i think as is often the case with young voters, there is more movement than among other voters as they gain experience and build on the initial thought they have had on politics. i had thought for some time there is a tension between how millennials and young voters live their lives with their own ipad -- ipod play lists, their own facebook pages, designing their own future and the one-size-fits all mid 20th century welfare state policies of the obama democrats that want to slot everybody in one category. i think that's a tension there that the republicans have doneit they have done little to explode. i do not think that those numbers are the current numbers on young voters. democrats started off with a lead. i do not think that lead is

overtakeable. finally, democrats, this comes out more in congressional elections -- they have more concentration. analysts look at the map and said that the republicans are just a southern party. there was some validity to that. they carry the majority of the votes in the south, but not in the other three regions of the united states. if you look at 2010, you see what basically becomes a republican country from the george washington bridge to the donner pass. leading the cannibals standing at both ends. [laughter] if you look at house seats, for example, barack obama carried 20 to districts with 80% or more of the vote. john mccain carried zero districts with 80% or more, so did george w. bush.

republican votes are more spread around, more districts with democratic votes because of demographic concentration and the prevailing interpretation of the new voting rights act. a tense debate concentrated in view -- in a few votes, giving democrats advantage in house solutions. >> now, we will get this order right and turn to questions from the audience. i would like to begin with a question from a fellow demographer who recently said that democracy was the best friend that democrats have and geography is the best friend that republicans have. >> i think there is something to that. he is an old friend.

ray said of the case for democracy being -- for demography being a democrats friend. block americans probably will not be quite as democratic after 2012. but demography works in that way. i address the question of geography. there is a concentration of democrats. when we were talking about the fastest growing metropolitan areas -- >> those are the biggest. if you look at ohio, columbus is growing faster. >> you have more of a white- collar level -- >> yes. you have the mine organization -- the minoritization.

>> i do think that it is a minor disadvantage for democrats. they have the university towns. they have the central city single area. good to northern virginia and you look at the high-rise buildings in alexandria and i was told that those were infected with obama voters. [laughter] >> that is it. it never keeps coming. >> there is an advantage there. but in terms of carrying the whole state of virginia, you're limited in the number of districts to have and you are limited to some extent on whether you can raise

enthusiasm from others. >> democracy is pretty straightforward. let me say a word about geography. i am not so sure that i by geography is on the other side of the scale. again, if you look at where america is growing the fastest, if you look at states with metro areas that are the most dynamic, you typically find trends that democrats have overtime in areas that are fast-growing that in the areas that are slow-growing. in areas where nothing is happening and it is declining, that is where the gop does the best. if you look at the metro area, it was believed that if you have fast growth, it is probably because it is on the suburban fringe, the better part of the metro areas.

and they tended be conservative and they must be republican. but you typically see the inner suburbs producing most of the population growth. that helps the democrats. the outer suburbs, they become more educated and particularly a large proportion of minorities over time. even if there remain conservative overall, their average level of support for the gop is dropping and their average level of support for the democrats is increasing. my sense is that the demographic trends are in extricable from the geographic trend. they go together in ways that fundamentally and said the democrats over time. that does not mean that they will win every seat in a metropolitan area for all time. >> there are still the exurbs. democrats did carry those in

2005. >> they did better over time. >> they moved toward the republicans. if you look at the exurban areas, the metroplex, metro atlanta, they tend to be very heavily republican in seven areas, except to the south of atlanta, where you have substantial increase in and black residential areas. >> if an areas from 80% of republican to 60% republican, it is the same thing as going from 60% republican 26% democrat. it is the same number of votes. >> a stronger number is the 2008 results. >> let's move on. what are the indicators that a realignment, albeit a gradual one, is at hand? are they mostly demographic? >> certainly, there demographic. when you look at an election

like 2008 and you see the distribution of votes, both by demographic group and by state and by region within a state, you see significantly different patterns. i think that is a sign came when uc -- one of the things we mentioned, that you alluded to at the beginning of the debate, is that they consolidate the vote over their holders. we clearly see more of their voters. you also see more groups, like the professionals i alluded to earlier. this is a very significant change over time. college educated whites used to be solidly democratic group. they are not -- republican. now they're not. ean more toward the democrats. it continues to be tested, but it goes from strongly republican to contested. it is a demographically driven lean toward the democrats.

>> michael, some indicators of gradual change? >> ray made reference to electoral realignments. >> is that not a fun book? >> he makes the argument -- he looked at the it arguments that various people have made that everything changed in 1800, 1828, 1932. kevin phillips reference to that in his book in 1968. but the mid-1990's, they're looking at their watches and saying that it is time for a realignment. we are due for one because it is generational. what made you does is look at the various indicators of realignment and finds that is

less their then we have seen. but he does concede in that book that the very nature of the events and various a issues that cut to the heart of people's concerns of life can make a major difference in voting behavior. the elections of 1860, for example, 1932, also, these are examples where those things come into play and you do see a different party alignment. you also see party instability in the 1850's which we have not seen otherwise in our history. in 1932, it was an economic collapse > we have ever seen before. >> do you think attitude for the democrats can be changed? >> i certainly think that, over time, that is quite possible. i would argue probably.

these trends are big, long standing and will continue for quite a long time. it is just the mathematics of it that means that republicans have to develop over time. in a trance and gen, i fire breathing stance against the democrats and everything they stand for, it works pretty well. the democrats' ability to the economy, it does not mean we have lost faith and the republicans. it means we have lost faith and the democrats. i do not think it will work or they medium to long term. republicans will have to move to the center on social issues. they will have to drop their opposition to all taxes and cutting benefits to the wealthy. i do not think that is sustainable over the long run. >> i would take a different view

of what is being more moderate means. i would not disagree with the argument that arguments -- that republicans and democrats need to have an incentive in the electoral system to adapt their opposition to changing circumstances overtime. i think that the democrats have come up with a series of public policies that, as we speak today, are seen by widespread majorities as a failure in stimulate economic growth. that will not necessarily be a permanent verdict, but one that might call on democrats to do some rethinking. one of the things i have noticed in this last 15 year period, in the last presidential elections, it has been within 1% were the popular vote for the house is two years preceding

perio. in 2004, it was the republican upsurge in 2002. the exception to that rule, of course, is the preceding cycles in which bill clinton did significantly better than the republicans or the democrats did in the house election of 1994 when they got 45% of the vote. bill clinton got 49%. he was probably about 51% or 52%, which is where george bush was in 2004. one of the interesting things for both parties is that we have not seen any time recently what we saw when johnson -- presidents johnson, nixon, and reagan were reelected with percentages of 59% to 61%.

i attribute that to the culture war of our politics. each party is unacceptable to a larger part of the electorate than it was in 1964 to 1984. with propitious economic reform policies or weak opposition, one party was acceptable to water spread of people. -- to a wider spread of people. >> by the end of the decade, will the status of texas be majority democratic or republican? texas is moving in the democratic direction. and a second question -- to the exit polls tell us a thing about second, third, fourth generation hispanic voters? do we know anything about how they will be voting in 50 years? >> i have been hearing

predictions that texas -- if you look at "southern politics," texas would have working-class whites, blacks, and latinos. it has not happened yet. there was a competent democratic opponent in 2010. it was 55/44, republican vin taxes republicans have been adapted to them. >> the question of about texas, will texas the blue at the end of this decade? i still tend to doubt that. i think it will be more competitive because of the population changed dynamics that are taking place in texas.

we know the minority population is continuing to grow their quite smartly. we also know, if you look at the fast-growing metropolitan areas of texas, you see an increasing firmness to the democrats, particularly in the inner suburbs in places like dallas and houston. austin is quite a democratic metro at this point. the stronghold of texas republican is and is in the rules and where the population growth has not taken place and there is a population decline. over time, this will shift texas in a direction that is more amenable to a two-party competition. however, it may be a heavy lift to say that it will be blue by the end of the decade. we know nothing about second, third, fourth generation hispanics from the exit polls. they only ask just that, are you of hispanic descent or not? we know from surveys that there is not a huge difference between a native-born and later

generations of hispanics who are immigrants. they tended be pro-democratic. they're less likely to vote for many reasons. the last survey i saw, native- born hispanics had a 32-point party and identification for the democrats. i will take that over the long term. >> even angelico hispanics are more democratic than catholic hispanics. >> this outage was originally a trip did to either israeli or churchill. if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head. our baby boomers becoming their parents? are they becoming more conservative? what does that mean for a gradual realignment? >> baby boomers voted 50/54 nixon-mcgovern. if you look at the did a poll from 2008, a big democratic year, that same age group was

going 50/49 for republicans. so they did change. it is fascinating to me to watch the cultural issues that ande been a factor a california have a referendum on marijuana. the baby boom generation voted yes. as they get older, they would vote no. for medical marijuana, they have been supportive as they get older. [laughter] questions on gay-rights, young voters are hugely in favor of same-sex marriage. will they continue to be that as a roller-will this be one of those cultural issues that will become more conservative as they grow older? that has happened to the baby boom generation to its considerable extent, but not on all issues. >> the baby boomers have never

been as pro-democratic or liberal as they are today. baby boomers, it is important to differentiate between early and late baby boomers. early baby boomers, of which i am one, 10 to be much more democratic. there the second as a democratic generation. later baby boomers are significantly more conservative. it is not clear that baby boomers have changed that much overtime want to take into account the differentiation between the generation. will the millennial is still liberal as there now? i agree with michael. on social issues, i think the concept that, as they get older and are more likely to be married and so on, they will throw gay marriage over the side is ludicrous. i do not think that will happen. i think there is an indelible change in american politics. these issues will go way pretty

rapidly over time. the newer cohorts are far more liberal in this issue. there will drive the issue out of politics. i think we will see it in this decade. there will be some local fights in some states. >> the boomers are the first generation where the college people have been more democratic than their elders. the college/g i generation. non-college boomers have been more republican than gi generation and non-college folk. >> that sounds right. i would have to sit down and mess around with the data, but that sounds right. >> will not democrats lose ground democrats do not get more folks out there defending their president? only the president is defending his policies. >> that is a question about what obama should do or disposed

people? maybe this is a question indirectly of how weather people on the left are harassing him as much. it has been difficult for his most ardent supporters and the active people there at the base to get out there and if and president when he spent six months cutting deals with the republicans on deficit and debt reduction and did not even mention the word jobs in a couple hundred days. i think that is dispiriting to people. i think he's trying to turn that around. whether it is too little too late, we will see. but his spokespeople as activists will be up there in greater force. >> which is the greater turnout in your majority rule pieces? >> the david mayhew book has a whole section where he tries to demolish the whole concept that high turnout is necessarily

associated with what have you, realignment and so on. it is hard to make that case. i think there should be some sort of correlation between elections where we see this majority emerge and turn out to get a little higher. but i do not expect an outpouring of higher turnout. the stand that will be youths and hispanics. there are multiple barriers to the participating. i do not think we should count on that is something we will say as a 10-point spike in voter turnout. but i think we may see some increase. if we see progress in the immigration issue, i think that would help. >> we are in a high turnout era. the biggest increase was between 2000-2004. turnout was 16% and that was a

republican year. it does not necessarily favor one party or another. turnout was less in 20042008, but that benefited democrats. -- 2004 to 2008, but that benefited democrats. >> what do you mean by a political center? michael would argue that there is a center-right coalition in this country that should be dominant. i would argue that there is a center-left coalition. with the questioner is getting at is that there's something called "the center" that is different from what the democrats are and what the republicans are. therefore, washington working better, reducing the deficit, and they do not really care about social programs. on the other hand, they do not just want to cut taxes or something. i think the center is a bit

mythical. most people either lean toward the republicans or the democrats. the question is which side will do a better job presenting its case so they can activate their coalition. in the democrats' case, it is the center-left coalition. moderates tend to lean toward the democrats. and people think of centrists, they think of moderates. they tend to favor programs that democrats have and look at social issues as democrats. then you have republicans and there is the center. i think the center is not true and is not worth using as political analysis. >> when democrats and republicans got together for a non-adult beverage at the end of the day, it is like chasing a mirage. in the 1960's, we have rights in

the streets and we had seven turmoil. in the 1950's, you had mccarthyism. in 1940's, we had the isolationists in debate. i think a lot of commentators to call for a center wants everybody to agree with them. the fact is that what we have seen over the last couple of years as leaders take political risks for policies that they thought would be good for they country -- george w. bush on iraq and the surge, nancy pelosi and barack obama on obamacare. in the short run, those look like losing bets. >> there are many young people in the audience. how much of a factor is the absence of a conservative version of java stored or steven colbert in showing the view of -- of john stuart and steven colbert and showing the view of

these young people? steven nohave not found colbert funny. i cannot tell you. john stewart is at least sometimes enable opportunity satirist. that is my contribution. -- an equal opportunity satirist. that is my contribution. >> if they did not the democrat -- why are there not republican equivalents? i think it is partly because the ambiance of that kind of humor and that way of talking about the news is not a comfortable fit for today's republican party. but what about the simpsons? >> what about the simpsons? [laughter] >> do they not take gone liberal and conservative issues? >> they are more liberal, taking

on the comedy central text of. >> we will now take on closing statements. >> we covered a lot of ground in this debate. it has been jolly fine. i hope i convinced you are made to consider the idea that we do have a demographically driven lean in the electorate toward the democrats that is likely to be here for some time to come and for whom ongoing trends should strengthen. michael raise the number questions about my thesis. i cannot cover them all here. one thing he did mention that is what's going on is the issue of minorities continuing to vote heavily for the democrats. will the black continue to favor democrats by 90% or so? i do not think so.

barack obama, hispanics are more a debatable issue. michael mentioned that, in 2010, hispanics were only 60/38 for the democrats. that is more subpar considering their 2008 performance. 2010 was the year in which a lot of democratic margins were contracted. it is not surprising to see that that election saw that for hispanics as well. there is the technical dispute that the exit polls tend to underestimate the strength of the democratic vote among hispanics. the 60-38 estimate may have been a bit of an underestimate. michael opens up the that hispanics are more democratic than other hispanics. that is true for some communities. even some states, time will show

a far lower level of democratic voting than we typically see. but that should not surprise us. there is no uniformity among these kinds of voting tendencies. their attendance things. they are probabilities. you know nothing about an area, you had probably pretty good guess. if democrats did that, i will be satisfied. even in a state like florida, we see significant change among spandex -- among hispanics. it was largely driven by cuban- americans. a change has taken place and florida were cuban-americans are becoming a lower percentage of hispanic voters are overall. we see yonder cuban-americans being significantly more liberal leaning than their older counterparts. the hispanic population in florida is in a state of flux and will typically benefit the democrats. they are concentrated in certain

states. however, the interesting fact is that the census data shows that hispanics are growing all of the united states and lots of places where you would not expect to see them. some of the highest growth rates have been in relatively conservative southern states where their growth rates are just off the charts. they are concentrated now in certain states and they may continue to be for a certain extent, like california and texas and so on. but they are growing all over the country and they are becoming electorally significant minority in those states. that will definitely continue in my view. michael mentioned the millennial in theluctuate proclivities. we have seen their party idea advantage decline from 27 to about 13. it will go back up as the political situation changes.

