join the discussion. >> a discussion on the federal role in education and what is expected from the trump administration in the area of school choice. an hour.ust over >> all right. i think we are going to get started. we are missing aft president randi winegarden. she will be joining us as soon as she gets here. i'm the education reporter at u.s. news. you're at the changing politics of k-12 panel discussion. thank you for being here. ewa wrangled a pretty awesome panelists panelists. there's nothing really going on in dc right now, right? i am going to leave the bio to you guys. you can look in the program and see it. i will quickly run down the line here. we are lindsay burke. for those of you who are sort of like outside the beltways here jeffreys is the president of democrats for education reform. he is also a civil rights lawyer. next to him is marty west. the republican from tennessee. a quick housekeeping note, that is one of the first panels at ewa. please tweet using so it's fair game. it's a little warning. we want you to make news. this is also being live streamed on periscope. because we have such big task today we want to provide lots of time for your questions. we are going to forego opening remarks and sort of dive right into this. i wanted to talk a minute to set the scene we are currently in. i'll just ask, six months ago how many of you guys thought we would be in this politics and policy we are in today? raise your hand? no one? really? ok. so the collective we kind of missed the ball on this. i don't think many of us expected to have 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 right from the get go really with race to the top super charging cool improvement grant, expanding the office for civil rights, pushing for universal k-12, so on and so forth. now we have an administration that so far has a singular agenda and focusing on ruling back the federal government and undoing a lot of these initiatives. his budget propose pal to slash from federal programs and eliminate things like teacher preparation and after school programs. we will get to all of that. behave an education secretary who has proven controversial so far. the confirmation included a tie breaking vote from mike pence. similarly to trump her main focus has been school choice inclugdin includeing private school voucher. we'll dig into that as well. this is happening across the states the law was crafted with bipartisanship in congress. irt seem to no longer really exist. we'll talk about that as well. despite republicans controlling both chambers of correct me if i'm wrong it's unclear whether any type of education legislation or any legislation, major legislation is going to be able to move given some of the fighting. we will get to that as well. where does this all leave us? a lot to cover. where does it leave teachers unions. most importantly, what should we be paying attention to? i will dive right into it. be thinking of questions. we'll save 20 minutes at the end for all of you guys. i want to start off and talk about school choice at the top of everyone's agenda these days. lindsay lindsay, education savings accounts, tax credit scholarships. some people in this room though i feel like might be interested or might not be expecting the fact that you don't really want the trump administration going there. if you could maybe talk a little bit from that and where you come from there and give us a little idea of what states are doing interesting things and what we should be paying attention to. >> on the school choice front you totally nailed it. i have been a huge proponent of school choice. it really is -- our perspective is all of the pof on itabove on it. whether it is tuition, tax credit scholarships. you mentioned education savings accounts which i think is where the education choice movement is going right now. we really see sort of an all of the above approach. any option that enables a parent to select a school that fits well with the needs of their child i think is a good option. >> prefacing this that i spend my waking hours, is it appropriate for the federal government to be engaged in a large scale push? i think it's really key is whether or not it's a new program. >> and 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 of state year after year adopt new education choice options every legislative session and then there's just the 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 a little bit. if we are establishing a new program it's hard to reconcile a new program. that is the other perspective that i hold. i think we'll get into this later by maybe it's a tax credit approach that might be under consideration. we are talk about this but i think in every opportunity to make a decision about what that program looks like the federal government would likely regulate it. what does the impact end up being down to road? what sort of idea do we establish? i think maybe a view isn't worth the hype. >> i want to ask you about the viability of this, whether it is politically possible. we heard president trump pledge $20 billion. we saw in the budget a billion dollars boost for school districts that promise to allow to follow the student to the school of their choice and $250 million private school voucher prachltogram. we don't know how it could be structured. perhaps it is tax credit scholarship. is it even a reality? >> so republicans now control both the house and the senate and i think it lead a lot of people to expect that it would be politically very easy to push a major school choice agenda from washington. her damage is located 73 feet from the senate that works very hard. there is not overwhelming concerns for what it means for the federal role. we have seen in the past the house often being reluctant to bring up the vote to follow students to schools of their choice because they don't want to expose to fact downloadthat there is not support nar. it creates onbstacles to advance school choice proposals. you mention add few ideas. they are all small ball ideas. there is this weighted student funding pilot program. it