tiger knowles pulls out his pistol and orders him into the backseat of the car and he knows when he gets in that car what will happen. he's a black man in alabama. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span q&a. >> you are watching book tv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend.

>> david rolf on the movement to increase workers' wages. and those are just a few of the programs you'll see this weekend. for a complete schedule, go to booktv.org. booktv, 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. television for serious readers. and now we kick off the weekend with vicki alger's critical look at the u.s. department of education. [inaudible conversations]

>> hello and welcome to the heritage foundation. i'm andrew parks, the assistant director of lectures and seminars. thank you all for joining us today. i just wanted to take the opportunity to remind everyone in house to silence your cell phones. for anyone watching on line, you're welcome to submit questions by e-mailing speaker@heritage.org. hosting today's program is lindsey burke, the wills gellman fellow here at the heritage foundation. she focus on empowering families with school choice. with that, i'll hand it every to lindsey. >> thank you, andrew, and thanks to everyone for being here today and everyone watching online as well.

we're with really excited to welcome vicki alger to discuss her thorough and really interesting new book on the failures of federal intervention in education. and she doesn't mince words at all. the very title, right? "failure: the federal miseducation of america's children," and she argues that it is time to end, not mend, federal intervention in education. as dr. alger explains in her book, the federal government left education alone for about a hundred years, recognizing it was the purview of states and localities. but gradually, federal restraint gave away, and by 1979 we saw the first cabinet-level agency for education established with the birth of the u.s. department of education. and today that agency houses nearly 5,000 employees, manages over 150 federal education

programs and has a discretionary budget of about $70 billion. and i might add, it's really the tip of the iceberg, because we see this somewhat parasitic relationship with state education agencies as well who have to be responsive to all of these federal mandates and dictates, and as a result, have also increased their staffing over the decades as well. and so what have we gotten for this federal largess? as dr. alger contends, it's not improved educational outcomes. it's red tape, it's bureaucracy, and it's wasteful spending. the u.s. has increasingly centralized education policy through increased spend, through increased programs and through efforts such as common core. it's interesting though to note that other countries, high performing countries have actually gone in the opposite direction, decentralizing education decision making authority. and, actually, empowering families and fostering

competition. so is there a better path for the u.s.? can we, too, embrace decentralization and competition in education? i'll let vicki answer that question. we do have a major opportunity to advance education choice through innovative options like education savings accounts to restore private lending in the higher education market as a major step to also reducing federal intervention and in general, just limiting federal meddling in what is such a quintessentially state and local issue. dr. alger is a research fellow at the independent institute and a senior fellow and director of the women for school choice project at the independent women's forum. prior to that, dr. alger was associate director of education studies at the pacific research institute and director of the goldwater institute's educational policy initiative.

she received her ph.d. in political philosophy from the institute for philosophic studies at the university of dallas. please join me in welcoming dr. vicki alger. [applause] >> well, good afternoon. i'd like to thank lindsey burke and andrew for putting this wonderful event together. it was such a thrill to be here at the heritage foundation, and thank you all for coming to talk about this very important topic that actually touches every one of our lyes. and -- lives. and thank you for listening to and opening a discussion on my new book about the federal department of education, "failure." as i was traveling here, i recalled the words of a former democratic 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 a pure stream could be poured upon all the states. we want a controlling head by which the conflicting systems in the different states can be harmonized, by which there canning be uniformity. i -- there can be uniformity. i take the high ground that every child is entitled to an education at the hands of somebody and that this ought not be left to the caprice of individuals or the statements so far as we have any authority to regulate it. sound familiar? well, it's probably not who you think. this argument was actually made by representative samuel mollton of illinois 150 years ago, one year before the u.s. department of education was originally created back in 1867.

as the title of my book suggests, i have a different view about the supposed purity of the d.c. stream pouring on states like my home state of arizona which was wildly hailed as one of the national leaders in school choice. i see we have some arizonans in the audience? go, arizona. [laughter] i was inspired to write this book as we are approaching the 30-year history of the u.s. department of education. and i wondered, are we better off because of it? frankly, i don't think we are. and based on the increasing calls for the department's abolition this presidential election cycle, i think it's fair to say a lot of us think it's time to pull the plug on the department of education. but what does that really mean? if the department's history teaches us anything, it's that government bureaucracies are not like fine wines, they don't get better with age. history also teaches us that bureaucracies are resilient.

