if they went -- ahated going to the park with my daughter. if hated slides. i hated pushing the damn swing back and forth. and my children want to go to the park, i'm there. and i am pushing the swing and it's great: ...

hosting today's program she researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the fellow in our education policy here at the heritage foundation. she focuses on reducing federal intervention education and income earning families with school choice. with that, i will hand it over to lindsay. >> thank you, andrew and everyone for being here today and watching online as well. we are excited to welcome vicki. she writes the federal miseducation of america's children and she argues that it is time to end, not mend,

federal intervention in education. as she explains in her book the federal government left education alone for about a hundred years, recognizing that it was the purview of state and localities. but gradually, federal free strained gave away and by 1979, weasel the first cabinet level agency for education established with the verse of the u.s. department of education and today, that agency holds 5,000 employees, manages over 150 federal education programs and has a discretionary budget of about $70 billion. and i might add it is the tip of the iceberg, because we see this relationship with state education agencies as well who have to be responsible to the federal mandates and as a result

have also increased staffing over the decades as well. what have we gotten from this federal largess? it's not improved educational outcomes, it's red tape, bureaucracy and wasteful spending. the u.s. has increasingly centralized policy to increase spending and program and through efforts such as common core. it's interesting to note other high-performing countries have gone in the opposite direction decentralizing education decision-making authority and empowering families in fostering competition. can we embrace the decentralization and competition in education? those questions are more in her discussion that we do have a

major opportunity to advance education choice through innovative options like savings accounts to restore private lending in the higher education market as a major step to also reducing federal intervention and in general just lamenting the federal meddling in what is a quintessential state and local issue. doctor alger is at the independent institute and senior fellow and director of the women for school choice project of the independent women's forum. prior to that, associate director of education studies at the pacific research institute and a policy initiative. she received her phd in political philosophy from the institute for philosophical studies at the university of dallas. please join me in welcoming doctor vicki alger. [applause]

>> good afternoon. i would like to thank lindsey and andrew for putting this wonderful event together. it's a thrill to be here at the foundation. thank you all for coming to talk about this important topic that actually touches every one of our lives. and thank you for opening the discussion on my new book about the federal department of education, "failure." as i was traveling, i recalled the words of a member of congress from illinois who was a former teacher and lawyer about his vision for the department of education. it would be a pure fountain from which the stream can be poured upon all the state. we need a controlling hand by which the systems in a different state can be harmonized and

which there can be unanimity. i take the high ground it that every child is entitled to an education at the hands of somebody and that this ought not be to the individuals are the states so far as we have any authority to regulate. it's probably not who you think. the argument was made by representative samuel of illinois 150 years ago. one year before the u.s. department of education was originally created back in apr april 67. as the title of my book suggests, i have a different view of the dc stream pouring on states like my home state of arizona which was hailed as one of the national leaders in school choice. i see that we have some in the

audience. go arizona. i was inspired to write the book as were approaching the history of the u.s. department of education, and i wondered are we better off because of the? frankly i don't think we are. based on the increasing calls for the department's presidential election cycle, i think it's fair to say a lot of us think it is time to pull the plug on the department of education. but what does that mean if the department's history teaches us anything if the government bureaucracies are not like fine wine, they don't get better with age. history also teaches us that bureaucracies are resilient. the department of education was downgraded and reshuffled from one federal agency for another throughout much of the 19th and 20th century. rather than abolishing it, we decided to keep it around and try to use it for an excellence

agenda. the result today, common core. this is and what we were promised in 1979. the department of education was supposed to be essentially three things. one, improve student achievement. two, supplement, not supplant state and local government and improve the management and efficiency of the federal education programs. so how do those promises turn out let's turn to number one. one. achievement acrosthe achievemens and grade level on the report card as well as the various international tests have been essentially flat during the period preceding the department of education and up till today. as far as i can tell from the track record, we are spending above average amounts for the average student achievement and

up to one third more than top performing countries in the world. the u.s. department of education was also supposed to supplement not supplant state and local government. our founding fathers never intended for the federal government to be a quote on quote partner with the state of education. in this partnership it's been a bad deal for students, schools and taxpayers. during the no child left behind either of he from the 2002 to 2, the department of education increased by an estimated 65% and was larger than the burden imposed by the department of defense, energy and justice to name a few. the burden is so great most

employees state education departments are hired to deal with education programs. today in the common core, spending is estimated to be $80 billion according to the former u.s. department of education official. that is nearly 20 times the entire year 4.4 billion race to the top program that was supposed to incentivize state reforms. and what about number three. after a full 30 years of operation, the gao found that the education department is one of the dozen or so agencies are pervading nearly 300 federal, social, education and training programs. the uniform definition of education program even exists at the federal level.

