analyst discussed the federal role in education and the level of change that can be expected by the trump administration in areas such as school choice. randirs include weingarten, who heads the american federation of teachers. this for him is part of a conference of journalists posted by the education writers association. >> all right. i think we will get started. we are giving people a little bit of time, because it is a

mzae to get here. --maze. president will be joining us as soon as we get here. i'm the education reported at u.s. news. you are at the changing politics of k-12 panel discussion. thank you for being here. e w rankled a pretty awesome panelists tot -- discuss and answer your pressing questions, because there's nothing really going on in dc, right? i will leave the bio in your programs. i will run down the line. we have lindsey burke. she is the education policy director for the heritage foundation, which were those of you outside the beltway, it is a conservative think tank in washington dc. the president of

democrats for education reform. he's also a civil rights leader. next in him is marty west, an education professor at harvard graduate school of education. he was also previously in education policy advisor to senator lamar alexander, the republican from tennessee, who is the chairman of the senate education committee. a quick housekeeping note. this is one of the first panels at ewa. #ewa2017.et using everything is on the record, so it is fair game. we want you to make news. this is also being livestreamed on periscope. because we have such a big task ahead of us today, we want to provide lots of time for your questions. we are going to forgo opening remarks from the palace --

into this.nd dive i want to take a minute to set the scene we are currently in. , six months ago, how many of you guys thought we would he in this -- be in this politics and education environment we would be in today? no one? ok. [laughter] so the collective we kind of missed the ball on this. i don't think many of us expected to have a president trump, or maybe we expected a republican would be in the white house, but maybe not this republican.he is certainly doing things a little differently , as he has pledged to do. we are transitioning from an administration that really prioritized education, from the to the top, race supercharging the school improvement grant, expanding the

office for civil rights, pushing for universal k12, so on and so forth. now we have an administration that is so far having a singular agenda it seems of school choice, and is focusing a lot on rolling back the role of the federal government and undoing a lot of obama era initiatives. his recent budget proposal, as i'm sure you all know, proposed $9 billion from federal education programs and eliminate dozens, including things like teacher preparation and afterschool programs. we will get to all of that. we have an exit dictation secretary -- an education secretary who has proven controversial, whose confirmation involved in unprecedented tie-breaking vote from vice president pence. she has really gone through the ringer in terms of the last few months, being blocked by protesters trying to enter

public schools, has been booed giving a commencement speech at the soon -- but then cookman. -- bethune cookman. her main focus has been about will choice, and private school vouchers. this is happening against the -- whichof states returns the decision-making power to stay and local school districts. best state and local school districts. the law was crafted with bipartisanship that seems to no longer really exist. we will talk about that as well. despite republicans controlling both chambers of congress as well as the white house is unclear whether, any type of education legislation or any legislation is going to be able to move, given some of the intraparty fighting. we will get to that.

where does this leave us? a lot to cover. where does it leave the education reform movement, where does it leave teachers unions? should we expect any movement on education legislation? what is to become of the office rights?l and what should we all be paying attention to as we go back home and cover our education? i'm going to dive right into it. please be thinking of questions. we will save at least 20 minutes at the end for all of you. i want to start off and talk about school choice. if at the top of everyone's agenda. heritagerom the foundation, a big proponent of school choice, the whole gamut. education savings accounts, vouchers, tax credits. some people in this room i feel might be interested, or maybe not expecting, the fact that you don't want the trump administration going there. if you could maybe talk a little bit about that, and give us a

little idea of what states are doing interesting things when it comes and what should we be paying attention to. everyone: thank you for being here, thank you to ewa for having me. i think we have a great panel. on the school choice front, you nailed it. i have been a huge proponent of school choice. heritage has long been a huge proponent of school choice. it -- our perspective is all of the above. whether it is charter schools, better options, tax credit scholarships, education savings accounts, which i really think is where the education choice movement is going right now, we see and all of the above approach. a parentn that enables to select a school that fits well with the needs of their child i think is a good option.