if it is around 20 points, that is a significant move on the scales. we will see that until about 2018. moreover, like the baby boom generation that i have seen so far, we have not seen a switching loyalties among older and younger members of this generation. they all seem to be very solid. how many ministers have? one minute? michael points out that 2010 was a different election. if you look at some of the demographic trends, if you look at some of the geographical variations in the vote, republicans overall decried a little bit better in 2010 than they did in 2008. we cite impression of democratic margins. -- we saw a compression of democratic margins.

we saw more older voters turning out leading conservative at this point. that is part of the reason that they did better. the economy underlies that. but ask yourself this question. if you had to take a bet on what the electorate of the united states will look like 10 years from now, if you think it will be the electorate of 2010 or the voting electorate of 20 -- a 2008, i submit to you that what we're more likely to see as these trends continue and this decade unfolds, the electorate will look much more like 2008 and less than 2010. thank you. [laughter] >> thank you very much. i think the biggest difference in these issues is not so much the demographic analysis, but on the long term likely response of voters to different public

policies. 2010 was the biggest change in partisan personages measured by popular vote for the house. nine points away for the democrats, nine points towards the republicans, since then we have seen since 1946 and 1948. those are elections that few of us have distinct memories, except for nancy pelosi because she was from a politically active family. if you calibrate the differentiation of the turn made between 2008 and 2010, if you substitute the 2008 personages and put that out, it makes it one to 1.5-point difference. that is a huge change. what this has in common with 1946-1948, the postwar years, both times americans have been facing questions about the size

and scope of government. should we vastly expand the scope of government? the results of the public policies and the various elections, the republican victory in 1946 and a democratic victory in 1948 resulted in a different balance between public and private sector and you got contemporaneously in great britain with the labor government elected in 1945. they went the route of big government and america went a route somewhere in between. americans would welcome the redistributive public policies of things like obama care.

that does not seem to be the case among the majority of voters so far. partly, it is on that basis that i think that the 2008 numbers that obama and congressional democrats were able to win from hispanics, from millennial voters, and so forth will have difficulty repeating those kinds of margins periodically. that is a judgment based on public responses to public policy, of which i cannot be certain. the best i can say is that we will see what comes out of that. politicians arhave sought to ths will of the wisp of partisan majority which is like the mirage of the desert that keeps going away from you.

this does have the good effect that they're thinking not just a one election, but also of groups and people in constituencies that will become larger overtime. both parties have given thought to hispanic voters and will continue to do so. but the fact is that it seems to me, in looking back, that the goals of the parties should be more likely not to produce in during party majorities which do not really exist, but enduring public policies. sometimes you can do that with a maturity that is renewed periodically for a ferry link the amount of time. social security is one example of that, which we have been threatened, if republicans had won in 1936, but has become a permanent feature the taft hartley act passed in 1947 over

the veto of president truman continues to govern major -- labor management policy. as we look ahead, one of the things we can look to the 2012 elections is that whether the policies of the obama democrats will endure or if they will end up being repealed or reversed in some significant way. that is a major issue before the public. with america having given us examples of both republican majorities -- 2002-2004 -- and democratic majorities, pretty robust -- 2006-2008 -- all things are possible. [applause] >> i would like to thank all of you for coming. i want to thank you for

excellent presentations. if you missed some of the finer points of this discussion, you can tune in again at our website. thank you for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

elizabeth warren launched an exploratory committee. more about campaign 2012 is on our website, c-span.org. more coverage coming up this afternoon as the gallup polling group reports on public opinion of the u.s. education system. that will be at the 3:00 p.m. devore herschel and, the

chairman of the national transportation safety board talks about aviation security. she will speak to the airline pilots association at their annual meeting. >> it is a country fraught with corruption, natural disasters, and islamic extremists. >> what was really shocking to me and many people in pakistan is that these assassinations were welcomed, were congratulated by many pakistanis. these are not terrorists, not al qaeda, not taliban, but ordinary pakistanis who feel that their religion is threatened, that the country is becoming too secular, that the islamic values are under attack, and that blasphemy, which is any thing that insults the profit or

islam, is something you have to defend with your life. >> sunday night on "q&a." >> august 16 marked the 34th anniversary of the death of elvis presley. jerry schilling talks about the king and events that led to his 1970 visit to the white house and his meeting with president nixon. we will also visit mount vernon were recent archaeological discoveries have shed light on george washington. susan eisenhower talks about her grandfather died david eisenhower, his record low for painting, and his portrait of his wife. get the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history. >> defense intelligence deputy director david said and former acting cia director jack mclaughlin talk about the success and challenges of the

u.s. intelligence community. mr. mclaughlin warned of a cyber pearl harbor and increasing issues of security threats. this 90-minute discussion was posted yesterday at the national press club. >> thank you very much, alan. let me say what a pleasure is to working with you on this series. this is the first of the series and there's more to come. i think that, demonstrated by the large turnout here today, we will have a hard time generating more star power than we have here on the stage today, many thank you to john and david for being with us. the topic of today is a broad topic -- secrets in security: security today. we will do a horizon and

talking little bit about the reforms that have been undertaken in the intelligence community in the last few years. both of these gentlemen are highly experienced in that and have been through that and helped shape it. i thought it might be useful to start with a little bit of an introduction from our panelists. i thought it would be worth highlighting some of their really impressive experience. let me start with john mclaughlin. he is former deputy director of the cia and also former acting director of the cia. he spent more than 30 years with the cia, starting in 1972, with a focus on european, russian, and eurasian issues. he held a variety of senior positions before becoming

deputy director for intelligence from 90 -- from 1997 to 2000. he headed the analytical corps. while deputy director for intelligence, he showed a lot of concern about the health of the work force and about bringing in the next generation, making sure they work well situated in the intelligence community. he created the senior analytics service, a cia career track that would allow them to arrive at a s.ry senior ranke it was a solitary initiative. it is an institution that teaches the history of the analytical profession to a new cia employees.

during the closing months of the clinton administration and the beginning of the bush administration, john serve as the vd director, acting director, and again to be director of the cia until late 2004. he is now a senior fellow and distinguished practitioner and residents at the merrill center for strategic studies at the paul lester school for advanced international studies. he has been appointed by the director of national intelligence to head up a group of national security experts to investigate various intelligence failures, if you will, and to make recommendations for possible fixes. he is an accomplished magician. [laughter] he has lectured on magic before big conventions of magicians. if i had only thought to ask him

to do a magic trick before we got on stage here, he would have done one. but now i think he is not prepared to do one that all of you can see. that is what is important, that you be able to see it. the cameras might be able to see it, but anyway. we will leave that for the q&a. david said was named deputy director of the defense intelligence agency in august 2010. he helped manage a workforce of 16,500 military civilian employees worldwide and lead to is called a defense intelligence enterprise as all of the defense intelligence community organizations with the budget within the department of defense. i heard him describe his career as follows. 27 years in the cia, 4.5 years in the national security council

staff, and then a number of years at the very top of the director of national intelligence, helping to shape that institution, before moving to his current posting at cia. these bios are subject to correction by you gentlemen. he served from may 2007 to august 2010 as director of national intelligence policy, plans and requirements. he wa in particular, he led the review, executive order 12333, of the intelligence policy.

he developed and implemented the national intelligence strategy published in august 2009 for the intelligence community and led all strategic planning efforts to determine future intelligence priorities for the community and the nation. we have two highly experienced people here who know all the ins and outs of the intelligence community. we thought we might start by asking them a broad question about the intelligence community and let them talk a little bit about how they see the intelligence community today l.i. of the reforms that have come especially -- today in light of the reforms that have since thecially fro director of intelligence has come on the scene. you might tell us if the national intelligence strategy

developed and published two years ago is holding up in light of developments since then. >> it is not only my pleasure to be here, just to leverage on the introduction, i would tell you it is rare to find an individual who has worked at so many different places at senior levels -- white house, military intelligence, civilian intelligence. at the very top of the community, working with dni. david's experience is quite fast.

-- david's experience is quite vast what you think about intelligence depends a little bit on how you think about intelligence. i actually do not use the word "reform. " i talk about it being transformed rather than reform. let me put it this way. i tend to look at it in the long term starkly. the major point that would make to you is that intelligence, as a discipline of national security, is relatively new in the united states compared to other countries. if you look at china, for example, the military strategist there was writing about all the things we talked about here in very sophisticated ways in the sixth century bc. we have been doing this since 1947. when i say that, that is when

the cia was created and we were the last major country to actually create a national intelligence service. we had intelligence before then, but largely in pockets of the military and so forth. you could divide the history of intelligence here into some areas. the era of innocence is roughly from the revolution to world war ii. we did not pay much attention to the whole intelligence field before them. world war ii is the era of transformation. we learn about all of the classic disciplines from the british, basically, and from our experience fighting a worldwide struggle against two other powers. in that time, we invented imagery from space. the fall of the berlin wall was a period of deep transformation.

then we enter the 1990's where there is a dip in interest, kind of the era of uncertainty. many of you work in the governor can you know that we were cut fares dramatically, especially in national security in the 1990's. the 9/11 happens and we enter another era. it does not have a name, but it is another transformation. that transformation is accelerated by the restructure that occurred in 2004 with the creation of the dien dni. so it is still relatively new and has been in a state of transmission for the last couple of decades. about the big restructuring in 2004, it is complicated. but fundamentally, i should confess that i started out as an opponent of this. essentially, it moved the leadership of the intelligence community from the position i held as acting dci to another

office that was created then, the director of national intelligence. i have come to view it as a positive thing. in part because of what it liberates the cia to do. it is very hard to run an entire community of 16 to 17 agencies, depending how you count them, when you are still running a global agency. it is now possible for a director to focus on those things that here she is personally responsible for. the dni can drive things that no one else can do. integration of sourcing, of the effort, common standards for many different things across the community. i think we can say more about

it. fundamentally, would people often say about that office is that it is a work in progress. each dni brings its own twist to it. the current director of national intelligence is emphasizing the integration of effort. analysis and collection, basically. my sense is that that is progressing pretty well and david can elaborate on that if he wishes. the final point i would make is that judging intelligence is hard. its u.s. car we doing, my answer is pretty well -- if you ask how are we doing, my answer is pretty well. intelligence is essentially a competitive game. you're competing in the world with adversaries who are seeking

to deceive you, deny you information. this is not classic research. this is a contact sport. whether you think of intelligence as basketball or baseball, as my friend says, it will constitute how you judge it. if you think basketball, you have to him about a 5% of your shots if you're a foul shooter or you're not succeeding. if you are -- about 85% of your shots if you are a foul shooter or you're not succeeding. think how tough intelligence is. you're working against an adversary who is seeking to deceive you. you're working in an atmosphere where the information is hard to come by. i would not put a grade on it. but i would say that we always want to be on the 90% and of the

scale. -- 90% end of the scale. i can remember instances in the summer before 9/11 when i would call the deputy secretary of state and say that you have to evacuate an embassy in a certain part of the world because there is an attack planned on it. we were very confident of it. i knew that those reports were accurate. while the embassy was not attacked, nobody hears about it. intelligence also succeeds when it is woven into the fabric of a successful policy. something like the balkans in the 1990's, for example -- intelligence was very active there. but the intelligence role is quite invisible. there is a joke in my profession the says there are only two kinds of outcomes in the world.

not to say that intelligence does not fit sometimes. it clearly does and we can talk more about that. but my point is simply that i would leave it at that and i think that, overall, the endeavor is going pretty well. america has a pretty good intelligence enterprise. another friend of mine used to say on the first worst -- on the very worst today we are still better than anyone else. and on our very best day, we're still not as good as we need to be. the tension between those two things kind of defiance the nature of this. >> thank you for this event. it is an honor to be here next to john who i have admired for many years, worked beside him

and then had the opportunity to do severalni's reviews that have been of great benefit. i will not start with george washington as john did. [laughter] >> i am older. >> but in those 30 years, how dramatic the changes have been. let me put them in three categories. mission, people, and, now again, the budget. the people are one of the greatest contributors to the craft of intelligence for fulfilling the mission. but the mission itself has changed dramatically. when i think of who we produce for, i think of my first 20 years, very much pre-9/11,

thinking almost exclusively of support to the president, to national security establishment, the nsc itself. and providing that intelligence with the objective or the goal of creating this is an advantage with decision confidence. i will talk about that a little more. -- with decision advantage with decision confidence. i will talk about that lamar. the commanders and were fighters, in that category, where we have seen a meld of integrating tactical with national intelligence, national intelligence with tactical. and increasingly indistinguishable common terms of trying to measure, the net contribution of one or the other. that is a dramatic change in the machine. the third category beyond that

combat commander is state, local, tribal law enforcement. the fusion centers, the dhs mandate, intelligence, and analysis, when i think of intelligence and what we have instituted, still imperfectly, but writing to give that law enforcement community that decision advantage that would give them that confidence advantage that can clarify that issue. there is a much greater demand for actionable information. that i remember in the last 20 years or so. we are in the 60% to 65% range

throughout the intelligence community of hires that have come in post-9/11 period. obviously now it's a decade and that isn't far off. but you have to also look in the first five years it was already at 45% or 50%, so it was a dramatic change in the makeup of your work force. it is said that at any given time our work force has four generations in it. and as we look at the challenges -- any of you who are parents of teenagers or perhaps in their early 20's -- compared to how you see the world and how they see it. i call it the p.d.a. world. they are literally in their world of virtual space before they go into physical contact with friends. in a way that they think differently about the world that they're in. in many ways i consider it a world that the adversary also in that generation sees as

having no boundaries. physical boundaries as we have known them are dropped dramatically as a result of the cyberspace and the social network that they reside in. so how we look at the intelligence business and how they view the world in that gen x, gen y is important as a leader inside d.i.a. but as well as for my colleagues across the 16 agencies, 17 agencies with the d.n.i.'s office. finally, the budget. what we're trying to do under the direction or leadership under jim clammer as director of national intelligence is try to look at lessons learned from the 1990's. i think judging from most of the ages in this room you'll remember very clearly the so-called are peace dividend that we thought we were able to harvest in terms of the fall of the wall and the fall of the

soviet union. that is not the case today in terms of the demand signal for intelligence against those three big broad categories that we support but within those categories the demand is increasing at a time that the budget is shrinking. that drives me naturally toward an idea that perhaps in many ways foreshadowed in 2004 this idea of a d.n.i., releaving the d.c.i. to run c.i.a. as d.c.i. today and having this full-time responsibility fuelly put on the shoulders of a director of national intelligence by any other name. the creation of that person. but now as we go into these fifth -- this fiscal environment that we're in -- and i tend to remind my people as well as at d.i.a. often, we've always been resource

