Why?  News this past week gave us two very important reasons why we are making mistakes in the way we think about energy policy, particularly when it comes to understanding what to do about the price at the pump of gasoline.  The first came from yet-unpublished, political behavioral research reported by National Public Radio (NPR).  The second was a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), entitled, Energy Security in the United States.

NPR reported on the impact of belief.  It used analysis of the public’s views of the ability of an American president to affect the price of gasoline by a Dartmouth College political scientist, Brendan Nyhan.  It turns out that, during the Bush Administration, the public was just as divided as today about the impact of a presidential administration on the price of gasoline.  The difference is that, during the Bush Administration, Democrats believed that the administration could have done more to lower the price of gasoline while Republicans believed that the President could do little to affect markets.  Now, with the Obama Administration in place, it is the Republicans who tend to believe that the Administration could do something about the price of gas while Democrats tend to believe that little can be done.  Explained Mr. Nyhan, the public’s opinion is driven more by the desire to resolve cognitive dissonance rather than by the facts; in other words, if we like a president, we believe that he would intervene in the energy markets if only he could have an impact.  It is belief rather than fact that drives us.

The second important reason for explaining our energy policy mistakes came from the CBO.  Its report looked at whether more domestic energy production, i.e., using policies and incentives that encourage domestic drilling for oil would lead to lower gas prices.  The conclusion was that U. S. policy has little impact.  The reasoning is pretty straight forward.  Oil is a global commodity, and prices are set by supply and demand in a global marketplace.  Production of more domestic oil may or may not be desirable, but the reasoning behind policy and policy-related incentives should not be derived from the goal of lowering the price at the pump of gas; global markets will set prices.

So, should energy policy be essentially a policy of support for relatively free markets?  Probably yes.  Despite what we may believe as a result of our political proclivities, the price of gasoline will be driven by the price of oil in global markets, produced and marketed by global companies.  Where there may be reason to intervene in the markets, our policy and incentives should be focused on issues other than price.  For example, one could use policy and incentives to assure an increase in domestically-controlled sources of energy, but the reasons would be our security needs, our desire to increase jobs in the energy sector, or our beliefs that certain sources of energy are in jeopardy or certain sources of energy are inimical to health or environment.

Nevertheless, very sound argument can be made that the market place is still preferred over intervention into it. For example, we do not have to produce oil domestically in order to reduce our security risks; we can stockpile oil that is produced abroad.   In the end, we need to look very critically at energy policy and incentives that distorts markets, even when it appears to some, based on their beliefs, that intervention is warranted.

Mr. Armendariz explained that he was repeating what he had said to his staff.  That an EPA senior manager would advise his staff of such a random approach to regulatory enforcement is reprehensible.  That he would repeat what he said to his staff in a public forum was just stupid.  The incident brings considerable harm to the EPA’s willingness to abide by the rule of law, and it tends to confirm the very worst that some have believed about the EPA.

The contrast between Mr. Armendariz and the approach taken by Secretary Salazar and the Department of the Interior could not have been starker.  The Draft Rules on Public Disclosure of Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing appear to represent sound policy.  They would apply only to federal land, and for the most part, they outline practices already used by many reputable drillers in the industry:

• Public disclosure of chemicals being used in the fracking process would be required.
• A geological description of the rock layers would be required.
• A demonstration of well integrity would be required to assure the quality of the cement injected into the well; this demonstration is described as a cement bond log that would detect gaps or voids in the cement casing.
• Disclosure of the water source and its volume for fracking would be required along with information about the management of recovered fluids.

Regulations distort markets by virtue of their intervention.  The have the potential to limit technological innovation and consequently slow economic growth.  They also may have unintended consequences.  They are, however, not always bad.  But consideration of new regulations and their implementation should be done with great care.  Free markets must continue to function if we are to have reasonably priced energy that is readily available.  Where there is evidence of the violation of regulation, we should expect action by government, but we should also expect application of “the rule of law” and assurance of due process in the enforcement of government regulations. It appeared that Mr. Armendariz had no such intention in his approach to regulatory enforcement.

That is why it was heartening to see the changes under consideration by one accrediting body – AACSB International, the business accrediting association.  Following a practice that was used when I chaired AACSB a decade ago, AACSB’s leadership established a Blue Ribbon Committee to review all aspects of its accreditation processes and standards.  The Committee unveiled the changes it is considering at its annual meeting this week in San Diego California.