would allow up to 50 districts to apply to use funding systems that basically combine federal state and local funds and allow them to follow children to the public school they attend. the public school wants to incentivize by taking site l one formula funds and proposal half a billion dollars to that and encouraging state to participate. you know, even that is not necessarily a school choice program. it's really a way to try to model out a way for administering federal aid programs that is more combatable combatable. i just really think that there's an uphill battle facing a lot of these proposals. >> so far we have heard a lot about empowering states to make these decisions on their own and not relying ton federal government to do it for them. it already is a huge them for this adadministration. you'll see it more and more amid-the backdrop which ships a lot of power look to state and local school districts. i wanted to ask you to talk a little bit about what you have seen in terms of how to stakes are sort of getting higher as some of this shifts back to their realm. what should we be as state reporters be thinking about as some of that turns over to, you you know, their responsibility? >> yes. i think it should focus on core issues and the core work of public schools. you know, obviously choice conversation is relevant and significant. i would push people to look at standards and accountability. what are the standards states are going to choose in terms of what they expect of kids? are those standards aligned with ensuring kids are college and career ready when they graduate from high school? are they aligned with ongoing shifts that is changing at a pretty rapid rate. how are school districts doing to hold individual schools to make sure kids are being educated against those standards. what does accountability mechanism look like? we have had a history. people like me would support and ensure basic equity. kids generally haven't met those standards. whether the child may be a low-income kid. who invasions are schools going to use? if they haven't missing those kids what what have states going to do? if you just say this is a c or d or do something to make sure those young people have an opportunity to fulfill their potential. how will they make sure it has high loi number of qualified teachers in these classrooms? we do a lot to have more clinical base aid proechs so educators can hit the ground running. how are states going about ensuring they have a strong supply of teachers and school leaders? who are states going to make sure universities in their state are admitting meaningful numbers of pell grant eligible kids? we have many universities -- and i'm talking about kids situated in terms of academic profile. again, i'm talking about kids with the same academic profile. many state universities under significant revenue pressure and so what are states going to do to make sure they are open to all? we have over 3 million who attend public charter schools. so the conversation is absolutely important. we personally support a choice through the public education system through public charter schools. it is a strong track record of results there. we have the kind of core bread and butter work. we think it's important not to lose track of that because both kids in choice programs to the extent they will have access to college teachers. >> how much more important is it for us to cover elections sorlt of moving from foe cussing on the federal government as years prior. it's trying to rewrite no child left behind. the tilt-a-whirl shifting towards state and local school districts. what pointers can you give us that we might see coming up, things like that? >> i'll tell you if i'm a reporter i'm thinking what she said is right. there are 400,000 kids in private school choices today. it includes scholarship programs. so 400,000 today but we have seen several states adopt effectively universal options. so you look at nevada. there are programs currently. it's going through a legal battle right now. they are working out financing. if that all works itself out 473,000 kids in nevada will be eligible for an education savings account this fall. it immediately doubles that number. not all that we'll take it up but eligibility will be for esa. in arizona, arizona just took their savings account universal. there is still a cap on the number of kids who can participate. that's the trend that we are seeing. states adopt primarily and families love them and states move to make them more yununiversal universally available. yes, you can focus on school board elections and mayoral races and all of that good stuff. we are getting to a tipping point particularly if nevada works itself out, if we see arizona continue to push, if texas gets a school choice program in place i think we'll be at a tipping point where the focus will be on kids who are exercising private school choice. so choice for military families in desperate need of children who are relegated to schools. make dc on all choice district. there are things the federal government can do that respect federalism and that would do a lot of good far lot of kids. >> so i'll sort of embrace the premise of your question. i would say there's only so much you can learn from the planned stage. the action will be when it comes to how the plans are implemented and what's done in schools that are done as underperforming. the federal government says nothing except you need to take evidence based actions at this point. so really power is in the hands of states and school districts to make those decisions. we have dozens of states that are in the process in response to obama administration policies of teacher evaluation systems. it will be interesting to see what decisions they make going forward or whether it's a develop alternatives. and the relevant battles over funding are also at the state level. we get worked up about proposed $9 billion in cuts. it's large as a percentage of federal aid. it is only about 10% of total funding. you know, even a substantial cut really doesn't make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. that's where the action is when it comes to funding as well. it will be interesting to see the extendt to which they do become nationalized. 