having said all of that, prefacing this with the fact that i spend my waking hours thinking about how to advance school choice, is it appropriate for the federal government to be engaged in a large-scale push via a new national program? i think that is key, whether or not it is a new program. i think that we have a fair amount to risk by engaging in a new large-scale federal program. states are doing it on their own already. we are seeing state after state, year after year adopt new education choice options. every session we see more states that school choice. then there is a practical matter that we are all aware of, that 90% of all education funding is state and local. practically speaking, that's where the dollars are, unless you were to do a new program, which is what i worry about. if we are establishing a new

program, it is hard to reconcile the creation of a new program with reducing federal intervention and education, which is the other perspective that i hold. at least from their conservative perspective, really wanting to advance these notions in tandem, limiting federal intervention and advancing education choice for parents and children in the states. starting a new national program gets problematic in that regard, but i think it continues to solidify significantly high levels of federal intervention and local school policy, and could have unintended consequences. i think we will get into this ther, but the word on street is maybe it is a federal tax credit approach that might be under consideration. every opportunity to make a decision about what the program looks like, the federal government would likely regulate it. and the impact on the larger private school movement, what

that looks like down the road. i think maybe the view isn't worth the hike on the federal school choice push. >> i want to ask about the viability of this in congress, whether it is politically possible. we heard president trump pledge on the campaign trail to direct $20 billion in federal spending toward this big umbrella of school choice. we saw on the budget a $1 billion boost for title i for school districts that promise to allow those dollars to follow the student to the school of their choice, also a $250 million private school voucher program, which we don't know how it would be structured. and also potentially a tax credit scholarship down the road. how does this work in congress, what should we be watching for? is it a reality? >> republicans now control both

the house and the senate, and i think that let a lot of people to expect it would be politically very easy to push a major school choice and gentle -- agenda from washington. mention,idn't heritage is located like 73 feet from the senate, working very hard advocating for its position in congress. they have been very effective. there is not overwhelming republican support for major efforts to expand school choice from washington, because of concerns for what that means for the federal role. that's why we have seen in the past the house often being reluctant to even bring up for a vote proposals to allow title i first student choice, because they don't want to it exposed there is not support for that in the republican congress.

that creates obstacles to an administration that is trying to take advantage of its control of the federal government to advance school choice proposals. as you mentioned, if you ideas -- a few ideas, they are all relatively small ball ideas. there is a weighted student funding pilot program. this is a provision that exists within the law to allow up to 50 districts to apply to use that basically combine federal, state, and local funds, and allow that to follow children to the public school they attend. the trump administration currently seems to want to incentivize participation by taking a bit of existing title i formula funds and proposing adding about half $1 billion to that, and encouraging states to participate. but even that is not necessarily a school choice program.

it is really a way to try and model out a different way for administering federal aid programs, that is more compatible with school choice, but really doesn't go beyond that. that there's an uphill battle facing a lot of these are puzzles. -- proposals. >> and so far we have heard a lot about empowering states to make these decisions on their own and not relying on the federal government to do them -- you do that for them. shavar, i wanted to ask you to talk about what you have seen in , how of the implementation the stakes are sort of getting

higher at the state level, the local school district level, as some of this shifts back to their realm. of course, we are on the heels of this epic campaign spending on the out school board runoff. districters, local reporters, what should we be thinking about as some of that turns to their responsibility versus the federal government? mr. jeffries: i'm very happy to be here. i think reporting should focus on the core issues and the core work of public schools. obviously, the choice conversation is relevant and significant, but it really deals with a relatively small number of kids in terms of the overall scheme of things. particularly, outside the public charter school sector i would push. withe, particularly implementation plans, standards accountability.

