jeaninebarelli.com. i can certainly say i am with you. i think you have a massive amount of early book orders. does everyone agree? thank you so much. that was tremendous. so our next speaker that i have the distinct pleasure of introducing is one of our original smart girls and district coordinator. she is now the county clerk from bowie, texas. i got right pronunciation. please help me welcome natalie nichols. [applause] >> i probably need a booster seat up here. sorry. i just want to thank y'all all for asking me to speak and for being my sisters throughout all

of this. this really is my sorority. it's an honor to speak to you and to you. i'm just as excited as i have been every time. i can't wait to come back and see my family. i was never involved in politics before. i live in texas and in my ignorance i assumed we are a red state and they're going to vote the way we're -- we would have voted anyway. i saw sarah palin speak. i didn't think they would give the floor to a woman with a voice of her own. i didn't think they realized that she had one. she was the complete opposite of what i had assumed she would be. she was a wife, a mother, a leader and a fighter and she didn't apologize for it or hide

from it. she was bold and in your face and basically came out saying, this is who i am and i hope you like me but if you don't i'm still ok with that. this is me. that was a kicker in the rear for me. it made me get involved, get off my butt. i got involved in smart girl politics and i'm so thankful that i did. that started me blogging. i created a website with my website. we did it as a family. we started planning tea parties. i sought out other women in my local area and we tried to move to get other people elected into office. i went back to school for political science not because i needed to but because i wanted to learn everything that i could. i never intended to run for office. i was going to summit so i could learn to help other people run. i just wanted to get the right people in office. one day a good friend of mine printed out a list of all the local offices that were up for election in 2010 and she said pick one, you're running. and i laughed too.

that was my first reaction. and i said that's not me. i've got four kids. i'm a wife and i'm a mother. i'm not a politician. i didn't get into it for that. but by some twist of fate i came across the quote "if not you, then who. if not now then when." and i cried a little bit because it really hit home. if i was going push other people and i had good ideas then i darn well better go get up there and do it. i became the first republican woman ever elected to a county-wide office in bowie county, texas. [applause] the platform was really, really simple, transparency, integrity and accountability. that's the things that we were fighting for all along. they weren't just words to me, they were a belief system. you to say what you mean and mean what you say. so it's my job to create the

official court record based on the actions of the court. we pray and we say the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of every meeting and i record it. well, i was out of town for training. a judge crossed through and xed out the prayer and the pledge for the record of the court. they didn't want you to know that they had said it. and you've heard it all before. we might get sued by the aclu. we might offend someone. i could either sit down and shut up or i could say that's not going to happen on my watch. there wasn't even a choice for me. it's what you do as an american. i knew that it might be an unpopular decision and the court might not let the words get it out of my mouth. so i typed it out and i wanted to hand it to the media. they let me get it all out.

that got media attention and it drew in support from all over the country and locally we had veteran wives saying please don't dishonor my husband. the citizens spoke out and the court really, really backtracked and wanted to put the prayer and the pledge back in the record of the court. and then they wanted to deflect. we never wanted to put it out. she left these things off. and then she also left off a devotional that they had never everyone said the word "devotional." in my joe wilson moment i said you're lying. that's how loud it was too. you can watch the video yourself. it's the most boring argument you've ever seen. it was my bewilderment and shock that they would do that.

i said you're lying because somebody was lying. i think that's what we're supposed to do as good americans, just as moral people. and three days later, i got a call from a reporter asking me what i thought about the judge's complaint that would result if i was convicted in six months in jail and a $2,000 fine because apparently it is a crime in the state of texas to disrupt a meeting. now personally i don't think i disrupted. i disagreed with his lies. but that's what i'm doing right now. i'm facing criminal charges that if convicted of a maryland when you're a county official in the state of texas, it results in immediate and automatic removal from office if that conviction is related to your official duties which this obviously would be. so now there's a huge battle brewing. i've talked to the y lines defense fund and if i'm indicted they said that they

will defend me and they would like to come into our county and write a plan to make sure we won't be sued by the aclu and defend the county if we do get sued. but that wasn't ever the issue. it was a power struggle. it's the good old boy system and i was this little old lady that never had any business in there in the first place and darn sure wasn't going stand up to them. but i'm still standing up. i've gotten support, postcards and personal visits from people all over the country and they've been inspired. it makes me cry a lot at night because they're so heart-felt and insere in what they're saying. and they're standing up. they're standing up with me and on their own and in their own community. i think the whole thing is retaliation. it's really intended to do what they've all done, the whole establishment system has done

for so long and that is to scare the crap out of you for lack of a better word into never standing up against them. and we cannot do that. none of us got involved in activism or politics in any way, shape, or form with the intent to sit down and shut up and we darn well better stand up and make our voices heard and let them know that we're watching and even if it's unpopular, even if it's a little bit rude, a lie is a lie, a distortion is a distortion and it really doesn't matter. we're going call you out. i want to be held accountable the same way. that's -- that's -- well, i did have a funny thing i wanted to tell you. the day that i found out i was possibly facing these charges, i'm a woman. it wasn't the best day. there were a lot of tears. i'm moving, i'm getting out of here. and then i had some chocolate

and i decided i was going to fight back, by golly. but i just want to close with letting you know they went to college late in life. i have four children. i didn't do it in the right order but it's made me who i am. i never had the chance to have the sisterhood that you might have when you're going to college in your youth and that's exactwlay this has been to me. you're all my sisters. as soon as this broke in the media, you were the first ones running with your heels on the ground and basically saying, oh, no, you didn't. that's what we can do here. we can run to each other's defense and we can really cause change. so when the story first arose, when the issue came up, i saw it unfolding and i knew that there were risks in standing up. we're all human. it crosses your mind that when you take a stand it might not be popular.

we wonder if we'll be the only ones. we wonder if it will make a difference. and in that 30-second time frame we come to the realization that some things are just bigger than we are. the prayer and the pledge are two of those things. one man with courage is a majority. i haven't been alone. there have been people all over saying we're with you. and it's time like those when the words of the pledge ring very true. we are one nation under god. we are indivisible and we are americans. and sisters in conservatism. thank you. [applause]

>> all right, everybody. put down your tissues and recover from the chills. i feel so lucky to be here and so lucky to introduce these speakers. and our next speaker is from the susan b. anthony list, former representative marilyn musgrave. [applause] >> how wonderful to be here. you know, just a few days ago we had another grand baby born, a little girl named regan. and when i was holding little newborn regan, i'll say that again, here came the 2-year-old and the 3-year-old and the 5-year-old sisters and they were all gathered around me. my daughter was trying to take a shower. you know how that is when you have all these babies? but as i was just holding on to that precious little baby and the little girls were just loving on her. they weren't calling her regan

yet. they were calling her new baby. i said, wow. i told my son-in-law, you are a blessed man because you will be surrounded by beautiful women. we're loving all of those grand babies and loving life and noting the preciousness of this little baby that came into our family. you know, i was a member of congress. i was in the state legislature. i was a senator and then i went on to congress. and the life issue is what got me involved in politics. when i was at home with our four little kids and i was lobbying from the kitchen table it was because of life. and i knew that if that candidate was pro-life it spoke volume about their stance. you can count on the social conservatives in all the areas that you're concerned about. aze worked for other

candidates, one i got the virus when the youngest of our children was 14 years old, i was elected to the house. the first advice was now just don't talk about the abortion issue. i was called into the majority leader's office and he gave me that advice. i sat there and i something started rising up in me. you know exactly what i mean. i looked at him and said it's the pro-life people that put me here. what kind of a person would i be if i didn't stand for life? it's a moment where you have a baptism by fire. that they will be the candidate just like our wonderful speaker

saying well, i feel like i'm called to do this. i hope there are ladies in your room. and if that's not your thing, an activists. well, what a wonderful experience to be in congress and start the pro-life women's caucus and then to go on to be the project director for votes have consequences with susan b. anthony list. before i went to congress, i worked with them closely. and i'll tell you, pro-life women in congress are worth their weight in gold because always -- can we applaud the pro-life women in congress? [applause] always, always the women on the left when they were talking to henry hyde or mike pence, they always said what do you know about it? you're not a woman. and so those men carrying the pro-life banner have done such a yeoman's job.

we at susan b. anthony list are all about electing pro-life women and did we ever have success in the last election, called the year of the pro-life woman. you know why it was so successful? because when obama care came down the pike including taxpayer funding of abortion, the american people said no. the american people even those who called themselves pro-choice have an aversion for the most part with their tax dollars going for abortion. we at susan b. anthony spent over $8 billion and countless efforts fighting obama care. i love the sticker "redpeal obama care." you know, after that obama care

was front and center, remember i was told not to talk about abortion, good political advice? what was the issue in the end that would see it pass or fail? it was the life issue. and i'll tell you, you talk about heart-breaking. we at susan b. anthony list we support pro-life republicans. we have this group of pro-life democrats that we thought we could count on. remember that? remember bart stupak? i had a call from bart stupak just before the vote. thank you, marilyn for what you're doing. he told our president, i will not cave. and whatever the pressures were he caved obviously. it came down to the life issue. those pro-life democrats giving in was why obama care was signed into law.

you know after that we were on a bus, susan b. anthony list bus, and we were going into the district of those so-called pro-life democrats reminding the voters of what the person in office had said and done. and we were successful in defeating many of those democrats that caved on the big one. [applause] you know, i have to tell you i only go on bus tours when it's below freezing or when it's incredibly hot. i told my husband, i don't know what it is, i always paint the house on the sunny side. but we have had our job cut out for us. did you ever think that you would see the united states congress voting on defunding planned parenthood? wasn't that something to behold? god bless mike pence as he runs

for governor in indiana. what a hero. i actually wanted him to run for president. how about you? i know mike and karen so very well. here they went after him. they're going after anyone that would want to deposit fund planned parenthood saying it's a war on women. i mean, can you believe this? on one of those bus tours i was privileged to be with lyla rose in live action, folks. and you talk about a posed, fearless, beautiful young woman getting people to go into these planned parenthood clinics and give us a hellish glimpse of what they're really like. can you just see that one in new jersey with the clinic director almost salivating as she helped the person that she thinks is a sex trafficker? this thing is beyond the pale.

