AND THE CHARLES A. FRUEAUFF FOUNDATION.

>> WE HAD A PROBLEM EXTENDING INTO PROTECTED SPEECH.

IT MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE, BUT IT'S NOT HARASSMENT.

>> THE AVERAGE CASES.

>> WE ARE NOW NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I THINK EVERYBODY IN AMERICA WOULD RECOGNIZE AS A SEXUAL SALT OR RAPE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, FRANKLY, AMBIGUOUS SITUATIONS.

>> HELLO, AND WELCOME TO DO THE CONTRARY.

I'M BONNIE ERBE.

WE CONTINUE THE WOMEN HOT LEADER LEASHERS WITH INEZ SELTSCHER-STEPMAN.

SHE'S A A VERY POLICY ANALYST AT THE WOMEN'S FORUM AND SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THE FEDERALIST, FOCUSING ON ISSUES RANGING FROM EDUCATION TO FEMINISM.

WELCOME TO THE SHOW, INEZ.

VERY PLEASED TO HAVE YOU HERE.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.

>> LET'S START WITH THE EDUCATION REPORT CARD.

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO OUR VIEWERS WHAT IT IS AND HOW YOU'RE INVOLVED WITH IT.

>> SO I WORK WITH STATE LEGISLATE UNITED STATES ON A WHOLE OF EDUCATION ISSUES.

EVERY YEAR I WOULD PUT OUT A COMPILATION REPORT OF SOME OF THE POLICIES OF EACH OF THE 50 STATES.

WE LOOK AT STATE POLICY ACROSS EACH CATEGORY.

FIRST AND FOREMOST AT PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE.

THESE ARE PROGRAMS LIKE TAX CREDIT SCHOLARSHIPS, OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIPS, AND MOST IMPORTANT LY, TO BE SOMETHING NEW CALMED EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT WHICH ARE REALLY FLEXIBLE AND PROVIDE PARENTS ARE CHOICE AS TO WHAT KIND OF EDUCATION, AND EVEN SIGNIZED EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS CHARTER SCHOOLS, SO CHARTER SCHOOLS VERY POPULAR FORUM OF SCHOOL CHOICE ACROSS 43 STATES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT HOME SCHOOLING WE LOOKED AT TEACHER PREPARATORY PROGRAMS.

WE LOOK AT MERIT PAY.

WE LOOKED AT HOW DIFFERENT SCHOOLS AND DIFFERENT STATES WERE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM.

SO WE LOOKED AT A WHOLE HOST OF DIFFERENT FACTORS AND THEN WE RATED THE STATES BASE BASED ON WHAT POLICY THEY HAD IN PLACE.

>> HOW ARE CHARTER SCHOOLS DOING >> I THINK CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE EXTREMELY VARIED, SO IT'S HARD TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ACROSS THESE 43 DIFFERENT STATES.

I MEAN, THEY DEFINITELY PROVIDE PARENTS WITH AN OPTION BESIDES THE ZONED PUBLIC SCHOOL.

RIGHT?

THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICAN CHILDREN STILL ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL THAT THEY WERE ZONED TO BY THEIR ZIP CODE.

AS WE KNOW, THE AMERICANS SORT THEMSELVES VERY STRONGLY BY WHERE THEY LIVE, BY SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS, EVEN RACIALLY.

WE'RE STILL INCREDIBLY SEGREGATED IN HOW WE LIVE.

PROVIDING CHARTER SCHOOLS GIVES A SECOND OPTION TO A LOT OF PARENTS WHO ONLY HAVE ONE OPTION AND THAT OPTION MAY NOT BE WORKING FOR THEIR KID.

FOR WHATEVER REASON.

>> HOW ABOUT CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS?

YOU INCLUDE THEM IN CHARTER SCHOOLS.

RIGHT?

>> NO.

SO CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM A LOT OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS SURROUNDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ESPECIALLY REGARDING STAFFING OR CURRICULUM THEY CAN'T HAVE AN ALLIANCE WITH A PARTICULAR RELIGION OR A CHURCH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THEY DON'T TEACH RELIGION.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS, THOUGH, WHEN YOU HAVE PRIVATE SCHOOL OPTIONS, PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE OPTIONS, THOSE DO INCLUDE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.

SO CATHOLIC SCHOOLS, NON DENOMINATIONAL PROCESS I TENT SCHOOLS, SECULAR SCHOOLS, LIKE MONTESSORI PRIVATE SCHOOLS OR WHERE THE OBAMAS SENT THEIR KIDS IN DC.

