the programs are worth watching because the losses could begin to mount over there as well. host: one more call from gary in rockaway, new jersey. caller: i have been trying to modify my mortgage with city they want this. they want that. they constantly what more documentation. they tell me they are doing more pureed then they call me up and tell me i do not qualify because of this reason for that reason. what can i do to modify my mortgage? my income is down substantially we did not do any of these loans. we did fixed loans. we cannot do any more right now because the government came

around and change the rules. what i do to modify my mortgage? >> i wish i had an answer. your story sounds very similar to hundreds of other of the borrowers. there is a lot of confusion. i do not know really what to offer other than to check out the resources that lender consortium has put together. it is unfortunate that ithere have been a lot of modifications. host: thank you so much for being here. that is your money segment where we look at how taxpayer dollars are spent. we were look more on that on

future mondays. we will be back at 7:00 tomorrow. we now go to the american enterprise institute which is holding a panel on a for-profit and federal education. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we are just getting back. the energy level is probably going to get mellow. we will make that work for us. today's panel is on the question of for-profit and federal education policy. this is a topic that we at aei have been talking about for an extended stretch. in support of the templeton foundation, we have been running the private enterprise projects, trying to think about the opportunities and the challenge.

how do make this work for kids in the community's? how do we think about some of the challenges the potential perils? this panel is a close of a series of panels and conversations. we have commissioned a number of pieces that will be coming up as a book this spring. we have the opportunity to work. phones, inose of the was cell turn them off. why this topic? the vast majority of what we do in america k-12 is done by public institutions. it is done by institutions run by states. and a lot of other work including most charter schools

are run by nonprofit. then there is a substantial slot of activity that is for profit. they run schools or colleges. they sell everything from pencils to paper to textbooks to curricula to school systems. we do not often think about that. we do not often think about the upside or downside. that is what we want to get into. for instance, our friend at parent revolution said when speaking about the apparent trigger that there is a need to regulate. we need to think about where to draw the lines. they choose not to encourage that for profits be permitted.

they believe the introduction of a new stockholder group, a shareholder seeking profit, will make the public school system less oriented toward putting children first. that is the question period does allowing folks to operate for profit cause us to be less likely to put students first? that is today's conversation. we have with the spike extraordinary individuals to think more deeply about these questions. we havestacey childress, where she's a model team. she was on the faculty of the harvard business school where aboutote and talk aboed education. we also have the chief operating officer for learnit systems. before she worked as an nt development for educate our

line. she also has a background in statewide politics where she managed several campaigns. michael horn, is a director of education of the insight institute. we also have with us assistant deputy secretary for innovation improvements at the department of education. jim manages most of the competitive programs including i 3. he was the east coast league for the venture fund and co-founder of learnednow. also have the co-founder and ceo. this one of the city's ties performing schools where he was

chief academic officer in principle. let's get started. i'm going to ask you to kick this off. both of you are executives at for-profit education companies. we just heard the point out that the challenge is that perhaps stakeholders are quantitate president over the kids. why is education for profit rather than nonprofit? >> let me first start by saying what it is and then answer the question and why we decided to organize it as a for-profit. this is a web site that gives students and teachers high- quality lessons. as a country as a start to move

toward the common standards, it is really challenging to implement those standards. learnzillion gives teachers tools to make that transition and effectively. that is a little bit about what learnzillion is. why do we decide to organize as a for-profit? we actually started at a public charter school. i was a principal. it was in trying to solve a problem that the idea came about to begin with. the problem was we had these amazing hard-working teachers who were spending most of their day in isolation without the ability to share expertise they were developing inside the classroom. or was students in a way that could get them what they needed when they needed it. the idea for learnzillion was

what if we use a platform to share this expertise in a way that will help with professional development and give students the lessons they need. i have two children. as also very interested in the parenting perspective of having full transparency about what my kids were learning each day. when we started to work on this idea and realized that it needed to be a separate organization that fought about this to scale, what is the best way to organize ourselves to get the job done? it was not from the starting point up how can we recognize an opportunity to make money? it was how do we take a problem that exists at most schools and tried to follow that and what is the best vehicle?

much to my surprise, as went to business school translating everything out learning from the for-profit terminology, we decided that we're going to be the surviving a for-profit. there were a few reasons. one is a web site we were going to need to have really talented technologists on board. we needed really good computer programs. we needed something that works for teachers. we wanted something that spoke to web 2.0. we knew if you're going to retreat high-quality programmers it is a point to do it as a nonprofit. another was access to capital. we wanted to do something that would start out in d.c. but would have a chance to have legs and nationally and potentially even internationally. we felt like in order to scale

in the ways you wanted to that access to capital would be important and being able to look to investors. finally, michael fonder and i both teachers. if we did not do that we should not be around for that long. probably wouldple proble be willing to look at it. let's give discipline to create something that really creates values for us. those are some of the reasons we decided to go the for-profit route. >> we are a full-service

provider. i was not at learn it will we decided to become for-profit. i did not considere it. i took a pay cut. it is immediately assume that if you are for profit that year only stakeholder is your investor or york stock colder. for us at learn it, we have an academic and a financial bottom line. we are very focused on student achievement in focused on making sure that we are meeting the needs of the stakeholders which are the students, families, principles that we serve.

>> at the end of the day, nonprofits are always going to be doing the right thing. for profit have other complications going on. you have written about this. as we think about those issues? >> a lot of people make that first assumption. there is conflicting interests. to return value to their shareholders you have to do something that pleases customers and keeps them. in your case delivering great academic results this critical

to delivering good results for shareholders. 1 and the big problems we face across this country is that the education system have in place is not always live up as incentives and a really smart way. creating good products that treat their learning outcomes is not always rewarded in today's marketplace. it can legitimately create those tensions between the shareholders and customers interests that we ought to care about. in many cases students and teachers are not the customers we are serving. when you but at nonprofits -- >> who are the customers? >> it is often a purchaser in the central district office who may or may not have learning interests or may be time to spend on a line item.

it is not always line up. we of looking at funding students for a sitting in seats, not for the learning progress they may. this creates a lot of weird incentives. the nonprofits responded similarly. if you look at higher education, while there has been a lot of attention paid to some of the questionable practices, if you look at universities serving similar demographics of high- risk students, you do not see great results of nonprofits either. the incentives are largely the same. you get tuition revenue up front. there have obviously been some changes with the gainful employment regulations as of late. but immensely that is how it has

been set up. ec similar ones across the -- you see similar ones across the state. >> is your thinking as a foundation of how to invest, how you engage the strengths and weaknesses when we look across the for profits? >> i think michael opens up a really interesting area for conversation. it is the degree to which incentives work. i their constrained the innovation we all look for in terms of and crude outcomes for students at the same or lower cost. and the lack of clarity about what we mean by the performance.