what are the standards states will include in terms of what they expect of kids? are the standards aligned with ensuring that kids are college and career ready when they graduate from high school? by the standards aligned with the ongoing shifts in our labor market, which is changing at a pretty rapid rate? how our school districts going to hold individual schools, and our schools holding teachers accountable, to make sure kids are educated against those standards? what does the accountability mechanism look like? we've had a history -- and this is where people like me would support a federal basic equity -- but we have a history where kids generally have not met those standards, particularly lower-income kids and kids of color. what are states going to do to hold school district's accountable and make sure that all kids learn? whether the child has a disability, low income, maybe an

immigrant, what sort of interventions are states going to choose? schools are consistently not meeting those benchmarks or individual disaggregated populations of kids, or in meeting the benchmarks, what are the states going to do? will they just put a letter up and say the school is a c or d, or will they actually do something tangible? how are states going to make a sufficienthas number of highly qualified teachers in those classrooms? we do a lot of work to reimagine teacher preparation to really push graduate schools of education to have more clinical-based approaches, some educators can hit the ground running from day one when they had the classroom. how are states ensuring that they have a strong supply of teachers and school leaders? what are states doing to make sure that universities in their state are admitting

meaningful numbers of pell grant eligible kids? universities, kids similarly situated with academic universities many not accepting pell grant numbers. they would rather admit and upper income kid. i'm talking about kids with the same academic profile. that upper income kid can pay. many states are under revenue pressure. states push universities to make sure -- what are the states went to do to push universities to make sure it's available to all? at the end of the day, we have 400,000 kids in this country attending better schools, over 300 million attending charter schools, over 50 million in public schools. we support choice through the public education system, public charter schools with there's a

strong track record of results. it also has built-in mechanisms to ensure equity, and have the same capacities so as not to discriminate against populations. we think it's important not to lose choice -- track of that. we have so much day-to-day nuts and bolts work that we can't afford to lose track of. ithow much more important is for us to cover local school board elections? sort of moving from focusing a lot on the federal government as years prior, it's trying to rewrite no child left behind. shiftingince done that

back toward state and local school districts. what pointers can you guys give us for vetting candidates that we might see coming up, things like that? burke: if i'm a reporter, what shavar said is right. there are 400,000 kids roughly in private schools today, including doctors, education savings accounts, and tax credits. but we had just seen several states adopt effectively universal options. there isok at nevada, an injunction issue currently going through a legal battle right now working out financing. works itself out, 470 3000 kids in nevada will be eligible for an education savings account this fall. it immediately doubles the number.

eligibility will be 473,000 kits for an esa. arizona just took their savings account universal. there is still an aggregate cap, that's the trend we are seeing. states adopt education security , and families love them. yes, you can focus on -- and it is important to focus on school mayoralections and elections, but we are, i think, genuinely getting to a tipping point, particularly if nevada works itself out, if texas finally gets a school choice program in place, i think we will be at a tipping point where the focus will eat on kids who are exercising private school choice -- the focus will be on

kids who are exercising private school choice. there are things the federal government can and should do on absoluteoice, and the first thing they should do is look at the $1.3 billion impact aid program. instead of just sending that to districts, to give it instead to military having connected children, children of military families, of service members, in the form of an education savings account. immediately, we're talking roughly 800,000 kids who would immediately be eligible to exercise school choice. choice for military families in desperate need. make d.c. and all choice district. there are things the federal government can do that are completely appropriate, that respect federalism and that would do a lot of good for a lot of kids.