constrained. we are simply going into a much more resource constrained environment in where i think that demand for intelligence either flattens or increases and i would say it's the latter. we have to have a different formulation as to how we're going to work together. and that will drive us toward greater integration. duplication of that will collapse around single efforts of where agencies will do more together. if you think of the spectrum of coordination -- and i believe as an intelligence community we graduated from that a long time ago. we coordinate pretty well. that doesn't mean there aren't occasions where that falls through between a c.i.a. and an f.b.i. or an n.s.a. with an n.g.a. and so forth, that whole alphabet soup, but by and large we have doing that for many, many years. the collaboration -- moving toward that center. again, i think the past decade

we've shown a jointness at collaborating a whole lot better. that is simply two parts coming together and saying what's the task at hand, what's the challenge we're facing, let's work together toward it. i'll put in my pieces. you put in your pieces. i'm talking about a different model at integration. not on every single subject. not on every single effort. but where it makes sense. you bring the human capabilities integrated against that same target set in terms of what the defense, human effort is with the national clan des ion service as one -- clandestine service as one example. cybersecurity, you not have it separate and still collaborating. so i think i've given you a bit of a sense of where i think we're going while giving you an idea of where i think we've come from over the past decade,

in particular, as we look at this very broad and capable intelligence community simply building on what john already said. >> thank you, david. let me follow up on one thing you said. you talked about the dramatic change that has national intelligence melding with tactical intelligence to support the war fighter. experience i had when i went out to the air force base in kuwait and they showed us there the -- a video of a use of a predator with army tactical squad in baghdad a block away from the department building, and the predator was there and taking a picture of the apartment building where there was a snimer. and so it had a cursor that was

focused on one level of the apartment building, and the squad radioed their commanders and said, no, this is -- you need to move over, you know, two apartments and down two levels, and that was communicated somehow by satellite, etc., to the operator of the predator who was sitting in a trailer in las vegas who then made the adjustment to the targeting and blew the sniper out of the apartment building. that's amazing melding of tactics, etc. i don't know other intelligence. that's one antidote. can you give us a little color, if you will, how that operates on the ground now? i give you one instance. but i know there are many others. >> i often recount the story about zarqawi and his demise in iraq where he was clearly the mirror for al qaeda iraq at the

time, attacking our troops, our men in anbar, in particular, but baghdad and so forth. and the questions asked of me, which intelligence discipline was the one responsible? which trade craft was applicable to his demise? and the answer simply to me that i give back is, i don't know. and that's actually a very good answer in this particular case. the reason is because the melding of intelligence, both tactical and national in that case -- and by the way, including open source. i include that in terms of information that contributed to his takedown is that i am not here to give more weight to one over the other. what i am here to tell you is that our intelligence analysts who were working that target on the ground were able to meld

intelligence in real time at network speed in order to take him down. and that is the story of zarqawi's end, and that is being repeated in the battlefield time and time again. and i think that is testament to the fact that our intelligence disciplines are incredibly important as disciplines in terms of the capabilities of those analysts who do -- who understand imagery and the geoend or understand the intelligence product for what it is but then melding it, fusing it together in order to be able to take action on the battlefield in the example that you gave or in the example of zarqawi. i believe the same model, the same temp late is actually applicable to national policy as well and that the all-source analyst then has the benefit of

looking at all that information because sometimes it's not intelligence. it's certainly not classical intelligence that enables him or her to be able to make that judgment. tim, let me go back to a question that you asked about the strategy at the outset. by developing this strategy, i think one of the tests of time is always, will it survive one particular leadership? and this would have been admiral blair when it was d.n.i. when it was developed and promulgated as a strategy to another d.n.i., in this case, because it's the national strategy for intelligence, and it has. it has survived that particular relatively short test of time with four d.n.i.'s in a rell stiffle short period of time -- relatively short period of time, but it's important it went beyond the boundaries of one particular d.n.i. in terms of its focus.

the second thing is it does serve now as a very good road map for the intelligence community to go and develop as d.i.a. has, as n.g.a. is doing and so forth in developing their strategies. what are those primary goals? what are the objectives under those goals? and it allows you to move from that national level for national intelligence to where it's applicable to your particular agency or element of the intelligence community. also, informed by the national security strategy that has been issued as well as the quadrennial reports and so forth. our documents that help inform it. but since you asked specifically about the national intelligence strategy of 2009, that applied there too. >> thank you. john, let's talk a little bit about the explosion of

information and how that affects our conduct of intelligence gathering and analysis. everybody knows that there's been exponential explosion of information with cell phones and the web and so on. my question has to do with what is proving to be most difficult and most valuable in gathering and assessing intelligence on key issues. perhaps you could talk a little bit about the role of human intelligence, the question of monitoring these huge flows of data, the capabilities of high-tech satellite and airborne imagery. all of those is important, but where is emphasis falling as between those various activities as we seek to improve our intelligence capabilities? >> this actually i think is the

major question of our times on intelligence because much of what david just talked about and what tim asked in the previous question having to do with integration of practically every intelligence success i can think of depends on the integration of various sources of intelligence. and what's made that more dramatic and more effective is technology, really, because now you've done that forever, of course, but now you can do it more rapidly because you can move information so rapidly. you can move it visually. you can move it electronically. you can move it on a screen in front of you. so technology is our friend, but in some respects it's also a challenge and an adversary. and i think it is really the main story of our times when it comes to intelligence. you know, if you went back to 1952, that's the year the national security agency was created. that's the agency that intercepts messages.

there were only 5,000 computers in the world. ok. today we have an internet population of over one billion going to lord knows how many sites. the last count i saw, depends on how you count, three billion or so. computing power is doubling every 18 months. the miniaturization of circuitry is the untold story behind much of this. if you looked at a micro processor, for example, the sort of thing you got in your cell phones right now, going back to 1980 there were in that microprovide sessor about 29,000, 39,000 transistors. today there are more than a billion. so that's why we have in our hands the computing power, if you are as old as i am, you remember once was housed in a big building and we all did punch cards and waited for the error message overnight. [laughter]

it's the miniaturization of circuitry. it's the untold store eave our time when it comes to technology that allows us to do all of this stuff. so that creates a -- so this is our friend. because if you went back to before the invention of the telegraph in 1844 or thereabouts we didn't move information inindividualably. once the telegraph was invended we began to move information invisiblely. then through world war i and world war ii we developed techniques, everyone did, to try to grab that information that is being moved invisiblely. we're too good at it in a way. the national security can scoop up -- it doesn't do this every day but it can, has the capability to scoop up within three or four hours the equivalent in bits and bytes in what's in the library of congress. and so when i did the study that tim referred to for the

d.n.i. about a year and a half ago, one of the things i discovered looking back at the attempted bombing of an airliner over detroit in christmas of 2009, recall that, the so-called underwear bomber. what a great metaphor. it failed but the only thing that failed was basically the detonation. had it worked, a lot of people would have died. that would be a different story. the question was -- why was it so hard for us to detect this in advance? that's a long story that i can elaborate on, but one of the reasons is the volume of material that the average person had -- average analyst had to go through to anticipate such a thing had grown draw matcally from, let's say, a couple hundred to multiples of thousands. and so it becomes increasingly difficult for an analyst to remember that on, you know, january 3 i saw a piece of

paper or an image on my screen which resonates with what i'm seeing today four months later from another source that adds to that. that then requires so the challenge for intelligence today on this score, and david will be more current on what is currently being done, but my sense is we are not where we need to be in terms of an lytic tools, analytic tools, to do what you do to order a book on amazon. you ask for a book and amazon says -- you might also be interested in -- so in intelligence terms that means, i have a report that says, you know, a guy from -- i'll make up a country -- a guy from

albonia -- that's my favorite madeup country -- has visited a very bad extremist in yemen. i would want my computer to then say, you might also be interested in -- [laughter] well, david will, i think, know more than i do on this but i suspect we're getting better at that but i don't think we're ideally where we want to be on that score. there isn't a matter of not trying. it's a matter of it's hard. when you're also balancing the two requirements, here again is a way in which intelligence is different than what i do now. i work in the academic community and we do research. you don't have to worry in that world about balancing two things. the need to share the information and the need to protect it. obviously you need to protect it for a whole variety of reasons. having to do with operational security. imagine if we hadn't protected the information that was

gathered before the bin laden information. very few people knew about that. and that's one of the major reasons it succeeded. at the same time it had to be shared among a lot of people because as david pointed out, taking that operation as an example, every conceivable entity and agency was together in putting that operation together. the tension between those two things is what makesing information technology intelligence so hard. so i'll just stop there on that score. but just emphasize again, i think this question tim raised is probably the core question about intelligence today. i add one thought to that and that is because basically my point is we're in the middle of the greatest technological revolution that i think we can document in modern history. i suppose if you went back to the invention of the wheel they'll say the same thing, but in modern history i can't -- there is no time that we have -- that i have lived through

where technology is changing faster than we can come up with names for it. ok. kids are doing that for us. but for intelligence what this means is we have the potential now to break out of the paradigms that we developed in that age of transformation i talked about from, say, world war ii up through the fall of the berlin wall when we developed most of the techniques we currently use. taking pictures from space, listening to intercepted communications and so forth. we have the potential through technology to break out of those paradigms or elaborate on them in ways that frankly the average person can hardly imagine. because intelligence always has to be technologically ahead of everyone else. why? because your adversary has everything that's available. so you've always got to be

better than them technologically. and i think without going into details the intelligence community is. but the challenge is technology is changing so quickly that you've really got to be quick and fast and agile and there's no time to waste. >> david, part of my question had to do with the role of human intelligence. you talked about the 70% turnover in the ranks of the c.i.a. in the past decade. many of those people knew people who were brought in were from ethnic communities, foreign language speakers, so on, that changed the face of the c.i.a. a bit so we could more easily integrate with the communities that we need to be gathering intelligence from. what is the -- could you talk a

little about the importance of human intelligence in the context that john has just so well laid out that you're trying to monitor huge amounts of data flow, etc., how important is human intelligence today? >> well, tim, human intelligence remains absolutely critical to an understanding of the plans and intentions at the core. the difficulty that i have seen over the years in the pursuit of the trade craft of huge intelligence is knowing what to go after and how to pursue that so that you are investing that very precious resource against the highest payoff. and that requires -- it's back to thinking of all-source

information in order to be informed about what you have to collect and where that secret resides that you would get through human penetration. the other high value for human intelligence is that it's also an enabler to the technological collection or the technology collection. in other words, it points the finger at the right place for the national security agency to pursue something as opposed to, as john described purely theoretically, the capability of n.s.a. to simply gather all that information in the volume that he referred to. and by having that human penetration, that human individual that's sitting in the place next to the right server, the right switch and so forth, allows then the effort to be far more targeted as

well. finally, that human source is one who will give -- and i promise to come back to this -- this decision advantage that gives something the machine does not generally give which is the atmospherics around a situation. so as a human source that's in a circle of influence or a circle of power that we're interested in, that individual is able to give the sense of the environment as well as just the facts. an enormous amount of effort has to then go in the vetting of that source, the weighing of that information properly weight against the other information collected on that environment as well. but that becomes very, very important to the decision maker.

so by that decision advantage and then that confidence advantage, let me tell you what i'm talking about. the decision advantage is being one step ahead of the adversary in terms of that collection objective that gives the decision maker on our end that ability to make choices that he or she otherwise would not have. that could be the president, that could be the commander, it could be the war fighter down in the humvee or the law enforcement community, you know, chief of police in ray kelly in new york or los angeles. wherever it might be in the local law enforcement environment. the decision confidence is a way to think about counterintelligence. it's the weight that you give that information. and for those familiar with the human intelligence reporting, there's a source description. it will say an individual, an

official with close, good access with close ties to this reporting judged to be fairly reliable. that fairly reliable has to go with a definition that really is a definition of a counterintelligence message to the reader. it says on balance he's fair to midland but be careful. he's not a generally reliable source yet. the vetting hasn't gone into it that needs to go into it. and in time it may get there. it may not. depending on the situation of that source. so your decision advantage is married up together with decision confidence. and to me it's a very critical combination and one that if you look back on the intelligence challenges that we've had to outright failures, it's been in the balance of those two

things. that decision advantage that you were bringing to the decision maker with that confidence level. if the analysts don't know that for source protection you've changed that source description three or four times but it's still the same source, you won't be able to have that decision confidence balanced properly to the decision advantage that you're trying to give that reader. so human intelligence remains critical. it is not obviated through technology. it is in fact enabled through technology and in reverse the human operations can actually serve to drive focused technology operations. >> i think we would be remiss if we didn't follow up that -- these two answers with -- by talking a little bit about the hunt for bin laden and, of course, that -- there was -- there's been a lot of writing about this. there was a terrific piece in

"the new yorker" just a week or two ago about the hunt for bin laden and it talked about satellite imagery, airborne photography. i believe we had people on the ground at a nearby building in aballet bad. and so -- aballahbad. and it had the connection between various parts of the government as we looked for bin laden. let me throw out a general question just to start you on how you see the role of intelligence and the components of intelligence, if you will, as operating as we sought to find bin laden. >> well, i think the first thing to say is was the result

of literally years of effort that accelerated in the last several years. now, barmede, i'm not in the government so i was not part of that. david was -- will have a fresher and more informed perspective on that. but what i do know is that the information collected over many years helped us to get there. i would go back almost 15 years because it's in 1996 that the c.i.a. begins to focus intensely on bin laden and on al qaeda, 1996 when he moves from sudan to afghanistan, the c.i.a. notices this is a financier that is getting into intelligence. the embassy bombing in 1998,

the attack of the u.s.s. cole ship and then 9/11 itself. and so throughout that period the c.i.a. was -- even the 9/11 commission will acknowledge the agency that focused most intensely on bin laden and with some success before 9/11 and obviously a big setback, a huge loss, which will be commented on extensively in the next couple of weeks i am sure, but in that period of time, the agency and the rest of the intelligence community began to develop a picture of al-qaeda. this accelerated dramatically after 9/11. if you recall those days, and many people do, from roughly 2001 to 2005 or so, the community, i think, led principally by the agency in that period of time, essentially

took down the 9/11 leadership of al-qaeda. in the years since then, that has accelerated in terms of attacking the infrastructure of that organization. by attacking i mean killing or capturing. the data that came out of those operations in terms of captured electronic media, the detention program that produced many, many reports about the nature of the business, the nature of the al- qaeda organization, and so forth, the technical intelligence collected, all came together in a way that brought us the results we sought with an accelerated development of intelligence in the last two or three years. there's no point in be repeating what has been in the press here. you know the focus was on a career. once the agency had figured out

relied principally on courier s for communication, the focus was on a particular car ourrier. that's what you do in intelligence. you focus on this and then peel away the layers. what does the courier do all day long, how does he communicate, where does he drive, and so forth. eventually, you get to the compound that you now all know about. i can tell you with some confidence that at the point that all of that information came together, technical intelligence, and human intelligence, open source intelligence, layers of it from years of collection, the agency