SO PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAMS PROVIDE PARENTS WITH OPPORTUNITIES AT ALL KINDS OF PUBLIC, PRIVATE, AND INCLUDING RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.

>> EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT WORKS WITH PRIVATE SCHOOLS, WHERE THE OBAMAS SENT BE THEIR KIDS IS UPWARDS OF $0,000 A YEAR.

HOW DOES A CHILD FROM A LOW INCOME FAMILY USE FEDERAL SUPPORT IF IT'S AVAILABLE TO GO TO A SCHOOL LIKE THAT?

>> THE VAST MAJORITY OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE NOT LIKE SIDWELL FRIENDS.

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN AMERICAN WITH TUITION BETWEEN SIX AND $10,000.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE ENTIRE CATHOLIC NETWORK OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

A LOT OF THEM SPECIFICALLY HAVE IT IN THEIR MISSION TO SERVE LOW INCOME KIDS.

SO WE TRIED VERY HARD TO KEEP THEIR TUITIONS LOW.

BUT ON THE FLIP SIDE, IN DC WE SPEND ALMOST $30,000 PER STUDENT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

SO WE ACTUALLY SPEND AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND WE HAVE SOME OF THE WORST RESULTS IN THE NATION, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE PROVING.

>> WHY IS THAT?

I MEAN, IT ONLY MAKES SENSE THAT IF YOU CAN PAY TEACHERS MORE AND GIVE THEM BETTER BENEFITS AND HAVE BETTER BUILDINGS WITH AIR CONDITIONING, WITH HEATING, WHICH A LOT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS DON'T HAVE EVEN IN THIS DAY AND AGE, HOW IS IT THAT YOU COULD SPEND MORE?

>> ONLY HIRED AS MANY NEW ADMINISTRATORS AS THEY WERE SORT OF PROPORTIONALLY NEW KIDS COMING INTO THE SYSTEM, WE'D BE UNABLE TO GIVE ALL TEACHERS BETWEEN A THREE AND $5,000 RAISE TOMORROW.

IN NEW JERSEY IT'S LIKE 17 OR $19,000 A YEAR IMMEDIATELY.

AND THAT'S NOT A HIRING FREEZE ON ADMINISTRATORS.

THAT'S JUST KEEPING PACE.

RIGHT?

KEEPING THE BUYER ANCRACY KEEPING PACE WITH THE WAY THAT STUDENTS, THE STUDENT POPULATION IS INCREASING.

SO REALLY, IT'S A PRIORITIES PROBLEM.

>> BUT IS THAT SOMETHING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HAPPENED UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH AS MASSIVE REORGANIZATION OF THE WHOLE TEACHING METHOD?

THE WHOLE PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION IN THIS COUNTRY WHEN HE SIGNED THE LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND ACT?

>> FEDERAL INTERVENTION INTO EDUCATION IN GENERAL, YOU STILL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT 10% OF THE FUNDING.

THE VAST MAJORITY STILL COMES FROM STATES AND LOCALITIES.

GOING BACK TO PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND THE WAR ON POVERTY IN THE 1960S, TURNING ON THAT TAP OF MONEY LED TO BUILDING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY WAS GOING.

A REASONABLE REQUEST.

AND THEN WE WANTED TO KNOW IF THE MONEY ACTUALLY WORKED, SO CONGRESS DECIDED TO ATTACH ALL OF THESE CARATS AND STICKS TRYING TO GET SCHOOLS TO IMPROVE BASED ON FEDERAL MONEY.

THE CURRENT VERSION OF ESA AND WE HAD RACED TO THE TOP UNDER OBAMA.

WE HAD SIG PROGRAMS.

WE HAD ALL KINDS OF FEDERAL INTERVENTION AND EVERY STEP ALONG THE WAY THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN TERMS OF RESULTS HAVE EITHER STAGNATED OR GONE DOWN.

AND TO ME, THAT SAYS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS STOP DOING THESE TOP DOWN INTERVENTIONS AND GO TO PARENTS, GO TO FAMILIES, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY KNOW THE WE HAVE THE OF WHAT THEIR KIDS NEED, AND OFTENTIMES, THOSE NEEDS ARE INCREDIBLY VARIED.

I MEAN, ANYONE WHO HAS MORE THAN ONE KID WILL TELL YOU WHAT WORKS FOR SALLY MAE NOT WORK FOR JOHN, AND VICE VERSA.

EACH KID IS DIFFERENT.

AND THEREFORE, THEIR EDUCATION NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT.

