Ideas in Action tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2010-01-07://1 2012-05-04T15:19:47Z Movable Type Pro 5.01 Innovation: Is America Suffering an Innovation Gap? - Episodes tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2010:/episodes//2.42141 2012-05-03T14:25:13Z 2012-05-04T15:19:47Z According to some measures, America has fallen below Iceland as a leader in developing new technologies. What is the state of innovation in America today? What policies should the private sector, the government and the American university research system institute... Emily Johnson According to some measures, America has fallen below Iceland as a leader in developing new technologies. What is the state of innovation in America today? What policies should the private sector, the government and the American university research system institute to ensure America remains a leader in innovation in the future?


]]> Grace Creek Media
"Innovation: Is America Suffering an Innovation Gap?"
CONVERSATION WITH MICHAEL MANDEL, ROBERT ATKINSON and CHERYL SCHWARTZ
Correspondent:  Jim Glassman

JIM GLASSMAN:
Welcome to Ideas In Action, a television series about ideas and their consequences.  I'm Jim Glassman.  The topic this week is America suffering an innovation gap?  Once the world's leader in developing new products, the U.S. is losing ground to other countries, at least according to a recent report by the U.S. Department of Commerce.  In an era of global competition, what are the consequences if American innovation stalls.

Joining me to explore this topic, Michael Mandel, former chief economist for Business Week Magazine and founder of Visible Economy, a new venture combining business and economic journalism with educational videos.  Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology And Innovation Foundation, a D.C.-based technology policy think tank.

And Cheryl Schwartz, chief operating officer of Blue Canopy Consulting, a firm specializing in information security and technology integration and a member of the Northern Virginia Technology Council.  The topic this week:  what should be done about America's innovation gap.  This is Ideas In Action.  (MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER:
Funding for Ideas In Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily.  Every stock market cycle is led by America's never-ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions.  Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge.  More information is available at Investors.com.
JIM GLASSMAN:
America's leadership in developing new products has long been a source of pride, but some say the U.S. is now falling short.  Although new high tech gadgets appear almost daily, some experts argue that these seemingly new products are based on technologies that are already dated.  And that fundamental breakthroughs will require a new push for innovation.

Commerce Department data show technological innovation is linked to 75 percent of the nation's economic growth after World War II.  But now the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation ranks the U.S. in sixth place overall behind Singapore, South Korea and Luxemburg and last in progress towards new, knowledge-based innovation over the last decade.  What can reignite the drive towards cutting edge technologies that not only transform lives but create demand and move our economy forward?  Mike Mandel, you talk about an innovation drought in the United States.  What do you mean by that?
MICHAEL MANDEL:
Well, we've learned to think about the U.S. as a very innovative-- country.  People, as you say, talk about the iPhone, talk about Google.  They sort of say to us, "Of course we're innovative."  But if you look across the entire range of things, life sciences, speech technology, artificial organs, all the things that we're-- if you-- if you run back 10 years that were supposed to happen, we were supposed to have amazing advances that-- that we fell short on.  So communications, we've been great.  Life sciences has been a disaster.  Physical sciences we haven't put money into.  So in area after area we have fallen short.  Innovation shortfall.  Innovation drought.
JIM GLASSMAN:
When you say life sciences you mean biology, that sort of thing?  I mean we are developing new drugs?
MICHAEL MANDEL:
We're developing very few of them and they're incremental.  Compared to what was expected.  Gene therapies?  There's no commercially available gene therapies at this point.  You know, cancer treatments?  Fallen way short of what was expected.

Biotech was supposed to lead to a stream of cutting edge new drugs.  Instead we have pharma companies who have had to merge because their drug pipelines have dried up.  We're going to look back on this period as being a disaster in the life sciences.  Not on the science but in the-- the actual products.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Rob, your organization ranks the U.S. sixth overall, I want to get this straight, in innovation and competitiveness compared to other countries.  How'd you reach that-- ranking?
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Well, in a report we issued last year called the Atlantic Century we looked at-- the U.S. and 39 other nations.  And we looked at a number of different variables that are related to the process of innovation.  So things like-- how much corporate R&D is invested ever year as a share of GDP.  How much private R&D?  How much venture capital?  How many new startups?

How much-- how many scientists and engineers are in a country?  And the common wisdom, including in many of-- much of the press, is that the U.S. is the world leader in innovation.  But that's really equivalent to looking at a star and saying that it hasn't-- it hasn't turned supernova yet because we're not seeing it.

We're-- what we're really doing is we're looking in the rear view mirror.  The U.S. used to be the leader.  But now we're not.  We're sixth out of these 40 countries.  And as you said earlier, what's really most disturbing and most surprising, that's when we did the study, we were dead last in progress.  So--
JIM GLASSMAN:
Yeah, 40th in innovative progress.  And-- so what does that mean?  In other words, we-- we may be sixth in where we are now but we're not moving quickly enough?
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Well, actually, when we-- if we-- when-- when we went back and did the study-- when we did the study we looked at where the U.S. was in 2000 and where they are today.  Where we are today.  In 2000 we were so far above it-- we were number one in 2000, but not just by a little bit.  By a lot.

So the closest country to us in 2000 was Sweden and they were 10 percentage points below us in an overall ranking of zero to 100.  Now we've fallen to sixth.  Sweden's ahead of us.  A number of other countries.  And the reason is that it-- on all of these variables, the growth of corporate R&D, the growth of government R&D, the growth of venture capital, we have been slower in most of those variables than these other countries.  So you put all this together-- and we just haven't made the inputs-- the progress that these other countries have made.
JIM GLASSMAN:
And so the long-term implications of this 40th ranking are-- pretty scary?
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Well, they're really scary be historically the U.S. has led the world in per capita income and-- and-- and the economy because we've been the most innovative country in the world.  And this is even more important today because now we're competing against a whole slew of countries that can out-compete us on cost by far.  We have to be able to compete on innovation and the next new thing.  And if we can't do that, or if we're having trouble, it's going to mean that we're not going to have the kind of good quality jobs that we need.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Cheryl, as-- an on-the-ground innovator, do you think that government can help businesses innovate more or should it just get out of the way?
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Well, first off, I think that the reality is from an innovation perspective we actually see quite a bit of innovation.  And I think it depends upon how you define what innovation is.  There's a very broad spectrum of innovation.  Everything from breakthrough science and discovery all the way through incremental engineering and process improvements for productivity.

I think that in a lot of ways we kind of forget that.  And what we're seeing now is we're kind of at the cusp of what I call the social networking world meets the business collaboration platform meets these innovation networks.  And What's happening is there's scientists, there's entrepreneurs, there's thought leaders from all over the world that are now joining on these innovative-- platforms and are able to share ideas and solve problems.  P&G is a perfect example of that.  Proctor and Gamble has an innovation network that now over 50 percent of their products are coming out of this innovation network.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Let-- let me-- let me understand what that means.  I mean I understand how the technology makes it easier for people to communicate and share their ideas, but when you say Proctor and Gamble has an innovation network--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Yes.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--What does that exactly mean?
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
They have designed this thing called Connect and Develop which basically reaches out to thousands of people all over the world, scientists, thought leaders and so forth, to help collaborate and share in ideas and how to solve problems.  So they put sol-- they put ideas out there.  They put problems out there.  And those people then work together 'cause you now are dropping these political barriers and borders and people are working now as one to try and solve these problems.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Now-- are these employees or-- I mean what--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
No, they're--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Why do they--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--Insiders--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Share--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--In that--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--The information?
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
They're insiders and outsiders.  I think that what you find-- I think the statistics I've read is probably 85 percent of the people now in the    Generation X and Generation Y are interested in actually solving problems to improve humanity.
JIM GLASSMAN:
See this--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
That's it.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--This is the part I don't understand.  Mike.  Why is it that we're falling behind in innovation in the United States at the same time-- the sharing of information is so much easier?  And, you know, computers can try things out that you don't--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
I think--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Even have --
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--It's a very good--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--To try out--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--It's a very--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--In real life.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--Question.  The theory was that-- global sharing, okay, was going to accelerate innovation.  Okay?  In communications it has.  Social networks.  But if you look-- and you-- you have to go and you have to look area by area.  Okay?  So, for example, if you look at the development of, say, gene therapies, okay?  Or cancer drugs or diabetes drugs.

You look at-- we've spent-- in the U.S. we've actually spent-- the most money on-- in life sciences.  We haven't spent a lot of money on other things.  If you look, you sort of see it's all fallen short.  If you look at P&G you see that actually there's been incremental innovation, but the breakthrough innovations that actually produced the growth, the real growth, haven't been there.

Now it could turn out to be true that these global net-- innovation networks start producing better than they have.  But I can tell you that if you-- actually look at what has been-- come out of them, the-- the sense of disappointment is-- is palpable.  So, for example, it may be that you have better products for cleaning your home.  It's solving a problem.  Okay? But that's not actually what drives growth.  And-- it's-- it's the big ideas.  It's the big ideas that create jobs.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Okay, so-- so Rob, how-- why are we failing to develop these big ideas?  Is it, I don't know, lack of basic research or-- you know, what's going on?
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Well, look, go back to this notion of what other people would also call open innovation.  It's another term for this.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Right.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
An innovation network.  One-- one way to look at open innovation which-- most people don't look at is-- why are companies going to open innovation?  Partly it's 'cause they can because of the Internet and other things and it's useful.  But one of the reasons is because they're simply not doing it on their own anymore.  So everybody's looking outside to pick that up.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Cheaply.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Cheaply.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Cheaply.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Because they're not doing it anymore on their own.  So you look at basic research by U.S. corporations has significantly declined over the last 15 years.  Even applied research has declined.  And-- so what companies are trying to do is-- and the reason it's-- declined, Jim, is because the market is so competitive companies can't afford to do that kind of work 'cause it's what economists calls-- it spills over.  It benefits everybody.

So there's a collective goods problem or a collective action problem.  And companies are not able to solve it on their own.  So that's one of the reasons why.  You go to look at other countries, to use an example, the R&D tax credit was design-- was developed-- the U.S. was the first country in the world to develop the r-- research and development tax credit for companies.

And in the late-- '80s, early '90s we had the most generous research and development tax credit in the world. By far.  Now we're-- 17th out of the 30 OECD countries in research and development tax credit.  The French now have a research and development tax credit four times more generous than the United States does.  And so that's one factor.  Government cutbacks in research are another factor.  There are a whole set of things that-- that are a part of this problem.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
Can I just add one thing?  What the U.S. has done over the last 10 years is specialize in life sciences and healthcare research.  Seventy percent of the academic spending on R&D goes for life sciences.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
As opposed to physical sciences.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
As opposed to physical science.  As opposed to environmental science.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Right.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
In a world in which people talk green all the time, the U.S. is actually increasing the share of our spending that goes to life sciences.  We are not putting it into environment, the so-called green jobs of the future.  We're not putting it into the physical sciences, which-- which is what would underlie the information technology-- breakthroughs.  Okay, we put this massive bet on the life sciences.  The government-- if you look at the share of government spending--
JIM GLASSMAN:
And you're saying that even though there's a massive bet it hasn't paid off?
MALE VOICE:
It hasn't paid off.  And if you think about it this is-- we-- well, it goes along with our healthcare spending.  We put all that money into healthcare.  We put a lot of money into life sciences.  And, unfortunately, the pharma companies which have been at the leading edge of this-- part of that-- they-- they have been cutting R&D personnel either because they've been cutting it or because they haven't been paying off.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Cheryl, what about the cur-- let-- let me add another problem.
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Okay.
JIM GLASSMAN:
What about the credit markets?
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Sure, access to capital's a huge issue.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Right.  Access to capital, either through credit or equity.  It-- and has that become a big problem, especially in recent years for--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
It's a--
(OVERTALK)
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Startup businesses or--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
It's a problem for--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--R&D?  For--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--Small business and it's also a part-- it's a problem in large businesses for different reasons.  Wall Street does not actually reward innovation.  They have never, because of their tactical nature.  The--
JIM GLASSMAN:
In other words, innovation costs something in the short-term--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Correct.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--And so it hurts your earnings?
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Yes.  And the rule-- rule-- the reward-- they do reward you after the fact-- after the fact.  They don't reward you before the fact.  I think small businesses; access to capital is a huge issue.  You know, I actually have talked about and been a big proponent of tax credits for investments in new technology and innovation.  And I think that's really, really important to set bold goals.  You have a generation of people who want to do what you're talking about.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
They want to help.
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
They want to-- social responsibility is a new season of re-- of innovation.  But I think on your innovation point that I think is really important, why-- we innovate to create jobs.  And we innovate so that we can create sustainable-- sustainability and for economic advantage, right?

And the reality is I think the United States can't survive on innovation alone.  And I think what's happening is the building blocks are being outsourced.  And what the government can do is try and get those outsourcings back into the United States so we start building the components.  And I think with this next new wave of innovation it is critical that in healthcare, energy and those things, we are not sourcing R&D 'cause what-- that is what's happening now.  More of the R&D is getting outsourced, which is painful.  And I think that the life cycle of innovation needs to come here.
JIM GLASSMAN:
What does that mean out-- it-- it's being outsourced?  You mean that a big American company will put theirs research facility somewhere else?
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Correct.
JIM GLASSMAN:
But it still benefits the American company?
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
It does.  But what's happening is the IT building blocks and the engineering building blocks for building that technology does tend to go overseas and that is not happening here.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Let-- let-- let-- let me bring Rob in here.  So if there are limited resources, that's one of the problems here.  Do you think the government should make decisions about say picking winners?  Concentrating on certain industries?
MALE VOICE:
Yeah.  Here's what we want to do.  We want to pick winners in generalized technology areas.  We don't want to pick particular firms and we don't want to partic-- per-- pick particular narrow technology.  So it's pretty clear that battery technology is going to be future-- critical to our future.  We have to get-- good electric batteries for cars.  But we don't want-- the government shouldn't be going, "Well, this is this kind of-- lithium is the-- better than-- than-- than the nano."
JIM GLASSMAN:
But that's one of these promises that Mike was talking about.  There's been a lot of money invested in-- in finding--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
No, actually there hasn't--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Battery--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--There--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Technology?
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--Actually there hasn't been.
JIM GLASSMAN:
No?
MICHAEL MANDEL:
No. What's fascinating here about kind of what you say is that probably the most important thing that the government can do is actually just make it clear that innovation is important.  So we as a country have not done this.  If you look-- if you look--
JIM GLASSMAN:
But how do-- how do you do that?  Is that just something--
MALE VOICE:
I think it's--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--That--
MALE VOICE:
--Very si--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--That the President should get out and say or--
MALE VOICE:
I-- I--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Or is it tax--
MALE VOICE:
--Well--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Credits or--
MALE VOICE:
--Think about it--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--What is it?
MALE VOICE:
--This way.  What's the thing that can slow innovation down the most?  Bureaucracies.  Bureaucracies are the friend of the status quo and the enemy of the new.  And really what we have-- what you need-- the-- first the signal from the top that innovation is a good thing.  That's the most important thing.

Then some of the things like-- the R&D tax credit, which are not that much money, are-- are easier to get through.  Okay?  You need to make it clear that we are in favor-- when-- when Obama talks about innovation these days; this is the way his speeches run.  We like innovation.  What we really like is green innovation.  And those green innovation, we'll talk about-- in-- job-- jobs for people doing installations.  So it quickly goes from-- three sentences goes from innovation to--
JIM GLASSMAN:
So what should--
(OVERTALK)
JIM GLASSMAN:
--He say?
MICHAEL MANDEL:
What he should say is that we care about innovation.  We care-- it's important to have new things.  Okay?  And-- and the first thing we're going to propose-- not because it's necessarily a lot of money.  Go ahead and sort of do the R&D tax credit or something that is-- put it up at the top of the agenda.
JIM GLASSMAN:
So is there anything more-- we keep talking about the R&D tax credit.
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Yeah, so I think--
JIM GLASSMAN:
Anything-- and that may not happen because there's--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
But the--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--A lot of concern about taxes in general.
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
But I think setting goal--
JIM GLASSMAN:
And revenues and--
MALE VOICE:
Setting goals--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
I agree.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--And budget--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
I think--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Deficits.
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--Setting bold goals for innovation is absolutely important for--
JIM GLASSMAN:
What about--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--The government too.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Education?
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Education?  For education, health, energy and environment we need to set bold goals.  You have a generation of people coming up that that is what they want to do.
JIM GLASSMAN:
But isn't that--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Even by--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Part of the problem in the United States?  That there has been a decline in the quality of science and technology--
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Well, it wasn't--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Education.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
--So much a decline in the quality as in the-- just the pure numbers.  We need to focus much more laser-like on what's called STEM education.  Science, technology, engineering and math. Here in Washington we're really-- we're really blessed to have-- one of the best high-- science high schools in the country, Thomas Jefferson.  It's a science magnet high school.  It cranks out kids who are really dedicated and passionate and go on-- but we only have 100 of these science high schools in the country.  We should have 500.  We should have 1,000.
JIM GLASSMAN:
What-- what about what business can do?  Are-- are-- are American businesses becoming more risk averse?
MICHAEL MANDEL:
Well, they weren't risk averse.  If-- if I think about-- companies like Intel, they've put out a lot of money.  Boeing has put out a lot of money.  The pharma companies put out a lot of money.  They put the money in.  Right?  And the reason why they became more risk averse is because it failed.  It wasn't because the-- Wall Street stopped them.

I mean it turns out that innovation is just very risky business.  So here we have a situation where innovation's risky business.  The U.S. has hooked itself economically in the global division of labor as innovation.  It's something that we as a country have to get behind as-- as a country.  And I'm less concerned about the picking winners and losers really.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Well, necessary--
(OVERTALK)
JIM GLASSMAN:
--I think that paradox here-- you say, on the other hand, the United States has-- has-- has has essentially decided that innovation is our comparative advantage, but then we haven't--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
But the talk--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Gotten behind it enough?
MICHAEL MANDEL:
We talk-- we talk about it as if we-- we behave as if it's our comparative advantage.  We sort of allow the factors to --
ROBERT ATKINSON:
But--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--Go overseas.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
--But one of the reasons why innovation is so hard and that's because in the U.S. if you develop an innovative product the odds of it being stolen, the intellectual property being stolen and expropriated from you with no rights to-- by China, by India, by Brazil, by Russia is very, very high.  And we do very little to protect U.S. companies on their intellectual property.  So they know that the risks are very high for them to lose that.  And they-- innovate less because of it.
JIM GLASSMAN:
How big a problem is that, Cheryl?  For the-- with the companies that you know?
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
I think that--
JIM GLASSMAN:
And people say, "Well, I'm not going to innovate because it's going to get stolen?"
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Yeah, I--
JIM GLASSMAN:
"I'll go do--"
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--I don't think that's--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--"Something else?"
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--That isn't something.  I think the cyber-- in the cyber arena, I mean just certainly being on the defensive is something that we-- we need to work on.  But I think that in terms of, you know, people being afraid.  I think on the government side, the government wants innovation, to your point.  However, they want a proven-- they want a proven solution.  (LAUGHTER)  So I mean--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
That's the point.
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--That kind of-- that's-- that kind of puts it (LAUGHTER) in a nutshell.  So I think--
JIM GLASSMAN:
Because innovation-- because-- the nature--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
It's risky.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Of innovation is it's risky.  You don't know what the future is.
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Right.  There are--
(OVERTALK)
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--Pockets of innovation.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--To it.
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Dartmouth--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
That they want--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--Dartmouth's--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--They want--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--Doing things.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--Innovation as long as it's not risky.
JIM GLASSMAN:
But I-- I want to (LAUGHTER) go back to something you said.  The very first thing you said, Mike-- which troubled me a little bit.  You said it was supposed to be this.  It was supposed to be that.  And it-- it didn't develop.  But I mean we don't know what innovation's--
(OVERTALK)
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Going to bring us.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--If you go-- if you go back to '98 and if you go back to what people were investing money in, venture capitalists, corporations, large sums of money.  None of these-- none of these-- entities had timeframes longer than five years.  Maybe seven years.  Okay?  There were vast sums of money invested in things like micro machines.  Vast sums of money invested in things like speech technology.  There were vast sums of money invested in low orbit Earth satellites to provide broadband everywhere.  Right?  You remember that?
ROBERT ATKINSON:
I do.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
There were large sums of money invested in gene therapy-- trials.  Okay?  You go down the list and you look.  We're not talking about pie in the sky stuff.  We're talking about where we as a country have put down our markers.  Not in the-- our-- not in the research, not in the basic research.  By-- by-- but by organizations who expected to get a return in the five to tier-- 10-year timeframe and did not get it.  I'm going by the market.  Where the market put its money.
JIM GLASSMAN:
'Cause it-- so the market felt--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
The market--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--This way.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--The market felt--
JIM GLASSMAN:
And so--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--The market-- the market put billions of dollars, okay, into biotech-related stuff.  Hundreds of billion of dollars.  And I'm not exaggerating here.  Okay?  And with-- and in terms of the te-- what-- with a less than 10 year timeframe.  And things just-- here's the-- here's the most optimistic way of putting it.  Okay?  Things just took longer than we thought.
JIM GLASSMAN:
So-- but there are areas where the United States still excels, right?
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Sure.
JIM GLASSMAN:
And where-- where are they?
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Well, we excel in-- for example, in commercial aviation.  We'd excel even more if it wasn't for-- Airbus and getting vast-- just pure subsidies from the government to support Airbus.  Boeing is the world leading company in jet aircraft.  We excel in--
JIM GLASSMAN:
And yet we haven't really seen any spectacularly different jet aircraft I think in the last, I don't know, 50 years or so?
ROBERT ATKINSON:
I think the seven-- what's it?  The 787?
MALE VOICE:
787.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
That's like-- the fully-- first fully composite aircraft to fly by wire.  It was relatively new.  So, you know, I-- if you want to say have-- can-- can we get to what they were planning to do, the low orbit-- jet to get to Japan, that's not something that a company's going to invest in by themselves.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
Just like this-- you just stop right there.  That's just really important.  Okay?  Because-- because Boeing has been making incremental innovations but they have not fundamentally changed the economics of air travel, which is part of what the airline's problems are.  They want new jets because they can get a 15 percent gain in-- in fuel efficiency on it.  But 15 percent is not an enormous amount.  That's not enough to drive economic growth.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Right--
(OVERTALK)
JIM GLASSMAN:
--I mean we've heard for example that-- the idea of air taxi service.  In other words, you know, we-- we still have planes doing exactly what they did 50 years ago, flying from one big airport to another big airport with 100 people on them or--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
Be--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--200--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--Because--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--People on them.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--We can't get the technology working to do the air traffic control.
JIM GLASSMAN:
But where does-- where does innovation come from?  Doesn't it actually come from the bottom up?  Isn't the-- isn't this something that the government finds a hard-- a hard time doing?  Or big companies find a hard time doing?
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
No, I think it's an unmet need.  It's an unimagined need.  It's a need that people really feel is out there.  There's a pain point.  Where there's a pain point-- that's what really I think gets innovation going.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Paint point meaning you just-- you--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Yeah, it's too--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--There's-- there's a need--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--Difficult to do--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--For something that's--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--It's too--
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Too hard.
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--Difficult.  Like, you know our dependency on oil would be an example.  We need to figure out a way to get out of that.  I mean those are the kinds of things that, you know--
ROBERT ATKINSON:
But (UNINTEL)--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
--We need to be thinking about.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
--But to (UNINTEL) your point, where does innovation come from, it really-- there's two sort of theories in-- in-- in the literature and what Cheryl just talked about is technology pull.  There's also technology push.  And I would argue that a lot of our innovation comes from technology push.

It comes from just inventions that emerge that spur innovation.  So, for example, the ability to-- of Intel to keep-- or AMD or other companies to keep driving down micro processing prices and-- and storage and just creates all this innovation.  So-- a good example of that would be-- in-- Mike's point about biotechnology.  I'm less pessimistic than Mike is about the life sciences because I think this is just a tough nut to solve.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
I'm hoping you're right.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
But-- but one of the new--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
No, you--
ROBERT ATKINSON:
--Techno--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--Might be right.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
Right.
MICHAEL MANDEL:
I can't tell.
ROBERT ATKINSON:
But there-- there are amazing new technologies out there like a company like Life Technologies out of San Diego.  They're developing the ability to do these-- these analysis of genes at-- at-- at an-- unbelievably fast rate.  At an unbelievably low price.  And that's just emerged in the last five years.  So I think these platform technologies are very--
JIM GLASSMAN:
Let me just--
MICHAEL MANDEL:
--Important.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--Ask Mike the last question.  What do you think is the most important thing to do to boost innovation?  One thing?
MICHAEL MANDEL:
At this point I would sort of say making sure that the government is not on board financially, but on board in terms of message.  Setting that this is-- that this is-- you know, financial reform, healthcare reform.  Where's innovation in this package of things?  Okay?  That's really I think-- I think making sure that everybody knows that this is the way that the U.S. is going to-- is going to-- thrive.  Okay?  And whether it's in energy or life sciences or any-- other area, that's what we have to do.
JIM GLASSMAN:
Thank you Mike, thank you Cheryl--
CHERYL SCHWARTZ:
Thank you.
JIM GLASSMAN:
--And thank you Rob.  And that's it for this edition of Ideas In Action.  Don't forget you can take this show on the road by downloading it on your MP3 player through iTunes.  That's an innovation.  Or check out our website -  www.IdeasInActionTv.com.  Thanks for joining us for Ideas in Action.  I'm Jim Glassman.  (MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER:
For more information visit us at IdeasInActionTv.com.  Funding for Ideas In Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily.  Every stock market cycle is led by America's never-ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions.  Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge.  More information is available at Investors.com.   This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.
* * *END OF AUDIO* * *
* * *END OF TRANSCRIPT* * *



]]> Ending America's Dropout Crisis Part 1: Middle School Intervention That Works - Episodes tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2012:/episodes//2.42654 2012-04-19T18:28:26Z 2012-04-20T14:05:09Z A look at what can be done at the middle school level to keep students in school through high school and beyond. We will profile middle school leaders, teachers, students and programs that have turned troubled middle schools into models... Emily Johnson A look at what can be done at the middle school level to keep students in school through high school and beyond. We will profile middle school leaders, teachers, students and programs that have turned troubled middle schools into models of success.

]]> Ending America's Dropout Crisis Part 1: Middle School Intervention That Works

JIM GLASSMAN:

WELCOME TO IDEAS IN ACTION, A TELEVISION SERIES ABOUT IDEAS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES. I'M JIM GLASSMAN.

THIS WEEK - WE BEGIN A TWO-PART EXAMINATION OF THE HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT CRISIS IN AMERICA. IT'S PART OF THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S PROGRAMMING INITIATIVE: AMERICAN GRADUATE - LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN, DESIGNED TO HELP LOCAL COMMUNITIES ADDRESS THE NATION'S DROPOUT CRISIS.

EVERY YEAR, 1.2 MILLION AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DO NOT GRADUATE ON SCHEDULE, AND MORE THAN ONE IN FOUR FAIL TO EARN A DIPLOMA. IN TODAY'S GLOBAL ECONOMY, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT AMERICA IMPROVES THE RATE OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION SO THAT STUDENTS EMERGE CAREER AND COLLEGE READY.

WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT TWO ELEMENTS KEY TO SUCCESSFUL EDUCATIONAL TURNAROUND: TARGETED MIDDLE SCHOOL INTERVENTION AND EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP. WE'LL TALK TO EXPERTS AND VISIT SCHOOLS THAT ARE TAKING CONCRETE STEPS TO INCREASE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES.

THE TOPIC THIS WEEK: MIDDLE SCHOOL INTERVENTION THAT WORKS. THIS IS IDEAS IN ACTION.

THEY'RE CALLED "DROP OUT FACTORIES" - AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOLS WHERE FEWER THAN 60% OF STUDENTS MAKE IT TO GRADUATION DAY. TODAY, ABOUT ONE OUT OF EVERY TEN HIGH SCHOOLS FIT THE DESCRIPTION. THEY ARE CLUSTERED IN LARGE CITIES AND POOR RURAL AREAS ALIKE. AND FOR THE MORE THAN TWO MILLION STUDENTS ATTENDING THESE DROP OUT FACTORIES, THE OUTLOOK IS GRIM.

