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 actually worked on these five skills. we are not currently 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 available? >> we participate in a couple of different organizations. in the process of thinking about three authorization we have been taking of this issue. 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. -- they can grow faster than the regulations and creates the poisonous dialogue. 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. -- that ability to scsale

against a 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 -- the ability to get talent as well and incentivize people to come in. the interesting thing, i think,

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 -- created some certainty that regulators could allow them -- allow them to say we're going to get better outcomes. we're not one to treat these health conditions over here. by doing that, it allows them to go up. john bailey wrote a piece for a collection, in other sectors,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. -- charter movement. 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 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.

-- because you know someone's uncle. 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. i can imagine they are in the 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. this is a challenge we hear a lot. the districts are not set up 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. -- the administration put forward a proposal for our for education. it is meant to do break through r and d been the science and technology space. -- science and technology space.

anybody knows darpa -- the commercial sector and has a but there's benefit. let me put it this way. i have yet to be clear 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 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 -- as we mentioned earlier, we have some -- other inefficiencies in the system. that constrain innovation rather than enable it.

how do we be paid in ways that -- how we behave as philanthropists to helped get dollars and played to help lower some of these barriers or mitigate some of these inefficiencies? 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 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. -- on the math side. 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 -- in the first quarter this year, a pretty significant literacy 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. -- a common evaluation across other -- all the products that make similar claims about the gains they will produce. making it an outside evaluation. this limit to the same valuation. it will be about what will be evaluated. -- public criteria 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. not only do the market signals about what is necessary or what is needed it clear for vendors or innovators, but the way in which you think about what performance actually is, it is clear across the set of buyers and demand-side actors.

>> this is a place where they will try to step into the place. -- they will try to step into this space. there is argument for the federal government to -- they can build up an infrastructure. they can learn on an ongoing basis. -- run on an ongoing basis these kinds of experiments. >> schools and school districts and volunteer to join? >> 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 ship this to something that is focused on student outcomes. one of the legitimate concerns arenella the the analogy is you might get some great products. the problem is and is not clear they will get the traction. one of the sectors legitimate concerns right now is that you -- the incentives are more aligned to adopt to fight more easily or do reconnaissance better and so

forth. it is a clear pathway to adoption than a fragment system of 50,000 district which in many ways operate where superintendents are rewarded because they did something different than a superintended next and then not that they did or did not help students. >> and thinking about the metrics question, it seems to me was learn it is doing is more inclined to -- accountability than liberal arts at a higher level. even there, it strikes me if you are a tutoring a fifth grader in english language arts, you are only probably tutoring them a small portion of what will and up on the state assessment. one question for me is if we are focusing on the kinds of outcomes -- that right now we are said to measure -- how good of a metric to capture the value are adding or do we need to think differently about what you are measuring and the metrics in

order to see whether you guys are serving kids well or not? >> i think it is important -- i think the magic is important and i think for a couple of reasons. to your point, we are normally tutoring for about 40 hours. >> 40 hours a week? >> period -- >> in the course of an academic year. >> so we are very targeted an hour instruction. if a student takes a pre- assessment and they go through and identified, say, 12 areas that they need to work on that is what we will work on for the 40 hours. the state assessment -- one more thing -- there are a lot of students when they did to our program, they are two or three years behind where they should be any way. the challenges, we have -- we have to get them up as close as we can to grade level during the program. a lot of times we might be focusing on skills that are not on their state assessment

because they are actually not on grade level at the time they are in our program and our goal is to get them as close to grade level as possible. when you think about how you measure us a -- we do not want to be measured on -- it is difficult to be measured on a state assessment if you are not necessarily going to be teaching the skills of the state assessment because you are focused on the core skills the students need to develop. but you can look at the benchmark data that you take in our program. if you are going to try to come up with a larger evaluation that takes into account may be the student's grades, feedback from the classroom teacher, we also in addition to serving public schools -- we do private schools using title one funding, and it is the same type of program, that same intervention, but instead of being an outsider we are inside the school. our teachers are embedded on the school working day in and out with the classroom teacher,

giving feedback said in the classroom teacher is letting us know -- i saw johnny is struggling with this. i know you are focusing on this. could you actually change in the construction to add this bill and as well? we are in partnership with the school teaches in the school and we feel like were actually better able to measure -- or to be measured on what is happening in the students classroom because we are in partnership. it is difficult because the standardized assessments will not work because we are not necessarily working on that but we got the benchmark data, we have what is happening in the classroom. we hear from teachers that our students are doing better after participating in the program or you have caught him up to where his class is and i could not have done it before, i did not have the resources at the time to focus on the individual skills he needed. it is a conundrum. it will take a lot of smart people in the world to decide how do we put the exact outcome

metrics, but we got to do it. it is important. i think our initial steps we did 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 '90s, states were able to opt 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. -- teachers opted to participate and sharing their lesson plans. do you find any resistance in the fact you are a nonprofit? 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. -- energy and enthusiasm 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 -- where we deal with law vulnerable populations, would we as a nation be 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 -- if you make the bar too low, you leave 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. -- full school operator underwriters, you see very different 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 -- under no child left behind, we actually 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.

we've made some back and forth 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. and that the great compromise position would be, 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? -- of no child left 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 -- supplemental 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. -- who 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.

is there a level of trust because of the entity type? 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 starting place was above scs program. it's relatively easy to put patricks in place that people -- to put metrics 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. -- as we go into the burgeoning fields, 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 -- by and large, all the different states do charter authorizing 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. >> i'm 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? -- how have you found the governance challenges in the area 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. -- in their community. district can actually choose that 10 vendors they want to work with. that was a critique a lot of them had before. they were approved at the state level -- florida,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. if ses is still around in the area. i hate that's what we're going -- i think that is 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. -- the better they are going to do. we are not opposed to the. 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. and it is not around solutions. for the administration to take the lead and judge that every -- and say we are not going to judge that every for-profit is bad or every for profit is good. -- nonprofit 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]

>> on 16 or 17 bases in the united states we have military- run schools. the average cost to educate a job in that school per year is $50,000. -- to educate a child in that school. almost four times what the rest of public education costs. and the vast majority of our bases, we use public schools. we could take the money we are spending today and pay every public school system $14,000 per child and save billions of dollars per year.

and with the same or better outcomes. >> this weekend you can talk with oklahoma senator tom coburn about the fiscal cliff, affordable care act and the future of the republican party on book tv's "in-depth." the senator has written several books and reports. join the three-hour conversation with your calls, e-mail, tweets and facebook, it's for medical doctor, author and senator tom coburn on book tv's "in-depth." on c-span2. >> coming up today on c-span, live from capitol hill with "washington journal." 11:30 a.m., senate assistant majority leader dick durbin talks about the efforts to resolve the so-called this cliff. at 2:00 p.m. eastern the u.s. house returns from banks given to work on legislation regarding homeland security and border security -- house returnsm