the lack the kind of data we need to make this kind of judgment either as investors or parents or interested community members. it creates a really difficult playing field. one rule of thumb that we have for now is that our work with for-profit right now is targeted to areas in which the public education for province have long been actors. is it ok to have for-profit in education act as if there are not market segments in k-12? i taught at harvard business school.

it was always surprising to me what low appetite business school students, the vast majority you're going in the private sector, and that idiosyncratic population of folks had a very low appetite and a very high bar for risk- taking in for-profit model separate very close to students. if you talk of possible spend tons of money on things like copy machines and they do not insist that the copy machines be a nonprofit to be able to reap revenues that are all public- sector dollars. it is all tax money. it is not suspicious. the textbook folks are getting a little closer to the classroom there. a little more suspicious.

that part of the sector is dominated by for-profit players, whether the old line textbook providers are those transitioning into the new digital age and thinking more a online adapted products. it is much lower heat from the conversation. the closer you get to the classroom, how about school operators that contract with the local school district? a for-profit company running one are two schools or a network of schools and having a goal at the end of the year to have money left over to reinvest in the business to make a better and to return over some time to return to shareholders. even at harvard business school, a very small percentage of this was ok. it seemed the paradigm was what

kind of activities to be the same the public sector has a legitimate right to provide. therefore it seems an encroachment from the private sector trying to somehow capture rents that are somehow more appropriately flowed through the public sector. even on this panel we have some excess difference. learnzillion operate in a space that is mostly for-profit now. we do not funds for-profit charter management organizations, weather brick and mortar or virtual schools. it is not because we do not think they have a legitimate right to play in that space. it is because philanthropy is better suited to support those kinds of organizations that are

nonprofit and rely on the slump tropical capital market for their dollars -- and rely on the capital markets for their dollars to grow and share. they were actively seeking ways to help create better incentives for those for-profit players to have reasons to invest in quality and innovation. commercial capital is already flowing their. actors are already dominating in that space. if we believe they do not have the kind of data transparency or performance metrics that mean at the end of the day that the things that were best for teachers and students wins seems like a good use of the lamb for the -- in philanthropy. >> what do you say to the critics that say they're trying to privatize american education? >> we do hear that for about a

fair bit. it is an interesting charge. given that we did not support for-profit school operators at all. it is more of a policy challenge that people have to our work that we believe that more choices for kids and families, particularly in neighborhoods where students have long had very low quality educational options, we think that is a good thing. we support charter schools in general. the privatisation charge, at least the way i perceive it is less about for profits and more about not public. whether it is for profit charter operators or knots, the privatization charge is about not public-sector operations. it is true. we support lot of nonprofit

actors that deliver educational services in low-income communities. we think more choices are a positive thing. that is the part of the root of that. the charge gets more attention when you lump it together with lots of worries and fears the private sector for-profit actors are going to come in too low income communities, added a resources that ought to be spent -- aggregate resources that ought to be spent, and somehow take those out of the community and return them to some nameless, faceless plutocrats somewhere that are not interested in educational options. as michael said, with the incentives as murky as they are in the ability to really distinguish between schools that do very well and schools that do

harder notwell, it is a harde to crack. >> jim, your some it has a background working for both for- profit and nonprofit in education funding. you're the point man in education. what role does for-profit play for the federal perspective as the dax we think about how to be a range the incentives and accountabilities. where can for-profit provide value? >> where federal and state and local players in the policy context can do the most benefit in the entire sector, an art dealer making sure they like -- in particular is the sure they align to drive the incentives toward good outcomes.

and absence of outcomes, the evidence that you're probably going to produce outcomes. where we have seen over time is that the government has treated the opportunity. whether it be a post secondary education. take your pick. often with the best intentions comic trading access and opportunities. and oftentimes it does not think through the third order implications. the benefit goes to those to attract the most students. or they do not think about the second and third order implications. what about completion tha?

you have some folks that come and without the best intentions. we do very discreetly with those factors. the sector is often slow to identify the bad actors and tried to segment them away from the general population. were the government can come in is on the better outcomes and creating opportunities for more direct intervention with those that are bad actors in distinguishing between the two. where the government needs help is creating the right incentives in this space as complicated as education. it is just that. complicated. we are going to take our best effort to how you decide what is actually serving the student or

taxpayer well? to the extent that government does that alone and there is not be back from the other side saying "here is how you can do this best." we're always good to wind up a little bit short of the ideal. i do not think we have the opportunity to sit back and not to anything. >> two specific instances. one is the gainful employment regulations. colleges have been funded with an eligible federal aid they simply on students enrolled. the full employment was to write some regulations. there have been concerns from critics of the rules were written and reflected a bias.

the second issue that has garnered a lot of attention is the funds issue which did not permit for profits to apply as principles and their own right. could you just a couple word about those and how you think about how to strike that balance? >> we have to recognize that this context is actually about the suspicion of for profit. it is not nearly held. fo-- narrowly held. there was a decision not to include for profits. that is the case with almost all of the policy lenders. it is a pretty bipartisan issue. there is a small segment of

people that are willing to step out and open up policy and a large funds. this is a bipartisan issue were more people decide to provide a bipartisan approach. given that is the context, especially talk about things that are going to build the capacity and have the potential to go to scale, we do want the opportunity for for =profits to participate. he can have a for-profit join in and receive funds through the application. that is the way in which we have approached trading in context where they can bring what they bring best. this adds value. does it work the? can i go to scale.

there are more and more opportunities for that. i do not think we will see policy shift until we see a cultural shift. that is the first. the first one, we talked about the importance of driving incentives. what are the outcomes we're really shooting for? in particular, people's ability to get out, get jobs to pay back their loans, at a minimum threshold this seems like a good indicator of whether or not they were provided with good service. people reacted to this for a number of different reasons. one reason was there is that for

profits, because of where we were retargeted force. they felt like we're going to operate under different rules. that i understand. the general push back on we're trying to move the market toward focus outcomes, i do not think i have read a book by a person to participate in the education space, especially on the four prophesied, or they did not say what we really need is outcome base metrics. at some time we did at some will have to decide what measures are going to be. folks pushed back on it. i am waiting anxiously for somebody to come back and say here are the metric you should have used.