here we see them engaging in these reprehensible activities. planned parenthood has had this image, you know, we're helping poor women. we're offering health services. i don't mean to offend anybody here. but now listen to this. calling a doctor in one of these so-called clinics, the health care provider. you know, the first time he sees that woman? when she's lying down on the table. we as women all get the picture, ready to have an abortion. he hasn't had a discussion with her and that's her health care provider. we're not going to let planned parenthood get away with this. and they talk about helping poor women. they talk like they're the only game in town. that's not true. we have community health centers. we have other services available from places that do

not provide abortion and again american people do not want their tax dollars going for abortion. you know, there was a poll recently that was so encouraging. americans, a large majority of americans support parental notice. you get to the question about defunding planned parenthood and 40% support that. it's not a majority. but i want to encourage you because they've had 25 years to project this wonderful image and we've only had a few months where we've been chipping away with it. 40% is a huge increase from just a few months ago. as we continue to damage their brand and tell the truth, we will be successful even more so defunding planned parenthood at the state level. susan b. anthony list has a

scorecard. there was an executive council that voted to defund, not to renew planned parenthood's contract to the point -- to the tune of $1.8 million. so if you look that scorecard now, you will see that over 60 -- almost $61 million has been taken away from planned parenthood with courageous people on councils, courageous governors, courageous state legislators. when you deposit fund planned parenthood, you save the lives of innocent, unborn children and you help women and you help young girls. getting into this political arena, let me just kind of give you a picture of being in congress and being pro-live. i'm in the judiciary committee. we've been called in on

discussing abortions in third world countries. mia lowie is there, the head of the pro-choice caucus. it's an emotional time for me because it's always a spiritual thing when you're going after abortion. but chris smith, the congressman from new jersey that is a hero -- i can't sing his praises enough with regard to his stand in life. when he gets to make the opening comment he says a few things but what he has on the screen is a 3d ultrasound. wow. and it would have been poignant

enough except a week before that i was at the 3d ultrasound of one of our grandchildren. and as i sat there and i looked at that precious image i thought of the little baby coming into our family that we already cherished. and i looked at the chairman of that subcommittee who was then -- it was a democrat-controlled committee and i said to him congressman lantos, you know, i applaud the human rights work that you have done. but i have to tell you with all due respect, mr. chairman, i believe human rights begin in the womb. that's where they begin. and we all know that, don't we? little children know that because it is truth. you know, we at susan b. anthony list are involved in this presidential race too.

we have the most pro-abortion president in history. that's what we have. and as we look at the nominees, the potential nominees on the republican side, we have this pledge that we've offered them because i can tell you all the years we've been in politics, sometimes being pro-life doesn't really mean very much because the candidate and then someone who's elected will be pro-life in which they will throw you a vote but they'll never go to the microphone. they'll never break a sweat on the issue. and we have said we want a president who will lead on life. and listen to this, this is our pledge. first of all, i would nominate judge who are committed to restraint. let me just translate that to

you. we don't want a president to nominate anyone who would legislate from the bench. how about that? [applause] and in regard to appointees to cabinet in commeck active positions, we say like in the national institute of health, pro-life. so we're asking the president to do that. and then to defund planned parenthood which reflects what the congress voted on with those 240 votes and god willing, we'll take care of the problem in the senate. so we will defund planned parenthood. so that reflects our pledge. and to sign into law an unborn child protection act. so we are asking that a potential nominee sign our pledge. we've had signers. we've had michele bachmann, tim

pawlenty. i'm going to be in a very hot state very soon on a bus before a very important vote again going with some of these presidential candidates. so we are very excited that these people have taken our pledge seriously. and you know, again, the pundits will say the social issues don't matter in this race. it's the economy. you've heard that, haven't you? we've had the only pro-life woman serving in the united states senate kelly iote. it was the life issue that made the difference in our race and propeled her to the united states senate. and you take the economy and again, you can count on these social conservatives to be good on the fiscal issues too but when you add the life issue in

this race, it is a political winner. so when i look at this room, i think of incredible potential here. all of us can make a huge difference. it's a great nation that we live in, even with all of these problems. and i stand for life. i know that you stand for life and you want candidates that stand for life because indeed laws save lives. but you know what i think of, i was honored to serve with henry hyde from illinois, the chairman of the judiciary committee and i've never heard a man speak to eloquently as henry hyde did. but to paraphrase him -- when we stand for life, millions of voices who have never been heard in this world will thank you. god bless you. thank you so much. [applause]

>> picturing my son gram pictures that i have in my house. thank you so much. you are so lucky. now i have a privilege to make an introduction for an introduction we have from the eagle forum ruth carlson. [applause] >> it's my honor to introduce fill isshaffly one of the most tireless activist of our time with a bio that started the eagle forum in 1972. she's the author of over 20

books. you can follow her activity at eagleforum.org. please welcome phyllis sch laffley. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much ruth and smart girls. i'm so happy to be in the presence of so many smart girls who are not only smart but don't mind being called girls. years ago probably the greatest orator of his time back in the 1940's or 1950's was senator durbin would open his speech by

saying "girls." we didn't mind that. we liked him very much. you have a wonderful group. your speakers have been absolutely incredible, one after another. >> it was 40 years ago that i invited 100 women from 40 states to come just a few hundred feet from this location here and meet me on the golden rod show boat right on the river. i invited them to join my organization newly founded and to go home and be leaders. we wanted to be the equal rights amendment but basically my message was to be leaders in the political process because our country needs you. and it has fallen to our responsibility to be the leader, to tell you how feminism has been such a destructive force in our society. i do a great deal of speaking on college campuses and i talk

on a lot of different subjects but it is interesting that the speech i am most frequently asked to give on campus is a speech about feminism. the women's studies department always turns out. feminism has been a hot topic. every few years "time" and "newsweek" asks the question is feminism dead. but at the present time feminism is something that they're talking about on the blogs and on the magazines and even in the pages of "the wall street journal." perhaps one reason for this is sarah palin. you see it as one of the lies that feminism tells women is that women cannot be successful because they are victims of mean men in this society. and whatever you think about sarah palin, she is obviously a success. she's a success in politics.

she's a success with a whole bunch of children. she's got a cool husband who supports her in what she does. but on top of all that she's pretty and the feminists just can't stand it. so they absolutely keep attacking her all the time. but it has made feminism a subject that they talk about in the media all the time. because the feminist do dominate the discourse of women in the media. and we need to be understanding about the lies that they tell young women. for example, this idea that women are victims, you know, the american women are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth. i'm sure in other countries women are badly treated but not here. whatever the current cause of the feminists is, women are the

portrait of victims. when they put through the unilateral divorce, because they use the word liberation. what do they mean by that? it means liberated from home, marriage, husband, and children. and in the 1970's, it was the equal rights amendment. they needed to be liberated from this terrible discrimination that was on women. then in the 1980's they demanded government-funded daycare as a middle-class entitlement because they thought what are the we have to lift out oppression from their shoulders and turn it over to the taxpayers. in the 1990's, it was their domestic violence. it is funny after claiming that they are interchangeable, they

were never for a quality. there was no gender difference. in the woman studied forces, you are required to believe that god did not make is in two different kinds. we are the same. you think we see a social construct. terrible parents give dolls to girls and trucks to boys. in the obama administration, it is set up government commissions to give the job cement and not rigid women and not to women. when obama pass the stimulus

bill the feminists have a little tantrum and demanded the most jobs that were given for given to women. we know the majority of jobs are lost by the men. the best of feminism was given by a current feminist named jessica. she wrote "feminism is an ideology based on the position that patriarchy exists and that leads to an end." they really want to give us a matriarchy instead. they have won a conservative professor at harvard. he is harvey mansfield. he wrote a book in which he identified the current women's liberation movement.

he said it is anti-masculine, anti-motherhood, and anti- morality. it is amazing that anyone today would want to call ourself a feminist. this started with a book in 1963, the feminine mystique. she said the home banker was living in a comfortable concentration camp. she was doing duties that was not educated ave educated women. the big mama called the homemaker a parasite. she was not doing anything useful. they have not changed their

views. gloria steinem said when the women's get married, becomes a semi-non-person. she did not get married until she was elderly. the only reason she got married was to put her boyfriend on your health care plan. all right. the devaluing of the full-time homemaker has really become part of our culture. it is constantly reiterated on the media. they did not talk so much about liberation any more. they want to call themselves feminists. the real thing that has made life so wonderful for them is not the feminist movement. it is all of those laborsaving devices. when i got married, all i wanted in the world was a diaper. now you all have paper diapers.

it is a different world. the team even get cut up onions at the grocery store. you do not have to slice up onions any more [laughter] they printed the 25 amenities people have that are assigned to the poor less. i read a list. i only had one thing of the 25 on the list. we did have a stove. we did not have anything else. we did not claim that we were victims and we're not getting any government handouts. my generation bred to be the greatest generation. [applause] the national bureau of economic research has reported that as women have gained more freedom and more education and power, they have become less happy. they are not as happy as they used to be when they were in that comfortable concentration camp.

