very quickly i will jump in -- can you hear me? >> i get all the volume and you get none. >> i'm a principal. katie hit the sun ahead. as a superintendent, one of the things we have all realize about implementation is the issue we are having in classrooms and why teachers do not feel they are as prepared to teach at a higher level but the instructional shifts that are required to teach to these standards. one of the things we have to remind folks is anytime we have a country throw a name to anything, people throw darts. your summary states looking to repeal common core state standards. in maryland, we call it the maryland college and career standards. it is all the same. we have had standards for years. we have earned what standards are doing is just setting the bar for what we want students to know and be able to do. the question around the flexibility in terms of how you teach those, that is where todership has to come in

make sure that teachers and principals feel supported. i think what has happened in terms of teachers perception is that it has gone to the evaluation side of this. as the country is of limited three reforms at the same time, new standards, new assessments, and you evaluations that are tied to student achievement. we do not have the assessments yet. folks want to read it fairly. that is what they deserve. when folks think about common cher, many times they think about the evaluation piece of it. what we have to do as leaders is make sure the supports are in place, to let teachers know we're in this together. but there will be some growing pains. that is what we we need -- where we need state officials to help us get it right. the poll lets us know as a country where we are. we are very polarized as a country. i think folks perception in terms of the federal role in many issues has declined. so, this is just one additional

indicator we have that says that we have to make sure we get it right for our nation, because our economy is counting on the fact that we are expecting students to learn at higher levels. >> thank you for your question. there are so many great things happening in implementation and so many great stories out there. i do not think we are talking about those enough. you can look at delaware where the state's common ground for bringingre program is 300 teachers together every year. you can look at orlando where teachers are collaborating in support of students that are behind grade level in reading. we can look at memphis, tennessee, where teachers are incorporating literacy standards in science classes. they are reading popular articles in "popular science." were kids are learning techniques to evaluate their own work. we are starting to see

successes. you can look to kentucky. at the same time, i am a pollster by background. there were two themes that emerged for me. the first was how much misinformation and misunderstanding there is around the common core. i think each of us has spoken to that. did find that 80% of people have heard of the common core. but that is only after the question described them as national standards that guide teaching, which is important for us to remember. a other polls that ask similar question without a description, we find that fewer than half of the public has heard of them. as you mentioned, we know the people that have heard of the common core aren't learning about it from teachers. they are learning about it from cable news. they are hearing about it in overtly political ways. meanwhile, teachers in washington state are going into. theirsixth straight years with w math standards teachers in louisiana are heading back to school without knowing what

standards they are supposed to use. so i think a certain amount of skepticism is understandable. the other theme that came out for me from this poll was really consistent support for high standards. that when you described them just as standards that will help all kids succeed when they graduate from high school, there and strong support. he did not mention these questions, but i think they were important. for the people who supported the common core, the top reason they gave was that these standards prepare all students for success regardless of where they live or where they go to school. that is exactly what the standards do. but for people who oppose the common core, the top reasons they gave was that the standards take flexibility away from teachers. that is not what the standards do. we know that when we talk to teachers, they say the standards give them more flexibility to be creative in their classroom. i think there are lessons for us to take from the polls. else want to add to

that before we open to questions? >> this point is what i would like to develop, because i think there has always been, and this there's always been a tension baked into our -- our school system. historically tension between how much state government should dictate and how much local school district should be able to develop their own programming. and so, we can frame almost every issue that way. what we like to see in the poll is the growing public support for the role of school boards. but i think that is an indicator of something broader, which is that public schools are and should be the primary asset of any community. they are proud of their schools. data shows that people believe their schools are doing a good job. so, i think the message is we have to build on that. people want to see their schools

as a local community asset. they want to own the schools. they do not want them to be an outpost of the federal government. ,f that is how they perceived if the conversation is wrapped in that way, then i think it changes the discussion. schoolengaging local officials and leaders, superintendents and others in this conversation, i think we build public support for public education ina way that we lose i it is just perceived as regulations that are being foisted on local schools. bit.if you tid dig into the results, there is a lot of variance based upon political affiliation, republican, democrat, and independent. except around a couple questions. one of the questions is the grades that are assigned to the local schools. doesn't matter. same grades are the whether you are republican, democrat or independent. let's open this up to the audience. handheld microphones

that will be circulating. we ask that you wait until the microphone arrives at your station. you firstk that identify yourself. one final thing, in order to get as many questions in, we ask that you have a question or not so much a long statement. if you understand what i am asking. i think most of us do. so, who wants to be the first to ask a question? you can directed to an individual or the panelists in general. do we someone? young woman in the back here. thank you. >> greetings, everyone. my biggest question is -- you did say that. i did not follow directions. i'm the executive director for the -- a nonprofit for learning center. we deal with students in a k-12 sat and ged preparation. my question to the panel, anyone

can answer this, is what are we doing to actually infuse a better collaboration with our teachers fillin -- feeling confident about their common core and their ability to implement it in their classrooms? >> great question. superintendent, i will start off. one of the biggest things we have to do, in baltimore county we have 173 schools. the biggest change we have to make sure is that her leadership understand fully what the standards are versus what they are not. that they understand the instructional shifts we are expecting in our classrooms so they can support their teachers. in addition, in baltimore county, we have created two new positions that have been pushed in. one is a consulting teacher, which is associated with our peer review, which has switched all of our new teachers and all of her teachers that were struggling in various aspects of the profession. the other one is our stat teacher. baltimore county has an issue where we're going one to one

over the next three years. they are professional developer teachers that work with teachers. but nothing beats making sure that principles fully understand the instructional shifts they need. if they are working with teachers, they can go in and model as well. that is what we are doing in baltimore county. a i think he's given you going onf what is across the country. what is important is to understand that the shifts that are required of teachers are very big. teachers are being asked to teach in ways that they were never taught themselves. and that is a giant change to make. in some parts of the country, they are getting lots of support in making that change. they can teach. lots of support and coaching and teaching those lessons. opportunities to come together and share how it went and to perfect the lessons over time. wasd a lunch with -- who

describing what was going on here in d.c. really exciting. hundreds of hundreds of teachers coming together to work on that exact thing. but how are they going to bring their practice and lined with these new standards? here is the problem. it is very uneven across the country. providingicts are much less support than others. some have more resources to invest in that support than others. some states have provided lots of materials for their teachers. some very few. so, we are at this moment where support for making this transition is hugely important but so far, it is pretty darn uneven. so we have got a fair number of teachers across the country who are still getting too little support and are feeling very much on nerve by what feels like a gotcha game. that is the thing we have to get much more aggressive about working on right now. you mentioned collaboration.