>> jim just said something really important. particularly in the spaces that have long been delivered by public-sector actors, the desire and perhaps even the wisdom of allowing private sector and for-profit actors to get in the game to help drive competition and quality and incentives for education and choice for competition all sounds great. i believe that. one of the challenges is as of those for-profit actors get the right to play in that market space, i think it would be really terrific base stepped up as an industry group and said "here are the ways we should be measured against outcome standards that indicate superior

learning games for students, superior college going rates. here are the ways to measure us. here is all our data and now on those fronts. here is where we think we're doing a pretty good job and working really hard to get better. nonprofit actors, show us yours." waiting for the government to get in right, hoping the most vocal critics that have some legitimate concerns about the ability for some bad actors to come in and share resources away from low-income communities and return to investors, you want to play. you want to get in the game. great. how should we be measuring you? is that a way of measuring performance?

it is possibly to get better outcomes because you are in for profit. there's not another industry that works that way. you are a private actor. you are on the game. show us why that set a metrics is a better way of doing it than the way the public sector and legislative process theshas been able to compromise. the correct e mentioned before the double bottom line, academic outcomes and financial. -- >> you mentioned before the double bottom line, academic outcomes and financial.

what are the mattress used to determine whether kids are benefiting or districts are spend well? >> particularly around the supplemental program, right now we are measured on a lot of input metrics. we have to show that we delivered the service by having the students signature on the attendance. we have to show that we engage the parent. we have to actually have the teacher sign the attendance forms. i think this is important. if we did not have those initial metrics, there are people that probably would not have expected it. they do make me look bad. aiming my company look bad. we are not currently measured in most states around our actual

outcomes. at learn it we have tons of the data. we showed our clients our data. we have a learn it report part of that every day of the progress data from that session gets loaded up into an on-line portal. we get the access to principles and the school district and teachers. we want our clients to have the information. we want them to see what their students are working on. we do not want to do show them. johnny and actually worked on these five skills. we are not currently provided -- required to provide that information. there are some states that require that you actually lay out your pre and post assessment results. if they take that into consideration. are we impacting student

achievement in your program/ that this not happen in a lot of places. we welcome that additional accountability. we now learn it systems and their colleagues are going to be able to meet these challenges of providing information. >> one thing i thought i heard is not just providers willingly sharing this data by being proactive about writing the standards. how do we know what you are doing? is learn it involved to try to get some outcome that turks like that that would be widely ?vailable th

>> wii participate in a couple of different organizations. in the process of thinking about three authorization we this issue.aking of this fich we cannot just sit back. it is not going to be as bold and fault that it should be. we have taken up this discussion about what we need to do to reauthorize. i am going to take this conversation back to my other colleagues. we need to step up our efforts and not just focus on this. i do not know when this is going to happen. the need to be looking at how we influence these metrics now. we play a part in this.

>> she points to really interesting point. there is a tension, all of this. while there are certain for profits that will go the extra yard, because the purchasers to not necessarily by you that, there is a lot of incentives for before profits not to do much more than the current regulations. certain competitors can gain equal share by not going the extra mile. it creates this poisonous dialogue that jim always talks about. when there is poison in the marketplace, the government is going to overreact and not have a subtle conversation. why do we want for profits in

the marketplace? it is that same poising, that ability to sell against the quality outcome. there is an obvious ability for them to attack a lot of capital. it allows them to scale and grow. nonprofits and not have that natural pathway. they're constantly going to people like stacey and jim and asking for one more levered up. there is a pool of money there. this is something like nonprofits spend four times as much time raising money. there is a lot more focus on that. you really want to utilize that ability.

the interesting i think is that in education compared to other sectors, we do a really bad job of creating industry groups that put these performance metrics out. one example in health care. when the retail clinics that have appeared came up, very early on they said very rigorous methods for what member would look like, which traded some certainty that regulators could allow them to say we're going to get better outcomes. treat thesee to health conditions over here. by doing that, it allows them to go up.

the suspicion of for-profit and other sectors is not really present from government dollars. in energy, health care, questions, we routinely use federal dollars. no one really thinks about whether it is an issue or not. that is partially something about a notion of innocent children and partially because we have not had these big efforts to step up to trade these outcome of checks that will work. >> that is dead on. i still remember him being in a meeting very early in the chart your movements. there was an association to promote choice. there was an argument that broke out about whether quality should be in the mission statement.

quality would be the way that those who oppose choice would come down and shut it down. literally. this was a heated hour-long conversation. if you think about that, how you could argue at any time that quality should not always be associated with option, you're always going to lose the argument. why have it? that said, we are about to watch it happen again. this movie plays over and over again. the sector has the opportunity to move ahead and set a benchmark for how you define performance and avoid a backlash.

virtual schools. virtual schools we have seen start to increase on instances of fraud. what is it that is true about virtual rules tax the activity itself is an accountability mechanism. me know what level of activity they had. this is basically on a real-time basis. when the government gets around to that, it will be a very tight box. the sector has the opportunity

now to say we know what we can do to show you the kind of outcomes we can produce. we collect that data. most providers are in a position to start to do that as well. the sector is not proactively setting the framework for how this discussion is going to take place. there is going to be another bad actor who is going to mess up. there is going to be a reaction. it is going to be painful for a lot of other people because the sector did not take the step. i am a person who comes from the background of trying to leverage a for-profit company to be able to access capital. i still believe this is an important role for the for- profit to play. as long as we have this

conversation about why as opposed to how we actually take the context as it is an frame in a way that can allow for great companies to persist being defined by those to produce outsized returns. it is a very straightforward thing. if you get ahead of it, one of the things they learn is you can help shape the conversation the way you cannot it york on the back and responding. -- if you are on the back end responding. >> you work directly with teachers. given the tenor of the conversation, i suspect many of the teachers to you reach out to probably have mixed feelings about for-profit.

what kind of reception have learnzillion gotten? >> let me start with the second part. i think what he is pointing out is that in terms of incentives, said the government plays a really important role. if there is a threat of that sort of response from the government, i think that in itself the then creates instances for different actors within the industry to act differently. one thing that is interesting is being a startup. we have 10 employees right now. we are working really hard just to survive versus been established a player. decorating tools for teachers.

