fellow in education policy here at heritage foundation. she focuses on reduce can dub empowering families with school choice. with that i'll hand it over to lindsey. >> thank you, andrew, and thanks to everybody for'ing here today. and everyone watching online at well. we're really excited to welcome vicki algier to heritage today to discuss her thorough and interesting become on the failure of federal education, and she doesn't mince words. the very title "failure: the federal miseducation of america's children" and argues it is time to end, not mend, federal intervention in education. as dr. algier explains in her book, the federal government left education alone for 100 years, recognizing it was the

purr vie -- 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. today, that agency houses nearly 5,000 employees, manages over 150 federal education programs, and has a discretionary budget of $70 billion. i might ad 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. so, what have we gotten for this federal large -- ess. it's red tape, bureaucracy and

wasteful spending. the u.s. has increasingly centralized education policy to increase spending -- through increased programs and through efforts such as common core. it's interesting, though, to note that other countries, high performing countries, have gone in the opposite direction and decentralizing education decisionmaking 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 and education. i'll let vicki answer that question. those questions are more in her discussion but we have major opportunity to advance education choice through innovative options like education savings accounts to restore private lending, in the higher education market, as 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. algier 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 forum. prior to that, dr. alleger was associate director of education studied at the pacific research institute and direct you of the goldwater institute's educational initiative. she received her ph.d in political philosophy at the university of dallas. join me welcoming disaster vicky alger. >> well, good afternoon. i'd like too thank hits siburg and andrew for put thing wonderful event together. it's such a thrill to be here at the heritage foundation, and thank you all for comping to talk about this very important

topic that actually touches every one of our lives. and thank you for listening to an 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 to -- want a controlling head by which the conflicting systems in a different state can be harmonized by which there can be uniformity. i take the high ground that every child is entitled to an education at the hands of somebody, and this ought not be left to caprice of individuals or the states so far as we have

any authority to regulate it. sound familiar? well, it's probably not who you think. this argue. was actually made by representative samuel molten 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 is wildly healed as one of the national leaders in school choice. we have some arizonaons in the audience itch was inspired to write this book as we're approaching the 30 year history of the u.s. department of education, and i wondered, are we better off because of it? frankly issue 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 departments hoyt teaching that's that government bureaucracies nor like fine wine. a they don't get better with age. history also teaches us that bureaucracies or resilient. the u.s. department of education was downgraded, defunded and reshulled for one federal agency for another, throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries. rather than abolishing in the 1980s, we decided to keep it around and try and use it to promote an excellence alleged. the result today, common core. this isn't what we were promised at all back in 1979. we'll recall the u.s. department of education was supposed to deception hill three things. one, improve student

achievement. 2. supplement, not supplant state and local government. and, 378, improve management and efficiency of federal education programs. so, how did those promises turn out? let's turn to number 1. 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 until today. as far as i can tell from the empirical track record we're spending above average amounts for squarely average student achievement and spending up to a 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 and 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 students, schools, and taxpayers. during "no child left behind" era, for example, from 2002 to 2009, the department of education's paperwork burden increased by an estimated 65%. and was larger than the burden imposed by the department 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 the 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 is nearly 20 times the

entire 4.4 billion race to the top program that was supposed to incentivize state reforms. and what about number 3? 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, gao, found the education department was one of a dozen or so agencies operating nearly 300 federal social, education, and training programs, and that no uniform definition of education program even existed at the federal level. the gao also found that within the department of education alone, eight different offices administer over 60 federal teach quality programs. well, how are program. s like these performing? according to the office of management and budget, omb, just

6% of u.s. department of education programs are deemed effective. but how can that be? from 1980 through 2010 the department of education program spending increased by more than $57 billion. outpacing student enrollment by more than five-to-one. so after more than three decade third department of education the i'd indicational performance of american students has not improved in spite of massive spending increases funneled through the department. the department has not achieved the promised administrative efficiencies, reduce paperwork or better management of federal programs. so it's unlikely that more time, more fiddling with the chart or funneling more money through the department is really going to improve education in the united states. it is high time we reject the now commonplace notion that the

federal government has some traditional or historical roll in d 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 white house believe in constitutional federalism, is that state citizens are best swathed 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 hinderance and

