tv Public Investment in Education CSPAN January 19, 2017 3:47pm-4:40pm EST
industry, capitalism, everything was being made and done in pennsylvania at the turn of the last century. >> the c-span cities touring with saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and saturday at noon on c-span 3. working with our cable affiliate and cities across the country. >> next, a look at public investment in education. professors from university of virginia and harvard university. looking at the future investment under the trump administration. hosted by the brooking essence tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.iessence tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.nessence tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.nsessence tugs in d.c., this is 50 minutes.tessen d.c., this is 50 minutes.iessen, d.c., this is 50 minutes.tessen washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.uessence tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.tessence tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.iessence tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.oessence tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.nessence tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.ssence tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.ence tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes.ce tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50
minutes.e tugs in washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes. tugs d.c., this is 50 minutes.tugs i d.c., this is 50 minutes. in wa, this is 50 minutes. okay, now we will talk about education, which is at least more commonly thought of as investment in human cal tap and shouldn't be as controversial and something we will hear a lot about politically in the coming months and years and so we welcome sarah turner who again has written a paper on us that is posted on our website. university f virginia. so thank you very much. sarah?iof virginia. so thank you very much. sarah?f virginia. so thank you very much. sarah?f virginia. so thank you very much. sarah?of virginia. so thank you very much. sarah?f virginia. so thank you very much. sarah? virginia. so thank you very much. sarah? >> okay, let me get started. as everyone is coming in to sit down. first, we need to thank david and louise and kerry who just together a wonderful program and they've been good at nudging various people to do what they should on time. so i want to just start out with general comment and turn to specifics. first off, education is an excellent investment. both for individuals and for society. i think we can -- i want to make
this case in terms of an efficiency argument. okay. failure to close the gaps which are really big and growing inned kagtsal attainment is likely to both hinder economic growth and increase the burden on taxpayers over the long-term. and i think there are just two big takeaways from this pb first, money matters enormously in education. that a necessary, not sufficient condition. then secondly funding needs to be matched to a commitment to accountability and in the education space innovation. and the federal government has a big role here. okay. that said, the title of this event includes i believe from bridges to education. and it's worth noting why education is different and arguably a good bit more kpli
kited than the challenge of bridging a bridge. economics of building a bridge is tough enough in terms of the allocative problem in terms of who pays it, how do we do it at the cost, but there are blueprints. there's an engineering solution to building a bridge or building an airport. education is more difficult in that we're still trying to uncover the underlying technological process that is what we should do with different populations of students. we're learning a lot, but these are really hard problems and it's -- again, it's worth making that distinction. another sort of opening point is just about every big volume on education starts with a narrative about falling behind. it is true that the u.s. lags other countries in terms of test
score growth and changes in college completion, but it's also worth putting a more optimistic note on the table. we've seen some growth in test scores in the early grades. they've been stagnant in the middle grades. we've seen some reductions in high school dropout rates. in the most recent decade we've seen increases in college inrollment and completion rates. those gains are not spread evenly across the population and we should be concerned about the degree of inequality. we know more about what works and actually what doesn't than we did two decades ago. i'm sorry russ is not here. some of this owes a big debt to the education sciences in 2002.
we've made progress and there's more to do. two messages. we want to use evidence to shape policy and we need to innovate in this space. what are investments and priorities for federal education policy. i decided to make that a little bit narrower. there are two book ends here that are important. pre-k, talk to dianne. i think sometimes the forgotten piece of graduate education and funding the sciences, but we have to set some boundaries here. i'm going to set even a better boundary here, i'm going to do something that economists are pretty good at. we are going to exercise some division of labor here. i'm going to concentrate on the post secondary margin which is
my advantage and he's going to concentrate on k-12. that said we have a lot to discuss and i think within k-12 you can think of about three buckets. school accountability, school choice mechanicsms and teacher preparation. i'm going to talk in terms of the post secondary sphere, student financial aid and excellently choice and the supply side of higher education. i want to take a quick moment about the federal role in education here. we spend about $1.2 trillion on education each year. the federal role is about a quarter of that. in that quarter that's about $100 million are equally divided between elementary/secondary and k-12 and then there's another
$100 million or so that's off budget in terms of student loans. so you might ask what are the big missions of the federal government in the education sphere? i'm going to hit three here. the first is addressing credit constraints. those are one of those market failures that economists love to teach about in introducery cl z classes and they really matter in education. there's a reason to think that individuals cannot finance worthwhile endeavors in education. second is what i'm going to call a limited but certainly not zero role of the federal government in regulation or auditing the use of its funds, preventing the worst outcomes. third, and this is where i think hopefully we'll have more discussion is that the federal government really has an advantage in funding research, innovation and development.
