 Ladies and gentlemen, a man who understands that education is so much more than what a child does on a test score, Mr. Michael Sandel. Well, thank you, Michael, for that warm introduction, and thanks to all of you for being here. I want to begin. You just saw an excerpt of an experiment that Harvard did in working together with WGBH Boston, using the justice class as an experiment, opening access, free and open global access to the Harvard classroom, online and on public television. And I want to give a special thanks to Bridget Sullivan, who is the vice president of WGBH for educational programming and the WGBH team, some of whom are here today, for all of their steadfast support in enabling us to pull off this experiment. Thank you to Bridget, and I want to say that some of the most gratifying responses I've had to this series, which is also available online. It's on YouTube and iTunes and at a site we created with educational resources surrounding the videos. It's called justiceharvard.org. Some of the most gratifying responses are letters I get not only from college and university colleagues, but also from teachers who have used the material in their classrooms. It's more than an experiment in using new technology to open access to the classroom. It's also a modest attempt at civic education broadly conceived. If you look at the way we discuss politics in this country today, it's not a pretty picture. Too often what passes for political discourse consists of shouting matches on cable television and talk radio, ideological food fights on the floors of Congress. I think we can do better. And the way we can do better, I think, is to get in the habit of engaging more directly with the big ethical questions, including questions of justice and rights, the meaning of citizenship and the common good, big philosophical questions, really, that lie just beneath the surface of the arguments we have. As you may have glimpsed even in that excerpt, we debate in the classroom questions which many people say can't be debated. They're too fraught to be debated on university campuses. I don't think that's true. We debate affirmative action and same-sex marriage and income distribution and civic obligation with students who have very disparate views. And what we aim for is to develop the habit of listening, not necessarily agreeing, but listening to engage with the big ideas and the big principles that lie behind the convictions that students and, for that matter, citizens bring to public life. I think two things have been happening in American life in recent decades. One of them is the impoverishment of civic discourse. That's what we need to elevate. Another thing that's been happening, it's gotten perhaps less attention, is the reach of markets and market thinking into spheres of life traditionally governed by non-market values. And this has been happening over roughly the last three decades, a period you might almost call a period of market triumphalism, a time when there's been a growing faith in the idea that markets are the primary instrument for achieving the public good. I think these two developments are not entirely unrelated, are shrinking from substantive engagement with big ethical questions in politics and the era of market triumphalism. Before I try to explain why, what I would like to do here is to see whether we can have a discussion, we're an intimate group, a discussion about the role of markets and market incentives in one sphere of life that is rightly governed by other values, but where there are public debates about where exactly markets belong and where they don't, where they can help and serve the public good, and where they shouldn't go, education. So let's see if we here can engage in a debate on what I know are contested questions. People will disagree, I suspect, and see if we can engage in reasoned discourse, even argument, about things that we care about. Are you ready to give it a try? All right, let me put to you a question about the use of money, financial incentives, to try to improve the performance of students, especially in tough schools, in some school districts across the country. There have been in recent years a wave of experiments offering financial incentives, money to school kids to try to motivate them to show up for class, to do better on tests, to do their homework, and in some cases, even to read books. Under one program, third graders were offered $2 for every book they read. People have different views about paying students to get good grades. I'd like to hear what you think. So let's call up our first question, and as was announced at the beginning, you can first give your view, register your view, through a polling device using your cell phone. So take out your cell phones if you have them, and we'll put up the first question. Should schools try to motivate students by paying them for good grades or to read books? Take up your cell phones and vote yes or no, Y1 for yes, N1 for no, and text it to the number you were given. Do we remember what that number was? Someone, is it up there? 