obstacle to effective programs that parents want and children -- into which childrenning succeeding. consider parents with legitimate concerns about subjecting their christian to common core influenced tests thieves parents are opting their children out of testing in droves. does this look familiar to anyone? anyone gotten one of these letters? it's a letter sent out in late december from the u.s. department of education to all state chiefs of education. i call it's happy new year nasty gram. as a result of parents, exercising their god-given inalienable rights to direct the upbridging and education of their children they decided to opt their children out of common common core influenced 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 toe 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 apolish the department of education began hmm medley after first established both in 1867 and again in 1979. each time these efforts failed because neither true are truly south to abolish the department of education, instead, for example, beginning in 1868, the department was downgraded, changed -- but we called the department. reshuffled around until ultimately restored to a full cabinet level department in 1979. restoring constitutional

authority over education requires a genuine an abolition plan. hoyt has shown that half measures will not prevent the u.s. department office of education as operate little as costly pass-through for the political agendas of washington, dc 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. 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 this is one of few programs deemed effective by the department's only what works division, and day tried to kill it bay tryings. the d.c. opportunity scholarship program is says but private my managed. number two, post secondary education scholarship ford veteran dependents, the scholarships are earned, not an entitlement, that should be administer bed veterans affairs. finalry, the office for civil rights to be moved to department of justice since it does perform constitutionally sanctioned work. however, since there won't be any u.s. department of education plan, any funding it would see to oversee us 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 to eliminate the u.s. department of education through what i call strategic dismantling. strictly speaking, strategic dismantling does not eliminate a single u.s. department of education program. it's simply transfers program. s, management, and associated funding, back to the states. so number one, right off the bat. we could be -- by getting rid of the physical plant and thephone program 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 2, the remaining 216 billion decide in associated program funding, along with another estimated $275 million in associated employee salaries, would be restored to the states to be

administered to state education agencies. taxpayers would no longer fund at the programs through the federal government but would stay for them threw state taxes until the program's preexisting expiration day. previous programs administered bier the u.s. department of education would depend on taxpayers deeming them necessary and effective enough to warrant ongoing fund through the states. what happens to schoolings during this transition? is it the question i get most o. it's world considering that as things stand right now between the state and 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 costs, much he all the paperwork and overhead burdens. so schools already experience uncertainty by relying or federal rounding. what is more, roughly every take

decade or so, as administrations change, schools, teachers and taxpayers are subjects to new agendas and mandates they require expensive replacement of the previous administration's programs, with lines from the current administration. what make it is different once control is returned to the stays, lawmakers, taxpayers and parents parents and educateddors can work more closely together at the local levels to better ensure clear education priorities, customized to meeting the specific needed of students in communities across the state. without all the chaos, cost and upheaval of the previous several decades of federal leadership in education. now its 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. 21 tax credit scholarship programs. nine individual tax credit and deduction programs. and there are five 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 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 ask the country, are not better off. but we can be. after decades 0 waiving the constitutional bare you're a federal role in education under the guys of partnering d guise of partnering with state government, it's time dissolve that partner shine and abolish the u.s. department of education opposite and for all. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, vicki. we'll take questions from the audience if want to kick it off and then let you take over. what do you say to someone who says, well, the states weren't doing a great job before there

was significant federal intervention. how can we be certain we'll actually see. prompts if he hand it back over, how do you respond to that? >> i would say that the number one critique, and frankly we have 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 the parents might do. there's a fundamental mistrust of the states and ultimately parents. what i found interesting going through the history up to what we now have, is early on before the civil war there is such what i would call constitutional circumspecifics. presidents, washington, jefferson, james madison, poor james' madison, he tried more

than anybody else, even during the constitutional convention, four times the constitutional convention, so many more times while president, he wanted a federal role in education so badly, but he said in so many others said, until we amend the constitution, congress has no authority. now, obviously we saw that give way and no longer enumerate pours. we were looking at the spend can clause. in the national interests for the federal government -- for national government to be taking a view of education. so that how they were able to do an end runnen around the constitution. but the lack of respect for the constitution really coincided with the disdain andtive respect and disregard for patients and the states. so, i think to answerrure question in a nutshell, if you look at the performance of the