the u.s. department of education was down graded, defunded and reshuffled from one federal agency for another throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries. rather than abolishing it in the 1980s, we decided to keep it around and try and use it to promote an excellence agenda. the result today? common core. this isn't what we were promised at all back in 1979. we'll recall a u.s. department of education which is supposed to do, essentially, three things. one, improve student achievement. two, supplement, not supplant state and local governments. and, three, improve management and efficiency of federal education programs. so how'd those promises turn out? let's turn to number one. improve student achievement. achievement across subjects and grade levels on the nation's report card as well as various

international tests have been essentially flat during the periods preceding the u.s. department of education and up til today. as far as i can tell from the empirical track record, we're spending above average amounts for squarely average student achievement and up to one-third more than top performing countries in the world. a u.s. department of education was also supposed to supplement, not supplant, state and local governments. our founding fathers never intended for the federal government to be a, quote-unquote, partner with the states in education, much less the boss. in fact, the word "education" doesn't even appear in our constitution. by going along with this partnership, it has been a bad deal for student, schools -- students, schools and taxpayers. during the no child left behind era, for example, from 2002-2009, the department of education's paperwork burden

increased by an estimates 65% and was larger than the burden imposed by the departments of defense, energy and justice to name a few. in fact, the administrative burden is now so great, most employees at state education departments are hired just to deal with federal education programs. today in the common core era, spending is estimated to be $80 billion according to a former u.s. department of education official. that's nearly 20 times the entire $4.4 billion race to the top program that was supposed to incentivize state reforms. and what about number three? a u.s. department of education was supposed to improve management and efficiency of federal education programs. after a full 30 years in operation, the government accountability office or gao found that the education

department was one of a dozen or so agencies operating nearly 300 federal social education and train aring programs -- training programs and that no uniform definition of education program even exists at the federal level. the gao also found that within the department of education alone eight different offices administer over 60 federal teacher quality programs. well, how are programs like these performing? according to the office of management and budget, or omb, just 6% of department of education programs are deemed effective. but how can that be? from 1980 through 2010, department of education program spending increased by more than $57 billion, outpacing student enrollment by more than 5 to 1. so after more than three decades

with the department of education, the educational performance of american students has not improved in spite of massive spending increases funneled through this department. the d. has not achieved -- the department has not achieved the promised efficiencies, reduced paperwork or better management of federal programs. so it's unlikely that more time, more fiddling with the org chart or funneling more money through the department is really going to improve education in the united states. it's high time with reject the now-common place notion that the federal government has some traditional or historical role in education. on the contrary, such notions have no constitutional basis. even if the u.s. department of education were getting great results. it's time that we also reject half measures such as incentivizing the states to improve with promises of more

flexibility. there is no evidence that officials in the federal government, including those in the u.s. department of education, know best. neither, for that matter, do state officials. the key difference for those of us who believe in constitutional federalism is that state citizens are best situated to hold state lawmakers accountable and enact reforms that actually work. in fact, as we're seeing today, the u.s. department of education is often a hindrance and an obstacle to effective programs that parents want and children -- and through which children are succeeding. consider parents with legitimate concerns about subjecting their children to common core influence tests. these parents are opting their children out of testing in droves. does this look familiar to anyone? has anyone gotten one of these letters? it's a letter sent out in late

december from the u.s. department of education to all the state chiefs of education. i call it a happy new year nastygram. [laughter] as a result of parents exercising their god-given, unalienable rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children, they decided to opt their children out of common core tests. what do we get in return? this letter from the u.s. department of education sending tips to the state chiefs on how you can threaten schools and how you can threaten students. essentially, this letter is threatening to withhold our money from our students and our schools unless we tow the line. there's a word for this kind of relationship, and it's not partnership. it's time to end federal control through the u.s. department of education.