the gao also found in the department of education alone, eight different offices administer over 60 federal teacher quality programs. how are the programs like these performing according to the omb 6% of the u.s. department of education programs are deemed to be effective. but how can that be? from 1980 through 2010, the department of education program spending increased by more than $57 billion. $57 million. outpacing the student enrollment by more than 5-1. after more than three decades in the department of education, the educational performance of american students has not improved in spite of massive spending increases funneled through the department. the department hasn't achieved the department of administrative efficiencies reduced paperwork

or programs, so it is unlikely that more time, more fiddling or funneling more money through the department is really going to improve education in the united states. we have a historical education. even if the department of education were getting great results it's time that we reject half measures such as incentivizing the states to improve from the flexibility. there is no evidence of officials in the federal government including those in the u.s. department of education know best. neither for that matter to the state officials. the difference for those of us to believe in constitutional

federalism is that the state citizens are best situated to hold a state lawmakers accountable and enact reforms that actually work. in fact, as we are seeing today, the u.s. department of education is often a hindrance and obstacle to effective programs that parents want and are succeeding. they are opting out of testing and roads. does this look familiar to anyone. it's from the u.s. department of education to all the state chiefs of education. i call it a happy new year nasty gram. they are accessing their god-given unalienable rights to detect the burning and education of their children they decided

to opt their children out of the common core tasks. the u.s. department of education is sending text for the state chiefs on how you can threaten schools and present students. from our students and our schools unless we told the lin lines. it was again in 1979.

beginning in 1868 but was downgraded and changed. it requires a genuine abolition plan history has shown that in the half measures will not prevent the u.s. department of education. it was a pass-through for the political agenda of washington, d.c. and special interest groups all of these are schoolchildren and taxpayers. i'm not going to tell you that we need to get rid of all programs all out of dc. the first one would be the dc opportunity scholarship program

as the name suggests the dc program has a constitutional basis. it was involved in the dc opportunity scholarship program. they've tried to kill it by attrition. the dc opportunity scholarship program stays and is privately managed. number two, postsecondary scholarships for the veteran's dependence now of course these are a benefit, not an entitlement that should be administered by the veterans affairs. finally, the office for civil rights could be moved to the department of justice since it does perform the constitutionally sanctioned work. however as we are going to discuss in a moment since there won't be any department of education plans any funding it would see to oversee the

department of education progra programs. more than 100 programs administered and 4600 employees but here is an overview of how to eliminate the u.s. department of education through what i call strategic dismantling. strictly speaking strategic dismantling does not eliminate a single department of education program and simply it transfers programs, management and associated funding back to the state. so, number one, right off the bat by getting rid of simply the physical plant and the program administrative overhead and associated personnel, that would be $14.1 billion that would be returned to the taxpayers in the form of a tax rebate.

number two, the remaining $216 billion in the associated program funding was along with another estimated $275 million associated employee salaries would be restored to the states to be administered to the state education agencies. taxpayers in the state would no longer fund these programs through the federal government but instead pay for them until the program's pre-existing expiration date. continuation of the programs previously administered by the department of education would depend on taxpayers giving them necessary and effective enough funding throughout the state. but what happens to schools during this transition? this is one that i get most often. it's worth considering under the prevailing relationship between the state and federal government the federal funding lasts roughly one to five years depending on the program. and federal funding is by no

means guaranteed to cover 100% of the actual cost much less all of the paperwork and overhead burden. so they've already experienced uncertainty by relying on federal funding. what's more, roughly every decade or so the administration assumed office in washington, d.c.. students, schools, teachers and taxpayers are subjected to the nationwide education agendas and mandates that require expensive replacement of the previous administration's programs in the current administration. what makes it different is that one's control over education programs and funding is returned to the states. the parents and educators can work more closely together at local levels to better ensure clear education priorities, customized to meeting the specific needs of students and communities across the state