ROBERT BALFANZ:

Currently, the nation has a graduation rate of right about 75 percent. Which means that there's about a million kids a year that are not getting their diplomas on time. There's four million in the Class of 2010. Three million got diplomas in June. If you're in your 20s, don't have a high school degree, don't have a work history, are you ever going to work? Probably not. But every year, we're putting a million kids towards that future.

JIM GLASSMAN:

FOR MINORITY STUDENTS, THE PROBLEM IS EVEN MORE ACUTE, WITH A NATIONAL GRADUATION RATE OF ONLY 50 PERCENT FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN AND HISPANIC STUDENTS.

ROBERT BALFANZ:

Really the intersection is between poverty and dropping out. But because poverty rates are higher among minorities, we then get higher minority dropout rates.

LINDAN HILL:

Just because a kid is poor, or their parents are poor, doesn't mean that they don't have a lot of ability, that they don't have a lot of potential, because they do. Poverty, economic-- inequality, other kinds of inequalities mitigate against those kids having opportunities. It's not the ability that they lack. It's the opportunity.

JIM GLASSMAN:

RESEARCH SHOWS THAT MAKING SURE STUDENTS GET THOSE OPPORTUNITIES DURING MIDDLE SCHOOL IS CRITICAL TO INCREASING GRADUATION RATES. BY HIGH SCHOOL, IT IS DIFFICULT TO TURN MOST FAILING OR STRUGGLING STUDENTS AROUND.

BOB WISE:

The best news is that I think this country has finally woken up to the dropout crisis. And so a lot of attention is given to early warning indicators, particularly in middle school immediately capturing when a student is beginning to, one, miss a lot more class, number two fail a class, or number three, have disciplinary problems.

JIM GLASSMAN:

WE START BY LOOKING AT ONE MIDDLE SCHOOL IN DALLAS, TEXAS THAT IS BOOSTING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT BY USING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE CLASSROOM.

THIS IS THE THOMAS C. MARSH MIDDLE SCHOOL AWARD-WINNING ROTC DRILL TEAM.

IT IS ONE OF THE SCHOOL'S HALLMARK PROGRAMS - DESIGNED TO INSTILL DISCIPLINE AND HIGH EXPECTATIONS IN STUDENTS FROM THE SURROUNDING DISADVANTAGED AND LARGELY MINORITY COMMUNITY.

CARLOTTA THOMAS:

We give all students that enter into this building a chance regardless of their background, their income level or their ethnicity. They have the opportunity to be the very best. And we insure our teachers with the skills and materials and to do so.

One of the reasons why we're one of the best schools in Dallas is due to our test scores, from last year. In writing we were 92% passing, reading we were 90%, math 90%, science 81%.

JIM GLASSMAN:

BUT SUCH ACADEMIC SUCCESS DIDN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.

DAVID BATES:

In 1999, it wasn't the best of place to work. Lots of gang activity. Lots of bullying, fighting, you know. Our scores were low. We were I guess-- you know, everything you would think of a big, large urban school district, public school kids. I guess that's what, you know, if you wanted to sum it up.

JIM GLASSMAN:

CORPORAL DAVID BATES WAS HIRED IN 1999 SPECIFICALLY TO ESTABLISH AN ROTC PROGRAM AS PART OF AN OVERALL PLAN TO BOOST STUDENT PERFORMANCE. GETTING STUDENTS ENGAGED IN SCHOOL IS A BIG PART OF THAT EFFORT.

DAVID BATES:

We started with nothing. And then we started fund-raisin'. We started getting uniforms. We started getting, you know, materials. I started writing my own curriculum.

Four or five years later, we had all kinds of gear, and we started winning competitions. That's when we got a little bit of-- people-- "What's going on over there?" A typical school day okay always starts off with you know, we call to attention and we tell them to take their seats. They all sit down the same way. Procedures are huge, the way we pass out folders, you know, the way I go over to calendar every single day, the way we take notes, the way we sit, the way we stand, the way we walk. Once I get that regimen in, it becomes real easy.

I teach-- first aid-- land navigation, time management, organizational skills, history. I do what's called effective Army writing, and basically its just good writing skills. (LAUGH) I-- I-- I call it that, and the kids think it's, (LAUGH), you know, something different. But-- but really it's g-- just good writing.

CARLOTTA THOMAS:

Kids who are involved tend to have better grades and go on to graduate from college. So we do encourage for them to do something besides just coming to school.

ABRAHAM TEKLE:

I joined ROTC because I wanted to have the right to say that I was part of some of the trophies that are up there.

DAVID BATES:

When the kids perform for me, they perform at a high level and they don't want to let me down, so when I just put little things on the table like, "We do better. Your scores need to be better. You better do this, you better do that," they don't want to let me down. It's been okay not to pay their bills. It's been okay, you know, not to get a referral. It's been okay. You know, at home, that's what it's been, it's just been okay. Well, that average, okay stuff is not good enough here.

JIM GLASSMAN:

COACH BATES SETS HIGH EXPECTATIONS, EXPECTATIONS THAT MIRROR THOSE OF THE SCHOOL AT LARGE.

CARLOTTA THOMAS:

We expect for students to have A's or B's on report cards. We expect them for them to go to tutoring if they need help. We expect for them to read. We expect for them to do science fair projects. We expect for them to be dressed appropriately for school and to have great behavior. So anything that we want them to do we expect for them to do at their very best.

NATALIE FRANCO:

The reason I joined ROTC is because I liked, I like what the program does. It changes people life. What changed my life was-- from being out there in the street, like, just being bad, stuff like that. And once I came in here I learned discipline, how to treat people, how to respect people, how to respect my elders-- parents, why they're here for us, why they do so much for us. And we are going to do something for them when we grow up.

JIM GLASSMAN:

FOR SOME STUDENTS, MEETING THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE ROTC PROGRAM CAN BE QUITE A TRANSITION.

ABRAHAM TEKLE:

It's really up to them to see if they want to change because if you want to be in ROTC, you have to change. Like, you can't just be slacking off. You can't get in trouble in school. That'll leave a bad reputation on your school.

STEPHANIE ESCOBAR:

When I put my uniform on, it's an amazing feeling. I am proud of myself. And it makes it makes you feel like you're actually doing something for your community. And I think that's really important.

It's like the most exciting thing. You're out there and everyone sees you. And they don't just see you as this person. They see you as a cadet at Marsh Middle School.

DAVID BATES:

The discipline-- is not what a lot of people think discipline is. Like, you know, the pushups and this, that and the other. It's the self-discipline, the discipline to do what is right when no one is looking. You know, that integrity starts to come into play with some of these kids, like they know that they got to do well or, you know, they'll hear it.

Bridgett Robinson:

That spirit of community and a spirit of giving and leadership-- has kind of trickled down from the ROTC down into our core classes and into an overall campus environment.

JIM GLASSMAN:

ALL THE TEACHERS AT MARSH MIDDLE USE JOB ASSIGNMENTS TO TEACH STUDENTS RESPONSIBILITY AND TO GET THEM INVESTED IN THEIR OWN EDUCATION.

Bridgett Robinson:

One way to make them engaged and feeling important is to give them a job or a task to do. And so if we are doing a collaborative activity in a group, you might make one the actual spokesperson; you might make another one the actual person that is collecting the supplies afterward and sort of cleaning up the area. And you might make one-- the actual writer, the person that's actually writing the data down.

DAVID BATES:

The kids all have jobs. When you give a kid a job, he takes it seriously. But here, just passing out folders, not really a great job, but it's their job. They take it seriously.

JIM GLASSMAN:

IN THE ROTC PROGRAM JOBS RANGE FROM MENIAL TO MANAGEMENT.

NATALIE FRANCO:

My position here in JROTC, I'm commander officer. I lead morning. I lead every single day through all these students that come in here. They look up to me. And they would like to be there one day.

STEPHANIE ESCOBAR:

Especially being a CO...I learned that I could be a leader, no matter what it is, no matter what occasion it is. I learned how to be committed to something. And if you stay committed to something, you know you can achieve anything you want.

JIM GLASSMAN:

WHEN STUDENTS ARE ENGAGED AND WELL-BEHAVED, IT IS EASIER FOR TEACHERS TO DO THEIR JOBS.

BRIDGETT ROBINSON:

If you're able to teach, then you're able to get results. If you're able to relate to the kids and there's less distractions with other outside of the classroom items-- then, you're able to get the results that you need.

JIM GLASSMAN:

IT'S BEEN 13 YEARS SINCE COACH BATES STARTED THE ROTC PROGRAM AT MARSH MIDDLE. HE'S GONE FROM 78 TO 317 STUDENTS - ABOUT A THIRD OF THE STUDENT BODY NOW PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM. AND WHILE HIS DRILL TEAM HAS WON NUMEROUS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS, HE IS MOST PROUD OF HIS STUDENTS' HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE OF 97%. BUT HE'S NOT DONE YET.

DAVID BATES:

Everybody's high school graduation, high school graduation- well, I'm at the point now where I want to take it another step. The high school diploma, it's not-- it's not as good as it used to be. My hopes, and goals and dreams for the kids - 100% graduate from college.

CARLOTTA THOMAS:

We do talk about college a lot at our campus. Our campus has become a branding campus for college. If you walk around-- classrooms in this school you will see college bulletin boards, college projects. The students can wear college t-shirts, we have a college week and we take them on college field trips. We understand you're going to go to high school. So we just decided to take it a step further - to make sure that you're going to be a college graduate.

LAUREN SHAW:

That's our way of showing them, "This is our culture. This is what we're-- we do at this school: We talk about going to college. So everything that we do, it's about going to college." When they know the end goal, they understand it. They know the reasoning behind why we do things the way we do them.

ROBERT VACQUEZ:

ROTC, helped me prepare to go to high school. Because-- as-- when I came into this program, I didn't know, you know, a lot of leadership skills. So when I walked in, right away I knew I was going to be a leader.

STEPHANIE ESCOBAR:

It really helped because it helped me to be disciplined and organized. And it just helps so much with my grades. I had A's all year, never C's. It was just because of the ROTC program.

CARLOTTA THOMAS:

The kids love Coach Bates. They respect him. They do not think he's too firm. They understand that he has a goal for them so they want to live up to that goal and they do not want to disappoint him. They truly love Coach Bates.

DAVID BATES:

I like to think my students are the best in the world, and that's-- I know 100% of the time, they are the best in the world when they're with me. Sometimes (LAUGH) when they're not with me, they're not the best in (LAUGH) the world. But that's what we're-- that's what we work on every day.

LAUREN SHAW:

The kids are special here at Marsh Middle School because they understand that, in spite of some of their circumstances, that it they will achieve. They understand that no matter what "I can make it. I will go to college."

JIM GLASSMAN:

NEXT... WE'LL VISIT A MIDDLE SCHOOL IN INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANNA, THAT IS USING INDIVIDUAL LEARNING DATA TO IDENTIFY STUDENTS WHO ARE STRUGGLING IN CLASS. THOSE STUDENTS THEN GET THE HELP THEY NEED TO EVENTUALLY GRADUATE HIGH SCHOOL AND PREPARE FOR A SUCCESSFUL FUTURE. A NUMBER OF INGREDIENTS IS NEEDED TO INSURE STRONG MIDDLE SCHOOL ACADEMIC SUCCESS.

THE STAFF AT HARSHMAN MAGNET MIDDLE SCHOOL IN INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA HAS FOUND A WINNING COMBINATION TO HELP EVERY STUDENT SUCCEED REGARDLESS OF HIS OR HER BACKGROUND.

ROBERT GUFFIN:

We have approximately 410 students in the school, of which 87 percent are free-and-reduced lunch. We have approximately 60 percent African-American, 30 percent Hispanic, ten percent white.

LINDAN HILL:

this school is a story of remarkable turnaround. And the principal and the faculty and the staff that the principal has gathered here has really, really embodied the whole sense of leading change, of establishing a sense of urgency, establishing a vision.

JIM GLASSMAN:

BEFORE PRINCIPAL GUFFIN ARRIVED IN 2009 MANY STAFF MEMBERS ASSUMED THAT THE MAJORITY POOR STUDENT BODY COULDN'T OR WOULDN'T LEARN. THE STUDENTS BELIEVED IT TOO.

ROBERT GUFFIN:

Students were out in the hallways on a regular basis, not attentive in class. Heads were down. Some students wanted to go to sleep. There were fights in the building on a regular basis. We decided that that had to change.

JIM GLASSMAN:

THOSE CHANGES RESULTED IN SIGNIFICANT ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT FOR HARSHMAN'S STUDENTS. IN PRINCIPAL GUFFIN'S FIRST YEAR, LANGUAGE AND MATH SCORES ON THE INDIANA STATE TEST IMPROVED BY 9%. IN HIS SECOND YEAR, THEY IMPROVED BY AN ADDITIONAL 28%.

IT WAS THE GREATEST IMPROVEMENT IN TEST SCORES BY ANY MIDDLE SCHOOL IN THE ENTIRE STATE.

SO HOW DID THE STUDENTS AND STAFF MAKE SUCH GREAT STRIDES IN JUST TWO YEARS?

ONE KEY FACTOR WAS COLLETING DATA ON EACH AND EVERY STUDENT TO DETERMINE WHERE HELP WAS NEEDED.

WHITNEY NEWTON IS IN CHARGE OF GATHERING, ANALYZING AND DISSEMINATING THE DATA.

WHITNEY NEWTON:

The way that we look at students is each student is a holistic person. And we want information about them that will help us meet their needs across the board, everything from what they need in math to what they need at home and everything in between. So when we're collecting and analyzing data, we want lots of different pieces about each student.

ROBERT GUFFIN:

we are constantly-- looking at how our students perform today and-- and how we can take that information as a teacher and 10:51:58:00 How can I take the information--as a teacher and use that to inform my instruction? What did they do? What do they know? Did they meet the objective that we planned for our classroom?

WHITNEY NEWTON:

So it's really looking at the goal for the end of the year which is broken down into the goal at the end of each unit, which is broken down into the goal at the end of each day. Alright. What are we going to do to get there?

JIM GLASSMAN:

THE GOAL AT THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR IS TO PASS AN EXAM THAT MEASURES A STUDENT'S PROGRESS ON BASIC ACADEMIC SUBJECTS: IT'S CALLED "THE INDIANA STATEWIDE TESTING FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS PLUS" - OTHERWISE KNOW AS ISTEP.

ROBERT GUFFIN:

We'll take that ISTEP exam, look at where our deficiencies in our students were. And-- and we will use that to plan an overall plan for each nine weeks or each semester or the entire year.

We look at where students are strong, where students are weak. And how can we shore those areas up?

JIM GLASSMAN:

IN ADDITION TO UNIT EXAMS AND REPORT CARDS EVERY 9-WEEKS, THE STAFF AT HARSHMAN USES 6-QUESTION MINI-TESTS CALLED "SCRIMMAGES" TO BENCHMARK STUDENT PROGRESS.

WHITNEY NEWTON:

So we're looking at, every three weeks, "Did they get the standards that were in the pacing guide from the previous three weeks? And how-- how are they doing with that?" As the coaches, we roll that data out to the teachers and give them a chance each month to look at that data as a team-- analyze it, put it together, separate it into different formats, whether it's by standard or by-- sub-group.

JIM GLASSMAN:

TEACHERS COLLECT DATA ON A DAILY BASIS USING WHAT HAS COME TO BE KNOWN AS AN "EXIT TICKET."

ALEASE MONGER:

An exit ticket is basically, like, going over, like, basically what we learned in that class at that time. And we do it at the end of the class, like, before the bell rings.

JAKE BURSKEY:

It doesn't always have to be an official thing. But I always end a class with a wrap-up activity. it can be just asking questions, going into individual groups and asking individual kids-- and asking them in a way that they've got to think about what we've learned on a higher level.

JIM GLASSMAN:

COLLECTING ALL OF THIS DATA IS ONE THING BUT ORGANIZING IT IN A USEFUL WAY IS QUITE ANOTHER.

WHITNEY NEWTON:

Because we have so much data that we're collecting and we're really trying to organize it for teachers, a lot of them are using data, but it's not very effective for them from their perspective because they have it in a packet here, in a file here, and it's on this computer program and here on this website. And so what we tried to do was bring it all together onto one database-- very simple, just a two-column spreadsheet online that all the teachers can access at any time.

JIM GLASSMAN:

FOR EXAMPLE, IF TEACHERS FIND THAT 40-PERCENT OF THE STUDENTS ARE STRUGGLING WITH A TOPIC, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE IT.

JAKE BURSKEY:

Part of my learning as a teacher is to use assessment as a tool to drive my instruction. So I may set a unit to last two weeks. But if they're not getting it, I've got to continue to incorporate those while staying on pace with the curriculum.

JIM GLASSMAN:

IF ONLY ONE OR TWO ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY, THOSE STUDENTS CAN GET PERSONALIZED HELP FROM ONE OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL SPECIALISTS.

MEE HEE KIM:

We pull out these students during their elective period, and work with them one on one, or a small group setting to master these standards in a really individualized, instructional kind of experience that they can't get within a normal classroom

JIM GLASSMAN:

THE EDUCATIONAL SPECIALISTS ALSO USE A STRATEGY CALLED FRONT LOADING IN MANY OF THEIR ONE-ON-ONE TEACHING SESSIONS.

MEE HEE KIM:

We kind of pre-teach them what they're going to be learning that day, so they're exposed to the vocabulary. They're exposed to the skill a little bit.

ROBERT GUFFIN:

It allows them to be-- the person in the classroom who has their hand up first. It allows them to be the person in the classroom who people look to for the answers. The confidence that they gain and the pride that develops becomes something that is immeasurable and allows students to grow and begin to know, "I can do this."

DANIEL ESTRADA:

After I worked with Mr. Spencer, it was good because I could understand how the problem worked out. And it was cool.

JIM GLASSMAN:

PRINCIPAL GUFFIN AND HIS STAFF FEEL THAT SHARING THE DATA WITH THE STUDENTS THEMSELVES IS A KEY TO ACADEMIC SUCCESS.

WHITNEY NEWTON:

The teachers in their classes, so math and language arts, all took their ISTEP scores, handed them out to students, and had them fill out a reflection individually so that they could look at, "What was my score? What do I want my goal to be? Why was that my score? Why do I want this to be my goal?" and just really allowed each student to see, "Where am I-- in comparison to where I'm supposed to be this year.

JACOB SPRINGER:

Teachers here a strict, but also want you to have fun, be safe, to do what you got do to get the job done.

WHITNEY NEWTON:

So-- it's really exciting, though, to hear kids say, "I didn't pass ISTEP last year but I'm going to pass it this year." It's really powerful to hear a student take that ownership and advocate for themselves and say, "I want to pass ISTEP this year so I am coming to your tutoring this week."

We're teaching to our students, where they are, where they're coming in, and where we want them to be, to be-- successful and move on to high school and college and jobs that allow them to be happy.

ROBERT GUFFIN:

I've never known a student that has come to school and said, the first day of school, "this year, I'm going get in trouble." Every student that comes to this school wants to succeed. And every year, they start out with, "I'm going to be my best that I can be." And how we respond to them makes a huge difference in how they behave in school.

JACOB SPRINGER:

If you get good grades that means you'll get far in life. And you'll have a house, good wife, you'll-- you get good grades, you get to be anything you want to be.

JIM GLASSMAN:

MARSH MIDDLE IN DALLAS AND HARSHMAN MIDDLE IN INDIANAPOLIS ARE JUST TWO SCHOOLS MAKING THE KIND OF POSITIVE CHANGE THAT IS HAPPENING ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

BUT THERE'S STILL MORE TO BE DONE. JOIN US NEXT TIME WHEN WE TAKE A LOOK AT ANOTHER STRATEGY TO CURB AMERICA'S HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT CRISIS -TRANSFORMATIVE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP THAT WORKS.

THAT'S IT FOR THIS WEEK'S IDEAS IN ACTION. I'M JIM GLASSMAN, THANKS FOR WATCHING.

]]> Rich State, Poor State: How Eliminating the Income Tax Helps Grow States' Economies - Episodes tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2012:/episodes//2.42641 2012-04-12T18:15:52Z 2012-04-13T14:22:44Z With many states in the U.S. fighting for their fiscal health, there is a small but growing movement to ditch the state income tax for an increased sales tax. Would this policy stimulate growth, and whom would it truly benefit?... Emily Johnson With many states in the U.S. fighting for their fiscal health, there is a small but growing movement to ditch the state income tax for an increased sales tax. Would this policy stimulate growth, and whom would it truly benefit?

]]> IDEAS IN ACTION with Jim Glassman State Income Tax Program


JIM GLASSMAN:
Welcome to Ideas in Action, a television series about ideas and their consequences. I'm Jim Glassman. This week, do you live in one of the 41 states with a state income tax? Would you trade that income tax for a higher sales tax? There's a lively movement afoot in several states to do just that. Supporters say it would help revive the economy, but critics say it would raise prices for everyone, with most of the burden falling on the poor. Joining me to discuss this topic are Carl Bearden, executive director of United for Missouri, a group advocating for the repeal of the personal income tax in that state. Jonathan Williams, of the American Legislative Exchange Council and co-author of Rich States, Poor States, an annual comparison of economic competitiveness among the states. And Jon Shure, director of state fiscal strategies on the Center on Budget and Policy priorities. The topic this week: should states ditch the income tax in favor of a sales tax?

ANNOUNCER:
Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never-ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Today, only nine states have no income tax. But in places like Missouri and Oklahoma, there's a movement to expand that club. Supporters say states with no income taxes show stronger growth overall than states with high income taxes. But critics argue that eliminating the income tax increases the reliance on sales and property taxes. And that lifts the tax burden toward the poor, who spend a greater proportion of their income on necessities. Who wins and who loses, by ditching the state income tax? Welcome all of you to Ideas in Action. Jonathan, why is a statewide sales tax better than an income tax?

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
Well, you know, I think legislators across the country are looking at state income taxes as a major inhibiting factor to economic growth, whether you look at revenue growth, whether you look at income growth, GDP growth at the state level or population growth, the nine states without personal income taxes across the country have vastly outperformed their high tax counterparts. And this is not only true in this past decade, but it's true over data over the last 50 years. Half century's worth of data, the no income tax states always come out on top. And as legislators look for ways to create jobs, make their states more competitive for business development, this is a big strategy that they're considering right now.

JIM GLASSMAN:
We're going to go over some of those numbers a little bit later in the show. Carl, Missouri. Missouri gets-- 68 percent of its revenues from state income taxes. And now you, among others, want to trade that in for a higher sales tax. But wouldn't the sales tax have to be really high in order to make up for all the revenue that's lost?

CARL BEARDEN:
No, not really. We-- taxing less than three percent increase in our sales tax from what we have now.

JIM GLASSMAN:
What-- what do you have now, by the way?

CARL BEARDEN:
We have-- 4.225 percent state sales tax. And then the locals all have varying rates on theirs. So we're talking about the state sales tax rate would go from 4.225 to seven percent, a slight increase again, under three percent. We would broaden our base. We're currently taxing about 25 percent of our GDP, our state GDP. And we could be taxing as much as 45 percent under this proposal. We would have exemptions in there for necessities of life, such as rent, childcare, health care, prescriptions, public transportations. All those basic needs that people-- buy every day.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So right now, the sales tax only applies to 25 percent of the state's gross domestic product.

CARL BEARDEN:
Correct.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So as you say, not food, I guess not rent, that kind of thing.

CARL BEARDEN:
Right. Food has a very small sales tax on it now. We continue to have a smaller sales tax. It would not be seven percent. So-- so the rest of the things, the rent, those sorts of things will not be taxed. They're not taxed now. They won't be taxed in the future. And that would help eliminate some of the regressivity concerns.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So what's wrong with that? I mean, why-- why would eliminating the income tax or replacing it with a sales tax with the same amount of revenue. That's the idea here. Why would that have bad consequence?

JON SHURE:
Well, first of all, we have to see if the same amount of revenue. There's an open question about that. But it doesn't just change what taxes are paid. It changes how they're paid. Right now, low and middle-income people spend a higher percentage of their income every year on buying things. Their taxes would go up under this. The wealthiest people, who get the biggest break from an income tax, they would get the biggest tax cut. So overall, state's ability to create jobs and build a strong economy would be hurt by a lack of resources. And the burden would fall most on low and middle-income people.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Yeah, how-- how do you-- how do you take into account the fact that-- that low-income people spent almost everything that they have on consumption?

CARL BEARDEN:
Well, the data's pretty clear. Again, if you eliminate the necessities that we don't tax and you get down to the basics, nothing used, for example, in this proposal would be taxed. So if you buy a used car, there's no tax. If you buy used clothing, there's no tax. So you eliminate a lot of those-- those sorts of areas.

But here's what we have. We know that people at $20,000 income spend quite a bit of their-- their-- income on those necessity of life. But we also know that the people making $200,000 spend a whole lot more than those at $20,000. And they-- they will be paying a large share of this revenue.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But they don't pay ten times more.

JON SHURE:
No, they don't. It's-- it-- the numbers don't work--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Not to make your argument for you--

JON SHURE:
The numbers don't-- no, the numbers don't work in that sense. It would seriously redistribute how-- how people pay taxes. But I'm also not convinced that it would make up the money that is-- that is lost. So the question is really states investing in what creates jobs. They won't be able to do it.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Well, we're-- we're actually assuming that it does. And I don't know whether these-- I think there has been some research on this that-- yeah.

CARL BEARDEN:
So-- so we know that-- that in our current base, just without expanding the base. If we increased the-- sales tax from 4.225 to seven percent, we're going to raise an additional $1.7 billion, out of the 4.4 billion we need to raise. We're broadening the sales tax base by $50 billion. That's the GDP expansion. 50 billion times seven percent. That's three and a half billion dollars. Three and a half plus 1.7, if I recall. It's been a long time since I've been in school, but 3.5 plus 1.7's 5.2 in excess of the 4.4 we're trying to replace.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Okay, so let's-- let's just-- let me ask you a basic question here, 'cause we don't want to get too much into the weeds of-- of too many percentages. But if you tax consumption, doesn't that hurt the economy? I mean, we keep hearing how we've got a consumer-driven economy. And when you tax something, you get less of it. So why-- why would we want to tax consumption? That would hurt the economy, right?

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
Well, I mean, all taxes matter to growth, obviously. Just some matter more than others. If you look at, for instance, taxes on capital, some of the most mobile factors out there is capital is more mobile today, going all throughout the world. Even if you look at OECD, not really a conservative think tank, they said taxes on--

JIM GLASSMAN:
OECD stands for?

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
Organizational Economic Cooperation Development, which is the major--

JIM GLASSMAN:
For the developed countries.

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
In-- in developed-- economic countries said that taxes on capital, corporate income taxes, other taxes on capital-- are the most damaging to growth. And this comes from OECD, very non-- biased, non-partisan source.

JIM GLASSMAN:
In-- hold-- let me just stop. Is-- isn't that right though, Jon? I mean, you hear this. I think you hear this from economists of all stripes that the last thing you want to tax is investment, because investment is what creates job. If you have to tax something, you should tax consumption--

JON SHURE:
Well, states-- state-- well, there's a reason why most states have both a sales tax and an income tax, because that balance makes sense. In tough economic times, the sales tax might be-- perform stronger. In good economic times, the income tax brings in revenues that you can reserve for the future. That's why no state has gotten rid of an income tax in over 20 years, 'cause that balance makes sense. So if you don't-- if you-- if you throw away one of your most important tools for investing in jobs and economic growth and only rely on the other tool, you've lost the balance that makes so much sense and that works so well.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Let's explore this-- this issue of taxing consumption. I mean really, if you tax consumption, even a little bit more, you're going to get less of it, right?

