account the inequality between women and men, and the old identification and singular reservation. for me, the main point is to face a dilemma and somehow experiment but also in a more collective and political experiment. in order to object to inequality, we have to have a picture of women and men in the public's fear. and also if you want to live in a real equal society, each citizen is no more women or men

or black or white or yellow or big, i don't know. the reason of the quality, we want to go beyond this identification and i think simone de beauvoir, to live in this world, and in particular effect that female or male for human beings, we have to think -- beyond this and not only with this banality but also to think in a continuum -- >> what you are saying is very controversial point. it was a very controversial point, very controversial point

among scholars. most famous line is one is not borne but becomes woman and she does as use a very well, she had a utopian vision of an eventual fraternity. she had to use a gendered upward. the difference in an enlightened society would be abolished. since then, a lot of research posited that not only are their essentials differences between men and women beyond the obvious ones, women should cultivate their otherness, that they should cultivate -- they have been on the forefront of this discussion. this is a debate. >> before we call the female essential. it is all nationalism and coin.

>> are we essentials? do we believe the differences, what is your thought? >> i am not. i am not about race or about gender anymore, it is ridiculous meaning there are not -- is as ridiculous as saying all classes or great chain of being. >> the distinction between the cast and the class and explains the gender base duality between men and women is like a cast categorization because we don't have the ability to change in the gender based norm, we know

that it is more complex, but it is another issue nowadays, because we have to face a trend, the trend is making complement essential this change of complement. not counting the family but also in order society. and this is to recall. ..

>> >> in the political. so that is a point. >> it doesn't matter because the main point of how the culture conditions people to become a female.

if you think of margaret fuller she did have ideas of the complexity of those biological complexity is as opposed to this social construct. >> i don't think it matters and with every issue of with the debate which is like the knicks did the universe some of that into. >> of france but the idea of

progress is concerned perc doha probably something else changed us here. with before we knew where was the progress which is having an idea they wouldn't

have ted years ago. we're living in a lost society. ha in i have noted country home were a certain number are obvious. spee vicki where the head of an important cultural institution. is a the writers or the philosophers who are speaking in a radical way beyond sensitive debates?

i am the i telluride your but i don't know. >> but there are not so betty. said it was brilliantly confused and that was meant as a high compliment in that it was over simplified. there is then internet jezebel feminism to talk about that a coach number to say that is very bad with that investigation going on and. >> we all think the right things. and how unpredictable low

was. into affect our most intimate lives. and there are some comedians but there are some feminist up there to be. >> to be very interesting interesting:they are implicated with their own idea and that is interesting

>> another source of controversy is a stronger than ambivalence and she was horrified by and the sacrificial women that she saw. they played the maternal role at the expense of the individuality. so to talk about their predicament of contemporary women the unequal distribution for the child-rearing responsibilities. most would have led to their reproduction of mothering. and every culture raised by others it is so unequally distributed that it is

misogyny because children have to identify. sodalite to take -- talk about the challenges to preserve their individuality >> for a bus have children. -- four of us. >> we are all involved. >> we reproduce with our extended family. >> the part of the culture to have an option to not have children. >> it is like you set up and

tell a certain age it is not in issue. i came of age with the second wave of feminism not having children but if they would gaze deeply into my eye is recently as i published a book. did you really now want to have children? they want to probe are you sure? what are your parents like? >> you are right. it is the unfinished women. and also what went wrong in your love life?

and there was the damage. >> you cannot be judgmental politically i spent many years as a single mother and i have written about this of that strange conservativism of children born to women under 30 of babies born under 30 with that crazy exotic dysfunctional situation. and not to be mothers from 1953.

>> i don't think it is taboo talking general but it is becoming pretty usual. to not want children. it is not a problem anymore. >>. >> but not to be a good mother. in particular of the social contract that they are in

the side of the natural task with this mission. there is a political side. and that they should be a good mother. but now part of that is being a good mother with that contradiction with us a

good mother but to back down in front is important so when it came in the but the men tend non-white people. but that is part of the social contract. >> i have the couple more

questions. lana of the first to read about publicly are the intimate secrets of the desire to have us a relationship with that male domination working better than it did in principle. better than an atom in these. she lived very open the issue was bisexual but it was somewhat old-fashioned. the idea that we are as one. so i would like to talk about desire and feminism. what i wrote about you could be a free woman and refuse

to be owned and gore chews transcend that yearning to be possessed. in the example is what happens to us now? >> your question is attractive. [laughter] >> and colleague that greatest achievement and was attacked and then i will paraphrase to say something like have you feel when the feminist say it doesn't live

up to political theories? she said i don't give a because they live their whole life in theory. >> the biggest issue for feminism for powerful women who are subjugated and we just went through a humiliating national asset -- obsession and we see there is something going on in this era sibling to be possessed there is is a contradiction if it is limited with infinite complexity and that link

wage will get us in to lead a little bit. imagine how irritating and to not do that is now she said the problem of women is always the problem of bin. >> she is a moral there are things that i really do like

the she was rarely a great author and she wrote some wonderful books. spee bashir says usually attacked, and i wondered if that is the only way to talk

about those ideas going forward. and it has to do with the backlash that we were talking about. >> with 17-point it is important to discuss everybody. >> and then also with the

same sex for sure that is the of back log bashing. >> with that she is urged opposition so there is a lot of debate with french exception but this is

religious as part of the opposition. >> but some of those arguments. >> but that is part of its. >> so there is the exception

of the french exception and the fact it is of the order between watching them. so it is also the fact is with that sexual desire. and the reason is our equality.