these are innovations that when we discover something that works in one area, we can spread them around to other communities. many of these things need to be done at scale and it is only -- and the federal government is actually well positioned not necessarily to execute these experiments, but to at least seed them. the next preliminary i want to put on the table is just a reminder here of really the degree of inequality, the challenge that we're facing in educational attainment. it's kristen noted those things start early. the gaps start actually very early before kids enroll in school, but they continue on so here are what i'm going to call the entrenched elementary secondary achievement gaps. the blue bars are comparisons by
education and the red bars reflect the black/white difference. i'll skip the precise characterization. you should think about these in terms of grade level of achievement. they are very meaningful in terms of grade levels of achievement and what is striking here is how large the economic gap is relative to the race gap. if you look back 50 years ago the race gap would have been larger than the economic gap, but things get worse as we go on to college enrollment. the left hand panel is enrollment by family income on the bottom and the highest to the right, the right hand panel's enrollment, the left hand panel is completion. the dark dashed line is essentially the behavior of those students who are making college going choices in the
'80s. the lighter blue line is the students making college choices at the beginning of the 21st century. the takeaways from these, if you're in the back, first off there's a positive gradient and second the gaps have widened and they have widened quite markedly over time. we have about a 30 percentage point difference in enrollment rates. there's not much you're going to push up that enrollment rate. a 10% increase at the bottom which is the increase at the top of this distribution between the top and the bottom. one might rightly note these are not adjusted for differences in achievement on entry. again, if you do this additional calculation, you'd still see very large gaps and they've increased over time.
on the order of about 16 percentage points in college completion. that's the preliminary. that's the problem we need to address. as i say, i'm kooeding some territory that we'll come back on k-12. i want to talk about higher education given that the elementary act was just reauthorized. what's on the table is reauthorization of the higher education act which somehow or another congress hasn't gotten to yet. within this rubric are the title four programs. the other sort of key topics that i want to touch on are the college choice problem and essentially the supply side problem. okay. federal aid. grant aid. we've got two slides on student
aid here. again, i think we have really compelling evidence at this juncture from work that i've done on the gi bill, the transparent grant aid can have a very positive effect on collegiate attainment. we have grant aid on the table right now or effectively grant aid in the form of the pell grant, which we spend about $30.6 billion a year on and the tuition tax credits which amount to another $18.2 billion. if you look back at 2010 those not numbers totalled about $60 billion. the bad news is that even though these programs have two features that one might really like in a student aid program, that is they're portable so in effect they're like vouchers. secondly they're means tested.
the problem is they're not very transparent. and because they're not very transparent, particularly the tuition tax credits, they're not having necessarily the impact that we would like to see on student enrollment and more importantly helping students to finance really worthwhile collegiate investments. i think i'll draw your attention to two issues here. first the tuition tax credits. separate from the problem of really a total lack of salience. they don't matter to you your parents don't get paid for another 18 months. at that point you may have lost interest or it's not going to effect your decision and indeed that comes through very clearly in the research literature. many students don't even know
about them. the pell grant is actually a bit of a challenge here because it services such a broad umbrella of students that it's not very well targeted. the pell grant generosity has actually increased a bit in the last decade. i want you to draw your attention to the column on the right here, which is the proportion of students who are independent. that is likely over the age of 24. they have young children of their own. now, one of the challenges is designing an aid system that meets the needs of this population, who are likely responding to near term economic shocks, as well as the needs of students who are recent high school graduates. and the system of needs analysis that we have doesn't accomplish either objective very well. and so given that i'm running out on time, we'll come back to this, but there are excellent
recommendations by a supported panel called rethinking pell grants that would serve to divide the resources between pell grant adult program and a pell grant young program. loans, everybody's favorite question here. i'm going to just simply note that there's nobody -- anyone who has read a newspaper in the last ten years knows that there has been much attention with headlines like a generation hobbled by the soaring cost of college. contrary to what some newspapers would have you believe, the number of undergraduate students drowning in six figures of debt is more like one in 30 rather than the median or the mode. there's a point of getting the numbers right that are important and also there's a really important study that i believe
was presented last year by adam loony that looks at what is a real increase in default rates, which has occurred over about the last eight years to increasing to about 10.1% to about 5% and they ask why. there are two big factors that are at play here. the first has to do with the changing student population, that is a shift with the students most likely to struggle, are these older nontraditional, if you will, borrow borrows borrowers and second a shift in the institutions those students are attending. the loan issue is different than it has been often characterized. this brings you to the question, the real questions as to whether some of the students struggling are really being buried because they may be enrolled in a college that had weak returns in
expectation, at the worst example of this would be the institutions that have turned out to be downright fraudulent and there's a question of can we help those students avoid those choices and then the question of what do we do with students struggling at repayment. given that i am at negative time here, i am going to hit at one point on my list, which is one of the most popular policies from both sides of this aisle has been discussion of economy-base in hd repayment an there has unfortunately been little attention to how this program actually effects the liabilities of the federal government. a recent report notes the liability has increased to about $74 billion, which is about triple what it was estimated to be.
