LearnmoreMN Blog

Why we need to pass the Minnesota Prosperity/Dream Act

By Juventino Meza, May guest blogger

Note: The MN Senate passed SF723 May 1 in a bipartisan basis, 41-23. Now it will be amended into the Higher Education Omnibus bill in Conference Committee, and then head for a final vote on both chambers. Gov. Mark Dayton has signaled that he will sign it.

When it comes to Minnesota, there are many things we should brag about: a lot of lakes, great businesses and great educational institutions are among them.

A few things we should not brag about: our embarrassing achievement and opportunity gaps, along with our future forecast of high numbers of retirees and too few workers with the educational qualifications our state needs. It’s actually kind of scary because all of this will impact how we do policy around education, health care, taxes and other issues for decades to come.

Here’s a small piece we can do today to address some of our future issues: pass the Minnesota Prosperity/Dream Act (SF723/HF875). Senator Sandy Pappas and Representative Carlos Mariani, along with 35 bipartisan co-authors introduced this bill to recognize certain undocumented youth as Minnesota residents for the purposes of eligibility for state financial aid and in-state tuition if they:

• Have gone to a Minnesota high school for 3 years;
• Receive their diploma or equivalent;
• File an affidavit with the respective college/university saying they will apply to change their immigration status as soon as they are able.

According to a study on state-based Dream Acts around the nation:

• In-state tuition results in a 31% increase in non-citizen enrollment in institutes of higher education.
• In-state tuition is correlated with a 14% decrease in high school dropouts among non-citizen Latinos.
• The benefits associated with in-state tuition do not appear to come at a financial cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

This is only based on in-state tuition; imagine the numbers if we equalize our financial aid for all Minnesota graduates.

Minnesota should be at the forefront of exploring and developing mechanisms that allow immigrant students to access and finance higher education that will keep more students in school, allow them to graduate from high school or obtain their GED, and attend and finish college in Minnesota (and subsequently live and work in Minnesota).

Even with federal immigration reform, Minnesota has to pass the Minnesota Prosperity Act

Like many other proposals, this bill has stalled in the House of Representatives in part due to leadership focusing on the U of M and MnSCU and confusion about it being a “federal issue.” However, if you look at the merits of the bill, it’s the opposite. Minnesota has the authority and the obligation to give its students a fair shot at higher education. Minnesota students shouldn’t be begging to be allowed to go to college, especially at a time when we will have a shortage of qualified workers.

Moreover, the federal government is debating immigration reform and we need to understand that it will be left to the states to decide to give in-state tuition and financial aid to undocumented youth who are legalized through federal action. It will not provide federal financial aid (the current proposal even says so in the DREAM Act section).

Some ask, “why should we let these students go to college if they cannot legally work?” Some undocumented students are already eligible to legally work through Deferred Action, a federal program (only for certain students who graduated from high school or got their GED). Minnesota should prepare more students who will eventually benefit from federal reform. It’s in the best interests of the state — economically, for our workforce and for closing the achievement gap.

Minnesota Prosperity Act/Dream Act uniquely enjoys broad support

By the time a student graduates from high school, Minnesota has already invested significant resources in their success. To prevent that student from pursuing higher education would be to squander our investment. The Center for American Progress estimates that allowing DREAMers equal access to financial aid would create 1,600 jobs and add an additional $359 million to Minnesota's economy over the next 10 years.

SF723/HF875 has the unique support of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Education Minnesota. It’s supported by the community, student groups, business organizations, faith groups, the U of M, the Minnesota Private College Council, MnSCU, Agri-Growth Council, Chicano Latino Affairs Council, Latino Economic Development Center and many others.

Ultimately, these are students who grew up in Minnesota. They are as Minnesotan as anybody else. We cannot afford to lose the opportunity to tap into talent already in our state.