without the chaos, cost and a people of the previous several decades of the federal leadership in education. now is the time to end the department of education once and for all. unlike 36 years ago, today we have thriving examples on education programs and services working for students, their families and taxpayers. there are 61 school choice programs in 30 states and the district of columbia. there are 36 voucher programs, 21 tax credit scholarship programs, nine individual tax credit deduction programs, and five educational saving account programs and together, these programs are helping more than a million school children and families. not to mention the millions more are attending publiattending pu, charter, home and online schools

all of their parent's choice. dc didn't build any of those programs. citizens in th the states did. state's data. and these programs are improving student achievement and introducing competition for students all at a fraction of what we are told we should be spending. they are not better off but we can be. after decades of waving the constitutional barrier to the federal role in education under the guide of partnering with state governments it is time to dissolve the partnership and it follows the u.s. department of education once and for all. thank you all very much. [applause]

thank you. if you want to hang out here we will take questions from the audience if there are some i would like to kick it off and let you take over. what do you say to someone who says the states were not doing a great job before there was significant federal intervention how can we be certain. how do you respond to that? >> that's the number one critique. we have been hearing that since the progressive era. what runs through the core of our thinking is that somehow dc does best is that we rarely can't trust the state and heaven forbid trusting parents who knows what those parents might do.

that is what i would call constitutional circumspection. there was such respect for the constitution. president washington, jefferson, james madison. he wanted a federal role in education so badly but he said in so many other sacks until we demand. we will not only looking at the enumerated spending powers but the clause. taking the view of education that is how they were able to do the end run around the

constitution but this lack of respect for the constitution really coincides with the disdain and disrespect and disregard for parents. but to answer your question in a nutshell if you look at the performance of the department of education, we gave them a fighting chance more than 30 years. what we have is no better we are just spending a lot more and that is the best case scenario. i will say we certainly couldn't do any worse. we certainly wouldn't spend any more. and if you look at the scientific findings on the more than 60 parental choice programs in the state, we are doing a lot better. that is what we should be expanding. >> if you have questions raise your hand and we will have a microphone come around if you wait on the microphone. i think we have a microphone.

>> if you will just wait one second for that. let me pose one other question to you. often if we look at where for the first time we saw significant federal intervention was the defense education act and there was a sort of idea that there's at least a national defense component i think for a while there was a little sort of constitutionaconstitutional wine feds were trying to get. do you think that we have just left that to the national defense argument and after that -- >> i think there was and when i think of the defense education act in 1958, the defense is in the national interest. there is a role. i'm reminded of the words of a senator from my home state who objected.

he objected first and foremost because there was no constitutional role. number two, there were 12 federal mandates. by today's standard, 12 federal mandates is a rounding error. but this argument made really designates the fee. it is the good people in the state of arizona have any funding gaps, we are more than capable of making up for it. and that's why i ask people are you willing to make up any funding gaps let's be real. there's no such thing as a federal tax dollar. there are tax dollars we send to washington and they come back to us. so, i think that if rather than funneling it through the washington brokerage fee we would be doing much better. >> raise your hand if you have a question and wait for the microphone. yes in the back.

>> i know you've done the research to look at how many extra employees at universities, how many extra employees and school districts have the state department of education maybe even in the local school district. can you give us some idea to also compare the 50,000 at the federal level with whatever savings we might get by giving an idea of the quantity of those people at other levels? >> that is a terrific question. hard and fast numbers do not exist. there are estimate estimates but argue what we are seeing from the historical record, let's just take school districts for example. if you look at the ratio starting from the 1950s school

teachers to administrative staff musit must have been teachers dominated. now we are seeing teachers and administrators eat all and in some states average administrators, number, teachers. so we have seen a general growth. unfortunately, there are not specific annual numbers that you would be able to quantify that. i wish those numbers did exist. but i can tell you that off the record, state superintendent will tell you that as much as i've been told 90% or more of their staff simply deal with federal programs. they are not taking billboards on this and they are not advertising it. it would be very controversial. but i'm hearing that for a lot of the state superintendents.