essentially what you're doing is you're trading an insurance mechanism for more moral hazard and adverse selection. the primary beneficiaries are going to not be those who have borrowed a little bit and really are struggling with small amounts of debt, but turn out to be those who are getting forgiveness for graduate borrowing. i think i'll come back to this. can i have two minutes? two. okay. we'll come back to this. college choice. there's much to do here, but this is a case where we need rnd sponsored by the federal government. again, there are two groups of students who not very well guided at this point, particularly the older nontraditional students who don't have access to either peers who are going to college
or traditional guidance mechanical yis mechanisms. supply side. again, resources matter enormously. if you see what's going on at public institution, resources per student have declined markedly. these are constant dollar. the issue here is how can we -- how can we encourage greater state funding? we see increased strat fictiifi, but really the challenge -- resources are what they are, but are there ways for the federal government to support productivity and enhancing innovations. are there consolidations that can be supported and literally the billion dollar question is can technology change education productivity in the higher ed space?
okay. main takeaway, we've got a role for accountability, addressing market failures. i want to end on this final note, which is we're doing better. we're learning a lot about how markets work in education, but there's room for more investment here. just as a relative point, this spending on research on education is about $279 million a year, which is about 102 times -- the spending on nih is about 102 times greater than spending on nasa. there's room for more investment here and there are many high-return projects to think about. let me turn over this to the professor kwhwho is going to ta over the k-12 side, i believe.
>> sara has written a thoughtful, valuable paper. i agree with the roles for federal education policy. we agreed i would focus on recent research, how recent research informs the design of federal activities in three areas, accountability, teacher policy and school choice. just a few words on context. inequality in educational outcomes among the 50 states, each of which has its own educational system is very high. this is evident in the results of the national assessment education progress. low-quality schools are associated with low rates of intergenerational mobility. this is worrisome because the promise of upward mobility
provides a lot of the glue that has held democracy together. so improving education, especially in states with low quality state systems, and especially if children from low income families should be a goal of federal education policies. what are the policy tools? as sara writes in her paper, funding and regulation are the primary sets of tools. the federal government has attached strings to aid and this has effected the actions of states and school districts. there's good research on that, but as reaction in some states to the post great recession, education funding to adoption of the common core has shown regulations are not very popular. for instance such incentives to alter behavior. every student success act that moves the design of accountability systems firmly to
the states are still a regulatory role and are still up for grabs, awhat the details wil look like i'll come back to that. turning to accountability. very important. it's also very difficult to get accountability right. a litmus test of that that would be whether an accountability system encourages skills for teachers to work in high-poverty skills. that's the test that most accountability systems will fail. what are federal roles in that regard? i see four. one is the auditing function. strong support for national assessment of educational progress is absolutely critical. also an opportunity would be cost sharing for states to participate in international
assessing programs. three american states that participated in the 2012 assessment system for 15 year olds, all these states by reports -- percent proficientsy says they're doing the same, but in fact one of those states had average scores way above the average. one had scores way below the average. that's the importance of this auditing function and helping states to bench mark how they're actually doing. so that's the second. second, signal openness to innovation and accountability systems so it's a spark innovation in school design. currently all state accountability systems are based primarily on student math and reading scores. the skills that are measured are important and they matter, but
there are at least four well-done research studies showing long-term effects of intervention design to improve the lives of low-income children that did not effect test scores. one of these is moving to opportunity. as we heard earlier, very positive effects if the movement took place before the age of 13, no effect on test scores. that suggestions the importance of thinking about accountability in a broader sense. the greater availability of data on college, on crime, on labor market participation wages suggests the possibility of designing much more creative accountability systems and i think encouragement of that would be valuable. particularly innovation and design of edge caring for teenage teenagers. if you look at scores you see improvement in scores of
9-year-olds and no improvement of scores in 13-year-olds and very large gaps by ethnicity and income. so we need to find new ways of designing education for teenagers to try to include more connections to the world at work. i think the feds can signal an openness to accountability systems that would support innovations in these areas. examples of these that have been tried with some success, some high schools in new york city, early college high schools, some urban charter schools. third would be to support collaborations of states to work on the design of new educational options for teenagers. it would be great particularly if states with weak systems collaborate with states with stronger systems and fund research on the consequences of innovative accountability systems. we would hope to see variations