More information

• View a letter signed by supporters of SF723/HF875
• View a list of other public supporters
• Citizens League's 2009 study on immigrant students' access to higher education
• Find out what you can do

Academic success depends on being valued

By Alissa Case and Asma Haidara, December guest bloggers

On Nov. 13, approximately 300 educators and youth came together to discuss issues of equity in education at an event called “Missing Voices,” held at Saint Mary’s University. One of the predominant themes of the day was how important the voices of students are to creating more equitable environments in our schools, though they are often absent from the conversation. In the spirit of collaboration and seeking multiple perspectives, we have decided to co-write this month — as a Saint Mary’s University staff member and Blake School student — on a few of our deeply held beliefs pertaining to our passion for the success of all students.

On a daily basis, students attend school gearing up to deal with a variety of scenarios and to make countless decisions. Whether it’s “will my clothes look good” or “will I fail my test” or simply “will I get a ride to the game,” there are a litany of questions filing through a student’s head at any given moment. Teachers hope that each of their students comes to school prepared to learn and participate. However, they rarely have the time to give attention to the many stresses that students carry with them. For some students, these stresses are compounded by the numerous interactions throughout the day that undermine and attack their very identity. These interactions are called microaggressions.

Simply stated, a microaggression is any instance where one person’s identity is demeaned whether intentionally or unintentionally. Those who experience these constant social cuts most often come from marginalized groups. It can look like this:

• “Am I in the right class?” (a student to a teacher upon entering an honors class and noticing the only students present so far are students of color).
• “Why do you act so white?” (white student to black student).
• “I didn’t know people like you were into sports” (straight student to gay student).
• “Where did you learn English? You speak it so well!” (teacher to student).

Why should educators be highly tuned in to these types of remarks? Because our students’ success absolutely depends on it. Every seemingly small comment that is made continues to tear down a student’s self-image and makes them question their abilities in class. How can students ever reach their full potential if their psyche and esteem are being destroyed throughout their educational experiences?

One of the major tenets of culturally responsive teaching is the idea that in order to succeed, a student must be validated and affirmed. This is not just a soft, feeling-oriented concept, but a skill that requires constant self-reflection and practice. In order to effectively advocate for our students and interject in scenarios like those mentioned above, educators need to be aware of their personal bias, what kind of environment they are creating in their classrooms/schools, and how their students are present in both explicit and implicit curriculum (i.e. where and how does each student see a mirror of her/himself in what you are doing?).

In order to build this skill we suggest that educators reflect on the following questions:

• What are my expectations and assumptions of individual students when I first meet them?
• Where are my expectations and assumptions rooted?
• How do I check my own assumptions that may hurt my students’ opportunity to learn?
• How open am I to engaging in conversations with students on topics that make me feel uncomfortable?
• How do I intentionally engage/include each of my students in my daily objectives?
• How does each of my students know they are valued?
• How do I facilitate an environment of trust and safety?

We are curious to hear your input. We invite you to share your stories, either as an educator or a student, of how your personal identity was honored or dishonored in a given space. How was the situation handled? What was the impact of how it was handled? How could reflecting on the above questions provide you with a different strategy in future scenarios?

Should we be spooked by MOOCs?

By Todd Bloom, October guest blogger

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are a popular topic in higher education. But what will be their impact on student learning and outcomes?  Are they a short-lived trend or a means to transform education opportunities for all types of learners?

The idea of scalable free online courses has gained traction quickly: the for-profit company Coursera, for example, recently added 16 higher education partners, more than doubling the number of institutions they work with and expanding the number of courses they offer to nearly 200.  And edX, a nonprofit founded by Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology now hosts courses from Berkeley and the University of Texas System as well.

What type of learning experiences do MOOCs offer? Like online learning in K-12, the MOOCs with the most successful student outcomes impart discrete knowledge and focus on technical content — STEM courses, for example.

While MOOCs give large numbers of people access to the course content of renowned institutions, the scale of the classes limits the support available for students. Contrary to in-person and traditional online courses, students generally don’t receive help from the instructor when they raise their hands or exhibit other signs of needing assistance.

MOOCs normally do enable peer interaction, but beyond crowdsourcing, successful students must be independent and thrive in a relatively inflexible instructional environment. EdX did a limited study of students who performed well in a MOOC and found most had taken a similar course before and had completed any suggested academic preparation.