now, efforts to abolish the department of education began almost immediately after it was first established both in 1867 and again in 1979. each time these efforts failed because neither truly sought to abolish the department of education. instead, for example, beginning in 1868 the department was downgraded, changed what we called the department, it was reshuffled around until, ultimately, it was restored to a full cabinet-level department in 1979. restoring constitutional authority over education requires a genuine abolition plan. history has shown that half measures will not prevent the u.s. department of education from operating as a costly pass through for the political agendas of washington, d.c. and special interest groups. all at the expense of school children and taxpayers. that reality is the foundation

of any blueprint to abolish the u.s. department of education. now, i'm a reasonable person. i'm not going to tell you we need to get rid of all programs, get them all out of d.c. i'd keep three here. the first one would be the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. as the name suggests, it's a d.c. program, has a constitutional basis. but i would have it privately managed. there is no reason to have a u.s. department of education involved in the d.c. opportunity scholarship program, particularly since through the efforts of the u.s. department of education one of -- this is one of the few programs deemed effective by the department's own what works division. and they've tried to kill it by attrition. the d.c. opportunity scholarship program stays, but it's privately managed. number two, postsecondary education scholarships for veterans dependence. now, of course, these scholarships are an earned benefit be, not an entitlement,

that should be administered by veterans affairs. finally, the office for civil rights could be moved to the department of justice since it does perform constitutionally-sanctioned work. however, since there won't be any u.s. department of education plans, any funding it would see to oversee u.s. department of education programs would be restored. they wouldn't get it anymore. now, i won't go through the remaining more than 120 department programs administered by 29 offices and 4600 employees, but here's an overview of how we can eliminate the u.s. department of education through what i call strategic dismantling. strictly speaking, strategic dismantling doesn't eliminate a single u.s. department of education program. it simply transfers programs, management and associated funding back to the states. is, number one, right off the bat we could -- by getting rid

of simply the physical plant and the nonprogram administrative overhead and associated personnel, that would be $14.1 billion that would be returned to taxpayers in the form of a tax rebate. number two, the remaining $260 billion in associated program funding along with another estimated $275 million in associated employee salaries would be restored to the states to be administered through state education agencies. taxpayers in the states would no longer fund these programs through the federal government, but would instead pay for them through state taxes until the program's pre-existing expiration date. continuation of various programs previously administered by the u.s. department of education would depend on taxpayers deeming them necessary and effective enough to warrant ongoing funding through the

states. what happens to schools during this transitions? this is one of the questions i get more often. it's worth considering that as things standard right now under the prevailing relationship between the states and the federal government, federal funding lasts for 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 the paperwork and overhead burdens. so schools already experience uncertainty by relying on federal funding. what's more, roughly every decade or so a as successive administrations assume office in washington, d.c., students, school, teachers and taxpayers are subjected to new nationwide education agendas and mandates that require expensive replacement of the previous administration's programs with ones from the current administration. what makes strategic dismantling different is that once control over education programs and

funding is returned to the states, lawmakers, taxpayers, parents and educators can work more closely together at the local levels to better insure clear educational policy priorities customized to meeting the specific needs of students in communities across the states without all the chaos, cost and upheaval of the previous several decades of 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 in the states of education programs and services that are working for students, their families and taxpayers. there are 61 school choice programs in 30 states and the district of columbia. there are 26 voucher programs, 26 voucher programs, 21 tax credit scholarship programs, 9 individual tax credit and deduction programs, and there

are 5 esa or educational savings account programs. and together these programs are helping more than a million school children and families. not to mention the millions more students attending public district, charter, home and online schools all of their parents' choice. d.c. didn't build any of those programs. citizens in the states did. and these programs are improving student achievement and introducing competition for students all at a fraction of what we're told we should be spending. more than 30 years after the creation of the u.s. department of education, students, taxpayers and the country are not better off. but we can be. after decades of waiving the constitutional barrier to a federal role in education under the guise of partnering with state governments, it is time to

dissolve that partnership and apoloish the u.s. department of education -- abolish the u.s. department of education once and for all. thank you very much. [applause] >> great, thank you so much, vicki. that was excellent. if you want to hang out up here, we'll take some questions from the audience if there are some. but i would love to just kick it off, and then i'll sit down and let you take over. what do you say to someone who says, well, the states, they weren't doing a great job before there was significant federal intervention. how can we be certain that we're going to actually see improvement ifs we hand it back over? this is something of a critique that you hear frequently. how do you respond to that? >> i would say that is the number one critique and, frankly, we've been hearing that since the progressive era. what really runs through the core of our thinking that somehow d.c. knows best is that,