they have different incentives. quality is so important. we can go in and say this is not a district sales. you have this enormous sales force. this is actually about the bottom line of student learning. even though we are small, look at these results. we can take out the noise that often leads to decisions in terms of contracts that will favor a much bigger company. when i think about trying to work with others to have been industry response, i can imagine other start-ups having the same incentives. in theimagine they are th

same position we are. it is difficult to carve out the time to make that a top priority. we went through this recently with one of our contracts. we are a free web site. teachers and parents can access all of the content for free. we do provide premiums for the sisters were they can customize their curriculum. the and also provide targeted professional development. one of our current partners we actually went to. we said we actually want to run a study that shows that we are making a difference. we want to measure student learning. it was really difficult to get that in place. we had to scale it back. the district was not in a position where they could follow through. i found three of us were

spending all our energy and conversations around how you're going to do this. we cannot afford to spend 30% of our energy on that issue. i imagine that will shift. how do we create incentives for those who cannot have the ability? it is the potential of regulation to create an incentive for we are working with larger companies. we would be thrilled to do that. >> i will love to hear. they're not said that to be these testing sites.

the organizations have limited dollars. how do we help these guys get out of this catch-22? >> the entire ecosystem need to work. the investments and then at valuations to a lot of folks not to have to pay for these things, that is something that federal dollars ought to be used for. others are adept at advocating. this is one of the few times or they lobby against it. >> two things. the ministration to afford a proposal for education.

it is meant to do break through r and d been the science and technology space. let me put it this way. i have yet to be clear that th seven this has gotten a positive reports. -- that they have got a positive reports. it has a requirement that they be open. a lot of consternation on this part.

the idea that a university will take half a million dollar grant and produce a commercial ready products that is ultimately going to compete with folks, if you are really worried about that, you have other issues. the opportunity is to have other folks creating a pipeline which could produce some basic innovations. they allowed others to participate. the folks who were then in the business looked over at the folks outperformed and said how would you like to get bought back that is the kind of thing we can expect. this i do not understand.

>> i had something on my mind similar. we're heading toward challenge structures when it comes to tools and content and that an olive -- content and analytics. we're never going to get that right. we're never going to pick the best thing or two. i would submit that no philanthropy or government agency is likely to do that over time in an active market. as dimensions, we have some

other inefficiencies in the system. how do we be paid in ways that helped get dollars and played to help lower some of these barriers or mitigate some of ?hese inefficiencies tha the challenge sector is one of them. we hear pretty frequently from really cutting edge school leaders who are working hard in ways that actually improved performance. on the literary c tools, there are lots of information coming out that says we're trying to

get it on the mac side. there is still lots of work to do. it seems that there is real momentum. we know of some tool companies that are doing some pretty interesting stuff. it takes a lot to figure out what works and what does not. the foundation is taking a different approach. this will come out of the pre cigna began tools challenge that put information about what buyers are telling us they want and what we believe already exists in part of the markets. there are some new areas of innovation. getting that information out of partnership with demand in a way they give supplier a little

bit of capital, it takes the evaluation burden off and that is a pretty public open process. >> how does it take the evaluation burden off? >> they make similar claims about what to do in the terms of gains bill. making it an outside evaluation. this limit to the same valuation. it will be about what will be evaluated. a really top-notch evaluation firm selected to do the study. and have everybody participate over the same time horizon that none of those actors action has to put up the money for.

it can be consistent with what government is trying to do, but take some of the government off. there are many others out there that have really terrific early stage products. they need more access to markets. they also need ways to not have to break themselves, producing the information particularly in this idiosyncratic way. more common ways of getting a valuations running across multiple projects with multiple demand side actors. it is ways that are pretty public. push through lots of different channels.

>> this is a place where they will try to step into the place. they can build up an infrastructure. they can learn on an ongoing basis. >> as a part of a you get the benefit of having data systems that allow you to be much more highly instrumented to find out what is happening. as a part of that condition, you have to participate in the way they can figure out what is

working and what is not. >> it also has another benefit. it stars to demonstrate to policymakers. what sort of metrics are possible? what sort of accountability systems you can start to put in place? it can shipone of the sectors le concerns right now is that you might get some great products that start to come out. the problem is in the marketplace that it might not get the attraction you would hope they would get because the district actors are not making purchase decisions based on the things we think they ought to be. they are not valued right now. that is distinct from darpa where the department of defense

has incentives more in line to adopt things that allow them to fight wars more easily into reconnaissance better. it is a clear path way to adoption. in many ways, it operates for superintendents are awarded not because they did or did not help students. >> it strikes me that what it is doing as much more neatly aligned them world language instruction and or six instruction or liberal arts at a higher level. it strikes me if you are to bring a fourth or fifth grader, you are only to bring them a small portion. one question for me is if we are focusing on the kinds of outcomes, how good a metric is

that for capturing the value that you are adding or do we need to think differently about what we are measuring and the metrics to see whether you guys are serving kids well or not? >> i think the metric is important for a couple of reasons. we are normally tutoring for about 40 hours. >> 40 hours a week? >> 40 hours during the course of an academic year. we are targeted in our instructions. if they go through and identify 12 areas we need to work on, that's what we are working on during those hours. there are a lot of students when they get to our program that are two or three years. the challenges we have to get

them up to grade levels during our program. if it's not on the state assessment, they're not on the grade level and our goal is to get them as close to that level as possible. when we think about how do you measure us, we don't want to be measured on -- it's difficult to be measured on the state assessment if you are not teaching skills on the state assessment because you are focused on the core skills students need to develop. but you can look at the benchmark data you take our program and if you are going to come out with a larger evaluation that takes into account the student's grades and feedback from the classroom teacher, we also serve private schools with title 1 funding. that program is great. it's the same targetted

innovation, but we are inside the school and our teachers are embedded in that school, working day in and day out with classroom teachers, giving feedback, letting us know i saw johnny struggling with x, y, and see. can you focus on this and change your instructions to add this. we are working in partnership with the school teachers and the school and we feel we're better able to be measured on what's happening in that students classroom because we are in partnership. because thelt standardize assessments will work. we have our benchmark data, we have what's happening in the classroom, we hear from teachers and our students are doing better after participating in the program or i'm finding you caught him up to where his class is. i did not have the resources at that time to focus on the individual skills he needed.