THAT'S WHY I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM TO EMPOWER PARENTS RATHER THAN TRYING TO KEEP FORCING THESE REFORMS FROM THE TOP, FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH REALLY DON'T HAVE A GOOD TRACK RECORD.

>> HOW MUCH DOES IMMIGRATION, IN A SENSE, LANGUAGE HAVE TO DO WITH PROBLEMS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

I LIVE NEAR A MAGNET SCHOOL IN VIRGINIA WHERE THE KIDS SPEAK 84 LANGUAGES.

CURRENT IT HURT, HOLD BACK SOME OTHER KIDS' EDUCATION IF A TEACHER HAS TO TEACH A CHILD WHO SPEAKS ARABIC OR ARMENIAN IN ENGLISH?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND THE CHALLENGE IS -- THE CHALLENGES OF SPEAKING SUCH A DIVERSE POPULATION, AND WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN DIVERSE WITH REGARD TO LANGUAGES AND WITH REGARD TO FAMILY BACKGROUND, WITH REGARD TO ETHNIC BACKGROUND, WITH REGARD TO VALUES AND WHAT FAMILIES BELIEVE.

WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE DIVERSE COUNTRY.

AND THAT'S WHY THIS VERY ONE SIZE FITS ALL TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT WE BASICALLY HAVEN'T TOUCHED SINCE THE MID 1900S DOES NOT SERVE THE DIVERSITY OF AMERICA WELL.

>> SHOULD A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THOSE DIFFERENT NEEDS THAT THE STUDENTS HAVE ON TOP.

FACT THAT A LOT OF LOW INCOME KIDS DON'T REALLY COME FROM A FUNCTIONING FAMILY?

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM COULD DO WELL FOR ALL THOSE CHILDREN?

>> WELL, I EXACTLY THINK THAT IT CAN'T, AS LONG AS WE HAVE A SINGLE MONOLITHIC SYSTEM.

RIGHT?

AS LONG AS WE'RE TRYING TO SERVE EVERYBODY IN ALL OF THEIR CHALLENGES, DIVERSITY, AND NEEDS AND ON THE FLIP SIDE, ALL OF THEIR STRENGTHS AND THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE INDIVIDUALLY GOOD AT OR INTERESTED IN, AS LONG AS WE'RE TRYING TO SERVE EVERYBODY.

WE'RE GOING TO SERVE EVERYBODY KIND OF POORLY.

>> WHAT ABOUT PRIVATIZATION?

ARE YOU IN SUPPORT OF PRIVATIZ ING PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

>> SO WHEN PEOPLE SAY PRIVAT IZATION, THEY MEAN ALLOW ING PARENTS TO TAKE THE PUBLIC DOLLARS.

RIGHT?

SO EVERY KID HAS A CERTAIN POT OF MONEY THAT'S EARMARKED FOR THAT KID.

RIGHT?

BY WHATEVER FUNDING FORMULA THAT EXISTS AT THE STATE LEVEL, COMPOUNDED WITH FEDERAL AND LOCAL MONEY.

EVERY KID HAS SORT OF A DOLLAR AMOUNT ASSOCIATED WITH HIM OR HER IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

RIGHT NOW, THAT DOLLAR, THAT AMOUNT OF DOLLARS GOES DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT SCHOOL IS ACTUALLY SERVE THAT GO KID WELL, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PARENTS THINK THAT THAT SCHOOL HAS VALUES THAT ALIGN WITH THEIRS OR IS DOING WELL FOR THEIR KIDS' EDUCATION.

SO I ACTUALLY THINK PRIVAT IZATION IS SORT OF USED AS A SCARY WORD.

LIKE OH, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET RID OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.

NO ONE WANTS TO GET RID OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.

>> WITH PRIVATE SCHOOLS, THAT TAKES MONEY OUT OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

AREN'T YOU, IN ESSENCE, PRIVATIZING WITH CHARTER SCHOOLS AND WITH SCHOOLS, SPECIALIZED SCHOOLS LIKE THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN FLORIDA IN >> I WOULD SAY WHAT THOSE DOLLARS ARE NOW FOLLOWING WHAT THE PARENTS WANT THEM TO DO.

IF THE PARENTS WANT TO SEND THEIR KID TO THE TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL THAT'S RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, THEY WILL DO THAT, AND THOSE DOLLARS WILL CONTINUE TO FLOW.

IT'S FLIPPING WHO HOLDS THE POWER.