if you talk about other countries decentralizing but in the education is improving our there any that have gone this far to eliminate the education? >> if you look at most countries, it is interesting to me countries particularly european countries and china, various countries have high degrees of centralization. and what people challenge me on his face a piece countries are doing well because they have very strict government control. they are about most cases the size of one of the states. so first thing off the bat. the second thing, even though they have the countries that are about the size of one of the states in most cases, they will have standards.

but they give schools and parents autonomy. look at the socialistic countries. for example, sweden. they have a voucher. given the attitude in sweden is they go to school, they don't care what school. there really isn't pushback from the teachers unions. we hear they couldn't do it because the teachers union, that's not true. we outnumber the teachers union. one of the examples we don't have to book half way across the globe. one of the best performing countries on earth is our neighbor to the north. they don't have a centralized government out of every province they are in charge of their own education and deals with their own needs. that is not a fair comparison. canada has as much as we do come

to canada does have poor people and children who speak other languages besides english and also spend less. but it's a decentralized and they don't know it because it is commonplace they have voucher programs. so i think that's what matters most is empowering parents, empowering teachers. let them be the professionals they are. i make a very important distinction between a rank-and-file teacher and the politics of the teachers union. i let parents take their schools and let there be competition. and that is what spurs to continuous improvement in the education that we are seeing in these performing countries at a fraction of the price. >> i have a two-part question. first, what do you think of the most effective form of school choice.

it's how to grow the programs that create the programs. generally with programs we are the first out of the gate. but then we have the friendly rifle and they implement so we go back and forth which is great because the word that's how you promote continuous improvement. i would say i'm going -- usa is debatable. we will be celebrating toward the end of this month and just because we fund schools through government doesn't mean the government knows best. some people would say we should get a government completely out of it. that's going to take more than an hour. dealing with the way things are

now, but i love about the education savings accounts as you know, education savings accounts basically all operate the same way. they don't pay for the simply informed the state and the state deposit of what it would have sent to the district or school and parents get a type of dedicated debit card and funds are disbursed quarterly. appearance have to actually submit receipts before more money is disbursed. so none of this in a somehow someone embezzled tens of millions of dollars that we found out about it five years later. there've been about five cases that i'm aware of where parents was funded about $2,500 $2,500 a couple thousand here and there. their accounts were frozen and they were held accountable and have to pay the money back.

i would say they ar wouldn't say favorites because it allows parents to choose not just where the children are educated but how they are educated. what we are seeing in arizona, with the successive expanded program is that parents are not just paying for private school tuition but also getting a tutor and taking practice tests. so we are also getting ready for college. i think it is a wonderful program that we could sort of individualization and education children need but it is a stark contrast to what we are seeing now in this one-size-fits-all. it becomes a college savings account so that helps people pay for college in a responsible way. so i would say if you see it in one way it's harder to say the sky is going to call. it's easy to share the

experiences with each other and customize it rather than having it come from the top down. we very rarely hear someone say it's a telegram. we don't know. why is it that we have a disconnect between how we finance higher education where it is something that is portable for the most part and yes, there is institutional funding but as a student you can go where you want and why is there a disconnect between how we fight finance higher education and k-12 and we see florida as a good example for a public. most of those end up taking the form of the model so wide that disconnect? >> that's one of those inconsistencies i like pointing

out. any given day you could have a member of congress justifying that we need more money and then to another this is terrible we can't have the dc voucher program is terrible. i think it has to do with politicthepolitics and history. higher education really had such a flourishing landscape. so many private institutions of higher education and that there was a natural development. so, funding that way there wasn't really any interest group around that. fast forward to k-12 and we see it creeping into the pre- k.. i think there has to be as opposed to this landscape the common school model, those of us

in western states, part of the constitution joining the union they need schools for this come about and of the other. so i think you have that sort of diversity on the one hand and one-size-fits-all on the other. so that' that's the different histories in that regard. >> you talked about the duration of some of the legislative programs not being a legislator i don't know the statistics of that. do all the programs have the legislative end to them in three years or five years or one year? >> i go through and give you the programs.