>> edits the mystery. >> to become a like you use -- to list the challenge. so there is a space there to the kids sometimes women of philosophy become involved. >> with the fantasy lives. >> that is another feminist issue. >> with the logical standard

and to that contradiction. may fight as much as we can. with the most honorable and worthy. >> that is a contradiction. >> those are pieces of minor fraction. and that integrate with men also.

what about sexual or a sexual identities to affect this discussion? >> it is so skewed. >> in france there is a difference and then we have to get beyond with the notion of the difference.

is a a final thought i was once told your so much prettier when you smile. and i think my wonderful panel for this. thank you very much. [applause] >> untroubled much never heard the word throughout the entire discussion and i am wondering of the quality

and i think it is time for several reasons and we all know they're not a good there are supposed to aspire to. with all of the violence of their brutality in the world is not stand back basket question is a rather than make statements we. >> what about the possibility of a new goal of the dignity of human beings? >> we are very much for that

>> is it possible to be a woman? cheney be both the woman and a person with the centuries and millennia. >> here is a question for you. talk about that legacy could you say why you mentioned. >> i think they're writing from of place of of a woman's experience fatly in

her life out of it. and as a writer exactly what was said before with those nuances. with that victimization.

in now that i have the microphone i was surprised it really just anything but there was no answer. >> but there was an answer and we didn't say anything after that. this possible but there are

several women who have worked a lot but i was thinking about the golden notebook. if that is the discussion between the two.

with sex is a desire with those issues. >> noone the problem is the political conversation with our polarization by the internet with those macro attacks with the most interesting work in feminism's with the emblazoned world the dazzling work what would happen of a female artist pretended to be a man and what would happen in the of

world and that was probably the closest and rather more interesting things are going space. >>. >> and to be literary and also that character.

. .

>> >> i take it is a symptom. >> talking about this on thursday ben you are.

>> end if we have a woman for president that maybe we could open other question and so we have more time to the. >> in terms to mark to have the torch high. but there are many women writers but the female

memoirs that are modeling what we're looking for but to also ask the panelists so do you think it made as much of a landmark of that genre? >> because of that political theory but yes.

it is seldom suspected beyond the second sex. >> what year was that? >> something like that? >> that was a political model. >> and with that distinction

but what do you think? >> if you must insist on that, it is a new word. so i have no problem. >> but that condition is a problem teefour

. . >> the idea that there is political equation and accessory is a real --

>> suppose it would be very interesting if young french men would accept to be called mademoiselle -- >> no -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> okay. one more question. who hasn't spoken? okay, yeah. it always happens, people are very quiet in the beginning, and then towards the end -- >> so my question is related to -- [speaking french] and the relationship between men and women. you said equality is, we should try to achieve equality, so my question is do you think we should always -- [inaudible] do you, yeah, do you think, like, we should try to be equal all the time? what is your personal -- [inaudible] >> good question. >> [inaudible] >> i will say this, and you

shouldn't split the check. [laughter] but i think about just in terms of the question of violence that we were talking about before, there was a shooting in a colorado movie theater a few years ago, and the showing of "batman," mass shooting. it was one of these towns where a lot of men are unemployed, the women are the head of household, kind of working class colorado town. twelve people were killed. but in that shooting, it was pretty notable that many -- something like four, i'm going to get this wrong, but manager like four of the people were -- something like four of the people killed were men covering their wives or girlfriends with their bodies. and it was kind of like a batman movie, and there were these men that were doing this ultimate chivalrous or gallant thing by protecting their girlfriends or wives. and it was a kind of interesting moment in terms of our, all of these questions, you know? there's batman, there's the guy with the gun, all these qualities about men that we think are deplorable and yet, you know, they were doing this

thing that is pretty amazing. so i think that that moment itself speaks a hot to me in answer to -- a lot to me in answer to that question and the really complicated moment we're in in terms of these roles. >> traditions and -- you can't abolish, you don't want to abolish it. i think what we've been saying all along is all of these things, some precious, some rep rep -- reprehensible are up for negotiation as power is equalized. and she wished that the idea of the gentleman was something that would be very helpful for women to also be able to adopt. >> i think it's important to make the difference between gallantry and -- [inaudible] the difference is between sexism and equality. because what is gallantry? gallantry is the behavior of man

in order to say that we are not equal. we have to protect women. so -- [inaudible] if you want not to be circumcised, but to be an equal and real equal partner, we have to speak of -- spend. [speaking french] we have to be polite with all people and not because we are men or women. so i think it's like for mademoiselle, is not so accessory. it's a very important point because equality is not protection. we have to be -- it's uncomfortable for women and for man. it's a real challenge -- [inaudible] we don't have to say just tradition -- [speaking french] no. it's sexism. >> so it's a question of

gallantry is associated with hierarchies, despicable ones in general. can be, you know, part of this utopia and is extended, can be extended and practiced hon roll my. >> maybe the question also is we're asking men to give up power, and maybe some of the things that we have to give up in exchange -- >> thank you. >> -- is having everything. >> yes, exactly. and taking those as marks of our status. >> i think -- okay, one more and then we really, there's going to be a book signing after. yes? you never got to go, did you? >> no. >> last question. >> thank you. i will try to be very quick. so my problem is i still notice that feminism is still held by intellectuals mostly and feminism has not been spread enough within the society. and so how do you think we can