the feminists are not only anti- men and but they are very anti- masculine. they want men to be manly. they have used the department of education to go after getting rid of college men in sports. the colleges have canceled hundreds of men sports. the one that particularly irritate me are the colleges to abolish 450 wrestling teams. wrestling is a very masculine sports. the feminists cannot stand it. getting rid of the wrestling teams is not do anything for women. it just hurts men. my boxes filled with students from various colleges. can you please help us save our wrestling team?

this is not have anything to do with equal spending. all you need is a map. they are determined to get rid of it. feminism and this leads to big government. all of their problems that a plane they have calls for a remedy. when they walked out on marriage, they look to big government to be their provider. the obama administration knows this. he has his own think tank. he has 83 bills to channel money to unmarried women. 70% of unmarried women voted for obama for president. they know who their constituency

is. when the cake and out of your life, you look to government to take the place. we have half of our people who are getting part of their living expenses from the tax payer. we have a two-class society, people who pay their taxes and the ones that vote for democrats seller given the big as handouts. that is what is live on in our country today. you cannot separate the social issues from the fiscal issues. we have to ask the people who'll are concerned about death and who they are spending the money on. another one of the lies that the feminist tell is that they have created these opportunities that

women have today. that is a bunch of nonsense. i mentioned how it is all the wonderful inventions that have made the difference in women's lives. when i was in england, i bought a real functioning spending will. when our country was founded, there was cooking and washing. they said down at the spending will in spun its. i have that will to remind me of what it used to be before the american private enterprise system created all of these wonderful inventions that have giving us the high standard of living. all this attack on our energy is reduce our standard of living. he did not mean you're sure root weight from taxpayers to not taxpayers picking is to the rest

of the world. that is what he is trying to do. we have single family dwellings. it is heated in the winter. the rest of the world just got have that. this is because of our great supply of energy. he is trying to reduce it. who is he telling me that i cannot keep my thermostat at 72? he was a take our light bulbs. this is one of the greatest inventions in the history of the world. the last leg up 200 people in virginia. this is obama's own job. i just want to point out that

the feminists and not create all of these educational opportunities. i worked my way through college and got my master's degree in 19 -- i forgot when it was. it was 1944. that is before most of you were born. no problem. washington university is a great coed university. i worked my way through. aware from midnight to 8 in the morning. then i went to college in the morning. i got my degree in three years. then i went to harvard graduate school.

i got my master's in 1945. what was the problem? any and my colleagues that done the same thing. anyone else could have done it. the opportunities were there. my mother got her degree in washington, university. it is a big lie that the feminist created these opportunities. attitude is everything. if you wake up in the morning thinking you are a victim, you not accomplish anything whether you are a man or a one main. we had the great opportunity to build the great life that we want to have. in college, i had to work to

pay. i got into political science and was fascinated. i've been a volunteer in politics ever since. i enjoy it. i think it is terribly important. when the founding father said they wanted to leave it to liberty, that means you and me. they wanted us to carry on. we need you to be involved in the process. it is so exciting to hear the speakers you have had here. it is so exciting to see you smart girls who are willing to be active. that is what we need to make sure that our country can exist. we do not want to live in a country run by proclamations that obama is giving out. where do we get the idea of this tax he appointed more tsar's then the russians appointed and the millennium.

you got the one that said that this was their favorite political philosopher. then you got the one his says that meant it. then you got the one who said he wanted dog still have lawyers said they could sue him. then he got one that said that year body parts belong to the government. the government can take care set right now. there were the ones that had been teaching this. i hope you saw this thing were the second graders were talking about the battle hymn of the republic. we honor you today. we all do say hurray.

you are number one. we're really proud of you. somehow, i do not think what our second graders ought to be doing. in the high school ones have training courses to invite them to join his organizing for america so that they will be able to be brought into the political process. it is true what he said that he wants to fundamentally transform america. he is doing a very rapidly. we need you and your energies working between now and the election next year. some of the know about feminism. we will have a book signing of my new book this afternoon right after this program. it is called the flip side of feminism. it is good for young women. i caught there has come in.

we invite thyou to join us to ce to our counsel in september in washington. to get all of the facts on our website. we will have training sessions and have to grapple with these issues. our leaders have been in this fight for 40 years. all of whom are volunteers and the political process.

we would like to know and learn from them so that you can be an effective part of the political process. i did a debate with these feminists one time. the moderator said and not understand what you do not win. we had the president. you had all of the political people. she answered. think it was truthful. she said it is several years to learn how the process works. we have had victories. it can take over the entire establishment. in carter ran out of the white house.

they walked the picket line. they had 99% of the media. we beat them all. you can do that. you need to learn how the process operates. i invite you to associate with our leaders to have learned how to do it and to have accomplished great things. our national anthem is different from every other national anthem in the world. it is the only one that ends with a question. the question is the star spangled banner. those stages that star spangled banner still wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? that is our question. we need you to provide the answer. thank you for coming.

[applause] >> watched more video of the candidates, track contraband -- campaign contributions, and more. our website helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates, candidate biographies, and polling data, plus links to media in the early primary and caucus states. that is all at the web address below. president obama released a statement today calling for syrian president assad to step

down. he froze all assets of the syrian government. shortly after the release, secretary of state hillary clinton commented on the president's statement. >> good morning. for months, the world has borne witness to the assad regime's contempt for its own people. in peaceful demonstrations across the nation, syrians are demanding the universal human rights. the regime has answered their demands with empty promises and horrific violence, torture and opposition leaders, letting siege to cities, slaughtering thousands of unarmed civilians, including children.

the regime has been condemned by governments around the world and to look only to run. president obama called on assad to step aside and enacted sanctions including the energy sector to increase pressure on the regime. the transition to democracy in syria has begun. it is time for assad to get out of the way. as president obama said this morning, no outside power can or should impose on this transition. it is up to the syrian people to choose their own leaders in a democratic system based on the rule of law and dedicated to protecting the rights of all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, religion, sex, or gender. we understand the strong desire

of the syrian people that no foreign country should intervene in their struggle. we respect their wishes. at the same time, we will do our part to support their aspirations for a syria that is democratic, just, and inclusive. we will stand up for their universal rights and dignity by pressuring the regime and a sod personally to get out of the way of this transition. as we have worked to expand the circle of condemnation, we have backed up our words with actions. as i have repeatedly said, it does take both words and actions to produce results. since the unrest began, we have imposed strong financial sanctions on a son and dozens of his cronies. we have sanctioned the

commercial bank of syria for supporting the regime's illicit nuclear proliferation activities. we have hoped multilateral efforts to isolate the regime, from keeping them off the human rights council to achieving a small presidential statement of condemnation at the u.n. security council. the steps that president obama announced this morning would further tighten the circle of isolation around the regime. his executive order immediately freezes all assets of the government of syria that are subject to american jurisdiction, and prohibits american citizens from engaging in any transaction with the government of syria, or investing in that country. these actions strike at the heart of the regime, banning american imports of syrian petroleum and petroleum products, and prohibiting

americans from dealing in these products. as we increase pressure on the regime to disrupt its ability to finance its campaign of violence, we will take steps to mitigate any unintended effect of the sanctions on the syrian people. we will also continue to work with the international community. if the syrian people are to achieve their goals, other nations will have to provide support and take actions as well. in just the past two weeks, many of syria's neighbors and partners in the region have joined the chorus of condemnation. we expect that they and other members of the international community will amplify the steps we are taking, both through their words and their actions. we are heartened that later today the u.n. security council will meet again to discuss this ongoing threat to international peace and stability. we are also working to schedule

a special session of the united nations human rights council that will examine the regimes of widespread abuses. earlier this week, i explained how the united states has been engaged in a relentless and systematic effort with the international community, pursuing a set of actions and statements that make clear where we all stand and generating broader and deeper pressure on the regime. the people of syria deserve a government that respects their dignity, protect their rights, and lives up to their aspirations. assad is standing in their way. for the sake of the syrian people, the time has come for him to step aside and leave this transition to the syrians themselves. that is what we will continue to work to achieve. thank you all very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> political analysts debate how changing demographics will affect the country's political makeup. then they look at threats to the electric grid posed by nuclear devices. the head of nasa talks about the future of space flight. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," the economies of developing nations. who will discuss china from -- with a member of the carnegie engagement program. we will discuss india with an economics professor. the political editor of the

brazil economy "washington journal" begins at 7:00am est on c-span. >> is a country proud of corruption. they bore welcome. these are not terrorists. they were not taliban. they were ordinary pakistani state of their religion is threatened. they were under control. it is something to be defended with their light. >> pamela constable sunday night

on c-span. >> this week and, jerry schilling talks about events that led to his 1970 visit to the white house. we will also visit mount vernon where recent discoveries have shed new light on george washington, warriors statement and painter. it was his acquired love for painting in the portrait of his wife. give the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/his tory. >> t video political scholars debated how the changing demographics well change the political landscape.

they take part. this is just over an hour. >> that afternoon. welcome. my name is carla. i am a senior one. they inaugurated this series of a debate on how much government is good government. government is to much. they faced off on whether social media destroyed thin strips. you can see all of these on the web site. the idea is to offer a simple question and bring them together to discuss it.

i would like to salute my colleague. and kristin for working to make this a reality. and exciting to be moderating. -- i am excited to be moderating. there is another reason i am happy to be here. i am the amateur historian at the institute. i've watched think tanks grow and change. think tanks play an important role his starkly as injury dating to dig into mediating -- as intermediating this spirit i expect that our debaters probably disagree on many political issues. they have and a common a deep respect for the history. this is unparalleled. this differs.

they believe the debate can be civil and the think tanks can play a constructive role. in a day impression. he came to washington to work on capitol hill for a republican congressmen. he went to work for the nixon campaign in 1968. he dedicated his book to richard nixon and john mitchell. he talked about his passion for voting patterns, american history, politics, and sociology.

it converges at the ballot box. they share the same passion. he believed in the cyclical theory of american politics arguing that there were clear cycles of ideology. 1968 he argued was a turning point. he did not believe the republicans that created a new one. his emerging republican majority was south, at the west,. they believe there is seeing the end of an error. it emerge full-blown in 1980. they argued that we are at a similar turning point. it will yield very different results from those that they predicted.

there is the rise in a number of self described independence. they argued that unlike past political reliance that is dramatic, and this realignment would be more gradual with forward motion. realignment happened when the emerging majority party create a new coalition by winning over voters by the rival party. they argue that there are not necessarily a modest is. they use the metaphor of an old city. it contains older structures. it includes some democrats. it also includes three groups after becoming a larger and more powerful part of the electorate. i will let them describe them for it.

arguing against is my colleague michael barone. he believes we are in an era of open field politics when either party will be down. let me give you the ground rules. each will present by minute opening arguments after which a bill will bring. -- bell will ring. then you have a question and answer time. it also some that your questions on twitter. after, we have this 25 minutes question and answer period. let the debate began.