it is a conundrum. it's going to take all of smart people in the room to decide how do you put the exact outcome into metrics, but we have to do it. there are initials that i know we can take. >> when we think about the federal waivers under no child left behind and the various flexibility states have adopted, when similar things went on back in the '80s and opt, states were able to into various designs rather than particular federal metrics. are there opportunities here to think differently? serving particular skills or grade levels, are there ways to get more creative about how we allow states to serve the kids

well? >> states have taken steps to be more creative and thinking about the things that actually matter and how are we rewarding schools and program. one of the biggest challenges of no child of the kind -- we get no credit for that and you see is moving and allowing us to get creative and how they in fact work with their partners. i do expect states are going to set up new kinds of relationships with the vendor and district. in areas where it is still difficult to measure, i have not seen as much creativity on that. this is going to be one of those

things that comes a step at a time where people say we think we have a sense of what i will call the anchor metrics. what are the things we are dealing and how we measure it and hold people accountable? things like persistence and resilience which are important factors. those things that have an impact on learning and might be happening in the context of a program but nobody has figured out how you measure it well enough to set up an accountability system. >> your business model depends -- ought sharing your lesson

plans. t find any resistance and the fact that you are for profit? how'd you find a connection with teachers in the field and how does that impact the work that you're doing? >> great question. this goes back to my experience as a teacher and principal. it's not about it being for profit or not for profit. it's about tools that work that make your life easier as a teacher that help you reach students. what we have seen -- we had a dream team working on these lessons. there were 123 of them and we had almost thousand people apply. we have a situation which was somewhat unexpected where we could only select a very small person and we had a demand to be part of this. when we got these folks together, the energy and it do the chasm was off the charts.

be part of that came from this idea that i want to have a big impact in a deeper way with the students i work with day in and day out. also interested in having a broader impact. you see this with very talented teachers making a choice each year to have an impact on 20 kids. but once a year they probably wonder if this is the year where i think about leaving the classroom and trying to have an impact on the system in some way? these teachers had made the choice to double down on that deep impact and suddenly they were in a position where we were talking about scale and a scaling their impact. folks were so excited about taking expertise they are crafting year after year. how do you explain division of fractions in a way that is crystal clear? they figured that out and now there's an opportunity to capture that and know that thousands of other teachers and

students would have access to that. we have found quite the contrary. because we're focused on this impact and our will eat this is around champing teachers, folks have been super excited to be a part of it. >> of want to raise one more issue and there this open to a question. in other sectors, including health care, what we as an asian feel more comfortable talking about the role of for profits and members of congress seem to be allowing them to be part of what they craft. jim mentioned a couple of reasons why that's not the case right now. for the for-profit sector, how

do you start to change that dynamic and change the culture where members of congress feel ok allowing for profits to play on a level playing field? >> it would be to say we have to do a better job of teaching economics. that would be a key part of this. so that people understand the upside to begin with. part of that challenge and what you often hear is for profits siphon money off to investors as a return and do not reinvest all their profits as a nonprofit might. chris love to point out the absurdity of that peak as you can attract capital and that doesn't actually make sense when you think about the economics. i think the bigger piece is what we have talked about here, which is to get groups to come together and to be a member you

have to hit certain quality metrics and defined to the level of specificity you are talking about with these sorts of systems look like from and accountability perspective. you have willing actors from the government and foundation world supporting that and giving people some security that if there are charlatans coming into the marketplace, the sector's themselves will make it very clear they cannot succeed. having a security would go a long way toward changing this dialogue from one that is entirely unhelpful where we just throw labels and categories and say all four profits are good or all for profits are bad and missed the nuance of the conversation. there is a lot of compelling work in terms of the quality, it's almost always the wrong question. >> there is one federal policy

change that says a second term obama administration might push. is there one that comes to mind? >> i would like to see -- i would like to see the conversation around gainful employment extend beyond the career and for-profit colleges to the entire sector and shining a light on more of the outcomes there. the second part to me is the biggest challenge with the gainful employment regulations as they stand now, we have suggested our own counter mechanism. the biggest problem is that it's an all or nothing access to cash. you either clear up our and have access to the federal loan dollars from title for -- from title 4, or you get zero out completely.

the problem is -- you want to extend access to population to have not had a historical access to education. on the other hand, you are interested in quality in a very admittedly tough environment. you can make quality high because of the wage scale back the access. the other side, if you make that are too low, the lead in all the bad actors who do bad things and take advantage and may not ask the right questions up front. i think moving more toward a relative sliding scale where as the market improves, the makeup of the actors would improve as well in getting more access to dollars there. that would be an early point to start the conversation to strip away this all or nothing dialogue we have today. >> why don't we go ahead and open it up. please be kind enough to identify yourself by name and affiliation and please actually ask the question.

if we get 50 or 20 seconds in and i don't see a question in sight, we will give someone else a chance. >> i'm with the carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching. it strikes me from a conversation this morning that the discussion about the for- profit industry is fragmented into several different segments. but we have the on line segment, the more traditional whole school model, the higher education conversation is very different from the k-12. i would like to focus on just one segment and ask the panel if you see the more traditional whole school management sector fulfilling jim's requirement that it be successful on the one hand and also show evidence of

scale ability or actual scaling on the other? just parenthetically, we just received a substantial grant from the hewlett foundation to explore a shift in the carnegie unit from a time based to a competency based metric. >> so the question about the whole school management piece is -- >> is it working? are we seeing evidence of success emerging from that sector and are we seeing it scaled to the point where it can have an impact on a system as a whole. >> are we focused on k-12?

from my perspective, what is interesting is if you look at the k-12 segment of whole school operators and look at the traditional brick and mortar operators, generally charter schools, and you look at the online full-scale operators come easy to very deidre pictures. in the brick and mortar space, the charter sector is dominated by nonprofits, it's like 75% is nonprofits or if you look at a for-profit side, you -- sorry, if you look at the online site comedic the exact opposite picture. the for-profit have a dominant share of the market. my theory is as you move to online, you have seen a scalable technology consistent with a for-profit business model that despite their being no regulatory differences between the two, in terms of discriminating against or

profits, you have seen an alignment that allows for profits to scale much faster. so the answer is yes, you are actually seeing a much bigger scale as you start to move into that equation. the second question on the data, i don't think you are seeing that transparency right now, partially because lot of the schools came up at the turn of the century, when they weren't necessarily tracking and doing analytics. partially because they may have an internal data but they are not sharing at as jim has discussed. but i think that is extremely short on where we need to be. >> is there any evidence for- profit operators are doing any better than their counterparts? >> i don't think there is evidence one way or the other on that question. >> might understanding is that

