 to the United States. It's been suggested with the lights that it's a little bit warm up here, and I'd suggest that we remove our coats. And now, Mr. President, that we've taken our coats off and we're right down to business. We'd like to welcome you to these deliberations that we've had since this morning here in Hopkins as we're discussing the report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education. Mr. President, we've had a series of sessions this morning. We've had some panel discussions. In addition to Chairman Gardner, we've had three other members of the National Commission on Excellence here with us. And a number of the audience, number of teachers and students weren't here this morning. And so for their benefit and for yours, Mr. President, we'll take a few moments and call on our panel chairman to summarize the report. And I'd like to, at first, Mr. President, call on Dr. Bob Hatterline from the great state of Kansas. He's a immediate past president of the National School Board's Association. And been a board member for a long time. Mr. President, he chaired the panel of local school officials this morning. I'd like for him to summarize for you and for the audience that wasn't here this morning the deliberations of that panel. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. President, our local panel this morning consisted of one teacher, two superintendents, and three school board members, one a past president of the PTA. The panelist thought that the report had merit and had areas that should be a concern for the entire education community. Some of those recommendations could be addressed in the 83, 84 school year. Why not excellence instead of inadequacy was a theme for one of our panelists? Where does motivation start? Is it a responsibility of the home, the church, the parents? Expectations must be raised for the parents, for the children, teachers, administrators, and the school board and the members of the entire community. But how do we proceed from this point to solve that problem? There was general support for increased graduation requirements with emphasis on core curriculum as outlined in the report's recommendation, but a timely caution to maintain the fine arts in the curriculum. And we realize this will require additional funds. The question, where do we obtain those additional dollars? There was general, but not unanimous agreement on the 11 month teacher contract, recognition that more time on task would be beneficial to our students. Again, the concern, this will be a high cost item. One panelist estimated that the cost of $1 million per day, again the concern, the financing of a longer school term. The merit paid plan was discussed by all panelists. General consensus was it has merit, but large, large problems. A structured, equitable evaluation system is necessary and a major concern of the merit plan. A suggestion to look at a merit paid plan for administrators was a suggestion of one of the panelists. Too much subjectivity was a concern. Problems during negotiation sessions with teachers was a concern by a majority of the panelists. There was an expression that we can come up with a fair evaluation model. Again, the question, where can we find leadership in helping us as we work for a model merit paid plan? The posture of the federal government in education was addressed. There was acknowledgment of the federal support in the areas of Chapter 1, 94-142 and Head Start. There was a suggestion that a nation at risk calls for a national influence on schools in America. One called it a Marshall Plan. Why not a Marshall Plan for education? And as we speak to updating and upgrading the teaching profession and all of its ramifications, why not a GI bill for teachers? Question, if we are a nation at risk and there is a demonstrated crisis, is there a need for greater participation by the federal government for education? Or should the additional finances, if necessary, come from the state and local sources? And finally, a criticism of the report suggesting that we did not recognize the many school districts in this country that are promoting excellence in education? And how can we reward those districts, those administrators and teachers involved in excellent programs? Mr. President, that represents the liberation of the local panel. Now we thank you very much, Bob. And we'll now call on Governor Al Quay, Mr. President, and those that weren't here this morning. Governor Quay chaired a panel of state officials, which included, incidentally, Governor Ted Swindon from Montana and some other state officers, state legislators, a state school board chairman, the state superintendent from North Dakota and some other state officials. And so they looked at the National Commission report from the point of view of the state officials, the governors, the members of state legislatures, and state board members and chief state school officers. So we'll ask Governor Al Quay to give a summary of their deliberations. Thank you, Mr. Secretary and Mr. President and friends. The group, as Secretary Bell indicated, were state representatives and the governor, chief state school officer, president of the state board of education, and Minnesota head of the PTA. And I pointed out to them that this was the group that had the responsibility since about 7% to 8% of the money for elementary and secondary education comes from the federal government and the remainder comes from within the state. So if there's going to be additional amounts of money, it'll have to come primarily from what's within the state. If there is one theme that seemed to me came through