we hear from teachers consistently that more than anything else, more time in the day, is that collaboration is what they want. and the common core provides that. it provides opportunities to collaborate across states, across school district. it provides opportunities for teachers in world district that can connect with teachers and other rural districts. we need to focus on making the most of those opportunities instead of the political questions we are talking about. teachers are trying to prepare their classrooms. they are tired of being pawns in a political debate. we can give them the supports they need to make that a reality. >> i think both are important. so we know the term common core has taken on a life of its own. i think that is a reality we have to deal with. i think the other challenges there's this conflation of standards and curriculum. i am not sure -- i am sure -- we have not done a very good job of helping the public understand

the difference. this is that tension i was talking about. it is fair to expect that students no matter where they to a qualityess education, that we have some standards we are holding everybody to. but how we deliver that needs to be something that is determined locally. i think most people would understand that. most people would agree with that. so, i think from a school board perspective, we have work to do in terms of helping people understand the difference. because if we do not answer that question, if we do not make that effort, then i think we allow others to define it. clearly it is not been defined well. >> fainted. quite question. yes, sir, in the back - thank you. great question. >> chris edelstein. are important, i want to turn to the press release that pdk put out. it says in the headline, new poll finds declining public

confidence in uncle sam's education policies. that sends the wrong message, because common core is not uncle sam's policy. that fuels the divisions we are talking about. comment? >> comment. >> there is a question mark at the end of that, right? >> we have been asked that question. i think unfortunately, and i think all of us in this room realized that the common core is not a federal initiative. ofwas created by the council chief state school officers and the national governors association. i think we all recognize that. and we have done i think as much from this room and from this podium to get that word out to americans. however, it doesn't look that way to americans. we talked earlier about americans not fully

understanding issues like charter schools. i think there's a lot of misunderstandings. i think a lot of americans believe that the common core is a federal initiative. it is in many states. it has gotten a lot of national media. so that is, that's unfortunate. that is one of the issues i think that suggest that the scores we have gotten. i do not know -- anybody else? >> it's a legitimate question. your headline, the public did not write that. s is partk parsing poll of our problem, but if you can allow me to do that for a moment. the headline talks about declining support an increased awareness, but last year's poll just said, before today, have you heard of the common core? when they asked in that way, only 38% had heard of the common core. it may be blasphemy to refer to another poll that came out yesterday, but that found that

awareness was at 35%. that makes sense. in this poll, the first the people heard of the common core was the question that asked awareness. how much have you heard about national standards for teaching? that is a question that does beg an answer. >> i would like to just comment, because i do not necessarily think the headline was that bad. i agree that the standards are not federal standards, but the reality is in the mind of a lot of people in this country, they have become federalized. because they become embedded in requirements at the department of education. to qualify for funding. when that happened, across -- it corossed the line. initiative that began in a productive way among governors and others to come up with common core, again, there were perceptions overtaken by reality. or the reality has been overtaken by the perception.

in this case, that the federal government is driving the train. they did not create it, but clearly there is a federal impact on the standards that i think is affecting how people perceive them. that fits into the larger message from the poll about the public reaction to the federal role generally. >> i think very quickly, all of us recognize that our nation's democratic is changing. browne more black and students and more more students who are on reduced price meals. all of us in this room really believe that every single kid needs to get access to a quality education. if we truly believe that, i think all of us have to watch our words going forward because we have to make sure that we do not lower the bar and raise the bar for others. 10, 20, 30 years ago our country we leave those -- if those. we all have to lead with the charge to make sure that equity stays at the forefront.

when the federal department says states have to have college and career ready standards, they did not say they needed to be robotic common core. with that being the case, we have to make sure we keep that in mind. lastly, students do not start at one school and finish at the same school. because there is a huge mobility rate, even within baltimore county, 27% of our high school students start at one student and did not finish at that school. 40% of our school do not start finish.ame school and if we do not have some type of equity, even successful school systems like baltimore county. >> susan, do you have a question? right behind you. at pearson. what do we do know that time and

support is not just the district issue of what school districts will provide the teachers. as it is a federal issue well, and a state issue, in terms of the ways in which teacher evaluation and student evaluation on the new standards are adding to the concerns, adding to the negativity about the common core state standards. peoplele aside, i think agree the state standards are good standards when they just look at the standards. but it is these other pieces that seem terribly unfair, not just to teachers by two parents who worry that suddenly their child is not going to do well. what can we do about that? you certainlyd know this from your work over many years and many school district, the sort of two pieces of this and they are the ones that i alluded to in the beginning. one is that there is a fundamental state responsibility here largely to make sure that

teachers across the entire state, including all school district, get the kind of support they need to move ahead. and that has got to be through some sort of combination of state assistance in terms of materials, and sample lessons, and training, but also monitoring of what goes on at the local level so that there is public information about how much support teachers are getting. some states are doing this through good surveys. most states are not. so it is a hugely important, for us to make sure that teachers are getting the support they need. .ut a second issue is one around timelines and the reality is that was not enough careful thinking looking across these multiple reform strategies that were put into place at the timeline questions and what we have ended up doing is telling teachers we are going to evaluate them for the first time based on how much their students grow on an assessment they have

never seen on standards they are barely prepared to teach. that was a fundamental mistake. and that has got to be fixed, so teachers feel like, and parents agree, that this is a fair timeline for both adults and kids. >> i think we also have to start giving teachers, parents, and students more credit, because what this poll show s is that it's not that people hate testing. they hate the tests that their kids are taking. it is a different thing. the more we can talk about the new tests and what they do better, the better off we're going to be because again, it is not testing the people do not like. it is the test that kids take that do not have anything productive that comes out of them. and that is starting to change. the more that we can raise awareness, the better. >> one comment. i think it is fair to say that everybody in the public education system needs to be held accountable for performance.

we are operating system that is funded by tax dollars. but i think the question we are getting to hear is how is that done? a perception that teachers, for example, are going to be held accountable on the basis of a single test, that does not work for a whole bunch of solid reasons which i think most of the public would understand. there is so much being wrapped troubles people at various levels. so i would agree with the comments, but i want to be clear. i hope we would all stand for areuntability, for how we performing as a system. we owe that to the public, but i think we also owe the public a good, reasonable discussion about how that can happen in a way that actually measures to performance. a simple test is not do that. -- does not do that. >> yes, sir? >> hi. michael robbins. there is a common theme here.

when we see pushback, whether it orcommon core or testing data, our media response is we have not done a good enough job at selling the benefits to parents or students. they just do not understand. i think we are going to make that shift -- we are not going to make that shift until parents and students see how it benefits them. i'm interested if you see any districts or schools that are making progress and that. really looking at common core standards as a way for students and families to understand in advance their own learning. >> i'll jump in. in both work on a we have what we call parent university. we have done a really good job. i think we can do a much better job in informing our parents what the standards are versus what they are not. making sure as they leave there, they understand so they can talk about it when they around the kids. the second thing is we are

having instructional shift conversations with them on what they can do in terms of homework support or support at home so they can actually have an understanding of what their child is doing during the day. i have talked to parents he said , wow. please to do that in math when i was in sixth grade. now my third and fourth grader is doing it right now. yeah, your child will be on a path to over one much sooner. we are not just saying it is a middle school problem. i believe the school system has to set up a system -- has a set of systems in place where parents get that information, but they understand what supportive home needs to look like. because the conversations around all of this begins to shift when they feel confident in what we're doing, but they feel confident that they can support and health at home as well. question is ar smart one, because it is saying we are not doing a good enough is a copout.ting i mentioned a couple examples earlier. you can look at kentucky were readiness has grown. orlando, the students behind grade level, are starting to rise.