Among them were several proposals that recognize the transformation that education is undergoing; others, if they survive ensuing discussions among member schools, seem destined to address some of the criticisms of accrediting bodies by make business accreditation more meaningful and efficacious to prospective students and their employers.

The proposed changes that bring accreditation into the 21st century include examining more directly distance-learning alternatives that have been common among for-profit schools and increasingly so among traditional schools as well.  Another change would be to look at the role that non-teaching staff play in the education process.  Eschewed immediately by some in the audience, this change recognizes that the real growth area in employees on most campuses has not been among teachers and professors but among staff.  Staff increasingly plays roles that make them essential and complementary to teachers in the learning experience of students.

But the heart of some of the most important changes addresses the efficacy of the accreditation process.  Almost unnecessary, some might say, is discussion of assurance in the integrity of the information provided by the school to the accrediting body.  Another proposed change increases the emphasis on the stated mission of a business school; this change asks that schools go beyond mere statements of mission to ones that are both meaningful and distinctive.  Still another change, consistent with the growing role of distance and non-traditional learning was the elevation of the importance of student engagement, especially in distance learning.

Assurance of learning or outcomes assessment, as it is often called, was given new attention that also raises the potential efficacy of accreditation.  The proposed focus of changes will be on tying more closely assurance of learning to the curriculum improvement process, including assessing not just whether anticipated outcomes were achieved but whether the intended curriculum is the right curriculum – presumably for the jobs for which it is intend to prepare graduates.

Raising the quality of higher education is at the heart of our economic prosperity.  It was encouraging to see AACSB’s Blue Ribbon Committee’s report on its deliberations.

One question being addressed was – What will be the role for teachers?  Will demand for teachers decline?  John Katzman, founder of The Princeton Review and Executive Chairman of 2tor, forecast a decline in demand by one-third for teachers in K-12.  This was quickly disputed by Margery Mayer, president of Scholastic Education.  The issue that was being addressed was whether the increased introduction of hybrid models of education, e.g., flipped classrooms or blended learning, would reduce the need for teachers by substituting technology for the human role.

Ms. Mayer has it right.  Demand for teachers will not decline with the introduction of technology, at least not in the foreseeable future.  Mr. Katzman does have it right, however, about what teachers will be able to do with the increased introduction of hybrid technology.  The need for lectures, the presentation for factual material, etc. can decline.  But this decline in certain aspects of teaching with the introduction of concepts like the flipped classroom provides new opportunity for teachers.  It gives them a greater opportunity to interact with students, respond to questions, work with students who need more help, and guide advanced students to more challenging learning opportunities.

The real issue that underlies this discussion is not whether the demand for teachers will change but how the role of teachers will change.  The forecast of a change in the role in teachers has been around for almost two decades, beginning with discussions of technology and the “coach on the side” at least a decade and a half ago.  What is different today is that technology, pedagogy and innovative services have advanced considerably.  Those three elements are making real a very different role for teachers, one, thankfully, more like the classical role for teaching that we have wished for.  And they are coming in great part from the for-profit sector of the education industry.

In remarks on the last day of the Education Innovation Summit, former Governor Jeb Bush made four suggestions for a more successful education system: (1) raise expectations, (2) hold schools accountable, (3) reward great teachers and remove bad ones, and (4) harness the power of technology.  It is this last of his suggestions that is relevant here.  Technology can be harnessed, but only if we change the way teachers teach and change the way we educate teachers as well.  We must also be willing to accept that traditional educational institutions also increasingly need the innovations from the for-profit sector – either in partnership or as consumers of their products and services.

The Governor’s remarks were controversial for some; of particular controversy was his stated disappointment in colleges of education and the potential role that competition can play in changing teacher education.  He pointed to the role that community colleges have taken on as very considerable players in preparing teachers.  Whatever one may think of traditional colleges of education, it is this altered role for teachers that we must nurture – along with a willingness to accept a partnership from traditional education with the growing for-profit sector of the industry.  Together, these three elements -   harnessing technology, altering teacher education, and accepting a real role for the for-profit sector – offer us the potential to enlarge substantially our capacity to improve student learning.

The sold-out Summit brings together a diverse set of attendees from traditional educational institutions; innovative, for-profit companies and investors.  The buzz around investment in education is especially evident this year.  But the blending of traditional education with innovative solutions from the for-profit sector, long eschewed by many, is perhaps the most exciting element in this year’s Summit.  Anthony Kim, CEO and Founder of Education Elements, told the story of his company’s role in supporting blended learning to a packed room.