555-111. From the heavens came the answer. So let's see what people think. Take a few minutes, and we'll get a sense of the range of opinion in the room. Has everybody had a chance to vote? Who needs more time? Well, you see the results there. One quarter, roughly one quarter of the group say yes, and three quarters say no. So let's have a discussion. Let's hear first from someone in the minority, someone among the roughly, well, 27% who say yes. What would be your reasons? Why do you favor the use of financial incentives to improve the performance of students? Who will raise his or her hand and tell us why? How many in this audience would go to work if they didn't get paid? Uh-huh. All right, well, so I take it that's a rhetorical question. Tell us your name. Bob, Greenberg, yeah. I teach second grade. You teach second grade. And have you tried it in your class? I've used the thing. I've given candy, pizza. Well, candy and pizza. All right, what about money? Cash. Cash. I've spent a lot of my own money in my class. Well, I don't mean out of your own pocket, but suppose a foundation came along and said, we'll give you cash to motivate your second graders. Would you give it a try? Yeah, I've actually given them money, you know, not large money, but sometimes I'll say, I like the way you're sitting, and I give them a quarter. And boy, you see how fast the rest of the class sits up. And I empty my pockets of change. And what if the foundation came along and said, for the entire school year in your class, you can give $2 for each book each student reads. You give it a try. OK, thank you. Who disagrees now? Who disagrees with Bob and would not like to use money? Yes. Stand up, and we'll get you a microphone. As they may, there'll always be children who can't read for any amount of money. So I wouldn't want to penalize them when they just can't do it. It would be too frustrating and unfair to those who can't do it. Absolutely. And what about, tell us your name. Jeannie. Jeannie. Jeannie, not every child can read a book, so the motivation would just be a source of frustration. What about paying them for something else, for attendance or for good behavior? Would you be in favor of that? No. OK, so you must have a further objection. Tell us about that. Some children don't come to school because their babysitting or doing something else and their parents won't let them come. So what about that child? So I wouldn't want to pay that child. And I don't remember what else to do. So you don't want money to motivate children? No, because there's always at least one child who wants the money but can't do what the money is being offered for. And you're penalizing that child. And I wouldn't want to do that. OK, thank you for that. Anyone else who's against the use of money who has a reason we haven't heard yet? Yes. Go ahead, toward the back. Stand up. We'll get you a microphone. Yes. Over here. Yes, OK. I think the teacher should be able to motivate children, period, without using money. All right, while you explain and I have a follow-up, let's get the microphone here back to Bob and we'll see what Bob says to these objections. But tell us, say more. Well, if a teacher can't motivate a child to just do their work and be a good student, then they're not a good teacher. Well, all right, you've got a mixed response here to that. That's all right. And what grade level do you teach? I'm in sixth grade. And you don't want money for doing well? I think that children should just do well on their own without having that sort of motivation. But what's wrong with it? Bob says people are paid to go to work. Why shouldn't, now maybe all students are not as conscious, but tell us your name. My name's Lily. Lily, maybe all students are not as conscientious as you are. Maybe you can, maybe you're very well motivated, but what about for those who would get a boost, who would work harder if they were offered money? What about them, Lily? Well, I think that kids, if they're working hard only for the money, then they're not really actually learning very much. They're just kind of only doing it for a certain reason. So they're learning for the wrong reason. What about that, Bob? I guess I'm going to work every day for the wrong reason. Why do? Well, let's see about that. Why do you go to work every day? I love it. But I still have to. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You go to work because you love it. You love what you do. Right. I could retire. I'm old enough. I have enough years in. Right. But I haven't because I love what I'm doing. But I still have bills to pay. And as far as what Lily says, I mean, Lily, did you ever get an allowance? Yes. Did you have to do anything for it? Or did your parents just give it to you? I have to do stuff for it. Why didn't you just do it? I was doing it. And my parents said, because you're doing it, I'll give you money for it. All right. All right. So I would say here that between Lily and Bob, we've got to draw. Thank you both. Now, what this discussion brings out are two different objections to the use of money, market incentives, financial incentives, in education. One of them is about fairness, Jeanine's point, that it's not fair to those who can't succeed. And it will therefore be a source of frustration. And then there was a second reason that goes beyond the fairness concern that has to do with what are the right reasons to do something, to read a book, or to strive as a student, or to go to work. The second objection suggests that the point of education isn't only to get children to read books and to score well on tests, but to learn to love reading books, or doing well. A friend of mine gives, we were talking just now about allowances, Bob challenged Lily on that. A friend of mine pays his young kids $1 for every thank-you note they write when they get a gift or someone's taking them out to eat. I've received some of those thank-you notes. And I can usually tell that they were written under duress. Now, my wife and I look at scans at the paid-the-bought thank-you notes. Because we wonder, now there are two scenarios you could say. It may be that when these young people grow up, having been paid to write thank-you notes, they'll get in the habit of writing thank-you notes and keep on writing them when they're older, even when they're not paid. That might happen. Or the opposite could result. Maybe the lesson they'll learn is the thank-you notes. Writing thank-you notes is piecework for which you're paid. And when the money stops, so do the thank-you notes. And in that case, the monetary payment, though