>> i will embrace the crux of your question, which is the state and local level. those have always been the importance of education for american kids. i would say there's only so much we can learn from the plan stage. really, when it comes to how those plans are implemented and in particular, what is done in schools that are identified as underperforming, the federal government says nothing except that you need to take evidence-based actions to improve the bottom 5% of schools at this point. really, power is in the hands of states and school districts to make those decisions.

we have dozens of states in the process in response to obama administration policies, of implement and teacher evaluation systems. it will be interesting to see what decisions they make going forward about continuing with that process for developing alternatives, taking on teacher tenure policies and the like. the relevant battles over funding are also at the state level. we get worked up about her post $9 billion in cuts to federal aid, title ii, title iv. it is large as a percentage of federal aid, but remember, federal aid is only about 10% of total funded. even a substantial cut to federal aid really does not make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. that is where the action is when it comes to funding as well. it will be interesting to see the extent to which those state and local races to become nationalized, so there was clearly an effort to do that in l.a. recently, to sort of attach

the reformist school board candidates who were supportive of expansion of charter schools to betsy devos, to trump himself . there is an effort to do that in montana. it does not seem to me that those efforts have gained a lot of traction at this point, but that is really something that opponents of the policies that the trump administration has embraced will try to use. >> let's talk a little bit about the second about the people who are still in congress who do have the decision-making .uthority over education issues i'm thinking of lamar alexander, congresswoman virginia foxx. would have said a few months ago, senator patty murray of washington, but it seems like there's been a bit of a track share in the bipartisanship that usually comes along with education issues. where do you guys see them standing on moving education legislation through the pipeline

? i'm thinking maybe a career tech ed. there is bipartisanship around that. what is realistic for us to expect? anyone can take this. >> i will start. pre-esa thatsaid the opportunity was limited, but i was surprised when it ultimately made it all the way through and got signed into law, so anything can happen. it will be interesting to see if something like a federal tax credit, new, national federal tax credit were to move forward. are there folks who do not play who weeducation space are not really considering? there's a push on the part of the administration -- i think correctly -- to kind of streamlined the tax code lower rates. does that run into a push for a new federal tax credit scholarship, which could maybe go in the opposite direction?

i say that only to say there will be interesting dynamics that operate outside of the pure education space. i think at this point, it is anybody's game. eta is up for reauthorization. we could see some movement in that direction. the calendars pretty truncated already. not super optimistic we will see a lot of access. -- the calendar is pretty truncated already. >> do you think we will see any alignment with secretary devos and the trump administration already? >> i was shocked that when the president's skinny budget came out, senator alexander made a point of saying the lack -- the last time he checked, it was congress that appropriated runs. that suggested to me that he was , you know, signaling that he was not necessarily supportive

of everything that they were trying to do. my sense is that senator alexander, in particular, feels as if he just worked very hard ,o establish a new consensus that that bill set authorization levels for programs that they want to see roughly followed because that was part of the compromise that was made to generate support for that legislation. even setting aside the fact that there is strong support from the for then establishment continuation of those funds, i think just the fact that we just did this deal means there is not much appetite for moving forward. you mentioned things like perkins, which is a separate piece of legislation where there may be opportunities to try to carve out something of a consensus, but i do not see

actually a set of ideas in that space that people are particularly excited about what it comes to the federal role. where you're more likely to see some potential would be with respect to the higher education act where i think there is a set of ideas related to simplifying federal financial aid, establishing some form of accountability for schools for there's been' success in repaying federal loans that do provide seeds of potential collaboration, but beyond that, i do not see much. again, to go back to your original question, i do not see ofimmediate embrace everything the trump administration has been talking about. >> is our friends in congress were serious about actually limiting federal intervention, which was what they sold esa on

-- we were skeptical that it went nearly far enough. if it actually did that, i think we would have seen some reductions in spending, but we did not see that at all. robustot see any real, deductions, and i think the budget cutting $9.2 billion -- a 13.6% reduction -- we reported it was the largest legal year reduction since reagan's 1983 budget. that is at least a good first step toward actually trimming federal spending, and i think trimming federal spending and trimming conditions is a necessary step. education reporters, showed some of these cuts come to light, what should we be looking for? how should we be looking to portray how that is impacting teachers, students, schools?