oh, we really just can't trust the states, and heaven forbid trusting parents. who knows what those parents might be. there's a fundamental distrust of the states, and ultimately, of parents. what i found interesting going through the history leading up to what we now have is that early on before the civil war era there was such what i would call constitutional circumspection. there was such respect for the constitution. presidents -- washington, jefferson, james madison, poor james madison. he tried more than anybody else, four times at the constitutional convention, so many more times while he was president. he wanted a federal role in education so badly. but he said and so many others said until we amend the constitution, congress has no authority. now, obviously, we saw that give

way and no longer were we looking at enumerated powers. we were looking at the pending clause. spending clause. it's in in the national interest for a national government to be taking a view of education. so that's how he were able to do an end run around the constitution. but this lack of respect for the constitution really coincides with the disdain and disrespect and disregard for parents and the states. so i think, to answer your question in a nutshell, if you look at the performance of the u.s. department of education, we gave them, we gave them a fighting chance, more than 30 years. we've put the, quote9-unquote, experts in charge. what we have is no better, we're just spending a whole lot more x. that's the best case scenario. so i would say we certainly couldn't do any worse, we certainly couldn't spend any more, and if you look at the

scientific findings on the more than 60 parental choice programs in the states, we're doing a heck of a lot better. that's what we should be expanding, not d.c. >> well, great. well, if you have questions for vicki, just raise your hand x we'll are a mic come around. if you could just wait on the microphone. i think we have a mic. annie, would you mind checking? thank you. if you'll just wait with one second for that. while we're waiting on the mic, let me pose one other question to you. so often if you look at where we for the first time really saw some federal intervention, it was the national defense education act, and there was this idea, well, at least there was a national defense component to it, a constitutional link that the feds were trying to get at. do you think we've totally just left that by the way they don't even try to justify it anymore with the national defense argument? and after that we can take audience questions. [laughter] >> absolutely. i think there was.

and when i think of the national defense and education act, of course, of 1958 defense is clearly in the national interest. there is clearly a role. i'm reminded of the words of the senator from my home state, barry goldwater, who objected to it. and i love why he did. he objected, first and foremost because there was no constitutional role. number two, there were 12 federal mandates. my gosh, by today's standard 12 federal mandates is a rounding error. but this is, this argument made by senator goldwater really resonates with me. if the good people of the state of arizona have any funding gaps, we are more than capable of making up for it. and that's what we -- that's what i ask people. are you willing to make up any funding gaps? because let's be real, there's no such thing as a federal tax dollar.

there are tax dollars that we send to washington, and they come back to us. so i think if rather than funneling it through as senator goldwater said minus the washington brokerage fee, we'd be doing much, much better. >> just raise your hand if you have a question, and wait on the mic. yes, sir, in the back. >> i know you've done the research to look at how many extra employees at universities, how many that employees in school districts, how many extra employees at the state departments of and education maybe even the local school districts. can you give us some idea to also, so that we can compare the 50,000 at the federal level what other savings we might get by giving an idea of the quantity of those people at other levels? >> that's a terrific question,

and unfortunately, hard and fast numbers don't exist. there are estimates, but i can tell you what we are seeing from the historical record, let's just, let's just take school districts, for example. if you look at the ratio starting from the 1950s of schoolteachers to administrative of staff, it used to be teachers dominated. now we're seeing teachers and administrators are at best about equal and in some states on average administrators outnumber teachers. so what we've seen is a general growth. unfortunately, there aren't specific numbers, annual numbers that you'd be able to quantify that. i wish those numbers did exist. but i can tell you that off the record state superintendents will tell you that as much as i've heard, i've been told 90% or more of their staff simply

deal with federal programs. they're not taking billboards out on this, they're certainly not advertising it. it would be very controversial. but i'm hearing that from a lot of state superintendents and public instruction. so i'm sorry i don't have a better answer for you. >> you talk a little bit about other countries that are decentralizing abroad and their education is improving. are there any that have gone quite this far to eliminate the federal presence in education? >> well, i like to think if you look at most country, it's interesting to me -- countries particularly european countries, certainly china, various asian countries have high degrees of centralization. and what people challenge me on is say, aha, see, these countries are doing well because they have very strict government control.