among the states. on teacher policy, we have the research that shows what every parent knows. teachers matter and there's a big variation in teacher quality. what has much less attention, however, is very good research from ecu showing that the performances of novice teachers and the rate with the which they improve their performance depends on the skills of the grade level colleagues and on the -- and the quality of environment allowing them as adults to learn. so that's critical lily importa. you think about accountability systems. where a teacher is placed will have an impact on how well she fares. we don't know very much about how to design systems that provide the accountability and support. that's an area where we really need to do more research. this is what school district
central offices are supposed to do, provide this combination. very few know how to do that. i think there's a need for research in that area. another area related to that and which i think research could be promising is looking at how charter management organizations are trying to design that same combination of supports and accountability for the schools in their network. some initial results are somewhat promising, but again there has not been a systematic research program. school choice. clearly potentially valuable widespread support, but the thing that has not been talked about that's critically important what might be called peer group influences. i want to quote a brief quote from a working paper. exposure to a disruptive peer in classes of 25 during elementary school reduces earnings at age
26 by 3% to 4%. we estimate the exposure to children linked to domestic violence explains 5% to 6% of the rich/poor earning gap in our data. you can understand in any system of competition competing for students what kind of students do you want to avoid? students who are likely to have those kind of deep-seated behavioral problems that come from domestic violence at home, perhaps from domestic violence that their families observed in central america before they came to the united states. that's i think -- it does not mean the choice is not a good idea, but it does mean that enormous attention needs to be played to where those children go to school and the consequences for them and for the children who are in school with them. laws governing charter schools
vary from state to state. there is little knowledge about where children go where and how that effects outcomes. on vouchers, another area of school choice, there are lessons from observing chili. the country has had national k-12 vouchers since 1981. the value of the voucher did not depend on the family's income, nor was there accountability for private schools. while this has been studied and the main consequences are three, stagnant achievement, growing gaps by income and increasing isolation of low-income kids in particular schools. in 2008 chili changed its voucher system.
it's 50% more than kids from affluent families. the school receives a concentration bonus if it services a large percentage of poor kids and a significant accountability of schools that accept vouchers. that has led to substantial improvements and closing of gaps between low income kids. again if people ask you what you think of vouchers, the only sensible response is to say i have about ten questions for you about how this voucher system is going to work. the details matter enormously. to sum up, the audit function is very important to the federal government. be sure that the rules governing regulati regulations don't hinder innovation, particularly in design of education for teenagers. support research, especially in the consequences of state and local initiatives in these areas of accountability, teacher
policy and school choice. in all of these areas there's a great deal to be learned and about the consequences of details of these policies for the distribution of student achievement. thank you. >> thank you so much. those presentations were both so interesting, talk about put ag lot in a few minutes. i have so many questions. let me step back and ask a broad question, which is what the major problem to be addressed in
education right now? do we think the whole system isn't doing a good job of educating children or it's doing pretty well for most kids but really poorly at the bottom? kind of just broadly. both you. >> why don't i talk about the k-12. again, there's not one system. there are 50 systems and they look fundamentally different and they have very different outcomes and those outcomes matter. the federal government spends less than 10% of the money. it has some regulation that are not very popular. so the problem there isn't one system. >> i think in higher education, you're talking about a diversity of over 4,000 institutions and they are very very different in terms of the students they serve, their focal mission. i do think in terms of picking
one issue, it is the success of low and actually moderate income students and their capacity to both make good college choices, to finance those choices and complete. >> some people would say you noted in your paper that per capita spending has almost doubled in 30 years, but the results have been modest. someone says why are we going to spend more and every time we spend more we don't do well. maybe you're not advocating spending more. are you add advocating spending more on education? >> there's been new work. there's a very nice paper in the college journal of economics where they show the impact of funding on student outcomes is
greater than previously thought. dianne and her colleagues have a second paper that shows the same thing. i think a key piece is that over time while the u.s. has not gotten great at accountability, it's very different than it was in 1965 when the education act was passed. it doesn't mean that all money is used well, but i think we're beyond the point so say money doesn't matter. with title one it goes to 14,000 school districts. that doesn't make any sense at all if you're thinking about having an impact on the lives of poor children. >> that it goes so broadly you're saying? >> that's a political reality that doesn't make sense. >> in higher education averages are deceiving and there's no question that money matters. it depends on who you are as to whether resources have increased
or not. if you're a student at one of the most elite universities in the country resources have increa increa increased. if you're attending a local college it's given that reductions in state funding that resources per student have decreased. again, there's a lot of information and i think we've come around to see that on whole resources really do matter. at the same time that's a necessary but not a sufficient condition for education success and there is room in both k-12 and higher education for innovations that essentially increase productivity. that is, improve student learning without changing the cost. >> let's talk about school choice, start with k through 12.