was still -- let me say everyone was involved in this. the defense intelligence agency, everyone who has "intelligence" in their title was somehow in this. putting all that together at a confidence level, it was still not 100% that he was there, but it was the best case anyone was able to make until that point. i understand now when i reflect on something leon panetta said, because he said something publicly that i think tells me why the president decided to go ahead. the case that he was there was strong enough that had he not been there, this is what leon said, "you could present that case in public and defend it." in other words, it the public

would understand why you acted on this. the case was that strong, but it was not 100%. that's almost always the case in intelligence. i do not know what i would add beyond that. david, do you have any thoughts on this? >> sure. one of the things i look forward to is being out of government and being able to say what he said. [laughter] i still want my job tomorrow. [laughter] >> i gave you no classified information. >> no, but coming from me i would be confirming that the details of "the new yorker" and elsewhere in the press -- i will say this. i am a critic of how much has come out in the press. >> so am i. >> i know that our tools are

limited, by definition, and with as much exposure across counter- terrorism and what comes out in the media hurts our ability to fight the next iteration of the war on terror. i will say this and i will come back to this time and time again. you could not have founded the information without the integration of intelligence. that i will say categorically. time and time again, as john has alluded to, the successes we've had in the intelligence community, many by unsung heroes in the background, because they are not revealed in terms of the disruptions, occur as a result of integrating those efforts in terms of the collection capabilities and the analytics coming together with the collection that has been enabled

by great men and women. >> let me add to what david said about that. i'm also distressed about how much has been revealed about the operation. what i said here was not particularly sensitive. all of that comes from information that has been officially put out there, i think. here is why i worry about it a little bit. in my first comments i said -- intelligence is very new to the united states. we still do not know how to deal with it. we really do not. in my course, i have a whole section that i do called " intelligence in an open and free society." there's a tension between the of these values we hold as american citizens, which i of course fully support, and the fact that

we need to have a secret intelligence organization -- organizations -- in order to manage our affairs in the world. we have more trouble with that than any other country, any other major country, that i'm aware of. here is the bottom line. for our adversaries, who are not as strong as we are, either conventionally, technologically, or otherwise, they have to seek advantage of that are, to use the term everyone uses these days, asymmetric. that is, things they can do to overcome our great power. you know one of the things they can do? keep secrets. [laughter] secrecy is a tool they use as an asymmetric tool to overcome our great advantage. i do not think we have figured

that out. >> i would follow that up a little bit by may be asking you to comment further, john, on the accounts in the media. they are accounts that portray this operation as highly successful. the sources for this were people in the government. many of whom wanted that information to come out, because it portrayed the success that could be attributed to the white house's decisiveness, etc., etc. >> i do not know that's the case, but it very well may be. i am sure david can contact -- can comment on this. >> let me say, first off, that i can say these things.

eightorked for seven or administrations, democrats or republicans, and generally, when a success occurs, people want to talk about it. it's not confined to one political party or one political season. generally, if there's a big intelligence success, people tend to talk about it. that's not true of every intelligence success. most of them are incremental and not spectacular like this one. it is the tendency we have as a country and i would say it's one we need to think hard about. >> tim, let me just add -- because of terrorism and counter-terrorism, it has taken on such a public profile in

terms of the political stance that one takes on a counter- terrorism all the way down to the local district, obviously at the state level, and the national level. my concern goes well beyond what has been said publicly about the events of one may, but on counter-terrorism more generally. it's the rush to the microphones and cameras to tell the story even if it is a half baked stories on the counter-terror is a success. that leads to the second and third intimations of questions that come from it. how did you know? how did you disrupt it? who was involved? what governments, friendly allies, might have supported it? i would submit that there is a tension between -- that there is

attention between how much is put out there, the american public knowing that our representatives are actively engaged on the topic of protecting the secrets that enable the very success they're talking about. that's really the context of my comments. thank you. >> i would like to open the microphones to questions from the audience. we have two people with microphones. i can see john has a question. john, stand up and somebody will bring a microphone to you. at least i thought they would. >> john with a partnership for public service. thank you very much for your comments and thank you for the service you provide to the

country. i want to get back to the issue -- the federal government will be under great pressure to reduce expenditures. what does the u.s. government need to do to make sure, going forward, that we are still able to recruit and assigned the type of towns we need in the intelligence community, that we invest in that talent, the growth and development of that talent, and that we can retain the work force we need in the intelligence community. what is your advice? >> why don't you repeat the question a little bit for the benefit of the cameras, among other things. >> sure. what would be argued in terms of the workforce makeup and attracting the talent that we need in the intelligence community against a fiscally constrained environment?

at the top of our intelligence community list of things to not do as we did in the 1990's with the peace dividend is to protect our people and keeping the hiring active during this period that we are currently going into or already find ourselves in and certainly going forward and that at all cost you continue to attract the talent. i believe i speak for john when i say it is so incredibly encouraging -- the caliber of the applicants we are getting in the intelligence community today and i see no divination. it's driven by a desire for service. it's driven by a desire to give back to their country. frankly, i believe it is driven by a wonderful curiosity about

intelligence. i think that is a wonderful thing to tap into. i am a huge proponent of one thing that has to change dramatically. it is starting to, but it needs to change far more in the intelligence community when it comes to its personnel. that is, we need to over a period of 20 to 30 years offer viable entry and exit ramps to our personnel. i think back to 30 years. if i have left the government that year -- take any year. 15 years. i would have been branded as someone, ok, goodbye, have a good life. you left the service. i think we need to change that dramatically. i think the demographics in our society tell us, with the average young person having four

or five careers -- the intelligence community has to be able to adapt and adjust to that and bring that talent back in at various stages as he or she has gone off to do something different, and bring that back into the community by way of experience, and not brand them as somehow -- with a little d -- disloyal with their commitment to intelligence work. that's one of my missions, to design a process in which the individual keeps an active clearance while they are gone and comes back two to five years later, welcome back. john, toother aspect, your question in terms of not only the recruiting end and the

need to protect the people -- we have to design, through creative ways, how not only we retain individuals, but often other opportunities. >> david said that prickly. i would only add one thing. i'm a big fan of increasing the diversity within the intelligence community, not as a fill good idea, but because it is a business imperative. one of the things you have to do in intelligence is have people with different perspectives. you are asking questions where the answers are usually illusive. you want a lot of perspectives brought to bear. also, we need to blend in in parts of the world. our new recruits, some of them look like me, but most of them should not. most of them do not these days. [laughter] >> i blend in in ireland. >> it does not help you.

it doesn't help you. --nically and link listed t ethnically and linguistically, people who bring different environments and different perspectives to problems that are hard to answer. >> do we have a question on this side of the room? >> could you identify yourself? >> i am hoping you might comment on the priority you lend to determining and balancing. you noticed -- you mentioned the need to know versus responsibility to protect -- with regard to foreign partners. >> foreign partners. the question is how to balance our collection of humans --

[inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> right. well, i would just say, first, you have to have foreign partners. there are many people who will argue -- why doesn't the american intelligence community just do it itself? you need foreign partners. there are parts of the world where you need to be able to pick up the phone and say to a foreign intelligence service, "i need you to go to a certain place in your country and look for someone. i will give you the photograph, or look for a transaction" and they can do that, where we would be noticed doing that. you need them. that's just one example, but we need them. david will want to comment on this, i am sure, because he had

a part of his career in this classic espionage space, essentially. it seems you have to build trust with foreign intelligence services. you do that by doing joint operations with them. reading the papers, you know we have problems with some foreign intelligence services now. you have read about the intentions of pakistan, for example. nonetheless, i would bet, if i was still in the community, i would discover that we still have people within the pakistani service that we can trust. you build trust with a certain number of people in these services with whom you do joint operations. once you put your hand in the fire together on something of you bothsequence and perform well, like everything else in life, you test people, your partnerships, you find out

who you can trust, and then you work closely with those people. it is not neat and tidy. referring to human intelligence, it requires a lot of vix was it -- it requires an awful lot of exquisite judgments about people. i think it must be done and it's done pretty well right now. >> three comments to your question. first, given the transnational aspects of our adversaries in the topics, that being counter- terrorism, and we have not mentioned weapons of mass destruction as an issue, and the whole cyber arena. it tells me that are dependencies and code dependencies on partnerships with allies -- our dependencies

on partnerships with allies are critical. some will be transactional. the relationship will be because the service, that other country, provide a comparative advantage against the issue we are looking at. others, and it's well known, our relationship with our british colleagues, our canadian colleagues, australians, the new zealanders, is one that's much more comprehensive. my third comment is -- i am concerned about each of these countries, but certainly led by the u.k., that's undergoing fiscal constraints itself and the burden sharing portion. that is of no desire of those services. i am talking about the country itself and the impact that will have. we are working very closely with all our friends, allies,

and partners against the austerity aspects of this, as well, as we look at a world in a post arabs bring environment where you look at a -- post arab spring environment where you look at a surge that will be far closer to the surge numbers than where we were in december or mid january of 2011, and then how do you work with your partners on those kind of issues, as well? that would be on the collection site, as well as analysis. >> thank you. do we have another question from the audience? right here. >> good morning. i'm from northrop grumman.

i have a question for david. if we look at the next three to five years and a lot of the changes a week anticipate -- changes we anticipate, as a contractor, do you have any idea how you might use the contractors capabilities and workforce differently, and if so, what could we get better at to support your mission? >> it is a great question, joe. one big word, innovation. speaking for dia, but i know from my colleagues across the community, this is a critical area. somewhere in the 1984 to 1986 period, the private sector, and i will throw in the international private sector, overtook government in the r &

d area and it is nearly a vertical curb today. our ability to"catch up -- to " catch up with that" is 0. it needs to be catching up to the capabilities of the private sector through the contractor community to bring innovation into government and adapt that innovation to the requirements. i would put that, if not at the top of my list in terms of the contractor community, i would put it pretty close to it. the second view of the future that i have is that we need to continue to identify with our overseers in congress. obviously, rightly important to us. where it makes more sense to continue to rely on the contractors. i think there's a big hand out

there that just says, " contractors emerged after the 9/11 events and have not gone home and now we are absolutely reliance on them." the answer is yes, and for some very good reasons. if i look at i.t., for example, for us to recreate that internally with the fast-paced of change of every 18 months, that makes no sense. then we have to articulate exactly how we're going to use contractors for the needs and services of the next several years in a context of where there is, at times, a presumption that we are too contractor dependent. i would put that in. some of that overlaps with what i said about innovation, but

some of it, goods and services are better provided by the contractor community and i am fine with that. it's my job and the job of leadership to articulate back to our congressional overseers as to where those areas are. >> another question? right here. >> thank you. gary, air force. there have been a couple of comments about the need for collaboration and perspectives and stuff. one of the things we struggle with in the air force, and especially in our research community, is that tension between wanting to protect our technological edge, but the vital importance of information sharing and collaboration to do good research and foster innovation.

is maystion i'm asking be a counter-intelligence question. i am looking for a perspective o. are there ways for us to judge whether we are striking a right balance? we're always worried about giving away too much information. it's hard to know what we have given away. since you are in this business, is there some way to judge how much the bad guys are getting from us? are there things that we can use to judge that we're doing this well or not? i understand that's a tough question. i did not want to pass on the opportunity to take advantage of what you guys know. >> well, i guess the answer is they get too much. >> [inaudible] i do not know that proves anything. >> the one thing you can be

certain of is that counter- intelligence has been with us, and spying, has been with us since biblical times. people are always trying to gain the secret information we have. the people change from decade to decade and era to era. there is a huge effort within the intelligence community and specialists spend their time working on counter-intelligence. that is, to detect penetrations of our systems. now, this is changing for all the technological reasons i talked about earlier. it used to be spy upon spy. if you go back to 1960, 1980, you will remember the stories of russians sent home from the

united states for spying and so forth. classic spying still goes on, but now you have the additional area of information technology and the whole area of cyber security. that is, the capacity to get our information by a keystroke. the whole field of counter- intelligence has become more difficult and complex. about all i can tell you without going into that business is there is a constant ongoing effort at very senior levels supported by substantial staff in places like the fbi, the cia, and parts of the u.s. military to detect unwarranted penetrations of our systems by

cuban agents or by cyber -- by human agents or cyber. i would say it's getting harder. it's facilitated by the openness of our secrets, which you do not have to work as hard to learn things about us as we have to work to learn things about some of our adversaries. >> let me follow-up on that by asking both of you could talk a little more about cyber security. we did not bring it up as a topic specifically, but the huge concerns or penetrations of the military of the defense department. every day, hundreds and hundreds of defense contractors. what is the role of intelligence -- a lot of people working on this problem. what is the key role of intelligence in combating this

problem? is it identifying -- is it trying to identify with the cyber attackers are? is that the main role or just some of it? >> i can start it and pickup from there. i believe a significant step was taken in the creation of the sub-unified command under general alexander at nsa in giving him the dual half for looking at cyber security as a mission set under strategic command. the reason i believe that is significant is our ability to defend is directly proportionate to the ability to detect what the adversary is doing in cyberspace. by building then the partnership of the national

security agency/cyber command with the department of homeland security for that, which is cyber inside the united states, i think we had a road map -- far from having arrived at our destination, but a road map -- for how to share the information of what our adversaries are doing to us and protecting inside the homeland through the dhs avenue. >> you can watch all of this event in our video library at c- span.org. we will break away from the last couple of minutes and take you live to george washington university for a look at u.s. attitudes toward the public education system. the polling data was released today. several panels covering topics like digital learning and perceptions of higher learning. this is live coverage just getting under way on c-span.