it's like, well, these countries are also about, in most cases, the size of one of our states. so first thing off the bat. the second thing is even though they have these countries that are about the sides of one of our -- the size of one of our states in most cases, they'll have standards. but they give schools, parents autonomy. look at some of these very socialistic countries. for example, sweden. they have a voucher. you know what the attitude in socialist sweden is? take money for the school. we don't care where you go. do you go to the montessori school, the religious school? you send your children to school. and there really isn't pushback from the teachers unions. i hear all the time we couldn't possibly do it because of the teachers unions. that's not true. we stand up. we outnumber the teachers unions. one of the examples, we don't have to look halfway 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 ottawa. every province is in charge of their own education, deals with their own needs. and just to stave off any, well, wait a minute, that's not a fair comparison, canada has as much immigration as we do, canada does have poor children, and they have children who speak other than english, and it's also very decentralized. and most canadians probably don't know it because it's so common place, they have voucher programs. so i think what matters most is 'em powering -- empowering parents, empowering teachers. let teachers be the professionals they are. i talk about teachers, i make a very important distinction between your rank and file teach kerr and the politics of the teachers union. let parents pick their school toes and teachers, let there be competition x that is what spurs that continuous improvement that we're see anything these top

performing countries at a fraction of the price. >> all right. so i have kind of a two-part question. >> okay. >> my first is what do you think the most effective form of school choice is, like vouchers versus -- [inaudible] and what are kind of your ideas of how to grow the programs and create more programs across the country? >> that's an excellent question. and i'll tell you, being from arizona, it's a lot of fun be because generally with programs, we're the first out of the gate, but then we have florida. we have a friendly rivalry with florida. then florida usually implements it. so we go back and forth. which is great, because we learn that's how you promote continuous improvement. i would say that i'm going to leave political considerations aside. if i were many charge, esas are the way to go. it's so interesting that we'll be celebrating friedman legacy

day toward the end of this month, and just because we fund schools through government doesn't mean that government knows best. now, some people would say, well, we should just get government completely out of it. that's going to take more than an hour. so dealing with the way things are now, what i love about education savings accounts, as you know, education savings accounts basically all operate the same way. parents who don't prefer a public district or charter school education for their children simply inform the state, and the state goes with sits 90% -- deposits 09% of funding, and the parents get a type of dedicated use debit card, and funds are dispersed quarterly. and, shock, shock, parents have to actually submit expense receipts and go through verification before more money is disbursed. none of this, oh, gosh, somehow

someone embezzled tense of billion -- tens of millions -- no, there have been five cases where parents did mismundt a couple hundred thousand here and there. i would say esas are my favorite because it allows parents to choose not just where their children are educated, but how they're educated. and what we're seeing in arizona, arizona was first tate to have that starting in 2011, and we've successively expanded the program. we're also getting a tutor, we're also taking practice tests or we're also getting ready for college. i think that's a wonderful program be -- program that leads to that sort of individualization in education that children need which is a stark contrast to the trends we're seeing now of this 40 knowledgenyization, one size fits all.

it's a lot harder for neighboring states to say, oh, the sky's going to fall. it's nice to be able to share and learn from each other and then customize it rather than it coming from top down. >> well, something you said spurred a thought for me, you know, we have voucher programs, pretty robust ones. they're just at the higher you would level, and they're to some extent at the pre-k level. you know, i very rarely ever hear someone say, well, those pell grants, i don't know. so, you know, why is it do we have, do you think, this disconnect between how we finance education where it is something that's portable for the most part and, yes, there is institutional funding, but as a student, you can go where you want and, you know, why is there this disconnect between how we

finance higher ed, how we finance k-12. and even as we're seeing states, you mentioned florida, most of those options end up taking the form of a voucher model. so why that disconnect? why that fear? enter that's a great question. that's one of those inconsistencies. i love pointing out, you know, on any given day in congress you could have a member of congress testifying that we need more money for pells and then go to another committee and say, oh, this is terrible, we can't, we can't have, you know, the d.c. voucher program is terrible, terrible. i think it has to do with the politics and the history. higher education really had such a flourishing landscape, so many private institutions of higher education. and there was a natural development. so funding that way, there really wasn't any sort of

political special interest group around that. fast forward to, you know, k-12, and now we're trying to creep into the pre-k. i think the politics of it. there has to be as opposed to this very diverse higher educational landscape, the common school model that started in massachusetts. we have to imprint that all throughout the country, and those of us who are in western states, part of our constitution, a condition of our joining the union was we have to have common school, they have to be this, that and the other. so i think you have that sort of diversity on the one hand and one size fits all on the other. and i think that's been the challenge, the different histories in that regard. >> yes, sir. >> you talked about the duration of some of these legislative programs not being a legislator. can you -- i don't know the statistics of that.