make it more -- [inaudible] and comprehensible for all the society? and like frequent times the feminist debate on one hand -- [inaudible] the debate on feminism as an id and also to link it with this daily fight for gender equalities and make it more, you know, intelligent bl -- intelligible for all class, all people. and my second question would be more like as a european coming from a western society, how do you think we can fight this kind of apathy and this kind of fatigue that maybe the new generation can feel because we already, like many generations, society and we have kind of benefits and assets. so how can we overcome it and still say we need to fight for

more and not just be content with what we have now? >> well, to answer the first question, i think we can vote a woman into president -- into the white house. and that will do something as radical as voting a black man into the white house. [applause] it will show that something, that a woman can be the most powerful person in the world. we don't have a lot of time, so if anybody has a cogent reply -- >> you know, some years ago, in the '70s, a friend of mine who was doing a lot of, you know, legal progressive work, he said to me, you know, i am coming across women all the time who are not yet -- this is the '70s -- who are not calling themselves feminists. but in terms of what they are fighting for, you know, better working conditions, you know, improved even -- equal insurance, whatever, they are doing feminist work. and when we start working together, when these feminist ideas are geared into, joined

to, you know, systemic, hard work on the local and national level, first of all, that forges bonds. and then the words and the understanding follow. i have friends also doing, you know, training of hospital -- well, of health workers to provide abortions. and the process of the training, in fact, helps change minds and hearts. many of the people being trained come to recognize, wait, this is a right. so, you know, down on ground level work will make a big difference. >> and just a personal thing, there's an organization called women for afghan women who are on the front lines of some of the worst oppression and violence in the world, and they risk their lives. so, but there's so much richness here in your questions, in the intensity in the panel, we could

go on all night, but we can't. [laughter] and there are books for sale by my fellow panelists and my sister panelists -- [laughter] and they will be happy to sign them. so thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> congress on break this week, we are featuring booktv in prime time, and coming up tonight it's books on u.s. history. starting at eight eastern, it's a discussion on the book, "these united states: a nation in the making, 1890-present." and that's followed by author john sedgwick on his book, "war of two." coming up at 10 p.m. eastern tonight, william p. jones on the

march on washington. we round out the night with author tom lewis on his book, "washington: a history of our national city." it's booktv in prime time tonight starting at eight eastern here on c-span2. and tonight on c-span, a debate on drone strikes and counterterrorism strategy. recently hosted by the chicago council on global affairs, it features two former defense department officials taking opposite sides of the issue. here's a preview. >> some of you might be asking why are we still talking about drones. isn't isis the only issue on the national security agenda? and i think you're right to ask that. but in my view and the comments i want to make, i'll bring these two topics together because i link our policy of counterterrorism that so came to focus on and used the drone as, in part, responsible for the rise of isis.

isis came up from, according to the cia, nowhere. but, of course, they were around. the cia just didn't watch as it was focused on using drone killings. drones that terrorize the people who are affected not just the targets, but those who have to live under the constant threat of attack. and they are open to the recruitment by groups like isis when they say the people who sent you the drones are our enemies, and we are going to train you to fight them. in fact, the drone has become the single biggest recruiting tool for islamic terrorist organizations since guantanamo was used for that purpose. >> obviously, you know, drone strikes are designed to be proportional. times they do cause collateral damage. sometimes innocent people get killed. and we could, again, look at how welcomed make some of these operation -- look at how we

could make some of these operations much more discriminate. we do go out of our way to make these operations very discriminatory, we try to avoid collateral damage. we make every effort not to hit individuals who are present in moss concludes, in hospitals -- mosques, in hospitals, in places where there's a very high likelihood of collateral damage. of course, we still wind up killing innocent people. but i suggest to you that if we were to use so-called police tactics, as mary ellen suggests, if we were to send u.s. special operations forces to arrest these individuals, we would still have massive collateral damage. we would still wind up killing lots of innocent people because the militants against which we would direct these so-called police tactics would have armed supporters around them. and they would use shelters in the civilian population to force us to cause these civilian casualties. >> and that entire event coming up tonight at eight eastern on

our companion network, c-span. >> american history tv on c-span3 features programs that tell the american story. and this weekend we continue our special series on the 1966 vietnam hearings, 50 years later. we'll hear a special consultant to president johnson, general maxwell taylor's opening statement, followed by committee member questions. >> our purpose is equally clear and easily defined. in his baltimore speech of april 7, 1965, president johnson did so in the following terms: our objective is the independence of south vietnam and its freedom from attack. we want nothing for ourselves, only that the people of south vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their eau own way. their own way. this has been our basic objective since 1954. it has been pursued by three successive administrations and

remains our basic objective today. >> and next saturday secretary of state dean rusk gives his testimony defending johnson's vietnam policies. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. >> the cato institute held a discussion on tuesday on education policy and funding. experts take a look at the obama administration's every student succeeds act and state versus federal control of schools. every student succeeds act, or e esfa, is the administration's program replacing no child left behind. >> good morning -- or good afternoon. i want to welcome everybody to the cato institute today. all of you here in the hayek auditorium who braved the elements this morning with the wind and the sleet and the rain and everything else that we got

today -- i think it was the full spectrum of worth. i want -- of weather. i want to thank everybody joining us online, those watching on c-span and those following on twitter using hashtagging -- feds leave ed. [laughter] my name is neil mccluskey, and i am the director of the center for educational freedom here at the cato institute. before we begin our discussion today, i want to take a moment to remember andrew coulson who is the director of the center for educational freedom for a decade and perhaps the leading voice in the country advocating for a full free market in education. andrew passed away earlier this week after a 15-month battle with cancer. alas, this official cato photograph -- as with really any official photo -- doesn't capture the true nature of andrew who was perhaps the cheeriest person you could ever hope to meet. even as he fought off seemingly