>> examining what americans think about education from kindergarten through higher education. you will hear a lot of the statistics today, a lot about these 2000 americans that told the story of the rest of the americans and what they think about education, so i want to start by grounding you a little bit. you will hear a great deal about great teachers and a good deal about the value of an education. in the beginning of our time together -- because we will spend a lot of time together in the next two hours or so -- i want you to think about your best teacher. just take a snapshot of that person in your mind. then, also, think about the value of the education you have received over the years. so that great teacher and the value of the education you received over the years. just as a way of introducing myself, i will talk a little bit about my favorite teacher. her name was, -- her name was

dot shale. she was my fourth grade science teacher, and every day, she led to us from "where the red fern grows." it was a wonderful story. none of us understood why our science teacher was reading a book to us, but we loved it. years later, when we got connected again, we would all talk about her and how she motivated us to get our work done and stay interested in science. regarding the value of education, i want to publicly thank the many folks who loaned me money for my own education. [laughter] and thank them for all the years they have given me to pay back that money. we will hear more about that later today. first, i would like to hear from the been of this wonderful graduate school of education and human development.

dr. michael foyer. [applause] >> thanks very much. welcome to george washington university. it is a great pleasure. i am delighted to have the chance to host such a wonderful event. i know we have a number of folks here from the press, so i will do the where, when, and why in my three minutes. first, where you are. you are in the jack norton auditorium of the george washington university, which was founded in 1821 by an act of congress to fulfill a great dream of president washington to establish an institution in the nation's capital to prepare leaders for the future. that is where you are. when are you here? well, timing is really everything, or it is at least important. if this event had been scheduled

for just nine days from today, chances are there would have been no room in this building and no parking in the neighborhood because that is when we will bear witness to what i have always felt is one of the uniquely american educational rituals that takes place all across the land around this time of year. on august 27, if you are near by, you will have the chance to observe one of our most delightful and optimistic and hopeful and hallowed traditions when roughly 2300 members of the class of 2015 are right here, many accompanied by their proud parents and grandparents and envious younger siblings, tumbling out of the station wagons -- i know i am dating myself. we do not have station wagons any more. that is the way i remember this event.

carrying backpacks. in the old days, it was stereo equipment. now, it is small iphones, ipads, and other such devices, along with their steamer trunks, and they will be met by a hearty group of sophomores and upper- class men and women who will help them get oriented to their new home where they will spend about four years. our class of 2015 was selected from a pool of over 21,500 applicants, representing -- coming from 45 states in the u.s. and from 40 countries around the world. these young people and their families may not all know the statistics. for example, about the long-term economic benefits to a college education. but i think they are clearly making a very rational decision. many of them will finish in four years. in fact, most of them will.

according to our records, we know that within about six months after graduation, 2/3 will have jobs. more than 20% will be in graduate school. the rest will likely be in the military, in some kind of volunteer service such as the peace corps, or in other socially and economically useful activities. while they are here, a very large percentage will be engaged in some kind of internship, and about half will spend at least a semester studying and living abroad. it is a remarkable experiment that has been under way for several hundred years. that brings me to the context or the why question. why are we here today? that is because with this great experiment, there is a cacophony of opinion and a cacophony of expertise, and we know, and we

are very grateful to be able to have the results of this ongoing remarkable survey that the gallup and pdk and now lumina have been involved in for a number of years as a way to bring some coherence, to bring some data to bear on this great cacophony of opinion and expertise. what better place to do that than in the university? that is partly why i am is so honored to have the chance to host this event. in many ways, the introduction of data about something that we hold so dear -- the future of american education -- is exactly one of the functions of a great university. so it is very much a pleasure to welcome you here on behalf of all my colleagues in the graduate school of the education and human development and across the george washington university

family. i am very much looking forward to hearing some of the details from the survey, as i know you all are as well. i am very happy to turn this back to shea and -- shane lopez. [applause] >> thank you, dean feuer. he reminded me of my wonderful first day back in college when i started accruing the aforementioned student loans. we are going to throw a lot of information at you, and i want to help make some of that stick. each of us comes with our own pet issue as it relates to education, and i appreciate that. i listened for every time the bill talks about the hope of american students, but what i am trying to do today and what i encourage you to do our think about the issues that bridge k- 12 and higher education, those commonalities, points of discussion that maybe we do not

have across k-12 and higher education. also, i would like you to think about where the public will lies today. where does the public will lie in terms of how we can reform education, change education, improve education? and finally, i want you to think about the role public policy plays in acting on that public will to make for a better system. i want to turn things over to my good friend and colleague over and pdk. he is the executive director, and he will talk about the 43rd annual poll results. bill bushaw. [applause] >> great job framing the issues today. americans expect quality in the food we eat, the clothes we buy, the cars we drive, so it is not surprising that there is an increase in demand for quality in our public schools. this conversation about quality is starting to focus on more than just schools.

it is starting to focus on teachers. among other things, this year's poll results shows that americans recognize the need for high-quality teachers in order to have high quality schools. there is a lot more to this story, but first, i want to tell you a little bit of background about pdk and the poll we're doing for the 43rd year. phi delta kappa is a professional association of educators including teachers, principals, superintendents, and professors. it is this variety of education professionals that makes us unique. through our highly regarded magazine, we serve as a trusted voice and advocate for public policies that support improve teaching and increased student learning. so this is the 43rd year pdk has partnered with gallup to conduct

a poll of american attitude toward public schools. it is a national poll of approximately 1000 americans age 18 and older. a complete copy of this year's report is available free at our website. if you just search on pdkpoll .org, you will find it. those of you that have and i had, you can go to the apple appstor and download a free copy, and if you have not downloaded "wild birds" yet, you can do that as well. there are a few things that distinguish this peer the topics identified by a bipartisan advisory panel that convenes each year. second, our report is comprehensive. we provide data, responses to every question we ask, and a verbatim copy of the question just as it was asked. this allows readers to

carefully judge their responses as it relates to the wording of the question. third and finally, because we conduct the coal annually, we can closely monitor changes in public opinions about schools. almost half of the questions we ask this year were asked previously, giving us a glimpse of how american attitudes toward public school has changed or not changed from year to year. now, let me revisit the issue of teacher quality. americans recognize that good teachers are the fastest route to education reform. they understand that in order to have quality schools, we need to have quality teachers. they believe we need to recruit and retain the best teachers we can and removed ineffective teachers, and in this year's poll, 74%, three out of four

americans, said that they would encourage the brightest person they know to become a teacher. 67% believe that we should recruit high-achieving high school students to become teachers, and 2/30 americans say they would want a child of theirs to take a teaching as a career. americans also believe that encouraging high school and college students with skills in science and math -- they should become science and math teachers, and that is just as important as becoming -- encouraging them to become scientists. it is clear that americans recognize the importance of getting quality students. americans expressed support for actively recruiting high-quality teachers for the future, but they also feel pretty good about the teachers who are in the classroom today. in fact, 71% of americans have

trust and confidence in our current public-school teachers. changing topics, each year, the poll asks americans to grade their schools, much like we ask teachers to grade students. this year, 51% of americans gave the schools in their community a letter grade of either a or b, and that has been relatively unchanged for a number of years. that is the middle line you are looking at on the graphic, the blue line. i want to concentrate on the other two lines for a minute. when we as parents to grade the school but their oldest child attends, 79% gave that school either an a or b. that is the highest grade ever signed by parents in the u.s. since we started this poll.

that is the red line at the top. however, only 17% of americans get better grades ofa or b to the nation's schools as a whole. that is the bottom line, and you can see how it is trending. we continue to be surprised by the declining grades that americans gave our nation's schools as opposed to the improving grades that parents give to the school that their oldest child attends. on the one hand, they are the highest grades we have witnessed. on the other hand, the lowest rates we have witnessed. i suppose it makes sense to some degree when you think that parents know teachers in their local schools. they are their neighbors, their friends, people that they run into at the grocery store and in their community. so it is easier for them to know more about schools in the local

community. when it comes to our nation's schools as a whole, people are much less familiar with the issues. they rely upon what they hear or read in the news, and as we know, much of the news has been driven by the "no child left behind" legislation passed by congress almost 10 years ago. in fact, in this year's poll, 68% of americans said that they are more likely to hear bad stories about teachers than good stories. we also asked americans to a signed letter grades to teachers, to principles, and other administrators, to school board members, and to parents. and also, to president obama. in comparison with the last time we ask the question in 1984, teachers and principals grades

have increased significantly. those are the two sets of bars on the left side of the graphic. at the same time, the grades a son for parents and school board members has remained relatively unchanged. the president's grades, after declining last year, improved this year with 41% of the respondents assigning him either an a or b for his performance in support of public schools. of course, those grades assigned to the president are related directly to the political affiliation of our survey respondents. i know that is a shocking discovery to all of you. [laughter] this year, after the highly publicized debates over collective bargaining in states like wisconsin and ohio, we decided to include a couple of questions on the topic, using a question we have asked

previously, way back in 1976, we hope to get a snapshot of public opinion today, as compared to opinion 35 years ago. this is where the story gets complicated. 47% of americans believe that teacher unionization hurts the quality of public schools with only 26% believing that it helps. on the other hand, in the recent disputes between governors and teacher unions over collective bargaining legislation, 52% of americans side with the teacher union leaders as opposed to 41% to side with the governors. there is lots of different ways to interpret these results. you know, could be that americans believe or perceive that the teacher unions are protecting bad teachers. as we have seen over and over in the questions we ask, americans are looking for high-quality

among their teachers. i think the teacher union leaders at the national level recognize this and are aggressively addressing that perception with lots of initiatives focusing on the quality of the teacher workforce. the question is locally and at the state level, what kinds of activities will be teacher union leaders also take? at the same time, americans have consistently felt that teachers are underpaid. so it could be that they worry that legislation restricting collective bargaining could result in lower salaries for teachers. not only would that be tough for the current teacher work force, it would also make it more difficult to attract bright and dedicated people into the teaching force in the future. we continue to monitor americans' opinions about public school choice. public charter schools and

school vouchers. 7% of americans favor the idea of public charter schools, and that is up from 42% approval rating when we first asked the question in the year 2000. that is a significant change in opinion over just the course of one decade. yet, when we asked about school vouchers this year, 65% of americans opposed allowing students and parents to -- students to attend private school at the expense of the public. that is the highest opposition percentage registered in the last 10 years. before we shift to the next portion of the program, i want to thank our partners at a gallop -- at gallup. also want to thank the members of our advisory panel that met last february. if you get a copy of the report,

you will see their names listed there. finally, i would like to thank john richardson, our editor in chief and her staff for their editorial and design support. we saved the most interesting results on digital learning and technology for last, and we have invited two distinguished gentlemen to share their results with you. the former governor of west virginia, and, van der arc. i do need to tell you that former governor bush from florida had planned to be with us but at the last minute cannot become available, and i just found out why. his first grandson just arrived, and he wanted to be home with his family. he did send a statement, and if you do not mind, i would like to share that briefly with you. governor bush said, "the results of the phi delta kappa poll released provide insight into american perceptions about

public schools in america, including the role of technology in providing quality education to today's students. the poll reflects a growing demand by the public to shift the paradigm of education from survival of the system to a student-centered approach. the findings underscore the needs for lawmakers to advance bold reforms to transform education, to better prepare students for the demands of colleges and careers in the digital age. what i want to do is ask our two leaders to join us on the stage, and we will ask for them to react to the component of the poll on digital learning. governor was is the president of the organization dedicated to implementing policies so that all students can achieve at high academic levels and graduate from high school ready for success in college, work, and

citizenship. one year ago, he launched the digital learning council, a group dedicated to identifying policies that will integrate current and future technological innovations into public education. and he launched a national campaign, digital learning now, in an effort to advance policies that will create a high-quality digital learning environment to better prepare students. mr. vander ark is the president of an online community of people passionate about education. he is also the ceo of open education solutions and a partner in a fund focused on innovative learning tools and formats. he was the first executive director of the bill and melinda gates foundation. please join me in welcoming governor bob wise and tom better

our -- tom vander ark. [applause] >> i want to thank pdk and gallup for this fall. as the dean said, it is a great time. the ritual of students returning. it is also a time when legislators are going to be returning. when congress is going to -- yes, they are coming back. congress is going to be returning, and governors are preparing in august or september their budgets to submit for the next year. important decisions will have to be made, particularly in a tough but [laughter] to climate [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] i am [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] [laughter] very sorry governor bush will not be here. he is the one who created the digital learning council and asked if i would co-share it. -- co-chair it. what i learned from this poll --

and i think he would be happy as well -- is that the 10 elements of a high-quality digital learning system that 100 representatives of the digital learning council -- back in -- i think last year -- and announce it in december that those 10 elements of a high-quality digital learning system that are designed to be a road map for states -- they are essentially born out in public attitudes expressed in this poll. i want to go over just a few of them. this poll taken in its entirety, not just the digital learning section, but particularly the sections on higher education, post-secondary certification, they are not to the same thing -- that the public understands and is willing to move forward on blended learning. when we think of digital learning sometimes called online learning or referred to as computer learning -- there are two images that can come to

mind. one is a child for 100 children in the gymnasium with laptops up. i call that my educational will shock test. -- rorschach test. i ask how that makes you feel. some say opportunity. some say the personalization. what this poll is, to me, confirming is that the public understands the need for blended learning. it understands that when half the respondents earlier or almost half said they are concerned they will not be able to get effective teachers in the classroom because of budget shortfalls. so what is one approach to dealing with that? it is blended learning so you get the best content digitally as well as having teachers guide and facilitate and that stuff that learning process.

another one is where -- when presented with -- well, first of all, i think it is an incredible statement that 91% of the population overall and 95% of parents, up from 80% in 1996, understand and support and approve of and access in the classroom and what it and think it is important. also, i think it is important that when -- it is a statement of blended learning, that when the question was posed -- would you want a more effective teacher -- this one is a little tricky -- when you want a more effective teacher with digital learning or a less effective teacher but personally in the classroom -- the majority said the less effective teacher in the classroom. let me suggest to you that is a false choice. why not the best of both? with digital learning, you truly get that. one suggestion i would make -- i

think it is quite a statement that pdk and gallup devoted such a large portion of this poll to digital learning. it is a suggestion of how far it has advanced. one suggestion i would have is that we look at an approach it from a more blended learning approach because that is truly the web 2.0 of education. i will say this and then turn it over to tom, who is truly one of the nation's experts and has guided much of this effort in the last decade -- one suggestion or one thing i would note is this poll is critically important to policymakers right now because whether they are talking -- if we deal with -- i know there will be talking about this in a minute -- if we didn't -- deal with demand for a much greater skilled work force and we also deal with a rapidly changing and not very good budget climate, all of this is

about how we can be more effective and improve student outcomes and improve teacher performance, and what the polls suggest is that with digital learning, the public believes -- they want effective teaching, and they want high student outcomes, and they can have both. tom. >> i just want to again thank pdk and gallup. i also want to thank you, governor, and governor bush. you were among our best education governors in the last decade, and you have been a real champion for the last six years on the job crisis in america. the way you have connected and passion for the crisis with the opportunity around digital learning i really appreciate. i want to talk about a mistake or at least a mistaken impression that came from this poll. a few minutes ago, before i walked in, i got a headline, a

blast that said that america does not support online learning, and they were quoting the survey. i did not think that could be any father from the truth. >> 91% -- in my former business, that was pretty good. >> it is the mistaken conclusion. there was one interesting question about will digital learning allow kids to spend less time at school, and parents were split or slightly negative on that notion of kids spending more time at home. then, the report said david parents do not support digital learning. i think parents just really appreciate the custodial aspect of school. [laughter] right? as the governor said, i think parents and teachers realize

there is a great opportunity to combine the best of learning online and learning at school to create a longer day and longer year, not a shorter day and shorter year. i think that was something that has been taken incorrectly, but overall, as you stated, i found two things really striking. one was 91% of people connected the internet with high-quality learning. second, the about that same percentage connected digital learning with college and career preparation. i think those are two thoughtful insights that almost all of the respondents made. >> now, we have an opportunity for your questions on digital