us department of education, we gave them a fighting chance. more than 30 years. we've put the quote-unquote experts in charge. what we have is no better or just spending a whole lot more and that's the best case scenario. so, i would say, we certainly cooperate do any worse. we certainly couldn't spend anymore, and if you look at the scientific findings on the more than 60 parentat choice programs in the states we're doing a heck of a lot better. that what we should be expanding, not d.c. >> well, if you have questions for vicki, raise your hand and we'll have a mic come around, if you can wait on the microphone. wait one second. while we're waiting, let me pose one other question to you. so often -- if we look at where we for the first time saw some significant federal enter

intervention it was the defense education act and there's this idea at least there's a national defense component to it. so i think for a while there was sort of this good-a little sort of constitutional wink that the feeds were trying to get. have we totally left that, they don't even try to justify it anymore with the national defense arguement? and after that we can take audience questions. >> absolutely. i think there was, and when i think of the national defense in education act in 1958, defense is clearly in the national interests. clearly a role. i'm reminded of the words of senator from my home state, barry goldwater, who objected to it and. he objected first and for most because there's no constitution al role. number two, there were 12 federal mandates. my gosh, by today's standards 12 federal mandate is a rounding error. this argument made by senator

goldwater really resonates with me. if the good people of the state of arizona have in funding gaps we are more than capable of making up for it. and that why 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. they're our tax dollars that we send to washington. they come back to us. so, i think if rather than funneling is, minus the washington brokerage fee we'd be doing much better. >> raise your hand if you have a question. yes, sir in the back. >> i know you have opportunity the research to look at how many extra employees at universities, how many extra employees in school districts and how many extra employeeses at the state

depths of education and maybe even a local school district, can you give us some idea of. -- to also -- into 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 inunfortunately, hard and fast numbers don't exist. what we are seeing from historical record, let just take school districts for example. if you look at the ratio starting from the 1950s of school teachers to administrative staff, it used to be teachers dominated. now we're seeing techers and administrators are at best about equal and in some states on average, administrators outnumber teachers.

so we have seen a general growth. unfortunately aren't specific numbers, annual numbers 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 -- been told 90% or more of their staff simply deal with the federal programs. they're not taking billboards down on this, certainly not advertising it. it would be very controversial. but i'm hearing that from a lot of state superintendents of public instruction. i'm sorry, don't have a better answer for you. >> talk a little bit about other countries that are decentralizing and their education is improving in any that have gone quite this far to eliminate the federal prepares

in education? >> i look to think if you look at most countries it's interesting to me when you -- countries, particularly european countries, certainly china, have high degrees of centralization, and what people challenge me on is they say, ah-ha, cease countries are doing well because they have very strict government control. it's like, well, these countries also about 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 about the size of one of our state inside most cases, they'll have standardded but they give schools, parents, autonomy. look at the vary socialistic countries. for example, sweden, they have avoucher. know what the attitude in socialist sweden is? take one to school. we don't care where you go. go to a montesorri school, the

religious school? send your children to school. there really isn't pushback from the teacher unions. i hear we couldn't possibly do it because of the teacher unions. that not true. we stand up. we outnumber the teachers unions. but one example we don't have to look halfway across the globing globe. one of the best performing countries on earth otherwise neighbor to the north. they don't have a centralized government out of ottawa, as a province is in charge of their open okayed, deals with their own needs and stave off any, that's not a fair compare son, canada has much or more immigration than we do canada does have poor people, and they have children who don't speak other languages than english and canada also spends less, but it's also very decentralized and most canadians don't know it because it's so commonplace. they have voucher programs. so, i think that what matters

most is empowering parents, empowering teachers, let teachers be the professionals they are. make a very important distinction between the rank-and-file teacher and the politics of the teacher unions. let parented pick their schools and their teacher, let there be competition, and that is what spurs the continuous improvement in education we're seeing in top performing countries at a fraction of the price. >> so i have kind of a two-part question. my first is, what do you think the most effective form of school choice is, like vouchers versus -- and what are your ideas how to grow the program and create more programs across the country? >> that's an excellent question. i'll tell you, being from arizona, it's a lot of fun because generally with programs we're the first out of the gate, but then we have florida, a friendly rivalry with florida.

