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

bush law that you have to keep it and within those circles and may be the annual tests is important if provide some decent information and we decided it wasn't necessarily the federal mandate one reading test door one math test with us grades' billion 17 test for those $24 billion. it was said accountability system that screwed it up. i call it the death penalty moment if he didn't beat them on the test that they

had to do school choice and the waiver only exacerbated that. but then the schools were doing 112 test per year. because everybody was so terrified of that one size fits all and end to a child left behind that that i cannot wait until the end of the year test in the monthly testing of the daily test end of the test right now. with an explosion of really bad test ever used for all the wrong purposes. and then to come in with that teacher evaluation the date you cannot say that is not fair that is not equitable so then test every

subject's about everybody created one. with all those purposes so we fixed it to have accountability at the state level. looking at it from a third grader it is important to find out how the kid is doing it she is feeling a dishy show up every day or participate or do book reports? those are much more robust for most parents. to cn did condition of all of this testing.

i am a broken record that the states have to figure this out. on the opt out we did not do enough you have that reality because some states like tennessee requires the use as the federal test as part of the accountability system. that is inappropriate but could we have done more if they have that system should more students opt out? absolutely but the politics or not there to get it passed in the senate. >> want to push on the difference from the statements from earlier.

to make the note that it is 117? 112. and has pointed out many are local and state been dated. not federally. so it is it a response even though not a federal pressure to evaluate teachers. >> would you like to comment ? is said a fair characterization? were then states played too much on the federal government? >> it depends on where usage per at the local level school board meeting and somebody says it is to be

tested is easy 2.0 that now we have changed it. so now it is too early to tell how that will play out. 11 those standardized test with the spelling quiz at the end of the week a test? if it is federally or state required to beecher they are learning what it is they are learning but it is a moment where they could eliminate the 112 if they want but now it is up to every governor in legislature is this what we would?

>> you'll hear the parents opting out of the s.a.t. or act for national merit scholars. it is just interests -- interesting when we choose. >> with this data federally mandated test not to contradict the to see them pointing upward with the accountability system and i guarantee with those standardized test. >> data is with the ambiguities that it appears to leave it to the department of education and how much that they used to

new use test scores so much more has to be academic assessments and that leaves a lot of room maybe not the way that we want to opt out of the s.a.t. or act now we see colleges opting out that this sort of the illustration i would never say it is the free market but it is more than k through 12 so you see some students say and don't think that is a good measure of who i am saddam to tailor

our the education they're giving based on their needs. >> we will open in the floor to audience q&a as a general note please wait to be called on and wait for the microphone so we can hear the question and please make sure you ask a question. stated recently retired from a public charter school organization. i am interested in those pragmatic effects thinking of the case of mississippi

to see it as an objective measure of school performance the forego a child left behind it was designed to bring state performance up not as a race to the top but as a race to the bottom in that way they did not have the punishment of the promise lettie the glove at the with the revised structure of that lot to change the behavior as measured or is it business as usual for them?

for what the states continue is that none of our business? >> 84 the question. >> i did see for the most british is business as usual how they respond to the mandates but you are right illustrated those in unintended consequences with that paradigm but i am optimistic that everything that is not happening at the federal level mississippi was one of five states to enact the federal savings accounts and that will do far more to revolutionize mississippi is anything we have seen from the federal level. far more to reduce accountability did anything

that the federal level for the parents learning options live in incredibly optimistic they have a small pilot program they're trying to expand otherwise it'll be business as usual how they interact at the federal level. >> it isn't that is none of our business but much of our business with that primary funding is k through 12 education. but that is like the mafia he had the junior partner telling them what to do and

that is what we were trying to change since i don't really know who the governor is to elected good legislature or school board and take responsibility for that under our child left behind you have federal consequences for low test scores of course, they tried to get out of that. like the third grader resource tradeoff figure how not to be blamed for something she is a good kid doesn't want that consequence she tries to be paid for avoid that they tried in and said washington made me do this but now we will not be punished so now without washington having that ability we think now

they own this if you have a legislature that say oh my gosh we have to do this we could do more but they will owe that accountability system and they're standards so if you create that a civic community and that is the only way to change it more of washington will not do a better job so maybe we turned back to the states to say it is no new. for the first time since the '80s it is not you. you cannot say george bush or barack obama or bernie sanders i can do a little

humor? [laughter] but now we have to own that. >> i would say the pressure for lower standards i know of that was the race to the bottom and to list that pressure you have all the schools get bad grades it is good of that progress with the lowest 5% to have some changes made.