endless, sometimes maddening battles for school choice, for educational freedom. the way andrew announced his cancer diagnosis captured perfectly who he was. he wrote: apparently, it is a tumor. those of you who remember the ads for kindergarten cop probably get that reference. andrew's contributions to educational freedom will be his most lasting legacy, including the must-read book which thrust him to the front of the school choice movement which he wrote after he retired, actually, as a microsoft software engineer. that book was "market education: the untold history." closely connected to this was his leading advocacy for scholarship tax credits as the least coercive and most effective way to expand school choice. but his contributions have not yet ended. for the last few years, andrew had been working on a multipart

documentary series about the presence and promise of educational freedom. which was almost completed as of the time of his death. we hope to see it on television, screens across the country in the coming months. andrew coulson will be painfully missed, but his ideas will continue to spur us on. now to today's topic, federal education policy, another area where andrew did some important work. and here's a spoiler alert. he didn't think federal meddling worked very well, and i am indescribed to agree with him -- inclined to agree with him. now it is my pleasure to introduce our moderator, michael hansen, who will be telling you a bit about the latest developments in federal educational policy and guiding our discussion today. dr. hansen is senior fellow at the brookings institution and the deputy director of the brown center on education policy. a labor economist by training, he has conducted original research on teacher quality,

value-added measurement, teacher evaluation and teacher responses to incentives and accountability using state and longitudinal data systems. he holds a ph.d. in economics from the university of washington. michael? it's all yours. >> thank you, neal. it's a pleasure to be here today. and my condolences to the cato family on andrew's passing. so the new every student succeeds act, or essa, passed both chambers of congress last year with bipartisan support and was quickly enacted by president obama shortly thereafter. this current reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act is generally viewed as ending and turning the page on the predecessor law, no child left behind. no child left behind was widely unpopular with many stakeholders including teachers and educators, parents, state and district education leaders. that's the, excuse me, the surprising and rapid progress of the bill ending no child left

behind was received with much fanfare from many corners. now, it's useful to frame our conversation that will happen here today around the tensions between the two opposing viewpoints that played a central role in both essa's enactment recently and also has been part of the federal education debate since the original enactment of esea over 50 years ago x. that framing, of course, is one of states' rights versus civil rights. states have the authority to provide education and, thus, can design schools according to their populations' interests, values, their priorities, and in most state, of course, these are constitutional authorities that they have. however, on the other end of the spectrum, civil rights groups seek to promote the equal investment in and advancement of disadvantaged student groups

within those states. from this perspective, public education is widely viewed as a vehicle for social mobility and insuring all students have access to high quality education as a necessary condition to promoting a society where all have an equal chance for opportunity and an equal voice in civil society. the bipartisan support of essa would support the argument that the law has found a way to successfully walk the line between two, these two opposing viewpoints. but have we really been successful in achieving this? the questioning this assertion is really part of today's debate. and, of course, many public policy debates in the u.s. can be tracked back to this tension between states' rights versus civil rights. so echoes of this debate are also in questions about access to health care, gun control, welfare policy, drug and illicit

substance policy, many, many others. so education is not alone in trying to grapple with these two conflicting views. and so in light of this, i encourage the audience here and also the speakers here to ask what is it about the nature of public education that makes this conversation different from debates in other policy settings? does the nature of education call for a more customized relationship between states and the federal government that we wouldn't necessarily apply to other elements of policy decision? so this topic is not our main focus of conversation, but it's a latent part of our conversation. the main topic, however, is -- questions the degree to which this new law, essa, has actually changed the federal role in education policy making. we're here to question the gap between the perceived change of the law versus the real change of the law.

it is reported that political opponents very soon after the enactment of the law walked away with different interpretations of what that law is actually doing. and so part of what we are here to do is to help, to help hone in on whether, on who is correct here and whether the federal government has stepped back too far or whether they've stepped back enough. one of the strong supporters of the new law, ironically, was former u.s. secretary of education arne duncan who many viewed this law as a direct repudiation of. and so in that sense given that arnie cup can also has -- duncan also has his support of the law, is it reasonable that those who were opposed to arne duncan's leadership are also correct in their support of the law as well? so given the variety of opinions, it's not -- not

everyone can be simultaneously correct about their assertions about the law. so this brings us to our primary question here today which we'll kick off the conversation with: how big of a change was actually made with this new essa law? and how does this change the relationship in education policy making between the federal government and states and districts who actually have the authority to administer public education for their jurisdictions? now, before i actually turn the time over to my, to the guests, i'm going to offer a few words of logistics. i'm going to introduce the four participants who are sitting in front of you here, and after those introductions, i'm going to allow each of them ten minutes to prepare -- or to present their prepared remarks on a topic. these remarks will run ten minutes. we will try to keep audience q&a to a minimum until after everyone has given these opening remarks, and then we'll open it

up for a moderated discussion and audience q&a thereafter. okay. so it is my pleasure now to introduce you to our four panelists. first, we have david cleary, he's over here on my left. david cleary is the chief of staff to the united states senator lamar alexander and the majority staff director to the health, education, labor and peppings committee, also -- pensions committee. david manages the senator's committee staff and personal office and is the principal adviser on alexander's legislative agenda including education, health care and fiscal issues. prior to joining lamar alexander's team, david worked for the house education and work force committee for chairman john boehner from ohio on disability policy. david started his career at the u.s. department of education working on elementary and secondary education and special education issues for several years. second, to my far right, we have

lindsay m. burke. mrs. burke researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the will skillman fellow in education policy at the heritage foundation. burke devotes her time and research to two critical areas of education policy. first, reducing federal intervention in education and, second, empowering families with education choice. burke's commentary, research and op-eds have appeared in various newspapers and magazines, and she has spoken on education reform issues across the country and internationally and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. she has published evaluations of school choice programs and options for public policy foundations such as the virginia institute for public policy and the freedom foundation -- excuse me, the friedman foundation for educational choice. ms. burke holds a bachelor's degree in politics from hollands university in roanoke, virginia, and a master of teaching degree in foreign ledge education from the university of virginia.