not only in the opening comments but also answers to questions is that before a great deal of additional money would be coming from within the state, there'd have to be a demonstration of doing better with what they've got right now. And I asked them the question, how many days a year do you think that the students ought to go to school and it seemed to me that throughout the panel they felt that they ought to use the time they have right now better before we go into additional days. And I found that interesting. Good job. Thank you. I notice the students responding to that, Al. I'd get the hot water with them right away and say that we ought to move to 200 days as soon as we can. The second part, and it runs through, is one, we shouldn't sacrifice the priorities that we have now, that there had to be plenty of lobbying. And there wasn't any specific group that was pointed out. And I assume that all people are interested in education. They have to do a substantial amount of lobbying for additional money from the state in order to secure it. There was one suggestion that you put in one less MX missile in one of the Western states and use that money for education. I don't think you ever heard that before. And I hasten to add then that the federal deficit's Minnesota share was $4.2 billion the same as our whole budget this year for the state. So I didn't know where you were getting the money if you were going to do it out there. But it seemed to come through, however, was the need for the federal government as a catalyst. And I would interpret that to mean just as we have this report, the nation at risk, as a catalyst, that there was the expectation and the hope that the federal government would serve further as a catalyst, bringing the public opinion leaders together in order that we might chart the course in which we're going. And I'd say that was along the line, which we're doing now in these regional meetings. Thank you. Thank you, Governor Quay, for your summary. Emerald Crosby, on my right, Mr. President and members of the audience, is a high school principal in Detroit and a very distinguished high school principal. He was a member of the commission. And I might just say, Mr. President, that this is the second in a series of 11 of these meetings that we want to conduct around the nation at your direction and suggestion. And the audience down there. And I'd like to ask Steve, following on the analogy of passing the baton, I'd like to ask Steve if he would ask you, Mr. President, the first question. Mr. President, you're going to be hearing some specific questions dealing with the commission's report. But as long as I've been selected to ask the first question, I'll open with the very general one. Do you agree with the report of the commission on excellence in education? I have agreed and approved the report in its entirety. I think it is an outstanding thing. I think that the whole country, those who have had an opportunity to read it or a summary of it, it is causing great debate, but also great agreement that most people, I think it has touched a nerve, an American nerve in the whole population. Thank you, Steve. Do you have any follow-up comment? Thank you very much. You mean, Steve, that you've never said to yourself, if I had a chance to ask him, I would. I think, Mr. President, Steve is as nervous in responding as the chairman is here and presiding over this. He's nervous. Charles Johnson is a superintendent of schools in Illinois. And I talked to Charles earlier, and he has a question that he'd like to ask you, Mr. President. Mr. President, increased salaries for merit pay, incentives for master teachers will cost millions of dollars. The commission has properly noted that excellence does cost. What is your administration prepared to do to assist the states in meeting these costs? Well, first of all, this whole question of cost and education, and I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about it. I recognize it would cost more for this. At the same time, I believe that if such a plan is instituted, then in budgeting, you take care of that. And at the same time, possibly see whether there are other things of much lower priority. I happen to believe in it very much, the idea of merit pay, as Dr. Gardner has said on occasion that teachers grade students ought to be able to grade each other. And how else do you provide an incentive for attracting the best and the brightest into teaching as a profession, unless they can see a future more than just a salary scale that is laid out for the rest of their lives and careers, no matter how good they might be? But then we find a way to do it. There is one thing that I think should I should take advantage of you and call attention to this fact that in the last 20 years, spending on education in this country has gone up 600%. Now, many could say, well, that was because of 20 years of continued inflation. But look at it in constant dollars. In that same period of time, the per pupil cost in education in constant dollars, allowing for inflation, has nearly doubled. And in that same period of time, we know when the problems have arisen that are confronting us. So you have to say, is just purely money an answer, or don't we have to look deeper for some of the answers to the problems we have in education? I know that it can be done, and I know that this comes down to always the view as, well, federal government. The amount of money in education today, incidentally, with regard to the reaction to a previous statement, is that in 1982, the total budget for national defense was $179 billion. It was $215 billion for