learning or the other issues we have in the pdk-gallup poll. we have two individuals that have microphones, and there's always the challenge of the first one is going to step up and ask a question, but let's see if we have a hand up. we will wait for a microphone. right over here. we ask that you please introduce yourself, tell us where you're from. anybody? >> bob and i are happy to keep talking. our favorite subject. >> i think there is a gentleman here. and yes, we have somebody up here. that just to break the ice. not to be a naysayer, but recent research for north carolina conducted by boyd and his associates suggest that actually, as the internet spreads across the landscape, that it actually is a factor in driving an increase in the

achievement gap. and the speculative explanation for that was the -- did not have evidence that this was the true explanation -- the speculation was that among lower-income families, those who have less of a custodial ability, working late hours, are not able to watch their children and monitor their internet use, so as high- speed internet sort of swept across the north carolina landscape, they actually saw a corresponding widening of the achievement gap between low- income and high-income, and despite a little argument was because of the lack of monitoring in low-income households, that was the cause of this. i wonder how you would respond. >> technology is a powerful thing, and i think it can exacerbate good things and bad things. it will make good parents better. i am not certain that it will close the achievement gap because it can do two things. it can lift the floor, but it

can also blow away the ceiling. what i am optimistic about is the potential for technology to customize learning. that means more learning per hour. but also to equalize learning. what we will see happen nationwide over the next four years, as we begin to implement online assessments in almost every state, is that states and districts are going to make provisions for universal access or for hi access environments. so we will do a better job of making sure that every student is connected to the internet. as 91% of respondents said to us, it was important. as we make sure that all kids have 24/7/0365 access to learning technologies and as those technologies are incorporated into a long day, long year, and become a part of that student's educational

experience, i think we have the opportunity, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, to shift a significant portion of that time to productive learning. i am actually optimistic that over the next few years, relatively quickly, that we can provide much better access for all students, but particularly low-income students, and that what that will do is cause a relatively rapid increase in a percentage of students prepared for college and careers. >> also, let me just note -- i would also go to north carolina and take you to independent high-school in charlotte were 63 students started an online program over the summer, predominantly low-income, almost all got up to proficiency in reading and math over that time. the morris bill, north carolina, school district, where they have

done a total digital emersion -- over half at least free and reduced lunch, and seen similar results. my belief is that there are a number of positive examples where digital learning is having an impact, but once again, i think it has to happen on a blended basis where there is an instructor helping guide that learning process that the same time as it is, whatever their income level or achievement level is, in dealing with the content coming in. >> let me add a rocket ship as an example of that. it is a small element to -- elementary network in california, and they use a learning lab to add two hours to the day. it is a longer day, not sure today, and almost all low-income kids, and they are among the best or at least top-scoring elementary schools. >> carpe diem in arizona, rawlings high-school in wyoming

-- the public clearly sees this as being a game changer for rural areas and four areas that have trouble getting access to high-quality content and teachers. particularly in certain subject areas. >> to kind of piggyback on your question, what are some of the strategies on engaging parents in these new technologies so that they can become partners as technology is rolled out, but also in the evaluation and efficacy of it is working? one of the things i am finding is that parents are not engaged in the reforms going on in the systems. it is not necessarily that they are against technology, just that they are not part of the process. what strategy do you see in engaging administrations and parents? >> i am willing to give a quick

observation, and a willing to bet tom has a bunch. he touched on that parents need to be clearly involved from the get go. one way you do that, particularly if you are working with a blend of learning model, is make that school a learning center be on the 7.5-hour school day. so parents now have access to that. in many homes -- and i think this may have been what the previous tillman was alluding to -- in many homes, if you do not have the internet access on a regular basis for the broadband access, or even the internet access devices, now, you have made the school a learning center for the parents as well as students. but you are right. parents do need to be involved. that is clear in this poll as well. there is still a little not so sure among some parts of the population, and they need to be more informed. >> a couple of points that the governor made. you hear us advocating for a long day, long year.

a really rich, school-based experience. i would agree with your comment that we generally have not done enough to engage parents and that bringing these new tools home has a lot of potential, but it is going to require parents to be parents and be involved and contribute. we're going to have to help build that capacity, so i appreciate the comment. >> back here? >> yes, sir. good afternoon. i often hear people talk about the fact that there is such a breadth of information on the internet. how do you deal with quality and finding the right educational materials? does the survey address this in any way, or do you have some particular when it to the right, quality information? >> that is a fantastic question.

a decade ago, we passed this profound threshold of human existence where anybody with broadband can learn almost anything for free or cheap. that is a profound threshold in the human experience, and just in 2009, we passed this inflection point with devices sold and with cloud-based services and apps downloaded. sirius inflection points. that means life on this planet is quite different, and we are trying to figure out what that means for ourselves, but we are here today trying to understand what it means for our schools. we are now 15 years into this information abundance, and i do not think we have made much progress answering your question of how to sort and synthesize. sometimes, it almost feels like our kids are better at it than we are. i need -- in the precise area you are describing is where we

will see the most important breakthroughs of the next decade. very specifically, we will see breakthroughs in search technologies. we will see breakthroughs in monitoring and data mining. watching a set of behavior patterns, learning about motivational profiles, and using the data to drive a smart recommendation engine. as kids make the shift to digital learning, one of the profound thing is not often discussed is that almost all of those learning experiences are going to be rich with the assessment data and a lot of behavioral data. that tells us about engagement and the sorts of experiences that are most productive for certain kinds of kids. when we turn that data into a smart recommendation engine and

then face it back at the world, we will become much better before the end of the decade at doing exactly what you suggested and making sense of a sequence of learning experiences. when the governor has talked about blended learning, my quick snapshot of what my ideal picture is is a smart play list tailored to each student based on this recommendation engine that is helping to build knowledge and skills, and then a really rich team-based, community-based set of projects that engaged students in very authentic ways in producing authentic work products, and that is a mixture of those really represents the best potential that we can bring together for kids. >> one of the seminal issues facing us that was not addressed

in the poll and taking to the school board level and the state level is as we move into the air where a lot more providers of information, who is it that determines what it is? one thing we have to avoid is simply strapping on the current text book approval process on to data quality and content process. by the same token, you simply cannot hand every child a laptop and say we have a digital strategy. what is the total environment you have created to work in? the issue of quality i think, not simply judging it by what we have done the last hundred years. >> thanks. >> council of scientific society president. if you were to picture in the future or even presently, what would be the best measures of

outcomes that you could put forth, realizing that they become the drivers of what happens when you do that? how much would you focus on creative ideas? how much would you focus on problem-solving, critical thinking, and so forth? what would be the outcome that you would really try to measure to drive the system forward in the best possible way? >> that is a great question. >> and you are giving it right to me? [laughter] those are what i call the deeper learning skills. joining the core content knowledge that is so important creative thinking, the critical thinking, the ability to collaborate, communicate and self-directed learning. it is developing a whole new set of performance assessments, some of which is currently under way

in a formative stage, not in a sense of testing, but in being formed, in the development of the common core standards, which 44 states have adopted in the district of columbia, and of the states that have not, they're clearly moving toward that standard. the systems that have been moved toward the consortium's, they begin to try to reach that. being able to measure that kind of performance. i think you are much better able to measure that kind of performance digitally because now, you have adapted technology, and you can immediately give feedback to the teacher, but at the same time, it also presents a picture of where the student is in each of these areas. it also permits you to collaborate with its students in your classroom or students from across the country -- that -- it permits you to be interacting and working in teams. i believe the actual digital process can lead to improving

those outcomes, and the assessments are under way, but we are not there yet, as many of you know because many of you are involved in helping develop it. not completely developed, but it will help us get there. >> it is a good-great answer -- good -- great answer. [laughter] >> the smart recommendation engine that you spoke about -- wouldn't that be a good teacher that could evaluate a student and make a recommendation as to what digital resources that they should choose? what would shane say if he were a student today it grade school, 20 or 30 years from now when someone asks who was his best teacher that he could remember it? would someone say it was the ipad or ipod?

>> i think -- it was that bit algorithm i had it is great. >> we need to develop skills to talk to students. teachers need to be sensitive and responsive to the needs of students, not only from a digital point of view, but also their emotional state, there nutrition state, and all the other family complexities they are involved with. >> thank you for that. let me give you a very quick snapshot of school of one. i think it gives a quick glimpse of what this looks like. they are the ones that we introduced the term playlist into education or at least into my thinking of what the future looks like. when the teachers come together in the morning and think about the learning experiences their young people will have, the

conversation is aided by a set of recommendations from an algorithm that has been chugging over night. those teachers can get together and say, "here is the learning experience each of our kids will have today." i could apply my professional judgment to the recommendation because i have also noticed some things about the social/emotional well-being of a number of kids, and as a result, i will add a professional judgment to the micro schedule of my kids. yes, it is informed judgment that drives the schedule. here is another example of the magic of dynamic scheduling. almost -- most students spend part of their week in small group tutoring at school of one. the magical part of it is that the teacher prepares a lesson knowing that every student a

around that table is ready for that lesson in that mode on that day. that is magic. when you compare it to the impossible task that we have put in front of teachers every day of kids that are five or six years different in terms of their reading and math skills, 30 at a time, and ask them to teach a lesson, any compare that to teach six kids who are all prepared to learn that lesson in that way on that day -- that is magic, right? if we can create more experiences were professionals can execute their craft thoughtfully and have a high opportunity to be successful and have time during the day to work with other professionals to apply judgment -- that is magic. it last quick example is a rocket ship, and the learning lab does a pretty good job of building some basic skills.

with the teachers would say is that it allows them to spend more time in class on critical thinking, on richer and deeper learning the governor wise talked about. we are both optimistic about putting powerful hands -- powerful tools in the hands of learning professionals and creating a set of working conditions that are far more positive and in places where they can be far more productive. >> let me take this a little different place. i think, is absolutely correct. one statistic for you -- state of georgia, and this could be any state -- 440 high schools and 88 certified physics teachers. you can take that to my state. you could take it in the district of columbia. he could take it almost anywhere. we will not have the highly certified content features

currently defined in every classroom, but what we can have is an effective teacher who, with digital content in digital learning, is able to guide and facilitate that. i would think being -- and to those of you who are in the profession, not having to be so we responsible for every day's lesson plan every moment in the classroom, but now able to -- as some of the content is coming digitally, you are able to spend time with the individual learning needs of the child. this one does not quite pick up on this fact. it is evidence from the software that this one is not getting this. now i can spend time with each of the students. suddenly, i have a data system helping. nothing is taking away from the traditional role of the teacher. it continues, and i think it is only amplified. that is one thing that comes out of this to me, loud and clear. although sometimes with a little

tension in some of the questions. it is not either/or. it -- high-tech requires high teach. you have got to have good teaching in order for the technology to be effective, too. >> up here in the second row. microphone. here we go. great. thank you. >> i am with the community college of the district of columbia. we are a fairly new entity, and we are looking at how we can use the digital a ray of services provided in some new and different ways. this conversation has caused me to think about to be with things. first of all, scale. secondly, gaps. we are still dealing with a digital divide that is growing every day between poor and

minorities and the middle class. at the same time, things are shifting markedly, and things are being learned that have the potential for making that gap even larger. where are the instances of taking what we have learned and using it to close the gap? i am concerned that we're learning some fantastic lessons about what we ought to be doing to enrich the learning experience, but we have not redefine what it means to teach. i think that if nothing else, this whole array of technology is redefining it without having the public policy conversation, so i would just like your reaction. >> i would start by saying there is no excuse for the digital divide. >> i am not making excuses for

it. but it exists. >> it does, but it is time for state and district leaders to put a flag in the ground and say, "after next august, every student in our care will have 24/365 access, and begin to make a plan to make that happen. you can do it now by shifting to online assessment and shifting to online instructional materials. you could probably also improve the quality of access to your professional development. but it takes a planned shift from print to digital, and you have to think differently about your instructional materials and how you do assessments, and you have to think differently about what your staffing looks like. it is complicated enough that maybe you have to break that shift into two or three phases. but the fact that the total cost of ownership has dropped below

$200 per year per student for an access device makes it less expensive than buying a backpack full of books. you can now make the financial case to make the shift. we have tried to make the case today that if you are awful about it, you could also create a longer day and longer year and a better working environment for teachers and more support systems for kids. we can in the next few years do away with the digital divide, but it will take courage and thoughtful leadership state by state and city by city to make it happen. >> my wife and i bought an e- reader last year. it was $300.

today, it is $114. three years ago, we could not have had this discussion based on access of internet devices. now, we also have to have access to the internet as well with the data plan. if i can ask you a rhetorical question. i am assuming that as almost every community college does, you have a high remediation rate. >> very high. >> with digital application, do you have to -- it seems to me you could move students through remediation at the rate they are able to progress rather than having them in class for a fixed amount of time so that that student can mediate and get to where they need to be in math in a month, does not have to sit and wait in a class with a traditional instructor but can move ahead. and the student that needs more time -- and this is really true and necessary in the k-12 system, the student that needs

more time -- what i am is suggesting is that with technology in the community college system, college system, as well as k-12, we have the ability to listed as a head at the rate that they can advance, competency-based advancement and get them to where now you are able to do what you want to do to move them up to the level they came to that community college for. >> you are absolutely right, and we are looking at this two ways. almost started immediately as an achieving the dream community college. we started out looking at how we improve development of risks. roughly 80% of our students are taking developable education classes. a whole group of us said nobody should enter needing developmental education, given the hard statistics, so what are we doing to get them ready before they get there so that is not an issue? we have to -- we have a dual strategy around that. our biggest challenge, and maybe no one else has this -- is not

our students or their readiness. it is our teachers, our instructors. they are reluctant to look at the new role they have to play and the new kinds of skills. we have not had a public policy conversation about the changing role that is emerging and shifting every day as a result of the kind of tools that are being made available for the technology. >> we agree. digital learning benefits teachers and students. by the same token, we need to be having a learning experiences for both. it also calls, then, on colleges and teacher education and other teacher preparation programs. i also see digital learning as extremely powerful. i think that digital learning is more of a sustained professional enhancement, because now

teachers will be able to do that enhancement with their peers, as opposed to what some of you call driveby p.d. usually the opening day of school is 300 teachers jammed into a hot gymnasium. to me, this is about quality learning experiences for students and teachers, and i will end as i began, it is about students and teachers, and digital learning has a critical role in bringing that about. >> question over here? >> adam richmond, prince george's community college. i was interested in the difference between it -- we see it work towards blended education with technology and k-

12, but i was interested in any thoughts or feedback on a recent legislation forced upon higher education to define our credit hour. it seemed like there was a look to define it as where innovative lending techniques may or may not open " count" as actual instruction. whereas, there was an hour to hour requirement for instruction, which sounded like a push by the legislature to have direct instruction. also, some kind of tax on the online construction. so how do we balance this between the desire that if we want to have high quality and people recognize the need for technology and the importance of it, yet there is still an attack on its legitimacy, particularly in higher red. i think there is a different perception between higher

education at compared with elementary. >> you are actually way ahead of us in k-12. you heard the governor talked- about gov. bush. i want to underscore the role that he played here. a your ago when i visited, he said this is all moving very quickly, but my sense is that state policy makers do not have a road map. i think they need a top-10 road map. i describe the data quality. they said, you don't understand, there are 27 governors coming in in the fall and we have to be done in 100 days. the speed and the urgency that he brought to this task, to try to lay out a policy framework to avoid really dumb policies that you are describing, this is not a thoughtful public policy. right?