the standards are still so new and implication is so new. it will take a while before we have thomas of old games like that. -- we have demonstrable gains. what they are focusing on is increasing the communication. one of the virtues of the common core is that it gets everyone on the same page for what students should be able to do. there are districts that are sending home postcards on the first week of school that parents can put on the refrigerator that shows at the end of the year ease of the things your kid should know. week by week, these are the things your kids should be able to do. that helps get everyone on the same page and working together. ityour question got something that was particularly important, though, and that is the student part of the partnership. every year our organization identifies a handful of schools across the country that served very, very poor kids that hit it out of the park in terms of student achievement. >> we got one. >> sure. clear abouteen so

those schools is how much they get the student engagement part. that helping students to see themselves as active participants in the learning process and to begin to chart their own progress is at the these schools succeed. what has been interesting for us, though, is the schools have always done that, even with the old standards. but one we visit them now and they talk about how much better that works with the common core, in part because both teachers and kids agree that the focus of the common core is on what is important, not just all that e olde stuff that was in th standards. so their argument is that these new standards help them do what they have always done well, and that is really engage students in taking responsibility for their own learning. these standards help them do that better. >> a quick comment.

i was with some students who were in a school that was fully implementing the standards. and they were so enthusiastic about the instructional environment and what they were doing. the engagement. best ambassadors for us to explain what this means and why it is important. when i talk about doing a better job, i appreciate your comment. it is not about a copout. we do have to do a better job of communicating what this is and why it is important. >> we had a question over here. yes, sir? >> good morning. howard county public schools. wanted to go back to a, that was mentioned about teacher support. just wondering from the panel if you could give some insight. we often are talking about the common core from a k-12 perspective, but as we look at teacher support an preparationd, we are wondering if there has been any conversation connected to higher education in terms of how we are preparing our teachers coming out. we often in public education veteran or more

seasons teachers for not being up to par, up to date with some of the new teaching strategies, but we are also finding in public schools that a lot of our new teachers coming out are still struggling with this educational shift. so i just wanted the panel to maybe comment on what connections are we making at the higher education level as we are looking at teacher preparation? >> i'll start. i want to thank my colleague. howard county and baltimore county our neighbors. in maryland, -- we are fortunate council that-20 has pushed this conversation forward. at the state level, the conversation is starting to happen. but what we're doing at the local level and school superintendents know where the are coming from.

we had conversations with towson university. let's have a conversation about what you are not getting from your graduates. so we can have a true partnership in terms of how we redesigned both systems to make sure we are beneficial of others. towson're doing with university, starting next school year, we are totally designing our school of ed. their practitioners will be retrained on what common core is and what it is not. ao, we know we have responsibility to train the 9000 teachers we have currently. what we cannot do is that two or three years down the road we have to retrain people because we are not getting what we need for institutions. so i get really excited about that. what concerns me is that is happening in the silo. that conversation is not happening statewide or on the national scale to make sure that folks are truly trained. because if you look at the practitioners at the university -- i should not say practitioners, but the professors who are trained the of teachers, in some

cases they have been out of the classroom for 15 years if they have been in the classroom at all. the challenges in the past, as you know, is that when you went to talk to the ed program,eacher the common response was often, our teachers go everywhere. they go across state lines. if we are in pennsylvania. they go to 50 different states. so we could not possibly just do pennsylvania standards, because after all, they go everywhere. one of the great advantages of common core is it takes that excuse away. for the vast majority of teachers, they will be teaching the common core standards. sorry. the question, though, he comes, ok now that the excuse has gone away, how much early proactive activity are we seeing? here i think there are some bright spots, but the recent nationalne by the

council for teacher quality of institutions across the country looked at their very question of strongnot a lot evidence that the changes are actually being made. so, we need to be a on institutions that prepare teachers to make sure they are prepared as well as possible to teach to these new standards. >> i'm liz graham. i'm interested in the result that shows so many parents are frustrated with testing. maybe you brought a nuanced reading of those results. i'm concerned about what that means for accountability. state district and school accountability.

i'm interested in what you see this meaning for accountability in the future. wherestion words matter. the question that drew doubt was the one around do you think standardized testing helps teachers to teach children better? were skeptical about that. given the quality of some state test their skepticism is well founded. but when you look at how they thought about things like tests for grade promotion, the ap test, test for high school graduation, it was strong support. what we're seeing in this is consistent with what we have seen in general. the american people actually

support testing. they think there has been too much. they are not wrong. one of the questions for me is how do we make sure that we are only administering the tests that actually are critical to both helping teachers in terms of improving student learning but also helping with this role of public accountability and get away from the kind of extra add-on testing that many districts have done defensively or to keep a timeline going, forgetting the over whelming burden that imposes is a problem. focusing on the tests that are important for both student learning and public accountability eliminating the unnecessary one. making sure the tests we are giving are actually good ones. that is the answer. testing istity of only half of the equation.

the other part is the quality. we know people want tests that are a tool. people accept that testing is part of learning in life. what they say over and over again that they want is that tests that are a tool for learning and teaching. people are very comfortable with tasks that can inform instruction, and test that are early checkups to find out when a student needs more help or is ready to move on. there is a measurement aspect people are comfortable with. the tests have to mean something and do something productive. >> it really is at a high level of fundamental frustration about teaching to the test. if teaching is what it is supposed to be, it is a feedback tool and a means of helping the teacher work with the students to move them along. i don't think there is

opposition to that. what i hear is teaching to the test. the perception that is what is driving this. i don't think people are comfortable with that. we have had a lot of experience with this. from my own experience out of pennsylvania, we have places 15 items andere standards around third grade math. what are teachers supposed to be teaching? what are students being accountable for? we have to have a conversation about this. people believe in the concept of standards. people move all around the country. we have to have some assurance about that. but we are also seeing a sense that people want schools to be places where students actually learn, where they thrive. there is a frustration that it is all about the test. that came through in this poll and as long as that is the perception, we have a lot of

frustration if not opposition to what we're doing in public education. testing is overtaken teaching. that is the problem. >> let's remember why. overtaken teaching is we don't provide teachers with a curriculum they can teach in confidence. we have only developed countries that make teachers make it up. he gets back to the issue of support. we badmouth those who teach to the test but the reality is that is the only thing that many of them feel like they can do because standards don't provide enough guidance for teaching. this is the whole issue of are we providing enough curricular support for teachers so they do not have to make up what they are going to teach and guess what is going to be on the test? americaan issue where

has gotten it very wrong. our teachers feel like they have to make it up. we have got to fix that problem. it is coming up. -- [indiscernible] [laughter] change would like to -- >> i would like to change the discussion. -- [indiscernible] but i am reassured by the questions around parents. i am stunned by the high number of parents opposed to standardized testing but opposed to the common core itself. i think if we don't get that right we are going to lose the

core. there are school districts like baltimore where you parent involvement, you do a lot of work. i would like to change the discussion. scorecardng at the around education of this administration. if you were to recommend to arne duncan how to get, before he leaves office, how to get an a, what would you recommend the u.s. department do differently to regain the confidence? >> let me jump in on that. it is a great question. feeling onrtainly a a part of a lot of local school officials that the federal government is dictating what they should do.