to redo's the pressure on school soon districts it is important to note those states with low test scores it is important to realize with different states and in different districts of different populations of kids. some have bigger challenges than others. to save this be bad because they are proficient but we also had to except some schools have students setter much further behind. and if you have a tendency to say something to have a much more nuanced assessment

is that is how you get away from the dictates of the federal government. and to try different things and not be pinned down by the rules. >> given to push because the absence of hardball they're doing little to nothing. in to get tougher to lower the standards. there rather it is based upon they don't go that

model but that changes one dynamic. with such size soon presents they're testifying yen organizing. and then with loring's tutors. >> rand to mention to have the mother may i relationship in the state needed the permission and to do everything to say this is more or less removed to be mitigated. . .

absolutely not. if lamarr alexander have been able to write the bill that he wanted to write, get 60 votes and get the president decided with the lalit different? absolutely. you have to make concessions. and senate democrats, senate republicans, we did not get a majority vote. that means we lost a bunch of republicans. there is always in the nitty-gritty of actually passing a bill concessions.

it leads to less than optimal policy sometimes. but the more we did we significantly curtailed the ability of the secretary to regulated areas and significantly change the peer review process which both administrations use to dotoday great power and advantage. i worked at the bush administration. i don't necessarily want to take credit for, but i helped in the implementation of it in some ways. so i saw firsthand what the bush administration did. from. from a congressional perspective i saw what the obama administration did. we took that experience and restricted the secretary's ability to micromanage. we prevented the secretary from dictating arrange for a specific number of how much

the tests count. we leave it to states to say of tests are really important. we love no child left behind. 100 percent testing is all we care about. fine. it should be fine with the department of education. the negotiating has previously been done on the state plan behind closed doors with staff a lot younger than me dictating what it is they are supposed to do. we turn that around and made it more transparent. we are giving governors the ability to say -- sometimes i forget i am in front of the camera. this is not good, so we are not going to do that. you're absolutely wrong. and without the hammer they have a lot more flexibility the whims of the secretary.

so this is what he proposed president reagan. stakes take over all of k-12. you know, he still thinks that would be the ideal policy. the federal government get out of education. but to make a significant change? i think yes. >> it is important to say that i completely understand the difficulty. sometimes don't have to compromise. so until we recognize the difficulty.

enough play you can see maybe the intent be subverted to having the secretary again exercise control. when it comes to the peer review this is a question i have asked. as the secretary required to do what peer-reviewed says it should or follow the recommendation? and what they told me was, well, no. i could be wrong about that, but that is what i was told. peer-reviewed is good. it does not sound like it is legally binding at him. but i think most important is being clear eyed. since 1965 that have been divisions of every federal education law that essentially said they can

dictate program of instruction. it is not ever said, you must use common core. dictated curriculum. but in fact i think somebody said, it might have been army duncan, education department lawyers are smarter than congressional lawyers. we will find a way to do what we want to do. don't quote me on that. >> i am channeling insults. >> that was extraordinarily uncalled for. i mean,, we worked carefully with the department in the white house. congressional democrats and republicans to reach a consensus on what a language was indebted. but the -- you know, on the

common core standards, what used to take one now takes 11. wewe have to basically open up this -- open up the source. try to prevent as few unintended consequences possible. that is one of the things congressional staff, what is it that this administration wanted to do? will figure out different ways to block it. in a way that the democrats can live with. and that was our goal. is there absolutely possible room for unintended consequences? sure. that is what me up and our staff up. every night trying to figure out how we do this in a way that does what we want. we will be vigilant and oversight.

hearings and meetings and conversations of letters, as much oversight as we possibly can to make sure they minister will always written. there is absolutely room for error. we have really good staff to try to do a really good job. we are not flawless. and so that is an oversight. and then also we created an opportunity for states to push back a lot harder than they felt that they could over the past decade. where states can say hold on , this is not what the law says. you know, nuts to you, secretary of education. but you are absolutely right. that's what we have to be vigilant for. >> jumping quickly.