RIGHT NOW, BUREAUCRATS AND POLITICIANS HAVE DECIDED, OKAY, YOUR DOLLARS ARE ALLOCATED HERE.

YOU'RE IN THIS ZIP CODE.

THEREFORE, YOUR KID WILL GO TO THIS SCHOOL.

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING INSTEAD IS NOT TO PRIVATIZE THE SYSTEM.

IN FACT, I WOULD SAY THAT PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION IS A COMMON GOOD.

I THINK CONSERVATIVES, LIBERALS, EVERYBODY IN BETWEEN CAN AGREE, THIS IS A PUBLIC GOOD.

WE ABSOLUTELY WANT TO INVEST IN OUR KIDS' EDUCATION.

THE DIFFERENCE IS HOW WE I KNOW VOTE.

RIGHT?

AND WHETHER WE ALLOW PARENTS AND FAMILIES TO CHOOSE HOW THAT INVESTMENT WILL BE SPENT OR WHETHER WE ALLOW BUREAUCRATS OR SORT OF TECHNOCRATS IN WASHINGTON AND IN OTHER BIG FEDERAL PROGRAMS OR STATE POLITICIANS TO DECIDE HOW THAT MONEY IS SPENT.

>> SCHOOL CHOICE OPPONENTS WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S REAL A CODA FOR SAYING LET'S TAKE TAX DOLLARS AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

AND PRIVATIZATION, YOU WORK FOR ALEC, A VERY MUCH BEHIND THE AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL, VERY MUCH BEHIND PRIVATIZATION OF PRISONS, OF PARKING METERS, OF STATE TOLL ROADS, ET CETERA.

AND EDUCATION SECRETARY DEVOS' FAMILY HAS MADE LITERALLY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM SUPPLY ING THE NEEDS OF PRIVATIZ ED SCHOOLS OR PARTIALLY PRIVATIZED SCHOOLS.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT'S ALL WRONG?

>> I CAN ONLY SPEAK IN EDUCATION TO THE POLICIES.

WE ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT SCHOOL CHOICE, WHICH AS I SAID I DON'T CALL PRIVATIZATION, BECAUSE THERE'S STILL PUBLIC DOLLARS.

RIGHT?

WE'RE STILL INVESTING AND WE TALK ABOUT THE PUBLIC AS TAXPAYERS, AS CITIZENS.

OUR CITIZENS ARE STILL INVESTING IN THE EDUCATION OF OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT.

THE DIFFERENCE IS HOW THOSE DOLLARS ARE SPENT.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO SEPARATE THE IDEA FROM THIS ONE SYSTEM, THIS TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR ABOUT 100 YEARS IN AMERICA THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GREAT TRACK RECORD OF EDUCATING ALL STUDENTS AND I THINK WE HAVE TO SEPARATE THE IDEA OF THAT PARTICULAR SYSTEM WITH ITS MONOLITHIC SORT OF STRUCTURE FROM THE PUBLIC NEGLIGENT OF INVESTMENT, I WOULD SAY, IN THE PUBLIC DOLLARS.

I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN INVESTING IN PUBLIC EDUCATION.

THE DIFFERENCE IS WHAT DOES THAT PUBLIC EDUCATION LOOK LIKE AND WHO HOLDS THE POWER?

IS IT PARENTS?

OR IS IT, YOU KNOW, ADMINISTRATORS OR BUREAUCRATS OR POLITICIANS?

AND I WOULD SAY THAT'S ACTUALLY MORE DEMOCRATIC WAY TO INVEST IN PUBLIC EDUCATION.

TO TRUST FAMILIES TO KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THEIR FAMILY.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU DO ABOUT THAT?

I MEAN, YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF EITHER TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE DISTRICTS WHERE WELL-TO-DO PARENTS HAVE WORKED HARD TO GET THEIR STUDENTS INTO OR LEAVING THINGS AS THEY ARE WHERE POOR KIDS AREN'T GETTING A FAIR SHOT AT A GOOD EDUCATION.

>> I DON'T THINK THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS.

I THINK THE BEST OPTION ASK TO ACTUALLY RESTORE THAT FUNDING AND THE DECISIONS ABOUT THAT FUNDING TO THE FAMILY LEVEL, TO THE STUDENT LEVEL.

AND THAT'S WHY I THINK CHOICE ACTUALLY HAS SO MUCH PROMISE FOR -- IT'S NOT GOING TO BE -- IT'S NOT GOING TO MAGICALLY TRANSFORM EDUCATION.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HANG LIKELY TRANSFORM SOME OF THE DEEP CLASS DIVIDES IN AMERICA.