what do you think are some of the first things or repercussions we will see? >> i think reporters should follow the money and track the impact for kids. tracking teacher prep to college aid for young people. is before you get to some of the other cuts in this budget in terms of health care access, access to food security, in terms of access to job training programs. it is going to have a very clear impact on young people. it very clear impact on families and communities and the possibility for young people to be prepared for the economy. i think it is problematic that at a time in which the labor market is undergoing very rapid , folks expect many millions of jobs to be automated out of existence. an incentive to

disinvest in education, how we prepare teachers, educate young people or this economy, so i would encourage people to all of the impact. there will be a very clear and specific impact on kids. while we have these ideological conversations about the role of government and these more abstracted debates about philosophies of with the government should or should not be doing, i would encourage reporters to follow the facts. these policy choices being made in washington as well as at state capitals and local school districts have a clear and specific impact on young people. tough up in a very community. we depended on these programs. i spent most of my childhood and the boys and girls club because people were dealing crack in our neighborhood, and that program was financed by some of these investments. when i went to college, i did

not know who tell -- who pell w as, but i went to the financial aid office, and they knew -- they said somebody named pell was going to help me. i had perkins on and off when i went to law school. accessly depended on esa when i was six. we talked about the big block of government cheese they would give you. is this could have a very specific, tangible impact on kids, families, and communities, and i would encourage reporters to do what i think reporters do at their best, which is tell these stories. part of what concerns me is that these abstracted conversations can lose sight of the tangible impact it will have on real people. >> i agree.

follow the impact. we know from random assignment evaluation of kids participating in these programs that it has not had an impact. we have not seen the impact that program participants said we would see based on the experimental evidence that is out there. we can go on and on about some of these programs. are really serious about following impact, we have all of the data, all the evidence that shows that these programs, when they operate at the federal level just are not working for kids. it is much better to situate programs and spending closer to the people they affect rather than being operated by far off the full in washington who have never met those kids. to all caps of programs. are these programs perfect? of course not. is any program perfect? of course not. are there inefficiencies sure, but we can point to that have change the

lines of tens of thousands of young people who are overage and under credited on these investments. we can point to comparable programs, and if you are committed, you do not just cut it entirely and eliminate it. you figure out a way to make the investments and make sure the investments generate the result, but the idea we are going to cut and eliminate and that will magically create better outcomes i just think it is illogical and does not make any sense. >> moving from the money to maybe something a little more abstract, i wanted to get to really quickly before we open for questions -- this will be the last one i ask about what you guys see for the future of the office for civil rights. obviously, there have been some efforts on the part of the trump administration to curtail some of the obama air initiatives -- to examinenitiatives

places where it is overreaching and try to pull back a little but on that. there has been a lot of concern among civil rights advocates for the futurern of the office of civil rights and how it will monitor its ability to continue to monitor the issues we see popping up in states. this can go to anyone. >> the office of civil rights is something of a political football in that its enforcement stance tends to switch, depending on which party is in control, and there will certainly not be any exceptions to that pattern right now. the obama administration -- under the obama administration, the office of civil rights took a stepped-up approach to enforcing civil rights protections. what that meant in practice was issuing guidance --

nonregulatory guidance essentially in the form of "dear colleague" letters, putting districts on notice that in the allocation of resources and discipline rates, that if it were shown that there were disproportionality between students of different racial or ethnic that grounds for gender, that this would sort of -- that the district would really be at .isk of being found at fault the key question or the thing to be looking for is if the trump administration resends -- thatds -- rescinds guidance. those who argue they should do that worry that in particular, the policies around discipline have caused districts to be overly cautious in how they handle student behavior problems