But it was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation session on innovation implementation that attracted even more attention.  This was the story of Adaptive Curriculum  and its role in making blended learning a reality.  While the founder and visionary, Ahmet Eti, was in the room, the story was told – not by Mr. Eti nor Jim Bowler, CEO – but by the representatives of the Madison School District from Phoenix Arizona.

Tim Ham, the Superintendent of Madison, along with Jay Mann, the Director of Technology, and Kim Thomas explained how the District had managed the change process and why it had chosen the math and science activity objects of Adaptive Curriculum to support its blended learning approach at the middle school level.  This was a story of managed cultural change for teachers and students in the face of budget cuts and the challenges of a high proportion of low-income students.   It was also a story of a company – Adaptive Curriculum – that offers a cloud-based solution to the online learning, supported by diverse forms of professional development for teachers.

Praise for Adaptive Curriculum created a reaction from the crowd when the Madison representatives explained that their only regret was that Adaptive Curriculum only offered math and science curricula.  They went on to comment that it is very hard to find software in other subject areas as “rich and functional” as the software from Adaptive Curriculum.  Already, said Mr. Ham, the Superintendent, two preliminary studies are demonstrating the positive impact of Adaptive Curriculum on students’ learning and test performance.

What a great education conference!

Consistent with earlier commentaries of this blog about the scientific research associated with fracking, e.g., Scholarly Research and the Dangers of Fracking, we are once again reminded that it is essential for U.S. energy policy to base policy in scientific research.  Scholars have been consistent in their conclusion that fracking is not associated with dangerous earthquakes.

Professor Tim Carr, a geologist from West Virginia University, was reported in the Charleston Daily Mail as admitting that fracking could be responsible for very minor seismic activity, but he sated, “These are much, much less than having a large truck go by. They are measured with sophisticated downhole tools and are used to map fracture stimulation treatments. No one could ever feel or even detect these events at the surface.”

Following minor seismic activity in England, Cuadrilla worked with Keele University and the British Geological Survey (BGS) with the research concluding that shale, which is the type of rock associated with fracking, was so breakable that it does not create enough tension to result in major seismic activity.

Just this week, Jay Keasling and Fuzhong Zhang published new findings in Nature Biotechnology that could make biofuels cheaper and more economically viable.  While we have known for some time how to produce diesel and other related fuels from plants like algae, we have not yet succeeded in making the process successful on a large scale.

The findings of these two researchers from the University of California Berkeley’s Joint BioEnergy Institute have confirmed the capability for engineered bacteria to engage in self-regulation that increases their efficiency and stability. Bacteria like E. coli produce enzymes that catalyze the synthesis of fatty acids, leading to the production of hydrocarbons like biodiesel.  By addressing the genetic regulator of bacteria, Professors Keasling and Zhang have demonstrated a means to improve yields.

Of course, there are still many issues that must be addressed in order to make biofuels a realistic source of a substantial amount of our energy.  Still, research like this brings us a little closer to a viable process for producing usable sources of renewable energy that augment our dependence on fossil fuels.

Companies like Adaptive Curriculum with their digital software for K-12 represent the future for education.  They do so with characteristics that make traditional textbooks, even with the accompaniment of some digital materials, essentially obsolete.  What they bring to the student and teacher is:

• Accessibility
• Flexibility
• Adaptability
• Online continuous refresh of the educational materials

When compared with traditional textbooks, these characteristics make digital materials the obvious choice for the future of education.  There is no question, however, that challenges are ahead.  For example, considerable training and retraining of teachers will be essential for the use of this software. It is not likely, in the foreseeable future at least, that digital materials and online schools will replace the traditional teacher.  But it is likely that the role of teachers will change.  That is why companies like Adaptive Curriculum have made teacher professional development so much a part of what they do.

This new form of educational material also faces obstacles associated with access to the internet, particularly in rural school districts where speed of access, state-of-the-art equipment and technological support remain deficient relative to the needs of the schools.  It will be up to states to make improvements that address these deficiencies if we are to see students from some of our lowest income families with the capability of moving into more sophisticated jobs and obtaining advanced education and training beyond high school.

A further challenge is to provide students and teachers with the mobile hardware that is so essential to the use of educational software.  While some districts are adopting mobile devices like the tablet, these districts are usually the wealthier ones.  Addressing availability and cost is a complex challenge, but the marketplace is already responding with new devices at lower prices from a wide variety of hardware companies like Apple, Dell, Intel, etc.