i go back to the labyrinth of programs. most of the vast majority are small niche competitive grant programs. states have to apply for each and everyone, monitor federal register notices, report back to the department. though still exist in a major way. there are ways beyond just the accountability systems in which the federal government keeps and state policymaking in the labyrinth of competitive grant program that remain is a big part of that. >> we have time for one more question from the audience. if we have any others quickly. and we will do a lightning response. limit responses to one minute. >> thank you. i am from george mason university. the question i have is kind

of related between time and culture. you mentioned in your prepared remarks about opportunities for entrepreneurs to come forward. he just mentioned again you see grassroots sport. there is a lot of culture that has to change so that the local school boards and districts are open to that. and now i look at the time for it. in four years there is going to be working on the committee to reauthorize this. the authorized on time and maybe not. but in the interim a lot of fits and starts. how do you think that will influence making all of these changes in dealing with that. >> great question.

one minute for two respondents. it looks like your up. >> that is a good question. tough to answer. it depends on the states appetite for flexibility, freedom, innovation. some states will keep the status quo and keep there waiver. other states will be chomping at the bit to be innovative. we are hoping to challenge governors and challenge officers and legislatures to really take the opportunity to change, get away from the system. but it is kind of an ultimate choice at the state level. >> and you had a comment on this in your prepared remarks. >> this will change the ability for educators, teachers, principals and superintendents to communicate much quicker than we could.

that will shrink the time. they define culture is the transition of ideas and beliefs from one generation to the next. people believe the school matters today and that we should make it happen. the culture is on our side. >> thank you. let's go to some final remarks from each of our participants. i will give you 20 seconds each. thirty seconds. >> the accountability systems that are in place, 51 percent roughly how states to find accountability will be a big part of the reason why states continuous system of vertical accountability to washington instead of a horizontal accountability to parents and taxpayers i can only be fostered through state and local level school choice options. talks about entrepreneurship. we go back.

$2 trillion spent at the federal level. if the federal government or any private industry and spent $2 trillion and had flat output tripling the overhead they would have called that a massive failure. in large part mainly due to the programs and testing requirements that remain we are not going to see any change moving forward. >> thank you. >> the fear and ambiguity we see in law and it is incumbent on lots of people to watch carefully the regulation process for average people. which is ultimately going to what lindsay said. certainly at the federal level, but the state or local level, it is hard for the average person to do that is why ultimately the solution is school choice. bank educators respond to the needs and demands of the

people they are supposed to serve. don't make those people be subject to an incredibly costly and difficult legislation and regulation process. obviously we are not there right now which means people need to be vigilant about how the regulations are actually written to put this law into effect. >> thank you. >> i remain optimistic that this law will help expand the idea that education matters. certain aspects of no child left behind may keeps in place the idea that stakeholders of the table they do make this work. i'm glad to see a smaller federal footprint. >> thank you. david, final word. >> i would quote william wallace. it is all for nothing if you don't have freedom. we have given states freedom and flexibility. it is up to them to decide

what to do enough just to make sure the department implements law the way it was written. but just to close, the one thing i would say is sometimes we worry a little too much about the 20 or 30 percent that we didn't get. i am frankly a reaganesque warrior. tomorrow is going to be a better day. the day after that will be better than that. we have to celebrate the things were able to achieve. we don'twe don't have 60 votes in the senate, a significant victory and change. is it enough, no. is it a move in the right direction? absolutely. >> as a final note there will be lunch served on the 2nd floor or in the 2nd level in the conference center of the spiral staircase. restrooms are on the way to

the 2nd floor. please join me in thanking our panelists, and i think you as the audience for your attention of participation today. iq. [applause] >> join c-span tomorrow at 9:15 a.m. eastern for the ceremony in the great hall of the supreme court in honor of justice antonin scalia. president obama, michelle obama, supreme court justices and members of congress are expected to be among those attending. following the ceremony the body of justice scalia will lie in repose in the great hall will be open to the public. watch on c-span and c-span.org. >> coming up on book tv in prime time historians