it is standing in the way of everything that we have described here as possible. we see a lot of it in k-12. if you look at digitallearning.com, the 10 elements, you will find it redounded language. why? because each of them go after stupid barriers that exist that try to stop learning at a county boundary or district boundary, or they take a textbook adoption process and put it on digital content, or seek time, right? -- or seat time, right? it is trying to create policy that is thoughtful, about the shift going forward. we very well may need another four community colleges or to extend that to instead of being k-12, it all to be k-14 so we

are more thoughtful about the transition. but it is the leadership of these two governors that are trying to create a framework for this revolution -- that is why i think the work is so terribly important. we appreciate your concerns. we're working hard in k-12 to make this happen, and would lend support. >> in k-12, we have been saying that higher education has it knocked out, but i just bought an ipad. i am curious. i know that many of you have bought something similar. how many of you when you bought your device ask the salesperson, i want the device that the person worked on for exactly 180 days.

that is my sole interest, 180 days. i doubt it. you probably wondered how many gigabytes, performance, apps. why is it we measure our children by credits nowadays? i am the stand up to 25 years ago, but why is it 180 days in class? this goes to the conversation of the need to dance, in which technology permits us to do, is a much better measure of success to adapt student learnings so they can advance at their pace. that is going to be one of the leading issues. i hope in the next poll, they test some of these policies. for instance, if the state you are and requires only an online certified -- that the teacher who may be teaching on line has to be certified in that state, we are limiting them. that to me, incidently, i can purchase a book online from

barnes and noble, but i have to go to the local bookstore to pick up, that is what that is like. what is the policy? if we would not tolerate in our own lives the necessary frustration for our ability to be enriched by the internet, but we are denying the students. >> we are at the end of the time for our section of the program, but please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] >> wonderful. this day few quick comments. i would love to see this discussion replicated across the country. pick the topic you were interested in, get the national experts, local experts, hold the discussion about real bad, public perception, and tried to get this place -- about real bad, public perception, and try to get to this place about

policy levels and what we're doing well and some of the dumb policies, to use tom's comment. the gallup poll results, and they're also available online and via your app. please share it those results with folks. please take a look at the pdk- gallup poll results. now i want to remind you that we have been doing the pdk-chelal poll for 33 years -- the gallup poll for 33 years. i think george gallup would be happy that we have a partner focusing on higher education. that it has been a joy to work with them, and i invite duane matthews appear, the vice president of strategy and policy, to talk about our perceptions of higher education. [applause]

>> thank you very much. first, i want to comment on how really pleased we are to be able to join pdk and gallup on what has been a long and distinguished record, adding the higher education component to the poll is something we are extremely excited about and something we hope will continue. i thought i should take a few moments before inviting -- first of all, sharing results, and then in fighting jamie and tony to talk about the results, to explain why the luminol was interested in doing this. why we see this as critical to our work as a national institution on focus. as governor was mentioned, there is this growing national awareness of the need for increasing higher education at

attainment in the united states. we have seen this reflected, own goalswith lumina's for increasing the number of americans who have higher education credentials to 60% by 2025. the current rate is around 40%. that is a dramatic increase in entertainment we are calling for, and we have seen a great deal of support for this framing of the issue and the effort to not increase attainment. it is reflected in the president's goal for making the united states the best-educated country in the world, also measured in terms of higher education attainment, 60%, by 2020. tony will mention any moment that he has documented the fact that about 60% of u.s. jobs will require some college by the year

2018. if you think 2025 is an ambitious, audacious goals for hitting 60%, tony will tell you we do not have that long to get to 60%. all of this effort that is reflected in the states, governors, higher education at associates and institutions all increasing their focus on increasing the numbers of students who go to college, but even more importantly to complete college and finish with a college degree or credential is something that i think is driving a lot of our work and a lot of the national discussions around higher education. along comes the question of, are we getting ahead of the american people? is this something that is too much of an inside baseball kind of discussion, where we are talking to ourselves about the value of education and it is not really recognized or understood by the public? how does the public see these

issues? do they also see this shift taking place? do they believe there is, in fact, a need or awareness of this desire that a lot of us are expressing to increase higher education attainment? to increase the number of people who go to college? if so, what do they see as behind a, what is driving the concern and the issue? we felt having answers to those questions would be very useful to us at lumina, but also to the broad community of educators, policymakers, and others were concerned about the same set of issues. that is what we have zeroed in on not on this section of the poll. we have found some results that we think are very interesting, which i am pleased to have this chance to share with you. so if this works -- hey, it does, great. speaking of technology, here we go. first question, and it is small,

i will read it, on a five-point scale, one is strongly agree, five is strongly disagree, please indicate your response to the statements. the statement is, having a college degree is essential for getting a good job in this country. that word "essential" is very important. not desirable, not nice, but essential. what is the answer. those who strongly agree or agree with that statement are now 69% of the public. 69% of americans believe that having a college degree is essential for getting a good job in this country. that is, we think, a very remarkable finding. we think it reflects this great shift that has taken place, that reflects the emergence of a knowledge economy, the fact that

most jobs in this country, as tony perhaps will talk about and has documented in his research, are seeing an increase in the skill and knowledge requirements attached with those jobs across all occupations. that seems to be something that many americans, most americans are aware of and feel that it is tied to higher education and to the need for a college degree. the other is the occupational certificate, which is an important distinction. at some recognition beyond high school of competence and skill of an occupation or college degree. is it very or somewhat important for financial security in the future? 95% agreed or somewhat agreed with that statement. there is a very strong perception that this is, in fact, both necessary for financial security as well as for getting and keeping a good

job. in your opinion, which of the following is the main reason why students get education beyond high school. this one, you are asked to pick one, the main reason. this may or may not surprise you, i would suggest it surprises some people, to see this result. but there are the results. to earn more money, 53%, to get a good job, 33%. those are far and away the top two reasons why people believe, americans believe people go to college. become a well-rounded person, learn more about the world, not that those are not important, but if he said what is the main reason people go to college, it is to get a good job and earn more money. all right. now, on a five point scale, five

is strongly agree, one is strongly disagree, rank the statements. this statement is, people who have a college degree have a good chance of finding a quality job. strongly agree more strongly reject strongly agree or agree is roughly half, 47%, believe that people have a good chance of finding a quality job. now, i think we could talk at wife about this, -- we could talk at length about this and whether this is surprising or not. i would suggest in today's economy, with all of the reporting about the difficulty of getting a job, about college graduates entering the labour market, not being able to find jobs, all of this sort of concern, that 47% believing that getting a quality education has a good chance of getting you a quality job and only 10% disagreeing is, in some ways, in

this economy a remarkable finding. i was frankly somewhat surprised to see that the negatives were as low as they were. even then this difficult economy and job market, people still seem to believe that having a college degree is the best form of insurance, the best preparation that you can have to be able to go into the employment market, to go into the job market, the work force and get a good job. finally, and this is the last slide i will put up to date before asking jamie and tony to discuss this, again, on the five point scale, a greek is five, one is disagree, college graduates in this country are well prepared for success in the workforce. people believe that college is the key to getting a good job and making money and having financial security, but only about 40%, 39% strongly agree or

agree with the statement that college graduates in this country are well prepared for success and the work force. and most people are neutral on that question, and fully one- fifth, want out of five, disagree with that statement. if there is an area here that we really need to pay attention to, it is this -- if americans believe, which is essential, essential the key word, for success, but they are concerned about whether people who have college degrees who come out of college are in fact well prepared to be successful, i think we have issues we need to think about and we need to talk about. this gives a flavor of the results. we are very excited to be part of this and very excited to have this and more information, which i encourage you to delve into and look at. but i wanted to share these

particular findings with you. with that, let me invite jamie and honey on stage. it jammed is the president and ceo of lumina foundation. -- jamie is the president and ceo of lumina foundation. these are two very respected, recognized experts in this field. i happen to work for jimmy, so you could take that with a grain of salt -- >> he had to say that. >> had no reason to have to say that about tunney. take it from me, these people know what they're talking about. we would like to encourage them to look at these findings particularly as it relates to what this changing and increasingly important relationship between higher education, education beyond high school, and the work force and the economy. jamie, could i turn it over to

you first? >> thank you. at first, i want to thank our host at george washington university as well as our colleagues at pdk for their efforts and trailblazer and work we have fallen over the course of many years. frankly, i did not know it was 43 years, but i followed it most of my professional career. i have not been working 43 years, so i have some excuse. but i will say this work very much motivated us to gain a better understanding of what is happening in terms of public perceptions at the higher education level, and there is an import reason for that, building on what duane talked about. that is, as important as it is to focus on fixing our schools and improving our k-12 system -- in fact, it is essential, necessary for the economic future of our country -- all of that is in fact about getting students to the starting line.

we have not succeeded in our task until the vast majority of those students achieve some type of post secondary credential. i think what the public perception survey shows, overwhelmingly, is that perception matches reality. what the public poll shows is the public believes that in order to be able to get a job, you need to have some type of post secondary education. and they are right. if you look at the unemployment data, the rates are dramatically higher for people with no post secondary education compared with those with the secondary education. but the height of the recession, the unemployment rate for people with high school credentials compared with those with college credentials was more than two to one. second, the public believes to be up to get a good, high- quality jobs, you have to be up to have some type of posted to their education. again, they are correct. the vast majority of the jobs

being created in our economy, the good jobs, require post- katrina re-education. the data shows about two-thirds of those jobs being created require post secondary education or will require it within a decade. the public understands the importance of getting a good quality education is critical. finally, one of the important outcomes that you get from a college education is that you make more money. making more money should not be the only goal of getting a high- quality education. all of these things that rank low in the perception poll about quality of life, thinking critically, etcetera, those are all important, but being able to make more money is an important factor and one we should not undervalue. what we see from that that is that the labor market, employers, are actually valuing people with college degrees at an increasing level.

with the labor market is telling us is the premium of having a call that credential compared with having a high school credential is increasing. in the last decade, the wage premium for those with a bachelor's degree compared with those with a high-school credential has increased from about 75% to 84%. the public is right, their perceptions match the reality of what is happening in terms of the higher education system. there is an interesting subset to this, the question about the value of a public education. that is, the cost of paying for higher education is very high, and from a current and, or a current expenditure basis, it has become very burdensome for people who have not planned to pay for the increasing cost of college. i think that is a real challenge to higher education, and i think it represents perhaps one of the biggest threats to our long-term success in this country is

getting a handle on the high cost of actually delivering higher education. you cannot see one of the things that is worrying the public in terms of what is happening in the education system, the question about the relevance of what they're getting out of the higher education system in terms of them being able to be successful in the work force. only about half the public is sold on the fact the quality of education they will get from higher education actually will match what they need to be successful in the work force. that represents a significant challenge to higher education to reinvent itself, to realign and reinvent the business model in ways that will have a dramatic difference in terms of improving the outcomes of what we produce in higher education. those outcomes have to be overwhelmingly be about learning. it is the learning that drive the quality of education and it is the learning that the employers are saying they need in order to fill those high-

quality jobs they need for their companies to be successful. in the current environment, getting a college education is not nice, it is necessary. the public absolutely understands that. to put it more bluntly, going beyond the data, in my own words, if you get a high-quality college degree, there is a pretty good chance you will be in the middle class and perhaps more successful. to put it harshly, if you don't have a college degree, there is a very high chance you will be pouor. >> jamie and others have already said everything i like to say, and everything that i think is important in this opinion poll. but i have not said it yet, so i will take my turn. what is most striking to me is one of the things that duane said. in spite of the testimony, and

other polls showed deep pessimism on the part of the american public, pessimism that in some respects is well- founded. the people who forecast the economy, as a week or so ago, say we will be getting increases in unemployment, to 9.3% toward the end of the year, and probably stay at 9% through 2012, which is bad news at the white house. and that we will only dip below 9% in 2013. so in spite of what has been a very long and deep recession, the longest and deepest, truly, since the great recession, where a recession that has had a huge impact on this economy, people still believe, in fact, more so, people believe that it is necessary to get some kind of post secondary education and training in order to be successful in the united states.

the middle class is the common standard among us, and that is true, as jamie pointed out. in 1973, we had almost 70% of the jobs appear to require nothing less than high school. at least that is what the people in those jobs had. and virtually all of those people were in the middle class, measuring the middle-class arbitrarily. there is no official number. but in modern terms, it is between about $35,000.80 $5,000. -- between $35,000 and $85,000. now the same bandwidth, the participation goes down about 30%. that includes a lot of people who started out in jobs that did not require college 30, 40 years ago, but require college now, which is essentially the way this process works out.

what is underneath this is something that started in the 1980's, after the 1980-81 recession. it was the second worst recession since the great depression, for those of you remember. but after the 1980-81 recession, we saw a profound restructuring of the american economy. essentially, when we took the full inflation, there were no longer paying workers in inflated dollars. those days, 5% range, with the inflation was 10%, the 5% was gone. but once the inflation was gone, the 5% was real. the with the manufacturers, transportation, they set out to fire about 30% of their work force. what they did was they unleashed modern technology. which in these times, what is

essentially the third great technology revolution in economic history, was the computer. the computer attached with all sorts of other devices. what the computer does in the and and continues to do is that it automates particular tasks and everybody's job. as a result of that, all of the tasks that are left over, the moderate -- and not repetitive tasks that require higher skill. the reason i raise that, that engine runs faster now in recession, and has run faster in recessions the last three recessions. so now we get what are called jobless recovery, which is something of a misnomer. it really means that the growth rate goes faster than the job creation rate. the amount of money that we make grows faster and heat -- and the hiring of people. that structural change is now

accelerating during the recession. so the people who answered positively about higher education in this survey, they are themselves going to be proven right. when you come out the other side of this recession, it is virtually a sure thing that jobs that required high-school or less will be smaller proportion of this economy, and much greater share of possibly not for a little while, we will live through more hard times, but by 2016 or 2017, i think most agree the unemployment rate will be roughly 6%. but that time, i suspect when the survey is done then, the numbers will get stronger. what is unfortunate about this is there are a lot of people left behind. they are not just going to be 18-24-year-old, who we need to find some way to move through the college system so they began a career is, big decisions about

their education that will affect them over the next 40 years, but they're going to be a substantial number of people who are adults he will be structurally unemployed. that is, it will not have the skills necessary to go back to the industry or the occupation, certainly not the job they left behind. they will need new occupational skills. they will have to shift occupations. that is a very tall order in any economic system to do that with adults. we have never done it successfully yet. there are two issues that are emerging underneath this survey. one is, the larger one, frankly, which is how we educate our children, what kinds of chances they will get. and more and more, the education they get beyond high school really does determine their opportunities over a lifetime.