they generally run into pell grant for one year. if we are talking about the multi-years improvement grants they could run from two to five years so it does depend on the program and how it is appropriated and so forth. it's not a super variance. there is no reason why the states could take over management of say programs that help disadvantaged students. there's no reason that states couldn't do it. and chapter ten outlines those and in pretty exact detail. >> one more question on my end. so, you mentioned the special education funding. can you explain a little bit of

funding share. you have the federal government that despite the increases we have seen over the past half a century represents a relatively small share overall, $600 billion to be spent. so does that factor into how we sort of restore state and local control of that share? >> that is a great question. you would think for all of the mandate and all of the regulatory guidance which piles high that we would be getting at least a third or more of the education association and the teachers union than what, a third of the funding to be federal funding. in reality it is 10% or less in any given year. but our school, we have become so dependent on that 10% we have become addicted to our own money. so it's only 10% and something

to keep in mind as we see these heavy-handed mandates. all of the rules and guidance and flexibility. i was hoping with the reauthorization that would be the latest reiteration of the elementary secondary education act and first enacted in 1965. i really wanted to believe secretary king would follow the letter of the law and then we got that letter. keep in mind when we get things like this at best, they are contributing to 10 cents of every dollar that we send here and back isn't a pure 10 cents. we will be spending about a quarter to pay for all the mandates and red tape that comes along with it.

>> based on my research into the experience, i'm surprised at the amount of other federal involvement there is in the k-12 education level for example the department odepartment of agric, health and human services. and one of the things that resonates with me is that k-12 education isn't just about educating or helping students learn. it's about being the parent and the social worker meeting with the colleges etc.. can you talk about that, please? >> absolutely. when we see these things and especially what's going on in schools we think isn't that great, one-stop shopping for raising children. that was never supposed to be that way. you're setting yourself uyou arr failure. a lot of the models historically the progressives back in the 18

hundreds thought this is a great idea. things are so exciting why can't we. that's a guarantee of a republican form of government we can't just impose this school system which would be essentially and the expressed purpose of this type of compulsory government-run schooling system is to be good subjects, go along, provide social services. so everybody is taking care of everybody's content. although it does sound like a good idea conceptually, what we are seeing in reality as most families do not need to be assigned a social worker. most families do not need to be told what to pack in their children's lunches. you look at the school lunches i have for school age stepsons and

all of the lunches they say it's terrible what's even worse than your cooking. [laughter] that's pretty bad. trying to take over these things you are setting yourself up for failure. you certainly cannot do it in a free society because it will entail making children the creatures of the state so for all the good intentions i would say be very careful what you are signing away for the sake of convenience. some mornings it's easier to let the children get lunch or whatever they are serving at school but no, it's the state coming in and taking over and there is a pattern that we have seen so frequently we just need to help this group of people. low income children can't really do that. that is a springboard for

universal access, i guess i'm a little sensitive doing this research, universal access can generate into a universal mandate and compulsory. one-size-fits-all it's never send your child to preschool and get the programs you want. it's you must send your child to this type of preschool. you can't leave little johnny or janie home with grandma because she isn't certified to know what she's doing so that's what's happening with the compatible molds to each other. >> i think education is the most important type in the united states to deal with choice. and presumably with the school choice in the broader program

for low income people and we don't go anywhere with that anymore but i was just in nevada and he signed a radical. can your deliberate. >> it's so wonderful for neighbors to the north and nevada, their education savings account program is far better than arizona. it's universal. basically if you are eligible to attend a public school in nevada, and yo you were eligiblr the education savings account. it's being challenged in corporate and it looks like they are going to be some very positive results and it looks

that the program will continue. i would say it shouldn't just used for people who do not prefer, but if you are a citizen in the state that's it. it. and the ideain the ideal world,d like to see is that families stay for their own education. public and private we should be focused less on where children are going to school and where they are educated so i would like all education funding as a first step. just go to the saving savings at at every level just like college pic where you were going to go to school.

if you're not happy with the results, teach your child all squared because even in families you will get examples of the public schools for one child of the charter school, the home school, private school so you need all those options. i would say nevada is the way to follow it. we can even combine it to the tax scholarship programs but the direction we need to be moving we have to take back ownership of the children's education. it's not someone else's responsibility to pay. if the government isn't funding and involved children won't get an education consistently every time it is ranked the most charitable our time, talent and treasure is.