do all the programs have a legislative end to them? is it usually three years or five years or one year? >> that's a great question. a as i go through particularly chapter ten, i go through and i give you a blow by blow on all the programs. they generally run -- if you're talking, for example, a pell grant. that's for one year. if you're talking about some of these multiyears say research or program improvement grants, they can run anywhere from two to five years. so it really does depend on program and how it's appropriated and is so forth. so there's a huge amount of -- there is some variance, but it's not an insoup rabble variance. there is no reason why the states couldn't take over management of, say, you know, programs that help disadvantaged students. there's no reason states couldn't do it. but they do vary, and chapter ten outlines those in pretty

exacting detail. [laughter] >> one more question on my end, and then i'll come to you, perfect. so you mentioned states could take over something like special education funding. so can you explain a little bit the funding crepe i -- not discrepancy, but the funding share, right? so you have the federal government that despite all of the spending increases we've seen over the past half century still represents a relatively small share of overall the $600 billion we spend. so does that factor in to how you think about how we restore state and local control, that 90/10 share? >> absolutely, that's a great question. you would think for all of the mandates and, you know, all the regulatory guidance which, you know, piles high that we would be getting, gosh, at least a third or more. originally the national education association, the country's largest teachers union, did want a third of our funding to be federal funding.

in reality it's 10% or less in any given year. but our school, we've become so dependent on that 10%. we really have become addicted to our own money. so it's only 10%, and it's something to keep in mind, pardon me, as we see these very heavy-handed mandates. all of these rules and guidance and even with flexibility. i was hoping, you know, onhope that with the reauthorization of the every student succeeds act, that's the latest reiteration of the elementary and second tear education -- secondary education act first enacted in 1965, i really wanted to believe we were going to get flexibility. i really wanted to believe that secretary king was going to, as he said, follow the letter of the law. and then we got that letter. is so keep in mind that when we get things like this, at best

they are contributing ten cents of every dollar we send here. and that ten cents, it's not a pure ten cents. we're probably going to be spending a quarter trying to pay for all the mandates and the red tape that comes along with it. >> hi. based on my research and more current experience and stuff in k-12 education, i have, i am really surprised at the amount of other federal involvement there is at the k-12 education level. for example, department of agriculture, health and human services. and one of the things that rez may notes with me is that -- resonates with me is that education, k-12 education isn't just about educating or helping students learn, it's about being the parent, it's about being the social worker, it's about being the psychologist, etc., etc., etc. can you talk a little bit a about that, please? >> oh, absolutely. and when we see these things,

especially what's going on in schools, we think, oh, isn't that great. sort of a one-stop shopping for, you know, raising children. it was never supposed to be that way. you're setting yourself up for failure. a lot of those models, and historically the progressives, you know, back in the 1800s thought this was a great idea. things that are going on in europe are so exciting and why can't we -- oh, that pesky constitution and that pesky guarantee of a republican form of government. we can't just impose this sort of school system which would be, essentially, womb to time -- womb to tomb, and express purpose of this type of compulsory, government-run school is to make good subjects. be compliant, go along. so everybody taking care of everybody's kept content. finish although it does sound like a good idea conceptually,

what we're seeing in reality is 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 four school-aged stepsons, go to public schools s and, oh, the lunches. oh, they're terrible. they're even worse than your cooking. and i'm like, okay, that's pretty bad. [laughter] so, you know, trying to take over these things, you're setting yourself up for failure. you certainly can't do it in a free society because it's going to entail basically making children the creatures of the state. is so for all the good intentions, i would say be very careful what you're signing away for the sake of convenience. because, let's face it, oh, gosh, some mornings isn't it just easier to let the kids get lunch or whatever they're serving at school?

