NEWS | July 2006 - all articles

This page includes all articles in the July issue. Return to summary of articles.

The generational effects of education
Meslow scholarship completes first year
President's column: We should determine now how best to protect the state's future
Higher ed accountability proposals advance
New survey information

The generational effects of education

Minnesota Private College Fund recipients include many first generation students. See related story about the Meslow First Generation Scholarships

America may be the land of opportunity, but college attainment is still a form of social stratification that tends to perpetuate itself from one generation to the next. High school graduates whose parents have attended college are far more likely to attend college themselves than their classmates from non-college educated families. 

Recent analysis of college enrollments from the Minnesota Office of Higher Education finds that one in four college students in state are “first generation,” meaning neither of their parents attended college. Although a Star Tribune editorial from earlier this spring touted this figure as a positive sign of the expansion of educational opportunity, some demographic context might have led them to a different conclusion.

According to U.S. Census data, 40 percent of adults in the generation including the parents of current Minnesota college students, never attended college. So if educational opportunity were equal, we would expect about the same percentage of students to come from non-college-educated parents. Minnesota’s first generation college enrollment rate of 25 percent is actually quite low, when compared to their parents’ generation. In fact, Minnesota students whose parents did not go on to college are only about half as likely to enroll in higher education as their classmates. 

Moreover, Minnesota’s performance on this measure lags behind states such as California, Connecticut and Illinois where roughly one in three college students are the first in their families to attend and where first generation students are almost equally as likely to enroll as students whose parents attended college themselves. 

First-generation students are more likely to be lower income, to be less academically prepared and to have limited access to information about college than their peers. We can help these students enter higher education: Programs such as Admission Possible and two from TRiO — Educational Talent Search and Upward Bound — are designed to assist such students with academic preparation and the college search process. In the 2003-2004 school year, 11 TRiO projects served more than 2,400 students at our member schools. The results are stunning: Upward Bound students are four times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree than those students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in TRiO. Unfortunately, the TRiO programs in Minnesota are estimated to reach only one in 10 eligible students.

More first-generation students should be enrolling in Minnesota institutions; one in four is not a high enough share. Policymakers need to embrace that goal and make the necessary investments in programs that have been proven to help such students successfully prepare for and enter higher education. 

Meslow scholarship completes first year

The Minnesota Private College Fund (MPCF) has responded to the growing need for support of first-generation college students by establishing two new scholarship funds. The Meslow First Generation Scholarship — now beginning its second year — is intended for promising first-generation students from families with annual incomes of less than $50,000. The Access and Equity (A&E) Scholarship Fund is MPCF’s newest offering, providing support for students of color, new Americans or first-generation students.

Starting in 2005-06, 17 freshmen (selected by financial aid officers at each of our 17 schools) received a $5,000 Meslow scholarship. Recipients must be the first in their families to attend college, U.S. citizens, maintain a minimum GPA of 2.5 and demonstrate involvement in campus and/or community activities. Returning Meslow scholars will have their scholarship renewed for a second year if they continue to meet scholarship criteria.

The Meslow First Generation Scholarship was established by John Meslow, former Minnesota Private College Council (MPCC) board member, and his wife, Karen. "As a former MPCC board member, I am well aware that we must continue to find ways to provide qualified students with financial access to our institutions," John Meslow said. "My wife, Karen, and I recognize that first generation students in particular, don't attend college in the numbers they might and often require special support. To launch the college careeers of talented first generation students, we were pleased to establish the Meslow First Generation Scholarship."
 
The Access & Equity Scholarship was established with lead gifts by Cub Foods and SUPERVALU. Fundraising for the A&E Scholarship continues, with hopes of distributing the first scholarships in 2007. Anyone interested in supporting this fund should contact the Minnesota Private College Fund.

President's column: We should determine now how best to protect the state's future

Minnesota is at a critical juncture for its economic and social future. Demographic changes are radically altering the age composition of its population and workforce, the ethnic and preparatory characteristics of its school age population and the future supply of educated citizens and workers. The public’s understanding of the nature and extent of the nation’s real competition for leadership and success in the future is incomplete and not rooted in reality. In many respects Minnesota’s specific challenges reflect those that the nation must address in general. Unfortunately, policymakers at both state and federal levels have not addressed the strategic changes which will be required to prepare for a stable and successful future.

With increasing retirements among baby boomers and GI Bill recipients from the post-World War II period, Minnesota is losing a talent pool that has been leading our economy and community. In the coming years we will need to replace nearly half of our K-12 teachers, nearly half of our college professors, a high percentage of our practicing scientists and other professional leaders in the varied and complex fields of our economy. At the same time, we will experience a decline in high school and college graduates and dramatic changes in the composition of the next generation preparing for high school and beyond. The changes required for Minnesota to remain competitive and stable will require radical changes in educational success rates and redistribution of the subsidies within the educational structures.