i have a hard time believing when there is a need and the child generally couldn't afford to go to school, that the community would rally other civic groups, faith-based, what have you because that's how it used to be. i agree thank you for bringing up nevada. that's the direction other states should follow. >> very quickly turning it back to the legislation written in such a way that gave broad discretion to kind of build in the legislation could you highlight some of the shortcomings of taking that approach but the consequences that may come up for parents and children alike? >> absolutely. we are all like finally we

reauthorized and we see all of this uncertainty. it boils down to one thing. for all the talk about flexibility, the fact that we have to have our education plans approved here in dc by the secretary of education who, let's face it, these folks are not friendly to the education reform. that letter proves they are not friendly to parents. so my biggest warning and advice would be anyone that says the state plan has to be reviewed by dc is a no go for me. >> please join me in thanking the vicky.

[applause]

>> publicist at princeton university press. what is coming out this fall from princeton? >> the league title is by kenneth. in this book, he makes the phase to argue the economy would benefit for getting rid of cash so large bills and his reasoning is twofold. people that are involved in crime and corruption choose cash after payment of choice then he goes on to argue the economy would benefit in times of financial crisis being able to wilbur interest rates with an economy this would be more powerful as he goes on to address the challenges that go along with the electronic currency and make a good case for it.

in terms of science we have welcome to the universe by well depressed-and michael strauss. you know neil degrasse from welcome to the universe. michael strauss is a leading astrophysicist from princeton. so this is the personal to -- personal to tour. they look at things like worm holes and time travel. in princeton -- and this goes deeper than just maintaining a e deeper phenomenon and describing the scientists knowing about the universe today. >> one more title from university press. >> space fashion and tennessee. roger penrose was one of the most influential and important theoretical physicists of our

time. this is basically his take on 21st century civics. he's looking at it through three lenses in the different theories fashion in terms of what is in the field at the time to the fantastical ideas. so they are arguing that all of these ideas have a place in science and move progress forward but there's also the potential to be led astray and he talks about this in relation to three different topics. so quantum mechanics and this is basically an expert in the field and his take on the 21st century physics and a critique of the field. >> the publicist of the university press she gave us a preview of the new titles at the princeton publishing this fall. >> presidential candidates hillary clinton and donald trump have written several bookhas wry

of which outlined the worldview and political philosophy. a democratic candidate hillary clinton has written five books in the recent title hard choices. she remembers the 2008 campaign and her time as the secretary of state isecretary ofstate in thea administration.

on june 17, 2015, south carolinians was on a mission to take this country back. ever since george zimmerman walked out a free man after killing trayvon martin and the polarized nation in the verdict, he had yet to understand america trolling through the internet he stumbled across a council of

concerned citizens. the progeny of the 1950s white citizens council that had terrorized black people, closed schools and worked hand-in-hand with the government to decide the federal civil rights law. but despite the mid-to late 1990s as the southern poverty law center reports, the group boasted having 44 members of the mississippi legislature and had a powerful republican party analyzed including then the sene majority leader trent lott of mississippi. by 2004, the mississippi governor haley barbour, the chair of the republican national committee and 37 other powerful politicians have all attended the event in the 21st century. robles, the chair gave 65,002

campaign funds in recent years including donations to the 2016 presidential campaigns of rand paul, rick santorum and ted cr cruz. then the enjoyed the cachet of respectability that racism requires to achieve its own goals within american society and its website a featurette and lies provides the education that he desperately craved. he drank in th the poison of its message, got into his car and drove to charleston and entered the church landing on a bible study with a group of african-americans who were the very model of respectability. she prayed with them, read the bible with them, thought they

were so nice then shot them dead. leaving just one woman alive so that she could tell the world what he had done and why. you're taking over our country, he said. and he knew this to be true. not even a full month after he gunned down nine african-americans in charleston south carolina republican presidential front-runner donald trump fired up his silent majority audience of thousands in july, 2015 is a promise. don't worry, we will take our country back.

the director for arts and culture it gives me great