education. And I don't fault that at all. Education is truly important and is important to our national security as defense. But we can't neglect either one of them. But I think that the whole question of school funding comes down to one of laying out the layers of government. We built the greatest public school system the world has ever seen. And we built it at the local school level. Local, the state, and the federal government. And right now, they've been lined up vertically. And it's local and state, and then on top is the federal government, which only provides 8% of the educational budget, but which has kind of grabbed off about 50% of trying to regulate the schools. Crosby there could show you some startling figures about one of the things that I'm proud of that we've accomplished, how much less paper he has to fill out with regard to federal paperwork and requirements than he did a couple of years ago. He just wants me to cut out the rest of it, Mr. President. But I think that then you work out on this. I said that we were vertical. We ought to be horizontal. We should be looking at what properly belongs for decision at the local level. What is the proper place for the state? And what is the proper place for the federal government? Its interest in education and its responsibility. And look at them in that way and then proportionately to their responsibilities, expect the support of schools to be laid out in that same way. I'm talking too long. I'll quit rambling. Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate that question. The next questioner here that wants to ask a question of you, Mr. President, we could all ask a question of him. He's supposed to have the answers. He's head of the Illinois School Problems Commission. He's also a member. He's a state representative in the Illinois legislature. He's made a great contribution, incidentally, in our deliberations here. And he's assistant minority leader in the house in the Illinois legislature. Gene Hoffman on your question, Gene. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. President, you have endorsed the recommendations in this report. How do you see or how do you perceive the federal government responding to the recommendations in this report? In other words, what role do you see at the federal level for responding to the contents of this report? Well, the federal government, I have some notes here on some of the things, first of all, a meeting of this kind as an example of one of the things. And as Secretary Bell has reminded you, there are going to be a series of these at the regional level around the country. We're doing a number of things at the federal government that have come out of the things in this report by the Commission on Excellence in Education. We are going to, Secretary Bell is going to hold meetings with government officials and governors at the state levels throughout the country. We are also going to have meetings at the private sector to find out what more the private sector can do. And I would like to point out that already, as a result of this report, there is a thing sweeping the country of businesses and neighborhood groups and communities adopting schools for whatever help they can be to the schools, not only maybe in financing some special projects, but also in bringing the outside world into the school, where, for example, business and industry might be able to offer something to the students regarding their own decisions they have to make on what they're going to do with their lives. Any number of things here that we've laid out in this program, and we want to bring it to a national debate for all the people of the country to be familiar with it, and particularly the parents and the teachers. And so all of us are stepping up our efforts in that regard to promote it. I'm very grateful that we have education now up where it's high on the education agenda of this country. It certainly has occupied a great deal of nationwide importance. And we're grateful to you and those in the discussions today, Mr. President, to express their appreciation for the fact that we do have education now as such a high priority. And I know it's because you've participated in events like this one, and we appreciate that. Well, those are the questioner some more. Could I just ask you to do something else? Because I know I left out a half a dozen of the things that we are doing. I know we're promoting legislation having to do with excellence in certain lines of teaching. Could you fill in what I left out? I won't be offended. Well, we have a number of other initiatives we'll be announcing soon a major effort in the area of adult illiteracy. That'll be coming at the latter part of this month. And I discussed that with you earlier. And that will be launched and will be involved to try to help the huge number of adult illiterates we have in this country. And that's highlighted in the report. Another thing we're doing is, as you recall in your State of the Union message, you recommended a block grant for mathematics and science. And that legislation is moving through the Congress. And we'll be able to offer some scholarships under a block grant basis to add further momentum in that direction. We're also examining, Mr. President, the Student Financial Aid Program to see if we can work in as that bill is up for renewal, to see if we can work in some emphasis in the Student Aid Program as we rewrite it where we can encourage more gifted and talented and promising young people to move into teaching so we can increase the supply of teachers. So those are just starters. We're looking at our entire budget