i have a factual question i was going to ask sara from her paper. the every student succeed act has been enacted, but a lot of regs have not been promulgated yet. what is the scope for the next administration? how much leeway do they have to change education and in particular to think about charters and vouchers and what are the facts on that? >> i think a lot will depend on how the president elect uses the bully pulpit. it will be one thing. i think the effects through -- well, for example, there are these very detailed issues. there's language at esca about
the allocation of spending across schools in the same district and there's a big fight about how do you count teacher salaries? salaries in schools that serve primarily middle class kids are higher because teachers are much more experienced. there's a big fight about that. i think the -- in the area of research, i don't think they have much leeway over charter schools except perhaps to encourage more attention to these regulations through research. the fact we always hear about the study that on average charter schools aren't any better, but to my knowledge there's not been a systematic look at these by states and the regulations on charter schools vary enormously in terms of who they serve and what outcomes they must show and whether if they do a poor job whether they're eliminated or not. >> let me jump in here. i think we're on the same page entirely in that this notion
that we have 50 state environments goi environme expirmentes going on and then school districts and we have an increasing body of evidence on matters like school choice, the relevant charter programs, as well as vouchers. it's good evidence, but it's honestly a little bit mixed in various forms and it is not the kind of evidence that i think is certainly it would be comfortable in suggesting that any piece is so definitive that it should suggest a specific set of federal regs on charters, vouchers or teacher compensation for that matter. we are learning a lot. there's room to learn more. it's imperative to collect data to assess it carefully, but that
evidence actually doesn't i think support strong federal policies in this area beyond this important what i'm going to call an audit function and also this function of making sure that there's really the worst kinds of fraud and poor performance don't persist at the bottom of the distribution. >> after the esca was passed in 1965 thmcmlxv that provided for one, it was to get southern school districts to comply with the segregation act.
it did achieve its objective. that's the question of whether the federal government is willing to use its regulatory power, because 10% is not a big percentage, but on the margin it's significant dollars, but it does take a pretty heavy hand. >> okay. i have more questions. let's move on. let me ask about teachers, which i thought there was a lot of interesting stuff in your paper and your discussion about teachers, particularly this idea that within three years of a teacher's career you know if they're a fabulous teach are on are a horrible teacher, but the tails show up and one thing i was wondering you did mention if teachers are basically -- people are going to be great teachers and horrible teachers, then some of these pay for performance or schemes, how could they be expected to have an impact. how much is it like there are
some people that are wonderful and other people that not be teachers? you mentioned that there's like evidence that within the first three years you actually can maybe create good teachers? >> i think a couple of things. first of all, there's work that shows that in the right setting with the right support teachers improve well beyond the first couple of years, but only in those settings. now, i think this pay for performance, that's the current name. the old name was merit pay. mathimatica has done a study of a variety of performance plans. that has almost no effect except in most cases most teachers got extra money. in those cases of course they were quite popular.