, that this has unintended consequences for all students, areuding those who sort of high achievers, not involved in disciplinary issues. that is an ongoing debate. it is interesting that they have not taken the step of doing that, given that it is something they could do overnight. be interesting to see how that unfolds. >> not only should reporters look at the letters in terms of the guidance ocr provides, we have the state enforcement actions. we have already seen some resending of guidance -- some rescinding of guidance in terms of how lgbtq children should be treated with regard to bathroom access. but it is not merely the letters. it is the enforcement action. when you have an administration

committed to civil rights, we have seen significant worsening actions across the gamut of extentrotections to the certain populations of kids are treated differently based upon race or gender or other status-based decision-making. it is really what actions are being taken. jeff sessions said the administration is going to be significantly less committed to civil rights. this is bound up in a lot of states rights language. it has never been good for people of color. never for low-income people, never for immigrants when the federal government steps back from civil rights. thatof the federal laws the department of education is here to enforce are really civil rights era laws because we had states and localities that were given short shrift to at risk children, and when those children tended to be immigrants for people of color, it was unsurprising that certain populations of kids were more likely to be classified as having a behavioral disability,

for example, when we see a lot of black boys were more likely to be suspended. the school to prison pipeline is discriminatoryn disciplinary practices. we saw also to states and localities. low income children were languishing generation after generation and underperforming schools. it is not just the writing and resending of letters. actually, what enforcement actions are being taken, particularly because in many education laws, there is no prior right of action, which and theu need the feds ocr -- the whole point is to enforce the civil rights protections of these young people, so if you have an administration of committed to that, and we this administration oftentimes puts people in charge of department do not believe in, and we should not be surprised that if the people do not believe in it, they will not enforce the norms that motivates

these very departments in the first place, so i think this administration will be a disaster on civil rights. they have made that very clear. i'm not going to make -- mince words about that. i think facts are facts. jeff sessions said last week there will be a significant rollback in terms of civil rights protections which will affect kids and families. he all -- already said that nonviolent drug offenders should be prosecuted back in the way they were in the war on drugs era. that will impact kids and their families. i encourage reporters to follow the impact on these. people andbe real real families you can name and talk about how they are hit i concern,use that's my that in many of these conversations, we lose sight of the regular people who are of alling already, backgrounds, all colors, all ethnic groups, who are deathly afraid about what will happen to their kids, and their stories just are not being heard. >> the lord is yours.

there are two microphones here. feel free to come and ask your questions. please state your name. tell us who you write for, where you're from so we can give some good educated answers for you, and please ask a question. >> quick question for lindsay. [inaudible] >> thanks. great question. we did just see a new, as you mentioned, random assignment evaluation of the d.c. scholarship program, which is a voucher program in the district. i want to say roughly 1100 kids

are so in the program. it has been around since 2003, and the program did find that after one year of being in the program, kids did worse -- i think it was on reading achievement and math achievement. math achievement was not significant. a couple of cautions about that -- not dismissing it, but it is after one year. we have much more evidence that kids who persist through the program have graduation rates 21 percentage points higher than the control group, so i think that says something, but i would also caution that if you look at the control group in that study, 52% of the kids in the control group ended up finding their way to private schools anyway, so there was some pretty significant contamination in the control group, and we also have some sort of overall competitive effects. we have seen d.c. public schools improving over time as well, so just a few caveats. not dismissing it, but on the broader question about the impact, we now have 11 gold standard evaluations of school

choice programs, vouchers, and tax credits that find statistically significant improvements on academic achievement as a result of participating in a school choice program. we know that clearly, because of the study design, three find no effect and three now find negative effects. the when you just mentioned, and the other two are relatively new. they are about a your old and both out of louisiana. we could do an entire panel on about to say, was tomorrow, there is an awesome school choice panel, and you should all go to that. >> many of us have argued that those evaluations that found negative impact out of louisiana -- louisiana runs a uniquely prescript if regulatory environment on their voucher program. the list goes on and on. schools that accept a kid on a voucher have to take the state test. not just any test, but the state