>> thank you for that introduction. also this summer and my book. army going to get intermediate levels? what is the claim we are discussing today that it is good to get clarity. i will take this on the flyer. they are shifting in a direction that will permanently benefit the democratic party.

i do not believe in permanent means -- liens and restructuring. one thing michael has written is that there are no permanent majorities. i do not think this is unrealistic. social structure changes. parties readjusts. nobody secure forever. even in the medium term they will not win them. nor will i embrace the hard a line in feeling. some of the followers were like clockwork. they will shift american politics. it produced a completely new party system.

i think that is empirically suspect as well. there is a classic realignment theory. that is not what i want to discuss. i do want to argue that it is not a permanent or 36 your majority. we do have a democratic lean for some time to come. let me take a quick look. i will talk fast. 92 serve a population growth in the united states was for minorities. 92% are going up with the population. it'll probably be a minority nation. it is much less friendly. not all are the same. the white conservative is going down at three a year. that is three points over a four year candidates.

college graduates are increasing their share by about 1/4 point a year. that is very important to keep in mind. it highlights the mathematical situation for the republicans. in the chief constituency is declining rapidly while minorities are increasing rapidly. you are shifting in friendly democratic voters. over the short term, it is possible for republicans to thread the needle. that is a system what they did in 2010.

i do not think this could work for the long term. let me zoom to the question of generations. we do have the rise of the millennium generation. if you look at 2008, it pieces together the party idea advantage. you get about a 20. party idea for the democrats. that is pretty significant. there are 4 million eligible voters coming into the electorate each year. let me mention some other groups. groups of women are strongly democratic. they're highly educated. they are approaching about half. steelers are the fastest-growing religious group.

estimates are that by the middle of the 2020's there be nearly a quarter. we will no longer be this nation. christians will be roughly was less 3 of this. we also see the concentration of all of this. this is where you see the strongest trends. in conclusion, the muff crab cake -- democratic change is real. it dramatically impeded the change. even under and modernize gop. the country is changing. they must change our they will leave them to have the benefits. >> are like to remind you to please direct your questions up front.

-- i would like to remind you to please direct your questions up front. >> i would like to thank you for your courage for making an estimate for the 2012 election. his very fine book was published just before the 2002 election. it turned out to be a republican victory. i reviewed that for national review. after a couple of cheap shot about the 2002 election, i came to the conclusion that this was a serious and interesting book and analysis of the american electorate.

that is sure of the point he is making now. since it first. we have seen in democratic majorities in merge pretty strongly in the elections of 2006 and 2008. they resembled the demographic projections that he set out in his book. we have also seen a republican majority a large -- emerge in the election of 2010. in some ways, if you look at the numbers it has been on my previous decades. it is a good proxy for partisan preference.

2008 in 2010 are booked marked with 2010 being the maximum. in my introductions to the almanac of american politics, i took seriously after the election of 2004 the claims of republicans that they were emerging from the 51 server republican victory. 51% was the percentage. at six years after the election of 2008 the claims of democrats. they had emerged from the democratic percentage. i wish i had taken these claims less seriously. they are casting considerable doubt.

they can fairly be characterized in 2010 in the same way. the fact is that it lasted less then 40 months. i take a skeptical view of the idea. i think changes and demographics unlikely to exceed the magnitude necessary. they consign the sat is over a bit of time.

the democrats were there from 1942 to 1968. i think democrats changes are not enough to do it. i tended to favor republicans. some of them have not worked out. they tend to have more children than liberals. people born since 1978 or 1980 have come in as a more democratic are less republican group. that projection did not pan out as i thought. it was based on the idea that the near future will resemble the recent decades of the past.

i certainly have seen this. they reported that the migration from mexico that the measured was zero. there is the magnitude of 500 -- 500,000.

my view is that people have predicted neither the beginning or the end. the number of professional women working is not increasing during the recession does democratic changes were not assured to be the level that we have seen in the past. i think they have a marginal effect. >> thank you for an interesting question. i like to answer all the questions myself. >> you both have responses. >> we have to keep to the schedule.

i just want to clarify the presentation. i'm not talking about a permanent majority. i never use the term. i've never used it in the book wars since. the whole idea of the permanent majority is there. i've never written the book. they have given to overstatement paid we lean toward the democrats. it will continue. the question is what is more probable. everyone thought that once the smoke cleared and the dust

scheduled we would see a slowdown. we do not see a slowdown. there are some expectations that it might slow down. i think we're likely to continue to see this transcript -- transformation. recently there economic driven declines. but so but will eventually come back. hispanics tend to have higher fertility than white americans. it is largely because of that comment the percentage of hispanics is likely to increase

substantially. the immigration issue does not necessarily speak to the fertility issue. but think what he is saying is that there are no inevitable and outcomes. i think there outcomes that are more coalitions that are stronger.

on average, that should benefit the party who the trends are feeding into. i want to stress just what i said at the end of my initial presentation. there has been important interaction. what the democrats really need to consolidate their coalition is the they needed to address it. i think they made this. we all know about it. they have this. they have put together a

stronger performance from the economy. it would consolidate the coalition his outline i could forward to you today. i do not mean their permanent majorities. they would be around them. we are looking at a situation for the democrats.

>> let me look at a couple of categories that we both talked about here. one thing he has amended is that they're not the same way. black voters continue to be heavily democratic. this is what we saw in 2008. i think this will be a high point. >> the record is mixed with a look at different states. that is not a killer margin.

rick perry, the governor of texas who attracted some attention recently bought 39 term of hispanic votes in texas. that is a pretty good number. if you judge by the exit poll, they would not have one. not all the hispanics are cuban-americans. it is not an overwhelming percentage. they are concentrated heavily in democratic states. interesting data point. gov. chris christie carried it,

he carried woodbridge in edison township. these are the highest percentage of people of origin from india. they did not favor the governor's policies. what we're seeing is a lot of flux. this is a huge margin.

as is often the case with young voters, there is more movement. they gained experience and built on the initial thought that they have had on politics. i have thought there is tension between millen mills in young voters with their own play lists and facebook pages, designing their own future. the one size fits all welfare state of the obama democrats. i think that is a tension there that the republicans have done a little bit but not enough to exploit. we should not regard this current numbers. it is not definitive of where they will be. i do not think that this leak is not overtake her ball.

presidential elections have a certain concentration. they say the republicans are just a southern party. there was some validity to that. they carried a majority in the south. you see what looks like a republican country from the george washington bridge. leaving the cannibal standing at both ends. if you look at house seats, barack obamacare g-20 districts. john mccain carried is zero. and so did george w. bush in

2004. republican votes are more spread around. they tend to be concentrated in a relatively few of boats. it gives democrats a disadvantage. >> now we will give this a right. we will turn to questions from the audience. i would like to begin with a question from a fellow demographer. demography was the best friend democrats had. geography was the best friend of republicans. >> i think there's something to that. the nhl the for a long time.

he said of the case for democracy. this is relatively marginal. people of color who share the population vote is increasing and not nearly as democratic urging black democratic have been since 1984. tomography works in that way. there is a concentration of democrats. >> those are the biggest. columbus is growing faster. >> ok. >> i thought we saw a shift back

in 2010. there were ousting a democratic congressman. but she was cut loose. there is the ice flow before the election. >> i do think that it is a miter disadvantage for democrats. they have the singles area. you look at these high-rise buildings. they said they were infested with obama and boaters. intensive care in the whole state of virginia, you are limited. you're limited by whether you can summon the enthusiasm from these partners.

>> demography is pretty straightforward. i am not so sure that i buy a that it is on the other side of the scale. the look at where america is growing the fastest, you will typically find the democrats have over time to do better in the areas that are fast growing. the areas where there is nothing happening, they have typically held their strength of the best. if you look at most metro areas. we believe that if you have best growth in may because of the suburban friends. they tend to be regularly conservative. when a look at the metropolitan

area, you see the inner suburbs. it is producing most of the population growth. then you look at the outer suburbs. even if they remain conservative, their average level of support is dropping. the average level is increasing. my sense is that the democratic trends are inexplicable. because thentally democrats. they will win every seat. >> i think the fastest-growing areas where the experts. they were loud in northern virginia. they move toward the

republicans. they tend to be heavily republican. except to the south of atlanta rehab successful increases. >> i'm not saying they're becoming democratic. i'm saying they are less republican than they used to be. the areas from 80% republicans too '60s are republican. it is mathematically the same number. >> it is a stronger number. >> you have expressed some skepticism. what are the characters? are they mostly demographics? >> when you look at an election, you see the

distribution of both the groups and by state and region. d.c. different patterns of merging. that is a sign. we have seen more of their voters. seeing them making big roads. bad many say is leading toward the democrats. they will continue to contest it. it is a big change. that is really helping. there's another side of this lean.