not a very powerful strategy i think, but i would distinguish that from the situation of providing extra money to work in difficult situations. combat pay will not do the job if there's not support to do the job. but if the job has particularly a longer school day, a longer school year, and is quite demanding, some extra pay for that can make sense. in subject areas you're having difficulty, extra money for that, but that's very different than the performance based pay. >> let me ask you about some things you didn't mention. one of the things that people normally think about when you're trying to buy a house and choose where to send your kids you look at class size. i know there was some controversy over whether or not class size matters. it's something where you could spend money on. what is the current thinking on the importance of class size to achievement? >> i think the best -- the analysis of a tennessee star
experiment that shows that having smaller class sizes in kindergarten makes a difference, particularly in schools serving high concentrations of kids of color. as you get to higher grades it's not nearly as clear cut. >> i think markets and implementation matters. the class size is different than the roll out of reduced class size in california, which again the incentives were to reduce class size effectively independent of other educational considerations. so actually kids are probably better off than a slightly larger class than a class that combines across grade level. again you want to be careful in terms of how you do these rollouts so you don't end up having the more affluent
districts effectively by the very experienced teachers from the low income districts. again design matters. implementation matters enormo enormously in how these policies are put into play. >> let's talk about higher ed. you talk about school choice and people are not going to the right schools. is that low hanging fruit. is that something that would be difficult to change or something that you think might not be that difficult and could have a big effect? >> it's something that can really have a big effect. it is very data dependent to do it well and it also is very differentia differentiated. done correctly you want studeto into consideration their options. again i think it's important for
students to understand net price, so the difference between the posted tuition and financial aid. similarly students need to understand meaningful differences about how effective different colleges and universities are. you're not going to find a student who says that they don't want to go to a very good college. all students say they want to go to a really good college. the problem is that students often can't distinguish between institutions based on their graduation rates or their resources per student. >> you mentioned -- do you want -- >> not on that. i want to come back to the class size when you're done if we could. >> of course i'll let you come back. last question from me is going to be one of the things you mentioned again looking for things that are easy and could have a big bang for the buck is closing some of the really terrible places. is there a role in closing and supporting states and lock calties in making sure there's
enough community college seats available for these students to go to so you don't end up having people not having a place to go to at all. >> again, i think there is the human cost of institutions where my favorite -- there are institutions out there where the on-time completion rate is actually less than the default rate. that should be probably a clear indication that an institution isn't functioning as intended and is probably not using title iv aid well. i think it is imperative not to let these institutions go on too long in this situation. the acreditation mechanism is supposed to address this. i think it's wasteful in the
administrative time it takes and it's not identifying the poorly performing institutions. >> we should probably go on. thank you. >> questions? >> hi. i'm done work for the department of education. i'm curious what you think of some of the work that ies has sponsored. has that made a difference? has it impacted choices? also the role of the regional education labs? where is that going and what has been its success rate? >> i think sara and i both feel that ies has again compared to what came before has contributed to a marked improvement in educational research. it's not -- while ies does fund a great many randomized controlled trials that's not all it does kracontrary to what som
people might think. i think the labs are a mixed bag. they have their own lobbying agency and they have a fair amount of money put aside just for them. i'm not so sure that's the best way -- in fact, i think it's not the best way to use scarce dollars. i think more competition for funds makes more sense. >> again, i'm in the same view about the rules. i would emphasize on the ies grant funding. at its best is the education -- the ies is investing in a portfolio of projects and they wouldn't actually be taking enough risk if all of them had big positive or had -- all showed positive effects. part of this is to actually take good ideas that are theoretically driven, look at the data, come up with a good way to assess whether something
works, what its costs are relative to benefits. what works clearinghouse, i'm actually less certain that it's had a big impact on practice, but i think it has forced some discipline on researcher activity. i want to come back to a notion that you made in your remarks, but again this idea that collaborations may be really high return, both among states, among districts where your going to get an economy of scale that you can't get in innovation and system development if you expect every small metropolitan area to review independently. there has to be enough
similarities where there are gains from collaboration there and that's worth funding. >> last question. >> keying off of dr. summer's chipping be paint story this morning, environment is an important thing to kids being motivated or willing to learn and it's also a good segue to helping them go into the junior high and high school. it's a good idea to couple structures and some of the social environment things as well. i think a lot of research has shown that social environment has a big impact on a student's success. are there considerations of some real policy ideas, structural ideas that can be brought forth from that? >> sure. havi having schools and the adults that work in them want to be in
seems like something we as a country should surely afford and do. we haven't done them. a lot of schools in boston are more than 100 years old. >> we better move on. i'm sorry there wasn't time for more questions. thank you so much. this was an informative panel. missouri senator roy blunt spoke about his role of the chair of the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies and preparations for the presidential inauguration at the west front of the u.s. capital. senator roy blunt is the chair of the inaugural committee. this is the view you will see friday morning.