In September, the Gates Foundation announced that they will award 10 grants for the creation of MOOCs to provide remedial coursework. In particular, they want applicants to focus on introductory classes with a primary audience of low-income and first generation students. Educators will be watching to see if the grantees can maintain the scale of MOOCs while delivering the individual support successful remediation requires.

Students have a variety of reasons for taking MOOCs, which tend to fall in three categories:

• Personal satisfaction and growth
• Mastery of content that can be shown to an employer
• Academic credit (see LearningCounts.org as an example)

The University of Texas System recently took a step toward using MOOCs as a means to accelerate degree completion while containing costs. System leaders believe that having more options for students taking bridge courses (introductory classes required for multiple degree programs) will alleviate the problem of those courses being over-enrolled.

As institutions find creative ways to use MOOCs to broaden educational opportunities for all students, colleges and universities need to go a step beyond putting in place a credentialing process. Students in MOOCs need the same support as traditional students in developing an academic roadmap.

MOOCs are a huge opportunity for institutions to give students a taste of their best offerings and for students to get a taste of college success. What do you think? Can MOOCs promote student achievement and degree completion?

Focusing on college readiness is only half the story

By Chris Stewart, July guest blogger

Recently Myron Orfield of the University of Minnesota stunned participants in a community meeting by stating the difference he discovered in two Minnesota high schools. One suburban high school Orfield studied received visits from over 200 colleges in the past year. In contrast, at an urban high school North Minneapolis there were just two visits from colleges.

Orfield’s point was to illustrate spatial mismatch of opportunity that is caused by re-segregating public schools. However, my takeaway was a little different. While nearly every school district it the country has some form of commitment to preparing “college-ready” students, few communities have done all they can to demystify college for non-traditional students and their families. Even with excellent programs that offer graduation coaches and additional support to get students into college, there is often not enough support to get them through college.

College completion, after all, is the real goal and it’s no secret that we’re not getting there with our disadvantaged student populations.

The numbers are telling. Though the percentage of students of color enrolled in degree-granting institutions doubled from 15% in 1976 to over 34% in 2009, few come out the other end with their intended degree. For instance, in public four-year universities, less than 40% of African Americans graduate within six years. We may be doing a better job of getting disadvantaged students (women, low-income, and students of color) to the college doors, but too few of them are graduating. Experience is teaching us that we can get more students into college without truly impacting the college graduation gap.

Thankfully, Minnesota education officials plan to address the completion gap with solid construction of a K-14 pipeline. Commissioner Brenda Cassellius, Director Larry Pogemiller, and Chancellor Steven Rosenstone, respectively, are aligning the Department of Education, Office of Higher Education, and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities to close the gap between secondary and college. By offering high school students more access to college level coursework, leaders hope to increase college readiness and completion for Minnesota students, while also reducing remediation once students reach college.

It is hugely important for students to complete rigorous course work earlier, and for expectations in high schools to be more aligned with colleges. Programs like the University of Minnesota’s College In the Schools (CIS) meet that objective by preparing high school teachers to deliver college courses on site, providing students an opportunity to earn high school and college credit for free. Advanced placement and International Baccalaureate programming also lift students closer to college level. Indeed, there are a number of great site-based options for high schools to better prepare students, but there is one problem with most of them: they do a poor job of truly demystifying college for students that need more demonstrative examples of post-secondary life.

To their credit, legislators expanded Post-Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) last year. That program allows high school students to attend college classes and earn college credits for free. This allows students to experience college academically and physically. Actually placing students into college earlier is a great way to expose them to the realities they will face later. Unfortunately, many within the education establishment have been slow to market and support PSEO to the students that could really use the opportunity.