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 to charter schools to trump himself. there was an effort to do that in montana. it doesn't seem to me those are gained a lot of traction at this point. that is clearly something that opponents of the policies they have embraced and will try to use. >> let's talk a little bit about the people who are still in congress who have the decision making authority over education issues. i'm thinking of lamar alexander, virginia fox, maybe luke messer. i would have said a few months ago senator patty murray but it seems like there's been a bit of a fracture that comes along with education issues. where do you guys see them standing on moving education legislationthrough the pipeline? i'm thinking maybe a career tech ed. there's bipartisan ship around that. what can we expect? you know, are there folks who don't play who were not -- who were not really considering. there is a push ton part of the administration i this to streamline the tax code to lower rates. you know, does that run into a push far new federal tax credit scholarship which maybe could go in the opposite direction? i say that only to say there will be interesting dynamics that operate outside of the session space when it comes to something like a scholarship program. ata is up for reauthorization. we could see some removement in that direction. the calendar is pretty truncated into the fall. >> simplifying financial aid, that do provide sort of seeds of potential collaboration. beyond that i don't see much. again, to go back to your original question i don't see an immediate embrace from the key republicans in congress of everything the trump administration has been talking about. >> ok. >> can i jump in one second? >> yeah. financial aid, establishing some form of accountability for schools through student success in repaying federal loans, that do provide seeds of potential collaboration. beyond that i don't see much. question, to original i don't see an immediate embrace from the key republicans in congress everything the trump administration has been talking about. >> if our friends in congress were serious about limiting federal intervention, which is what they sold us on, we were skeptical that it went far enough. we had a good debate about this. i think we would have seen some reductions in spending. but we didn't see that at all. c.o.p. spent 12 billion. i don't see any robust reductions. reduction, a 13.6% it was the largest single your percentage reduction since reagan. that is getting serious, trimming federal spending and programs is a necessary condition for restoring state-controlled. >> maybe you can help us out here. as education reporters should these cats come to lie, -- come to light how should we be looking to portray how that is impacting teachers, students, stool -- schools. >> i think reporters should follow the money and track the impact for kids. teacherion is cutting prep to college aid for young people, to afterschool programs for young people. to the before you get other cut in the budget in terms of health care access, access to food security, in terms of access to job training programs. it's quite have a clear impact on young people, on families and communities, on the capacity of young people to be educated and be prepared for the global economy. it's problematic that when the labor market is undergoing rapid folks expectwhere many millions of jobs to be automated out of existence that we have an administration that thinks it is smart to disinvest in terms of ability to access college, to disinvest in terms of how we prepare our teachers to educate young people for this. i would encourage reporters to follow the impact. it's going to have a specific impact on kids and communities. while we have these conversations about the role of government in these abstract debates about loss of fees and what the government should or shouldn't do, i would encourage her courage -- reporters to follow the facts. these policy choices being made in washington and in local school districts have a clear impact for young people. i grow up in a very tough community. we depended on these programs. i spent most of my childhood and the boys and girls club because people were dealing crack in my neighborhood. and i went to college i didn't know the perilous. i didn't know what sco g was. but i went to the financial aid office and they said somebody named al was coined to help me. i went to law school. i had perkins. my family depended on public access to health care when i was a young person. we had the big block of government cheese they would give you area we could use some ways to get better but my point is, it's quite have a tangible impact on kids, families and communities. i encourage reporters to do what reporters do their best, tell the stories. part of what concerns me is these abstract conversations can lose sight of the tangible impact it's going to have one real people. >> i agree. all of the impact. we know from random assignment evaluation of kids participating that it hasn't had impact. we have not seen the impact program participants said we would see based on the experiment evidence that is out there. we can go on and on about these programs. the biggest $7 billion waste we've ever seen. if we are really serious about following impact, we have all of the evidence that shows these programs just are working for kids. it's better to situate programs and spending closer to the people they affect than being operated by people in washington who have never met those kids. >> those are great talking points. i can point all types of programs. are they perfect? of course not. either inefficiencies in many of these investments, sure. programsn point to that have turned the lives of tens of thousands of young people over age and under credited and got these investments. we can point to comparable programs. what you don't do is just cut