she's also currently studying education policy as a doctoral student at george mason university. third we have gerard robinson, here to my meet left. gerard is a resident fellow at the american enterprise institute, aei, where he works on education policy issues including choice in public and private schools, implementation of k-12 standards, innovation in for-profit educational institutions and the role of community colleges and historically black colleges and universities in adult advancement. before joining aei, robinson served as commissioner of education for the state of florida and secretary of education for the commonwealth of virginia. as president of the black alliance for educational options where he is now chairman of the board, robinson worked to insure that children in low income and working class black families in several states and the district of columbia were given the opportunity to attend good schools. throughout his career he has evaluated the effects of reform

initiatives on parental choice and student achievement, advocated for laws to improve delivery of teaching and learning and published essays on how to make a good policy to give all children a chance at a good job and a good future. a proponent of the importance of education to civil society, robinson has spoken before audiences in the united states, in china and the united kingdom. robinson started his career by teaching fifth grade in a private inner city school, and he is a member of many education-related boards. robinson has a masters of education degree from harvard university, a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy from howard and an associated arts degree from el ca me kno college. and finally, i'd like to introduce neal mccluskey, of course, he was standing before you just a few moments ago, but neal is the director of cato's center for educational freedom and is the author of the book "feds in the classroom: how big government corrupts, cripples and compromises american

education." mccluskey holds an undergraduate degree from georgetown university where he double majored in government and establish, and he -- english, and he holds a masters in political science from rutgers and a ph.d. in public policy from george mason university. it is now my pleasure to, first, hand the microphone over to david cleary, but before we begin, i would remind all of these speakers to, please, turn off your cell phones. david, i'm going to hand the mic over to you, and then we will go in succession in the order in which we were introduced, david, lindsey, gerard and then neal. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon. my name is david cleary, i work for lamar alexander, i was his lead education policy staffer for the past seven years as we've been working to fix no child left behind. the goal that we set out to achieve was to reduce as much as possible the federal role in our nation's k-12 education system.

knowing that we needed 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation, we needed president obama to sign a piece of legislation, and we needed to get on the floor and off the floor was always central in our mind. we think that the every student succeeds act is a significant step in the right direction. it is not the panacea to all ills that the federal government has created over the past 35, 40 years in k-12 education, but it is certainly better than no child left behind, better than the waivers. when we started out in this congress, we looked at the environment. we were seven years overdue of the reauthorization, we had 42 states with waivers where arne duncan was, in essence, the nation's chief superintendent or the chairman of the national school board. and that was, you know, the wrong direction. that was certainly not a good

thing. and we looked at what was in the waivers, and we looked at what was going on, and we were really concerned. the race to the top and through the waivers, you had, in essence, a common core mandate. they were very clever in crafting it. it wasn't an overt, actual mandate that would have violated the department of education organization act or the no child left behind act or the general education provisions act which all have very robust prohibitions on an actual mandate, but they found clever lawyerly ways to, in essence, force every state to adopt common core, or almost every state to adopt common core. that was very difficult for us to deal with. it was very offensive to kind of the notion of states' rights and letting states figure this out. so we set out to try and overturn that. we didn't like in the waivers the teacher evaluation mandate, the requirement that states adopt teacher evaluation that linked teacher performance to student performance through tests. it was a very republican idea.

it started in the teacher incentive fund, it's actually something that lamar created when he was governor in the '80s, was kind of an evaluation of aligning teachers, teacher performance to student performance. but a federal mandate, a federal requirement was absolutely the wrong thing to do. it created a system where states had to put their system together and then come to washington and say mother may i, did i get it right x. that was absolutely the wrong thing to do. again. so we, you know, we looked at that environment, and we tried to figure out, okay, how do we get to 60? how do we get obama to sign a piece of legislation? how do we get the house to pass a piece of legislation? and that kind of guided our principles. and what we think that we did was we had pretty significant success. we turned off the hidden mandate on the common core, we turned off the teacher evaluation mandate, we significantly -- for the first time in kind of education legislation and probably lots of other

legislation -- turned off the secretary's ability to regulate and mandate and dictate and turned it in a different direction. all of the prohibitions and the restrictions on the secretary's authority are virtually unprecedented in federal legislation, and it was what almost brought the bill down each up to the very last minute -- even up to the very last minute in the conference where we had the white house and some democrats really concerned about the nature of the prohibitions we were putting on the secretary. so it was a significant reversal of course. and did it go far enough? i think that's debatable. there's certainly an appetite for more local control, more tate control. i would point out that when we were on the floor, senator alexander's amendment to turn all 89 federal education programs into a voucher block grant was defeated 42-53 or 54. so the political appetite for a voucher, for a complete block grant wasn't there.