CARL BEARDEN:
Well, it's interesting, because we-- we've taken over 100 grassroots people, just everyday people out of their communities to Tennessee-- our next-door neighbor who has no income tax, no individual income tax, and compare that. We let them shop $100 at a store at-- in Missouri and $100 buying the same things in Tennessee. And they found that that difference was very, very minimal, that on that $100, they may have paid two cents to $3-- two cents to $3 more. And so what we find is that that is not a large enough increase to drive consumption. If you-- if you-- went to 10 percent or above, I think then you might have that consideration.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But I hear people-- drive across the state line between Maryland and Delaware, where there's no-- there's no sales tax in Delaware.

CARL BEARDEN:
Right. So-- so the data actually shows that-- that you'll do most of your shopping where you live. And so with the-- with the exception of once in a while, major, big-ticket items, you're going to do most of your shopping where you live. We have that same situation in Missouri. Kansas Line and the Missouri line. You cross a street and you're in one state.

Kansas has a much higher tax on food, for example, than Missouri does. And yet we don't see all the grocery stores on the Missouri line. They're-- they're on the same side in Kansas. And so there is a flexibility. And what we're talking about is a small enough increase not to impact consumer credit. You know, as a former budget chairman in-- in the state of Missouri, I would-- I would gladly have traded a more stable revenue source over time as a sales tax than I would an income tax that goes way up and then goes way down, because it makes our life easier and the cuts in-- in government spending aren't quite as severe.

JIM GLASSMAN:
That is true though. Sales taxes are-- are more-- a more stable source of income.

JON SHURE:
In bad economic times. In good economic times, you need the-- the-- the revenue that you get from-- from an income tax. That's why the balance is good. But I want to go back to something. You know, what's radical about this is that if a state does this, they will have to have the highest sales tax they've ever had in their history. And they'll have to tax more things than they've ever taxed before. I've seen proposals to tax babysitting and prescription drugs.

So you know, it's-- it's kind of a radical experiment just to get rid of a tax that actually performs very well and is part of a balance. And you can compare Missouri and Tennessee. The average person in Missouri makes $2000 a year more than in Tennessee. So obviously Tennessee is not being hurt by having this-- this income tax.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Actually-- you talk about an experiment. This is a good time to take a look at some of these numbers that Jonathan was talking about from the study that looked at the nine states that don't have an income tax versus the-- the 41 states that do. As far as gross domestic product within the state, over 10 years from '98 to 2008, the growth in the nine states without an income tax was 86 percent. The nine states with the highest income tax, 60 percent growth in GDP. Population growth, nine states with zero, 16 percent, nine states with the highest, six percent. Non-farm payroll. So this is a good employment figure. 18 percent growth in the states with no tax, eight percent in the state with tax. So Jon, I mean, obviously, it's not a perfect experiment, although the variety within these states that don't have a state income tax is pretty-- pretty high.

JON SHURE:
Well--

JIM GLASSMAN:
You got-- you got states like North Dakota and-- and-- you know, Nevada. And you've got other-- you got large states like-- Texas and Florida. So isn't this significant, these results--

JON SHURE:
It's-- it's pretty far from a perfect experiment. I-- I got to be honest with you. If the whole thing is based on these numbers, we should just go home, because these numbers--

JIM GLASSMAN:
We're not going to go home.

JON SHURE:
Okay, well these numbers are like saying, you know, "The rooster crowed this morning and the sun came up. So the rooster made the sun come up." They ignore all kinds of other factors. The climate, the natural resources, the jobs, the housing prices. And you can-- you know, you can cherry-pick wherever you want. There's no state with a worse financial crisis than Nevada today. They have no income tax. Last year in Florida, for the first time since World War II, more people left the state than came. They have no income tax. If income tax-- if not having an income tax were magic, we'd see a whole different picture.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Jonathan?

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
Well, actually, I mean, the Florida numbers have picked back up. Florida's actually gaining population again. You take a look at this nine states versus the nine states with the highest tax rates, 10 years worth of data. You have a very good cross-section of states here. This-- these relationships of higher growth with the states that avoid income taxes are not just true in this ten-year window. They're true if you-- they're true if you look at a whole half-century worth of data, which, by the way, we've seen states come in and out of that group of the no-income tax states.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Actually-- wouldn't a better experiment be a state that got rid of its state income tax or a state that significantly lowered its state income tax? Do we have any of those?

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
Oh sure, I mean, you take a look at Alaska eliminated their state income tax. You've seen, you know, some pretty positive growth in Alaska. But you know, the other thing we do is take a look over the last 50 years at the 11 states that have instituted an income tax over that period. And we take a look at their growth prior to the income tax imposition and we take a look at their growth today. And without exception across those states, you see their relative growth-- to the United States economy shrink, after the imposition of an income tax.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And what-- what are some of those states?

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
Well, you take a look at my home state of Michigan for instance. You take a look at Illinois. You take a look at Pennsylvania. You look at-- take a look at Ohio, Rhode Island. Many of those states today are really shells of what they are-- what they used to be. Of course, not all of that's-- related to the personal income tax--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Although-- although--

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
--But certainly it's a direct incentive.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Although you named a bunch of states in the-- the rust belt, so-called rust belt, that are having a hard time-- economically. Do you think it's because of the institution of the income--

CARL BEARDEN:
Well, I think you can look at Illinois specifically. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics show, since they implemented their newest tax-- income tax increase, they've lost 18 jobs an hour as-- from January through August. They've lost a total of 106,000 jobs during that period of time.

You know, Missouri's GDP is 48th in the nation for the last 10, 12 years. We're 43rd over the last 50 years. We can do better. Only Michigan, his home state and Ohio are behind us. And they're trying to move up. And I-- I believe that-- you know, we don't compare ourselves to Texas. We don't compare ourselves to Nevada or Florida, although the sun shines just as bright in Florida today as it did 30 years ago. And they've-- they've grown.

We compare ourselves to Tennessee, which I think is an apple-to-apple comparison. The reason that people in Missouri make a higher per capita income is because we have a higher educated work force. We've been at it longer than Tennessee. They-- they got started in the 1930s, when TVA came. Up until that time, they were-- they were very--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Tennessee Valley Authority.

CARL BEARDEN:
Exactly, exactly. So-- so they-- but they've caught up very quickly. And about 13, 14 years ago, they surpassed Missouri on population growth. They surpassed us in GDP growth. And they-- they get to keep nine Congressional seats during the last census. We lost a Congressional seat, even though we grew.

JIM GLASSMAN:
What about that? I mean, there-- there-- now those are two states. They're contiguous, although Tennessee's contiguous with lots of states. They're fairly similar states. And Tennessee's been growing a lot. Missouri has not.

JON SHURE:
Well, to-- to think that because one state is growing and one state is not growing as much. And to say it's all because one state has an income tax and it does-- it's just oversimplifying and cherry-picking-- it makes no-- it makes no sense.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Well, there's no doubt that-- that the economics is not-- the economics is not---- economics is not biology. On the other hand, you know, you got to make a judgment based on something.

JON SHURE:
Well, you've got to make a judgment based on everything. And that's the problem. This analysis just picks one thing and makes a judgment based on that.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Okay, so what's the ju--

JON SHURE:
If Missouri has a much more skilled, highly qualified work force, there's a reason for that. It's because they've made the investments over the years to have those things, and that takes the revenues that you'd lose if you got rid of the income tax.

JIM GLASSMAN:
What-- what's the argument from an economic point of view for keeping the current system of state income taxes?

JON SHURE:
The best argument for keeping it is that you need balance. That to have both kinds of taxes protects you in different kinds of economic situations. Again, that's why states do it. That's why most states have always kept it that way.

JIM GLASSMAN:
As-- as head of the budget committee, wouldn't-- wouldn't you want to share in the revenues from let's say Capital Gains? The stock market goes way up. Rich people, as well as others, cash in their stocks. Big capital gains. You get-- you-- you get the profits.

CARL BEARDEN:
So that reliance causes a lot of problems, 'cause when that money comes in. I mean, it's nice of Jon to say that we'd put that stuff away. Most states don't put it away. They spend it. And that's what happened to Missouri. You know, the building tools we have-- income tax is kind of like asbestos. You know, it used to be a great thing. It used to insulate us and do all these sorts of things.

But it's a bad thing. You know, we know asbestos causes all sorts of damage, whereas the-- the sales tax, it does better at-- others. The downturn's much better. And it doesn't go down in the good times. It provides you a steady increase. It rises as-- it rises some, not as much as the income tax, but then you don't spend as much either. And so you have a more manageable, service-friendly provider than you do with an income tax.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But just to take your-- analogy with asbestos, you know, states have gotten rid of the use of asbestos. So why haven't states woken up to the fact that income taxes are toxic and vote them out and go to the sales tax?

CARL BEARDEN:
Great question, because if you look-- Tennessee has eight states border it. Missouri has eight states bordering us. All the states that border us, with the exception of Tennessee, 'cause we're already there, are looking at some sort of tax reform. I know we-- we already talked about Illinois. Their tax reform is going in the wrong direction by raising taxes, driving jobs out.

But every other state around us is looking about eliminating or reducing their income tax. So they are looking at that. Kansas has a big proposal out to eliminate theirs. Oklahoma's trying to speed theirs up. Kentucky, who has the lowest sales tax of any of the-- the states that border us is also looking at this type of program. So it is something that is very lively. And it's something that-- that I understand why Jon is upset with-- with some of these things, because a lot of people are looking at that. And it's a battle-- I think it's a great discussion to have.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Why would he be upset? He-- he-- he wants America to grow.

CARL BEARDEN:
He does.

JON SHURE:
I-- I want every state to grow. I think if-- if Carl believed what he's saying, he probably would have moved to Tennessee a long time ago. There's no income tax there. No, I think states-- states have to do what's right. You know, the-- the people that we elect in states are the stewards of the economic future of the state. They need to look at what got them where they are today.

What attracts businesses and people is investment in education and transportation and everything else. You get rid of the income tax. And you'll be sorry. You'll be sorry that the state no longer has the capacity to grow and, as I said before, it's now created a state where the lower your income, middle-class people have now had a huge tax increase. The wealthiest people have gotten the big tax cut.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So your main argument is that states need-- a consistent flow of income.

JON SHURE:
State needs stability and balance.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And you don't buy the argument that eliminating a tax on income would help a state to grow.

JON SHURE:
The argument, frankly, is not based on any real connections.

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
There's plenty of economic-- academic research that suggests otherwise and that it does produce growth. And they isolate out the variables. We do a simple correlation relationship over 50 years, over nine states-- without income taxes that pro-- that shows very strong correlation. You look at correlation on the other hand--

JIM GLASSMAN:
And correlation is--

(OVERTALK)

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
It's not cause and effect. But certainly over a 50-year period, that relationship--

(OVERTALK)

JIM GLASSMAN:
--Cause and effect in any kind of--

JON SHURE:
Ask-- ask the people in Nevada. The state's a basket case and they have no income tax.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Yeah, what about that?

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
Well, if states want to follow that approach of just raising income taxes-- Texas is more than happy to take your jobs, gaining four Congressional--

(OVERTALK)

JON SHURE:
Well, you know, nobody said just raise income tax--

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
--Over the last ten years.

JON SHURE:
We said we need a balance, because that's what works best over time. Texas is laying off 100,000 teachers.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But the fact is that over a long period of time, Texas has really been thriving. And it is-- is the most significant, along with Florida, of the no income tax states. And if you talk to people in Texas, and I live half the time in Texas, they will tell you that one of the reasons that they moved their businesses to Texas from California is the tax situation. There are others. There are other reasons as well, regulatory issues-- tort reform. But the tax situation is-- is really one of the main reasons.

JON SHURE:
And oil helps too. It brings in a lot of revenue. And I can tell you. I can find plenty of people in Texas who'll say, "You know, if Texas had the courage to also have an income tax, they could invest in education and everything else. And they would not just have as many jobs as they'd have. They'd actually have good jobs."

JIM GLASSMAN:
Carl?

CARL BEARDEN:
I think that, you know, if you do look at Texas, and excellent point again. We don't compare ourselves, Texas. Oil doesn't make up nearly as much of our budget as people want to-- want to-- pretend that it does. But here's-- here's the case. When DCI does market analysis of why-- companies move, they say, "What's the first thing you do?" Well, we-- we create a shortlist. Well, how do you get on the shortlist? They do this before they even contact the state economic development. You get on a shortlist because of business climate and tax policy. So Texas is ranked number one in-- in highest-- business-friendly climate since 1999.

And when you ask those people exactly what you're talking about, why you chose Texas, 44 percent of them tell you that it was because of their tax policy. 31 percent say it was because of their business climate. It does make a difference. And-- and we may not-- you know, I'm in Missouri. Actually, there was a Bearden in Tennessee. And-- and I do have a lot of family history in-- in Tennessee.

I'm in Missouri, 'cause I have two great grandkids that live there. Their-- their mom and dad are professionals, who can, in today's technology, can do those jobs from anywhere. I want my grandkids to have a place and a reason to stay in Missouri, because I want their parents to stay there. And if their parents stay, they're likely to stay.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Jonathan, I know your organization is concerned about states. But is there an-- a federal application to what you've learned in your research? In other words, should we go to a consumption tax or something-- a partial consumption tax, 9-9-9 or (LAUGH)-- or, you know, the kinds of flat taxes that people have talked about that are actually consumption taxes?

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
Well, I mean, you take a look at the most mobile factors out there today, like we talked about. And taxing capital at the lowest level possible is a good pro-growth-- stimulus, whether you look at it international level, federal level, state level. Now today, of course, our corporate-- federal corporate tax rate of 35 percent, second highest in the world-- our companies are struggling to compete against their foreign-- competitors.

We have to do some big things at the national level to get things under control, whether that means-- a flatter tax system-- or lower rates overall on capital. That's something we have to look at. At the state level, we certainly see that application. At the international level, you see that application.

Look at the-- the OECD countries, as I mentioned earlier. Take a look at the Eastern European countries and what they've been able to accomplish, first as their high tax counterparts in Western Europe and the flow of capital that's going from western to Eastern Europe. And now with the eve of their-- their talk of tax harmonization to say, "You must have a limited or a minimum tax rate to be part of the EU system," because they see this tax competition in action, capital moving to the low tax areas.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Okay, let's-- I just want to go around the table and ask-- what you think the future of eliminating state income taxes is. Carl.

CARL BEARDEN:
I-- I think that it's pretty high. I think most states who have income taxes now. Most of the people working in those states have never worked under an environment where there wasn't a state income tax. So there's an educational proponent, which is what we try to do in Missouri. The more people learn about this, and we've talked to thousands of people across the state. The more people learn about it, they understand it, the more they like it, because it puts them in the driver's seat. They get to choose what tax they're paying, how much they're paying, whether they buy used, new or what have you. They get to make that decision. And it's not an automatic deduction from their check.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And are you going to have a vote in Missouri about whether to go from income taxes to sales taxes?

CARL BEARDEN:
We're working on right now, trying to-- have that on the ballot in 2012.

JIM GLASSMAN:
It has to be on the ballot. So why-- why doesn't the-- just quickly. Why doesn't the legislature just go ahead and approve it?

CARL BEARDEN:
Well, letting the super committee come to an agreement. You know, there's all sorts of disagreement poli-- politicians, elected officials. And speaking as a reformed one or whatever-- you know, it's very difficult for them to make these sorts of decisions. And so the people will sign an issue petition process in the state of Missouri. They will decide whether or not it goes on the ballot.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Okay. Jonathan, what do you think the future of eliminating state incomes taxes it?

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
Well, I'm quite bullish on the future of-- elimination of state income taxes across the country, because legislators look to success stories like Texas and wonder, you know, how we might be able to emulate it. I know Jon said earlier, they rely a lot on oil and gas. Only three percent of their budget comes from severance tax revenue, which is much lower than many of the other states out there today. They have--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Severance is energy tax.

JONATHAN WILLIAMS:
Extraction on oil and gas, absolutely. And so you look at the states that are doing well today. People want to know, "How can we create jobs?" Being from Michigan-- where a state where we've been desperate to do everything we can to create jobs-- we had really a lost decade over the last 10 years of-- lost job creation. There are no opportunities for-- people when they graduated.

We-- by the way, we have great research institutions. We spend a lot on K12 education. But if the jobs aren't there, people are going to go to other states where the jobs are. And as people look to emulate that job creation engine of Texas and other states, they're going to be looking at an income tax pretty seriously.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Jon, future?

JON SHURE:
Like-- like the decline of the income taxes because of the auto-- auto industry. I think people in the show-me state and other states have a lot of common sense. And when they see the consequences of this, they're going to pay 10, 11 percent sales tax. They're going to have to pay sales tax on things they never paid tax on before. They lose the advantage of, you know, you lose your job. You don't have to pay income tax. So I think in the end, common sense will prevail. Balance will prevail. And states will stay on the course that's been tried and true over time.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Thank you, Jon. Thank you, Carl. And thank you, Jonathan. And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action. I'm Jim Glassman. Thanks for watching.

ANNOUNCER:
Keep in mind that you can watch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you want. To watch highlights or complete programs, just go to ideasinactiontv.com or download a podcast from the iTunes Store. Ideas in Action, because ideas have consequences. For more information visit us at ideasinactiontv.com. Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never-ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at investors.com. This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.

]]> The New Battle Field: Life After War for America's New Veterans - Episodes tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2011:/episodes//2.42629 2012-04-05T16:58:53Z 2012-04-04T21:06:24Z As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wind down, a new generation of veterans is returning home. While some may suffer from visible scars, many more carry psychological wounds that that are harder to recognize. How can Americans help today's... Emily Johnson As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wind down, a new generation of veterans is returning home. While some may suffer from visible scars, many more carry psychological wounds that that are harder to recognize. How can Americans help today's new generation of veterans adapt to life back home?

]]> IDEAS IN ACTION with Jim Glassman

The New Battle Field; Life After War for America's New Veterans

JIM GLASSMAN:
Welcome to Ideas in Action a television series about ideas and their consequences. I'm Jim Glassman. This week: after ten years in Afghanistan and with combat operations over in Iraq a new class of veterans will need to adapt to life back home. They're returning to a weak job market and a Veterans Administration that critics say isn't up to the task of helping them. Joining me to discuss this topic are; Colonel David Sutherland, special assistant to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; Paula Domenici, head of training programs at the Center for Deployment Psychology at the Uniform Services University of Health Sciences; and Rajiv Srinivasan, spokesperson for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. The topic this week: the new battlefield, life after war for America's new veterans. This is Ideas in Action.

ANNOUNCER:
Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investors Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at Investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Since 2001, 2.3 million Americans have joined the U.S. military with many serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. As those conflicts wind down America's newest veterans are returning home. While some struggle with visible scars, others suffer from invisible, psychological wounds. How is today's generation of vets adapting to civilian life and what can Americans do to help? Colonel Sutherland 2.3 million Americans have fought in the most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is unique about this new generation of veterans?

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
Well I think that first off this generation of veterans are wired to serve. They just need a little help during transition and reintegration and they'll thrive. They've proven their fortitude, they've proven their capabilities time and time again on the battlefield and I've seen valor on the battlefield. The series of noble acts over a period of time under harsh conditions. And I've seen valor when they come home. They're the same series of noble acts over a period of time under harsh conditions. And sometimes it takes more than valor. It takes communities, and leaders in the communities, recognizing their potential for greatness. This generation of veterans, just like previous generations of veterans, have served with distinction. They're brave, they're disciplined, individually and collectively, and they're kind, and we see it over and over again. It's when they come home that those challenges-- the recognition and the assistance at the local level is so important.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Captain nearly 99% of Americans are not involved in military life and is this disconnect hamper veterans in transition, sort of-- maybe a lack of understanding?

CAPT. RAJIV SRINIVASAN:
You know the easy answer is yes. To say that because fewer people are serving then that's why military folks are having a harder time to transition. But I believe the right answer is no. The issue here isn't to get more people to serve. I don't think that would really help or hurt the situation. To me the issue is that we do not look at Veterans Affairs and the utilitarian argument for why it's important. Right now when you hear an argument for Veterans Affairs or an argument for veterans charities it's usually an argument that says oh of compassion, feel sorry for these vets, take care of them because they served their country. What we need to start doing is changing the argument. We need to realize that Veterans Affairs are important to this country for two reasons in my opinion; one it's an economic issue, we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars training these young men and women we need to make sure we maximize that utility when they come back home. To me the most important argument though is it's a national security issue, because every homeless veteran, every jobless veteran, every veteran without healthcare, is a walking billboard for our young leaders in high school today for them not to join the military. And quite frankly it's far stronger and louder when a young high school student sees a homeless or jobless veteran to realize that they could probably find welfare and a higher standard of living in another profession and our best and brightest won't join the service and our frontlines will be weaker for it.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Paula there's a recent Pew poll that says that reported rates of posttraumatic stress disorder are much higher than in previous wars. How have we progressed in helping veterans deal with this and other psychological conditions?

PAULA DOMENICI:
Well first of all I would actually disagree with that to some extent. We know the rates of PTSD range from about 14% to 30% depending on when you're looking at when they're surveyed; if they're in theater, when they come home, are they in veteran status, and those rates are not dramatically higher than other-- if you look at other wars. But irrespective of that I mean it's very important for us to address PTSD and where I work at the Center for Deployment Psychology what we are doing is disseminating evidence based treatments for conditions like PTSD that can actually get our soldiers and veterans better. Where they don't--

JIM GLASSMAN:
And what does that mean?

PAULA DOMENICI:
That they can stay in the mission. They can stay in the fight. They may not have to leave the service, that they don't need to be disabled, that they can be functional.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And Colonel Sutherland you don't really consider PTSD an illness right?

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
I don't and in fact I won't use disorder associated with it. It's a sense of disconnection for me, my interpretation, I'm not a PhD or a doctor, my PhD's in soldiering. The understanding of that epidemic of disconnection when we come home and we don't feel like we fit in. Those sacred moments on the battlefield turn into secrets where we can't talk about these issues but-- the doctor's right. I mean the previous generation of veterans because of their challenges when they came home, especially our Vietnam veterans, we can now talk about our challenges and we can address them directly because we can talk about them. But understand-we're not victims, we're veterans. And we don't need a handout we need a hand up and it's not pity we're looking for but recognition of the potential. And when organizations do that-- RAND just recently released a study about the belongingness, the remedy to help deal with the effects of posttraumatic stress is a sense of belongingness, a sense of community, and how important that is to be able to talk about and feel like you fit in.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Yes.

PAULA DOMENICI:
If I could just add the other thing we're doing is training military providers to use evidence based practices in theater, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, for individuals on the field who have posttraumatic stress symptoms. So to intervene early and maybe pull them off the frontline but they're still downrange with their unit to some extent and so we're treating it earlier and sooner and not medivac-ing some of these folks home which we know often isn't good for their mental health.

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
I think Raj will support me on this; we get asked three questions when we come home. Our friends will ask us what did we do over there. Our families will ask how do you feel about what you did. And we have to ask ourselves what did we accomplish. And discussing those and having the awareness on the battlefield we can do that because we have a built in peer-to-peer support network. It's when we come home and we lose that support network and that's why mentorship programs, peer-to-peer programs, at that local level, and family resilience. Our fam-- we can't discuss the service members without discussing the families.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So this community approach is that something, Captain, that DOD should be supporting or the Veterans Affairs Department, or is that for individual organizations and families? I mean, how do we get to this ideal that Colonel Sutherland is talking about?

CAPT. RAJIV SRINIVASAN:
Well I think he hit it right on the head it's about the community. It's about community organizations and---

JIM GLASSMAN:
So at the local level you're talking about?

CAPT. RAJIV SRINIVASAN:
Absolutely. To me in my opinion the issue isn't the availability of such programs. To me the supply side of this equation is actually not terrible in this country. To me it's the demand side that's really hurting and what I mean by that is when you come back as an Afghanistan or Iraq war vet we're soldiers, we're programmed to be self reliant, to take on any task on our own shoulders, and when it comes to the idea of asking for help I think a lot of us are more and more reluctant to seek out help. I think the demand for those programs on the soldiers' side is what-- is the missing side of this equation. I think it's going to take a lot of work to tell these soldiers that it's ok to go out and ask for help.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And you're saying it's ok to go out and help so it's not simply availability of information it is in some sense sort of psychological?

CAPT. RAJIV SRINIVASAN:
Absolutely and you know I'd add something that in my work with Veterans Affairs the most effective path to reaching the veteran isn't through veteran targeted marketing by any means it's actually reaching the veteran's mother, the veteran's father, the veteran's girlfriend, the veteran's sister; the family of influencers around the veteran that can really shape his or her decision making. I'm a great example of that. When I came back from Afghanistan I definitely needed to see a counselor. I had some posttraumatic stress issues that were definitely affecting my life but it wasn't until my mother and my girlfriend intervened that I went and actually took that first step into the counseling room.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And when you say affecting your life, if you don't mind, in what way?

CAPT. RAJIV SRINIVASAN:
I mean it starts out from anything from bad dreams that don't let you sleep at night, and abuse of food, I gained a lot of bad weight, neglecting, not to a point of huge noticeability, but neglecting my professional life and my personal health, where I just didn't feel good about myself.

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
Not wanting to go into crowds.

CAPT. RAJIV SRINIVASAN:
Not wanting to go into crowds.

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
Being hyper vigilant, re-experiencing the events over and over again.

CAPT. RAJIV SRINIVASAN:
And my temper. That was the one thing that really got out of control and how I-- when I really stood back and said I need to get help is when I saw how flaring my temper was when I came back.

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
What you get from the community level to go back to what Raj is saying is you get information and options. There is a desire to want to help, there-- across the nation. I've now been to 300 communities in the past year and there is a desire to want to help. The American people know what we are but they don't know us and therefore-- and when I saw what we are we're a military, we're at war, we're fighting. Each one of us is unique and individuals. Although I can talk through his symptoms and he can talk through mine we still have different ways of dealing with that and what we find at the community level is flexibility, innovation, and a horizontal network as opposed to a vertical network that's policy driven. Having that flexibility comes from the local levels.

JIM GLASSMAN:
This is a very important point so how, Paula, do we-- is there a way to kind of de-stigmatize the asking for help?

PAULA DOMENICI:
I think it has to be a top down and bottom up approach within the military. The culture is shifting and you know has shifted a great deal but there still remains a lot of stigma. So I think both from leadership as well as the average battle buddy everybody along the continuum needs to know the importance of one's wellbeing and mental health to the resilient soldier-- that that's going to actually help the mission.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But the resilient soldier-- but in many cases these are returning soldiers, they may not be soldiers anymore. So does that mean that the kind of intervention has to come in at the time they're on the battlefield? Just you know remember if you have problems when you get back--

PAULA DOMENICI:
I think it needs to start throughout the deployment cycle, you know pre-deployment, during deployment, after deployment. It's not a message that can only be there when someone steps off the plane after having served in a war zone.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Rajiv.

CAPT. RAJIV SRINIVASAN:
I'd like to talk-- I'd like to take your step one point further Paula is that I don't think transition begins during deployment, doesn't begin after deployment, transition for the solder begins when he signs on the dotted line in my opinion. Just to give you a glimpse during the pre-deployment timeline for a soldier moves very fast. You spend a vast-- especially for a combat-armed soldier you're spending weeks if not a month in the field and spending a lot of time away from your family. When the few days that you have back on post in Garrison on your main day to day life of post you're trying to get in do your job and get home because you know you're going to be away from them for a year. And then of course during deployment it's 365 days, 24 hours a day you're on call. And then when you come back it's the same thing, you know you want to be with your family. And all these tasks like making us go to PowerPoint briefings or these mandatory one to two hour counseling sessions they seem like distractions. The way you have to fix that is the minute the soldier, sailor, airman, marine, the minute they sign on the dotted line we have to think what's the next step for this person. To me it's a holistic approach that is not associated at all with the deployment but is associated with the flag that he or she wears on his shoulder.