I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO PRETEND THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT WHAT IT WILL DO IS LOOSEN THAT LINK BETWEEN WHERE YOU WERE BORN AND THE FAMILY IN WHICH YOU WERE BORN AND THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO, BECAUSE INSTEAD OF HAVING TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE PARTICULAR SCHOOL IN YOUR PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU WILL HAVE CHOICES.

YOU'LL HAVE OPTIONS.

EITHER THERE'S A CHARTER SCHOOL MAYBE A-MILE AWAY OR THERE IS A PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIPS TO GO TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL.

>> ALL POOR KIDS ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET INTO PRIVATE -- TO CHARTER SCHOOLS UNDER EXCELLENT STANDARDS UNDER WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> THE CHOICE, FIRST OF ALL, THE COMPETITION CREATED BY EACH FAMILY BEING ABLE TO CELL THE DOLLARS ACTUALLY INCREASES THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION FOR EVERYONE.

SO SOME OF THE LEAST KNOWN STUDIES ABOUT THE WHOLE KIND OF SCHOOL CHOICE DEBATE ARE THOSE ON TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN AREAS WHERE THERE'S A SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM.

RIGHT?

SO IN AREAS WHERE POTENTIALLY SOME STUDENTS MIGHT LEAVE A TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, USE A SCHOOL CHOICE FRAME TO ATTEND A PRIVATE SCHOOL.

22 OUT OF THOSE 23 STUDIES THAT LOOKED AT THE SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS LEFT BEHIND DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CHOICE PROGRAM, BECAUSE THESE PROGRAMS AREN'T UNIVERSAL USUALLY.

USUALLY THEY AREN'T UNIVERSAL.

SAW ACTUAL ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT IN THE SCHOOL WHERE THE KIDS LEFT FROM.

AND THE 23RD ONE JUST SHOWED NO EFFECT.

IT JUST SHOWED NO EFFECT.

RIGHT?

SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS, IN FACT , EVEN BY ALLOWING JUST A FEW STUDENTS TO ACCESS CHOICE, WE'RE REALIGNING THE INCENTIVES WHERE PARENTS ACTUALLY HAVE A LOT MORE POWER, CAN GO TO A SCHOOL AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT?

WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW ISN'T WORKING FOR MY KID.

AND THAT COMPETITION BETWEEN SCHOOLS FOR THAT PARENT'S DECISION ACTUALLY LIFTS ALL THE BOATS AND IMPROVES EDUCATION FOR EVERYBODY.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU DO ABOUT VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS?

>> IT'S BEEN AN INCREASING PROBLEM.

RIGHT?

IN THE LAST, ABOUT, FOUR TO FIVE YEARS, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, STATISTICAL INCREASE IN VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN SCHOOLS THAT HAD MORE THAN TEN SUSPENSIONS PER YEAR, PER ACADEMIC YEAR.

WE'VE SEEN IN THE FEW STUDIES WE'VE DONE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS , WE'VE SEEN BIG INCREASES PER DISTRICT.

>> INNER CITY SCHOOLS OR MAINLY RURAL SCHOOLS?

>> SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN PARKLAND, THE SHOOTER, UNFORTUNATELY, NICHOLAS CRUZ, HE HAD A VERY LONG CRACK RECORD OF DOING THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU AND I WOULD SAY, OF COURSE SOMEBODY SHOULD BE NOT ONLY SUSPENDAL, EXPELLED, THEY SHOULD BE REFERRED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.

RIGHT?

HE MADE REAL THREATS ON CAMPUS.

HE BROUGHT WEAPONS TO SCHOOL.

AND BECAUSE OF THESE SORT OF NEW PROGRAMS THAT REALLY DON'T WANT TO -- THEY MAKE SCHOOLS HAVE INCENTIVES NOT TO WANT TO RECORD SUSPENSIONS, EXPULSIONS, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT, HE SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS.

HE HAD NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

TEACHERS WERE LOOKING AT SERIOUS DISCIPLINE VIOLATIONS THAT REALLY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN SERIOUSLY AT THE TOP, AND THE SORT OF BUREAUCRACY FILTERING DOWNTURNED WHAT WAS A WELL INTENTIONED IDEA INTO SOMETHING THAT WAS QUITE DANGEROUS.

>> WHY ABOUT ARMING TEACHERS, WHICH IS A CONSERVATIVE PUSH RIGHT NOW.