so in the political reality, we tried to do as much as we possibly could to turn the tide, and we think that we've accomplished that. we've -- you know, "the wall street journal" said it's the biggest retrenchment reversal of federal control in 25 years in education policy, and that's a good step, a good beginning. and now the question is up to the states and to the local school districts about how to implement the law, what do they do? we have to keep a very careful eye on the u.s. department of education and what it is they're going to do with regulations and negotiated rulemaking. the secretary does have the right to regulate, but what he can regulate on is very constrained. and so it's now up to states to push back. if states don't want to have common core state standards, totally up to them. it hasn't been the case, and now it's up to them. if they want to have a teacher evaluation system, that's up to them. and they can choose to implement it or not. and as we look at what the department does, states have much more freedom and flexibility to say no and to push back on the secretary.

waivers are no longer the condition. no child left behind is gone. so states now have the secretary over the barrel as opposed to the secretary having them over the barrel. there's no more highly qualified teacher, no more annually measurable objectives. the whole apparatus in the waivers is ended. and so now states can develop their own accountability systems, now states can develop their own measurements for trying to figure out whether schools are succeeding or failing, which schools you identify. we do have some guardrails or parameters, whatever word you want to use, that were insisted on in order to get to 60 and to get a presidential signature. states do have to identify the lowest performing bottom 5% of schools, and that is a concession that was made, but it's a tolerable concession to to states, as much as we say you have to identify 5%, states have to figure out how to do it. so there's no micromanaging from washington, there's no ability for the secretary to say, no, you didn't identify the right

schools, you didn't do it the right way or i want you to do it this way. so we think we've hit a pretty good balance there. and we've gotten rid of the, you know, the bush and obama kind of turn-around strategies where washington was telling states this is exactly how it is that you have to fix your schools. shut them down, fire half the teachers, fire the principal, turn it into a charter, turn it into a magnet, those types of things. all of that's gone. we've taken away that federal requirement. we turn it back to the states. now governors and state legislators have to grapple with this, figure out what it is they're going to do, how do we turn schools around, you know? so a lot of these decisions are now back in the hands of the states, and i think that's a really good thing. the, i'm used to responding and not filibustering, so i'll close early. [laughter] and i'm hoping that we don't get into a, into an insult round like the presidential debates, but if we are, i'm ready.

but the most -- one of the other important things i think i'd point out is that this is a four-year law. we've got, you know, we listened to folks who were concerned about setting the stage for the next, you know, the next administration, whoever that is. and so we accepted that, and that was an important thing that we made, and we got people to concede to it. so it's a four-year law. so in, you know, three and a half years, a new president, a new administration can put its recommendations forward and, hopefully, we have a republican president and a stronger republican majority in both chambers, and maybe we can make a bigger difference. but i think it's an important step in the right direction. i think it's a very significant step in the right direction to turn the tide, so to speak. and with that, i'll close. >> i will now have lindsey speak to us, and let's invite each of the speakers to present their prepared remarks from the podium -- >> sorry. >> not a problem. i didn't mention that ahead of

time. and then during the q&a, i'll moderate from the podium while the panelists -- >> can we insult david for not be using the podium? [laughter] >> and it starts. [laughter] >> great. well, thanks for having me here today. thanks to neal for the invitation, and i second michael's remarks, condolences to the cato family about andrew. but it's great to be here. so we're here to think through how big of a change is it from what was 600 pages of no child left behind to the new 1,059 pages of essa. this is really the biggest part of the debate, right? do we call it essa or essa? michael skirted that by saying e-s-s-a. but how much of a change is it, really, from the 60 to 0 pages of nclb, the thousands of pages of registration regulations that accompanied it to the 1,059 pages of -- i'm going with essa -- and the thousands of pages of regulations that are

certain to accompany it as the rulemaking process moves forward. so let me just start by noting, and i think neal's going to touch on this a little bit more, but one thing that we often hear is that essa eliminated the adequate yearly progress requirement, and it did. and that was a great step in the right direction. adequate yearly progress was not working the way it was intended and, in fact, had -- i would argue -- some unintended consequences. however, if you are a parent sitting around your kitchen table at night worrying about mandated standardized tests, i don't think that the change really makes that much of a difference to you. there was a report that came out a few months ago from the council to have the great city schools that said if you are a child living in a large school district, you take on average 112 mandated standardized tests. now, some of those are a result of the elementary and secondary education act, specifically no child left behind mandates. nclb said every child, every

year in grades 3-8 has to take an assessment in math and reading and then again in high school as well. but what we saw with states promulgating formative assessments along the way to assess whether students were prepared for the federally-mandated standardized assessments. the fact that essa retains the requirement for annual testing, i think in practice will make very little difference for the kids who currently feel they're taking an outsized number of mandate canned standardized tests -- mandated standardized tests. so i don't think at the end of the day it's going to make much of a difference, especially considering the fact that part of the accountability plans that states now have to submit to the department are based in part and only in part, but in part on how students do on these standardized assessments. but what i really want to talk about today is why would the obama administration and teachers' unions call essa an

early christmas present? why does the left in particular think that this was a pretty good deal for them and should conservatives find victories in essa? i want to think about this through the lens of programs that are currently retained in essa and what it looked like under no child left behind. and no child left behind was a labyrinth of federal programs, there's no two ways about it. so i wanted this to be overwhelming for you, but this is the labyrinth of programs under no child left behind. it's overwhelming, right? we had, i think david said 89, roughly 80 programs under nclb depending on how you count them, whether you count subsets of programs or not. so keep this in your mind. this is no child left behind. a big part of what proponents of essa pointed out or argued was that there was significant program elimination. well, you often hear them say program elimination and consolidation, and i would argue that it's probably right, they