access to post secondary has become the arbiter of middle- class data. if you run the numbers as we have from time to time, it is true that the middle class is climbing, but underneath that is this the same engine. what is really happening is people with post secondary education are either staying in the middle class or, in the case of largely b.a. and above, they're moving into the top tiers, above 85,000 less per year, and people with high school or less are falling down. it does not mean that there are still not high school jobs, i hasten to add. for three out of 10 people who get a high-school job and nothing else, they can get a job for about $35,000. that is much more robust four males than females. that is very hard for a female with only high-school or less to

get a career at $35,000. it is not impossible for men because there are still enough physical jobs, but women do not have access to those jobs, and one. do do not pay. -- and the ones that do do not pay. >> i liken this three out of tense situation to two simultaneous games of musical chairs. one group has high school credentials. more and more, the chairs are being pulled out. the other group are people with a secondary, and more and more the chairs are being added. the people who want a middle- class lifestyle are increasingly going to have to be in the game on the side rather than on this side if they want to be successful. >> alright, if any of you have questions -- i hope that you do. while we're getting the microphones set, i want to ask a

question, so i will take the privilege of the chair to ask the first question. i hear some expressing some concern over the way that we frame these findings, and say, are we turning our colleges and universities into a massive job- training system? is this about training people for specific jobs, narrowing the curriculum, that sort of thing? could you talk about the nature of the skills and knowledge? the nature of the education that people need in this economy? >> three words -- no, no, no. the important lesson is an increasing recognition of the things that will make you successful in life and make you that well-rounded person, that person who is successful asa colleague,

neighbor, are the same things that make you successful in a job. employers say, through the surveys we have seen, lots of different places at show that what the employers most value are those things like critical thinking and problem solving, the ability to communicate, the analytical. -- be analytical. those are the things we think we do best in higher education. this conversation about are we train people for jobs or like it is, in fact, the same conversation because those are the same skills that you need to be successful in life and in a good job. the conversation gets rockier from that point, because there are differing returns to different types of credentials, and i think that is part of tony's most recent research. we have to begin differentiating the kinds of things that people

are majoring in and the occupation they choose. not all of the returns are universally the same, but all of the returns for people with a secondary skills and credentials are higher than those without those pass secondary skills and credentials. without those post secondary skills and credentials. >> my sense of this is is not an either/or choice. first, the system as it presently operates is not an either/or system. among b.a.'s, only about 10% are arts. the other 9% are occupational or industry based. you can get a ph.d. in history and did not find a job, -- and not find a job. and when you go to community college, is nearly half are

occupational. the other half are general ed degrees that are supposed to send you to a four-year school, where 90% of the degrees are occupational. the community college certificates and test based industry certifications, which are the new big bullies on the block now, those are clearly intended to be occupational. it is too late to worry about this, for starters. higher education has been responsible to the market demands. that is the good news. we agreed that it should be more responsive than it has been. young people need to know if they get a degree in architecture what it will pay. they can then decide to do what they want, but they should know. my final point about this is i do believe that the employment role in higher education is pivotal. higher education is supposed to satisfy all sorts of needs

regarding for its own sake, individual human development, good citizens and neighbors, but in the american system, you cannot be a good citizen or neighbor or participate fully in the life of your times if you don't have a job. we don't make you vote, but we do make you go to work. if you don't go to work, unless you have a very good excuse, the rest of us are not on to take care of you. if higher education does not deliver on its mission to get people employed, it will not deliver on its other missions, either. >> questions? yes, the first one right here? >> hi. debra humphries. i want to go back to something that was asked and the earlier session about aligning policy

with the needs to improve education, either in terms of completion or other ways. i want to ask about how we help bring this message to policy makers in particular. i was giving a speech today is a goat and a state that i will not name, -- i was giving a speech to days ago in a state that i will not name, because it will reflect badly on them, but changing the teaching and learning environment to education and quality, and i was using the wonderful data from tony, thank you, to talk about the changes and the economy, what people need, etc. later, i talked to dean, who also happen to be in that state a state legislator. in this state, this happens, and she said to me, how do i help my colleagues in the state legislature and understand this data, including tunney's?

i directed her to the wonderful charts, state by state, and that report, and she said, showed them to some of my colleagues and they're not buying it. they're not interested. i did not know what to say. it has always felt to me that tony's data and the public agrees with the data. this poll shows they get the connection between the economic health of this state and investment in higher education. but in this state, anyways, the state legislature was the key and connect them to hear this message. -- and they could not get them to hear this message. >> part of the answer, from my perspective -- is tony's dad, so he will answer, but from my perspective, you may not believe it, but the public policy makers and canada, korea, and 30 other

countries that our economic competitors believe it because they are investing heavily in this. there are investing so much they have started to surpass us. by the way, states that are your neighbors are also probably doing similar things because some states are taking the path you are talking about, but there are several states now where this has become a bipartisan issue of very high accord among people, recognizing that increasing educational attainment is critical. one than that is missing from many of these conversations that is worth missing is the quality of the conversation about the common court and the changes will need to be matched at the higher education level. we need to have some out of alignment of that conversation. i don't literally mean lockstep alignment. i think one of the mistakes of the conversations so far at k-12 is not enough involvement from

the people on the higher education side has to do with, much-ready actually is. -- of what college-ready actually means. at the same time, higher education needs to respond in meaningful ways in terms of its admissions process, college placement, assessment systems, to be able to better align with what i think are going to be quality improvements we will see at the k-12 level. >> i think that politicians do understand this. that is, they read the same polls -- a lot more of them, actually, the most of the rest of us, and that number comes up over and over again. it is no accident that in the last two presidential campaigns, access to higher education on both platforms, it moved as the economy moved, even as it collapsed, it went from

two to three, never fell below four in any speech that i heard. the political leadership is in a box. the box they are in is they did not have money. they have to make hard decisions about whether to take money away from old people or young people. in the end, it will be young people, because young people are resilient. old people are not. [laughter] well, i have a horse in this race. [laughter] but there is a recognition of this. what you have heard in the last presidential campaign, and i would note in the one before we heard the same thing, that is the political answer is we're going to make college affordable. there is an implicit assumption and that is that we are going to make college universally available is what they have been saying. the bush administration,

interestingly, was the first presidential statement on this. it was in their higher education commission that most people did not like very much, where they said something of an ambiguous sentence, where they said i think literally, everybody does not need to go to college, but everybody needs some post secondary education. somehow, two-year schools were no longer college. that is the only way i make sense of that sentence. in the end, this is generally, they understand the voters want access to post secondary education for their children. the answer is affordability. the question is, what does affordability mean? the answer is, we don't have much money, you have to do more with less. i think that is what they are saying. they then shift the blame of the problem towards higher education, the problem that is not affordable, not that it should not be universally available.

and it is not hard to shifted to the institution. in political polls, two things, one, gas price is the only price if your politician you have to worry about. everybody stands at the pump and watches the meter. everybody knows about gas prices. the other thing is you get a tuition bill. all the politicians know that. one is the gas pump, the other is that tuition bill. it is not hard for them to say the price of gas has to go down and the price of college has to go down. then the next question is, how do you do that? we have come up somewhat empty on that, i think quite frankly. >> good afternoon. my name is patty from fairfax county public schools. you started to address my question. could you address the increasingly expensive cost of higher education, especially for those whose parents do not have

college credentials? the gaps between haves and have-nots are growing. what we have to recognize is ignoring those gaps comes at our collective parole. this is no longer in issue of trying to do better by those who are less fortunate, what we're talking about is a majority of the population. the emerging majorities of latinos, the large number of african-americans, first- generation college doors, the huge number of adults to absolutely have to be trained or retrained at the post secondary level because the jobs they had, which were middle-class jobs, no longer afford them that middle-class lifestyle. the critical piece of this, in my opinion, is that we have to get serious about a new kind of social compact for those families. we have to find a different way

of articulating the value of higher education for them. i have spent most of my career as an ardent advocate for need based financial aid, and nothing will change that. i was a pell grant recipient, pell grant advocate. i get why that is important. but the reality of the cost of higher education to those populations you are talking about is simply too high. i think the solution will not come on the price side, unless we agree to price controls, which i think has all kinds of negative effects, and i would not support government prices because the government cannot control the price of anything, let alone something as complex as higher education. i think price controls are not the right way to do it. the only way to deal with it is to deal with it on the cost side, and that means the debt delivery model for higher education has to change. we have to have a more productive system of higher education, productive meeting both efficient and effective,

focusing on those learning outcomes the public expects through this gallup poll that we need to deliver on in terms of the high quality of learning that leads to a good job, etc. this is part of the challenge for those populations you talking about. the failure to deliver on that, however, is going to really impact our collective well-being and our economic and social future of our country. >> the one thing i would add, it is why the governor who was appear before it was talking about technology. to me, it is like fresh air. that is something i do not know much about, and it sounds like maybe they have to educate -- have an answer. and i heard enough people do it -- hilary pennington did it a couple weeks ago in richmond, and she made me feel the same way.

intuitively, it makes sense. the only thing that bothers me now is i have been hearing that now for about 30 years. as somebody who is an expert in this area said to me in a bravura ago, he said, the judge at things in terms of your own lifetime, and really that is not very long. we have been at this for 30, 40 years with technology, it will take another 30, 40 to do it. meantime, we will have a problem delivering high-quality education universally in the united states. that is a difficulty we will struggle through until the technology comes on line. >> another question? >> my name is camilla th igpen, a student here at george washington. i want to talk about the perception that once you obtain a post secondary education that

you are still not prepared to go into the workforce. as someone who is relatively new entering the workforce, and what to speak from my perspective. i think there are reasons for that, but two out of them that come to mind. students need to be strategic about choosing a major. when you are coming to your undergraduate degree, i feel there is very little guidance about what is going on in the markets now or in four years to figure out what you should be strategically going to get there. more importantly, what experience you are getting what you are in school, in terms specifically. -- internships specifically. i know summer jobs were low and getting them was difficult. when you are in school and you don't have that experience, that makes you less competitive and less able to get a job. what do you think the opportunities are for providing incentives to expand internship programs, at to make sure those

are not cut when the economy goes south, to help students have more work experience. >> there are a growing number of efforts to connect with this. i would say we have a lot more work to do. lots of organizations, i mentioned a few of them, the committee for economic development, skills for america's future, many are trying to elevate this issue, which is that work-based experience is combined with education can actually enhance the learning process and lead to higher quality outcomes. the degree itself, the credential itself is really the. what was it. it will not be a guarantee of a high-quality job. you need to augment that with other things to enhance your chances for success. the types of things or talking about are important. one issue, the employers need to step forward on a better job of actually participating in that process rather than at lamenting

the incomplete jobs they are getting from the higher education system. let's be clear, employers are paying a premium for people with college degrees. they believe very strongly that is important. but there are also telling us they need more and any different. i think those different learning outcomes, like internships, are an important way they can invest directly in that success. >> my name is anita, with the new leadership alliance. one of the things i think is unfortunate about the results is that students and families are continuing to pay the high cost of higher education. the legislature sees those results and those they can reduce the amount of money they're giving to the institutions and the families will keep paying for it. in the end, it is sort of a detriment to the system. i look at it like all market forces, until maybe students and

family stand up and say we will not pay or attend, we do not have enough, i guess, ammunition to force colleges to change and look at the prices. i feel as though as long as people are willing to pay, colleges and universities are not forced to change as quickly. >> there is an issue. we have gotten to the end of the road in a growing number of states on be raised tuition/cut budget strategy. the truth is that tuition have been raised to a level that are extraordinary that are causing problems. at the same time, states like california, where there are legitimate capacity issues in the system. the california community colleges cannot serve the needs of a growing number of people. literally, they did not have the capacity. there were something happening on the ground, where i think we are starting to go over the cliff on the "cut some more and

use to which an" to make things level. that is where these levels of productivity will be important. we have invested in seven different states on productivity efforts, a variety of approaches. we think that is the camel's nose under the tent. there has to be widespread acceptance that improving productivity is critical to the success of the system. not the old way, which is make faculty teach more. that was a wasted effort, in my opinion. we have to engage the faculty, find ways to bring them into the equation to get to the learning outcomes that will lead to the high quality success we need to be successful. >> one more question, and then i think we will come over here. >> i am charles, embassy of australia. my question is about focusing on

the degree in approving the degree, especially for what we have heard in this poll about the perception of the value of that degree. in australia, universities, governments, businesses have come together to develop qualifications frameworks that allowed universities themselves to focus on learning outcomes and awarding degrees. that said, how do you suggest in the united states institutions of higher education can come together to focus -- instead of keeping the focus on credit hours, move more to the focus of awarding degrees on learning outcomes? things you may know about as far as what is happening. >> a quick advertisement for our own work. our own work is built on the back of the great work that has been done by others on defining learning outcomes of higher education. we have developed what you have seen in many other countries in the world, which is a first

attempt to define the competencies' that should be demonstrated by people at the associate, bachelor's, and a master's degree, irrespective of the field of study. many countries call this the qualification framework. we call this a beta version, because we do not think we have it right, but we're testing this idea of actually defining those competencies in ways in which institutional leaders and policy makers to put their hands on this and better understand what the potential uses of this kind of framework might be. i want to be clear, i think ultimately that has to be owned at the delivery level, at the institutional level. that is where the teaching and learning takes place. i am not in favor of a nationally articulated system that all colleges and universities have to drive through. i think the reality of american higher education is we cannot in

any meaningful way describe what an associate's degree represents and is, or what a bachelor's or master's degree actually is. that is the same conversation we have been having at the k-12 level. i think it needs to be replaced with a learning based system where we better articulate what the degrees represent at each of those levels of qualification. >> let me turn back to shame, but first, thank you very much. ck tot me turn at bat sh to shane, but first, thank you very much. >> remember i asked you to think about the bridge to cross k-12, the will of the people, and policy implications. i did the assignment myself. hopefully you did it as well. i am thinking about great

teaching, how it requires the individual, the training program, and the college and university, and the wonderful work place within the k-12 system. i think would invest more and great teaching, individual state plans or at an american plan, for recruiting and retraining -- and retaining great teachers. i also believe that policymakers loved that idea a whole bunch. that allows them to show they have talented people and their communities that they can get people interested in education and then turn them into great teachers to come back and serve in their communities. hopefully you have had a chance to wrangle with an idea that bridges the two sectors which is at the heart of the public will, and then we can tackle with good policy. a bunch of thanks.

thank you, dean, for giving us this wonderful place and time. thank you so much. i let to thankedjamie and -- want to thank ajamie and bill. tony and duane. behind the scenes, we had three people who work on these and lot. that is dr. connie and dr. valerie. i want to thank them also. i want to thank you all for coming here and investing your time, and i challenge you to recreate these wonderful discussions about the poll results. we have this other poll on education we call the gallup student poll. every