it mirrors the performance data which is less than 20% of the schools perform better than the local option and about one-third perform worse, and then there's the big metal. charter's observe by about 5% in schools right now and the percentage of for-profit operators that have a piece of that share is tiny, less than 1% of the kids in the country. whether it is because they can scale faster or they can do the kind of thing michael talk about, competing head-to-head with not consumption rather than things we looked at as the brick and mortar schools which are more familiar to us in the public sector, the virtual schools have a tinier percentage of students they serve that are growing much more

faster and attracting capital at much faster rates than the traditional school brick and mortar, for-profit school models. >> one quick point -- the other challenge to the extent they are releasing data, making it understandable in the dialogue and translating it is another key challenge right now. what one of for-profit virtual school company responded to a steady about their performance with a fair amount of data -- making it the people trust and understand it is a threshold we have to see across as well. >> i promise this is a question. we are one of the industry groups you are referring to here. in the early day of subsidized tutoring from the child left behind, we did develop a code of ethics, the good and bad ways of marketing and behaving and that

was adopted by 28 states. it was a first step in trying to get the industry together to drive public policy. two years ago, you and i have a sidebar over here and around the whole issue of contracting. forthmade some back and baby steps talking about that. on my side, the industry was a little gun shy because they thought there was a breakdown in trust and the deal would never be fair. so here is the question -- in an era of waivers where policy- making seems to have shifted to state capitals around the u.s., have we missed the boat? if the industry got together and said let's get serious about these output metrics, whichever silo we're talking about, from a

federal role, is it too late? in the area of waivers? >> if it's too late, it's not too late because of the waivers. i think we may have missed the boat because to be totally honest, i expected there to be advocates for scs. if it is more performance based, this is a way to keep the sector going. in fact, the sector did not have that kind of advocacy from folks who are involved in policy- making. i think that boat may have been missed, to come with a solution for folks to really stand up for it. >> supplemental -- tutoring, in terms of the reauthorization of a child behind? >> that is the first part. the second part is states are

more likely, the states that are big supporters of supple little services, are more likely to maintain that position if they can come up with mechanisms for new accountability around it. and seeing examples of that starting to pop up, but none of them have taken off across multiple states. that is where i expected it to go next. i think the opportunity is still there. i think broadly, if you ask me the question if there is one set of policy direction that has the greatest opportunity to shift the dynamics for the port -- for the for-profit sector is a shift to success. in an environment where prices are fixed, you can only go down. outcome's make it such that you don't care as long as you're getting about comes to the provider is. as long as there is no

transparency around the outcomes and i can't pay you on what you achieved the outcome, i can't -- i have to pay you one other things. in general, if the sector wants to see growth, shifting the business models to figure out how to get fair successful models of place is going to be an important part of that future. >> is there a particular instance or program you would point to as the kind of thing folks ought to be looking at? is there particular starting place in federal policies? >> i thought the best possible csarting place was above s program. it's relatively easy to put patricks in place that people could come to agreement on. the contextual factors made it difficult, but those areas where you can define outcome is most

easily and people can probably come to agreement on them, those are areas where its right to move first. those areas where it gets more complex and you have to think about we can't do this on the basis of what is the first incentive, are you and sending premiums? how do you make sure you have thought it all the way through so you can drive towards a model that pays people based on getting good outcomes, especially with the students who need it most. >> amanda brown with public education network. building on steve's question, it strikes me that it doesn't necessarily need to be a federal role in promulgating standards, that these can be voluntary standards, for local education funds, this was a voluntary adoption profit says -- adoption

process based on the standard of good conduct and their management. but there is a critique of year in the for-profit world historically that i wonder if it is standard -- that i wonder if standards or another mechanism can address. in the charter world where you have an independent chartering authority that grants a charter to a for-profit school but takes it out from under the public '. this school board, the elected officials does not have a -- does not have the ability to pour -- to pull the charter. perhaps there will be an analogous critique. i wonder if standards or other mechanism is a way to address that critique? you talk about accountability in terms outcome measures and so on, but the broader critique about governance, i wonder about

that. >> i think the governor and its -- i think the government's question is an important one. by a large, but different states to charter's operating differently, there is still some public entity granting the charter to operate the school. it may or may not be the local school board, some boards can be and are a charter of the riser, but part of the goal of the innovation there was to get some ability outside the local jurisdiction to grant the right to open and run a school. i think the larger question is less about where the locus of governance is, although that will remain an important issue.

it really is about that transparency performance data regardless of an uprising agency or entity. do we have the kind of information we need as citizens and customers and investors to say this thing is like that thing and is making claims about producing certain kinds of learning outcomes. can i compare them to their own claims and to each other by some common set of performance metrics? if we get there with a mix of industry leadership and advocacy and courage on the part of state legislatures and local school boards, then i think that question about who did the authorizing becomes much less important because the range of actors that all the various

levels have a relatively common way of recognizing and rewarding or punishing performance. curious, in your experience as a provider, you guys work in the districts and states, hot either on the government challenges in an era of standards? >> i think it depends on which districts and states you are working with. all of times, we are in a position where you talk about some of the states that have been open like colorado. colorado is very interested in trying to figure out innovative ways to make sure they have the best vendors and their community. district can actually choose that 10 vendors they want to work with. that was a critique a lot of them had before.

at one point, we had 700 approved providers. that's not a good position for us to be in in that market either. district would say we have hordes of providers coming to their districts that they had no control. i think south carolina has that -- districts can pick the five providers they want to work with. i think we're seeing more and more districts have more control. i hate that's what we're going to move to, states that continue to approve providers will move to stay in the district where they can approve the providers to work with or have more input into what happens in the program because that wasn't happening before. >> we're just about out. i do want to hear -- as we look

at a second obama term, there is one change in federal policy that would help us tap the ability of the private sector to serve kids in communities as well and deal with malfeasance or concerns, what one thing which you like to see? >> the performance-based or outcome-based pay would be a huge shift that would get the dollars flowing against things we really care about in terms of student learning verses how many for a long. >> we are open to performance- based. we are only paid if stevens attend -- if students attend. the more students attend, the better we will do. it always had to be fair. we have to be at table having

that discussion. cannot be something pushed down on us. i would like to see the administration -- i recognize we are in a toxic environment, but i would like to see the administration use the bully pulpit to take that rhetoric down. a lot of it is just rhetoric and noise. for the administration to take the lead and judge that every for-profit is bad or every for profit is good. if they would quiet down the noise, that would help a meaningful dialogue on what the best ways to measure performance and where the best solutions to ultimately end up with our goal which is to the achievement. >> i would say in addition to those comments, continuing to invest in internet access, there needs to be a lot of work than