>> some indicators a gradual change. >> bit made reference to the electoral realignment. >> this is a fine book. he looks at the arguments of various people. he said everything changed. then kevin reference that in his book in 1968. then arthur and others were looking at their watch. they said it was time for reelection. for it is generational. they look at the various indicators of realignment.

there are very issues that cut to the heart of people's concerns and life. it can make a major difference in behavior. they come into play. 1932 by an economic collapse that is bigger than we have seen. >> can you pull your mike little bit closer? >> i certainly think over time it is quite possible. i would argue probably. for reasons i outlined in my initial presentation, these

trends are big, long standing. i do believe they will continue for quite a while. just the mathematics of it, i think the republicans have to develop a new look over time. right now, i think they are fire breathing towards the democrat said everything they are 4 when the employment is 9% and people have lost faith for the time being. democrats, i think it works pretty well. i do not think it is going to work over the relatively medium to long term. republicans will have to move to the center on social issues. on the cutting taxes for the very wealthy among this is the only possible way to produce economic growth in this country. i think that is not sustainable over the long haul. >> i would take a somewhat different view of what being a

more moderate means. i would not disagree with the argument that republicans and democrats need to have an incentive and the system to adapt to circumstances over time. i think the democrats have come up with a series of public policies that as we speak today have seen by widespread majorities as a failure and stimulating economic growth. that will not necessarily be a permanent verdict. i think it is one that he might call on democrats to do rethinking. one of the things i have noticed in the last 15 years. is that in the last presidential elections, the percentage of vote has tracked almost with an 1% or so of were the popular most of the house two years proceeding.

to the 2008 was followed by the 2006 thumping of the republicans by the democrats. the exception to that rule of course is the preceding cycles from which bill clinton did significantly better than the republic -- then the democrats did in the house election of 1994 when they got 45% of the vote, oakland got 49%. he was probably about 52% which was where around george bush was in 2004. we have not seen any time recently what we saw when president johnson, nixon, and reagan were reelected with percentages from 59% to 61%.

i attribute that to the culture war of our politics. with propitious economic and foreign policies, one party was acceptable to a wider spread number of people. >> i will get two questions and from our audience right now. this is a question about texas. by the end of the decade will they be majority republican or democratic? this is a theme i read that texas was moving in the democratic direction. what do you think of that? to the exit polls tell us anything about second, third, fourth generation hispanic voters? do we know how they will be voting in 50 years? then i have one final question and we will turn back to your closing arguments. >> i have been hearing predictions to texas -- if you

go back to southern politics written in the 1940's, texas was going to have a liberal majority of working-class blacks and latinos. it has not happened yet. rick perry was reelected against a serious, but 10 democratic opponent in 2010 by what has been a deep fault #and recent elections, 55%-45% republicans. texas republicans have been adapted to the latino grow work -- voters who have been growing. >> not from the exit polls. >> the question about texas -- will texas bibelot at the end of this decade? i guess i still tend to doubt that. i think it will be more competitive because of the population changed dynamics. we all know the minority

population is growing there quite smartly. we also know if you look at the fast-growing metropolitan areas of texas, ec and increasing -- you see an increasing friendliness to democratic party security stronghold of texas republican as some are in the rule areas where the population growth is not taking place and there is some decline. i think over time, this will shift texas in a direction that is better for two-party competition. it might be a heavy lift to say they will be blue. we know nothing about third and fourth and fifth generation hispanics from the exit polls because they only ask if you are of hispanic descent or not, but we know from other surveys that there is actually not a huge difference between a native- born and those who are

immigrants. emigrant's tended to be somewhat pro democratic. they are less likely to vote for many reasons. the last survey i saw, i believe native-born hispanics had an advantage to the democrats. it is not too shabby. i will take that over the long term. >> evangelical hispanics are a little bit more conservative. >> is added has been attributed to either israeli or churchill. if you are not at -- if you are not like a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative by 30 you have no head. are we becoming the baby boomers? >> if you look at data from the exit poll in 2008, obviously a big democratic year. that same age group was growing

toward the republicans. they did change. it is fascinating to me to watch the cultural issues that have been a factor. california in 1972 had a referendum on the marijuana. i think as they got older they would vote no. medical marijuana they have been supportive as they get older. questions on gay-rights -- you know, the question is yond voters are hugely in favor of same-sex marriage. will they continue to be that as they grow older? will they grow more conservative? i think it will continue to be liberal on that issue. we do not know for sure. >> do marriages, mortgages, and children make them more conservative? >> i think that has happened to the baby boom couldn't -- generation. not on all issues. >> the baby boomers have never been -- they were never as pro

democratic as the millennial generation is today. they are -- there is a pretty important difference between them. early baby boomers tend to be more democratic. they are the second most after the millennial. later baby boomers are more conservative. it is not clear that baby boomers have changed that much over time which you take into account the defense duration between the generation. will they stay liberal? i think on social issues, i think the concept as they get older and are married that they will throw gay marriage over to the side is ludicrous. i do not think that will happen. this is an indelible change in american politics. these are actually going to win koweit pretty rapidly just because of the succession of the

electorate. they will not change as they get older and it will drive this issue out of politics. i think we will see it this decade. >> the boomers are the first generation or the college people have been more democratic than their elders. and on college boomers have been more republican than gi generation. on college fault. does that make sense? >> that sounds right. >> another question -- won't democrats lose ground if they do not get more people out there defending their president? only the president is defending his policies. >> it is a question of what obama should do were spokespeople? >> his spokespeople.

they should be out there. our people on the left harassing him in that? >> what are they not out there defending their turf? >> it has been difficult for his most ardent supporters and it the most active people there at the base to get out there and defended the president what he spent six months cutting deals with republicans and did not mention the word jobs in a couple hundred days. i think that was dispiriting to people. i think now he is trying to turn that around, whether it will be too little too late, we will see. as he does that, his spokespeople will be out in greater forces. >> there is a whole section where he tries to demolish the whole concept that high turnout is associated with realignment

majorities and so on. it is hard to make that case. i do think that there should be -- there may be some correlation between elections where we see this majority emerge and it turned out higher. i do not expect an outpouring of high turnout. the most volatile hist constituencies will be used and hispanics. there are more trouble. for them participating in elections. i do not think we should count on that as something we will see it as a 10. spike in voter turnout just because the new coalition has gotten together. if we see progress in the immigration issue, i think that would help requests we are in a hot turnout era. the biggest increase was between 2000 and 2004, the population was up for% and the population was up 16%. that was a republican year.

it does not favor one side or the other. >> another question for both of you -- how long will it take to reproduce the political center and the united states? is it possible? what will it take? >> it depends what you mean by a political center. probably michael would argue there is a center-right coalition that is or should be don bennett. i would promise argue there is a center-left. i think what the question is getting at, there is something called the center that is different from what either the democrats or republicans are. there are four washington working better and it reducing the deficit and did they do not really care about social programs. on the other hand that they don't want to cut taxes or something. i think the center is a bit

mythical providing most people lean to either the republicans or democrats. which side will do a better job activating their base. if you look at most people who are moderates for example, moderates tended to lean toward the democrats. people who are moderate tended to favor programs that democrats favor. they like social issues that democrats tend to have. the idea that there are democrats, republicans, and then the center is just not true. is not worth using as a political analysis. >> when you look back in history for the cold air route when democrats and republicans got together over a glass of whiskey or some non adult beverage at the end of the day and agreed on everything, it is like chasing a mirage. you go back in the '60s -- we had riots in the streets and

southern turmoil. the 1950's to have mccarthyism. the 1940's, the isolation debate. >> this is the era of good feeling. >> i think a lot of commentators who call for a center want everybody to agree with them. the fact is what we have seen over the past couple of years is leaders taking political risks for policies they felt were good for the country. george w. bush on iraq and the search, nancy pelosi and barack obama on obamacare. on the short run, they look like losing bets. >> one quick question for many in the audience today, it is about millennial. how much is a factor if any is a conservative version of john stuart and cold air who face this as unbiased analysis -- jon stewart and colbert.

>> i could give you a few tips of stewart pretty tough on barack obama and the democrats. he is sometimes an equal opportunity satires. >> at times i think that would be true. both of those guys, if they did not bode democrat i would say -- why are there not republican equivalence? i think is the ambiance of that kind of humor and that kind of way of talking about the news is just not a comfortable fit for today oppose the republican party. >> what about the substance? >> what about the some sense? >> do they not take on liberal -- >> ok. they are more truly equal opportunity. just speaking to the comedy central type stuff. >> on that note, we will turn to

closing statements. >> it has been fun. i hope we have convinced you there is a democratically and onto were ongoing trends should strengthen. michael has raised a number of questions about my thesis. i cannot cover them all here. one thing that is worth dwelling on is the issue of minorities continuing to vote for democrats. while blacks continue to favor the democrats by 90% or so? they might not 30 years from now. but i think in the short to medium term i would be surprised if we saw a lot of change. we saw before barack obama this modem for the democrats, i think

we will see it after. hispanics are a more debatable issue. he mentioned that in 2010 hispanics were only 60% for the democrats, that is a little subpar compared to the 2008 performance. obviously 2010 was the year a lot of democratic margins were depressed. it is worth noting -- and this is a technical dispute -- a couple of very good academics who study this issue make a very strong argument that the exit polls tend to underestimate the strength of the democratic vote among hispanics. in fact, 60% estimate may have been under estimate. michael points out that some hispanics are less democratic than others. that is true. there are some communities and states that will show a far lower level of democratic voting

got what we typically see which is 2-1. that should not surprises. there is more -- there is no uniformity. there are tendencies. if you knew nothing else about an area, if you guessed two- one, you would probably have a pretty good guess. on average if the democrats get that i will be satisfied. even if you look at a state like florida, we have seen significant change among the hispanics. it is technically one of the more conservative states as far as hispanics. but there is a mix and a change were cuban americans are becoming a lower percentage of hispanic voters overall. we see younger ones being more liberal leaning than their older counterparts. the hispanic population in florida is in a state of flux. that will benefit the democrats. you can imagine they are concentrated in certain states.