>> I'M IN FAVOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

I'M IN FAVOR THAT IF SOMEBODY IS ABLE TO GET A CONCEAL/CARRY PERMIT IN THEIR STATE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH TEACHERS BEING ABLE TO ARM THEMSELVES AND DEFEND THEIR STUDENTS, BUT THAT'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OF A PERIPHERY ISSUE TO EDUCATION IN GENERAL.

DEFINITELY A SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE.

IT FEEDS INTO THE DEBATE THE COUNTRY IS HAVING OVER GUN CONTROL.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CORE OF THE SCHOOL SAFETY ISSUE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

>> EDUCATION SECRETARY BETS I DEVOS, YOU'RE A SUPPORTER.

SHE'S EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT HER CHANGES TO TITLE IX, WHICH WAS SET UP TO PROTECT ALLEGED VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN SCHOOLS?

AND SHE WOULD MAKE IT -- SHE WOULD SHIFT THE BURDEN AND MAKE IT MUCH EASIER FOR PREDOMINANTLY MALE STUDENTS ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT TO PRESENTS THEIR CASES TO SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS.

>> FIRST, I THINK WE NEED TO BACK UP AND RECOGNIZE THAT THE CHANGES THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT INTO PLACE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ROLLING BACK NOW, REALLY DIDN'T WORK.

>> TELL MY WHAT THOSE CHANGES WERE.

>> THOSE CHANGES LOWERED THE STANDARD OF PROOF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, ALLOWED ALL KINDS OF DEEPLY UNFAIR AND ANTI-AMERICAN IN SOME WAYS, AND BY THAT I DON'T MEAN LIKE THE GENERAL, BUT ANTI-AMERICAN PRINCIPLES OF JURISPRUDENCE.

RIGHT?

SO TO HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMETHING CALLED A SINGLE INVESTIGATOR MODEL WHERE ONE PERSON, ONE ADMINISTRATOR DOES ALL THE INVESTIGATING, ASKS ALL THE QUESTIONS.

RIGHT?

AND THEN RENDERS A VERDICT.

THAT'S VERY, VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'RE USED TO IN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE.

OKAY?

SO FRANKLY, ENCOURAGED SCHOOLS TO SET UP WHAT HAVE BEEN INCREASINGLY SOMETHING CLOSE TO KANGAROO COURTS.

RIGHT?

AND WE KNOW THAT THEY HAVE HAD DEEP CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS AND DEEP LEGAL PROBLEMS, BECAUSE THE MEN WHO WERE, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, CONVICTED IN THEM OFTENTIMES SUE THE SCHOOLS AND WIN THIS AFTERNOON FEDERAL COURT AFTERWARDS.

>> SO WHY NOT, THEN, JUST START A MOVEMENT TO HAVE THESE ALLEGATIONS REPORTED TO LOCAL POLICE AND PROSECUTED BY THE LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AS OPPOSED TO BY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS IN >> I ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S A FANTASTIC IDEA.

THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH TRYING TO PROSECUTE SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF VICTIMS WHO SAY THAT IT'S EXTREMELY HARD TO CONVICT SOMEBODY IN A COURT OF LAW.

MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE A LOWER STANDARD ON CAMPUS.

I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE DEBATE TO HAVE, BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS SET UP MUCH BETTER TO DEAL WITH THIS KIND OF CASE IN TERMS OF THE RESOURCES THEY HAVE ACCESS TO, IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO PUT PEOPLE UNDER OATH TO TESTIFY, AND FRANKLY, TO HAVE THE INVESTIGATE DID TORY POWERS OF THE POLICE.

SCHOOLS DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE TOOLS AND THEY'RE ILL SUITED FOR DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM, BUT IF THEY ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM -- >> WELL, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY ARE ULTIMATELY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS TO THEIR STUDENTS, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE, YOU KNOW, COMMON TORT LAW AND PLACE THE BURDEN ON THE PUBLIC AND ON THE PUBLIC JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

>> THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT BETSY DEVOS, THE PROPOSED CHANGES OUT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEALS WITH.

THE JURISDICTION OF TITLE IX, WHICH ORIGINALLY WAS MORE NARROW THAN IT HAS BEEN TREATED FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS OR SO.

RIGHT?

BECAUSE ORIGINALLY, TITLE NINE WAS SUPPOSED TO DEAL EXACTLY WITH CAMPUSES, THINGS THAT SCHOOLS COULD CONTROL.