there. so that is one, providing the pipes into the school. even though this is a state issue, the federal and terms of supporting that adoption and the implementation also pave the way car them to measure the effect of different tools because we will all be talking about the same standards. that is really important as well. >> i want to thank all of you guys, think the templeton foundation for its generous support. thank you for joining us today. we'll see you all soon. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> and the american enterprise institute wrapping up this discussion on for-profit education. the associated press is reporting mary schapiro is stepping down from the securities and exchange commission after reading the response to the 2008 financial crisis. she was appointed by president obama and is credited with helping reshape the agency during a tumultuous time. it is not clear who is going to replace her. many airports are suggesting is married john miller. mary schapiro will step down in september. the administration released a report warning of the impact of failing to extend tax cuts for 90% of americans could have on the economy and consumer spending. increased taxes could cut consumer spending spite $200 billion. -- consumer spending by $200 billion. what it can take all negotiations over the

sequestered, we are focusing and the beginnings of the debate on the national debt in prime time. we will go back to august of last year to review some of the debate and news conferences from congress and the white house surrounding the passage of the budget control act. the law created automatic spending cuts set to take effect in january along with expiring tax provisions, part of the so- called fiscal cliff. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. congress returns from a week long thanksgiving break this week. the house is back tomorrow to debate a number of bills. a major bill comes up on thursday when they will consider a visa program for students getting advanced degrees and computer science, engineering and mathematics. off the floor, democrats plan to let new leadership. that is scheduled for thursday. you can see the house tomorrow on c-span. the senate is back today at 2:00 eastern. they will finish work on what is called the sportsman bill, expanding hunting and fishing on federal lands.

that begins at 5:30 eastern. you can see the senate live on our companion network, sees that2 -- c-span2. >> you listen to mayor bloomberg who says the damage was unprecedented. the previous high was 10 feet. for this high, the tidal surge was 14 feet. gov. chris christie said that the damage was unthinkable. at fires, hurricane force wind, massive flooding, some of. -- massive fires, hurricane force winds. the shutdown of the stock exchange. you get a sense of a massive scale and scope of the storm. yet the networks perform. i read dozens of stories about how for many consumers, their only link to information, their only tied to any information that was through their smart phone, linking social media and they're smart phone.

while there was an impact on the sites, they performed well. some networks did well, some networks did less well, but we don't have solid information about this because there are no reporting requirements on these networks. there are no standards by which we measure their performance and it is entirely voluntary whether they want to talk to the sec or not or the state and local governments are not. i take their word for that date responded well. i have heard anecdotally that these guys may be did less well and a first that as we have to find out who did well, who did not do well, and how we make sure everybody does well. >> the impact on telecommunications systems tonight. >> a discussion now on china policy emerging global power and maritime strategy. this is the focus of a panel

during the halifax international security form. global leaders from over 50 countries gathered in halifax, nova scotia to discuss prepping, security and defense issues. this is about one hour 15 minutes. i would like to hand it over to the washington editor of the "atlantic." >> it's good to be with you today. have a fantastic panel. we have to my right the ambassador for policy planning add that japan industry of -- embassy of foreign affairs. the under secretary of defense for policy, jim miller. we have the editorial director of india today and a real star of last year's program. i expect some similar feistiness.

and finally we have vice admiral paul masson, commander of the royal canadian navy. thank you for 20 s. -- paul masson. when i was thinking about our panel, i went online to find a chinese event looking at the u.s. grand strategy, there are no canadians, a japanese or americans on china's panel. we don't have any chinese with us today but we should have a lot of fun discussion not only in national strategies but evolving in the asia-pacific region with china but i wanted to acknowledge that voice was not with us today. that might give us more room to run. because we don't have a chinese voice, some years ago i went to china and visited with the ministry of foreign affairs and met the equivalent of their policy planning director. finally i could ask china with its grand strategy is. this was about 2004. i said what is their grand

strategy? they said and how to keep you americans distracted in small middle east countries. that seems to be shifting. one of the interesting things again -- i know this is not a u.s. panel, but just two days ago, our national security adviser gave an interesting speech at the center for strategic and international studies that lays out the reasons that rationale for a reset and rebalancing of american access in the world. not looking at -- looking at overweighted areas and underweighted areas. he gave a talk at white the asia-pacific was important but it took a long time to get to the china section. you are not just an aged person, you are a global person and there are a lot of things going on in the world. israel and palestine is blowing up again. you have a lot things happening. does this reset make sense?

>> it makes sense for the united states and make sense of globally. if we had not been in the conflict in iraq and afghanistan for the last decade plus, you would see our attention as a nation, including our military posture, already having a greater presence in asia pacific. as we look at the importance of the region and the vitality of economic growth, we expect to see 50% of economic growth in the coming decade from the asia- pacific region. as we look at the tremendous opportunities we have their economically as well as our strong alliances and other partnerships, in the context of a china that is a rising economic power and growing its military, it makes eminent sense for us to rebalance to the asia- pacific even as we continue to pay attention and stay engaged globally. >> one of the things that is

really interesting is when america -- 10 or 50 years ago there was a shift to asia than. this is may be a shift to asia 2.0. many the of them set you're going to neglect us. i don't think it was a fair comparison because i didn't feel american resources were stretched to the point where there was a zero sum game. but this is being presented as if it is a zero sum game. like you cannot do it all. we had a cover story recently that was about foreign policy, but why women still can't have it all. white -- can america still have it all? the way that yet from that, the answer is there are limits. -- the way that you have framed that, the answer is there are limits.