erred on the side of consolidation because as you're about to see, the elimination was pretty limited. so these are all the programs under nclb. many of these programs had not been funded for years and years. they were sort of phantom programs that were part of nclb. so what if we think just about the programs that were funded? so 37 of these roughly 80 programs had been unfunded at least since 2013 or before then. so no funding had been appropriated before then, so these are the phantom programs that make up no child left behind. already if we're thinking about the baseline for program elimination, we've significantly cut it down to about 40 programs by my estimate. so really this is what we're working with, right? you have the programs on the left that were funded under no child left behind and the programs on the right that hadn't seen a penny since 2013 or earlier, so our phantom programs. so what if we just think about

the programs on the left. if this is really our baseline for program consolidation, the programs that had been funded, here's what we're really working with. and it's still unwieldy. there are a lot of programs in that baseline. so how many of the programs that were actually funded programs got cut, and by "cut," i mean their funding was actually cut as well under essa? a couple. there's a handful of programs, i count four, that actually had funding that were cut under the rewrite of nclb. so pretty limited. so now here's our map, right? programs that were funded, unfunded and programs that actually got cut out of essa. just to recap where we are. so what about the programs that remain? remember that initial image of the programs that were funded, right? of the programs that were funded under essa -- under nclb and

remained under essa -- more than half of them saw spending increase under essa,. that's pretty significant, i think, when we think about the proponents' position that essa actually cut programs. and so what does this mean on balance? on balance it means that more than half the programs that remain got additional funding under essa that only four or five programs were actually eliminated with their attendant spending and that we still have a terrible labyrinth of a bill. of course, 1,051 pages being a big part of that. and it also means overall in the aggregate we did not see spending reduced whatsoever, right? so this is -- has been billed as, well, this is a conservative rewrite of no child left behind. it's a little bit hard to swallow. no child left behind, when you look at all of those programs, spent about $23 billion annually, i think it was 23.2 in

the last fiscal year. essa, of course, funding hasn't been appropriated yet but is authorized at about $24.9 billion. so if it meets authorization levels, it will exceed the amount that's been appropriated under nclb for all of these programs. ..

>> >> we had an opportunity to debate in atlanta asat years ago. lettuce is a good smart guy and the idea is will live forever. within role of education is a a new idea coming into fruition with a child left behind or in their both past by texans the president george w. bush by the second. is happening when hundred 49

years ago. but the goal is there is of federal presence education as you know, it today was very different. in an was minimized because people love this state said read what the federal government with the curriculum more funding for other matters. fast or 2016 we have the same conversation today. matter how we look at the alphabet soup either way we have to figure out two things should that be expensive for small? and its units to serve as secretary of education to

recommend to the commonwealth we don't except common core. but the virginia standards in place to move forward as commissioner in florida and it made sense for other states to have common core. and while they had that process in someone once said they are giving away waivers like at&t. nevada is the jawbreaker. to get a number of stakeholders at the table and those who represented students and parents and the

school systems to figure out how we write a report to submit to the federal government to allow us to manage our school system of. it would have made my life just easier. if it gave me an opportunity but the schoolteachers are the ones to provide the services. i dennis said the federal government to step away and second to provide an opportunity for the school board so here is how you can be a great partner instead

of the junior partner. but i don't see the federal government has totally removed them from the education. looking through 1965 elementary education in secondary activity was approved when clinton was in office with new child left behind or the current law there is a number of changes in programs that remained the there is one paragraph that remains in their livers states that has been in every single lot. but while funding continues to rise and also continues to remain in place.

when i talk to parents i say what you like? they say from what i hear it will give me more opportunity. problem not what i would have liked a would love to receive more portability but i get it. when i talk to superintendents they say give me more control at the local level. but what i see as a silver lining in this is the role guenons day education and entities will play well the federal government cannot do everything i can tell you that state education cannot do everything by itself without some support from federal government is a reason we created the program to have a body to obtained information to serve as a clearinghouse but

also the there are human in freddie initial capital challenges that make it tough. so from an entreprenuers standpoint with a non-profit or for-profit community based organizations here is one part of the law to allow you to do this here is an opportunity to do more work no law from 1865 through the present discouraged communications organizations they have coming to us to streamline the process. i remain optimistic i still think fairchild left behind had some great things and one in particular was the opportunity not only not to

leave any child behind but we did not hide every child. state school systems for decades could hide through the manipulation of data for those who were low income or came from homes that there were racial and ethnic groups and those with special needs and students who spoke a language other than english. to say let's see the good the bad and the ugly so we can find a way to address that. may have got rid of progress there remember states and local school systems have the opportunity and authority to create an annual test some superintendents would say if

not for this day he would have to take the test. it is true but when i looked at then database guess with the additional were tested at? so realizes there already federally be updated so i am optimistic and understand there will be a federal footprint to be as deep as it was before and i look forward to a dialogue. thank you. >> first i want to talk briefly of the idea of an insult period maybe that should be i will not

instigate but i do have some bad things to say about essa maybe that is the insult period so even if essa did we could have a great debate about that even if a reduces federal influence to the extent that others say it will it leaves washington into involved it education the presentation makes that clear there are countless programs undergo a child left behind that exist. in the few of those have any meaningful track record of success. edward every talk about federal education policy it is unconstitutional a gives washington authority over education you can scour every word he will not find in that city where it there.