florida usually implements it. so we good back and forth. which is great. we learn that's how you promote continueout improvement. i would say that -- i'm going to leave political considerations aside. if i were in charge, esa is the way to good so interesting that we'll be celebrating freedman legacy day toward the end of this month, and just because we fund schools through government, doesn't mean that government knows best. some people would say, we should just get government completely out of it. well, okay, that going to take more than an hour. so, dealing with the way things are now, what i love about education savings accounts, education saving accounts basically all operate the same way. pointers who don't prefer a public school education for their children, simply tv the state and the state diets 90 parts thief funding it would

have sent to district or school, and parents get a type of dedicated use debit card, and funds are disbursed quarterly, and shock, shock, parents have to ask to actually submit expense receipts and go through verification, so none of this, gosh, somehow some one bizs bed tens of millions of dollars and we found out later. there have been five cases i'm aware of where parents misused the funds, $2,700, a couple thousand here and there. their accounts were frozen and they were held accountable and had to pay the money back. would say esas are my favorite because it allows parents to choose not just where their children or educated by how they'red of indicated, and what we're seeing in arizona -- arizona was the first state to have it in 2011 and we have successively expanded the program. is that parents are not just

paying for private school tuition but also getting a tutor or taking practice tests, or we're also getting ready for college. i think it's a wonderful program that leads to that sort of individualization in education that children need, which is a stark contrast to trend ear seeing now of this one size fits all. i like at eass a that any money left over is a college savings accountment that helps people pay for college the responsible way. so i think esa. you see the success in one state it's harder for neighboring states to say the sky is going to fall. so it's nice to share the experiences in the to state and then you can customize it rather than having it come from the top down. >> something you said spurred a thought for me. we have voucher programs, pretty robust ones. just at the higher ed level and

they're to some extent at the pre-k level. so i'm very rarely ever here someone say, well, those pell grants, i don't know. so, why is it that we have, do you think, this disconnect between how we finance higher education, writ is something that is portable for the most part and there's institutional funding but as a student you can go where you want, and why is there this disconnect between hoe refinances highered and k through 12 and in states what do public pre-k masseuse ooptions take the form of avoucher model. so why that disconnect? why that fear? >> a great question. that's one of those inconsistencies i love pointing out. on any given day, in congress, you could have a member of congress testifying that we need more money for peles and then another committee says this is terrible. we can't have -- the d.c. voucher program is 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 is a natural development so funding there are wasn't any sort of political special interest group around that. fast forward to k12 and we're creeping in. think the politics of it there has to be ash as as opposed to diverse educational landscape. the common school model that started in massachusetts. we have to improve that all throughout the country. and.

>> you have diversity and one size fits all and that's been the challenge, the different histories in that regard. >> yes, sir? >> you talk about the duration of some of these legislative programs. not being a legislator, can you -- i don't know the statistics of that. could 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. as i go through particularly chapter 10, i go through and i give you a blow-by-blow on all the programs. ...

>> by the states couldn't take over management of programs that help disadvantaged students. there's no reason states could into a. they do very and chapter ten outlines those in exacting detail. >> one more question, you mentioned the state could take over something like special education funding, can can you explain a little bit, the funding share. the of the federal government that despite all of the funding increases we have seen over the past half-century represents a relatively small share of the

600,000,000,000 dollars we spend. does that factor into how we restore state local control. that 90/ten share? >> you would would think for all of the mandates and all of the regulatory guidance that piles high, that would be getting at least one third or more, originally the country's largest teachers union did want a third of our funding to be federal funding. in reality, it is 10% is 10% or less in any given year. we have become so dependent on that 10%, we have become addicted to our own money. so it is only 10% of the something to keep in mind as we see these very heavy-handed mandates. all of these rules and guidance, even with flexibility i was hoping beyond hope that with the reauthorization of the every

student succeeds act, that's the latest reiteration of the elementary and secondary education act, first in 1965, i really wanted to believe we are going to get flexibility. i to get flexibility. i wanted to believe that secretary king was going to us he said, follow the letter of the law. and then we got that letter. keep in mind, when when we get things like this at best they are contributing 10 cents of every dollar we send here. that 10 cents is not appear ten cents. cents. were probably going to be spending a quarter trying to pay for all the mandates in red tape that comes along with it. >> hello. based on my research and more current experience in k-12 education, i am really surprised at the amount of other federal involvement there is at the k-12 education level.