increasing output in the short term, might actually dampen their ability to learn the virtue of gratitude itself, which is, after all, the point of getting children to write thank-you notes. It's not just to please the recipients. It's to teach the kids to be grateful and to express it. So something similar may be at stake in the debate about paying schoolchildren for good grades or reading books. Bob suggests that, well, it's the kind of motivation that takes place in the workforce. And in life, they may as well get used to it. Others argue, well, maybe it's actually inculcating the wrong lesson, even if it increases output in the short term. Let's turn to a second question, not entirely unrelated, but also to do with financial incentives. This time, though, not to do with paying students, but teachers. Should schools pay teachers bonuses? You've heard this question debated before. Should schools pay teachers bonuses based on their students' performance on AP exams or other standardized tests? This, too, is being experimented with in various school districts around the country. So let's see what people think about this question. If you think, yes, school should pay teachers bonuses, well, keep voting. Don't look until you've voted. I don't want you to be swayed by the early exit polls. Why one for yes? I'm sorry, why two for yes and two for no? We'll see what people think. Are we ready? Everybody done voting? All right. Now here, it seems that paying teachers bonuses for the performance of their students is even less popular with this group than paying the students. Only 16% say yes, 84% say no. All right, let's hear the arguments on both sides of this one. First, I want to hear from someone who voted yes. Please, we'll get your microphone. Hi. So I think that if testing and scores are seen as a part of an overall evaluation for teachers, and if teachers, as a whole school, are evaluated based on all those criteria, then you can envision a system wherein which you can give a bonus to an entire staff for a lot of different factors that go into evaluating whether your school is successful in a given year. And tell us your name. My name is David. David. David, now I've got to be careful. Are you a teacher? I'm not a teacher. And tell us what you do. I work at a place called the Equity Project Charter School where we pay our teachers $125,000 for middle school teaching. Our teachers teach four classes a day and also lead the school and whole school service type of roles. And that's what we do. So after a second year of teaching, you qualify for up to $25,000 of bonus based upon how the entire school does. Everyone earns the same bonus. Based on school-wide bonus. Based on results, though. Based upon results and our report card by the city and our surveys that are given by parents and students and the teachers' evaluations. Good. OK, thank you, David. Now, who disagrees? With the use of bonuses. Yes? Hi, my name is Gloria. To me, teaching is a personality. And my personality won't change, depending on how much income I get. Furthermore, I think that I would not work any harder where I could get more money for what I do. So no, I don't think teachers should think about getting more money and, therefore, producing more and better work. No. And why is it, Gloria, why you say you wouldn't work any harder, you don't think, if you were offered a bonus for the results of your students? Why is that? Because I'm working as hard as I can now. Yeah, all right. And do you think the idea of pay for performance implies that teachers are holding something back? What it implies to me is that there are people who respond to get more money and somehow think they are doing more. Right. All right, that's good. Who disagrees with Gloria and would like to reply? Who's in favor of bonuses and has a reply for Gloria? Yes? No? All right, someone who disagrees with Gloria and would like to reply? My response is just this. If you are already working as hard as you can, why do you object to being paid more money for that effort? And tell us your name. My name is Emily. Emily, and Emily, are you a teacher? I'm a teaching artist. I work for a nonprofit as an independent contractor in several different schools in New York City. OK. Yeah, the person in the back, yes? I'd just like to call out that it's very interesting that the two people who were supporting it are not teachers. Well, wait a minute, but let's take two reasons. We'll see if there are teachers who would like to speak to that view. But what do you think? You're against? I am against it. And why? I think it will perpetuate cheating. Wait, and it'll perpetuate cheating. Why exactly? Who will do the cheating motivated by the money? The money is going to be based on standardized tests and student achievement. Standardized tests are set up in multiple choice ways. Teachers are going to have to cheat to make their kids succeed because those kids that we were talking about earlier, the students who can't do as well, or the English language learners, or the students with interrupted formal education, there's a whole series of categories of people of students that are not going to be able to achieve as well as their native-born counterparts. All right, now let's see. All right, so you've raised an interesting question. There are a few brave teachers who voted in favor of the idea of bonuses, who will speak and give his or her reasons. Way in the back. In the back. Go ahead. OK, so yes, I am a teacher. My father was a school superintendent who did some incredible things. And my question is actually, are you just saying that merit-based is just on performance? Because there's a lot of different definitions that people have for merit-based pay that is not just based on student test scores. What are the other factors that you would include? Well, because this is the