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
It's a specific leadership at the local level, what Paula's talking about, what Raj is talking about, it's leadership. And it's our responsibility when they're in to say there is no stigma. You've got an army captain who served in Afghanistan and an army colonel who has served multiple tours in different locations saying I've got post traumatic stress and what's important is your quality of life long term and that quality of life comes from looking for options that best suit you to deal with this vileness that you've just experienced.

PAULA DOMENICI:
And if I could just add an important part of our training is to get to all sorts of individuals that will interface with a service member or veteran whether it's a primary care doc who might be their first entryway into talking about sleep problems or a minister or a priest, chaplains also may be a good segway. In addition using things like telemedicine. So I think we need to be creative and know there's a lot of different access points and that all of those individuals if they can be trained up to look for and help service members with problems that they then may be able to refer them on.

JIM GLASSMAN:
You know Paula the VA estimates that 18 veterans commit suicide everyday and that number may well be underreported. Can something be done specifically to address that problem?

PAULA DOMENICI:
Well I actually think a lot of good things are underway regarding suicide in the military from the DOD side specifically. Most of-- all the branches have prevention efforts that are very good. There's a large multiyear study underway that's looking at risk and protective factors for Army specifically. The VA has a hotline and suicide coordinators. Suicide is a very complicated condition. There's many variables that are at play. We can't say that it's only linked to deployment. It's hard to predict suicide. So I think education and awareness about the signs and symptoms again among everybody that will interface with the veteran or service member is really important.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I'm wondering-- Colonel Sutherland used the term vileness and I'm just wondering whether you Colonel or Captain-- is there something about Afghanistan and Iraq that's different-- COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
Yeah I think that first off war is vile no matter where.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Right.

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
It is the most vile thing you can think of with the exception of why we fight. Holding a five-year-old girl in my arms who'd been shot in the face because her father was trying to enforce a rule of law and not Sharia law is why we fight. Going into a torture house and in one corner are arms and another corner are legs, another corner torsos, and another corner heads of seventy different men, women, and children, that were brutalized because they would not succumb to Zarqawi's view of the world is why we fight. But that affects you and you come home and it's the same effect in Vietnam, the same effect in Korea, and WWII. I met a gentleman yesterday who fought in the Battle of the Bulge that says he still wrestles with his demons and we can talk about this now and that's part of the goodness. But when you're used to accomplishing the mission on the battlefield and you come home and you can't get a job that power of humiliation will overwhelm you. Or it's difficult to stay in a classroom because you've got two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan and the kid sitting next to you is 18 years old and just out of high school and giggles every time the door slams and you jump and he's got-- he's texting and doesn't have the same level of discipline-- that feeling of fitting in. So what we find are veteran resource centers at universities that make a difference and connect the veterans to one another. Or in the workplace a veterans network or a mentorship program and sponsorship program geared towards the veterans. That makes a huge difference--

JIM GLASSMAN:
That brings up a good point, which is about unemployment. I mean I don't think there's any doubt those of us who know military people who have fought in these two wars that the level of talent is tremendously high-- dedication, talent, ability-- and yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics in October showed that veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 have an unemployment rate of 22%. Do you think that the bill that was just passed by congress helping veterans through tax credits to employers-- will that help? Are there other things that could help?

CAPT. RAJIV SRINIVASAN:
I do think it'll help. I think it'll help for several reasons; one there's nothing more fulfilling than leading soldiers in combat and so when you transition back and you're in a 9 to 5 job your tendency is to slack off. Your tend-- you're not 100% in because your heart and your mind are somewhere else. What I believe that tax credit does to the employer is that it serves as a credit to say hey thank you for taking a risk on this person that's coming back. Thank you for taking a risk on him. We understand that there may have been other people who are more qualified, had prior experience, but you're taking a risk on a veteran. We understand the sacrifice that you're making and we hope that you'll keep him onboard because we want to make it financially beneficial to you to make sure you're taking care of our veterans. I believe it's a good thing and I do think it will help.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Is there a problem Colonel Sutherland in the talents, the skills, the jobs that are-- that people use when they're in the military not being readily transferable?

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
No I think they are transferable. When you understand risk and how to mitigate it and you understand showing up for work on time and not minding working on weekends or holidays-- but more importantly you understand the decision-making, the leadership making a positive difference on a daily basis. And then the other aspect is what they bring in decision-making and what they bring in talent and fortitude is phenomenal because I don't see hiring a veteran as a risk-- as a risky proposition. What I see as they want to be part of a winning organization and they want to take it to the next level. The challenge is that we've got organizations out there saying we want to hire veterans, we can't find them. And part of it is they're coming to us, to government, to find them. They're in your local community.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So if somebody's watching this program and says you know I'm convinced I really want to hire veterans there's not one place that such a person would go right?

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
Exactly. They're migrating to the trades. They want to continue to do what they did but we've made it difficult because of licensing and credentialing requirements at the state level. Where somebody that's been a medic on the battlefield comes back and has to go through EMT training from day one with a kid just out of-- an 18 year old. And so we have to recognize their skills at the civil level-- civil society-- and adjust to them as opposed to the service member and veteran coming back and adjusting to civil society.

PAULA DOMENICI:
And I think we need to educate employers that-- about not having stereotypes about our veterans that they all have PTSD, they're all going to go over the edge and be aggressive, etc. It's just not true. The majority of our service members and veterans are resilient and you know they have reintegration challenges but they don't have PTSD. So we need to break those stereotypes through education, through training groups like the one where I work. And we need to get--

JIM GLASSMAN:
And you see-- and that's a real problem that's not just something-- that's not just conjecture--

PAULA DOMENICI:
I mean you've got organizations that want to hire, you're describing, and they don't know quite how to connect but I think you have a group of corporations and organizations that do think it's a risk and are concerned they're going to have the one person who goes over the edge and does something and their place is going to hold liability. And so we need to give them education and let them know that these men and women have great skill sets and values that's going to truly benefit their organization. We just need to help them understand how they're transferable.

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
We had an individual in Phoenix the other day that just his workspace was not conducive for his issues. Every time he was in a cubicle, every time someone walked behind him, he flinched, he jumped. Not that it was disruptive to anyone else but it affected his productivity. The leadership of that company engaged with him, looked at his workspace, they put up a rearview mirror, his productivity went off the chart.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Great story. And let's just conclude, I want to ask all of you-- polls show that Americans very much support this newest generation of veterans and-- but they often don't know what they should do to show their appreciation. What can Americans do just to show military people who are returning from Afghanistan and Iraq that they really appreciate their service to the United States. Rajiv.

CAPT. RAJIV SRINIVASAN:
I think the baseline answer is to get involved. It's one thing to reach out your hand and thank me for your service but I want to know what you're doing to really thank the guys that are coming behind me. I want to see people at the YMCA. I want to see people in their church reaching out to those in their community who they know are vets. The hard part about the community effort is that if you take the total number of Iraq and Afghanistan war vets and divide them amongst the 3,000 plus counties in the country you're talking maybe a handful per country. They're few and far between and so that means when you find one in your community you really invest in them. You show them that you're thankful, you keep your eye out for them as if they were your neighbor, your friend, and see what you can do with your own dollar, with your own time, to make that veteran's transition the easiest it can be.

PAULA DOMENICI:
And I want to just add to that. I think a big issue is the moral injuries that service members sustain which goes to the fact that they're incredibly compassionate and they have to make these split second decisions about incredibly hard things about you know the baby that's going to die or running over somebody and so they come home with these moral and ethical challenges that just eat up their soul. I mean that's what I hear about in my clinical sessions and that's hard work and we need to be thankful for what you're describing.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And what about this appreciation question? What can people do to show appreciation?

PAULA DOMENICI:
I mean I think what you're saying obviously is really important. Joining up in any type of volunteer group. I think probably one of the most important things also is if you interact with a veteran to listen, to listen to their story, and if they don't want to talk that's fine too but to be there and just listen.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Colonel?

COL. DAVID SUTHERLAND:
I would say recognizing that there are just some things that government can't do. That independent organizations working together and leaders in communities coming together, solution focused as opposed to problem focused, and what I mean by that is there are cities where we've got up to 1500 unemployed veterans in one city from Iraq and Afghanistan and so these black holes for transition and reintegration services can only be solved by that conduit coming together focusing the good will. Mentorship programs keep them in school, being a mentor for a returning service member. University of Arizona-- every veteran at the University of Arizona that wants one has a mentor from the Tucson community. Look at linking your employment efforts to those groups but recognizing that trades are people too. The trades-- the truck drivers, the pipe fitters, the crane operators, they all participate in this as well and so providing internships while they go to school enables these service members and that's where you find them.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Thank you Colonel Sutherland, thank you Captain, and thank you Paula.

PAULA DOMENICI:
Thank you for having us.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action. I'm Jim Glassman, thanks for watching. Keep in mind that you can watch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you want. To watch highlights or complete programs just go to ideasinactiontv.com or download a podcast from the iTunes store. Ideas in Action because ideas have consequences.

ANNOUNCER:
For more information visit us at ideasinactiontv.com. Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at investors.com. This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content. ]]> Educational Psychology - Ideas / Articles tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2012:/ideas//4.42681 2012-04-03T18:42:49Z 2012-04-03T18:44:04Z Emily Johnson ]]> Redshirting: Holding kids back from kindergarten - Ideas / Articles tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2012:/ideas//4.42680 2012-04-03T18:41:22Z 2012-04-03T18:42:22Z Emily Johnson ]]> Condoleezza Rice on Education: American Dream on Verge of Collapse - Ideas / Articles tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2012:/ideas//4.42679 2012-04-03T18:40:20Z 2012-04-03T18:40:55Z Emily Johnson ]]> Interview with The Dalai Lama - Episodes tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2011:/episodes//2.42460 2012-04-03T18:38:31Z 2012-04-03T20:43:17Z As the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists and until recently was also their political leader. Ever since being forced to flee when China invaded Tibet in 1959, the Dalai Lama has ceaselessly advocated... Emily Johnson As the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists and until recently was also their political leader. Ever since being forced to flee when China invaded Tibet in 1959, the Dalai Lama has ceaselessly advocated for a peaceful solution to Chinese occupation and "meaningful autonomy" for his country. He has also worked tirelessly as an activist for human rights around the world.

]]> IDEAS IN ACTION With Jim Glassman

Interview with the Dalai Lama


JIM GLASSMAN:
Welcome to Ideas in Action a television series about ideas and their consequences. I'm Jim Glassman.

I had a chance to sit down with His Holiness the Dalai Lama at the Meadows Art Museum on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas. The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists and a tireless activist for human freedom and democracy. He is speaking with us as part of the Freedom Collection, a series of interviews with democracy activists and leaders from around the world for the George W. Bush Presidential Center. The topic this week: a conversation about freedom with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. This is Ideas in Action.

ANNOUNCER:
Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at Investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Tenzin Gyatso recognized as the 14th Dalai Lama in 1937 is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists and until recently was also their political leader. Forced into exile when China invaded Tibet in 1959, the Dalai Lama has presided over a government in exile. Located in Dharamsala, India for the past 52 years. During that time His Holiness has ceaselessly advocated for a peaceful solution to China's occupation of Tibet, asking for meaningful autonomy for his country. In the meantime he has established a democratic government of the Tibetans in exile and has written numerous books about Buddhism and the art of happiness. He serves as a living symbol of the quest for political and religious freedom not only among his own people but among those who suffer oppression around the world.

Welcome your Holiness. Your Holiness, you were forced into exile in 1959, and you established a government in Dharamsala, India, a government in exile, and you chose to make that government democratic even though Tibet has a history-- had a history of theocracy. Why did you decide on a democracy?

DALAI LAMA:
'56-- I came to India-- on-- one Buddhist celebration. I invited by Indian government, so I went there. Then, I-- also, you see-- observe Indian Parliament.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I See.

DALAI LAMA:
I found big contrast. The Chinese Parliament, very much disciplined.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Right. So, India was an inspiration? The Indian Parliament was an inspiration?

DALAI LAMA:
Oh, yes. The Indian Parliament looks-- as-- no discipline, too much noisy. And as a member, very proudly criticized about their leaders, their government like that. So, I very much impressed. I-- very much impressed. But then-- '59 April, we reach India, we already-- then, at once, we start, sort of, some change. The-- not like previous sort of system, but more, sort of, divisions among the, sort of, cabinet ministers like that. So then, '60, we start work for democratization.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And there were-- were there elections at that point?

DALAI LAMA:
So at that time no. Then 2001, we already achieved elected political leadership. Since then, my position is something like semi retired position. So-- I really feel, you see, that's our achievement. Now fully a democratic, sort of, system like that.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But you put democracy into a process, a gradual process starting in 1959, or in the early 1960s.

DALAI LAMA:
Yes. Yes, that's right.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Now, you have made a decision. You're the religious leader of Tibetan Buddhists, and you're also-- you were the head of state. And you decided that you would step down from all of your political positions. What was the response to that?

DALAI LAMA:
That is sort of-- part of the process of-- democratization. I always have this sort of-- sort of strong, sort of, view. The political institution and religious institution must be separate.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But some of the-- the Tibetans were-- were up-- were unhappy about this, correct?

DALAI LAMA:
Oh, that's right-- that's right -- but this is, I think, due to lack of knowledge about the, sort of, global level, sort of, picture, and also is our own sort of-- the situation. I still there. So, in case there is some sort of highly necessary my involvement, I'm-- I'm there.

JIM GLASSMAN:
You're still there.

DALAI LAMA:
Oh, but in-- sooner or later, there will be a day without a Dalai Lama, actually. That, sooner or later, will come. So, the people must prepare. So, much better while I alive.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And you will have a successor-- as a spiritual leader-- as the spiritual leader; you expect to have a successor?

DALAI LAMA:
Now, that is-- since the '79, I'm-- I made very clear formally and officially to Tibetan people, that the very institution of Dalai Lama should continue or not up to Tibetan people, firstly. Then, in case majority of Tibetan people and also some other concerns of the people about Dalai Lama institution, then-- if they want to keep this institution, then it will remain. Then, the question goes-- successor. Whether we should follow our traditional way, or new way.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I'm wondering, first, what-- what is your reaction to what is happening in the Middle East where you see uprisings against autocratic rulers?

DALAI LAMA:
I think firstly, the rule by kings or religious leaders-- that now already outdated. Even like British-- Japan, the-- royals still remain, but just as symbolic. But otherwise, these are now-- just past history. Then, these leaders, I think initially, maybe some-- with support of the people, like most of these revolutions and movement, without people's support, they will not success. So, the people support there, originally. But then, once-- I think like it's the Chinese communists, and also, I think some instance, I think they're Lenin, Bolshevik sort of revolution. Initially, I think poorer section of the people really support the early period of the revolution, I think like any other, I think very pure, and people's support also there. Then, the-- unfortunately, those individuals who are lacking moral principle, self discipline, and once they get power, then power corrupted themselves. Then, eventually-- their original sort of idea is serving the people. Then, eventually, due to power, they loves to see control power, control people.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Right. Is that inevitable, do you think? That they would become corrupted?

DALAI LAMA:
Oh, yes, I think-- yes. And sometimes, see, it's quite sort of the nature, those people who lead certain movement, they have self-confidence, determination. But sometimes, eventually, self-confidence-- over self cof--over self-confidence.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Over self-confidence, right. Right.

DALAI LAMA:
Then, you see, they're very sensitive about criticism towards them. I always was telling people-- even the world level, world belongs to people. World belongs to nearly seven billion human being, not kings or religious leaders like that, or different parties-- like United States, belongs to American people. Like China or Egypt, belongs to the people, not a few ruling families or individuals. So, therefore, then they-- in order to, sort of, carry the responsibility about your own country, by the people, then the best system is through election, elected leadership. That also, from time to time, election. That's, I think, best way to rule the country by the people, for the people. So, democratic system is the best.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So-- so, you are supportive of-- of what is happening in the Middle East now? You think that's a good thing?

DALAI LAMA:
Oh, yes. It's quite natural. Now, important, I want to-- to-- to share-- Now, they must carry sense of responsibility or commitment and build nation. And democracy-- in all democracy, freedom and express all sort of thing, and doing-- work-- less work. And sometimes, too much criticize each other, and a little bit chaotic situation. That's not good. Now, work hard. There may be different views or different sort of idea or different sort of ideology or different sort of belief, okay, doesn't matter. But must work together and build new society. That's very important.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Let's-- let's talk about the Tibetan situation. So, you have talked about meaningful autonomy--

DALAI LAMA:
Yes.

JIM GLASSMAN:
--For Tibet. And that does not mean complete independence as a separate country, correct?

DALAI LAMA:
That's right. That's right.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So, could you describe what meaningful autonomy would mean in relationship to China?

DALAI LAMA:
Why we are not seeking independence or separate-- because the world is changing. I always look, sort of, with admiration the spirit of European Union. People, you see, thinking the common interest is more important than the national, sort of, interest alone. So, with Tibet also, no matter what past history, now, Tibet, materially backward. Every Tibetan want modernize. I frankly speaking -- quite with the Tibetan illegally immigrate into United States, why? They come to America-- not seeking spirituality but seeking money.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Right.

DALAI LAMA:
So, Tibetans also want richness-- rich-- and therefore, they-- in order to material development, we remain within the People's Republic of China, we get greater benefit. Like railway-- construction of railway link, these are the indication the further development provided used properly. And now, so far, they use mainly military sort of purpose like that. So, and anyway-- so that's one way-- that also is-- our own interest and the People's Republic of China as a whole, Tibet-- not sep-- not separate, remain within the People's Republic of China. And that's the Chinese top-most concern.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So, are you making progress towards autonomy?

DALAI LAMA:
Not yet. (LAUGH)

JOHN GLASSMAN:
Are you talking to the Chinese d-- d--

DALAI LAMA:
Oh, yes.

JOHN GLASSMAN:
Do-- do-- do representatives talk to the Chinese?

DALAI LAMA:
Oh, yes. Several occasion. Now-- since '79-- we developed direct contact with the Chinese government, when Deng Xiaoping there. My personal emissary-- met Deng Xiaoping and then it just started, this sort of dialogue with Chinese government. No sort of r-- positive result, like that. Meanwhile, inside Tibet-- there are things-- becoming worse and worse.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I wanted to ask you about that. So what-- what are the conditions like inside Tibet?

DALAI LAMA:
Now Chinese military personnel much increase. And the security personnel also much increase. One side. So, rule of fear, rule of terror there. And then, meantime-- about-- I think more than ten years ago, one Chinese P-- Party Secretary-- of the Autonomy Decision of Tibet (PH)-- they say-- people-- the-- knows is-- he-- is a type of hardliner. So, after he came at one Party meeting, he actually is-- he mentioned ultimate source of threat, Tibetan being separate from mainland China is Tibetan Buddhist faith. So, accordingly, since then they're stepping up control sort of-- education. And in education like Lhasa University, the previous-- before that, they also-- so-- the-- in their sort of curriculum-- also include some classical-- sort of classic sort of Tibetan text. But, all stop. Then stepping up of-- in the monestaries or nunnery political education. At that time, Ti-- local Tibetan express now semi-cultural revolution returning. So, his sort of hardliner policy, narrowminded, short sighted sort of policy really causing 2008 crisis. Like that.

JOHN GLASSMAN:
The 2008 crisis-- the uprising--

DALAI LAMA:
Yes-- yes--

JOHN GLASSMAN:
And you said-- you-- you just said 'semi-cultural revolution?'

DALAI LAMA:
Yes.

JOHN GLASSMAN:
And that's not happening anywhere else in China. Only in Tibet?

DALAI LAMA:
Yes. At that time, even the other Tibetan area sort of in-- in different Chinese provinces comparitively better. Now, these area also more tightening. Just-- I received very recently one-- now, for example, the last-- last year-- the number of Tibetan school in these area outside autonomy region-- they-- the new policy now all subject must taught through Chinese sort of language. And Tibetan language only just a language-- Other subject must be taught by Chinese language. Then just a few days ago, I received one information-- some school-- the Chinese, local police raided and search different books in students'-- home and they-- all the book-- Tibetan sort of-- Tibetan text or Tibetan sort of-- some books-- they all removed. And-- now, it-- now on-- they only can read and keep those sort of book which officially-- officially sort of issued. So, really tightening.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Tightening. So-- so, Your Holiness, is there anything that Tibetans can do in order to, let's say, resist-- are there tactics that they can use? For example-- boycot? Or somehow resisting in a nonviolent way to what's happening?

DALAI LAMA:
That I think-- this recall 1956 when I was in India. And in-- some Ghandian freedom fighter-- as he told me their experience of how to carry sort of dis-- disobedience and some kind of civil sort of-- movement. Then I told him that British Imperialist quite bad, but still there is independent judiciary and also freedom of expression. Now, the new ruler in Tibet (CHUCKLE)-- no independent judiciary (CHUCKLE)-- and no freedom of expressoin. Mahatma Ghandi from prison-- he can write and appeal to court. But, in the Communist Authoritarian System-- impossible. So-- so, in anyway-- very difficult. So, of course, the other sort of-- the way of sort of expression of opposition or resentment-- then they-- certainly, they will do-- but, there's no other choice except some demonstrations. Then as soon as demonstrations-- they happen-- then they give the name troubling government. So, arrest and once they arrest, s-- sort of serious torture. Many people who arrested then when they come out, either it's broken leg or hand like that.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But, what about support from outside? From the United States? Or from other countries? Would that help?

DALAI LAMA:
Oh Yes. Long run, very helpful. Externally-- sort of-- lot of government and-- and-- including the United States you see raise the human right issues and these things. In the meantime, within the country, intellectuals really showing their resentment. They want more freedom. Freedom of speech like that. So, they're both sides within the country and external. And then also I think those people within the country who really carrying some change-- sort of some freedom are-- see they-- when outside world showing interest, showing concern about them is immense a source of encouragement. It is very, very important.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And you mentioned-- freesom of religion and you also said that the Chinese were trying to-- suppress--

DALAI LAMA:
Yes.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Tibetan Buddhism. How important is religion in the movement for freedom in Tibet? For meaningful autonmy?

DALAI LAMA:
Tibetan spirit very much link with Buddhist faith. Like Polish spirit-- different sort of difficult circumstances given Nazi occupation and given Soviet occupation, a lot of difficulties. But, during these period, the Polish national spirit and Catholic faith combine keep their spirit. Tibetan case exactly same - national sort of interest and-- Buddhist faith combined. And, anyway, I already telling the Tibetan cultural heritage-- basically, I describe culture of peace. Culture of non-violence. Even Chinese officials also say-- admit that. The Xinjiang sort of problems and Tibetan problem. One-- one time-- the one Chinese officials mentioned Tibet-- Tibetan are Buddhists. So, basically, nonviolent. So, they lesser worry. Even offiicals have mentioned like that. So, therefore, the-- Tibetan culture-- culture of peace, culture of compassion. So, that-- eventually, immense benefit to millions of young Chinese men in China. And then also all - now, China look the corruption. Immense. All levels. So, just, you see--

JIM GLASSMAN:
--The moral values--

DALAI LAMA:
Few people you see death sentence killed. That's not answer. Unless some kind of inner sort of spiritual discipline develop. Well, that, I can-- all the different religious tradition immense help and including Buddhism. So, therefore-- long run, China-- for Chinese own interest-- it is-- very important to keep Tibetan-- compassionate sort of spiritual sort of tradition--

JIM GLASSMAN:
To keep the culture alive.

DALAI LAMA:
Yes.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I have one-- unfortunately, we're running out of time. So, I have one last question. So, I have one last question. I wondered if you have a message for people around the world who are struggling for freedom.

DALAI LAMA:
I think people have to carry their spirit-- and their struggle. And I think possibly nonviolent way. Long run, that's more effective. But, sometimes, it's out of desperate like-- Egypt or some other places-- there's some-- exception there. But-- now Libya-- some exception. But-- but, generally, I think should be I think nonviolent way. Like I think the-- the way topple-- Phillipine dictator-- Marcos or something.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Right. Right.

DALAI LAMA:
Peaceful, popular movement. And also Chile I think. So, the popular sort of peaceful movement is now become I would say I think the reality. And I think comparitively South Africa also see peaceful ways, change, finally. So, I think that I want to share. Please keep determination, willpower because we have justice. In my-- the lifelong experience or observation, ultimately, truth always remain stronger than for-- power of force or power of gun. Very clear. The gun temporarily very powerful. (CHUCKLE) Everybody loves one's own life. So, when gun shows-- out of fear, it's a little discipline there. But, that's temporary method. I think world history shows that. So, therefore, the-- the struggle for freedom, democracy is really-- right, reasonable, and everybody have the right to be free.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Thank you. That's excellent-- excellent place to end. Thank you very, very much Your Holiness for joining us.

DALAI LAMA:
Thank you.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Thank you.

And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action. I'm Jim Glassman, we'll see you next time.

Keep in mind that you can watch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you want. To watch highlights or complete programs just go to ideasinactiontv.com or download a podcast from the iTunes store. Ideas in Action because ideas have consequences.

ANNOUNCER:
For more information, visit us at ideasinactiontv.com. Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at Investors.com. This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.

]]> High school graduations up but dropouts still a drag: report - Ideas / Articles tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2012:/ideas//4.42677 2012-04-03T18:37:24Z 2012-04-03T18:38:16Z Emily Johnson ]]> High school graduations up but dropouts still a drag: report - Ideas / Articles tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2012:/ideas//4.42678 2012-04-03T18:37:24Z 2012-04-03T18:39:46Z Emily Johnson ]]> A Matter of Leadership: An Ideas in Action Special Report on Ending America's Dropout Crisis - Episodes tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2012:/episodes//2.42676 2012-03-30T20:18:04Z 2012-04-03T20:36:19Z As part of CPB's American Graduate initiative, Ideas in Action with Jim Glassman takes an in-depth look at nationwide efforts toward ending America's dropout crisis. This new one-hour HD documentary is A Matter of Leadership. Success stories from schools across... Emily Johnson As part of CPB's American Graduate initiative, Ideas in Action with Jim Glassman takes an in-depth look at nationwide efforts toward ending America's dropout crisis. This new one-hour HD documentary is A Matter of Leadership. Success stories from schools across the country are highlighted and focus on the core components that have proven highly effective in addressing the crisis, middle school intervention and innovative leadership training.






Discussion Questions for A Matter of Leadership

 1. Marsh Middle School in Dallas used the RTOC program to address behavior for the entire school thus allowing the students to focus more on learning. What are some other ways that you have or would like to address overall behavior at your school?

2. At Harshman Middle School in Indianapolis, the staff uses individual data to track each student's academic achievement. Can this be done at your school without additional staff?

3. Principal Archambault at Gibson Middle School in Las Vegas works hard to address distracting issues that students face at home. How much should a school be involved in a student's home life?

4. The staff at Leslie County High School in Kentucky got mentoring support from the Kentucky Department of Education. Do you feel that your state gives principals and teachers adequate support?

5. Jane Patterson of the Los Angeles Education Partnership mentions that parents need to partner with school to ensure academic success for their children. What are some creative ways to engage parents in their children's education?

6. We hear a lot about the importance of teachers but not much about principals. Do you think enough attention is being paid to the role of principals and what makes principals effective leaders?

]]> ANNOUNCER:

This program is part of the American Graduate - Let's Make It Happen, a public media initiative made possible by the Corporation for Public Producating.

JIM GLASSMAN:

America is facing a crisis - a dropout crisis. In some high schools, the rate is a staggering 50 percent or more. But that's starting to change. I'm Jim Glassman. Join me for A Matter of Leadership - a special one-hour report as part of the public media initiative American Graduate - Let's Make It Happen. We'll profile what's working around the country and explore the vital role middle schools and principals play in addressing the crisis and reversing the statistics. This is Ideas In Action.

ANNOUNCER:

Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investors Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at Investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:

All over America, each school day students arrive ready to continue their educational journeys. The goal is to prepare them for a bright future by going on to college or embarking on a rewarding career. How they do on that journey will affect the rest of their lives. There will be challenges along the way - classes that prove difficult, social pressures and off-campus distractions. Still many will emerge with a high school diploma equipped to navigate the future - but not all of them.