and our entire legislation to see what we can do with some of the resources we have and looking at some of the other block grants that we're now getting ready to propose to Congress and see if we can work into some of them, some legislation, to fund these efforts. So we do have quite a number of initiatives like that moving forward. Ted, I wonder if I could interrupt for a second and say to many people who might not understand the significance of calling it a block grant. There's a governor here and a former governor here. And I was a former governor also. And from that vantage point, I think we can tell you that so much of federal spending, grants to states or to local communities, comes so belabored and loaded down with red tape and regulations as to how every dollar that money must be spent that you find out that a great deal of it is wasted in the spending. Our idea of switching to block grants is to give you a block grant and say here, this is for this general idea. You spend it the way you think it'll do the most good. We won't tell you how. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm getting numerous testimonials now on the first block grant that you got passed in the fall of 1981 from superintendents expressing their appreciation for the flexibility that they have in that regard. Now, as I look at my watch, Mr. President, I was told that we could have 30 minutes of your time. And we're almost out of that. We thought turnabout, you'd ought to have an opportunity to ask some of these panelists a question. And if you have any summary comments that you want to make, Mr. President, before you have to leave, we'd appreciate hearing that. Well, I didn't really come to ask them, but I have one right here that I would ask David Gardner about and gets back to one of the first subjects that was here today. That is, can we evaluate teacher performance? Can we do this and pay for outstanding performance? And as to the first part of the question, if you can evaluate it at the college and university level, why is it that some say that it can't be done in the public schools and can it? Mr. President, this issue was discussed at very considerable length by the Commission in the course of its deliberations. We took testimony on this issue. We had commissioned papers on it. And we offered a recommendation in our report, which was intended to foster the development of performance based compensation for teachers. I'm well aware of the arguments that are being advanced against that recommendation. The most prominent of which is that such judgments are difficult to make, give rise to the possibility of arbitrariness on the part of administrators and so forth. But I think it's fair to say that to the commission at least, the most arbitrary assumption one can make is that there are no differences among people, that everyone is equally possessed of the same level of confidence and commitment. That surely is arbitrary. To say that, on the other hand, that it can be done doesn't mean it's easy. But every profession undertakes to do it. But the trades undertake to do it. And it seems to me the profession, the teaching profession itself has the principle of burden of coming forth with a set of recommendations and criterion procedures that will permit that evaluation to occur in ways that are comfortable to the profession and responsive to the basic and genuine talents and competencies of the teachers in the classroom. The surest ways to drive out able teachers is to award the least able as much as those who are the most able. And I think we tend to have that experience more than we would prefer. And the evidence that the commission's received tends to corroborate that. At the higher education level, it's done routinely. We have assistant professors, associate professors, full professors. We have a career ladder. Pure evaluation is undertaken. Judgments are made about the worth of one professor is against another. And compensation flows from those decisions. Does seem to me however difficult it is and however possible it might be for error to creep in. The greatest error is to assume that everyone is equally competent and equally committed when in fact we know they are not. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Mr. President, as I look at my watch, it looks like we've about spent our time. If you have any final comments here or any additional questions you want to raise, I was admonished that we had to be concluding this so you could meet your other commitments. But any comments or any summary that you want to give, I just express on behalf of everyone here, our appreciation for your coming and your participation in this panel. I think this is a panel discussion we'll all remember for quite a while. Well, Ted, I don't know that I contributed to that. You were doing just fine here and all of this. I would like to take advantage of you in a little self-defense here. The word budget or term budget cut has been so widespread and I usually find it applied to me. And the truth of the matter is we haven't cut any budgets. What we've done is reduce the proposed increase in the budgets. But each budget is still bigger than the last one. And for example, I have had students who cost me that we have reduced their ability to get help. Well, for a fellow that worked his own way through school, I understand the problem of students that have to. I must say it wasn't too arduous. I washed dishes in the girl's dormitory. But right now, $5.9 billion was the guaranteed student loan program in 1982. It was $6.6 billion in 83. And we've asked for $7.2 billion in 84. That's a 22% increase