>> we have continued our deep engage in with other regions and other countries. this is one example. our guide and to put out in january, we talk about nato having to print -- having to become a net provider in security. you see that on going today. we will continue to be engaged in the middle east and north africa globally. the united states is a global power. this is not a zero sum game, particularly when you look at alliances and partnerships both within the asia-pacific and globally. our intention and objective is to strengthen those alliances and partnerships and if i could pick it to the topic of china briefly, to build on the areas of cooperation we have across the board, including militarily. we know there is going to be competition in the military domain to work to shape that competition in a way that avoids conflict and the possibility of

misperception and misunderstanding and actions based on that. >> you have just spent a couple of years in china. you said they were fun personally but professionally tough. japan and china are having a square off about five uninhabited islands and hillary clinton received a confidential report that involved richard armitage rich -- richard armitage and another by caracol he said this could slip into a hot conflict. under article 5 of the u.s.- japan treaty, the u.s. is obligated not necessarily to rush to japan's defense but to consult with japan. now we have to decide what that means. china is boycotting japan informally across a lot of sectors. i would like to get your sense of what you think china's game plan is regionally and internationally. you have been there right next to china for a long time and you

have been poking each other back and forth for a long time. i would like to get a quick snapshot of how you see china's direction. >> this is not a short time phenomenon. the former viewpoint, china, we have a diplomatic issue with china. they started to claim the island in 1971 after the united nations issued a report in 1969. there is a potential [indiscernible] we integrated the islands in 1895, about 220 years ago. for the first 75 years, we never received any claim from china.

the un report changed their position and they started to claim the island. today, i don't want to get into the details. but i would like to point to the two elements. this is not an isolated issue. in the south china sea, china is trying to advance into the philippines and vietnam and other countries. they claimed the islands in the south china sea. in the east china sea, there is an issue with japan. in the japanese archipelago to taiwan, the philippines,

[indiscernible] china ultimately expressed a strong interest in the maritime security and the territorial claim among those islands. this is a chinese maritime strategy. >> that is an important point. what you're basically saying is this is about power. china is clearly becoming more powerful. you are seeing lines challenged. i remember talking to george soros after he so-called broke the back -- broke the bank of

england and he saw the chance to drive so hard against the line that fundamentally the institutional power and the bank of england side had to collapse. i have looked at asia and these tests of powering the region. but china is more vociferous and robust, the complaints about south korean exercises this sailor detained by japan and taken into custody for a while, do you think this is china's rise to test the solvency and strength between the relationships and the more provocative question coming to your own national strategy because japan is a rate -- japan is a rich nation to but a shrinking nation. one wonders what is japan's strategy in the region with alliance and how you keep yourself vital and robust when china may be saying when you

look at what lines, japan will become less significant overtime and we will become more significant overtime. when the president obama's national security strategy was released, there was a young analyst many of us read who said america is undergoing a time of strategic contraction. he may be wrong, i would like to the counter position, but there are assessments that this is the time for china to push these boundaries out. how do you look at it in japan and is this something where china is trying to force a break? >> china is a challenger over the status quo. for the past four years, starting in a 2008, the year happened to be when the beijing olympics took place. they started sending military

vessels into japan's territorial waters surrounding the islands. my understanding is china is more aggressive in the south china sea. i think they are changing the status quo. for us, generally speaking, the japan-u.s. alliance is very important, critical. this is a public asset in the asia-pacific. this is a strong, stabilizing factor for the region. >> you run the navy. that's a cool job. [laughter] what are canada's stakes in this question about asia's pacific region -- i know that china is

an asia-pacific country. you could be a bit removed if you want, but i'm wondering what canada sees as its equities in managing and handling china's rise? >> the first thing i would say is this is my third halifax security for a i'm proud that it happens here at the heart of the baby and i hope you enjoyed the reception -- the heart of the navy, and i hope you enjoyed the reception last night. [applause] i would say canada is a pacific asia -- a pacific nation and what is happening is of vital interest to canada. china is canada's second-largest trading partner. our prime minister has visited twice in the last couple of years. ministers have led delegations there. our previous chief of the defence staff visited beijing recently. we have had very senior chinese military delegations here.

china is emerging as a global power. it is the engine of that global power is its economy. the global economy floats on a salt water. it is beginning to shift its focus to a much more maritime- flavored one. for canada as a maritime nation, it's in our interest to ensure -- to enable china as it emerges to become part of the globalized system and make a better as opposed to pushing it to a point of instability upon which would be very adverse to the flow of trade. 90% of world trade by volume floats. china is very much interested in canadian energy and national --

and natural resources. we're very much interested in building strategic trust and cooperation with china. from a naval perspective, i will give you an anecdote -- your referring to this attack two months ago. i attended the western naval symposia hosted by malaysia and had the opportunity to sit between the vice -- the deputy commander of the people's liberation army and navy and the commander of the ambassadors maritime self-defense force. a euphemism for the japanese navy. that was at a time when the island dispute was on cnn and bbc. i thought as i was sitting in between the two of thumb, here is an opportunity for a canadian -- between the two of

them, here's an opportunity for a canadian to mediate the dispute. >> how did that go? >> not too well. i spoke with a chinese admiral through an interpreter, i spoke with the admiral in english, a great conversation. but never was the bridge built or even considered. i take one of the key issues here with respect to china as they emerge as a real leading nation is the ability to build bridges, to communicate, build strategic trust and cooperation to enable every forum, the east asian summit and others, all bilateral and multilateral relationships, a real advantage to keep the volume as low as possible. >> last year, had the privilege of entering a henry kissinger

about his book on china. there is a chapter about strategic trust. i can ask kissinger if he is still kissinger because he does not allow for strategic trust. i accept i'm going to ask you are still yourself because we were talking of strategic trust. he said i would never write such a thing. he says -- i said it in the book and he said a ok then, i will defend it. we have had some quick slice is looking at this issue. is a great article in "foreign- policy" recently. he was an adviser to mitt romney and he wrote about the two chinas or two ages. he says there is a dr. jekyll or mr. hyde that is evolving. the dr. jekyll, the nicer of the two, is the economic asia and

mr. hyde is the strategic asia. on the economic side, everyone is investing in each other, $90 million including asia. but if you look at strategically, of border disputes, historical disagreements come easy real impact. india has its own problems in the region, your own border disputes. do you look at this as something you want to be deeply engaged in or do you look at this as something india can ride along and freeload let america and canada and japan handle? >> your question -- >> i meant free ride, not freeload. >> that is how the chinese would describe it relationship between japan and america.

the interesting aspect of all these countries is as india and china -- we have been proximate geographically but we have never been neighbors. in order to be neighbors, you have to either love each other or hate each other. we have done neither. in fact, in 1962, the first strategic conflict -- and you have to understand, it's hard to understand why we are not neighbors. the positions, the lines, but what do they resonate with? the positions taken by first colonial nations is we will not be bound by decisions made by colonial powers. case, that we had

to abandon our national positions. now that we are strong, we need to resurrect. the word that was in the title of today's discussion -- confusion -- i come from a country i am proud to say that we have reached high levels of confusion without confucius. [laughter] it is a very interesting that the debate on confusion is actually india and china is running on parallel lines. in our country, the debate on confusion was started by his demands -- is evidence winston churchill when he decided the moment india becomes free, it will descend into chaos. indians could