ROBERT BALFANZ:

There is no work in the 21st Century if you don't have a high school diploma.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Robert Balfanz is one of the country's leading experts on the dropout crisis. He says the future looks grim for those without a high school diploma.

ROBERT BALFANZ:

Currently, the nation has a graduation rate of right about 75 percent. Which means that there's about a million kids a year that are not getting their diplomas on time. There's four million in the Class of 2010. Three million got diplomas in June. If you're in your 20s, don't have a high school degree, don't have a work history, are you ever going to work? Probably not. But every year, we're putting a million kids towards that future.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Between 1970 and 2001, U.S. graduation rates declined by 6%. And despite modest gains in recent years, far too many students continue to fall through the cracks. As an official with the U.S. Department Of Education, Michael Yudin knows that the stakes are high for individuals, communities and the nation.

MICHAEL YUDIN:

It's absolutely a moral imperative that we provide them with the supports and the resources that they need to graduate from high school college and career-ready. But it's also an economic imperative. The countries that out-educate us today out-compete us tomorrow.

JIM GLASSMAN:

High school dropout rates are largely concentrated at particular schools in particular school districts. These persistently low-achieving clusters are called "dropout factories" and they graduate less than 60% of their students.

WENDY PURIEFOY:

This is a national problem.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Wendy Puriefoy, president of the public education network, works with low-income school districts around the country.

WENDY PURIEFOY:

This is what the school reform work is about in this country now, is to say that your zip code should not be your destiny. And therefore, we need to make sure that regardless of how much money your family makes or where you live, you have the right to a quality education because you live in America.

ROBERT BALFANZ:

Really the intersection is between poverty and dropping out. But because poverty rates are higher among minorities, we then get higher minority dropout rates.

JIM GLASSMAN:

If the dropouts from the class of 2009 had each received a diploma, they would have earned an additional $335-billion dollars over their lifetimes that would have been added to the U.S. economy. As a nation, we spend approximately $9-billion dollars a year supporting dropouts through public assistance like food stamps and Medicaid. Michael Brown heads city year's mission to increase high school graduation rates in urban areas.

MICHAEL BROWN:

Over a course of a lifetime, a high school dropout will make a million less than a college graduate. A high school dropout is eight times more likely to be incarcerated in his or her lifetime than a high school graduate. This could create an underclass, a permanent underclass in our society.

JIM GLASSMAN:

The statics sound bad because they are bad. Fortunately, there is another side to this story.

ROBERT BALFANZ:

The good news is when we think about it, we actually know where the problem's located. We know which high schools are producing most of the dropouts. Over the last decade, we've actually built up a lot of good evidence-based strategy that have evidence of working. We actually know what to do. We actually know that it takes to engage kids. We know what it takes to sort of nag and nurture them through.

JIM GLASSMAN:

We will explore two elements that are key to turning around the dropout crisis. Later we'll discuss how strong school leadership can create a culture of high expectations and high achievement. But first we'll take a look at the critical middle school years. Middle school may sound too soon to tackle high school dropout rates but studies show that the pre-teen years are a critical to high school success. Bob Wise is the former governor of West Virginia and current president for the Alliance for Excellent Education.

BOB WISE

The best news is that I think this country has finally woken up to the dropout crisis. And so a lot of attention given to early warning indicators, particularly in middle school, immediately capturing when a student is beginning to, one, miss a lot more class, number two fail a class, or number three, have disciplinary problems.

JIM GLASSMAN:

We start by looking at one middle school in Dallas, Texas that is boosting academic achievement by using student engagement both inside and outside of the classroom.

This is the Thomas C. Marsh Middle School award-winning ROTC drill team. It is one of the school's hallmark programs designed to instill discipline and high expectations in students from the surrounding disadvantaged and largely minority community.

CARLOTTA THOMAS:

We give all students that enter into this building a chance regardless of their background, their income level or their ethnicity. They have the opportunity to be the very best. And we insure our teachers with the skills and materials to do so. One of the reasons why we're one of the best schools in Dallas is due to our test scores, from last year. In writing we were 92% passing, reading we were 90%, math 90%, science 81%.

JIM GLASSMAN:

But such academic success didn't happen overnight.

DAVID BATES:

In 1999, it wasn't the best of place to work. Lot of gang activity. Lots of bullying, fighting, you know. Our scores were low. We were I guess you know, everything you would think of a big, large urban school district, public school kids. I guess that's what, you know, if you wanted to sum it up.

JIM GLASSMAN: Corporal David Bates was hired in 1999 specifically to establish an ROTC program as part of an overall plan to boost student performance. Getting students engaged in school is a big part of that effort.

DAVID BATES:

We started with nothing. And then we started fund-raising. We started getting uniforms. We started getting, you know, materials. I started writing my own curriculum. Four or five years later, we had all kinds of gear, and we started winning competitions. That's when we got a little bit of people "What's going on over there?"

A typical school day, okay, always starts off with you know, we call to attention and we tell them to take their seats. They all sit down the same way. Procedures are huge, the way we pass out folders, you know, the way I go over to calendar every single day, the way we take notes, the way we sit, the way we stand, the way we walk. Once I get that regimen in, it becomes real easy.

I teach first aid, land navigation, time management, organizational skills, history. I do what's called effective Army writing, and basically its just good writing skills. I call it that, and the kids think it's (LAUGH) you know, something different. But really it's just good writing.

CARLOTTA THOMAS:

Kids who are involved tend to have better grades and go on to graduate from college. So we do encourage for them to do something besides just coming to school.

ABRAHAM TEKLE:

I joined ROTC because I wanted to have the right to say that I was part of some of the trophies that are up there.

DAVID BATES:

When the kids perform for me, they perform at a high level and they don't want to let me down. So when I just put little things on the table like, "We do better. Your scores need to be better. You better do this, you better do that," they don't want to let me down. You know, at home, it's been okay not to pay their bills. It's been okay, you know, not to get a referral. It's been okay. That's what it's been. It's just been okay. Well, that average, okay stuff is not good enough here.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Coach bates sets high expectations, expectations that mirror those of the school at large.

CARLOTTA THOMAS We expect for students to have A's or B's on report cards. We expect them for them to go to tutoring if they need help. We expect for them to read. We expect for them to do science fair projects. We expect for them to be dressed appropriately for school, and to have great behavior. So anything that we want them to do, we expect for them to do at their very best.

NATALIE FRANCO:

The reason I joined ROTC is because I like what the program does. It changes people life.

NATALIE FRANCO:

What changed my life was from being out there in the street, like, just being bad, and stuff like that. And once I came in here, I learned discipline, how to treat people, how to respect people, how to respect my elders, parents, why they're here for us, why they do so much for us. And we are going to do something for them when we grow up.

JIM GLASSMAN:

For some students, meeting the expectations of the ROTC program can be quite a transition.

ABRAHAM TEKLE:

It's really up to them to see if they want to change because if you want to be in ROTC, you have to change. Like, you can't just be slacking off. You can't get in trouble in school. That'll leave a bad reputation on your school.

STEPHANIE ESCOBAR:

When I put my uniform on, it's an amazing feeling. I am proud of myself. And it makes you feel like you're actually doing something for your community. And I think that's really important. It's like the most exciting thing. You're out there and everyone sees you. And they don't just see you as this person. They see you as a cadet at Marsh Middle School.

DAVID BATES:

The discipline is not what a lot of people think discipline is like, you know, the pushups and this, that and the other. It's the self-discipline, the discipline to do what is right when no one is looking. You know, that integrity starts to come into play with some of these kids, like they know that they got to do well or, you know, they'll hear it.

BRIDGETT ROBINSON:

That spirit of community and a spirit of giving and leadership has kind of trickled down from the ROTC down into our core classes and into an overall campus environment.

JIM GLASSMAN:

All the teachers at marsh middle use job assignments to teach students responsibility and to get them invested in their own education.

BRIDGETT ROBINSON:

One way to make them engaged and feeling important is to give them a job or a task to do. And so, if we are doing a collaborative activity in a group, you might make one the actual spokesperson. You might make another one the actual person that is collecting the supplies afterward and sort of cleaning up the area. And you might make one the actual writer, the person that's actually writing the data down.

DAVID BATES:

The kids all have jobs. When you give a kid a job, he takes it seriously. But here, just passing out folders, not really a great job, but it's their job. They take it seriously.

JIM GLASSMAN:

In the ROTC program jobs range from menial to management.

NATALIE FRANCO:

My position here in JROTC, I'm commander officer. I lead morning. I lead every single day through all these students that come in here. They look up to me. And they would like to be up there one day.

STEPHANIE ESCOBAR:

Especially being a C.O., I learned that I could be a leader, no matter what it is, no matter what occasion it is. I learned how to be committed to something. And if you stay committed to something, you know you can achieve anything you want.

JIM GLASSMAN:

When students are engaged and well behaved, it is easier for teachers to do their jobs.

BRIDGETT ROBINSON:

If you're able to teach, then you're able to get results. If you're able to relate to the kids and there's less distractions with other outside of the classroom items then you're able to get the results that you need.

JIM GLASSMAN:

It's been 13 years since coach bates started the ROTC program at marsh middle. He's gone from 78 to 317 students. About a third of the student body now participates in the program. And while his drill team has won numerous national championships, he is most proud of his students' high school graduation rate of 97%. But he's not done yet.

DAVID BATES:

You know, everybody's "high school graduation, high school graduation." Well, I'm at the point now where I want to take it another step. The high school diploma, it's not as good as it used to be. My hopes and goals and dreams for the kids - 100% graduate from college.

WENDY PURIEFOY:

You're making a lot of choices about your future in middle school. It's here in middle school where you really do make the choice of are you going go to on to further post-secondary learning, whether it's going to be college or a two or four year college.

CARLOTTA THOMAS:

We do talk about college a lot at our campus. Our campus has become a branding campus for college. If you walk around the classrooms in this school you will see college bulletin boards, college projects. The students can wear college t-shirts. We have a college week and we take them on college field trips. We understand you're going to go to high school. So we just decided to take it a step further to make sure that you're going to be a college graduate.

LAUREN SHAW:

That's our way of showing them, "This is our culture. This is what we do at this school. We talk about going to college." So everything that we do, it's about going to college. When they know the end goal, they understand it. They know the reasoning behind why we do things the way we do them.

ROBERT VACQUEZ:

ROTC helped me prepare to go to high school because as when I came into this program, I didn't really know a lot of leadership skills. So when I walked in, right away I knew I was going to be a leader.

STEPHANIE ESCOBAR:

It helped me to be disciplined and organized. And it just helped so much with my grades. I had A's all year, never C's. It was just because of the ROTC program.

CARLOTTA THOMAS:

The kids love Coach Bates. They respect him. They do not think he's too firm. They understand that he has a goal for them so they want to live up to that goal and they do not want to disappoint him. They truly love Coach Bates.

DAVID BATES:

I like to think my students are the best in the world, and that's, I know 100% of the time, they are the best in the world when they're with me. Sometimes (LAUGH) when they're not with me, they're not the best in (LAUGH) the world. But that's what we work on every day.

LAUREN SHAW:

The kids are special here at Marsh Middle School because they understand that, in spite of some of their circumstances that they will achieve. They understand no matter what "I can make it. I will go to college."

JIM GLASSMAN:

Another way to make sure middle school students stay on the path to high school gradation is to follow and utilize data and information about how each student's performance.

ROBERT BALFANZ

Your attendance, and behavior and course performance are all in the teacher's grade book. It's not some exotic survey. It doesn't have to come from some agency. It's collected every day in the building. And so if you just pay attention to this and act upon it as soon as you see a kid going in a negative trajectory, you have a much greater sense of succeeding.

BOB WISE:

Many of our middle school students aren't reading at grade level. And when they're entering high school, a clear early warning indicator, a good data system tells you when a student's off track and immediately can trigger intervention. It's about personalization and it's also about the ability to develop that graduation plan.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Next, we'll visit a middle school in Indianapolis, Indiana, that is using individual learning data to identify students who are struggling in class. Those students then get the help they need to eventually graduate high school and prepare for a successful future.

A number of ingredients is needed to insure strong middle school academic success. The staff at Harshman Magnet Middle School in Indianapolis, Indiana has found a winning combination to help every student succeed regardless of his or her background.

ROBERT GUFFIN:

We have approximately 410 students in the school, of which 87 percent are free-and-reduced lunch. We have approximately 60 percent African-American, 30 percent Hispanic, 10 percent white.

LINDAN HILL:

This school is a story of remarkable turnaround. The principal and the faculty and the staff that the principal has gathered here has really, really embodied the whole sense of leading change, of establishing a sense of urgency, establishing a vision.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Before principal Guffin arrived in 2009, many staff members assumed that the majority poor student body couldn't or wouldn't learn. The students believed it too.

ROBERT GUFFIN:

Students were out in the hallways on a regular basis, not attentive in class. Heads were down. Some students wanted to go to sleep. There were fights in the building on a regular basis. We decided that that had to change.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Those changes resulted in significant academic improvement for Harshman students. Principal Guffin's first year, language and math scores on the Indiana state test improved by 9%. In his second year, they improved by an additional 28%. It was the greatest improvement in test scores by any middle school in the entire state. So how did the students and staff make such great strides in just two years? One key factor was colleting data on each and every student to determine where help was needed. Whitney Newton is in charge of gathering, analyzing and disseminating the data.

WHITNEY NEWTON:

The way that we look at students is each student is a holistic person. And we want information about them that will help us meet their needs across the board, everything from what they need in math to what they need at home and everything in between. So when we're collecting and analyzing data, we want lots of different pieces about each student.

ROBERT GUFFIN:

We are constantly looking at how our students perform today and how we can take that information as a teacher and use that to inform my instruction? What did they do? What do they know? Did they meet the objective that we planned for our classroom?

WHITNEY NEWTON:

So it's really looking at the goal for the end of the year which is broken down into the goal at the end of each unit, which is broken down into the goal at the end of each day. Alright. What are we going to do to get there?

JIM GLASSMAN:

The goal at the end of the school year is to pass an exam that measures a student's progress on basic academic subjects. It's called "The Indiana Statewide Testing For Educational Progress Plus" - otherwise know as ISTEP.

ROBERT GUFFIN

We'll take that ISTEP exam, look at where our deficiencies in our students were. And we will use that to plan an overall plan for each nine weeks or each semester or the entire year. We look at where students are strong, where students are weak. And how can we shore those areas up?

JIM GLASSMAN:

In addition to unit exams and report cards every 9-weeks, the staff at Harshman uses 6-question mini-tests called "scrimmages" to benchmark student progress.

WHITNEY NEWTON:

So we're looking at, every three weeks, "Did they get the standards that were in the pacing guide from the previous three weeks? And how are they doing with that?" As the coaches, we roll that data out to the teachers and give them a chance each month to look at that data as a team, analyze it, put it together, separate it into different formats, whether it's by standard or by sub-group.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Teachers collect data on a daily basis using what has come to be known as an "exit ticket."

ALEASE MONGER:

An exit ticket is basically, like, going over, like, basically what we learned in that class at that time. And we do it at the end of the class, like, before the bell rings.

JAKE BURSKEY:

It doesn't always have to be an official thing. But I always end a class with a wrap-up activity. It can be just asking questions, going into individual groups and asking individual kids and asking them in a way that they've got to think about what we've learned on a higher level.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Collecting all of this data is one thing but organizing it in a useful way is quite another.

WHITNEY NEWTON:

Because we have so much data that we're collecting and we're really trying to organize it for teachers, a lot of them are using data, but it's not very effective for them from their perspective because they have it in a packet here, in a file here, and it's on this computer program and here on this website. And so what we tried to do was bring it all together onto one database - very simple, just a two-column spreadsheet online that all the teachers can access at any time.

JIM GLASSMAN:

For example, if teachers find that 40-percent of the students are struggling with a topic, they will continue to emphasize it.

JAKE BURSKEY:

Part of my learning as a teacher is to use assessment as a tool to drive my instruction. So I may set a unit to last two weeks but if they're not getting it, I've got to continue to incorporate those while staying on pace with the curriculum.

JIM GLASSMAN:

If only one or two are having difficulty, those students can get personalized help from one of the instructional specialists.

MEE HEE KIM:

We pull out these students during their elective period, and work with them one on one, or a small group setting to master these standards in a really individualized, instructional kind of experience that they can't get within a normal classroom.

JIM GLASSMAN:

The educational specialists also use a strategy called "front loading" in many of their one-on-one teaching sessions.

MEE HEE KIM:

We kind of pre-teach them what they're going to be learning that day, so they're exposed to the vocabulary. They're exposed to the skill a little bit.

ROBERT GUFFIN

It allows them to be the person in the classroom who has their hand up first. It allows them to be the person in the classroom who people look to for the answers. The confidence that they gain and the pride that develops becomes something that is immeasurable and allows students to grow and begin to know, "I can do this."

DANIEL ESTRADA:

After I worked with Mr. Spencer, it was good because I could understand how the problem worked out. And it was cool.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Principal Guffin and his staff feel that sharing the data with the students themselves is a key to academic success.

WHITNEY NEWTON:

The teachers in their classes, so math and language arts, all took their ISTEP scores, handed them out to students, and had them fill out a reflection individually so that they could look at, "What was my score? What do I want my goal to be? Why was that my score? Why do I want this to be my goal?" and just really allowed each student to see, "Where am I in comparison to where I'm supposed to be this year.

JACOB SPRINGER:

Teachers here a strict but also want you to have fun, be safe, and to do what you got do to get the job done.

WHITNEY NEWTON:

It's really exciting, though, to hear kids say, "I didn't pass ISTEP last year but I'm going to pass it this year." It's really powerful to hear a student take that ownership and advocate for themselves and say, "I want to pass ISTEP this year so I am coming to your tutoring this week." We're teaching to our students, where they are, where they're coming in, and where we want them to be, to be-- successful and move on to high school and college and-- and (CLAP) jobs that allow them to be happy.

ROBERT GUFFIN

I've never known a student that has come to school and said, the first day of school, "this year, I'm going to get in trouble." Every student that comes to this school wants to succeed. And every year, they start out with, "I'm going to be my best that I can be." And how we respond to them makes a huge difference in how they behave in school.

JACOB SPRINGER

If you get good grades, that means you'll get far in life. And you'll have a house, maybe a good wife. You get good grades, you get to be anything you want to be.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Marsh middle school in Dallas and Harshman Middle in Indianapolis are just two schools making the kind of positive change that is happening all over the country. But transformative change doesn't happen on it's own. School leadership matters. A skilled principal can reduce the dropout rate of a school that is troubled in other areas, while poor leadership - even in a school filled with talented teachers - can condemn students to mediocrity. Dewey Hensley is a commissioner with the Kentucky department of education. He oversees a program that helps turn schools around through leadership mentoring.

DEWEY HENSLEY:

Having strong leaderships inside our schools, it's crucial. These leaders make the weather in the building. They help to change belief systems. Their ability to step up and say what's important, identify the goals along with their faculty and staff, to create a collective vision that moves kids and schools forward is crucial.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Next we look at ways effective leadership by principals and administrators can help boost student achievement and high school graduation rates. We begin in Las Vegas, Nevada where one principal has gained national recognition for guiding her school to excellence.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Its 6:30am. The start of another school day at Robert O. Gibson Middle School. Principal Linda Archambualt is already at her desk.

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

I love this school. And I've had people say, "You're crazy for wanting to be in an old building in an economically disadvantaged area of town." I stay in middle school because I know that if I'm successful in helping them make better choices, that their four years of high school are going to be fantastic. And that's my goal.

CAPRICIA PIERCE:

We have a great principal. I was very excited when she got the number one principal of the nation this year. And she loves us and she helps us with everything.

JIM GLASSMAN:

In 2011, she was named principal of the year by the national association of secondary school principals. She steered the school to a 98% attendance rate and introduced sought-after magnet programs in leadership and foreign languages. This was a big transformation. Principal Archambault arrived at Gibson Middle as an assistant principal in 2004. Like many schools in urban environments, Gibson struggled with a long list of debilitating problems. Most troubling was the violence.

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

I did believe that at some point time, either the principal or I would probably lose our life.

CAPRICIA PIERCE:

My sisters were telling me, like, there was fires in the bathrooms from kids starting them and a lot of fights in the lunch lines. People would get arrested.

PABLO NAVARRO:

Students were generally rude, apathetic, just a lot of screaming and yelling everything and loud voices

JIM GLASSMAN:

But violence in the school was only part of the problem.

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

They deal with a lot of issues. You know, the abuse at home, the neglect, the non-existent parent because they're working three jobs. Three families living in one home, two bedroom. hey deal with so many different things. It gets to you after a while.

LINDAN HILL:

Just because a kid is poor, or their parents are poor, doesn't mean that they don't have a lot of ability, that they don't have a lot of potential, because they do. Poverty, economic inequality, other kinds of inequalities mitigate against those kids having opportunities. It's not the ability that they lack. It's the opportunity.

JOHN JACKSON:

Poverty disables them, but it doesn't disqualify them. And I think it's very important that we provide every student a plan that will give them the academic, the social and the health supports necessary to overcome any types of barrier that they might have that impedes their opportunity to learn.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Principal Archambault realized that student's behavior inside the school and the impact of their lives outside the school weren't the only hindrances to learning. The school building itself, old and dilapidated, also presented a challenge.

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

I get frustrated because people say it shouldn't matter whether or not the kids are proud of the building. That is a bunch of malarkey. It does matter. And when I first got here in 2004, the kids would joke and say that the "G" for Gibson meant "ghetto." And they called it a ghetto school. It broke my heart. We had open, exposed wiring. We had holes in ceilings where you could see the sky, and it wasn't a skylight. How can you send the message that education is important if you don't deal with the facility and create a school that they're proud of?

JIM GLASSMAN:

The final challenge was dealing with students and parents who often spoke little or no English.

JANE PATTERSON:

We don't really have strong strategies to work with that particular population. And when they don't develop the literacy skills required to succeed in high school, their chances of moving on to higher education really become, you know, much more narrow.

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

Eighty percent of my student population is Hispanic. And it's a second language to most of the students.

JIM GLASSMAN:

All of these obstacles led to what seemed like an insurmountable achievement gap. Test scores were low with only 27 percent of the students demonstrating proficiency in math and language arts. As school leader, Principal Archambault knew that she'd have to address each and every one of these issues.

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

When I became the principal in 2006, I knew that we had to make a change. And it had to occur fairly quickly for the behaviors to get under control.

JIM GLASSMAN:

So she started with the basics.

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

We implemented some programs, and those programs included character education, a serious unit on respect. We began teaching students skills that we thought that they should know, and found that they did not have, such as being polite, holding a door, please and thank you, excuse me. And once we started teaching the social skills, we started seeing change.

JIM GLASSMAN

Gibson Middle School's band director Pablo Navarro has been with the school for 15 years.

PABLO NAVARRO:

Our principal, Linda Archambault, has been instrumental in trying to change that climate here. And it's worked. If you walk down the hallways, you'll hear a lot of students saying "good morning," "good afternoon," "how are you?" They want to strike up a conversation. Very polite, they'll open the doors for you. That's something we didn't see 15 years ago.

KAMILIA MEYERHOFF:

Dr. Archambault is the protector of this school. This is her baby and that's in a good way. She is very protective of the students, very caring, And she's protective of the building, too

JIM GLASSMAN:

Principal Archambault next turned to the building itself. She solicited help from the very people who would benefit most from a school make-over - the students.

ZACHARIAH RAHAMAN:

We also did the beautification and it was, we really liked it. It looks better than just grass. We're all really proud of it because we all knew inside that we all worked at it and we had did this.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Even principal Archambault rolled up her sleeves.

KAMILIA MEYERHOFF:

Comparing her to other administrators that I've had, she puts more of her heart into this building.

PABLO NAVARRO:

How many times have we heard, "Lead by example. Lead by example." And we believe it and we-- we think it's true, but we won't lead by example if we have to mop up the floor. If we have to sweep our own rooms or paint a wall. And those were the things that really reached me, because I realized, "If my boss can do it, then I can do it, too." And that was very encouraging.

JIM GLASSMAN:

But there are some things beyond a school leader's control like the issues that students deal with away from school. Many of Gibson's students are considered poor. Eighty percent qualify for free or reduced-priced lunch. Principal Archambault and her staff had to first make sure her students were ready to learn.

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

We have students who aren't showering because they don't have hot water. We offer a shower here at school. We wash clothes for students when they need it. We have students who come to school that are sleeping in cars. So they can't do their homework, because they don't have a light to work from. We offered an opportunity period in the morning where the teachers come in and there's a half an hour where they're in their classrooms. Students who have tried to do their homework at night and aren't successful can go in before school and get individual help. And that's made a difference as well.

JANE PATTERSON:

Research tells us, the two major factors are what happens in the classroom and what happens at home. What parents can do is really become partners with their teachers in the education of their children.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Engaging parents in a way they understand also helps student performance. Many schools around the country offer language support for their student population. But how many schools offer it to parents as well?

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

One of the biggest steps that we've taken in engaging our parents is to provide almost every communication in Spanish and in English. I have 12 faculty that are bilingual in addition to the office staff. And that in itself has encouraged parents to feel more comfortable coming in. We even offer tutoring for students where the parents can come with them. And the parents take us up on it. They feel that if they learn that math or the English or the reading that it'll be able to transfer to the other children coming up. And I'm surprised at the number of parents who show up for that.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Addressing behavior, the building, home life and parental involvement had a positive effect on the students.

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

We started seeing them transform from kids that were in survival mode to students. From that point, we started working about the academics. We knew if we didn't get the culture and climate under control that the academics would never occur in a classroom. And we're at a point now where the academics are the focus for the students here at school.

JIM GLASSMAN:

At Gibson, academic achievement has increased more than 100% over the past five years. Test scores have gone up from a 27-percent proficiency rate to 60%.

KAMILIA MEYERHOFF:

The change in the culture as affected the students and the student performance. They have more confidence. They feel more secure here. They're getting that positive reinforcement that they need inside the classroom and outside the classroom.

CAPRICIA PEIRCE:

I am proud to go to Gibson because knowing the way Gibson started out and it wasn't that very good of a school and no one wanted to go here because of all the bad things people were hearing about it. And now you're hearing our principal is a great principal, got principal of the year. And Gibson is like one of the best schools of the nation now. Yes, I'm very proud to go here.

LINDA ARCHAMBAULT:

I think the role of the middle school is to prepare the students for high school and that it's critical for their success in high school. If they don't go to high school with the basic skills that they need, and if they don't go to high school with the right attitude and the right work ethic, they're not going to be successful. We do what we can to make sure that we're meeting their needs so that when they do go to Western or to any other high school in the city that not only are they prepared, but they shine as Gibson students.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Though schools in urban and rural America may seem worlds apart, they actually share many of the same challenges. In both, poverty and low standards go hand and hand. How do transformational school leaders get the resources and training to help turn their schools around? Sometimes it starts with asking for help.

JIM GLASSMAN:

A high school principal's job is never easy.

KEVIN GAY

The gamut goes from being a nurse to a janitor and sometimes to a counselor or whatever. But generally it's an exciting day.

JIM GLASSMAN:

And principal Kevin Gay has lots to do to keep Leslie county high school in Hyden, Kentucky on track to continue its successful turnaround.

PRINCIPAL KEVIN GAY:

I feel like my job as principal of the school is to support our teachers in teaching and learning and that my top priority is that our whole school is about student learning by constantly learning and looking at where we're at and where we need to go.

LAUREN LITTLE:

Mr. Gay is very active within the student population. He's always out walking around at lunch. You know, checking on everybody. He'll talk to you. He's very nice. He's a good guy. He's a great person and he's here for the right reasons.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Like many rural schools around the nation, Leslie county high faces age old problems.

DEWEY HENSLEY

Often, in rural communities, you have high levels of poverty where there's been generational poverty over a period of time there's almost a status quo in some Appalachian counties, for example, where the same families stay at the same social strata over generations. That makes change sometimes very difficult. It also creates a culture or a mindset in the community that has to be changed.