Given the daunting average college graduation rates it is clear why we might succumb to the perceived inevitability of graduation inequity. However, looking at how the college persistence gap (the extent to which students stay in college) differs in different colleges and universities helps us see a more productive picture. Some schools are addressing academic and social factors to keep students in college, and in some cases the efforts are so successful that African American graduation rates are similar or better than white students. These schools start with a universal commitment to seeing minority student performance as a core part of their mission. Departments are asked to create comprehensive plans and establish stretch goals for graduation rates. Staff members engage at all levels to play a role in an “early alert” system to intervene with “intrusive” supports for struggling students. Some schools offer early summer starts so students have more time to acclimate to college. Some have peer-mentoring systems that improve academics and promote a healthy, inclusive school culture. The bottom line is that schools with better than average graduation rates for non-traditional students take proactive, structural, and cultural actions to achieve results.

While we in Minnesota labor over renewed calls for K-12 racial integration, or work for better alignment between K-12 and post-secondary; we should also expect changes in our colleges that make them relevant to the emerging class of students that have succeeded more in entering college than exiting one with a degree.

Separate but equally important?

By Dale A. Blyth, Ph.D., February guest blogger

In my earlier post this month I spoke of the necessity of equal learning opportunities in not only the formal but also the informal and non-formal learning approaches available to young people beyond the classroom. For more on that inequality theme you might want to read recent blogs by John Kuhn.

But today I want to ask whether all three types of learning opportunities are separate and equally important? Do the inequities in these informal and non-formal learning opportunities really matter? Briefly consider results from four studies:

• One found 75% of Nobel-prize winning scientists (PDF, 23 KB) first got excited and engaged in science in informal and non-formal ways — not in the classroom.
• Another estimates that over 25% of the achievement gap in 9th grade test scores can be explained by differences in learning opportunities before they started school (inequality in early childhood learning opportunities) while almost half can be explained by difference due to summer learning loss (PDF, 328 KB) (inequalities in informal and non-formal learning opportunities over the summer from first to sixth grade). The gap actually closed during the school year.
• Another study that beeped youth at different times during the day and asked whether they were concentrating and motivated (two important conditions for learning) found that youth in schools were concentrating slightly more but not very motivated, youth with friends were highly motivated but not concentrating, and only youth in non-formal learning opportunities were both concentrating and more motivated.
• Finally, when elementary and middle school youth who are typically on the wrong side of the achievement gap became engaged in quality non-formal afterschool learning opportunities, over two years their math achievement scores improved more than three times as much as seen in a study that lowered student teacher ratios in math classes.

Each approach to learning adds to both the learning process and its outcomes.

We often think about formal educational opportunities as the “engine” of learning — and rightly so. But what research shows us is that we need a car not just an engine if learning is to go anywhere.

Perhaps if we recognized that informal learning opportunities provide the structure that learning needs for an engine to deliver its power we would invest more in it.

Perhaps if we recognized that non-formal opportunities put wheels on learning that allows it to go, we would think more about the ways communities, including schools, support youth programs, camps, and other community learning opportunities beyond the classroom.

And, perhaps most importantly, if we recognized that a young person’s engagement and passion for learning provides the very fuel needed to drive learning anywhere, we would pay more attention and allocate more resources to understanding, assessing and improving how youth become engaged youth in their own learning in all these approaches.

Just like for effective transportation, we need a complete vehicle and road system to get anywhere. Learning requires more working “parts” than just an engine — no matter how powerful — that play separate but equally important roles in moving learning along. These parts need to come together in comprehensive systems as a recent report on supporting youth success (PDF, 1.9 MB) notes.

One final point on the “separate and equally important” idea — it also applies to what we must measure and monitor for success. Just as one cannot keep a car working and moving forward by only assessing the odometer that tells you how far it has gone (like achievement tests do for learning), if we want to close gaps in learning outcomes, we must find separate but important measures that tells us how our learning vehicle is working and how far it is getting in its journey.

While this must include assessing the effectiveness of the formal engine of schooling, it also includes monitoring the support from the people in our youths’ lives to make sure the appropriate lubrication is there and the “pressure” is there for performance. It includes a fuel gauge that monitors whether the young person is on empty or full of a passion for learning. It might mean assessing our communities to ensure they have multiple on ramps to learning through a systematic approach to informal and non-formal community learning opportunities.