that is true as well. if you look at the census data, and there are growing all over the united states and in lots of places where you would not expect to see them. some of their highest growth rates have been and southern states were the growth rates are just off the charts. they are concentrated now in certain states and they will continue to be, but they are growing all over the country. they are becoming significant minorities through the electorate and more and more states. they will definitely continue mib. i do not see that stopping. michael mentioned the melanie walls -- michael mentioned the millennial else. i seen them decline, i think it will go back up. if there average level of party idea advantages 20 points, and by go up and down, but if it is

around 20 points that is a significant sum on the scale. we are getting 4 million of those added to the electric every year. we will see that until 2018. the i have seen a switch in loyalties among older and younger bibbers of this generation. how many minutes to we have here? one minute? ok. michael points out a number of points and our discussion that 2010 was a different election. if you look at some of the democratic trends, if you look at the geographical variations in the vote, republicans overall the quite a bit better in 2010 than they did in 2008. if i had noted, we sought a compression of democratic margins among their stronger suits, which also saw a fall off in turnout, younger voters, minorities and so on in that 2010 election. we saw older voters turning out

he were leading conservative at this point. that is part of the reason they did better. just ask yourself, just ask yourself this question. if you had to take a bet on what the electorate of the united states was going to look like 10 years from now, d think it will look more like 2010 or like the voting electorate of 2008? i submit to you that what we are likely to see as these trends continue and as this decade unfolds that it looks more like 2008 and less and less like 2010. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i think the biggest difference between rory and myself is not so much the democratic analysis but on the long-term likely response of the voters two different public policy.

2010 was represented the biggest change in part 1/7 percentage as measured by popular vote for the house. elections for which few of us have distinct measure it -- memories although nancy pelosi does since she was from a politically active family and was a light at that time. if you calibrate what difference the variation in turn out between 2008 and 2010 may, if you substitute the 2008 percentages and look at it, it makes 1.5 points difference away from the republicans and toward the democrats. i think it represents a huge change. i think what this period has in common with 1946 and 1948 is that both times americans have been facing questions about the size and scope of government --

should we vastly expanded the size of government? the results of the public policies and the various elections basically resulted in a different balance between public and private sectors then you have. in london at the big government route, america went somewhere in between. i think my own view is that the obama democrat policies of expanding the size of government were undertaken with the view that this -- the stimulus -- a stimulus package would stimulate the economy. it seems not to have done to get temporarily. americans would welcome the redistributive public policies like obamacare. that does not seem to be the

case a majority of voters so far. partly it is on that basis that i think the 2008 numbers that obama and congressional democrats were able to win from hispanics and millennial voters are going to have difficulty repeating those kinds of margins periodically. that is a judgment based on the public responses to public policy about which i cannot be certain. the best i can say is that we will see what comes out of that. politicians and examples of political strategists like karl rove have suggested a natural majority -- partisan majority for their party that ruy and i agree alike a bras that keep going away from you. this does have a good effect

that they are thinking not just of one election but grouping constituencies that will become larger overtime. they will continue to do so into the millennial generation. but it also -- the fact is that it seems to me in looking back that the goals of the parties should be more likely not to produce majorities which do not really exist but enduring public policies. sometimes you can do that with a majority that is renewed periodically for a fairly lengthy period. social security is one example of that -- we have been threatened by republicans but has become a permanent feature. sometimes you can't do it off of one election victory.

that has been an enduring public policy achievement. so i think as we look ahead, one of the things the 2012 election will tell us is whether or not the policies of the old, democrats will endure for will be ones that end up being the repeal or reversed in some significant way. that is a major issue before the public. with an american having given us examples of republican majorities in 2000 gulf war, 2008, 2000 mini outcomes are possible. >> thank you very much [applause] on behalf of the debate project would like to thank all of you for coming. if you have missed some of the finer points of this

extraordinary discussion, you can tune in again at the aei website. thank you for coming. [applause]

unworkable.

we will be paying them fee-for- service to take cargo to the international space station. depending on how well the things go for space-x in their final demonstration flight, they could be flying their first cargo mission as early as next february. we are months away, not years, from american capability to deliver cargo to the international space station. do not let anybody tell you otherwise. we are not dependent on the

russians, the japanese, the europeans -- we are developing an american capability that will be available very soon. that does not mean you throw away your international partner. we still need them to fill out the doubt for being able to take the amount of cargo that we want to take to the international space station. president obama has given us a mission to focus again on the big picture of exploration and the crucial research and technological capabilities that will be required. the president as asking us to harness that american spirit of innovation, solve problems and create capabilities that is so embedded in our story and has led us to great observatories, two moons, and to humans living and working in space, possibly in definitely.

working together, nasa will create new capabilities and increased the knowledge and understanding of the travel -- a fragile world or in which we live. that, i think, is the essence of what you'll be doing here today. that is what is happening right now. juno all operate border from the sun than any solar powered spacecraft applicable to that

the's future. it may also make a difference to our energy future here on earth. last month, dawn arrived in orbit around the delta. what it learned again and form a human mission to such a body. tomorrow, reporters in implored will get a last look at the mars science laboratory, appropriately named "curiosity. curiosity will have more high- powered cites estimates on mars than we ever had before. it sets us on the path to human missions on the red planet. next motte sees our return to the moon to understand the gravity field. the ample preparatory project lodges in october to help us better understand our home

planet. those are a sampling of the huge array of missions already in space and coming up. to reach the destinations of tomorrow, we are working on a new capital and studying the path we want to take for a heavy lift rocket that will take humans into deep space. the initial investigation of propulsion and communications, radiation protection, and life- support technologies that complement these two systems or been prioritized and worked into the pipeline even as i speak. looking farther into our space future are the 30 the generic concepts that are chief technologist just selected under the massive innovative advance concept program. the advanced concepts selected for study were chosen based on their potential to transform our future space missions, enabled new capabilities, or

significantly alter current approaches to launching, building, and operating space systems. matched with the 80 graduate fellowships recently awarded for basic and applied research aligned with nasa's future space mission, the agency is beginning to create its future and invest in its future innovators today. nasa's role has historically been crucial in technology and innovation that brought our nation's capability to the cutting edge. it made america the world's leader in space exploration in made an impact on our lives every day. the work force and the economy are based on investments and innovations that we had the courage to make. these investments have helped us create, galvanize, and strengthen the expertise that has made nasser's achievements possible. similarly, today's investments

in education, science, innovation, and space technology will maintain nasa's position on the cutting edge while stimulating our economy and global competitiveness and inspiring future generations. that concept of transformative were to give future generations more capability than we have to date is at the core of our work right now. nasa is at the heart of a national charity to invest in research and development and take these concepts from the drawing board to the launch pad. we cannot do this alone. we need your help. your ideas, your energy, and your passion. what you are doing here today is very important. i looked over to hearing more from you. i thank you all for working with nasa and the entire aerospace field as we move forward into a bright future of science,

aeronautics, and exploration. our future is bright. we are ready for the challenges of tomorrow. we hope you'll join us on this journey. thank you very much for coming and thank you for letting me take it off. thank you. [applause] >> today on c-span, the results of the gallup survey of attitudes toward public education. that is followed by today's "washington journal." lady, former new mexico governor jerry johnson. -- gary johnson. >> i get a city that averages 250 murders a year, a former baltimore homicide detective and an investigative reporter take on the tough question, why do we kill? it is a but we are featuring -- featuring this weekend on booktv.

including armstrong williams. and, how unlikely allies back together to try to change our nation but the school system. steven brill taught to diane ravitch on afterwards. get the complete schedule at booktv.org where you can watch our programs online. >> the gallup polling organization has released the results of their annual survey on education. findings included that three- fourths of americans have confidence in public schools. this event includes a discussion about digital bunning. this is just under two hours. -- digital learning. this is just under two hours.