MICHAEL YUDIN:

The challenges in rural communities are indeed different, right, the economies of scale, the ability to recruit and retain the best teachers is definitely a challenge. But we need to make sure that we're looking at rural communities and providing them with the opportunities to succeed and achieve.

DEWEY HENSLEY

In rural areas, re-staffing isn't such an easy option because there's not that large pool of teachers, there's not a lot of schools in the district where transfers are easy to make happen. They're limited to that transformational model which means that they're going to invest in the professional development of their teachers and are truly progress monitored to see those results.

PRINCIPAL KEVIN GAY:

When I first arrived at Leslie County High School we were identified as a persistently low-achieving school. We were identified as a bottom 10 school. Only 15% of our students were scoring proficient or distinguished in mathematics that year and about 40% in language arts and reading.

KEVIN GAY

I'm originally from this area and so I knew the teaching staff, I knew the students were capable of much more.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Principal Gay sought aid from an innovative state program to help his existing teachers realize their potential. The Kentucky Department of Education assigned him an educational recovery team.

DEWEY HENSLEY

We scour the state and find people who become educational recovery specialists. Those specialists are highly skilled. They go into the school and they work in math, in literacy, and a third person who's a leadership person that works to mentor and support and help the principal. That unprecedented amount of support to go into a single school is very valuable. They work really hard to ensure that when they leave in three years, two or three years, that as they leave, they leave behind strong teachers, a different attitude about the school, and measurable success.

SUSAN BROCK:

I have seen dramatic change in the time that I have been here.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Susan Brock was brought in to work directly with Principal Gay and the administrative staff.

SUSAN BROCK:

We actually began by something that most businesses do which is looking at a vision and mission statement. You know, without a vision the people perish and that's kind of what we've dealt with here. Is that we do have to have a school mission and vision.

DEWEY HENSLEY

In persistently low achieving schools, really in all schools, but it's magnified in persistently low achieving schools, is the idea of culture. A leader and the people inside that building, they create the culture.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Part of that culture is making sure that students feel included and valued in their own education.

SUSAN BROCK:

We had to change the mindset that we were not making change or trying to increase student achievement because of test scores. That test scores are just a result of students actually learning and becoming college and career ready and going on to whatever their post-secondary ambition is.

TROY NAPIER:

When I come in as a freshman, it was a really different. Not much work. Not much homework. The teachers didn't really teach you that much. And as the years went on you could tell that there's a big change because you had more homework and teachers worked harder. The administration worked harder. Everybody was just all in one together for a certain purpose. When I see somebody doing that it makes me want to work hard myself.

DEWEY HENSLEY:

If we're able to take those kids from the fringe and make them feel that they belong, make them feel that the school is theirs to a degree and that they're valued and significant in the school, then what we do is we give them that sense of belonging. Our ability to create that sense of belonging is a first step toward dealing with disenfranchised students who become our dropouts.

JIM GLASSMAN:

With a vision and culture of high expectations in place, Principal Gay and the educational recovery staff began to introduce new procedures and protocols.

KEVIN GAY:

Initially they helped develop processes and systems. And early on in the turnaround process we had so many processes that needed attention that it was really important for them to be here to help gain that critical mass that we needed for school turnaround. The new systems deal with all aspects of school life including discipline, scheduling, communications and progress reviews.

SUSAN BROCK:

We work from a plan, a school improvement plan, that's very tailored to what we do here. We refer to it as a 30/60/90 day plan because we monitor very closely every 30 days. We don't work in the dark. We use the data and we make decisions based on the data, individual student data and school data.

CYNTHIA COLLETT:

We've changed our communication flow. Instead of it being teachers are not really sure what's going on, we know first hand what's going on. We're always in touch with what's going on with the administration.

SCOTT MELTON:

The administration supports the teachers now a lot. It's not a one-way path. We can talk to them, tell them, make suggestions, and they do their best to try to help us with that.

JIM GLASSMAN:

The educational recovery team also introduced professional development for instructors.

SUSAN BROCK:

ERS stands for educational recovery staff specialist. There are ERSs are in math and language arts.

SCOTT MELTON:

Our educational recovery specialists, she's in our classrooms just about every day. We have meetings with her at least once a week.

SUSAN BROCK

Working with teachers here and building the capacity to identify individual student needs and work with those has made the most difference.

SCOTT MELTON:

We test children throughout the year and we find the gaps. We try to fill in those gaps and catch them up to where they're supposed to be. And I think that's one of the reasons we've done so well in the last couple of years.

LAUREN LITTLE:

We've got a great staff here at Leslie County High School. They always, you know, want to help you and if you need extra help they'll you know, stay with you after class or help you with problems that you may have.

KEVIN GAY

We've talked about how the conversations have evolved from management-type issues into 99% of all our conversations are about student learning. If you go talk to teachers it's about student information, student data that they have, and what we can do to improve. And I think that's a true indicator of a successful school.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Since the program was introduced in 2009, Leslie County High School has attained both a higher graduation rate and better student achievement.

PRINCIPAL KEVIN GAY:

The school's performance is wonderful. Our mathematics percent proficient and distinguished is at 53%. Our reading scores proficient and distinguished are at 83%. So it's been a huge increase over the last two years.

JIM GLASSMAN:

Which ranks Leslie County 27th out of 250 high schools in Kentucky.

KEVIN GAY:

What makes me most proud about the school is our students and their effort and how proud they are of their accomplishments that they've made over the past two years. We've talked to them and talked to them about giving their best effort. And that's all we can ask of them. And they've done that.

LAUREN LITTLE:

After high school I'm probably going to go to college. I haven't decided where yet but probably major in biology, go pre-med and then go to med school.

SCOTT MELTON:

I want them to understand that just because they're from eastern Kentucky doesn't mean that they can't score well on a test, that they can't go to college and be whatever they want to be. That's the truth.

JIM GLASSMAN:

As we've seen, transformative school leaders set a culture of high expectations for students, teachers and even themselves. This attitude of achievement can go a long way to boosting American graduation rates. This concludes our look at the national dropout crisis as part of the American Graduate - Let's Make It Happen initiative. For ideas in action, I'm Jim Glassman. Thanks for watching.

]]> Academically Adrift: How College Students and Professors Aren't Making the Grade - Episodes tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2011:/episodes//2.42423 2012-03-22T15:20:25Z 2012-03-23T18:58:57Z A college education is still considered key to the American dream. But is that dream hollow? "Academically Adrift" a new book by two college professors contends that a surprising number of today's college students show little-to-no improvement in critical thinking... Emily Johnson A college education is still considered key to the American dream. But is that dream hollow? "Academically Adrift" a new book by two college professors contends that a surprising number of today's college students show little-to-no improvement in critical thinking or written communication throughout their time at college.  So why aren't our college students learning more - and are any schools getting it right?

]]> IDEAS IN ACTION with Jim Glassman

Academically Adrift: How College Students and Professors Aren't Making the Grade

JIM GLASSMAN:
Welcome to Ideas in Action, a television series about ideas and their consequences. I'm Jim Glassman.

This week: with the economy in the doldrums, now more than ever a college degree is considered key to reaching the American dream. But, has that degree become hollow? A new book by two college professors gives today's students and their professors a failing grade. Academically Adrift contends that students show no improvement in complex reasoning, critical thinking, or written communication during their first two years of college and little improvement in the final two years. So why aren't our college students learning more? And are any schools getting it right?

Joining me to explore that topic are Kim Clark, senior writer for Money Magazine and former education writer for U.S. News and World Report; Josipa Roksa, co-author of Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, and assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia; and James Piereson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and director of the institute's Center for the American University. The topic this week: are colleges and universities failing our students? This is Ideas in Action.

ANNOUNCER:
Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Josipa, in Academically Adrift you write that your study found, and I'm going to quote this, 'students experience only limited academic demands and invest only limited effort in their academic endeavors.' Now is this in colleges and universities across the board?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
No, we find that there are students who are really working hard, who are studying lots of hours, who are taking rigorous coursework. And, there are students who are not doing so. And, there are some universities that are providing incentives for students to study more than others.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But in general you found, in a way I'll use the word shocking-- it's kind of shocking, that students are not learning more and that more demands are not being placed on them.

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Yes. Overall, we find that in the first two years of college 45% of students show no significant gains, basically no improvement in general higher order skills like critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and writing.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So in critical reasoning--

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and writing.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Ok and that's because they're out drinking every night or what?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
[Laughs] Well that have a lot of demands but they're not spending time studying. So we find that 35% of our students say they spend five or fewer hours studying alone.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Five or fewer hours a week?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Yes.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Ok. That's amazing. Now are there any colleges and universities that are doing a better job than others? I don't mean necessarily naming individuals but, you know, is it state universities? Is it private colleges? Who's doing better?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
We're focusing overall on the state of higher education an extent to which overall we are not doing too well. There is a slight association between performance on our measure of these higher order skills and selectivity. So in highly selective schools students tend to study a little more, they tend to be asked to do a little more in terms of reading and writing, and they do a little better over time.

JIM GLASSMAN:
James Piereson, are you surprised at that?

JAMES PIERESON:
Not in the least, Jim. The results of the study are perfectly consistent with what I have long believed about higher education, which is that the intellectual content of higher education has been on decline for a long period of time because the curricula at most colleges and universities lack structure and lack content. And I believe that in order to develop writing skills and reasoning skills those skills have to be linked to content and substance and without a foundation in substance and the fundamental facts of history, western civilization, economics, you will not develop those skills.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So you believe in a kind of core curriculum?

JAMES PIERESON:
I most definitely do believe in a core curriculum for freshman and sophomores, which would focus on U.S. history, the constitution, the great events of American history, how America fits into the civilizations of the world, foreign languages, the fundamentals of economics, science, and mathematics. And from there students can choose electives in their last two years in the context of majors. However, less than 10% of our colleges and universities have such curricula. More than 90% of our colleges and universities have what would be called distributional systems in which students are required only to select courses from a broad range of alternatives.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And I want to get Josipa's reaction to this but first I want to turn to Kim. You've worked on the famous U.S News and World Report college rankings. Does an expensive tuition-- or high-ranking university-- do you think that ensures the kind of learning that runs, let's say contrary, to Josipa's findings?

KIM CLARK:
The factors that go into the rankings include important factors such as graduation rates, student retention ra-- freshman retention rates, but we don't have any outcomes data. Colleges are simply not interested in sharing the data that might prove whether or not they're teaching their students anything.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I find that just incredible. I mean why-- U.S News and World Report rankings, for example, talk about-- or they include you know what SAT scores people have when they entered college but, you know, what about their SAT scores or some other score when they leave college? There's no-- universities don't test that?

KIM CLARK:
No. They don't. A few schools, a few hundred schools now I think are participating in what's called the Voluntary Framework of Accountability and you can go onto their website and see they will give their students the test that for example Josipa used to analyze student learning in her book. But only a few hundred schools out of the more than three thousand colleges across the country are doing this. Frankly they're afraid to document maybe that they're not doing a very good job.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Wouldn't some of them want to, let's say, colleges that want to attract higher quality students-- I mean this is something that parents would like to know about, 'Gee is my kid that I'm paying all this money for to go to school, is my kid going to learn anything?'

KIM CLARK:
Well we do have a couple hundred schools that are doing exactly this and we're hoping that they will set the standard and sort of basically force other schools who want to compete with them to start showing the same kind of data.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Josipa is curriculum a factor in this decline and are there other factors?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Well the curriculum is a factor in a sense that we find that students don't read and write a whole lot. So if you ask students in a previous semester did you take a course in which you had to write at least a 20 pages over the whole course of a semester 50% of the students say no. Five short papers they have not written. Half of the students in our higher education do not write 20 pages all semester long and 30% of them do not read more than 40 pages a week. And so if you're not reading, if you're not writing, it's hard to think that you would develop these skills that we all believe college should teach.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So whose fault is that? I mean, is that the students are not doing the work that they're assigned or are they not being assigned the work?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
We argued it's all of our fault. So parents, students, faculty, administrators, policy makers, we are all to blame because we have either supported or ignored the collegiate culture that has produced these kinds of outcomes and I think, you know, to just give you an example of how misaligned incentives are in higher education; so when faculty members are rated on their teaching it's based on student evaluations and we know that student evaluations are related to grades not necessarily to learning. And so incentives in a system are set up such that you grade students easy.

JIM GLASSMAN:
There are these websites where professors are graded-- are rated and you're saying that the ratings are based on grades?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Yes so we have--

JIM GLASSMAN:
That the grades that they get--

JOSIPA ROKSA:
--Pretty good evidence that how they rate their professors on official evaluations is related to what grade they think they're going to get.

JIM GLASSMAN:
You know, James, you said that there has been a decline. And of course as someone who went to college in the sixties I completely agree with you even though I see no data on it--

JAMES PIERESON:
So did I.

JAMES GLASSMAN:
When did this decline start and how do you know there really has been a decline?

JAMES PIERESON:
Well in the sixties, that was a crucial period in a lot of ways, many colleges most of them dismantled their core curricula. Between the 1920s and the 1960s most colleges had general education curricula, required courses, focusing upon western civilization and American history. That was to some extent a product of America's engagement with Europe in the first two world wars. American civilization was seen as continuous with Europe's. That was not the case until the 1920s. That began to crack up in the 1960s when people began to say there's no such thing as western civilization, it's divided into many parts and groups: women, minorities, and so on. Besides which there are many other civilizations in the world to study. So it came under attack and as a solution to it faculties basically discarded requirements and solved the problem by allowing students a great deal of choice in the selection of their courses.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But can't students learn, let's say, critical thinking, if the subject matter is, I don't know, women's studies, or African history, or something that's not-- wasn't part of the core curriculum in the 1960s?

JAMES PIERESON:
I suppose I think they probably can. I think the problem is that students graduate from colleges without a common experience. Faculties cannot agree on what students should know. If you take some of the great questions that we used to study in college: what were the causes to World War I? What brought about the American Civil War? What were the principles underlying the American constitution as articulated in the federalist papers?

JIM GLASSMAN:
I hope you're not going to require us to write the answers.

JAMES PIERESON:
Not one graduate in ten from Harvard today could begin to provide coherent answers to those questions. I think that's true across the country. Now I'm not sure that Josipa's book gets at those questions. She's analyzing reasoning skills and writing skills somewhat abstracted from those. Coming to grips with those kinds of questions in college students would better develop their writing and reasoning skills.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I mean, you're saying that the content is important in developing those writing and reasoning skills?

JAMES PIERESON:
I most definitely do. I'm not sure that you can write about just anything and reason about just anything.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Kim I just want to probe this question of kind of whose fault is this and Josipa says it's everybody's fault, which forgive me but maybe that's a little bit too easy, I mean, can't we zero in on fault here? I mean is it-- for example you know how much responsibility do students have? Do students view college in a different way from the way they did forty years ago?

KIM CLARK:
I don't know. I think people forty years ago enjoyed a beer on Friday nights as well. I think that what she has found is-- and other books have found-- is that students have very busy lives right now, many students-- many more students are working and many more students are working more hours to afford higher tuition.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Also they're working out.

KIM CLARK:
They're working out, they're in better shape, right.

JIM GLASSMAN:
They've got more demands.

KIM CLARK:
Yes, they do.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Is there also kind of a focus-- I want to get to the U.S. News and World Report issue here-- is there so much focus on getting into college that by the time you get in you say, 'Oh I'm in and I'm going to graduate,' because if you don't graduate then the rankings in the U.S News and World Report system for that college will do gown so the college has a huge incentive for getting people through whether they've learned anything or not.

KIM CLARK:
That's true. They certainly do have an incentive to try to move students through because there is no learning evaluation at the end as a standard. But it's also true that the students realize that the college degree is a credential. I mean just having the credential studies show, having a degree does improve your employability. So students sometimes are looking at the short-term advantage of having a credential rather than the long-term lifetime advantage of having actually learned something.

JIM GLASSMAN:
How about that point about credential? Does it really make any difference whether somebody learns something in the four years of college? When after all it's the credential that counts.

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Well the college graduates do have strong labor market returns. College graduates do a lot better than high school graduates and have been over the last--

JIM GLASSMAN:
What about college graduates who actually learned something? Do they have better labor market returns?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
We don't know that yet but we will. We are following these students, the same sample, into the labor market, one year out, two years out, and so a few years from now we'll be able to tell.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Now why didn't somebody do the book-- do the research that you have done before? I mean it seems kind of obvious-- I don't mean to be critical but it's a great idea.

JOSIPA ROKSA:
I think there's many reasons. One I think you have to remember that the 20th century was a century of access. We all just kept talking about getting students in, getting students in decreasing the gaps. And then only toward the end of that 20th century we started saying, 'ok we got them in, are they finishing, and are they learning anything?' So it actually is a fairly new question in terms of holding schools accountable. And we didn't have the measures. Our measures are still quite imperfect and still in development.

JAMES PIERESON:
Back to your question on learning in college I think if you're going to spend four years in college you might as well try to learn something while you're there. However, you know, it's not clear what the actual economic payoff is in terms of learning. The founder of Microsoft and of Facebook dropped out of Harvard. I think a lot of these colleges recruit, because of their admissions process, very bright students, the brightest students, and the recruiters go to those colleges for that reason. Not because of anything they learned in college. It's a very interesting fact that over the last 20 years all of our presidents have come from Harvard and Yale. As our society becomes more democratic our presidents are coming from more elite institutions. Why should that be the case? I think one answer to it is that these men, all men, have excelled in the scramble to get into and to prevail in highly selective institutions. A kind of law of nature of the jungle has toughened these individuals in the race for top posts in the society.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But then what happens when they-- back to my question to Kim-- what happens when they get into college? And I'm not talking about these particular individuals who end up being president but others who are scrambling to get into college, is that sort of the end and they don't think of college as a place to learn? Or they're not pushed to learn?

JAMES PIERESON:
It used to be true that it was easy to get into college but hard to stay in and graduate. You've heard the story about the dean who told the students to look to the left and look to the right and two out of the three of you will be gone in four years. That's no longer the case. Now it's very hard to get in but once you're in no one flunks out. In fact colleges boast about the fact that 99 or 95% of the students who get in are retained. Retention is the stat. So that's a big change in higher education over this period of time. I was looking at Kim's rankings--

KIM CLARK:
U.S News and World Report's rankings.

JAMES PIERESON:
U.S. News--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Scientific rankings by U.S. News and World Report.

JAMES PIERESON:
--We were discussing this beforehand; out of the top 20 universities they're all private universities. And that is I think--

JIM GLASSMAN:
So what does that mean?

JAMES PIERESON:
That's a consequence of, in my opinion, the stock market revolutions since 1980. These are now very wealthy colleges due to their endowments.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Although they did lose a lot of money in 2008.

JAMES PIERESON:
They did. But the state universities are increasingly losing in the scramble for public money among other constituencies that are demanding that money in states like California or Michigan. Forty or fifty years ago probably half of the top 20 or 25 colleges were public. In the 1960s Berkeley was regarded as the top university in the country. Now according to the U.S. News rankings it's number 22 and it's probably fallen below that.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So speaking of that evolution is it-- are American colleges still considered to be the best in the world?

KIM CLARK:
Yes. I mean, there are other rankings. There's rankings based out of London and out of I think Singapore that rank all the world's universities and I think American universities are-- make up half of the top 30 in those-- about half of the top 30 of those rankings. So-- and if you look at-- people are voting with their feet I mean people around the world want to come to American universities so there is this perception worldwide that really we are the gold standard.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Are though-- that kind of market test-- does that belie your results? In other words, you know, if people want to come to American universities but they're not-- but you're saying they're not learning anything based on the test but probably-- they probably think they are learning something? There's some reason that they want to come here.

JOSIPA ROKA:
Well but you know we have invested a lot of resources in our graduate programs and research and we arguable produce some of the best researchers. And one could say that our reputation across the world rests on that research base.

JIM GLASSMAN:
What should we require of the professors and the researchers who really are the main resource that we have at these universities? Is there something we can require of them to get them to help students learn?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
You know in Academically Adrift we argue against any kind of federal accountability system because we don't think it would do any good. It would do a lot more harm, and it would be very counterproductive at this time.

JIM GLASSMAN:
What do you mean by accountability system? You mean like a federal test?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Like a federal test that would require all students to take it and all schools administer it. We think that would have lots of negative consequences and would be highly counterproductive at this time. But we do think accountability should be at the lower levels and that then comes to faculty. And it comes to administrators. And it comes to presidents. It comes to the boards, ok, so the boards of colleges and universities should ask their presidents, 'How much are your students learning? What are you doing to improve that learning?' They should ask their presidents those questions and the presidents should set priority and make sure that undergraduate learning is a priority and ask of their faculty to make sure that learning is a priority at their institution.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So, and right now you're saying the priority is research? I mean, you know, if a-- for a faculty member to get tenure it's-- you don't get tenure on the basis of--

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Teaching.

JIM GLASSMAN:
--What kind of teacher you are. You get tenure on the basis of what you've published.

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Yes at most institutions the focus is on research and that is where our incentives are and that's why the incentives are misaligned. And as I pointed out earlier if teaching does count it counts through student evaluations, which are not a good way to measure the quality of teaching.

JIM GLASSMAN:
What about that Jim, you have said that universities need to get back to their mission. What is their mission? Is their mission to produce great research or is their mission to teach undergraduates?

JAMES PIERESON:
Well I think that the research function is probably realistically limited to a small sliver of institutions. I think about 98% of the published research is accomplished by about 2% of the faculty. So realistically most professors are teachers and probably should be rewarded for that. I think Josipa puts it very well in her book that no one on the campus is invested with a responsibility for encouraging learning. Students are focused on their social life, faculty are interested in research, and the administration is interested in finances and body counts, but no one is invested in this question of focusing on learning. Now the faculty should be but as we say they're focusing on other things.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Josipa was saying there shouldn't be a federal test but perhaps market forces or other forces would produce a kind of a metric that people could look at. And, it might be even part of the U.S News metrics that said well in this university students increased their level of learning by this much and at this one they increased it by this much-- I mean wouldn't you think that some universities would want to get out there and push the fact that that's what they do?

JAMES PIERESON:
I think it might be helpful in the rankings if someone could introduce curriculum and learning metrics somehow into the rankings. That would be difficult to do but I think it would be doable and it would be helpful for the market place.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Kim, you have written about how to make college more affordable. And you know affordability of course is not-- doesn't stand alone. The question is what are you buying for the money that you're putting up. And do you think that most parents understand that when they're putting out money that maybe they're putting it out just so their kids can have a good time rather than learning?

KIM CLARK:
I think parents maybe in their hearts know that might be going on. I did want to point out there were some interesting studies done of twins where they compared twins who had more education to their identical genetic equal who had less education. And they found that for every year of college was an increase in earnings of about 9%. So it isn't necessarily the credential. The credential is a big boost absolutely but even at one year of college can presumably provide the student with something. I want to make clear that Josipa's book says that many students are learning. It's just a very significant portion do not. So when you say you know well these people are coming from overseas and maybe they're not learning anything. Everybody has the opportunity to learn and in fact the majority of students are learning. It's just that a very sizeable minority are not.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And have you looked at that-- that's a good question to pursue-- are there colleges and universities that are doing a good job? Can you name them for example and do you know why they're doing a good job?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
There are schools that do better than others but I think more important is that within every school we studied there are students who work really hard, who take those hard classes. There are professors who are demanding and who set high standards. And, in every school there are students who learn a lot. And, then in every school there are students who are not doing so well. And we think that's where the focus needs to be that schools need to look at their own students and find those who are learning and emulate them.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And what about students who are not doing well in college, should they be in college? I mean maybe it should be the job of universities to weed them out.

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Well if you admit students we think it is your responsibility to help them learn. Everybody can learn. We find in our study that everybody can show gains. Students from all different backgrounds, students with different kinds of test scores coming in, they all can show gains over time. And it is our job to make sure they do that.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Just an answer to my question, can you name some colleges and universities that have done a particularly good job at increasing the learning levels of their students in the areas your talking about?

JOSIPA ROKSA:
That would cheapen the book.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Cheapen the book? I think it would make the book more expensive if you'd name them.

JOSIPA ROKSA:
No it is not about naming individual schools. It is about thinking about a structure of our higher education. As Jim and Kim have pointed out the extent to which all of our incentives are placed in other directions; that nobody on our college campuses is focusing on undergraduate learning which is why the outcome that we have is that 45% are showing no significant gains in the first two years of college.

KIM CLARK:
And if parents are interested there's the Voluntary System of Accountability, there's a website they can go. Those schools that are participating are posting how much their students are learning and it's mostly public universities I believe and please correct me if I'm wrong.

JOSIPA ROKSA:
Yeah. And I would like to add you know that-- do we want learning in U.S News and World Report? I don't think we do at this time. We do not have good enough measures that are strong enough to be included and used as rankings but falling on Jim's there are many other things we could measure. Right, we could ask schools to say, 'Are you measuring learning? What are you doing to improve learning? What steps are you taking?' And those kinds of things, hard to measure as well, but I think are way more productive in moving us forward than finding some kind of a test and putting it on U.S. News and World Report.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I'm sorry but we have to end it right there. Thank you Josipa, thank you Jim, and thank you Kim. And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action. I'm Jim Glassman, thanks for watching. Keep in mind that you can watch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you want. To watch highlights or complete programs just go to ideasinactiontv.com or download a podcast from the iTunes store. Ideas in Action because ideas have consequences.

ANNOUNCER:
For more information visit us at ideasinactiontv.com. Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at investors.com. This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.

]]> The Quest: Energy, Security and the Re-making of the Modern World - Episodes tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2011:/episodes//2.42556 2012-03-14T19:00:32Z 2012-03-15T15:41:54Z Interview with author Daniel Yergin, international energy expert and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his book, The Prize, in 1992.... Emily Johnson Interview with author Daniel Yergin, international energy expert and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his book, The Prize, in 1992.

]]> IDEAS IN ACTION with Jim Glassman

The Quest: Energy, Security and the Re-making of the Modern World

JIM GLASSMAN:
Welcome to Ideas in Action a television series about ideas and their consequences. I'm Jim Glassman. This week: The Quest by Pulitzer Prize winning author Daniel Yergin. As the world's population continues to grow so does our need for energy but the economic, political and security ramifications that are fulfilling that need may pit nation against nation in the future. What can we do to become more secure about our energy supply? Joining me to discuss this topic is Daniel Yergin, Pulitzer Prize winner and author of the new book, The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World. The topic this week: the geo politics of energy. This is Ideas in Action.

ANNOUNCER:
Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investors Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at Investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Population growth, a growing middle class in emerging nations, and technological advances are all driving a need for more energy. Some estimates show that by 2030 the world will consume 40% more energy than it does today. What combination of oil, nuclear, renewable energy, and other power sources will see us through that need? Will the competition for access to oil boil over? And how should the U.S. address energy security risks? Welcome Dan Yergin.

DANIEL YERGIN:
Thank you. Very glad to be here.

JIM GLASSMAN:
You know you being your new book The Quest by linking the nuclear disaster in Fukushima with the start of the Arab Spring. So what do these two events tell us about energy today?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Here are two events that happened halfway around the world from each other, both of them surprises with very dramatic consequences, obviously for Japan and also for the Middle East. What they tell us is how quickly the energy world can change, and it's the energy world-- we depend upon this for our whole society and suddenly the assumptions that we had about what was going to happen, nuclear renaissance, or what was going to happen in the Middle East are changed and it dramatizes how significant these energy questions are for our future.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Suddenly in Japan they can't use nuclear energy anymore or certainly not for some of the plants--

DANIEL YERGIN:
Yeah, Japan was absolutely committed to nuclear power. They were saying they were going to get 50% of the electricity from nuclear power and now there's a stepping back from it, it's not clear what their alternatives are because they're so devoid of resources and so it's created, it's contributed to this kind of malaise and uncertainty about Japan's future.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And with the Arab Spring the price of oil shoots up 20% in a couple of weeks because of what happened in Libya--

DANIEL YERGINL:
Right.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Who could have predicted that?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Yeah in a sense you look at actuarial tables and you say eventually Mubarek's going to go, eventually Kudafee's going to go, in power for 42 years, but it certainly comes in a way that was not expected and the consequences was to up end a significant part of the strategic-- geo strategic basis on which the Middle East and indeed its supplies of energy depend.