in just two years. The proposed federal spending for disadvantaged and handicapped children in public schools is $4.1 billion. And that's the highest level of funding in the history of the program. We have removed, and the thing that I mentioned with regard to Dr. Crosby, we have removed 30 sets of regulations at the state and local level, which, as we figure them out, has reduced by 191,000 person hours of work, the administrative process of filling out those papers. And I'm going to leave that, and I think the best concluding thing, if it hasn't been done here, I'm so proud of this commission and what they have accomplished. And they know and will agree better than anyone else. We didn't ask them what party they belonged to when they were appointed, and I didn't suggest anything to them. I figured they all knew more about the subject than I did, and the result is their program. But this, I thought you might just be interested in hearing a little review of what's happened already. The Florida House has passed the commission's basic curriculum. The Senate in Florida has passed a different bill and they're in conference now working out their differences. The board in Ypsilanti, Michigan has voted to extend the school year. This is directly attributed to years of math, two years of science. The commission recommends, I think, three years. Three years of social studies and two additional years of other college prep courses. The commission recommends two years of foreign language. Governor Charles Robb of Virginia has called on the state board of education to adopt the full slate of recommendations made by the National Commission. In the state of Utah, a new high level organization called HOPE, helping organizations in public education, has announced they will use the commission's report to promote improvements in the Utah schools. And the group is made up of the state PTA, the Utah Education Association, the Utah School Board Association, Society of Superintendents, and the state board of education. In the state of Illinois, high school graduation requirements have recently been increased in a 110 to six vote for which the commission report was cited. Three years English, two years math, two years science, and two years social studies. One year should be American history. Washington State Board of Education unanimously approved a plan to upgrade high school graduation and requirements. It tripled the minimum credits necessary in science from two to six, doubled the minimum in mathematics from three to six, added a year in English. Battle Creek Michigan School Board is reviewing the text of the commission's report to determine implications for school district policies. And as a direct result of the report, Chelmsford, Massachusetts School Board will consider new classes for the gifted which has been dropped in recent years. Probably the most neglected students in our educational system in recent years have been those with special aptitudes and talents. So, and it's just, I just have a feeling that maybe a generation that went through the Great Depression and the Great War, World War II, maybe we thought we ought to make things easier for our children. Maybe we're partly responsible for what has happened. And we've thought that they should enjoy things more than sometimes have to work at things. And in effect, what I'm saying is maybe a lot of us put together has shortchanged those wonderful young people that are sitting up there and God bless them. Let's stop doing that and give them a good running start in that relay race they're going to enter in a few short years. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. President. We know you have to be on your way. We appreciate very much your participation. Yeah, I got that. Steve, are you on the next one? Okay, okay, thanks. All right. Concerning a new flexibility with respect to our negotiating position talks in Geneva, a lot of people think it's the right medicine at the right time to get these talks going to our favorable agreement with the Soviets. But part of our position requires the Soviets to destroy, do away with nearly two-thirds of their heavy missiles. Do we have any signs in the indication inkling that they'll go for this feature? Well, both sides, according to our proposal, are going to have to do away with some of their weapons. I think what you're referring to is a thing in which we can be very flexible and that is whether there is a sublimit. I doubt very much that there will be much of a problem about the mix of weapons. Our whole aim is a reduction in the number of missiles for both sides to the 5,000 limit and a reduction in the destructive power. This is another place in which they are superior to us. Do you detect a new spirit of compromise in the Kremlin, especially since Ambassador Harriman's trip? Well, either that or before it, the thing to make me hopeful is that the Russians, who so many times just simply say yet to everything, they did in previous meetings propose a lower figure than they presently have. And at least that's a starting point. We're willing to come up from the figure that we had as I indicated yesterday. And so if once the moon and the other green cheese may meet someplace in between. Mr. President, is it possible or is it not probable that you might have a summit meeting with Mr. Andropov between now and stay next summer? I think it's possible. The only thing, there's no reluctance in my part to have one, except that there's a great danger if you have a meeting simply to have a meeting and get acquainted. And then everyone says, what happened in the meeting? And he said, well, we