gray area part. Because ideally, I think everybody in this room should be paid for doing an incredible job. Because we're all working our hard. We're here today on a Saturday. Like, we're amazing. Should we won't take a poll on that proposition? So the thing is that the problem is that there's really no way to measure how one teacher is better than another. Of course, I think it would be great to be paid more, because you're a better teacher. But how are we measuring that? If we're only measuring that based on student test scores, well, then I would join the no. But if there's no one solved it yet, no one's been able to figure it out yet, how we could take from those teachers, like yesterday, they were talking about how the scores that came out in New York City was just devastating. And you cannot measure what teachers did for 9-11 when the kids, they took those children under their wing and Katrina. That's not measurable. However, that nurturing part of teaching is something that we all should inculcate, which all have. Right. OK. Thank you for that. Is there anyone else who would like, now, the majority, the clear majority, are against paying teachers bonuses for the test performances of students? Is there anyone who has a principled objection to that that hasn't been raised yet? All right. Yes. Sorry. Well, that's not true. I have a principled objection, especially to what was in the question about standardized tests. Specifically, I'm assuming they're talking about the SAT, the ACT, and the AP exams. Well, there would be others, too. There are other standardized tests that can be the basis of this. I'm a college counselor, so I suppose that's what I think of right away. And there have been numerous studies that show specifically that many of these tests have inherent biases. They don't actually measure what students are learning. And I just thought back, we're administering an SAT course right now. And I have no interest in giving bonuses to our instructors based on our students' scores, because our students are coming from so many different backgrounds, we can't actually track how much it is that they're learning based on these tests. So I think the big question is, are the tests actually measuring learning? And I think the answer is generally no. But if they did, but if they did, then you would be fine with paying teachers bonuses. It's just that the tests don't measure accurately. All right, but that's what I'm trying to get at that. When I say I'm looking for the principled reason, beyond skepticism about the accuracy of the tests at measuring true achievement, is there someone here who hasn't spoken yet who would like to address that? Yes? Thank you. My name is Mary Beth, and I teach middle school in the Bronx. I feel that teachers are best when they collaborate, and that when you incentivize teachers to disvalue the inherent gifts of their students and encourage them to grow in areas that are measured by whatever someone with a clipboard thinks they are measured by, then you are preventing us from engaging in the very thing that makes our society strong, democracy, and the growth as a group. So Mary Beth, what's your objection is quite independent of skepticism about what the tests really measure. And it has to do, if I hear you right, with a certain understanding of what teaching is all about or should be, and you think that introducing a bonus, a monetary incentive to individual teachers would corrupt teaching properly understood, given its collaborative character as you see it. Do I have you right, Mary Beth? You have me, and more so is that the very nature of rewarding some means that others are not rewarded, thus singling some people out as being superior to. And that means that I'm not working as a group. I'm not working with other people whose genius is in a different area than mine. And it lowers the water for all of us in the boat, and it shouldn't be like that. And let me just add this. When those test scores came out, I'm in the 99th percentile, and I am organizing 99thers to come out against the data, because it hurts all of us. All right, thank you for that. Thanks to all of you who express views on both sides of this question. I want to take one last question. It'll be question four for the people in the control room. It's a question that has come up in many school districts. Should parents in affluent communities be able to donate funds to hire extra teachers in the schools their children attend? This comes up especially in times of budget cutbacks, where parents who can afford it go to the school and say, look, we will pay for the music teacher, for the theater arts teacher. How many favor parents in affluent communities being able to donate funds to hire extra teachers in the schools their children attend? If you think they should be able to do this, text Y4. If you think they should not be able to do this, text N4. I want to make sure everybody has a chance to vote on this. Now, give your opinion without watching the pie chart. At the moment, it's teetering right on the valence. So if there's anyone who has not voted, you're not allowed to vote twice. And you're not allowed to sell your vote. All right, are we done? It's teetering back and forth. This is pretty evenly divided. All right, there we have it, 50-50. All right, let's hear the arguments on both sides. See what you think. Let's first take those who are against, who don't think that this is a good idea. Tell us why you think so. We'll get you a microphone. Hi, my name is Pat, and I'm totally against it. It has actually happened. I have heard of other schools, parents getting together, and hiring teachers. Once again, the affluent communities will be able to get the most teachers for their bucks, will get the brightest teachers, thus creating the greater disparity that we already have in