JIM GLASSMAN:
The book takes a historical look at energy and how we got to where we are today. So how does that-- how does history help inform the future of energy?

DANIEL YERGIN:
I think in a way the book turned out to have more narrative, more storytelling, more history, than I expected because I found I really wanted to write to give some sense of our future but realized that so much of the discussion happens in this complete abstraction without understanding where things came from and how they developed. And so I tried to look forward in the book too, very much the future of the renewables, conventional, but do it on a strong historical basis.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So does there seem to be a natural progression or historical progression of the use of particular resources?

DANIEL YERGIN:
You can think about it that of course the first big thing was coal and then it took a century really for oil to overtake coal as the number one energy source. And where we are now is something that you followed as well this kind of revolution we're seeing in natural gas, called shale gas, and these much larger volumes so we're going to see natural gas play a larger role in our economy and as a kind of movement towards you know, the constant focus on cleaner energy, and it may be renewables and alternative but it may also be using conventional energy in much cleaner ways.

JIM GLASSMAN:
The first section of your book is called 'The New World of Oil,' and China plays a big role in that new world of oil. China needs more and more oil and yet you don't think that the United States and China are going to clash over the supply?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Well I think this is one of the key questions and clearly there are people in Beijing and there are people in Washington who say there is a-- is an inevitable conflict between China and the United States over oil. I take a different point of view. I say we have similar interests, we're both large consumers, we're both large importers, we're interdependent with each other, and we both have a very strong interest in the stability of energy supplies around the world and I think that's where we've got to try and go in that direction. You can see where things can go badly but I think it's in our interest as well as in Chinese not to have that happen.

JIM GLASSMAN:
What do you think about the Chinese trying to kind of buy up resources-- oil resource-- kind of lock them up?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Right.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Rather than allowing kind of the market to perform as it should--

DANIEL YERGIN:
It's an unfolding story I tell in The Quest; the story of how ten or eleven years ago talking to the head of one of these Chinese oil companies as they're about to do an IPO and suddenly have to answer to young analysts on Wall Street in London and so forth-- he said we have no choice we have to benchmark against the world economy. I think the Chinese were kind of stunned to find out how quickly they became dependent on the world market. They'd come out of a very different sort of communist tradition of self-sufficiency. I think there's a difference between-- we tend to see it as China, Inc. but I think these Chinese oil companies have their own characteristics. So the Chinese are out there, they have a checkbook, but what they're-- the amount of oil that they actually have and acquired is less than one major oil company has from the west. So I think it's not as extreme as it looks. And the other interesting thing is that these Chinese are often in joint ventures in Africa and other places, you think the oil would go to China, most the of the oil that these Chinese companies produce actually is sold into the world market.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And so your point about stability is-- that's really the key for the Chinese it's not kind of locking up all the oil and owning it all--

DANIEL YERGIN:
It's yeah-- I mean it's basically in security their demand has grown so fast, they've gone from being self sufficient to now importing half their oil and also saying well you know this is really critical to our economy. I think there's another thing too that maybe like other people in the world they don't want to have all of their resources in dollars that are depreciating-- and so also having oil in the ground is another asset.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Let's talk about Russia because Russia is a major player on the supply side of oil as well as of course gas and-- how much do they produce and what kind of factor are they in the global--

DANIEL YERGIN:
They produce about 10 million barrels a day so they actually produce more most of the time than Saudi Arabia does. Most of the time they're the world's largest producer of oil and they export most of that oil into the world market. So oil is very important to the Russian economy. You know you go to Moscow, the streets, the cars are just jammed, you know it's like other capitals, nobody can get around and a lot of that is oil money that is directly and indirectly flown into the country along with natural gas money.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Does the United States buy oil from Russia? Or is that actually the wrong question-- does it make any difference from whom we buy the oil?

DANIEL YERGIN:
It doesn't really make any difference because there's only one world oil market. What is interesting is that everybody always talks about how the U.S. imports two thirds of its oil, well actually our oil imports are now down to about half because we're producing more than in the past and we'll come back to it but our number one source is actually Canada. But we certainly have an interest in seeing those supplies from Russia flowing to the world market-- again put that term stability there. Just to go back to stability where I think we will see real action and drama in the next couple of years is the question about Iran and how China sees the Iranian situation as the concern about Iranian nuclear capability increases and where they'll see their interest. Is it looking to Iran or is it looking to the stability of the system and the avoidance of conflict in the Persian Gulf.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And how big a player is Iran? I know they have-- Iran has what the third largest reserves?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Yeah well Iran is the second or third largest exporter in OPEC. It is a country though whose-- needs investment, it needs it to maintain its capacity, that's like the-- they like really high oil prices in their price law because they can't produce more. And of course with the sanctions they're limited on that. And so I think the whole sanctions that U.S., the Europeans put on, have put on are aimed at hemming in the Iranian oil industry.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And what role does the Keystone Pipeline play or might it play?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Well to-- you know the Keystone is of course the pipeline that would be built from Canada and it would go down to the Gulf Coast and it would take what's called oil sands from Canada down-- all the way into the United States and bring more oil flowing from Canada into the United States. It's said to be the biggest shovel ready infrastructure project in the United States; jobs measured in hundreds of thousands or even more than that. It's been controversial because there's a debate about the oil sands but one of the remarkable things that's happened, Jim, is how the United States and Canada have come together. I mean a lot of people would think that our major source-- if you say where do we import our oil from people would say the Middle East. Well actually not that much oil comes from the Middle East. By far our biggest source of oil is Canada. Our number one source of imports today is a country that did not exist in the 1970s. You'll say what am I talking about? This Canadian oil sands was not really developed in the 1970s. Today we probably import more from there than any other single country and so this is an incredible resource in terms of security. It's oil that doesn't have to come halfway around the world by tanker and it kind of brings-- you know Canada's the U.S.' most important trading partner; it brings us more together. So this Keystone XL Pipeline is a very important contribution to our energy security and to the stability of prices.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And what's going to happen with that? I mean there is resistance to it?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Yeah, there is resistance because people will say that the Canadian oil sands are more carbon intensive and as I mentioned in The Quest if you look at it on the basis from the well over there all the way to the-- your car exhaust it's about 6% more C02 than you'd get from a conventional barrel of oil and that number's going to be squeezed down but it's-- that's where the opposition toward-- comes and we've certainly seen it's a very vigorous opposition.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And this extraction from oil sands is really part of the story that you tell that sources of energy are constantly changing. One of the big changes you talk about is shale gas. Tell us about gas.

DANIEL YERGIN:
So natural gas, you know everybody knows about oil because you go and you fill up your car once or twice a week. Natural gas is 25% of our energy; it's really huge to our economy. It was thought until a few years ago that we were basically going to be short supply and we were going to import a great deal of natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gases from places like Qatar in the Persian Gulf, or Trinidad, or Angola, but there was this guy down in Texas named George P. Mitchell, and starting in the early 1980s he said there is a way to get this gas out of this shale rock which everybody thought you can't do-- they knew it was there but not economic. And he kept at it for about fifteen years, his company was called Mitchell Energy and people kind of thought he was crazy but around the turn of the century the breakthroughs occurred with hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling and suddenly this resource was there. People didn't pay much attention to it until about 2007, 2008, suddenly instead of running short of gas people noticed our gas supply was increasing. This is really just since 2008 that people have really focused on it. It's now you know just a few years later and realized that this resource is-- can be summed up in one word; enormous.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And we had a conference on this at the Bush Institute, which you spoke. You talk about hydraulic fracturing and that means what pumping water at high pressure-- explain that--

DANIEL YERGIN:
Water and high pressure with sand and a small amount of chemicals and it creates these fractures basically through which the gas can flow.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Now there are environmental questions being raised about natural gas; it might contaminate the water supply that sort of thing. And then there are concerns about the chemicals that are used in extracting the natural gas and this natural gas, this shale gas, is all over the United States including the northeast, New York State, Pennsylvania-- there are some protest. Are you concerned about that?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Well I was on just part of this report that was just done that President Obama asked secretary-- Energy Secretary Chu to do so we spent three months very intensively looking at it and I think the general view is that the fracking takes places at a much greater depth than the water supplies and so the likelihood of polluting water supplies is very slight. The chemicals again are used at great depth. I think we are going to see a disclosure of chemicals, that's coming, so everybody will know what's being used there. These are technical issues but I think they're manageable but there's certainly a lot of emotion about it. There's also questions about air quality-- locally air quality that would have to be addressed so there's a series of environmental questions that would have to be looked at as part of this process but I think with proper examination they'll be managed. And again technology will provide solutions.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Speaking of the environment, let's talking about nuclear power because for many years nuclear power had generally been considered pretty safe, there were some accidents but they were in the past and now we have Fukushima and the response of-- in Europe by Germany and other countries is we don't want anymore nuclear power. What's going to happen there?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Well it's a different reaction in different parts of the country. You know I saw a comment by a man who had managed a Fukushima plant in the 1990s and he said tsunami never crossed my mind. And so what happened here was the tsunami knocked out the backup power and therefore they couldn't maintain their cooling. So that's what happened. German-- you know Chancellor Merkel turned on a dime because she had been saying we have to use-- keep our nuclear going and said no more nuclear we're going to phase it out. And so it's a risky gamble that you can kind of replace nuclear with offshore wind-- but it really means that they'll probably use a lot more natural gas. The French say we're committed. China is the big game really in nuclear power they're doing so much and I was just in a conversation today with Chinese about that and I think they will go ahead but the question is they'll go towards called third generation nuclear power plants. And we have a couple new projects in the United States--

JIM GLASSMAN:
The third generation these are safer? Smaller?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Well they're not necessarily smaller-- although there is talk about smaller modular nuclear power plants that would be built in a factory and then transported to the site-- but it's just that they're safer more so called passive safety features and so forth. But you know, until March of 2011 when people were talking about a nuclear renaissance and nuclear was very important from a carbon point of view because it's carbon free. It's-- you don't hear about a nuclear renaissance so I think different countries will move in different directions. Finland is moving ahead with new plants but Germany is at one end of the extreme, France is at the other which gets over 70% of its power from nuclear, and the irony is that as Germany shuts down its nuclear power one of its solutions will be import more nuclear powered produced electricity from France to make up for their shortfall.

JIM GLASSMAN:
We hear more and more about smart grids. What are smart grids and are they going to have much effect on our lives?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Two, three, four years ago was a very kind of hot subject and it was a kind of sense of two-way communication between the consumer and the electricity distribution system in which you would get messages back and forth and would give much greater control and certainly a lot of activity around it. I think it's going to be-- it means smarter use of electricity, modulating demand. I think it will be built in but like all of these-- many of these things it turns out that it doesn't just happen overnight this takes years to happen. And one thing that needs to be said is people say well everybody's in favor of smart grid because no one wants a dumb grid--

JIM GLASSMAN:
No one-- right.

DANIEL YERGIN:
But as it turns out you know we don't really have a dumb grid we have a pretty sophisticated system, it's kind of a balkanized system in this country but it means more information technology built in and we are in a-- it's interesting when you look a house in the 1970s most of the electricity would have been used by relatively few appliances but now we have what I call in The Quest the gadget watts. We have all these electronic devices that nobody thought about except you know a few people 20 years ago and so we're using more and more electricity for that. So we do have to you know, being smarter in how we use electricity makes sense.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And is a-- a kind of a smarter grid or a more complex grid, more connected grid, is that more vulnerable to a terrorist attack?

DANIEL YERGIN:
I think some think it is because you have more entry points into the grid. And people who worry about these kind of things and cyber attacks do worry about that and it has to be addressed. I have a quote in the book from actually the head of Sony after a cyber attack on Sony and he talked about the new bad world of cyber vulnerability and I think in the area-- part of the book where I talk about energy security, talk about the traditional issues, like what happens in the Middle East or natural disasters, but there is this whole new realm of vulnerability that we're only beginning to understand in terms of the cyber vulnerability.

JIM GLASSMAN:
What role is going to be played by renewable energy such as wind power and solar power?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Well those are the two big ones and in each case I kind of told the story of it because you know they didn't come from nowhere I mean wind has-- goes back 1000 years but even there's a wonderful picture in the book of an electricity generating windmill in Cleveland in about 1888 in somebody's backyard but it really got going-- it's kind of what I talk about in the book is a rebirth of renewables because we had, you'll remember, some of the viewers will remember, later 70s into the 80s we had renewables and then it entered what people called the Valley of Death and now it came back and the wind industry really came back I think in about the beginning of the century and there's this wonderful sketch comparing a wind turbine in the 1980s, one today, and it's like this. Here and like that. It's a huge difference. Wind is part of the electricity mix. It's a small part. It will grow. Partly it depends upon incentives. It depends upon regulation but I think it's kind of established itself this part of it. Solar may be ultimately what it's all about and you know solar goes back to Albert Einstein-- one of the papers he wrote in the summer of 1905 after he finally got a job and that's the logic of it--

JIM GLASSMAN:
And Albert Einstein plays an important role in your book because he's not just solar but nuclear--

DANIEL YERGIN:
Yeah. Yeah. I mean exactly. You realize, talking about ideas in action, and the power of ideas it's-- this is classic and it just kind of takes decades and then solar really got going as a technology when we needed a technology to put up on the satellites after the Russians put up Sputnik. But I think solar-- big issue there is to bring down the cost and if they bring down the cost then it will become a bigger part. But still you know, Jim, the basic question I ask in The Quest is we have a world now that's a 65 trillion dollar global economy. 20 years, if we get out of the current slow of despond that we're in; we might have 130 trillion dollar global economy. How are we going to power it? And so renewables will have a part and they'll probably grow, because this is a very long revolution-- but at the same time the world is going to still depend primarily on oil, coal, and natural gas for at least another 20 or 25 years unless there's some astonishing breakthrough that we don't know about and so you know when we think about the future we need to think about this kind of broad picture and just realize how challenging it is to ensure that the resources are there that a healthy world economy requires.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But why haven't wind and solar become more popular in a world in which there's $80 barrel oil and $90, $100 barrel oil-- wasn't that always the problem that it couldn't compete on price.

DANIEL YERGIN:
Right. Here's the reason; because you have two worlds. You got the world of your automobile which runs on oil, $80 or $90 oil, and then you have your electricity here which is fired by coal or natural gas you know we here hear it all the time how wind is going to reduce oil imports, it's hard to see how that happens unless in 30 years we're all driving a lot of electric cars because oil is only 1% of electric generation. So you have two separate markets really that-- you know it's all under the heading of energy but you got to think cars and think electricity.

JIM GLASSMAN:
You say in the book that innovation is really is the key to the energy future. Why do you say that?

DANIEL YERGIN:
Because it goes back to the notion that this is a great revolution. You know we talk about globalization, we've now hit the globalization of demand that you know the Chinese, the Indians, people their standards of living, but the other thing we have going for us is also globalization of innovation, it's not just concentrated in Silicon Valley or other parts of this country but it's a global process. And it is innovations that are going to respond to the needs that we have for future energy, for clean energy, and so it is that emphasis on really technological change and ultimately comes down to human creativity. That's when you talk about energy resources I think the number one energy resource is human creativity.

JIM GLASSMAN:
That's a good place to end.

DANIEL YERGIN:
Thank you.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Thank you Dan Yergin. And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action. I'm Jim Glassman, thanks for watching. Keep in mind that you can watch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you want. To watch highlights or complete programs just go to ideasinactiontv.com or download a podcast from the iTunes store. Ideas in Action because ideas have consequences.

ANNOUNCER:
For more information visit us at ideasinactiontv.com. Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at investors.com. This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.

]]> How to Solve a Problem Like Illegal Immigration - Episodes tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2011:/episodes//2.42590 2012-03-08T19:13:22Z 2012-03-09T19:49:11Z With states shaping their own immigration laws and courts taking up the issue, experts from across the spectrum discuss what is currently lacking and what is needed in shaping true immigration reform.... Emily Johnson With states shaping their own immigration laws and courts taking up the issue, experts from across the spectrum discuss what is currently lacking and what is needed in shaping true immigration reform.

]]> IDEAS IN ACTION with Jim Glassman

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Illegal Immigration?

JIM GLASSMAN:
Welcome to Ideas in Action a television series about ideas and their consequences. I'm Jim Glassman. Illegal immigration has become a hot button issue in America affecting education, employment, healthcare and human services and as congress and the White House debate, states are making their own policies. What should be done about illegal immigration? Joining me to discuss this topic are; Doris Meissner, senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute and former commissioner of the INS; Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies; and Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. The topic this week: how do you solve a problem like illegal immigration? This is Ideas in Action.

ANNOUNCER:
Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investors Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at Investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:
There are more than 11 million illegal immigrants in America today. Some Americans are alarmed by what they see as an influx of people who have broken the law to come to America, taking jobs that could go to American citizens. In this tough economic climate that's an easy idea to sell, however undocumented workers make up only 5% of the workforce and they perform a lot of menial tasks that Americans may not want to do. But efforts to stem the tide of illegal immigration are working. In fact the number of people crossing the border illegally has plummeted over the past two years. How serious is the illegal immigrant problem? And what can be done to fix it? Doris why are people so upset about illegal immigration? I mean illegal immigrants make up 3.7% of the U.S. population, 5% of the workforce, what's the big problem?

DORIS MEISSNER:
Well people are upset for a lot of reasons. They're upset because the country is changing through immigration and part of that change is being brought about by people who are coming here illegally. More of it's being brought about by people who are coming legally. We are a country of laws, we are also a nation of immigrants, and so the tension between our heritage and the fact that we've always changed over time through immigration is in conflict with the idea of people coming outside of the laws. But in addition to that people don't really understand our laws. Our laws don't provide a way for people to come to this country for work purposes in nearly the numbers that the economy was demanding until very recently. Overall immigration picture is one that is positive for the country at a macro level but at a micro level the costs of immigration are borne disproportionately, both legal and illegal immigration, at the local level, through schools and other kinds of services and our policy doesn't allow for that to be compensated right now.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And actually I wanted to ask Mark about that. What is the impact of undocumented workers on the U.S. economy?

MARK KRIKORIAN:
There'd be two sides to it; one is the illegality of the worker can have an effect and the other is just a huge number of low skilled workers, a kind of supply shock to the labor market. And the illegality of illegal workers actually has much less economic impact than people think. What really matters, their consequence, their effects to the economy is the fact that there's a huge proportion of the low skilled workforce that comes through immigration, mostly illegal because illegal immigrants are less skilled, but some of it legal and that then has a number of effects. First it slows down wage growth for American workers in these same occupations, and there's a lot of them. It also interestingly because they're low skilled workers in a 21st century knowledge based economy it limits their own upward mobility and their children's upward mobility, whereas in the past similar workers were coming to a very different economy. And thirdly it distorts the industries that these low skilled workers are concentrated in, slowing the process of technological advancement and labor saving technologies in areas like agriculture. There's nothing that can't be mechanized say that's in the hand harvesting of fresh fruits and vegetables. This supply shock of cheap labor creates takes away the incentives for farmers to implement the mechanization-- use the technologies that exist or invest in the development of new ones.

ALI NOORANI:
It's an interesting contradiction here because while we're on one hand saying well immigrants are doing the jobs of picking peaches, picking strawberries, picking apples, those are jobs that Americans will do, but then in the same sentence we're saying well actually those are jobs that machines will do. If congress was to act and actually put forward a reasonable immigration solution we'd be able to make taxpayers out of everybody, the worker as well as the employer.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Good point and let's get to that. Why is it that congress has been unable to come up with a solution to the problem that America is a nation of immigrants and yet we've got 11 million undocumented immigrants here breaking the law. Why can't something get done?

MARK KRIKORIAN:
Well the standard package that advocates call comprehensive immigration reform has three pieces to it; the three parts of this so called comprehensive reform is one legalizing the illegal immigrants who are here, amnesty in English, huge increases in future legal immigration, whether guest workers or whatever it is, but increased immigration, and then promises to enforce the law in the future so we don't end up with more illegal immigrants. The core political problem really is that the enforcement promises nobody believes because that's what the 1986 Amnesty Law was based on. Amnesty now, tie up the lose ends of bad law in the past, in exchange for promises to enforce the law, promises were not kept--

JIM GLASSMAN:
What about that? I mean-- was that a false promise in 1986? It seems to have been. So can those lose ends be tied up now?

DORIS MEISSNER:
Well it was a sincere promise in 1986 but the follow up didn't follow up on the promise but that's now 20, 30 years ago and I think that the political problem that Mark refers to is actually a deeper issue than the inflammatory issue of immigration itself, which has always been an inflammatory issue. In the first place we have done enormous buildups in enforcement in this country at least in the last 10 years, probably in the last 15 years. So the idea that we're not equipped to follow up on the enforcement promise of immigration laws is I think no longer valid. But the deeper political problem here is that immigration is one of those issues that requires bipartisanship. It requires a strong center. There is no immigration reform, statutory change, since the middle of the last century that has passed without a strong cross party agreement and that is simply missing from our politics today.

JIM GLASSMAN:
In fact it seems that there is a lot of demagoguery on this issue.

DORIS MEISSNER:
Yeah the problem solving is going to require people in both parties to come to a bipartisan agreement and it's not in the cards right now--

JIM GLASSMAN:
It's not in the cards. Do you think it's not in the cards in an election year?

ALI NOORANI:
An election year makes it more difficult undoubtedly but you also see in communities across the country whether they're Hispanic or even independent that there is a growing demand for a solution to this problem. And poll after poll for years has said people want a path to legal status, they want strong enforcement of the law, and they want a rational immigration system--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Well we're seeing states take matters into their own hands. What do you think of that?

ALI NOORANI:
Well you see Alabama and Georgia on one end of the spectrum who are literally undermining their very own economy. Then you see California doing things proactively for immigrants. But then you also see a place like Utah, the most conservative state in the country who is saying you know what, we can't just have an enforcement only perspective, we have to actually have an immigration system, even if it's just limited to Utah that serves Utah's economy.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So what is Utah doing specifically?

ALI NOORANI:
Utah has done two things; one is they have said they want to enforce immigration laws at a local level, then they have asked the federal government for a waiver so that they can institute in essence their own worker program. So based on the labor market and the economic needs of Utah they would like to be able to say ok workers can come into Utah based on our needs as a state and our economy. That's a practical solution that brought together Republicans and Democrats in the state of Utah that we need to see replicated in congress--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Come in legally--

DORIS MEISSNER:
--But the interesting thing about Utah is that there is no such thing as this waiver that they have asked for and there is now way to actually do at the state level what it is that they're asking for so what you're really seeing in Utah is the pressure that local officials, local elected, and state elected officials are under to respond to this issue of immigration on the ground, the distortions that it's causing the current system in the absence of the federal government doing the job that the federal government is supposed to do.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And even at the federal level there's a certain ad hoc ism recently the Department of Homeland Security announced that it was going to consider certain deportation cases on a case by case basis-- is the Obama administration making policy by itself by doing this rather than following the law?

MARK KRIKORIAN:
I would say yes. What--the thing you're talking about this reassessment of deportation cases is kind of the final part of a policy that has been pretty clearly articulated by the administration over the past couple of years the goal of which is that no illegal immigrant who hasn't also killed somebody or been a child molester or drug dealer something like that would be acted on by the government. In other words that illegal-- being illegal itself will not result in any consequences. So this recent announcement what they did was they said that the 300,000 people already in the deportation pipeline from before will all be reexamined one by one and those that they deem not to be somehow dangerous or threats will be released, given work authorization, essentially legalized or at least quasi legalized. The administration has essentially announced that immigration law is kind of a secondary offense, like not wearing your seatbelt. You're not going to get pulled over for it but they'll use it against you if you're doing something else bad and that undermines the very premise of enforcing immigration laws.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And isn't that kind of the major issue? We see this in the states you know-- is being an illegal immigrant really being treated as a crime? There are 11 million illegal immigrants. And should it be?

ALI NOORANI:
For us to forcibly deport 11 million people from our country would be a social and economic nightmare. I think we can all agree to that. So what the Obama administration has said is that we have a limited amount of valuable law enforcement resources let's focus those on, as Mark said, the worst of the worst. That's smart law enforcement. And let's make sure that the folks who are here and who are in violation of immigration law that they are put into a process where they are vetted, they haven't committed these types of crimes and let's make sure that we are using our valuable law enforcement resources the right way. Because at the end of the day a mass deportation is not going to serve our country's interest.

DORIS MEISSNER:
I think that describing this policy as going beyond what the executive branch has the prerogative to do it is in incorrect. The executive branch does have the prerogative to determine how it's going to establish its enforcement priorities and pursue them in that way. And it has said and has now made even more explicit that it is going to focus on serious criminal activity.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And you think that's a good policy?

DORIS MEISSNER:
I do think it's a good policy.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Can I ask you about another policy? 8% of the children born in America are born to at least one illegal immigrant parent and then that child then gets automatic U.S. citizenship. I mean isn't this a problem?

DORIS MEISSNER:
This is not a problem. This is one of the critical aspects of the United States that makes it distinct in the world in many ways. But fundamentally people born on U.S soil are U.S. citizens. It means a lot of things but among the things that it means in the current setting is that we will not build in structurally an underclass into our society going forward into the future.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Should an illegal immigrant be able to get the same rights and the same tuition as a legal American at a university in Texas for example?

MARK KRIKORIAN:
Certainly not. I-- actually I think the issue of in state tuition is kind of missing the point. The question is really should illegal immigrants even be permitted to enroll at state universities because there's a fixed number of slots, every seat at a university taken by an illegal immigrant is one that a legal immigrant or U.S. citizen doesn't get but--

JIM GLASSMAN:
But then you have the problem that Doris just expressed I think very eloquently, which is where do you leave these people like on the side of the road? Say you know well we're not going to give you an education fend for yourself--

MARK KRIKORIAN:
But the point-- what that means though is that the real issue is legalization or not, not in state tuition, that's almost a distraction because let's say-- California for instance permits in state tuition for illegal immigrants and now just passed a bill permitting taxpayer subsidized financial aid as well. Well ok those students spend four years in a university and then what? They can't get a job it's illegal. They're illegal immigrants. So the issue-- the in state tuition thing--

JIM GLASSMAN:
This struck me the other day when I heard about the California policy.

MARK KRIKORIAN:
It's almost a distraction.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So what do they do? Do they leave? Do they go into the black market?

DORIS MEISSNER:
These are all workarounds. These are workarounds because-- the idea of states trying to tackle this issue because of exactly what you said. They're at least trying to allow people to move forward because let's remember who most of these illegal immigrants are, they're kids who came here when their parents brought them as youngsters, they can't go anywhere because our system doesn't provide for any proper management of this whole not only group of people but way forward in terms of immigration overall.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Yes Ali.

ALI NOORANI:
There's two things here one is that these students are high performing academic students. They've already competed for that seat and they have earned that seat. So they're not displacing anybody. A university looks at somebody based on their grades and their test scores. So that's number one. Number two and Doris touched on this earlier is that these are all state-by-state solutions. This comes back to the fact that congress has not come around the table in a bipartisan way to fix the problem.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Right. Let's hone in on that because that's a very important issue to us at the Bush Institute as we look at ways to increase economic growth and there are a lot of people who are saying let's get rid of this family connect-- extended family connection type of immigration which I think is unique to the United States or is certainly quite unusual and instead make our decisions about whether immigrants come to the United States based on their level of education or even how much money they've got. In other words let's try to boost the quality of immigration-- what do you think of that?

MARK KRIKORIAN:
Well I mean there's a germ of a point there but you need to understand--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Only a germ.

MARK KRIKORIAN:
Only a germ I'm afraid because-- look we took in about 1.1 million legal immigrants last year, that's how many green cards we gave out. Now most of those people were already here and they engineered some kind of permanent status-- but 1.1 million people, 400,000 of them about were the spouses or minor children of U.S. citizens. That's the kind of irreducible minimum of family immigration. You're not going to get rid of that. It's the other--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Right.