got acquainted. I think we have to have an agenda. And I think it has to be one in which both sides have agreed that they're really going to try to settle some of the issues between us. Okay, July 1st, federal tax cut is scheduled to take effect. In the past week, Speaker O'Neill has been demanding that a ceiling be put, a $700 ceiling be put on the maximum amount that any taxpayer can receive under this cut. He apparently wants to soak the rich of the wealthiest taxpayers more. Are you going to tamper in any way with this tax cut? No, I'll fight the death against that tax cut. And I'd like to point out that this whole thing about whether soak the rich or something else, he had set the figure at $50,000. Under his proposal, a married couple that had a $35,200 income would find that their top bracket now is 33%, it would go to 37% or there, it will be 33% when the tax cut was into effect. At $48,000 or something, the same married couple would find that they go from 38% up to 42% under his proposal. And this isn't up to the $50,000 mark and they're losing money. 72% of all of the tax relief in this coming tax cut on July 1st will go to people below $50,000. Now, when you stop to think that without graduated income tax, the top 10% of earners in this country pay 50% of the total amount of tax. And the top half, the top 50% of earners pay 93% of the total tax. I think it's only fair that a tax cut goes across the board, even Stephen, a same percentage cut for everyone. Your top budget people are warning that the money supply is growing too fast and there's a fear at least among some of them, Stockman and Feldstein, that we could be headed for more inflation. Are you worried about that at this point? Not really, because I think that there's no question the market's been a little frightened by a surge there and probably what makes them worried about that is that in 1980, before we got here, there was a giant surge and that was the one that took us up to 21.5% interest rates and so forth. And then the string was pulled very firmly, 1981, bringing it down. In fact, if that string hadn't been pulled for so long and so hard, we might not have had the depth of recession that we've had, but it is a kind of an uneven thing. It isn't something that you can actually specify and say it's going to grow exactly at this amount of money supply. And a few weeks ago, there was something of a surge. The Fed has immediately moved on that and I don't anticipate that. Sir, speaking of the Fed, will it be Mr. Volcker continuing or might it be Mr. Greenspan? Can you give us any clue? All of that argument, speculation, we haven't even gotten around to making a decision yet. You're well aware that state and local government school districts are, say, they're strapped from money badly these days. Under the recommendations of the commission which you appointed on excellence in education, part of the recommendation is for the federal government, all levels of government to help finance this, are you satisfied that local governments can in fact find the money it's going to take to implement the longer school days and the back to the basics curriculum The commission report also made it plain that just throwing money at it isn't the answer. Right now, the highest tax finance program in the United States is public education, some $215 billion. And incidentally, it has increased over the last 20 years when everyone is so concerned about the decline in education. Funding for education has increased by 600%. And in that same period, allowing for inflation, in constant dollars, we have added $66 billion increase in constant dollars over that same period in the per capita cost for each student. So I don't think that money is the problem but what is necessary is to work out federal, state, and local and what are the proper functions for each to perform in education and then have the responsibility of funding those. Now education is basically a local and state function always has been and always should be. At this moment, the federal government only supplies 8% of the total educational budget. And yet one of the problems has been that over the years, the federal government for that 8% has wanted about 50% of the control of the schools. Sir, the economy is rebounding. There's a business recovery in progress. The Williamsburg Summit appeared to go very well. Your health looks great. You look wonderful. I feel good, thank you. You seem ideally suited to a man who would be up for re-election. Can you give us some idea of what you're thinking is on seeking a second term right now? Well, my thinking basically is that it's far too early for anyone in my position to announce his intentions. And I can tell you why. If I did, and the answer was no, then wouldn't do me any good to ask Congress for anything. I'd be considered a lame duck. And if I said the answer was yes at this point, the media, forgive me, but the media very largely would be tagging everything I did including a tryptamine campus as political in nature. When can we expect to know? I haven't even really decided on that. Mr. President, thank you very much. You may. Thank you. Appreciate it. Especially the other night, if I didn't see it. I missed it, I'm sorry. Well, it was a benefit in Hollywood. My dear friend Jimmy Stewart, they told him that they wanted Jimmy to come on and do something of the benefit and they said, we'll give you four minutes. Jimmy says, it takes me four minutes to say hello to that beautiful man. He is. It's wonderful to see the statue that was dedicated to him in his office. Thank you again. You're very grateful to answer. Thank you.