while there is some evidence now a child left behind may have had standardized test scores if you look at the scorer's and 17 year olds the overall tale of the american education for the last 45 years has been heavily involved in a show washington has those scores that our discernible they have been almost flat since the '70s despite real federal spending rising from $696 per pupil of the $1,148 so it almost doubles but essentially flat. of course, not just the federal spending that has

ballooned that tends to go with federal money and that has culminated three reform state standards in the punishments for schools with an adequate it yearly progress if you know, the movie spinal tap a lot of movie references. but it was with race to the top as well as new child left behind. resigned those waivers of the was the executive period judge beginning to exert control and ultimately led to the widespread adoption so when essa came about we're very close to have washington dictate how would

be structured and held accountable. id what they would actually teach what common core was about. than what we saw was the opposition to these dictates and a growing dissatisfaction with the system for the left in the of right with a waiver requirements based on standardized test scores and conservative opposition to common core. is it is a result of this dissatisfaction to strip washington from those gathered over the last couple of decades. and others since it -- said it contained your proposals inadequate progress and the

secretary shall not attempt to influence of the state adoption with those academic standards. with those assessments tied and then not to have that authority to mandate. and those that were adopted or implemented it perhaps -- for his rules or regulations for those metrics or other specific measures. sending most of the federal control to be complete. right? the problem is it is inherently contradictory components in their for open

to a broader interpretation that basic contradiction would return to the district and that includes demand of the use of federal funds and inherently that implies even if the loss suggested does not have that authority and some groups are saying as the process and years. had with that budget they write the following tool embrace many reforms included requiring states and to richard day are held accountable for the success of all students. meanwhile a state group with a national presence have

passed of other groups they want the fed to make the state's median challenging high quality of the statewide assessment -- assessment with the accountability of performance systems to help identify and approve schools use the district's. to me that doesn't sound like the situation to have no authority to read day for exercise for supervision of state standards. at the very least essa seems contradictory year and ambiguous or at least he enough to have heavily prescriptive reading of though all leaving it and to

decide what constitutes challenging the requirements and academic assessments and also lets washington decide those indicators of success in which schools will be judged did in numerous cases they should be called the evidence based when it appears they will define what is there is not sufficiently evidence based. but they ultimately must approve all state plans don't they remove that? to say you must use common core but there is a danger

here to veto the plan that they don't like to say essentially i cannot tell you what to include but i can tell you this is not challenging enough. komer here is the evidentiary base. and with the state education in to the challenging end indeed as david talked about no one with the race to the top regulation do they actually say states have to use the common corestates standards? but it did make adopting standards and test with the

majority of states that everyone knew is a definition matched only by common core. and that is specifically designed for common core. and then giving the secretary to attach but it doesn't allow them to attach conditions to those waivers to allow the executive to read right will lot. but what happened? is said it's not that we can do this this is the greatest illustration that many of those legislators to keep the federal power but especially over the last eight years with the

ambiguity or contradiction in this is exploitation than this law has some very and ambiguities in in contradictions that are being targeted for exploitation. >> so many of those presenters and i will kick off the questioning of those themes. so first off with a standardized testing i will first direct list to lindsay

but she is not the only person to bring this up. every standardized tests the lead you doris the oftel provisions it has that sufficiently reined in and beyond what is no time left behind? >> note to the first and partly go to the second. because michigan at least gotten to a point where we we're doing better of foochow left behind. remember that was the first time the federal government never dictated to the states the frequency with which to test students to say every kid every year that did not exist prior. so a better approach to

restore state and local control would be to eliminate any a dual testing to date with federal law. with that of dow provision is tricky because in the way the law recognize there are federal test and state test. many are thinking and a federal level with that of dow provision you run the risk to be a date to the states they have to allow all the parents to opt out of the state test tonight is not a direction anyone wants to go. to determine if that is good policy for the federal provision enough to allow parents to opt out would have been overly prescriptive. the date they should have the eliminated it completely but after that leave that up to the states.

is that what they say in "casablanca"? [laughter] then we will always have always required under federal law and it is a good test representative sample of kids to see how kids in in taxes to relative to those in your kid is smart policy ended done in a way to drive local pool curriculum, but that is good policy for those who are being countersue want to know how they're doing. that is a very different accountability measure. then you talk to your teacher to see how they do with the school assessment or the quiz so to keep those

provisions to state to use measures to provide accountability for folks like us and in a way that works for them. >> can you also had some comments as well on standardized testing? >> as a school choice i am complected a chasm of parents to have that choice to avoid taking test. there is now ready to evaluate -- to direct how well students are doing and a majority of the state's education is the number one line item. and would be great to know how students are doing but at the state level we should

assess students in give them the opportunity to opt out sand under to will question the free will get any data to assess allaire doing where have teachers do it and to hold schools accountable. if you fail or not we give you a raise for the most part. >> typing school choice if they have the ability to choose how they want to educate the base to what they think is most important. in tsa should the district tell you the federal government?

and it is important to note and to take national test and that is what is important that parents could have information about their own child to act on that. so getting information to back down that. and what has been very fortunate because they're easy to point to to say the test scores are up or down and most importantly what people value of education that you cannot reflect.

ultimately what is important to have real freedom for what is most important to save the test will tell us. >> this is one of the most difficult things in the first hearing in the senate should we keep that door eliminated? i don't have a lot to do disagree with but the politics were very clear very quickly. coalition then said if you get rid of that testing requirement this civil-rights community and school choice advocates to be in favor of the george