MARK KRIKORIAN:
It's the adult siblings, the adult children, that kind of thing-- and that's not insignificant to get rid of that. But the point is you start with 400,000 people who are relatives who are not-- it's not going to be eliminated--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Right but what about the other 600,000?

MARK KRIKORIAN:
But--

JIM GLASSMAN:
What if you said you had to pay 50,000 dollars to become an American citizen or to immigrate to the United States? Or that you have to have a college degree? Or that you have to have an advanced degree?

MARK KRIKORIAN:
The question here is what kind of skills are special in a modern economy that actually have those kind of effects--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Well there are a lot of people in Silicon Valley and I mean I talk to people almost everyday who say we can't find those skills in the United States we need to import them--

MARK KRIKORIAN:
--Look the head of-- the vice president of Texas Instruments just testified last week that at the bachelor's degree level they have no interest in importing people. They couldn't care less. It's people with advanced degrees and overwhelming majority of foreign students who get PhDs in the United States stay already. It seems to me this is a phony issue because the top, the best and the brightest, already are able to stay.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Ali.

ALI NOORANI:
It's not a phony issue. The fact is if you graduate with a PhD in computer engineering you don't have a guarantee to a green card. You don't have a guarantee to be able to stay here. More and more we're seeing that companies are unable to sponsor those individuals and those individuals after we train them return to their countries and start businesses there. So in effect we are exporting highly trained workers to then take the jobs that we need as a country.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Do you think a part of the concern about people who want to reduce the number of immigrants is really related to the fact that so many of our immigrants are Hispanic?

ALI NOORANI:
This is a time-honored tradition in our country right? In the early 1900s it was if you were Irish or Italian. Now if it's you're Hispanic. I think as a country we've always met that challenge of understanding who are new neighbors are and welcoming them to our nation. So I think this tension that we feel as a country we can struggle through that. We'll figure that out.

JIM GLASSMAN:
The fact that it's historic-- it's been going on-- it was Italians and the Jews and you know everybody didn't like a specific class of immigrants-- and the fact that it's been going on for a long time doesn't mean that it's not somewhat pernicious.

ALI NOORANI:
I have confidence in us as a country that we're going to meet that challenge. So is it an issue of race? Is it an issue of class these days? Yes, but it has always been. So I think we need our leadership to help us meet that challenge.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Do you think there are too many Hispanics coming into the United States?

MARK KRIKORIAN:
The question is two-fold. Ali is right in that there's always a certain discomfort and always has been when newcomers show up. There's no question about that. What we face today though is different in kind from anything that's every happened before because this is the first immigration wave ever where the majority of immigrants are from a single ethnic group. I looked at the 1910 census when I was writing my book. The variation in the languages and ethnicities was stupefying. There was no group that was even close to being majority. Today like 55, 60% of our immigrants are of a single ethnic group. That really does create a very different dynamic that we have the least diverse immigration flow in American history.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And that-- least diverse even during the period let's say when lots of Italians were coming in the early part of the century--

MARK KRIKORIAN:
They weren't anywhere close-- anywhere close to the share of immigration--

JIM GLASSMAN:
What was the percentage? 10%? 20%?

MARK KRIKORIAN:
It was something like 20 or something, 25%, and even then only for a brief time. The Germans earlier only for a brief time.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Do you think that a border fence can really work? I mean Rick Perry for one, governor of Texas, doesn't think that it will. An extensive border fence.

DORIS MEISSNER:
Well I mean what's going on on the border now today and what's going on with the change since the recession in 2008 is really dramatic. Fencing is part of effective border control but it needs to be used selectively and it is not the answer across the entire border to solving the problem of illegal immigration. In the first place a lot of our illegal immigration actually comes from people that never have crossed the southwest border. Somewhere between probably 35 and 40% of the resident illegal population are people who came here with visas and overstayed their visas. So even if you reduce dramatically the number of people that come across the U.S.-Mexican border, which in fact is the case today, you have not solved the problem of illegal immigration through border enforcement. In Mexico there is a shift going on now which may really be a game changer in terms of the traditional push pull into the United States. They've just completed their census and the numbers are pretty stunning; a combination of dramatically reduced fertility, better job growth, and better economic growth in Mexico than in many other countries during this time, higher education levels, so that people have a reason to be staying there. So we actually may be turning a corner where some of the pressure is off in terms of the flow of illegal immigration which I hope allows for the political moment to arise where we actually rectify this system.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So Ali ultimately we've talked about a problem that's very difficult to solve. What-- do you think that there is a chance to solve this problem or to have a rational immigration policy by let's say 2013?

ALI NOORANI: Well I think we have to keep pushing towards that. I think we'll-- it'll be interesting the way that the presidential primary debates continue to unfold and how immigration continues to be in essence a marginalizing factor for the Republican Party. But at some point when we get to the general election both candidates are going to have to present to the country, not just to Hispanics but to the country, a rational plan to fix our immigration system.

DORIS MEISSNER:
The other thing that could be very important here is the Supreme Court. It's entirely possible that these state laws, which are now with court decisions in different circuits in fundamental disagreement, may be taken up by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court decides that states cannot legislate in this area it creates a different political climate--

JIM GLASSMAN:
I just want to ask all of you what you think a reasonable immigration policy would look like very, very briefly.

MARK KRIKORIAN:
The way I see it is the enforcement part is going to come first. It has to come first. It's not going to be part of a deal. Enforcement is not negotiable. After a time the illegal population will shrink through enforcement. Not all of them will leave but it can be shrunk. We modeled and estimated that we could probably cut it in half in five years with real consistent across the board enforcement. No machine guns and stuff just regular enforcement. At that point, then a deal I think is possible and the deal then would be legalization for some of the remaining illegal immigrants in exchange for permanent reductions in legal immigration. That's the deal that we're going to see five or seven or ten years down the road. Not this comprehensive immigration reform that holds out the promise of enforcement but just a promise.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Doris.

DORIS MEISSNER:
I'm pessimistic politically about immigration reform but I do believe that from a policy standpoint you must do what we think of as comprehensive reform. You cannot ultimately enforce your way out of this problem. The problem is one that requires a more integrated solution because if nothing else and particularly going into the fiscal climate that we're going into we can't afford more enforcement. We're doing an enormous amount of enforcement at this point but of a law that is not rational. You need an employer enforcement piece that holds employer accountable on a mandatory basis to checking their workforce. We don't have that now. You must have an amnesty piece and you must have a possibility of future flows of workers for labor market reasons that is more balanced with the family immigration.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Ok. Ali.

ALI NOORANI:
We have two options in front of us. One option is we can bank on deepening recession and spending tens of billions of dollars on enforcement. That's what Mark just laid out. In essence make sure that people want to leave because the economy's terrible and we're spending a billion dollars-- tens of billions of dollars a year on enforcing immigration law. That option does not serve our needs as a country. That is clear. The second option is to make taxpayers out of people who are here illegally, require them to pay their taxes, get legal status, pass a criminal background check, and then get in line for citizenships. That's one leg of that stool. The second leg is to have an immigration system that meets the needs of our workforce and our economy so that job creators are coming into the country and creating jobs and they're welcomed here. And then third is actually being able to have an immigration enforcement system that can operate effectively and efficiently so we're not spending tens of billions of dollars to forcibly remove five million people. That's crazy. We're actually spending the right amount of resources on making sure the ones who are here to hurt us and cause harm are removed. That's smart immigration policy.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Thank you Ali, thank you Mark, and thank you Doris. And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action. I'm Jim Glassman, thanks for watching. Keep in mind that you can watch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you want. To watch highlights or complete programs just go to ideasinactiontv.com or download a podcast from the iTunes store. Ideas in Action because ideas have consequences.

ANNOUNCER:
For more information visit us at ideasinactiontv.com. Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at investors.com. This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.

]]> Has Nuclear Power Run Out of Power? - Episodes tag:www.ideasinactiontv.com,2011:/episodes//2.42493 2012-03-01T17:39:37Z 2012-03-05T15:14:01Z The nuclear power industry has suffered severe setbacks recently that bring into question whether it will be a viable source of energy in the future. Yet China has committed to nuclear in a big way. A discussion of the... Emily Johnson The nuclear power industry has suffered severe setbacks recently that bring into question whether it will be a viable source of energy in the future. Yet China has committed to nuclear in a big way. A discussion of the future of nuclear energy at home and abroad.

]]> IDEAS IN ACTION with Jim Glassman

Nuclear Energy

JIM GLASSMAN:
Welcome to Ideas in Action a television series about ideas and their consequences. I'm Jim Glassman.

Over the past decade the nuclear industry touted a global nuclear renaissance, taking advantage of the idea that nuclear power is a clean energy and could be a partial solution to climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Then came the Fukushima reactor disaster in Japan. Now many people are rethinking the safety and viability of nuclear power and the Germans and Swiss have totally renounced it. Is this the death knell for the nuclear power industry?

Joining me to discuss this are Tony Pietrangelo, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute; Thomas Cochran, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council; and Charles Ferguson, president of the Federation of American Scientists. The topic this week: the fate of the U.S. nuclear renaissance. This is Ideas in Action.

ANNOUNCER:
Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at Investors.com.

JIM GLASSMAN:
As of April 2011 there were 433 nuclear power plants operating in 29 countries. 104 of those facilities are located in the United States and they generate 20% of U.S. electricity. There are 64 new plants under construction around the world. It's a pricy undertaking as each plant can cost up to 6 billion dollars to get online. The recent Fukushima nuclear meltdown that occurred in March came on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe. It also put a spotlight on safety issues like the disposal of spent fuel rods. Now many people are asking if the benefit of nuclear energy justifies the risk. Welcome Tony Pietrangelo, Charles Ferguson, and Thomas Cochran. Tony how far back did the Fukushima accident set the U.S. nuclear industry?

TONY PIETRANGELO:
Well clearly Fukushima was a very, very significant accident. Our job here in the states now is to learn as much as we can about what happened there. Learn those lessons and apply them to our facilities to make them even safer. I think the administration's been very measured in its response. I think the president got it exactly right shortly after the accident saying that our plants have been exhaustively reviewed by the NRC. They are very, very safe but it's clearly encompass-- incumbent on our industry and our regulator to thoroughly understand the lessons learned and apply them to make these plants even safer.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And your regulator, the NRC, is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Charles how long do you think it's going to take Americans to regain confidence-- if they've lost it you can say whether they've lost it or not-- in nuclear power?

CHARLES FERGUSON:
We've seen in recent polls-- we saw polls-- the Gallup polls, other the polls, leading up last several years up into the Fukushima accident, the public was being more and more supportive of nuclear power, they're a strong majority of support and then right after Fukushima, no surprise, there was a fall off in the public support. Now it's you know less than the majority support but I believe that can come back if, you know, the industry and Nuclear Regulatory Commission takes it very seriously.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But I mean it's clear that the NRC has taken it very seriously but are people going to just say well you know we don't know what's going to happen and if it happens to a coal plant it's not a big deal. If it happens to a nuclear plant, lots of people could be killed.

CHARLES FERGUSON:
Well we have to deal with all the areas of concern; from the plant operations to the safe and secure disposal of the nuclear waste to even dealing with concerns about proliferation on the United States on other countries and that can affect U.S. nuclear industry.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Tom do you-- should people feel that nuclear power is safe?

THOMAS COCHRAN:
No-- it isn't and I think we've seen the latest evidence of that but on a worldwide basis there's something like 440 reactors and historically we've operated about 580 some odd reactors. And in the course of that history, we've had about 10, 12 cases of serious core fuel damage to the reactors; the worst case being Chernobyl. And if you crunch the numbers-- the frequency of severe core accidents is substantially higher than what even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers safe.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I want to get into that in some depth but I want to ask Tony though first; how strong is the domestic nuclear industry now? I mean is there-- does this mean we're not going to see any new nuclear plants being built?

TONY PIETRANGELO
No absolutely not in fact there's two under construction now in South Carolina and Georgia. We have a fleet of 104 operating reactors and another plant about to be finished in Tennessee in 2012, the Watts Bar reactor--

JIM GLASSMAN:
And that would be the first one in what fifteen years?

TONY PIETRANGELO
They restarted another Browns Ferry unit several years ago but that would make the 105th. And then we expect as an industry four to eight new plants between 2016 and 2020. So our industry is going to apply the lessons learned from Fukushima but we think we have a very strong operating record. The way we got that operating and safety record is by applying lessons learned from events that have occurred. I think one statistic that Tom mentioned a lot of those were early on and startups. You learn from those lessons and apply them to the design and operation going forward to reduce the frequency of severe events and I think we've done a good job of reducing the risk of use of nuclear energy.

THOMAS COCHRAN:
30% roughly of the 104 U.S. reactors on the order of 30, 32 U.S. reactors are essentially the same containment design, same reactor and containment design as the Fukushima reactors. They have serious design deficiencies. We don't know that they're major differences between the Fukushima reactors and ours in terms of the operating procedures that would argue that our reactors are a whole lot safer than theirs.

TONY PIETRANGELO:
That's a key point-- no Tom raises a key point. We do have to understand the differences both in the regulatory requirements in Japan and ours. And I know there have been many, many enhancements to the type of containment that was licensed in the initial-- for these Mark I containments in the early 70s. Many enhancements made--

THOMAS COCHRAN:
The Japanese argue that they've made the same improvements. Physical improvements--

TONY PIETRANGELO:
Yeah. But there's design and operational differences in terms of when certain actions occur, what were the operator responses, what their training program was, what procedures they used, the command to control-- there's many, many differences between the Japanese system and ours that we need to understand to fully really apply those lessons.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Yeah let me ask Charles about that. I mean for example, one of the reasons the Japanese reactors failed was because the electricity got shutdown. Do we have reactors that don't require electricity to mitigate the problems of a potential meltdown?

CHARLES FERGUSON:
Well every reactor's going to need a source of electrical power right at shutdown because what happens is-- what people might think well if you shutdown a reactor there's no more power being produced but the fact is there's a lot of highly radioactive materials that are giving off a lot of heat. So right at shutdown you know about 6 to 7% of the power you had right before shutdown is being produced and that decays over time but it can take several days to weeks to get to the point where you can get kind of the cooling systems in place where it's very stable--

THOMAS COCHRAN:
Months. Months.

CHARLES FERGUSON:
Or months right. But what happened in Japan is they lost the offsite power because of the earthquake and tsunami, then they lost the diesel generators, that's the backup emergency source of power. And we-- I don't know if we know yet where exactly the diesel generators were located but they were susceptible to this huge tsunami wave. They were knocked out and then they had batteries so that was the last line of defense. And the batteries drained in a period about 6 to 8 hours. Now that's actually a longer charge than we have in the U.S. in terms of battery power.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And why was this power important because it was required to put water into the--?

CHARLES FERGUSON:
You need to run the pumps. You need to keep circulating water through this hot reactor core to take away that heat otherwise the core could meltdown.

THOMAS COCHRAN:
You can shut the chain reaction off but you can't shut the reactor off. It's-- you don't flip the switch and go to bed. These things continue to produce substantial heat that would melt the fuel if it were not cooled all the time for weeks.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But could that happen to a U.S. reactor? You lose all those sources of power?

TONY PIETRANGELO:
Most of our plants don't have any tsunami risk but they're designed for all natural phenomena in their locale whether it be earthquake, hurricane, flood, etc. So yeah there's scenarios where as part of the design basis of the plant you analyze the most severe natural phenomena and you make sure that plant-- and margin is added to those designs to ensure that that can't take out all your emergency AC power.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I read somewhere Tom that there is-- that you can use gravity to pump water into a plant and avoid this kind of meltdown.

THOMAS COCHRAN:
Some reactors are designed to use gravity to feed the water to cool the reactor in an emergency situation. In addition, probably one of the most important factors that affects the safety of the plant is the safety culture of the people that are running the plant. So you know if you have a good safety culture arguably you don't get into these situations.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And how would you assess the safety culture in the United States?

THOMAS COCHRAN:
I would say it's better than it is in most but perhaps not all of the countries. We are the only country where you have two nuclear regulators stationed at the plants all the time. There are a number of reasons to argue that-- that-- argue that U.S. plants overall are safer than plants overall overseas.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Let's talk about some of this new technology. What is a pebble bed reactor?

CHARLES FERGUSON:
Well a pebble bed modular reactor is actually started out in Germany-- German engineering. South Africa was exploring this design for a period of time and then they had concerns about the cost. Their government is suffering from big debt. They wanted to move forward with new nuclear power plants, they're backing away from that. China's right now developing a prototype pebble bed reactor. So the technology basically is these kind of almost like gumballs right and you feed them in continually through the reactor and you then shuffle out these other gumballs and it basically is a graphite uranium mix. And the claim is that this is accident resistant because you could you know if you lose offsite power that you have all-- means the pass of cooling and that the graphite uranium balls won't necessarily meltdown. But you know this hasn't been significantly tested yet.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So is that the main advantage of these plants? The other thing I've heard is that you can build smaller plants--

CHARLES FERGUSON:
You can build smaller plants. That's why I said pebble bed modular reactor-- modular capacity is you could start with maybe 100 megawatts, 200-megawatt design which is a tenth or one fifth of the big reactors that we have in the Untied States today. And you could scale up over time.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But are, Tony, are pebble bed reactors being built in the United States? I know it's a big deal in China.

TONY PIETRANGELO:
No. There's no small modular reactors under construction in the U.S. There's a few under development that I believe will submit design certifications to our Nuclear Regulatory Commission and it-- but it's got a lot popularity for the reasons that Charles said. If you can build these modules and over time build up the megawatt use and it's kind of done in a manufacturing versus a construction environment so you can reduce cost that way. And there's a lot of interest in that. I think we've still got to make the business case for these that they can overcome the economies of scale that the big plants have.

JIM GLASSMAN:
How important do you think it is for the United States, Tony, to stay ahead in nuclear technology. We provide a lot of the technology for other parts of the world.

TONY PIETRANGELO:
Yeah really the vast majority of the plants that operate worldwide are based on U.S. technology. We did invent it here. So it is important for us to maintain that lead. We still have the biggest operating fleet of reactors but we shut down some aspects of the program in the late 70s. I'm sure Charles could go into more detail on that. But we have kind of lost our technological lead. I think we're starting to get that back now with small modular reactors and enhancements to the existing designs.

THOMAS COCHRAN:
Well you know Germany has just decided to get out of the nuclear business all together. At one time they were one of the leaders in the nuclear business. And they have-- as a consequence of Fukushima have decided that they're going to phase out nuclear power plants and focus on renewable energy and be a leader in supply of renewable energy tech.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So what do you think-- you think that's a good idea?

THOMAS COCHRAN:
It's safer.

JIM GLASSMAN:
But do you think the United-- I mean United States right now generates about what 20% of its power nuclear. I mean do you think that over time we shouldn't be building anymore nuclear plants and that-- kind of should let that proportion dwindle down?

THOMAS COCHRAN:
I think the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing the construction of new nuclear plants in the United States.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And how does it do that through loan guarantees?

THOMAS COCHRAN:
Well through--

TONY PIETRANGELO:
Should they subsidize wind and solar?

THOMAS COCHRAN:
There's an appropriate place for federal subsidies but this is a mature technology it's been around for 50 years. You subsidize new technologies that-- look attractive and you want them to enter the market faster than they would otherwise.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So that's your answer to Tony's question about it's ok to subsidize wind and solar because they're new technologies?

THOMAS COCHRAN:
There's a good case could be made for phasing out the subsidies for wind not for some forms of solar technology. The cost of solar (?) tags for example photo electricity production has been coming down over the years and as you subsidize to build a market for this technology the cost will continue to come down.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So to--

TONY PIETRANGELO:
We're not against-- let me just follow up on Tom. We're not against renewables at all. This isn't an either or problem that our country faces. With regard to Germany though, that's the third time the German government changed their mind on the use of nuclear in the last several years. There's an election coming up in the fall. This was clearly a political decision. The only real things we know that's going to happen in Germany is they're going to burn a lot more fossil fuel. They're going to import a lot more electricity probably from French nuclear plants and they're going to pay a premium for it. And they're also putting the reliability of their electricity supply at risk for their economy and for their people.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I want to move on to China and let me ask Charles; I mean China is where-- is where the growth in power generation is happening and the Chinese have made a decision to do a lot more in nuclear. I mean right now it's not very significant. Is that something we should be paying attention to?

CHARLES FERGUSON:
Oh absolutely. I was in China couple of years ago about this time and it was the big inter-ministerial meeting and the Chinese government over the 2 or 3 days of the conference kept upping the ante as to how much nuclear power they want to build. And if they stay on track within the next 20 to 30 years they may match the number of nuclear reactors we have in the United States, about 100. But it's important to realize-- and right after the Fukushima accident, that the Chinese government they were so worried about their people's reaction to what's happening in Japan that they put a halt to construction for the time being while they're doing a safety assessment. I think the Chinese government's now realizing that there's a safety gap. They're rushing construction so fast, they're building a couple dozen plants right now, they need to make sure they have several hundred to a few thousand highly trained technicians so they can make sure they achieve the high safety standards.

THOMAS COCHRAN:
China doesn't have the regulatory regime that we have in the United States. They don't have the equivalent of an independent nuclear regulatory agency. That's one problem. Second, problem is a lot of their plants are built in very heavily populated areas and so if they were to have an accident of this magnitude they would have far more serious consequences. Thirdly, a lot of the plants are built on the coast and they're going to have the same sort of tsunami issues that Japan has. So somebody needs to review that issue--

JIM GLASSMAN:
And are we providing the technology for most of these Chinese plants?

CHARLES FERGUSON:
It's a mix.

JIM GLASSMAN:
U.S companies--

CHARLES FERGUSON:
Well-- the inland plants, the AP1000 has Westinghouse technologies so we're helping build those. The French have provided a lot of technology to China. Now China is developing these sort of replication reactors. These are French knock off designs. But the French design as Tony said earlier it traces back to the U.S. So this is all really U.S. designed reactors.

JIM GLASSMAN:
One thing that Americans do have to worry about is and we maybe learned this from Fukushima is this that there are these spent fuel rods that are in pools of water at nuclear plants. And we've been trying for years to move this to Yucca Mountain in Nevada and I think we spent 15 billion dollars investigating--

TONY PIETRANGELO:
We spent 9 but there's 30 in the kitty. Million. [Laughs]

JIM GLASSMAN:
Ok. And actually the 9 is-- when we say we've spent it's really electric rate payers who's been spending it.

TONY PIETRANGELO:
That's correct.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So what's going to happen there?

TONY PIETRANGELO:
Well currently there's a blue ribbon commission studying the policy options for the U.S. on how to manage the back end of the fuel cycle. There's draft recommendations out right now I think for comment final recommendations are due at the end of the year. But there's lots of different ways to skin this cat but we do need a unified national policy on used fuel management.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I mean we've been talking about this for so long-- this really is a political issue right Charles?

CHARLES FERGUSON:
Right and a couple of weeks ago I put my name to a report - it was kind of a right left coalition report. What we were proposing is to have-- broaden the options to use market forces to try to create more incentive to deal with spent fuel in a safe and secure manner. So not just stick it to Yucca Mountain. We need more than one repository. If we look at the amount of spent fuels already accumulated in the United States it's something like 65,000 tons. We're almost at the congressional limit for Yucca Mountain.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Tom what do you think about this? What's the-- first of all should Americans be concerned about all this spent fuel that's sitting in these pools? Would it be better to put it somewhere else?

THOMAS COCHRAN:
They should be concerned about the spent fuel in the pools but it's a little complicated. First of all nuclear is the only technology-- energy technology where the federal government takes responsibility for disposing of the waste. And the federal government has now failed for the third time to build a repository or an interim solution. We as a society have a commitment to future generations to put this material away where it will not be a hazard to future generations. In the interim it can be stored safely in dry casts after it's cooled sufficiently--

JIM GLASSMAN:
And dry cast storage means you put these fuel rods in cement?

CHARLES FERGUSON:
Right.

THOMAS COCHRAN:
Once it's put in the dry casts in my judgment it can be stored safely as long as society is around to manage the casts.

JIM GLASSMAN:
We have to wrap up so let's end this way. What role should nuclear power play in domestic energy policy?

TONY PIETRANGELO:
Well currently it play-- it provides 20% of electricity generation in our country, 70% of the emission free generation in this country. It's the only expandable base load option we have that doesn't pollute the environment with greenhouse gases. So I think it plays an essential role in a diverse energy portfolio from an energy independent standpoint, from a air quality standpoint, from a job creation standpoint. Nuclear is a vital part of our energy portfolio in the U.S. If we end up going to more electric cars I think it could take on an even greater role because even though demand is forecast to be fairly low over the next 20, 30 years, 1 to 1.5% per year, over time-- and if we do get to an electric car economy, that's going to increase substantially and we'll need more electricity so--

JIM GLASSMAN:
Just to reiterate the point you made earlier you're saying the Fukushima did not destroy the American nuclear industry--

TONY PIETRANGELO:
Absolutely not.

JIM GLASSMAN:
--There's still more plants that are being built.

TONY PIETRANGELO:
Absolutely not.

JIM GLASSMAN:
I want to move to Tom on this question of what role should nuclear power play overall in U.S. energy policy.

THOMAS COCHRAN:
First of all if 104 reactors producing 20% of the electricity and those reactors are not going to be shutdown any time soon, the vast majority at least, and so it's going to continue to play a significant role. It's essential that we improve the safety of those operational nuclear plants. In terms of going forward the biggest problem the nuclear industry has is that the new plants are not economically competitive with other forms of production of electricity and with-- more importantly with energy efficiency that can reduce the demand.

JIM GLASSMAN:
Ok we've got to go to Charles on this last question about what's the role that nuclear's going to play in the overall energy picture.

CHARLES FERGUSON:
We as a society have to decide what do we value. We haven't talked much about climate change on this show and I know there's some skepticism about it but you know propounds evidence shows that the climate is changing a lot of scientists believe it's due to greenhouse gas emissions. You don't have to necessarily pick winners or losers and say we're going to subsidize nuclear, we're going to subsidize wind or solar etcetera. Instead you say we as a society decide this is what we're going to do in terms of trying to limit the emissions of these kinds of gases. You know the George H.W. Bush administration put in place a cap and trade system on sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions from coal plants that was creating a lot of acid rain in my home state of Pennsylvania in particular and that has been tremendously effective. It allowed the industry to figure out what worked best in terms of reducing those types of emissions and still provide electricity in this country.

JIM GLASSMAN:
So you think that if we place a high value on reducing emissions then nuclear becomes much more important.

CHARLES FERGUSON:
Absolutely.

JIM GLASSMAN:
And I think Tony brought that point up earlier that nuclear plants produce zero emissions. Would you like to see some kind of cap and trade law?

TONY PIETRANGELO:
We supported the legislation that was in congress.

THOMAS COCHRAN:
If you want to back out carbon, which we do, the cheapest, fastest, safest investment is not a new nuclear plant it's a new wind plant, solar plant, energy efficiency, combination of those with gas. So just because nuclear doesn't produce-- release carbon or-- significant amounts of carbon doesn't mean it's the best way to back out carbon from for example--

JIM GLASSMAN:
And I think this debate will continue. And thank you all. Thank you Charles, thank you Tony, and thank you Tom. And that's it for this week's Ideas in Action. I'm Jim Glassman, thanks for watching.

Keep in mind that you can watch Ideas in Action whenever and wherever you want. To watch highlights or complete programs just go to ideasinactiontv.com or download a podcast from the iTunes store. Ideas in Action because ideas have consequences.

ANNOUNCER:
For more information visit us at ideasinactiontv.com. Funding for Ideas in Action is provided by Investor's Business Daily. Every stock market cycle is led by America's never ending stream of innovative new companies and inventions. Investor's Business Daily helps investors find these new leaders as they emerge. More information is available at investors.com. This program is a production of Grace Creek Media and the George W. Bush Institute, which are solely responsible for its content.

]]>