>> you are going to hear a lot today. you hear a lot about the 2000 americans that told the story of the rest of the americans and what they think about education. i want to start by grounding you a little bit. you'll hear a great deal that great teachers and a good deal about the value of an education. in the beginning, because we will spend a lot of time together, 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.

that great teacher and the value of the education you received over the years. as a way of introducing myself, i will talk a little bit about my favorite teacher. dot was my fourth grade science teacher. for some reason she read to us from "where the red fern grows" every day before recess. if we got done with our science work on time, we got to hear about these wonderful dogs and this little boy. we never understood why our science teacher was reading a book to us, but we loved it. years later when we connected again, we all talked about how she motivated us to get our work done and to 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] i thank them for all the years

they gave me to pay back that money. we will hear more about that later today. first, i would like to hear from the dean of this wonderful graduates school of education, dr. michael feuer. [applause] >> thanks very much. welcome to george washington university. it is a great pleasure. i am delighted to have this chance to host such a wonderful event. we have a number of folks here from the press, so i am going to do the where, when, and why. first, where you are -- you are in the jack morgan auditorium of 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? timing is really everything. it is at least important. it this if that had been scheduled for just nine days from today, chances are it would have been no room in this building and no parking in the neighborhood. that is when we will bear witness to what i have always felt was 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 nearby, you will have the chance to observe one of our most delightful, optimistic, hopeful, and helloed traditions when 2300 members of the class of 2015 arrive here, many of them accompanied by the proud parents

and grandparents and envious younger siblings, tumbling out of their station wagons -- i know i am dating myself. we do not have station wagons any more. [laughter] -- carrying backpacks. in the old days, it was stereo equipment. now is my phones, ipad, and other such devices along with their steamer trunks. they will be met by a hearty group of sophomores and upperclassman 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 poll of over 21,500 applicants representing -- coming from 45 states in the u.s. and 40 countries around the world. these young people and their families may not all the statistics, for example about

the long-term economic benefits of 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, within six months of graduation two- thirds of them will have jobs. more than 20% will be in graduate school. the rest will likely be in the military or some kind of volunteer service, such as the peace corps or 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. this has been underway for several hundred years. that brings me to the context, or to the "why" question.

with this great experience -- experiment, there is a cap and the of opinion and a company -- cacophony of experience and a cacophony of expertise. we are grateful to be able to have the results of this ongoing, remarkable survey that gallup, pbk, and 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 experience and expertise. what a better place to do that than a university. that is why i am so honored to have a chance to host this event because in many ways, the introduction of data about something that we hold so dear, the future of american education, is one of the

functions of a great university. it is very much a pleasure to welcome you here on behalf of all my colleagues in the graduate school of education and human development and the george washington university family. i am looking forward to hearing some of the details from the survey as i know you all are as well. i am happy to turn this back to shane lopez. [applause] >> thank you, dean feuer. he reminded me of my first day of college. we are going to throw a lot of information at you. i want to help you make some of that state. each of us, with our own pet issue as it comes to education. i do appreciate that. i listened for every time bill talks about the hope for american students, when wayne talks about will delete -- will

being opposed american campuses. but what i encourage you to do is think about those issues that bridge k-12 and higher education. does commonalities. those points of discussion that we do not have. also, i would like you to think about what the -- where the public will like the day in hell we can inform education, change education, and reform education. i want to thank -- i want you to think about how public policy place on making a better system. i want to turn things over to my good friend and colleague, the executive director of pdk. bill bushaw. [applause] >> shank, a great job framing the issue is today. americans expect quality in the

.ood we ate, the cars we buy there is an increasing demand for quality in our public schools. this somber session about quality is starting to focus on more than just the schools. it is starting to focus on teachers. among other things, this year's poll results showed 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 are doing for the 43rd year. phi delta kappa is an association of 30,000 educators, including teachers, superintendents, principles, and professors. it is this variety of education professionals that makes us unique. there are highly regarded magazine, which serve as a

trusted voice and advocate for public policies that support improved teaching and increased student learning. this is the 43rd year pdk has partnered with gallup to pull american attitudes toward public schools. it is a national poll of approximately 1000 americans age 18 and over. a complete copy of this year's report is available free at our website. if you search on pdkpoll.org, you'll find it. if you have been ipad, you can go to the apple app store and download a free copy of the poll. if you have not delegate wild birds yet, you can do that, too. there are several things that distinguish this poll from other public opinion polls. first, the topics are identified by a bipartisan advisory panel

that convenes each year. second, our report is comprehensive. we provide data responses to every question that we asked and a verbatim copy of the question just as it was asked. this allows readers to carefully judge the responses as it relates to the wording of the question period and a third and finally, because we conduct people annually, became closely monitor changes in the public's opinions about schools. half of the questions we asked 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. 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 to remove ineffective teachers. 74%, three outl, of four americans, said they would encourage the brightest person they know to become a teacher. 67% believe that we should recruit height achieving high school students to become teachers. two-thirds of 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. that is just as important as encouraging them to become scientists. it is clear americans recognize the importance of getting quality students to become the next generation of great teachers.

americans express support for actively recruiting high-quality teachers for the future. they also feel pretty good about the teachers in the classroom today. in fact, 71% of americans have trust and confidence in our current public schoolteachers. -- public school teachers. each year, we asked americans to great our schools much like we ask teachers to grade students. this year, up 51% of americans gave the schools in their community a letter grade up either a or b. that has been relatively unchanged for a number of years. that is the middle line you're looking at on the draft. it is the blue line. i want to concentrate on the other two lines for a minute. when we asked parents to grade the school that their oldest child attends, 79% gave the

school either an a or b. as you can see, that is the highest rate 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 gave the same letter grades to the nation's schools as a whole. that is the bottom line. trended.see how it is stran we are surprised by the declining grades americans gave our nation's schools as opposed to the approving -- improving grades parents get to the school their oldest child attends. on the one hand, they are the highest grades we have witnessed. of the other hand, they are 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 neighbors, friends, people they run into at the grocery store and in their community. 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 on what they hear or read in the news. as we know, much of the news is 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, two principals, and other administrators, to school board members, and to parents.

also, to president obama. in comparison with the last time we ask the question, and that was in 1984, teachers and principals increased significantly. those are the two sets of bars on the left side of the graphic. at the same time, the greats assigned for parents and school board members has remained relatively unchanged. grades, afters declining last year, improved this year with 40 per one percent -- with 41% of the respondents assigning him either and a or b for his support of public schools. those rates 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 that we had asked previously way back in 1976. we hoped to get a snapshot of public opinion today as compared to the 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, i get a recent dispute between governors and teachers' unions over collective bargaining legislation, to 82% of americans side with the teachers' union leaders as opposed to 41% at his side with the governors. there are lots of different ways to interpret these results.

it could be that americans believe were perceived that the teacher unions are protecting bad teachers. as we have seen over and over in the questions that we ask, americans are looking for high- quality among their teachers. i think the teacher union leaders at the national level recognized 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 activities with the teacher leaders also take? at the same time, americans have consistently felt that teachers are underpaid. it could be that they worry that legislation restricting the collective bargaining could result in lower salaries for teachers. not only would that be tough for the current teacher work force, it would make it more difficult

to attract bright and dedicated people entered the teacher force in the future. we continue to monitor american's opinions about public school choice -- public charter schools and school vouchers. 70% of americans favored the idea of public charter schools. that is up from 42% approval rating when first asked the question in the year 2000. that is a significant change in the course of one decade. yet when we asked about school vouchers this year, 65% of americans opposed allowing students and parents -- students to attend private school at the public's expense. that is the highest opposition registered in the last 10 years. before we shift to the next portion of the program, i want to thank our partners at gallup.

i also want to thank the members of our advisory panel that met last february. it's to get a copy of the report, you'll see their names listed there. finally, i like to thank john richardson, our editor in chief, and her staff. >> i want to thank pdk and gallup for this poll. it is a critical time -- the ritual of students returning. it is also a time when legislators are going to be returning. when congress -- they are coming back. governors are preparing to fight in august and september their budgets to present for the next year. an important decision will have to be made, particularly in a tough budget plan.

governor bush is not able to be here. he created the digital learning council. he acted by would cochair. the digital learning initiative is so much his initiative. 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 that governor bush conveyed anti cochaired -- and i cochaired -- those 10 elements of the high-quality digital warning system are essentially born help in the public attitudes expressed in this poll. i want to go over a few of them this poll is taken into its entirety, not just the digital bunning section.

-- digital learning section. they all come together to say the same thing -- the public understands and is willing to move forward learning. when we think of digital learning, sometimes referred to as computer learning, there are two images that come to mind. one is 100 children in a gym with laptops up. how does that make you feel? some say opportunity. some say deep personalization. or is it a situation where there is an effective teacher in the classroom in a traditional place called "school," yet you had the best content coming general. that is blended learning. what does paul confirms is that this public understands the need for blended learning. it understands it win at the respondents say they are

concerned that they will not be able to get effective teachers in the classroom due to budget shortfalls. one approach to doing that is blended learning so they can get the best content judge -- digitally as well as having teachers died and facilitate that learning process. another one is when it presented -- first the ball, it is an incredible statement that 91% of the population over all and 95% of parents understand it, support, and approve of internet access in the classroom. they think it is important. what is also important is a statement of blended learning when the question was posed " would you want a more effective teacher with digital learning

where a less effective teacher." the majority says be less effective teacher in the classroom. but we suggest to you that is a false choice. we want the best of both. with digital learning, we get both. the one suggestion i would make for future polls -- i think it is a statement they devoted so much of this poll to digital learning -- one suggestion i would have is that we look at and approach it from eight blended learning approach. that is truly the web 2.0 education.

>> we deal with a rapidly changing and not very good budget climate -- how can we be more effective and improved student outcomes and improved teacher performance? this poll suggests that with digital learning, the public believes that they want effective teaching and they want high-speed -- high student outcome. they can have both. >> i want to say thanks to pdk and gallup. i also want to thank you, governor, and governor bush. you or the best education governors in the last decade. you have been a real champion for the last six years on the

drop out crisis in america. the way you have connected a passion for the crisis with digital learning i really appreciate. i want to talk about a mistake, at least a mistaken impression that came from this poll. achaemenids ago before i walked in i got -- a few minutes ago before i walked in i got a blast the says america does not support all light burning. they were reporting this survey. i do not think that could be farther from the truth. there was one interesting question about will digital learning allow kids to spend less time at school. parents were split or were slightly negative on that notion of kids spending more time at home. [laughter]

then the report said, maybe parents do not support digital learning. au contraire. i think parents appreciate the custodial aspect of school. [laughter] what parents and teachers realize is this is a great opportunity to combine the best of learning online and learning at school to create a longer day and a logger year, not a shorter day and a shorter year. i think that was something that has been taken incorrectly, but over all, as you stated, i felt at two things really striking. 91% of people connected the internet with high-quality learning and, second, about the same percentage connected digital learning with college

and career preparation. i think those are two thoughtful insights that almost all of the respondents had. >> now we had an opportunity for your questions for digital learning or other issues we have on the pole. we have two individuals that have microphones. there is always the challenge of the first one to step up and ask the question, but let's see if we had a hand up. we will ask that you please introduce yourself. tell us where you are from. anybody? >> bob and i are happy to keep talking. our favorite subject. >> we have somebody out here. -- up here.