Perhaps in the end it is important to simply recognize that a successful learning journey takes more than good schools. It takes many separate but equally important parts that come together effectively and interesting places to go. Perhaps as John Kuhn argues in the blogs noted earlier that it is time to recognize poverty and its effects on learning are not inevitable. Isn’t it time for policy “mechanics” to recognize that it requires more than tuning up schools to close the learning opportunities gap.

Can our youth succeed with unequal learning opportunities?

By Dale A. Blyth, Ph.D., February guest blogger

The idea of equal educational opportunities in America has been a driving force for a long time. From the Brown vs. Board of Education decision that separate schools are inherently unequal — to a variety of present day efforts to improve schools, we continue to believe educational opportunities are the key to a better future. Education still benefits from its image as the great equalizer even if schools are decreasingly seen as delivering on that goal.

Today these efforts more often are denoted by the poor result — the achievement gap — than by the cry for equal opportunity. And unfortunately Minnesota is a leader in almost all the wrong ways in this area with the second worst achievement gap in the nation. It is not just that our white students do better but that our minority students do worse.

What would happen if we shifted back to a social justice approach that emphasized the importance of equal opportunities — but with an important twist. What if we called for equality in LEARNING opportunities?

Why shift from “education” to “learning” language? Because our society has shifted to a 24/7 array of learning opportunities related to technology, media and fundamental changes in our economy and way of life. In the report A New Day For Learning there is a call to rethink the learning day as well as the time and places where learning occurs. We must begin to shift from an emphasis on education as formal schooling only and learners only as students. Instead we need to recognize that learning takes place in many ways, at many different times, and in many different places. We need to move from only caring about the equality of opportunities for students in school and begin to think about equalizing opportunities for children and youth as active engaged learners in families, schools, programs and communities.

Youth as engaged learners with equal access to an array of learning opportunities should become our driving goal. Youth certainly need opportunities to become engaged in school as students focused on learning content and skills. But they also need opportunities to become engaged in informal settings with parents, mentors, peers and community members in learning about new places and ideas such as visiting museums or engaged in community service. And just as important, and perhaps an area where we can make more systematic progress, are opportunities to become engaged in non-formal settings such as youth programs where youth choose what they want to learn and can develop a sense of mastery, belonging and confidence that they are important actors in their own learning and that what they do matters.

Perhaps dramatically increasing the percentage of youth at age 14 who are constructively engaged in their own learning through multiple learning opportunities is just as important a goal as reading by third grade.

We must find ways to shift the debate from a narrow focus on equal educational opportunities through schools designed to close a test score gap, toward the far larger problems of inequality in access to quality LEARNING opportunities — opportunities that are a mix of informal, non-formal and formal. Such a debate must come to recognize and address the inequalities in access to and the value of engagement in summer, afterschool and the variety of community learning opportunities beyond the classroom. It is these inequalities that are both a major cause of the achievement gap as well as a major source of young people’s disengagement from the learning process.

It is this OPPORTUNITY GAP that we must close from cradle to career if we are to not only close the achievement gap but support success for all youth in college, work, citizenship and life.

Calling it as I see it

Why the use of the term “achievement gap” makes a bad situation worse

By Nekima Levy-Pounds, May guest blogger

For years, we have invariably used the term “achievement gap” to describe educational disparities between white and black youths in Minnesota. It occurs to me that this term fails to accurately articulate the truth of why children of color are falling through the cracks within our public education system. For one, the term “achievement gap” is deficit-based language that implies that blame for children’s failure to “achieve” falls upon their own shoulders and is a result of their unwillingness or lack of motivation to work hard in school. (It is the Horatio Alger “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” myth in disguise.) However, for many children who struggle in school, external circumstances like chronic poverty and marginalization often hinder them from obtaining equal opportunities to achieve success.

For example, a child who has attended school in a wealthy suburban area typically receives advantages to which a poor child would not ordinarily be privy. The child in the wealthier community will likely gain access to more highly qualified teachers, newer textbooks, access to the latest technology, smaller class sizes, privately-financed extra-curriculars and inside knowledge of the unwritten customs and rules of mainstream society.