this city, the haves having and the not ever getting. It'll be ridiculous for us to perpetuate this situation that already exists. It already exists. We already know this. There is no equity. There is no equality in New York City as it is now. This will just worsen the situation. And what about students who are not part of the affluent community? Won't those doors be busting? Because everyone will get in there. They want to get into that school. They want to get into that school. They want to get into that school. And what will happen to the schools where there are the poorest people? That I am totally against it. And anybody who thinks it's a good idea, I want to hear from you. Thank you. OK, I'm glad I wasn't quite sure how you were going to end that sentence. I'm relieved. All right, it's Pat. All right, Pat's going to stay here. And I'd like to hear now from someone. The house is evenly divided. I want to hear from someone on the other side from Pat, explaining why you think yes. Why you think that it should be permitted. Hi, my name's Kristen. I teach in a Title I school. I teach high school mathematics. I actually was wrestling over this question a lot when it was asked. And then it kind of occurred to me the number of people that are in my school every single day. I have city year kids. I have local financiers who come in to tutor my kids. And I have tons of people from different parent organizations that come into my school to help my kids and to be an extra body in the classroom and all these different things. And I think that they're great. But I know that they're not in affluent schools. And that's also equity, right? And the fact that we say this is a low income school and so these people can come in and help my students, but they're not going into every school. They're going into high school. Do you think there's a difference between having an influx of high powered parent volunteers and affluent parents paying money to hire teachers? Is there a difference between those two contributions? I mean the government is paying the city year kids. So someone's paying them. But I'm sorry. In your case, the financiers and so on, they're coming in to teach themselves or are they hiring teachers to come? They're not teachers. So it's like a part of AmeriCorps. These people are being paid by the government to come in and assist my children that need additional help, which I think is what you're saying, or you're saying an additional teacher. Because we have government hired arts programs also that are in this school. No, I'm talking about something more specific, more targeted, where the parents of kids in this school say we don't want to lose the music teacher. We don't want to lose the theater arts teacher. So we, though these are being cut district-wide, we will pay for the salary and benefits to retain the music teacher or theater arts teacher in our school for this year or for the next three years. That's it. Right, well, we, I guess. Is that all right? Yeah, no, I agree. I think that they should be able to do that because the people that are paying the art teacher in my school and the music teacher in my school, while it's not their parents, there are these parent organizations that want to help my students because they're lower income students. All right. That's not being paid enough fluid. All right. Yes, what do you say? We work at a small urban school, and our budget keeps going down. So morally, I think it's wrong. But if parents want to help out, we'll take the help wherever we can get it. Wait, wait, wait, but you said, tell us your name. Maria. Maria, you said, morally, you think it's wrong, but we need the help, so we'll take it. No, I think it shouldn't have to happen. It shouldn't have to happen. It shouldn't have to happen. The budget should get passed by the communities who love our school, but they're not. So we had a music program cut, and a parent said, I'll fund the summer program, and she wrote a check, and we took it. And the kids were able to have the program. So I think it's sad that it has to happen, but parents want to help. I'm sorry, tell us your name again. Maria. Maria, Pat, what do you say to Maria? You're talking about Title I students who are getting gifted, or are you in an affluent community now? We're talking about affluence. We're talking about affluence. That's what it says. If you're in an affluent community and the parents are willing to put money forward to that school, are you in agreement with it? Well, from where I live, we have just one school. So we are not an affluent school, but we're a rural school in the Adirondack. So if you're trying to pit a poor school against an affluent school, that I've changed your mind then. No, I know my perspective of where I come from. Hold on there. We have someone else who wants to. You're in favor. You're in favor. OK, I'm a teacher, and I teach in a Title I school. And my name's Ed. And both of my children, we live in Brooklyn. And we live in an affluent neighborhood in Brooklyn. And both of them went to a public school. And the PA raises over $100,000 a year. And they use that money to hire extra teachers often, or to bring in programs and things like that. And I guess my question is, because I live in an affluent neighborhood, because I'm comparatively affluent, and because I live next to lots of doctors and lawyers, why should you tell me that I can't do the best for my children? Why should you penalize me? And that's what I think is, and I understand the whole thing about equity. And I also agree that Title I schools get huge amounts of money compared to my school. Go to private school. This is the public school. We were talking about public schools, affluent communities, where taxpayer dollars are being spent to educate our students, to pay the teachers, to keep the buildings going. If you