the overreach issue, this is not a political statement, the local school board members that i talk to, all over the country, there is a feeling that the federal department of education is outside of its lane in terms of dictating what school should be able to do. not even through the regular regulatory process through things like calling letters and other statements that are driving policy without an opportunity for a full conversation. that is number one. secondly there is a sense, when you go to places where there are school -- small school districts , they are not in the position to implement some policies in the same way others might be. there is a strong feeling that n ear,is a 10 year -- ti that policy is inflexible. at some level i think they are

well motivated and what they are trying to do. but the fact of the matter is i think there is a fundamental disconnect between what they are saying and what they are directing school districts to do , and how districts actually operate. there is respect for local schools. they feel disrespected. >> let me provide a slightly different perspective here. when i think about federal is important,e it i think about it as leverage, important leverage to help education leaders to do what they know they need to do but it is often hard to get done. that is especially important around issues of equity and the

federal role has been most important there. sending a message to school systems that all kids have value, all kids matter any have to do better by the groups of kids you have ignored in the past. whether you are talking the kids of color, poor kids, kids with , that role has been important. even though it makes some people uncomfortable. it makes lots of people uncomfortable. that is why federal leverage is important. this administration has shows to usehas chosen leverage less frankly on those issues but on other issues that most education leaders think are important. certainly the effort to create common core standards as you note that not store the federal government. the federal government putting leverage behind comes with career ready standards.

push to evaluate educators, leaders and teachers more honestly, is a push that most leaders appreciate. the issue of really putting energy in turning around historically low performing schools is a push that most leaders appreciate. but they don't appreciate is the way this push occurred. administrative detail, much more management of innards than is typical. i think it is important as we think about this, the argument is not that in order to get an a, the federal government should abandon those important pieces of work. i think most people would argue it shouldn't. what it should have done, the more careful about not

micromanaging the details and getting the timeline to be more fair and sensible. there was a rush to do this because it is important for kids. i think that this reality of how complicated it is to ask a big systems to do this well was underfunded. fair timelines that have a sense of urgency because kids can't really wait. they don't get beyond what people can reasonably get done. >> if i could make a quick comment, i don't disagree. but maybe we are talking to different leaders. there is, what is missing here the role of the state. education should be fundamental a state responsibility. the federal role should supplement that. even state leaders are frustrated by the federal role

we are seeing. i completely agree on the issues of equity. there is an important federal role. but there is a sense that it has outgrown itself and it is driving education policy at the state and local levels. the poll we are discussing today indicates the public isn't comfortable with that either. >> i'm not sure the public will ever be comfortable with the push on it when he. the only way we could get an a is to abandon that pressure. i don't think anybody wants that to happen. i certainly hope not. the question is, the leverage beyond leverage created it got into more of the innards and the timelines and is probably the right thing for federal policy to do. that doesn't mean what it attempted to do is wrong. most agree it is right. how do we get the balance back where it belongs?

we are a set of school systems that educate 1.1 million students around the country. they are different from the councils of city schools. what we say to each other is our school systems are changing and we are a majority of minority school systems. we have been working to work with the administration and members of congress to reauthorize no child left behind. we agree that needs to happen. thate pushing on the fact what is the federal role, the career role should be ready standards for every single child. then allowing states to develop accountability systems in conjunction with a department that will measure that. then allowing the support of the state and local level to get it done. we have been allocating for the fact that the federal role in

education is needed. unless there is a federal push around equity it is not what happened. some states will take it more seriously than others. the federal role does matter. that is why they have to ship -- shift to feel supported in the federal levels. what's your question was about looking forward. there is a deep and abiding thatve among americans education should be the great equalizer. standards are what equalize education. that is the focus that we need to keep now. states, school districts, individual classroom teachers can decide how to get to those standards. those standards make sure that every student in the country graduates college ready to succeed in college and career.

>> thank you. all of the responses you have talked a lot about the role federal, state, local entities, and about the need of practicing teachers, parents, and students to support the common core. show you now so shall the rollout was done not by political leaders by -- but by corporate leaders. corporate leaders don't have much credibility in this area with parents, practicing teachers and students. what can be done from what you see in this poll and your experience to get practicing students parents, and to be promoters of the common core. >> we need to elevate the voices of teachers.

in your introduction you mentioned teachers don't feel like there -- their voices are heard. we see teachers don't feel it their voices are heard outside of their individual school. we need to do whatever we can't elevate the voices of teachers, parents, and students. they are really busy. they are teaching and learning. they are supporting their kids, supporting their teachers. that is a challenge. we need to figure out how to do that more make sure teachers don't feel they have -- so teachers feel they have a voice in what is happening. >> there is actually a bit more. you seem to be suggesting that nationally the only voices that got hurt around common core have been business voices. i would challenge you on that issue. actually,ates,

especially states where this issue has heated up, the the port of common core has calmed not largely from business people but from classroom teachers. -- they areming filming videos in their own classrooms. there is actually a lot of grassroots activity among teachers who believe these standards are vastly superior to the earlier versions in their state and are fighting for them. places,o late, in many but the only voices out there are not business voices. >> one other comment, if i may. there is a lot of concern on the part of some people about trying to profit from public education. strongly onng back

the profiteering notion. i would also say it is important that others are engaged in this conversation about standards that we are expecting. it is unfortunate people see it given my business leaders. his is coming from a lot of folks who have embraced this movement as something that will fundamentally ensure the equity issue, and move education for. welcome theinly engagement of the business community around that. we need to make sure we have , most notably students themselves who can be talking about the importance of the standards. >> thank you. this is a quick question to you. we talk about equity and

diversity, and language. it is puzzling to me that all the questions were asked in english. in rural america, it is becoming more multicultural and multilingual. ,t may be an issue of resources but i'm wondering what voices are lost in this conversation, particularly with parents when other options. >> it is one thing we are trying to address. you will see we are addressing that. it is a resource issue in terms of coming up with the second strip -- second script in spanish. we do not have the resources now. it is something we want to do. we have put up our website for support to make that happen. it is a point well taken. >> we promised panelists a

chance to have a final wrapup. each individual. we are at that point of the program where we should allow that to happen. i will allow you to decide who wants to go first. address issues that didn't come up in questioning, it is your microphone. [indiscernible] first of i appreciate the opportunity to be here. a couple of closing thoughts. i want to be clear, i think the federal role in sharing equity is essential. we embrace that. our concern is that it has gone beyond that. as katy mentioned, it is how we operate programs. it has reached too far. something else i would like to public education

exists everywhere in this country. each stately, decided on its own for different reasons that it was important that the education system be led locally. i think that local leadership role for school boards is critical. i think it represents something bigger than local control, a warden try not to use. it represents community ownership and public schools. people want to see these schools as their assets, something that is strengthening their community. the leadership of local school boards is critical to making that happen. their voice needs to be heard. it needs to be reflected in the conversations about policy. our goal is the national organization is to help ensure that these local officials are in conversations with state and federal officials to make good education holocene. -- s a truly

i think that is where the public starts getting concern. in my view that is what is reflected in this poll. bare know that may be a majority of people have even heard of the common core. , have learned about it from media sources and facebook. that is driving a lot of the conversations that we are hearing. i will ask you to imagine what this would have looked like if we had more broad awareness of the common core. that was informed by teachers and educators. seeone thing that we