for example the department of agriculture, health and human services. one of the things that resonates with me was that education is not just about educating or helping students learn. it's about being the parent. it's about being about being a social worker, psychologist, et cetera. can you talk about that please. >> absolutely. when we see these things, especially was going on in schools we think isn't that great. it's it's a one-stop shopping for raising children. it was never supposed to be that way. your setting yourself up for failure. a lot of those models then historically the progressives in the 18 hundreds that this was a great idea. things going in europe are so exciting and why can't we do that we can't just impose the school system which

would be will to two. and the express purpose of this government run schooling system is to make good subjects. very compliant, go along, provide the social services, nobody gets -- everybody is taking care of and everybody is content. although it does sell my could good idea conceptually what we see in reality is that 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. look at at the school lunches. i have four school-age stepsons in public school. the lunches are terrible. it's even worse in your cooking, and i think that's pretty bad. so trying to take over these

things you are setting yourself up for failure. you certainly cannot do it in a free society because it is going to entail basically making children the creatures of the state. for all the good intentions i would say be very careful what you're signing away for the sake of convenience. let's face it, someone in the kids get the lunch or whatever they're serving at school. but no. the state coming in and taking over and there's a pattern we see so frequently with, we we just need to help this group of people. low income children he can't really do that, that's usually springboard for universal access -- very quickly degenerates into a universal mandate and compulsory. one-size-fits-all. it is never for example send your child to preschool and get programs you want.

you must send your child to this type of preschool. you can't leave little johnny home with grandma because she's not certified and doesn't know what she's doing. i think that's what's happening. were trying to grasp to incompatible molds onto each other. >> i came from the soviet union. i think education is the most -- industry in the united states because -- [inaudible] but without income caps. so it's for low-income people and we don't go anywhere with that anymore. but i was in nevada can you

elaborate because i think the ideal is that you can choose any form. >> absolutely. it's so wonderful, our neighbors to the north in nevada, their education savings account program is far better than arizona's. it is universal. basically if you are eligible to attend a public school in nevada, you you are eligible for an educational savings account. being challenged in court, but it looks like they're going to be some very positive results. that's how we should be doing it. why shouldn't, in fact i would say it should not be just use for people who don't prefer a public or district charter

school, if you are citizen and a child in the state were not there yet. what i like to see is that families save for their own education. you have your own education savings account i don't care what type of school whether your public, public-private shouldn't ultimately go away. we should be focusing less on where they're going to school. i would like all education funding as a first step. just like college, pick where you go to college and pick we go to school. if you're not happy with the result take your child elsewhere because you'll get examples of the public school works well, the online school, the private

school. i would say nevada is absolutely the way to follow it. we have to take ownership if government is in involves children can education the most charitable people on the face of this earth in terms of time, talent, and treasures. what we donate. i have a. i have a very hard time believing that when there is any and the child generally cannot afford that the community would not rally.

that is how it used to be before i agree with you. thank you for bringing up nevada. that's a drag we should be going >> in the legislation that was written that gave broad discretion could you highlight what are some of the consequences that may go up for parents and children alike. >> finally we reauthorized and have a reauthorization in place. what it boils down to is one thing you read thing through all of these pages and it talks

about flexibility we have to have our education by the secretary of education let's face it these folks are not friendly to true education reform that proves it's not friendly to parents. my biggest one anyone that says the state plan has to be reviewed by d.c., it's a no go for me. >> please join me in thanking vicki for a good presentation. [laughter] >> the final program from book tvs campaign issue series and education is sarah.

she discussed her book, paying the price, college cost, financially, and the betrayal of the american dream. on book tvs afterwards program. >> good afternoon sarah, how are are you today? >> guest: i'm good, thank you for having me here. >> host: i am so excited. i love your book. "paying the price". it is. it is a book that is full of important data and very complex data about the implications of financial aid in income and being able to graduate college but it was so readable. >> thank you, that was the goal can i'm. >> host: can i read you quote from the book. this book is intended to be a wake-up call. it brings the lives of students pursuing college degrees front and center and unveils their financial struggles.

ensuring the american public has a clear sense of how and why financial aid is failing to get students to graduation and this will help us find effective solutions. what drove you to do this study? >> guest: this study came out of a long-standing set of research on why some people finish college and other people don't. i've been been interested in that question for much of my career. one of the things that experts have said matter about how students during college's money. at. at the same time whenever they examined the effects they don't five very much. for some reason the effects of things like financially just don't seem to be that large. in in 2008 i was approached by a set of philanthropist said were gonna do something and generous. we will give