Finally, there is still more development ahead for software companies.  Questions about the role of digital materials as a sometime substitute for the teacher in one-on-one learning, as an adjunct to the teaching process, and as a substitute for traditional textbooks will only be answered over the next few years.

I applaud where we are headed in improving education via technological solutions.  Working together, the for-profit sector and our public and private schools increasingly have the potential of raising the quality of education.

Kai is the co-founder and president of InsideTrack, a company that provides coaching to undergraduate students.  The individualized coaching from trained InsideTrack coaches provides support for students in a proactive, systematic intervention that precedes the many areas where undergraduate students can stumble in the course of a university experience.

As Kai observes in the interview, universities understand the challenge and have good intentions.  Colleges and universities increasingly are adding programs in order to increase the success of undergraduates (see my blog: Freshman Persistence and the Undergraduate Experience). The variety of programs that universities offer is certainly indicative of intent.  They often include student counseling centers, academic success centers with tutoring, peer-to-peer mentoring, writing programs, cohort scheduling of freshman classes.  What is often missing is also telling.

Few universities have approached the provision of these services with three critical ingredients: (1) a comprehensive plan that addresses raising the quality of the undergraduate experience with identification of interventions that address the particular campus culture, (2) the provision of services that proactively identify the most at-risk students with systematic intervention, and (3) outcomes measurement of the efficaciousness of the interventions.

What I have observed in my work with Kai and InsideTrack is the following: (a) close collaboration with an institution with systematic coaching of students before they get into trouble, (b) training, monitoring and evaluation of the InsideTrack coaches, and (c) well-designed research that addresses the efficaciousness of the coaching intervention with randomized complete block design.

I applaud the growing determination of colleges and universities to raise graduation rates. What I hope accompanies that determination is planning, provision of systematic services, and sound design of the evaluation of services.

This ACE meeting called attention to widespread concern with student access and success.  ASU President Michael Crow made clear the challenge that we confront in reaching President Obama’s 2020 goal for number of college graduates in his comments on the very low percentage of college-educated citizens who come from the bottom income quartile.  The questions being asked were: How do we create access for these low income students?  How do we assure that they persist and graduate?

These are the wrong questions.  Instead, we should ask: How do we create a quality undergraduate experience?  In other words, how do we create the kind of undergraduate experience that is attractive to students whose families have little or no experience with college, whose incomes don’t provide room for tuition and whose preparation is probably inadequate for college work?

Too few colleges and universities are critically examining the undergraduate experience and rethinking it for this lowest income quartile.  Yes, most have some scholarships, and yes, there are special freshman retention programs.  But are those scholarships sufficient to avoid large loans?  The for-profits are finding themselves attacked, in part, because they serve more low income and non-traditional students who take out large government-backed loans.

Are the varied freshman retention programs working?  Too few colleges and universities are evaluating the plethora of retention programs using critical metrics and following that evaluation with public support of the successful ones and swift action to discard the unsuccessful.

Too few colleges and universities are evaluating the reach of successful programs.  Just having a tutoring or mentoring program is seen as enough by some colleges and universities.  That they reach only 10% of freshmen does not receive critical attention.  A successful program really is only successful if it reaches a broad range of students and demonstrates evidence of success in their retention, academic performance and graduation.

Too few colleges and universities are examining what happens after the freshmen year, for example, to their sophomore students who may become discouraged by their major and dropout before their junior year.  Questions like the following should be asked about the admissions process and the post-freshman experience: What programs are necessary in the admissions process to create more realistic expectations for college such that those expectations are realized in the college experience?  How is engagement maintained once students move off-campus?  How effective is the undergraduate experience in responding to an increasing desire from students for application in their studies?  How effective is the undergraduate experience in recognizing cultural differences, e.g., the family orientation and commitments of Latino and Native American students?

And finally, too few colleges and universities are developing, implementing and evaluating comprehensive plans associated with the quality of the undergraduate experience.  Action is necessary if we are to raise the quality of the undergraduate experience and realize the President’s 2020 goal.  Those actions are especially necessary for the success of especially the lowest income quartile:

• A presidential or provostial level focus on the undergraduate experience and the quality of it,
• A comprehensive plan with widespread student reach for improving the quality of the experience,
• Implementation of the plan, and
• Evaluation of its outcomes with swift endorsement of successful components and elimination of the unsuccessful ones