consistently in all of these fors is strong support consistent standards that make sure all kids are ready to succeed when they graduate from high school. >> i will pick up a bit with this thought. the changing complexion of america. this is the first school year in american history where a majority of our students are students of color. we have not as a country done well by those students for decades. we need to. both to assure their future into a sure our national future. it is very clear that having some common standards is critically important piece of making sure all of our children, not just some, live up to their promise. we have still a better job of making sure the american people connect around making sure the zip code doesn't determine education quality to these

common standards. medication is much more important than people even knew of the time. support for teachers are critical part of making this work. we have to do a better job of making sure we understand connect these things. we have to make sure we do a better job of providing teachers with the support they need to teach a curriculum with confidence. >> three quick things. thank you for doing this area if we are going to remain the foremost superpower in terms of our nation we have to make sure education is right for every single kid in our country. s, makinggraphic change sure all voices are heard. the third thing is, making sure that our teachers feel like the

voices are heard in a way that matters, and is cared for. --t is the reason why police why perceptions may be the way they are. parents are going to go to their child's teacher before they go to the child's principal. they want to make sure that teacher feels supported. we have to make sure that we have curriculum and resources to , which will lead to higher results. >> thank you. join me in thanking our panelist today. [applause] for we want to thank you outstanding excellent questions. thank you. [applause] end with a couple of

announcements and some thank you's. thank you to our friends at gallup, we have enjoyed working with. director at gallup education, and codirector of the tdk yellow pole -- gallup poll. we have several staff that are involved. richardson, and ashley kincaid, the executive director of our collegiate honor society. notave other staff that are here that were instrumental in this. greg patterson, managing editor to her -- editor of content. also, our graphic designer who helped us put together several slides.

finally, i would be remiss if i didn't think my wife, irene, who is in the audience. a lifelong educator. in is been supportive helping us. and our daughter jennifer who works in research, involved in policy. three final announcements. there is a lot more information at the tdk whole -- pdk poll. something brand-new this year, we actually held back half of the results for a second report that will be sharing with everyone on september 16. results we have in the second report are going to highlight findings about teacher evaluations and preparation. support for children, undocumented immigrants, college affordability, and the importance of college and americans perceptive 80 to

school change. there is good information coming out in that. my final announcements, the board knows this, i will retire next june. this is my last time to find -- to announce the findings. i can remember the first time i saw the gallup poll. ira member taking that poll, and we have to look at the graduation requirements. it has been a joy and honor for me to be able to work with the gallup poll for the last 10 years. it has been a highlight. thank you very much. thank you. [applause]

x coming up, conversations on this year's new york idea festival. ceo, organ stanley ceo and andrew mcafee. on the next washington journal, the brookings institution discusses the organization's report on poverty and how it relates to current events. we continue our look at presidencyohnson's with a discussion of the air quality at. , and environmental law professor.

>> 200 years ago on august 24, 1814, british soldiers routed american troops just outside of washington dc. leaving the nation's capital wide open to british forces. night, the story of anthony pitch talks about the burning of washington, live on american history tv starting at 6:45 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> this month, c-span presents debate on what makes america great, evolution, and genetically modified foods. issue spotlight with in-depth looks at veterans health care, irs oversight, student loan debt, and campus sexual assault. new perspectives on issues including local warming, voting rights, fighting infectious from america's historic

places, find our tv schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you were watching. us at comments at c-span.org. join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> from the annual new york ideas festival, cancer biologist andrew hessel on how dna technology may help cure cancer. this event is hosted by the atlantic and the aspen institute. it is 15 minutes. before lunch, i will give you a quick rundown of some of my world. i am a cancer biologist, genetic scientist. i will run through a few things about cancer and drug development and some of the work i have been doing that i think you will find interesting. i am with a group normally known

for design with a brand-new group in that company focused on bio design. cancer is a relatively straightforward disease, even though we accumulated a large body of information on it. strip it all down and it is cells that have had their dna corrupted. if it keeps growing and starts to spread to the body, it can crash the network essentially. the problem is, when you think about it, cancer is an infection, not with the microbe or a virus, but with one of your own cells who have gone rogue. 100 years ago, we did not worry quite so much about cancer because it was bacterial infections that can do kill us. small cuts, accidents, etc.

we had nothing to fight it with. this molecule is discovered in 1929, penicillin. it was a game changer in the world of medicine. it still took a while to get it up to production in commercial volumes, but once penicillin and its chemical cousins became available, suddenly we did not die from microbial infections anywhere near as much. today, it is quite rare. we do not even get a day off of work. this was a major life-threatening disease. cancer is treated in a completely different way. the look of a patient, the hair falling out, that is the

treatment. it is not necessarily the cancer. we completely obliterate cells in a nondiscriminatory that are growing quickly. more modern medicines are targeted. medicines really key in on specific molecular pathways. they are very focused and they tend to use alongside chemotherapy, but when they work, it is as phenomenally different to the treatment outcomes as penicillin and bacteria. phenomenal response. unfortunately, we do not have a lot of these magic bullets. we all want more of them. we are not going to get them. here is why.

this is a 60 year trend in the outputs of drug development draft out as billions of dollars invested in r&d for new drug. this is an exponential graph, but it is not the graph we like to see in digital technologies. this is a negative exponential. what this means is that over the last 60 years, we are getting dramatically less drugs per dollar invested in drug development. this is not one company. this is not one business. this is an industry that is not able to make its products faster and better and cheaper. this is something we expect from every digital technology, even though drug development is very

high technology, it is really not giving us the medicines we need. last year, only 27 new drugs were approved. 27 for all diseases. the business model of the pharma companies is not hard to understand. it is the same one used by hollywood. they find interesting projects and they bring them in-house and then polish them, they get them through sensors, the fda, and their marketing and advertising teams start to work to deliver it to the public. it is long and risky and expensive, which is why, like hollywood, drug companies choose to seek blockbusters. when you think about it targeted medicine, they are more like those little indie art films, not a big audience. if you are making a niche drug, the result is, it ends up being

phenomenally expensive. it is hard to get the insurance companies to pay for it or for an individual to pay for it. the best medicines in depth helping the fewest people. kind of ironic. i started thinking about this a lot, how could this trend he reversed, how can we make a drug company that truly made faster, better, cheaper medicines and start to generate cancer drugs? you want to beat cancer, make better drugs. if i see everyone going one way, the whole industry is over on the side, mass-market drugs, i go the other way. i ended up creating an experimental drug company that

was completely different than anything else. it was a cooperative drug company, completely open sourced. no money involved. i do not need any money, i do not want any money. that is not the case for me. i really wanted to focus on one person at a time rather than a mass market. no two cancers are the same. the cancer is your cells infecting your body. the second thing, if you make a drug for one person, all the really expensive and time-consuming parts of drug making, getting it through phased clinical trials, are relevant. risk and benefit reduces to a single individual.

it is simply a drug for one person and one cancer. that is a much easier problem to solve. i also had a big tech knowledge he in my back pocket as a genetic engineer. genetic engineering is getting really cheap. my goal was, can i make the most advanced medicines in the world using genetic engineering for the lowest price possible? i do not think free is so crazy. 1995, evening away a free e-mail account seems really strange. the challenge for me is i had this tool, i had this problem cancer that had not been solved. what drug could i possibly make that was cheap enough to do for one person at a time?