Meanwhile, a poor child of color is forced to contend with less qualified teachers, used or even no textbooks, lower teacher expectations, over-crowded classrooms, and a lack of racial diversity and cultural competence amongst teachers. Further, the recent report entitled: "Double Jeopardy: How Third- Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation" (Annie E. Casey Foundation) establishes that “children whose families live in poverty often lack resources for decent housing, food, clothing, and books, and they often do not have access to high quality child care and early education... .”

Rather than labeling the cumulative effects of these conditions as an “achievement gap,” I prefer the analysis provided by Carter G. Woodson, who wrote a book describing these issues in 1933, aptly called, The Mis-Education of the Negro.  Thus, I see the educational disparities as the result of “mis-education” or an “opportunity gap” experienced by poor children of color. In order to tackle these issues effectively, we have to provide equal access to educational opportunities, teachers qualified to teach poor children of color and language that accurately identifies the issues. In essence, the “achievement gap” rhetoric is a misnomer that sets us back, rather than pushes us forward in creating equal opportunities to succeed for all children.

Seeking educational equity in our state

By Kathleen O'Donnell, guest blogger

As education reform catches fire and gains focus in the Minnesota philanthropic community (see In tough economy, nonprofits refocus and Giving Forum), where is innovation being nurtured? What are the essentials to getting and maintaining educational equity in our state?

The 2009 season of The Minneapolis Foundation’s Minnesota Meeting public affairs forum focused on equity in education. Dozens of corporate and foundation sponsors helped us convene three events to foster constructive dialogue on different aspects of the issue. View a summary of a few of the recommendations generated throughout the series. Visit Minnesota Meeting.com to view all three events, download fact sheets, and read event summaries. The statistics in Minnesota speak for themselves. What do you think?

The Minneapolis Foundation’s new strategic plan (over and above donor-directed grantmaking) includes a focus on promoting social, economic, and racial equity in our community. One of the key areas towards which the Foundation will target resources to help achieve equity is through grantmaking, partnership, and leadership activities that help transform education. Learn more about The Minneapolis Foundation’s strategic plan, in particular the focus on transforming education.

What do you think the next steps should be? Where are the greatest opportunities? How should Minnesotans embrace the charge to do “whatever it takes” to ensure the success of all of our children — and thereby our future economy?

The Role of the Black Community in Educating Black Children

By Josie Johnson, March Guest Blogger

In her March 12, 2008 column, “Evidence shows classmates’ color is not a key factor in achievement” Katherine Kersten stated in her charge of “social engineering” that the various academic plans to offer parents and students choice and to close the achievement gap were based on a belief  “that Black children can’t learn adequately unless they are sitting next to white children.”

That premise has confused many educators, parents and ordinary citizens for nearly 54 years —  the belief that busing is a means of placing Black children next to white children so they can learn. Educators, parents, and policy makers offer many theories about learning and learning environments. However, none of the theories or plans is based on an osmosis theory.

In my judgment, what Black children need is an equal opportunity to be educated. Black parents and other community people must find the energy, strength, unity and commitment to remind Black children of their education history. Black children need an environment of safety and teachers who respect them and support their learning process and progress. This process must include spiritual leaders, community partners and the children’s homes.

The learning process includes Black adults being involved in all that affects Black children. That includes the emotional health of Black children.

Evidence suggest that educators, parents and others must agree that the time has come, again, to address the following issues more directly:

• The quality of education Black children are receiving;
• The experiences of Black children at the end of their school day;
• The extents to which Black children are prepared to compete for the benefits of society others enjoy and,
• The extent to which Black children, today, feel inferior while attending majority white or majority Black school.

As we continue to develop and promote plans to educate our children we must develop a sense of “peoplehood” that embraces the entire Black community. In other words, we need a consciousness that requires all Black adults to be concerned about all Black children, and all Black adults acting responsively for the safety and welfare of the Black community.

This attitude will benefit all people and the whole community.