entirely and eliminated. you figure out a way to make the investments to make sure the investments generate the result. the idea we are going to eliminate and that's going to magically create that are in -- outcomes i think is a logical and doesn't make any sense. >> moving from the money to something more abstract, i , what youget to this guys see for the future of the office for civil rights. there have been some efforts on the trump administration to curtail some of the obama era initiatives put in place through the office of civil rights. trump signed an executive order recently tasking the department of education to examine places that it is overreaching, and try to pull back on that. there has been a lot of concern among advocates about the future of the office for civil rights and how it will be monitoring its ability to continue issues we see popping up in states. this can go to anyone. what should we be looking for? >> the office of civil rights is something of a political football. the enforcement tends to switch depending on which party is in control. there is circling not going to be any exception to that pattern right now. the obama administration the office of civil rights took a step up approach to monitor and enforce civil rights protections . what that meant in practice was ofuing guidance in the form colleague letters, putting districts on notice, the application of resources and discipline rates that if it were shown that there were disproportionality between students of different racial or ethnic backgrounds that this risk of beinge at more at fault. is whether then trump administration resends that guidance. which is something that can be done. the policies that are overly intended this has and consequences for all students including those to our high achievers not involved in disciplinary issues. that is an ongoing debate. it's interesting they have not taken the step of doing that. >> not only should reporters look at the letters in terms of guidance that ocr provides, we have enforcement actions. we have seen some rescinding in children arelgbtq treated in terms of bathroom access. for choice programs, that they should not have to serve children equitably and have discretion to discriminate against kids based on their sexual orientation. it is not just the letter. when you have an administration committed to civil rights, we see enforcement across the gamut, from special at access to certain populations of kid treated differently based upon race or gender. what actions are being taken? we have seen jeff sessions say this demonstration will be less committed to civil rights. it has never been good for people of color, low income peo ple, for immigrants, when the federal government steps back from civil rights. i mean most of the federal laws that the department of ed is here to enforce our civil rights era laws. when at risk children tend to be immigrants or people of color, it was unsurprising that certain populations of kids were more likely classified as having a behavioral disability. for example, we see that black boys are more likely to be suspended. the school to prison pipeline is really rooted in discriminatory disciplinary practices. that is why we had a firm around accountability, it simply didn't do much at all as low income generations were in underperforming schools. not really the recsending of letters. what enforcement actions are being taken? particularly because education laws, there is no private right of action. that means you need to feds and the ocr. the whole point of ocr is to protect the civil rights protections of these young people. you see this administration oftentimes put people in charge of departments they don't believe in. thatouldn't be surprised if people don't believe in it, they won't enforce the norms that motivate these departments in the first place. i think this administration will be a disaster on civil rights. they have made that very clear. i will not mince words. said in thes simply last week that there will be a significant rollback in terms of civil rights protections. he has already said, which will affect these kids and families, but nonviolent drug offenses should be prosecuted in the way they were done in the war on drugs era. double impact these kids and their families. -- that will impact these kids and their families. reporters have to tell the story. there are real families you can name. you can talk about how they are hit by this. that's my concern, that in many of these conversations we lose sight of the regular people who are struggling already, of all backgrounds of all colors of all ethnic groups, who are definitely afraid about what is happening to their kids, and their stories are to be in hard. -- aren't being heard. >> ok there are two microphones here. ask your questions. please state your name. are, who youou write for so we can give you good educated answers. and please ask a question. >> [laughter] >> [indiscernible] >> we did just see new random assignment evaluation of the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. it is a voucher program here in the district. roughly 1100 11 kids or so are in the program today. it is been around since 2003. the program did find after one year of being in the program that kids did worse. nasa achievement wasn't significant. -- math achievement wasn't significant. it was after one year. we have more evidence that kids that resist the program have graduation rates that are 21% higher than the control group. if you look at the control group in the study, 52% of the kids in the control group ended up finding their ways to private schools anyways. there was pretty significant contamination in the control group. we also have overall competitive effects. d.c. schools improving overall may capture some of the improvements. just a few caveats. on the broader question of impact, we now have 11 gold standard random assignment evaluations of school choice programs, vouchers and tax credits that finds statistically significant improvements on academic achievement. as a result of participating in a school