it is a virus that breaks apart cancer cells. it turns out there has been about 30 years of r&d. the basic idea is it is a really weak virus. quite a common one, usually. if it infects a normal cell, the normal cell shuts it down. it is so weak that a normal cell has the defenses to say go away. breaks apart and never starts to replicate. cancer cells are broken cells. they are corrupted and it turns out some of those corruptions leave them vulnerable to weak virus attacks. the virus starts to grow in the cancer cell, breaks the cancer

cell, and releases more virus. it is hijacking the cancer cells and turning them into drug factories. the problem with this, your immune system recognizes all viruses as foreign and intends to shut them down. the real breakthrough in the last decade, we have learned how to keep fighting the cancer. some of the companies are getting a lot of success. at the end of the day, cancer cells just get a cold. you don't get all of the dramatic effects. i want to find a way to make these viruses faster, better, and cheaper. i was inspired by a 2003 paper on the genetic scientists and his research partner and nobel prize winner.

in december of 2003, a computer designed a virus. a very safe little virus. it just kills e. coli cells. they could print out the dna of the virus and they could boot up the virus to make virus particles. this was the whole protocol. it reduces down to design of a genome, the build of that genome and the test of that genome. it took two weeks to do this work in 2003. that is with some brilliant genetic scientist. i work with this design company and we make really cool design software. we've been working on a project called project cyborg. it is for all forms of bio design, molecular design, dna

origami. we took that bacteria and we modeled it. we are really good at 3-d printing. we printed out some of these little virus particles. so cool when you hold them in your hand. there are molecular jigsaw puzzles. we also use the same tools and technologies that we use for 3-d printing. we sent it to this company, one of the best dna synthesis companies around, and a number of other companies. could you make this genome today? it turns out they could. they sent me these genomes. they had to push their synthesis

machines to the limit, what i was able to boot up with some colleagues these synthetic viruses. this is a growth plate. this is a synthetic genome booted up by a company, a software company, because viruses are biological software. i did not have to go on to the lab to do this. it was all digital. here is what i see happening in the future. we already have this digital diagnostics and the ability to get cells out of a patient. that is very straightforward. we can see a cancer genome in less than a day. you can feed into an auto design program. they can go to a printer to print that viral genome and we can get that in two weeks for $1000 and print costs.

that allows us to make a virus that we can test on one-person cells. if it kills the cancer cells and does not hurt normal cells, it passes, and it could be used as a treatment. we are testing this -- we would love to do veterinary studies, but this type of approach could get into humans very quickly because there is already such a foundation. here is something -- because we can really open source the entire design process, it is just software. you do not need a lab to do this. the amazing part is, the cost of writing dna is falling so rapidly, it is remarkable. it cost $1000 to make that virus. next year, it will cost about

$10. the year after that, maybe one dollar. instead of just making one drug and taking 10 or 15 years, why not a netflix model? change the fda requirements about approving a single drug. if these tools keep opening up, there is nothing to stop people from making their own drugs. we see phenomenal amounts of creativity coming into the 3-d printing space. i want to see every drug maker come from the maker community. i want to see it done fast and cheap and i want to see these

amazing medicines be available for everyone. if we do that, we will beat cancer. we have been fighting it for so long, we forget we just might win. thank you. >> now remarks by hbo ceo richard plepler. this is 20 minutes. >> let me invite to the stage two awesome guys. let me say a quick word about willy giest. we talked about disruption in innovation. i do not know if anyone knows this, that he is cloned. he is both the cohost for the "today" show and "morning joe." they are on at the same time basically. and the ceo of hbo, richard pleplar.

[applause] >> how is everybody doing? richard, you sold the place out. we were talking about what a cool event this is. it is a lazy susan of ceo's. let's talk about hbo. as a think about the history of television and what has been called the golden age of television, i am curious where you trace it back. some people say it is "oz" in 1997. >> everybody assumes "the sopranos" was the catalyst, "sex and the city" was the catalyst, "the wire" was the catalyst.

i think the tipping point was back in the early 90's with "the larry sanders show." [applause] what gary shandling did is he said to the world, you can do something with a truly original voice and you can differentiate yourself from everything else in the media. i think what gary did was he opened the door to a lot of other auteurs who saw the attention he got in the creative community. people were watching what he was doing on hbo and saying, wow. i can try something like that. i think he opened the door to what became the modern hbo. >> why did it take so long for us to get there?

>> in fairness, the model of television and hbo are very different. television, they are selling advertising. that is the way they measure success and that is the business model that informs their decision-making. our model is we are selling a brand. what we are trying to do every day is elevate that brand and we believe if we elevate the brand and create more addicts across a wide range of demographics, we will serve our brand and we will grow our business and build our model all over the world. that is a very different raison d'être. i am coming from a lunch with the great steven soderbergh who's doing a show for us that will be on cinemax. steven, who is a great artist,

said the liberation i feel working at hbo with excellence as my metric, that is an extraordinary thing. whoever you are talking to in our family, that is a very liberating dynamic. that is our blessing. >> you are attracting people who have been at this for a long time. you mentioned "candelabra," michael douglas comes to mind. >> michael's line to me was, i have been doing this for 40 years. what is in the water here? everybody who i encounter at your company, the marketing

team, the pr team -- all we are trying to do is create the best product that we can. that is a very liberating dynamic inside the company. we do not wake up the morning after a show premieres and say, what is the number? we wake up and say, did it deliver on our expectations of excellence? i said to barry levinson, congratulations. he said to me, why are you congratulating me? i know it is brilliant. i've seen it. that is all i need to know. i've been at this long time and you're the first ceo of the network or studio who is ever said anything like that. that is not because i am more noble, it is because that is what defines success for our brand. globally as well.

the questions in the level of sophistication of the questions about our artists, the producers, about we are trying to do, it is as if they live in los angeles or new york and they are every bit as expert on what the brand stands for. >> [inaudible] there we go. thank you. a case about it not being the numbers is "girls." in a single night, it would be a

million. that is not a huge number. that show is critical to your success. >> they are high-quality shows reaching a particular -- i look at it this way. we have 43 million constituents across hbo and cinemax. we are trying to create more and more addicts among those constituents and we are trying to build a new generation of viewers. for some people, "silicon valley" is the reason they subscribe to hbo. for some people, it is "veep." some people are watching boxing. some people are watching our movies or documentaries. it does not matter to us if a subscriber feels an emotional connection, a passionate engagement with our brand, but is what we are striving for.

you guys stand for good shit. [laughter] we are only as good as the people who come to work for us. my job, the job of my colleagues, become a magnet for the best talent to want to work. there is a competition, a lot of people doing great work. this is not a zero-sum game. as long as we are playing our game to our full capacity, which is what we think about every day, we will have more of our fair share of attention and acclaim. that is the north star. what you want is lena dunham feeling like there is not a better place to work because she is talking to her friends in the

creative community and she is saying, this is an extraordinary experience. it becomes catalytic. >> if nothing else, we walked out with a good slogan for hbo. we do good shit. so lena dunham walks into your office one day. i think it goes to what you are known for. having good instincts. walk us through the process. >> it precedes me. this speaks to our culture. a young executive in los angeles was at south by southwest and she saw "tiny furniture," which was her first movie. i believe she made it for $37,000. she took the dvd, brought it back to the team.

