focus. the kind of things they do every day my wife had a student and his name was jeffrey and she put

him out of classrooms to give him extra reading and tried to get him to read a sentence when they and she kept asking him to do it and he would end and went and finally he broke down in tears and said i'm hungry so she took them to the cafeteria and he had three bowls of cereal. the teaching community needs support and we need to make sure with them but they are an effective part of the educational system. >> the next question goes to mr. hill. >> moderator: arkansas is leading the nation and the number of the citizens without health insurance. what if anything would you change about the federal health-care law hill: it gives me a chance to talk about some of the challenges we face in the affordable care act. it's complicated in a typical

example of a one-size-fits-all solution. we need to help people with pre-existing conditions. with the most needy of the country we want to make health care more affordable. those were the objectives and it did not succeed. it became too big and too complex. we didn't need to redo the entire health care system to tackle some of those issues. for example pre-existing conditions, we have 50 state pre-existing condition pools states pre-existing condition pools put out of business last october by president obama and the affordable care act and they were federalized. what we could have done at a much lesser extents to the taxpayer with more focus on state and local involvement would have been to ask governors what's not working in your pre-existing condition pools and let's see how we can work together to make that better as a key point about the

difference. we also have an insurance distribution system across the whole country. we didn't need to create the complexity of the affordable care act software .gov and we don't need the mandates that provide the healthcare or that individuals have to buy health care that they may not want because those mandates make it more expensive. i've had several people walked up to me during the course of the campaign and talk about how the affordable care act has hurt their budget and its more expensive, higher deductibles, double the price per month as they've attempted to go out and buy health care on the government system. >> moderator: two minutes now. as recently as the 1960s we did have affordable health care for almost all americans. even for those with pre-existing conditions. what's happened since then is regulation and subsidies and the

more regulations and subsidies that have been added to the industry the higher the costs have gone. once again, government stepping in trying to regulate a free market and ending up doing more damage than good. the subsidies has made positive or the regulation doctors and hospitals have to follow and have also. my solution would be to allow free-market competition across the state line that would reduce the cost of insurance and also to institute health care savings accounts that will introduce an element of the free market to this industry as well. people are unaware of how much their medical costs are costing them and so they don't shop

around, they don't treat the medical industry as they would any other industry with cell phones we have managed to improve the product, lower the cost year after year and that doesn't happen in the medical industry because there isn't a free market competition. >> it's too complex and it costs too much and i think that as we all know the rollout was absolutely terrible. but one of the things we can try to do is reduce cost. we can allow medicare to negotiate better drug prescription prices. i was talking to doctors recently and they had to hire two additional employees to do the paperwork they have to had

to accommodate with regard to the complexities of the new regulations that were required and if someone hacu their arm, there were six different codes. whether it be a scratch. it's causing the cost to accelerate and to explode, but there is one thing i think we need to remember and that is the democratic governor and legislature came up with a solution to the private option that's one of the things that we came together to cover thousands who never had coverage before and into the hospital's adversaries to have financial challenges are now receiving the kind of coverage costs so while

i would have voted against the affordable care act, it is an example of how people can work together to solve the problem and help and that's the kind of message i would take. we all care about the same thing hayes: the greater use of savings accounts on insurance companies would be a big source of the much better match bigger plan and i commend her for that suggestion. we really just can't have it overlays and you can't beat against obamacare but for the private option they are one of the same. and the same. it is obamacare in arkansas and to think what happened as the regular cost is the direction that the obama administration has gone and it is a job killing the child killing approach.

it's to create this economy that we have and it causes the small businesses to say i don't want to get above 50 jobs in order to have the burdens and the costs associated with obamacare so it is absolutely not the affordable care act. ..