choice program. we know clearly because of the study design, three programs that we have find no effects, as you mentioned three negative effects. the one you just mentioned dcosp and then the other two -- they're relatively new. they're about a year old and both out of louisiana. we could do an entire panel on louisiana. >> i will say that tomorrow there is an awesome school choice panel. you should go to that. this will be like the meat of it too. >> many of us have argued those two evaluations that found negative impacts out of louisiana -- louisiana runs a uniquely prescriptive regulatory environment on their school voucher program. schools that accept a kid on a voucher have to take the state test, not just any old test, but the state test. we know only one third of private schools participate. those third were experiencing some significant attrition before they entered the program, which suggests that maybe they were, you know, struggling schools prior to program entry, which could explain the negative effects that we found. so not to talk them away, but some caveats on the threesome sn before they entered the program, negatives. >> did you have -- >> i'll be brief, a couple points on the d.c. evaluation. i am 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 actually is the comparison that's being made. another interesting thing is that they asked the schools how much time they spend on various subjects. lindsay mentioned there were negative effects on reading achievement. if you look at how much times the school spent on reading it was far higher in the control group schools that were charter and district schools than private schools. and so the question then becomes what are the private schools using that other time for? is it to offer additional coverage of other subjects that go untested in the evaluation? so i think we need to be very cautious about rushing to 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. i have a question about special education. that is something that i look at a lot in alabama. special education like it or not is a federal program. that's just the way it is. what do you see as the role -- we've batted around more funding for special education, federal government has never stepped up and funded the full 40%. it is very expensive. i know in alabama they've looked at esa's 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. anybody can take this -- i'm interested in your take on special education as a federal sort of function. thanks. >> i think that's critical. i mean, i think -- again ida is another one 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. there has also been a lot of progress where many public charter schools have done a very strong job. some have not. 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 way with 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. whether 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 ensure that happens. the worst letter is a lawsuit because that means years after kids don't receive what they should receive people step in and intervene. that is something every public school has to wrestle with. as folks talk about these new providers coming into these choice programs, 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. you don't want to serve a kid that has special needs? we don't have to serve you -- we strongly disagree with that. we think that is contrary to what public education ought to mean. you have to serve everyone, period. obviously an individual school can only serve so many kids. what you can't 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 dollars should serve all kids is something we don't serve -- something we don't hold them too. we hold school districts responsible but we don't say each individual campus needs to be prepared to serve every 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 specifically designed would funding levels that make it feasible for them to find other alternatives. i think 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, too. >> they can't deny admission in the first place -- the kid can come in, you go through the cst process -- >> you're making -- my apologies for my flight being late. you're making the distinction between the -- the underlying distinction here is an unregulated market that can do anything it wants to do, versus a public obligation. and so, yes, in terms of special ed, think about it, we never got enough money. yet there's still a public obligation and the buck stops with the public school district regardless. and trying to figure out how to do it even if it means taxing its inhabitants more. yet the so-called choice programs can do whatever they want, kind of like swimming, whichever way they want to swim. i think that long term, and janet and others were telling me i think that long term, and janet and others were telling me what, you know, the discussion was here. long term, the question that is >> we are going to stay a couple minutes late. the next panel does not start for half an hour. does anyone else have a question? >>does anyone else have a question? [indiscernible] >> looking at the problems and how does all that is a legitimate exercise. calling all of public education as i understand it, we don't represent them, has been a whole bunch of other things since that student was not trying to figure that out before she just printed a -- just branded it in demoralizing way is not what the secretary of education should be doing. raising issues -- what we are seeing now is that issues that should be legitimately raised are being used as a pretext to get rid of public education. it goes back to the original piece -- is this the great equalizer? well, we have problems that have to be solved, or are we like what the republicans did with health care -- are we going to make this an unregulated market? who actually need the most will never get it. that is the debate in front of america right now. ideologically on the side of unregulated markets. >> the kids who aren't getting it now are trapped in district schools that are assigned to those