While we in Minnesota and the U.S. wait for our public policy leaders to develop reliable strategies for the future, our competitors for intellectual capital and economic leadership are acting aggressively in their own interest. While we in Minnesota and the U.S. struggle with divergent views on how to protect our national boundaries, other nations are offering substantial inducements to attract undergraduate and graduate students who would otherwise be attending our nation’s best colleges. And while we in Minnesota and the U.S. consider ways to stabilize or reduce investments in higher education and its students, nearly all of the nations in the developing world are making major strategic investments in their own economic and social futures with increased support for students and institutions of higher education. It is encouraging that business leaders are publicly addressing our education challenges and the need for significant change. In a 2005 report prepared for the National Academy of Sciences to submit to the Congress, a distinguished panel of business and educational leaders summed up its analysis in the following quote:

“Without a renewed effort to bolster the foundations of our competitiveness, we can expect to lose our privileged position. For the first time in generations, the nation’s children could face poorer prospects than their parents and grandparents did.” (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, National Academy of Sciences 2005).

The calls for strategic and systemic changes for the future are both echoes of the past and a reminder that the pace of change today penalizes those who wait and delay. Operating in a global context within an economy capable of competing as that of a small nation, Minnesota will become increasingly dependent on its intellectual capital. It is how we should proceed, not whether, that should be an urgent topic for broad public discussion and an agenda for future action.

— David B. Laird, Jr.

For more background on our global competition, view MPCC's “While We Are Sleeping” presentation PDF (176 KB)

Higher ed accountability proposals advance

On both the state and national level, proposals are moving ahead that aim to provide policymakers and the public with measures for gauging the performance of higher education. Whether such measures can be consistently applied to the wide range of different institutions with different missions and curricula is an important question.

STATE DISCUSSION
In Minnesota, in response to request from Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Legislature, work has progressed on offering a clearer view of the overall performance of the state’s higher education sector. In June the state’s Office of Higher Education released 15 proposed indicators, which were developed under contract by National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS), an educational research consulting firm. NCHEMS consulted with stakeholders statewide, including the Minnesota Private College Council.

NCHEMS’ proposed Minnesota indicators tie into five recommended goals for higher education in Minnesota:

• Improve success of all students, particularly students from groups underrepresented in higher education,
• Create a responsive system that produces graduates at all levels who meet the demand of the economy,
• Increase student learning and improve skill levels of students so they can compete effectively in the global marketplace,
• Contribute to the development of a state economy that is competitive in the global marketing through research, workforce training and other appropriate means, and
• Provide access, affordability and choice for all students.

The proposed goal of improving success of all students links to the lower level of higher education degrees awarded to some ethnic groups, at a time when the school-age population is growing more diverse. NCHEMS wrote that “the aspirations of the state will be hard to achieve unless the educational attainment gap . . . can be substantially reduced.” And the goal of producing graduates who meet the demand of the economy responds to another worrisome fact that NCHEMS noted: Minnesota is producing too few graduates at both the associate and baccalaureate levels. In particular, the state’s share of degrees produced in science and engineering fields is below the national average.

View the list of 15 proposed indicators and the full NCHEMS report (PDF)

The state discussion remains preliminary, but it shows more promise than what is occurring nationally. Significantly, the Office of Higher Education has been willing to limit the amount of and use of potentially sensitive student data that would be collected from institutions. As the work continues, this is perhaps the most essential part of the project — building necessary safeguards into whatever system is created.

NATIONAL-LEVEL APPROACH DIFFERS
Like their Minnesota counterparts, policymakers at the federal level are proposing to measure the performance of students and higher education institutions. For example, a national association of state-owned universities recently endorsed the idea of measuring and reporting on education outcomes, campus-learning climate and other consumer information. And the chair of the U.S. Department of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education has called for more transparency on higher education institutions’ effectiveness. But significant questions exist about the process to use to generate more meaningful public reporting, in particular around the confidentiality of the student data.

The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), which includes MPCC’s members, has taken a leading public role before the Congress in raising concerns over current proposals that would mandate that colleges report students’ personal data to the federal government. Under the federal proposals, there would be no effective limits on how students’ data could be used in conjunction with other information that the federal government might collect.

The privacy concerns extend to the national discussion of developing a student unit record, which the Bush administration has proposed but neither House of Congress has endorsed. Earlier this month NAICU released a poll showing the public is not sold on the development of this kind of national tracking; 62 percent of respondents opposed requiring colleges and universities to report individual student information to the federal government. This issue will be further discussed this fall, as the Department of Education’s commission finalizes its recommendations, and Congress continues work on reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

• Increases in the number of degrees that are awarded in science and technology fields in Minnesota, compared to best-performing states and other countries. (Minnesota proposal)
• The share of students — broken down by income level — who attend Minnesota private colleges and universities, as well as state-owned options. (Minnesota proposal)
• How different schools succeed at building their students’ critical thinking skills or analytical reasoning. (national proposal)

New survey information

A new national survey was released this month by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) that reveals public skepticism about a proposed federal system to track academic, financial and enrollment information. 62 percent of respondents opposed the system because of concerns about privacy, abuse of information and institutional burden. Read more about the survey