>> recent research for north carolina suggest that as the internet spreads across the landscape that it is a factor in driving an increase in the achievement -- in the achievement gap. the speculative explanation for that was that they did not have evidence -- among the lower income families, those who have less of a custodial ability, working late hours, etc., or unable to watch the children and monitor their internet use. as i speak after net swept across the north carolina landscapes, they actually saw a corresponding widening of the achievement gap between low- income and high income. they speculated it was because

of the lack of monitoring in the low income households >> technology is a powerful thing. it can exacerbate good things and bad things. it will make good parents better. i am not certain it will close the achievement gap because it can be two things. it can let 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 began to implement online assessments in almost every state, states and districts will make provision for universal access or four high access embar mets. we will do a better job of making sure that every student is connected to the actor ned. 91% of respondents said it was

important. as we make sure that all kids have 24/7, 365 access to learning technologies and as those technologies are incorporated into a long day, long year and become a thick part of that student's educational experience, i thing 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, particularly low income students. what that will do is cause a relatively rapid increase in the percentage of students prepared for college and careers. >> i would also go to north

carolina and take you to independence high-school in charlotte where 63 students started an on-line program over the summer, predominately all -- predominantly low-income. the northfield carolina school district did a total digital a merchant. -- immersion. my belief is there are a number of positive examples where digital learning is having an impact. i think it has to happen on a blended basis where there is an instructor at helping to guide that learning process at the same time that the student, whatever their income level is where achievement level is, is the link with the concept. >> rocket ships or small

elementary networks in california. they use eight learning lab to add two hours today. it is almost an 8 hour to do that day. it is a longer day, not shorter day. it is almost all low-income kids. they are the top scoring elementary schools in california. >> in arizona, rollins high- school in wyoming -- in the poll, the public clearly sees this as being a game changer for rural areas and for areas that have trouble getting access to high-quality content and teachers. particularly in certain subject areas. >> i am from committee which teaching excellence. what are some of the strategies on engaging parents in these new technologies so that they can become partners?

one of the things i am finding is that parents are not engaged in the reforms going on in their system. it does not necessarily they are against technology, they are just not part of the process. what strategies d.c. on engaging parents together? >> i will give a quick observation. you touched on one. parents need to be involved from the get go. one way you do that, particularly when you're working with the boy did learning model, is make the school a learning center beyond the 7.5 our school day. that is parents more access. in many homes if you do not have either the and internet access on a regular basis or even the internet access devices, now you make that learning center for the parents as well as the

students. you are right. parents do need to be involved. that is clear in this poll. there is still a little "not so sure" in some parts of the population. >> year as advocating for a long day, long year. i would agree with your comment that we generally have not done enough to engage parents and bringing these new tools home has a lot of potential, but it is going to require parents to be parents. they have to be involved and contribute. we will have to help build the capacity. i appreciate the comment didn't >> good afternoon. i am from the george washington university. i often hear people talk about the fact there is such a breadth

of information of the internet. how do you do with quality and finding the right educational material? these -- does the survey address this in any way? do you have a chance for us to find a particular way, a window to the right quality and vote? -- right quality information? >> a decade ago we passed this profound threshold of human existence where anybody could learn anything for free or cheap. that is a profound threshold in the human experience. in 2009, we passed this inflection point with devices sole and with clout based services and with applications down loaded, serious inflection points. like on this planet is quite different. we are trying to figure out what this means for ourselves, but we are here today to figure out what it means for our schools.

we are 15 years into this information abundance. i do not think we have made much progress answering your own question of how to synthesize. sometimes it feels like our kids are better at it than we are. in the precise area you are describing is where would be the most important breakthroughs of the next decade. very specifically, we will see breakthroughs in search technologies, the monitoring and data mining, watching a set of behavior patterns, learning about behavior profiles and using that data to drive smart recommendation engines. as kids make the shift to personal digital learning, one of the profound things that is not often discussed is that

almost all of those learning experiences will be rich with assessment data and a lot of behavioral data that tells us about engagement and the experiences that are most productive for certain kinds of kids. when we turn that data into a smart recommendation engine and face it back at the world, we will become much better before the end of the decade at doing what you suggested and making sense of a sequence of learning experiences. the governor talked about when did learning -- my quick snapshot of what my idea picture is a is a smart play lists tailored to each student based on this recommendation engine that is helping to build knowledge and skills. a which a team based, community- based series of projects that

engaged students in very of the big waste in -- in a very authentic ways. it really represents the best potential that we can bring together for kids. the quality was not addressed in this poll. but i think what the seminal issues facing us is as we move into this area with more access to information, who is it to determine what it is? we have to avoid stepping on the current textbook approval process onto data quality content process. by the same token, you simply cannot hand every job a laptop and say, "now we have the digital strategy." what is the total environment that you create to work again? the issue of quality, i think,

is not to judge it by what we have done the last 100 years. >> the question down here. >> i am from the council of scientific society presidents. if he were to picture the future, what are the best outcomes, what would be the best measure of outcomes 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 outcomes you would really try to measure to try the system forward in the best possible way? what's great question. i was so good, i need a minute to think about that one. >> that is what i call the

deeper learning skills. developing a whole new set of performance assessments back, some of which is currently under way i get a formative stage, in the development of the common court standards. -- common core standards. the assessments and being developed by the consortiums only began to try and reach that. being able to measure that kind of performance. i think we are much better able to measure that kind of performance and digitally because now you have adapted technology and you can

immediately go back to the teacher, but at the same time, it presents a picture of where the student is in these areas. it allows you to collaborate with with students in the classroom, across the country, or around the world. i believe the actual digital process can lead you to improve but -- improvement. we are not there yet. it is not completely developed yet. it will get us there. >> that is a great answer. [laughter] >> i am from a xavier university in cincinnati. smart recommendation engine that you spoke about, tom, would that be a good teacher? did it evaluate a student and make a recommendation as to what digital resources they

should choose? what would shane say if he was a student today in a grade school 20 or 30 years from now when someone asked him who is the best teacher he could remember? we say it was the ipad, the i applaud? -- the ipod? i think we need to help the population understand that interface with the students, not just the digital logarithms that are out there, that the teachers and he to be sensitive a responsive to the student's needs, not only from a digital point of view, but also their emotional state, the church and state and all the family complexity's they are involved with. >> let me give you a very quick snapshot of school of one.

it gives us a glimpse of what this looks like. they are the ones that really introduced the term "play list" and to my thinking of what the future looks like. when the teacher's come together in the morning and think about the math bonding experience the young people will have, that conversation is aided by recommendations from an algorithm that has been chugging overnight. teachers can get together and say, ok, here is the learning experience each of our kids will have today. now i can provide might -- apply my professional judgment because i have also noticed some things about the social and emotional well-being of a number of kids. 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 school of one example of the magic of dynamic scheduling. most students been part of their week in small group tutoring at school of one with that teacher. the magical part of its is that the teacher prepares a lesson knowing that every student around that table is ready pour that wasn't in that mode on that date. -- is ready for that lesson in that mode on that date. the impossible task we put in front of teachers every day of kids that are five or six years different in terms of the reading or math skills, up 30 at a time and ask them to teach a lesson, and you compare that to teaching 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 where professionals

can execute their craft thoughtfully and have a high opportunity to be successful, they will have time during the day to work with other professionals to provide judgment. that is magic. the last example is a rocket ship. the learning lab at rocket ship does a pretty good job of building some basic skills. what the teachers at a rocket ship would say is that it allows them to spend more time in class on critical thinking, on richer and deeper learning that the governor talked about. i take what we are both very optimistic about is putting powerful tools in the hands of letting professionals and creating a set of working conditions that are far more positive in places where they can be more productive. >> the ticket to a different place.

-- let me take you to a different place. the state of georgia -- 440 i schools and 88 cert physics teachers. it could take that to my estate, you can take it to the district of columbia, you can take almost anywhere -- we will not have the content teachers in every classroom. but what we can have is an effective teacher who come up with digital content and digital learning, is able to guide and facilitate. i am not a teacher, but to those of you who are in the profession, not having to be solely responsible for an everyday lesson plan every moment, every second in that classroom. as the content comes digitally, you can spend time with the individual learning needs of that child.

now i can spend some time with each of these students. incidently, i have a data system that is keeping me informed. nothing is taking away from the traditional role of teachers. it is only amplified. that is one thing that comes out of this poll to be loud and clear. it is not either or. it is a high-tech requires high teach. you have to have good teaching in order for the technology to be effective. >> up here in the second row. here you go. great. >> thank you. i am with the community college of the district of columbia. we are a family new entity. -- fairly new entity.

we are looking at how we can use the digital array of services provided in new and different ways. this conversation made me think about two things. first deval scale and secondly, gap. -- first of all, scale, and, secondly, a gap. things are shifting and markedly. new things are being learned that have the potential for making that gap even larger. one of the instances where we are taking what we have learned and using it to close the gap at the same time we are promoting the new. i am are concerned that we are learning fantastic lessons about what we ought to be doing to enrich the learning experience, but we have not be defined what it means to teach.

if nothing else, this array of technology is redefining it without having the public policy conversation. i would like your reaction. >> i would start by saying there is no excuse for the digital divide. states -- >> it does exist. >> it does, but it is time for leaders to put a flag in the ground and say after next august, every student in our care will have 24/7 265 access and begin to make a plan to make that happen. you can do it now to shift into online assessment and shifting to on-line instructional materials. you could probably also include the quality of access through your professional development.