THEY WEREN'T CONSIDERED LIABLE FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF THEIR STUDENTS, YOU KNOW, OFF CAMPUS, DURING THE SUMMER, ON A TRIP TO, YOU KNOW, WHEREVER JUST BECAUSE THEY ATTENDED THE SCHOOL DURING AL REST OF THE YEAR.

SO I THINK ONE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT BETSY DEVOS HAS PIT FORWARD TO TITLE IX IS ACTUALLY VERY REASONABLE, WHICH IS LOOK, SCHOOLS CAN'T POSSIBLY BE RESPONSE FOR INK THAT ANYONE EVEN REMOTELY CONNECTED TO THEIR SCHOOL HAS DONE ON THEIR FREE TIME.

THE OTHER CHANGES SHE'S PROPOSING ARE THINGS LIKE GETTING RID OF THAT SINGLE INVESTIGATE DID TORY MODEL THAT I THINK IS DEEPLY UNFAIR.

THE SAME PERSON SHOULDN'T BE ASKING THE QUESTIONS AND MAKING A RULING.

THAT'S NOT A FAIR SYSTEM AT FINDING THE TRUTH.

ONE OF THE MORE CONTROVERSIAL CHANGES SHE MADE WAS TO REINTRODUCE A REQUIREMENT FOR CROSS.

THE SUPREME COURT CALLED THAT THE GREATEST LEGAL ENGINE FOR DISCOVERING THE TRUTH.

AND CONTRARY TO SOME REPORTS, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE ACCUSED STUDENT GETS TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PERSON ACCUSING HIM OF SEXUAL IMPROPRIETY.

THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

IN FACT, THEY CAN BE IN DIFFERENT ROOMS.

THEY CAN NEVER BE IN THE SAME ROOM IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO IT THAT WAY.

BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT ANYONE WHO GIVES A STATEMENT IS ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT STATEMENT AND ASKED TO, FOR EXAMPLE, CORROBORATE FACTS AND TO BRING FORWARD EVIDENCE AND ALL OF THESE THINGS, AND CROSS-EXAMINATION IS A GREAT TOOL FOR THAT, SO CHERIE INTRODUCED THAT.

FINALLY, ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK HAS GOTTEN NOT ENOUGH COVERAGE THAT I THINK IS MAYBE SOMETHING WE CAN FIND SOME COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT IS THE NARROWING OF THE DEFINITION OF HARASSMENT.

SO SCHOOLS CAN HAVE THESE KIND OF EVER BROADENING DEFINITIONS OF WHAT HARASSMENT MEANS ON CAMPUS, AND SOMETIMES THAT CUTS INTO PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS ACTUALLY LIBERAL FEMINIST TEACHER WHOSE PRESENTATIONS SHE USED SOME CURSE WORDS IN HER PRESENTATION.

SHE'S A TENURED PROFESSOR.

I THINK SHE WAS AN ARTS PROFESSOR AND IT WAS PART OF SORT OF HOW SHE TAUGHT, AND THERE WERE TITLE IX CLAIMS, HARASSMENT CLAIMS FILED BY HER IN STUDENTS IN HER CLASS SAYING SHE WAS HARASSING THEM WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT SHE WAS USING.

WE'VE HAD A REAL PROBLEM WITH EXTENDING INTO WHAT IS PROTECTED SPEECH.

IT MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE, BUT IT'S NOT HARASSMENT.

RIGHT?

THE SUPREME COURT HAS DEFINED HARASS MINT IN A CASE CALLED DAVID VERSUS MONROE.

AND THEY'VE MADE DOWN THE MARKER FOR THAT IS SUBJECTIVELY OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR, WHICH IS A STANDARD THE COURT USED.

NOT JUST WHAT MIGHT OFFEND ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, BUT SOME KIND OF REASONABLE STANDARD FOR WHAT'S OFFENSIVE.

AND IT HAS TO BE SO SEVERE AND PER VAGUE I HAVE THAT IT ACTIVELY PREVENTS A WOMAN FROM ACCESSING THE EDUCATION TO WHICH SHE HAZE RIGHT.

>> OKAY.

YOU'RE RAIL TALKING HERE ABOUT CASES THAT ARE WAY ON THE MARGIN THE AVERAGE CASE IS A WOMAN HAS BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED.

NOT EVEN JUST HARASSED.

>> SO IT'S VERY COOL TO TALK ABOUT THESE AVERAGE SPACE AND WHAT THEY MEAN ON THESE CAMPUSES WHEN WE HEAR STATISTICS LIKE ONE IN FOUR OR ONE IN FIVE WOMEN HAS BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED -- >> THOSE THINGS -- >> ON CAMPUS.