test. we know about a third participate and those third suggest that maybe they were struggling prior to entry. not to toss them away, but some caveats on the negatives. >> i will be brief -- a couple of points on the d.c. if valuation. i'm actually not worried about the fact that some of the control group kids ended up in private schools because the evaluation can take that into account, but most of the control group ended up in charter schools and that is the comparison being made. another interesting thing is asked schools how much time they spend on various subjects. lindsay mentioned there were negative effects on student reading achievement. if you look at how much time the school spent on reading, it was far higher than -- in the control group schools that were charter that it was in private

schools, so the question becomes -- what are private schools using that other time for? to offer coverage in subjects that go untested in the evaluation? i think we need to be cautious about rushing to any conclusions based on evaluations of choice programs very early on after one year, and we need to look at the bigger picture. >> all right. trish, do you want to -- >> sorry. trisha crane from alabama media group. iate i have a question about special education. special education like it or not is a federal program. that's just the way it is. what do you say the role, you know, we've batted around more funding for special education, federal government has never stepped up and funded the full 40%. it's very expensive. i know in alabama they've looked at esas as a way to sort of avoid this idea that they have

to provide special education. all of these school choice initiatives seem to avoid the issue of providing special education. what -- i'm interested in your take on special education as a federal sort of function. yeah. thanks. >> i think that's critical. i mean, i think -- again ida is another of these civil rights era laws designed to make sure all kids receive a public education. and, you know, even in the public charter school sector, there's been some struggle to make sure that that right is vindicated. but there's been a lot of progress where many public charter schools have done a very strong job. some have not, just as in the district. i was involved in a lawsuit for north public schools for ten years where i have a special monitor who had to monitor the in which the traditional school district was delivering special ed because there's a lot of issues there. again, you know, what we would say is that any school that has a public dollar has to serve all

kids period. ,if you are a public charter school, any other iteration of school, if you're going to receive a public dollar you have to serve all children. and part of the federal role in partnership with states and school district is to have accountability to make sure that's happening. there's a lot of levers to insure that happens. obviously the worst lever is a , lawsuit because that means years after kids don't receive what they should receive people step in and intervene. that is something that every public school has to wrestle with. as folks talk about these new providers, that obligation has to be there. i think it's disappointing whether we talked about it earlier in the context of kids who may be lbgtq accessing a public education. some seem to believe a school that receives a public dollar can say we're not going to serve you. perhaps some may say the same thing. we don't have to serve you. we

would strongly disagree with that. that will be contrary to what we think public education ought to mean. again, what we would say if you get a public dollar you got to serve every baby that comes through that door. obviously you can have a cap. any individual school can only serve so many kids. but what you can do is pick and -- what you cannot do is pick and choose based upon the identity or a special need who you're going to serve. that's where we would come from on that. >> one point on that, i actually -- the standard that he just articulated any school that receives public dollars should serve all kids is actually not one we hold traditional public schools to. we hold school districts responsible for serving students with disabilities but we don't , say each individual campus needs to be prepared to serve every individual learner, regardless of what his or her needs are. sometimes districts make provision for the students' needs by sending them to a private school. so i think there are real questions about the ability of school choice programs that are not specifically designed for students with disabilities to

serve those students well. they need to be designed would -- with funding levels that make it feasible for them to find other alternatives. we need to be fair when we're setting up the standards we hold schools participating in choice programs whether they be private schools or charter schools to. >> resulted in a naval victory of the u.s. over japan just six months after the attack on pearl harbor. friday, american history tv will be live all day from the macarthur immortal visitor center norfolk, virginia, for the 75th anniversary of the battle of midway. s include walter ,ornemann, elliott carlson , and timothy orr.

battle of midway 75th anniversary special live from in macarthur visitor center norfolk, virginia, on friday beginning at 9:30 p.m. -- on c-span3. "washington journal," with issues that impact you, and thursday morning, a climate reporter will be on to discuss reports of the trump administration's withdrawal from the paris climate accord. then, the pharmaceutical industry and lowering prescription drug prices. also, from the wilson center, a discussion into russia and the 2016