but, no, it's the state coming in and taking over, and there's a pattern that we've seen so frequently. well, we just need to help this group of people. you know, low income children, they can't really do that. that that's usually a springboard for universal, universal access -- sorry, i guess i'm a little too sensitive doing this research. universal access very quickly generates into a universal mandate and compulsory and one size fits all. it's never, for example, 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 let, and you can't leaf, you know, little johnny or littleny home with grandma because she's not certified. she doesn't know what she's doing. so i think that's what's happening. we're trying to graph two very incompatible molds onto each other. >> hi. acame from soviet union -- i

came from soviet union, and i think education is the most receive yet type of -- soviet type of industry in the united states because we don't have choice. [laughter] and now i live in wisconsin, and presumably we have good school choice. but we have income caps. so it's only for low income people, and we don't go anywhere with that anymore. but i was recently in nevada. in nevada the governor sandoval just north of you, he signed i would say radical kind of bill it looked like when he did it. can you maybe elaborate? because that's the, i think idea of the bill that you can choose any form, you can be even reimbursed for home schooling expenses. >> absolutely. that's -- it's so wonderful, my neighbors to north in nevada, their education savings account program is far better than

arizona's. it's universal. basically, if you are eligible to attend a public school in nevada, you are eligible for an education savings account. it's being challenged in court, but it looks like it's going to be -- it looks like there are going to be some very positive results. it looks like the program will continue. that's how we should be doing it. why shouldn't -- in fact, i would say esa should not just be used for people who don't prefer a public, district or charter school. i would say if you are a citizen and say a child in the state, you get an esa. that's it. in an ideal world, we're not there yet, what i would like to see is that families save for their own education. you have your own education savings account, and i don't care what type of school whether you're public -- public/private shouldn't, that distinction should really, ultimately, go away.

wewe should be focusing less on where children are going to school and when the public is educated. so i would ideally like all education funding as a first accept. just go into education savings accounts at every level, and just like college, pick where you go to college, pick where you go to school. and, let's face it, if you're not happy with the results, take your child elsewhere. even in, what i'm seeing even in families, you'll get examples of the public school works well for one child, the charter school, the home school, the online school, the private school. so you need all those options. i would say nevada is absolutely the way to follow it. we could maybe even combine it with pre-existing tax credit scholarship programs, but i think the direction we immediate to be moving is we -- we need to be moving is we have to take back ownership of our children's education. it's not somebody else's responsibility to pay, we need to take it over. and one thing that, frankly, makes my blood boil is somehow if government isn't funding and

isn't involved that, oh, children won't get an education. the united states of america, americans consistently every time it's ranked, the most charitable people on the face of the earth in terms of time, talent and treasures. what we donate, i have a very hard time believing that when there is a need and a child general wently -- genuinely couldn't afford to go to school that the community wouldn't rally, civic groups, faith-based groups, what have you. because that's how it used to be. so i agree with you. thank you so much for bringing up nevada. i'll be there next week, so i'll get to see it firsthand, so that's exactly the direction we should be going. other states should follow. >> i think we have time for one more. yes, sir. >> really quickly, turning back to esa. the legislation was written many such a way that gave broad discretion to the secretary to kind of fill in the blanks of the legislation.

it's a systemic problem of congress which is a topic for another day, but could you highlight some of the shortcomings of taking that approach? what are some of the unintended consequences that may come up for parents and children alike? >> absolutely. and i think we were all -- well, finally we reauthorized, you know, we have a reauthorization in place. none of the wavering and all of this uncertainty. what really -- it boils down to me to one thing. you read through all these pages and pages, it boils down to one thing. for all the talk about flexibility, the fact that we in the states have to have our education plans approved here in d.c. by a secretary of education who, let's face it, these folks are not friendly to true education reform. that letter proves they are not friendly to parents. so i think my biggest warning,

my biggest advice would be any phrase that says a state plan has to be reviewed by d.c., that's a no will have go for me. -- no-go for me. >> wonderful. thank you, vicki. please join me in thank vicki for her wonderful presentation. [applause] >> you're watching booktv on c-span2, television for serious read ors. here's a look at what's on prime time tonight. we kick off the evening at seven eastern with a report on the world's water supply. and be then at eight, robert watson remembers one of worst maritime disasters of world war ii. our prime time schedule continues at 8:45 eastern with the washington east -- washington post's dan zack. at ten on "after words," ann coulter presents her case for why donald trump should be president. she's joined in conversation by the daily caller's tucker carlson. and we wrap up booktv in prime time at 11 with service employees inte