>> RIGHT.

>> THOSE SURVEYS ARE INCLUDING TONS OF WOMEN, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AVERAGES HERE, 70 CLOSE TO 0% OF THE WOMEN WHO THOSE SURVEYS COUNT AT SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS DO NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS, BECAUSE AS A SOCIETY NOW, WE HAVE INCREDIBLY EXPANDED WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN.

WELL BEYOND THEIR LEGAL DEFINITION.

WE ARE NOW NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SORT OF THING THAT I THINK EVERYBODY IN IT AMERICA WOULD RECOGNIZE AS A SEXUAL ASSAULT OR RAPE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, FRANKLY AMBIGUOUS SITUATIONS BETWEEN WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE HEAVILY INTOXICATED, WHERE CONSENT IS EITHER ASSUMED OR WASN'T PROPERLY -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY, VERY GRAY AREA CASES.

IF YOU WANT TO TALK AVERAGE, THOSE ARE THE AVERAGE CASE.

THEY'RE NOT CASES IN WHICH WHAT YOU AND I WOULD THINK ABOUT AS VERY CLEAR SEXUAL ASSAULT OR RAPE CASES.

THOSE CASES OFTEN DO GO TO THE POLICE, FACT, BECAUSE IN THOSE CASES, EVIDENCE IS ABLE TO BE COLLECTED AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS A MUCH EASIER TIME DEALING WITH THOSE CASES.

THIS WHOLE SYSTEM N A WAY, IS SET UP TO TRY TO DEAL WITH THESE AMBIGUOUS CASES THAT, AS A CONSERVATIVE, I WOULD ARGUE WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE TAKEN ALL THE GUARDRAILS OFF OF MAIL/ FEMALE I WANT ACTION AND THEN WE'VE TRIED TO JAM BACK THE RULES VIA SORT OF LEGAL CONSENT, WHICH I JUST DON'T THINK HAS BEEN WORKING VERY WELL.

>> FOR PEOPLE, GROWN-UP WOMEN WHO AREN'T STILL IN SCHOOL, BUT SOMETHING LIKE 2% OF THEM ARE FALSE.

DO YOU THINK MEN REALLY NEED MORE PROTECTION?

>> SO THAT NUMBER ACTUALLY COMES FROM A SPEECH OF ONE JUDGE THIRTY-SOMETHINGS YEARS AGO.

THAT 2% NUMBER.

>> YOU THOUGHT IT WAS FROM JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CASES?

>> THOSE ARE FIRST OF ALL THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DATA, TALKING ABOUT FEDERAL CRIMES.

SEXUAL ASSAULT IS NOT A FEDERAL CRIME.

IT'S A STATE CRIME, BUT WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A GREAT HANDLE ON WHAT THE FALSE REPORT RATE MIGHT BE.

AND THEN THERE'S THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CASES WHERE YOU CAN'T PROVE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

RIGHT?

SO WE CAN'T SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT 22% OF THESE REPORTS ARE FALSE -- 2% OF THESE REPORTS ARE ALSO WHEN YOU CAN SAY ON THE FLIP SIDE ONLY SOMETHING LIKE 3% OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EVER ACCUSED OF RAPE ARE CONVICTED.

RIGHT?

IN THE MIDDLE, THERE'S ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT SURE ABOUT SO IT'S NOT LIKE, I DON'T THINK THAT NUMBER IS REALLY A FAIR IN YOU BE TO WORK WITH.

AND I ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT THE PRINCIPLE, THINGS LIKE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM, THEY PROTECT ALL OF OUR RIGHTS WHEN WE'RE ACCUSED OF ANYTHING.

IT'S NOT JUST MEN PROTECTED I DIDN'T THE PRESUMPTION OF INDEPENDENCE.

WOMEN ARE PROTECTED AS WELL.

IT'S A PRINCIPLE IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR A REASON.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU'VE BEEN A FASCINATING GUEST AND I APPRECIATE YOUR EXPERTISE ON THIS ISSUE.

THAT'S IT FOR THIS EDITION.

PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER VISIT OUR WEBSITE, PBS.ORG/TO THE CONTRARY.

AND WHETHER YOU AGREE OR THINK TO THE CONTRARY, SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

>> AND THE CHARLES A. FRUEAUFF FOUNDATION.

FOR A TRANSCRIPT OR TO SEE AN ONLINE VERSION OF THIS EPISODE OF TO THE CONTRARY, PLEASE VISIT OUR PBS WEBSITE AT