we all watched "tiny furniture." nobody knows that "girls" is going to be "girls." you do know that is an original voice. you know that is a differentiated voice which defines our brand. all of us looking at it and feeling very comfortable that this was something special. if it breaks into the zeitgeist like it does, nobody knows if that happens. what we knew about "true detective" is that it was excellent. 12.5 million viewers. that you cannot predict. we are looking for the two p's. we are looking to be proud and popular.

your north star has to be, are you proud of it? if we are collectively proud of the product, the scripts, we feel a shared vision, we are comfortable with that. if we stick to that, you will find you have your fair share of things the breakthrough. >> you were smart to trust your gut on "true detective." that is another lena dunham story. the guy had written a couple of novels. i do not think a lot of tv executives would've taken the meeting. >> when mike and sue and myself read 420 pages, you knew this was a remarkable piece of work.

to have matthew and woody attached to it, everybody felt pretty comfortable that this was consummate with our brand. you do not know if it is going to become such a huge part of the cultural conversation. a huge part of the cultural conversation. if you had said to me that would do 12 point 5 million viewers, i would've said to you, highly unlikely. complex,y -- it is dark. you have to stay with it and you have to pay attention. people loved it. audience.oad >> a huge audience. >> game of thrones has been a cultural explosion. in terms of your brand, it is .ice to have that show

never get your numbers wrong with richard pleplar. do you need a massive hit like that? >> it is wonderful to have something that is both a very high quality, very much on brand, and it breaks through, becomes a global phenomenon, has huge home-video attached to it. we believe in david and dan. david and dan really are

quintessential auteurs. they love the products, they know it in their bones. for george, his whole life is built around the books, to have entrusted them with the legacy of the series speaks volumes about how special they are. 78%, 80% of your viewership films.theatrical what does that mean? >> it means you have to have the movies if you are going to run a successful premium television network. takes ainal programming disproportionate share of the halo because it is the original work of our network.

the consumer still loves to atch hollywood movies for second, a third, and a fourth time. they are in the tens of millions of viewers. you put fast and furious on, you will have 21 million viewers over the course of that run. it is very important to make sure your theatrical movie lineup is there. the halo on our brand, the driving dynamic of what gives us our pricing power is the combination of the theatrical superiority with the cultural cachet of our original programming. you need both. >> you guys are ahead of the game in so many things. this business moves so quickly. what do you do to make sure you are not caught flat-footed? >> we spend about 10 seconds celebrating today. we wake up, i have a little

sheet of paper. call this the what can get screwed up today list. >> an optimist. >> you have to be vigilant all the time. the velocity of change is extraordinary. our digital revolution is a big part of our thinking. hbo go is a remarkable product. it will evolve and get better and better. we will not be caught without the ability to pivot both with we partners, because i think want to grow with them. we think there is a lot of growth left still in this business. having an exciting digital product where you can watch hbo on your playstation, xbox, ipad., that is very important for generation who are getting a

video in another place from the television. >> you feel yourself competing directly with netflix? >> we want to always evolve our own brand. what we think about is since more and more people want the option of watching hbo on different platforms, we want to make sure we have that. globally, as we improve and expand on this ip platform, if you think about a billion tablets and smartphones around the world and you imagine the option knowledge globally, where we have 85 million international subscribers, that is a very exciting dynamic. we will make sure we continue to advance the global -- the digital possibilities of the brand. aswill make sure we create many options as possible for our customer. it is all of the end of the day about the product.

yes, you want people to have the convenience of watching and on the right had or playstation, -- on their ipad or playstation, but they ain't coming there if there is not a magnet to get them there. make the content outstanding. secondly, billed as much dexterity as they can -- billed as much dexterity as you can. >> we have less than a minute. the light became yellow. give us a little hint of what is ahead for hbo. >> wonderful piece by the entourage guys which is called "baller" which is about aging football players set in miami. it is quite poignant about the end of people's careers and how they evolve. we have a show called "the brink." mash" init to "

southeast asia. leftovers, a kind of metaphysical -- you have seen the trailer. this may, the normal heart, directed by ryan murphy, starring julie m roberts -- julia roberts. the blessing for us is the line out the door of talent and artist's who want to be part of the network and our job is to keep them coming in and make sure we continue to create an environment where they can do their best work. >> just between us girls, brad pitt entre detective?

-- on true detective? >> a lot of interesting people are in line to do next season. stay tuned. >> thank you, everybody. [applause] >> morgan stanley ceo james gorman talked about the 2000 2008 financial crisis. this is 15 minutes. >> we have 16 minutes and 37 seconds, which is a version of speed dating. we will do our best to try to do about five years of financial history in this time. everybody knows who james is. we have known each other a long time. let me find in and go back and we will do this quickly.

looking back at history, a lot of chatter about what could've been done differently. i am going back to the 1990's to the time of glass-steagall being repealed, to the time when a decision was made not to regulate over-the-counter derivatives, decisions not to impose tougher capital requirements on investment banks. capital requirements on investment banks. if you take that time, the 10 years or so, what should we have done differently? >> great to be with you again. we have known each other a long time. for those of you who stayed for the banking portion, we appreciate that. i thought they were getting prizes outside as everybody got out to leave. i will try to adjust this and 45 seconds -- addressed this in 45

seconds. the country went through a period of tremendous prosperity. there is a rate wealth effect from that fall is a great wealth effect from that. it was promoted by successive governments and by the banks. the banks were complicit in standards.derwriting turned, itomy ever will lead to disastrous results. the banks themselves leveraged of their balance sheets so that there were some banks that were leveraged 60 times. if they are wrong 1.5% of the time, they have wiped out their capital. not everybody is that good when

things get grim. very poor underwriting standards, overleveraged banks, a lot of people purchasing real estate who could not afford it in a down cycle and eventually, you headed down cycle. it is ok because the banks have enough capital liquidity. guess what, they didn't. "it's a has seen wonderful life." understanding is what drove the crisis. the complicated story. ,> that is a liquidity crisis not a solvency crisis. the bank simply being bankrupt. which was it in this case? was it all liquidity? >> what happened was you had

sheets that were written off which destroys the capital buffer. institutions or individuals see the capital of their bank approaching zero, either this thing will turn around or the bank is out of business. i want my money back and i will get it back sooner. that starts a run on the bank. the customers say, we could be next. you get this cascading thing. it began with poor asset quality leading to a crisis of confidence, leading to i want my money back, leading to a systemic run on the financial system. that was the single bravest challenge to our financial system we have had since the great depression. >> should be have repealed glass-steagall?

should that have been repealed? >> no. if you step back from it and consequencesroader for the financial system, many of the institutions got into trouble. lehman brothers got into trouble. bank -- wacovia bank got in trouble. let's what about -- >> what about regulating the derivatives? >> you can always second-guess. question.ing your [laughter] where do we go from here? that was pretty swift. >> i will give you another question to avoid. let's fast-forward and get into the followed 2008 and the crisis hit the fan -- in the fall of

2008 when the crisis hit the fan . lehman brothers, the decision was made not to save it. in your mind, without the right decision -- was that the right decision? brothers, handled right or handled wrong? callthink they made the with the facts they had at the time. this government should not be the. for every financial institution out there that would encourage the reckless behavior we are trying to avoid. the government was making a courageous statement that has been second-guessed many times. i was sleeping on the couch in my office many times. we are working continuously for six weeks. you are making hundreds of decisions every day.