have that much money and you want your school to be wonderful, then I suggest you go to private school. But he's speaking as a teacher also. Are you not? So it's not a question of where he. Let me answer. All right, go ahead. You know, I mean, the thing is, first of all, I'm a teacher, so don't call me affluent. Talk to me, I know. Except I'm lucky enough to have moved into a neighborhood that became very affluent. So I'm just kind of on the lucky side. But I guess the thing really is, what do you gain by penalizing me? It doesn't make your school any better. It just makes my school worse. Why would you want to do that to my kids? I'm not clear. What do you mean? Who's penalized? My kid is getting penalized. You're telling me, and then let's take it to the next level. You're saying, because I live in a fairly affluent and educated community, you're saying that not only will you not allow me to donate money to my school, but then you could take it to the next step and say, oh, look, my parents aren't educated, and they can't come in and tutor the kids, because they are all working hard, and they're not educated. But because you live in a community where people are educated and where maybe mothers are at home and can volunteer in the school, you would then take it to the next step and say, no, you're not allowed to volunteer in that school because that gives you a bonus. But you can put it as a question. You're not sure she'll say that. Why don't you say that? Would you say that my affluent, that the mother who lives next door to me, who bought a house for $1 million, who's at home, that she's not allowed to volunteer in the school because that's unfair to your poor kid? What about that? Volunteerism is welcomed everywhere. I don't see where it's different than money. Are you volunteering to teach right now? I teach every day. What do you mean by volunteering? All right, all right, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. All right, add Pat, add Pat. Thank you, thank you, and thanks to all of you. All right, I want to step back. We've discussed three issues. These are controversial questions in our society, not only in schools. And I want to see if we can notice a few things about the arguments we've just had. First, we've actually been engaged just now in what really isn't the crux of civic argument. And as these exchanges have shown, often, public discourse about things that matter can be fraught with passion and with disagreement. And because of that feature of genuine public discourse, we tend to shy away from it. We tend to say, let's not bring our moral convictions into public life. Let's try to keep that to one side. But when we do that, when we do that, those questions are decided one way or another. But they're decided away from public view. And our public life becomes given over to technocratic and managerial talk. And truly, public discourse becomes sidelined. So part of what I suggest is that our public life would go better if we engage more directly with the moral convictions citizens bring to public life. There's a second thing worth noticing about all three questions that we discussed. Those who worry about bringing money and markets into education have two different worries. One of them is about fairness. Is it fair to poor communities who can't hire the extra teachers? And then there's a different worry. Will the use of monetary incentives or bonuses for teachers or for students corrupt or degrade the activity, the norms that education is all about? That's a second kind of worry. So if we're to have a more morally robust debate in this democracy of ours, we have to be willing to engage more directly with the moral principles and the moral convictions that are often lie beneath the surface. And to do that, we have to engage more directly in a debate about the proper role of markets, where they can serve the public good, or in this case, the good of education, and where they may undermine it. I think one of the worries, and it's a legitimate worry, lying behind affluent parents, hiring more teachers, tempting though it is, I think one of the worries is that we live in a society where money can buy more and more. And the more things money can buy, the fewer the occasions when people from different walks of life encounter one another, bump into one another in the ordinary course of life. At a time of rising inequality, the tendency to put more and more things up for sale, or to have them governed by money and markets, means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. We send our children to different schools. Democracy does not require perfect equality, but it does require that citizens share a common life. What matters is that people of different backgrounds and social positions encounter one another. And schools have traditionally been, in the history of our democracy, class mixing a class mixing place. And so the danger is that we're losing that essential element of democratic life. And so in the end, the question of markets and money and education is really a question of how we want to live together. Do we want a society where everything is up for sale, or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and that money cannot buy? Markets can be a very valuable tool for promoting prosperity and organizing the production of goods. But sometimes an education may be one such place. Sometimes markets can crowd out values and norms that are central to what we care about in the classroom and in our democracy. That's the question that we need to debate, not because we'll agree, but because our disagreements, if they're like the ones we just had here today, our disagreements will teach us maybe better to respect one another, to learn from one another, and will make ours a healthier democracy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.