schools based on where their parents can afford to buy a home. that is not serving low income children in particular. the public dollars we are spending, instead of sending them to institutions, separate the financing of education from the delivery of services, allow the sellers to follow children to whatever option needs their unique learning needs. >> the two nations that have done that, chile and sweden have found that to be a terrible exercise, and gives have been very deserved. in sweden they're trying to change that system because what happened in sweden is that scores have gone downhill. not to say there are things that we have to do to change they are, but what doing with federal dollars is not saying, let's lift up some experiments and provide more funding for it, what she is doing is what she did in michigan, which is taking funding that is absolutely essential. where i disagree with you is the funding for my first century schools in mcdowell county west virginia has turned around the school that has 100% poverty. if you went with me to that school, you would change her mind about 21st century schools. the level of kids success in math and english is remarkable in a place that is devastated by poverty. let's look at how our u.s. education system performs internationally. internationally we are in the middle of the pack. we have improved outcomes for disadvantaged kids. -- have not improved outcomes for disadvantaged kids. >> the last piece of results d willell you, and oec tell you that if you started separating out social economic issues in the places like massachusetts that everything on this for several years without having the reform of the moment and focuses on equity, they are at the top of the pack. i am with the wall street journal. not to pick on lindsay, but i'm curious your thoughts on that interchange last week where the when she got asked it was appropriate for the federal government to step in if a school taking doctors disseminated against a child -- taking vouchers discriminated against a child. i thought that interchange was murky because she said the office of civil rights and title ix still applies. what would you say about the federal role in preventing discrimination with a voucher school? >> we have federal civil rights laws in place. this is the great thing about school choice -- we value pluralism, schools can be clearer upfront about their priority believe and expectations, then parents have the option to choose those schools. we have to respect freedom. we have to respect freedom of belief, freedom of religion. that goes across the board. that means the freedom for private religious organizations to operate according to their values and beliefs. federal civil rights laws are in place, but i think beyond that we have to respect the freedom for religious organizations to operate according to their values. >> could you be more specific? what about racial discrimination in a voucher school? >> that can't happen. that is federal civil rights law. >> some people believe that black people were cursed in the old tenants. as some people read the christian bible and think to be gay and lesbian is problematic, some read the testament to say that black people are cursed in the old testament and are problematic. so if that is a religious practice, they can discriminate too. there is a huge middleground. there is a big middleground where there is a strong bipartisan consensus between some of the things that lindsay talked about. you can have choice and accountability. part of the reasons are many young people have been left behind is because the middle class already has choice. class havehe middle moved to the suburbs. they are looking for better school systems for their kids. what we left behind were low income african-american and latino who were in school systems that unfortunately were not operating at a high level. that does not mean you need unregulated markets where private actors can discriminate based on sexual orientation, or will not have meaningful accountability. that is what some on the center-right have aligned around for many decades. what i want to emphasize is that that is the space where i think one has amazing results in terms of working for kids. you have equity and transparency building in. you provide some amount of choice to poor people. i would oppose choice for poor people that have to move back to the hood. as long as they can be where they want to go and pursue choice, we can't say you will be trapped based upon your zip code to a school system that we wouldn't allow our children to spend a day in. that is what we have seen for a long time. that is different from what we see from the trump administration. they are perverting that. they are undermining that bipartisan consensus. and on top of that not even investing significantly either. so it is the worst of all worlds. what i emphasize is that tradition is a space where it is a part of the public education system, not an attempt to dismantle it. people from alan shanker to people in the center-right have supported. >> we are going to have to leave it there. >> just to be totally clear, lindsay, you would say it is ok for a school to take a voucher to discrimination against a gay child? >> my opinions aside, if i were operating the school, i would not operate a school that way. reasonable people can disagree about these sensitive issues. i think marriage is a sensitive issue. at the end of the day we have federal civil rights laws in place. >> we are past our time. i'm sorry. thank you guys for coming. >> [applause] [chatter] >> don't be afraid of your ambition, of your dreams or even your anger. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] director james. combee will testify before the committeeelligence investigating russian activities during last year's election. will have live coverage of the open part of that hearing at 10:00 a.m. eastern. live on linewatch at c-span.org or listen live free c-span radio app for apple and android devices. >> on its 63rd anniversary, and historians examine the impact of the supreme court