,ou can second-guess a bunch but in aggregate, i think they did a phenomenal job. >> they did not save lehman brothers, which meant aig went down. >> they did not have a book on the shelf. they had to do -- when you're presented with the facts in front of you, you have to act based on your experience. look at where the economy is. compare this to the great depression. that started in 1929 in unemployment peaked at 32%. it took 12 years for unemployment to get below 10%. five years after the great recession, this economy may be the strongest economy in the world right now. .nemployment is down around 6%

i think they did a lot of things wrong. i think they did a lot of things right. -- i think they did a lot of things right. australian, i only know two baseball players. [laughter] the chairman of the yankees was the guy who spent his life studying the great depression. >> nonetheless, the country is not in love with bankers, except for you and me. a lot of acrimony. >> i did not know that. [laughter] >> i am here to speak truth to power.

the question is, was there a way to avoid that? with the tarp money, should have terms? on tougher should the shareholders have had to give up more? jail?d nobody go to >> chemie hold that one firm and it -- can we hold that one for a minute? inspirational. you've of a couple of financial institutions fail and you have a bunch of other financial institutions lined up like the planes landing at newarkyou've l institutions airport. government steps in and quality, credit capital, crisis of confidence. you cannot change the credit quality. the government intervenes by

saying, not just the week bank everybody getsut capital. you all did it on the same terms. -- with.s., we gave out it came certain obligations. 21%rest rates, we pay effective interest on the capital. it was a good return to taxpayers. we went out to the market and raised the money. strengthened the institution. contrast that with europe. they did not require people to take capital. nobody thinks they will have to raise it. the european banks are still working through the issues our government solved in october of

2008. why nobody went to jail? i used to be a securities lawyer in australia. know, you have to crime.a the fact of the matter is, and i'm not talking about the ponzi schemes, bad judgment, greed,tence, negligence, these might be socially unacceptable. they lead to a lot of personal and their cement. -- personal embarrassment. but they are not terminal offenses -- criminal offenses. we have laws on the books for a reason. in the rare instances people takingne to jail, but people to jail for messing up in their jobs, you would be locking a lot of people up.

>> let's move on from that. let's talk about the present and the future. we had dodd-frank pass. one of the questions about dodd-frank, does it take to big to fail off the table? does it provide a way to wind down the feeling institution without having to do a lot of unnatural acts? is there an orderly way to deal with an institution that is insolvent? >> just to broaden it a little bit, i think of it as three pieces. up front, banks will raise liquidity and capital and cut their leverage. if you will see your doctor, diet and exercise. put the preventative measures up front. on the backend, there is an

orderly resolution authority so we do not have this lehman brothers type failure where nobody knows who owns what. thousands of pages long, but the barriers are up front. along the way, we get an annual health check up. we see our doctor the federal reserve. you pass or you don't pass. >> that is been happening with banks since the federal reserve was created. >> i do not think they were testing bank's viability in a severely adverse scenario. the parameters were much worse in 2008. -- i thoughtzed the risk of another financial crisis of happening in my

lifetime was near zero. obviously, he has some big illness because he will not be around for a while. [laughter] not true, by the way. in the last 200 years, there is been a financial crisis of sorts every 14 years. >> this is a pretty extraordinary one. let me move on. raised, and aets bank like morgan stanley compete under these kinds of regulatory restrictions when you have a whole bunch of other firms running around outside the system, hedge funds and private equity funds and pools of capital not subject to those restrictions? can you compete? do you stay is a bank holding

company? do you go back as being an investment bank? >> the investment banking industry has disappeared. there are some boutique investment banks. large scale investment banks will not exist in the future. there'll bank regulated, and they should be. there should be one governance process. can we compete? absolutely. we purchase a business called smith barney from citigroup. he will break $2 trillion of financial assets in a business. phenomenal business. low capital usage, great returns. every institution has to look at where they can get the returns.

and to adjust their business model accordingly. >> you are moving away from the capital intensive, highly regulated investment banking businesses? >> i would not say we are moving away from it. the ballast which gives us stability. the other half is the engine room. have a business model which mixes the best of both worlds. time will prove if that is the case. >> new forms of lending going on. no bank in the middle, peer-to-peer lending. there are some credit qualifications on both sides. the bank that provides the credit evaluation is out of the mix. is that a good thing or a bad thing?

>> society started off with the barter system before. the first bank was formed -- i think it is great. system,on, the payment these are all innovations. if there is a market for it and they can do it efficiently and manage the credit risk, god bless them. it going to end in tears? with a set of problems emerging? >> nothing is risk-free, particularly around money. understand thee credit risks they are taking. what really matters is getting your capital back first. >> spoken like a true banker. i have a lot more questions, but

no more time. [applause] withw m.i.t. researcher david brooks at the new york ideas festival for 20 minutes. and now we have two very fun folks. your services are no longer needed, meet the robot. andrew mcafee has one of the hottest books out on the market right now. with david brooks, author and op-ed columnist for "the new york times." at our opening dinner, david gave a riveting, sobering talk about the subject happiness. in the back of my mind, i had the pharrell williams song going on. the moral versus the economic as

we look at the machine age that is coming. david brooks. look at the machine age that is coming. david brooks. >> i ask short questions. machines think, humans think, what is the difference? >> i think we both wish that i were thomas these days. you think you have written a book about economics and then somebody shows you what that actually means. machines don't think. a the same way, there is great pioneer of artificial intelligence that said airplanes don't flap their wings. we see cool stuff going on in nature and we build machines that get theire.

geeks talk to these uber and i say, are you building artificial brains, they generally say i have no idea how the brain works. i am solving an engineering problem. there are guys who are trying to reverse engineer the brain and put that in silicon. if they are successful, it will take them along time. the terminator or the matrix nightmare is not the one i find myself waking up screaming from. >> i would prefer machine to do it or set of rule-based checklists? or -- i don't want that? hospital and i have some kidney problem and i probably want the checklist. i'm going on a date, i don't

want the checklist. >> no, you do want the checklist. [laughter] >> social life at m.i.t. skeptical about the dating example, but most of us have lousy intuition about a lousy things and are very internal compass. a week ability to look at ourselves and be objective. i am not saying we should turn over our decisions to algorithms. we should probably be using it more than we do now. do not outsource everything to a computer, that the market share of the algorithms should go up and a lot of domains. click some people say intuition is unconscious pattern recognition. >> i am one of those people.

to believe otherwise, you have to believe there is something magical or ineffable about the human intuitive ability. i do not think it comes from any soul that we have. it comes from this really weird computer between our ears. not better in every domain and the digital stuff is getting better all the time. >> now we are interacting with machines. the chess example -- why don't you describe why humans working with machines are better at chess? >> chess is a wonderful thing to look at. -- it encapsulates the seesaw